OWS Quite Like Our Own Anna Hazare Movement

There is a great article bemoaning the statist and leftist nature of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement from the Mises Institute today, titled "Occupied by Government."


It lists out their key demands - and they make me cry! They are:


1. Raise the Minimum Wage to $20:


I wonder who teach these guys Economics or Law - for if poverty could be removed by legislation, India would have been rich long ago!


2. Free College Education:


If the government teaches them, what will they learn? Indeed, they will live forever on minimum wages, and forever go on demanding more!


3. Guaranteed Living-Wage Income, Regardless of Employment:


Further nonsense! What about "economic freedom"? What about "sound money and free, honest banking under law"? What about Ron Paul and his campaign to "End the Fed"? These guys seem to be led by duds!


4. Ending Free Trade And Opening Immigration:


This is the best - AUTARKY! Forget about the "international division of labour." American swadeshi!


5. Immediate across-the-board debt forgiveness for all; Outlaw all credit-reporting agencies:


The Fed is your enemy, stupid. What you are asking for is, strictly speaking, THEFT!


6. One trillion dollars in infrastructure spending:


As the dude who has written this article put it - If this were the solution, why not do 2 trillion? Why not 100 trillion? Why don't poor countries just spend more?


Thus, just as the Anna Hazare Movement here is all bollocks - so is the Occupy Wall Street Movement in the USSA. These guys sound like Noam Chomsky of Harvard U - the guy in the photo above, saying:

Banks Derive Their Money From The State

So, Increase The State

But, there is hope. Some guys are talking about "Fuck the Fed." EPJ has the video of the Boston Fuck the Fed Movement here. It's the third video.


And there is a smart young guy talking Mises, Rothbard, Hazlitt etc. in the OWS area - and there is that video here. Awesome!


If Anna Hazare will fail, OWS will fail too.


And then, perhaps, if guys with sense keep on and on hammering their points home, good sense will prevail, and the correct economic doctrines will rule the world.

Property    Liberty       Gold          Peace

Ron Paul

We Don't Need "Import Substitution" In Beer

There is free trade - and there is import substitution backed by the guns of the Customs Department. In the former, the consumer is the KING; in the latter, the State rules, with its cronies conning consumers.


Let us take the case of beer. Today, in India, we get many beers with foreign brand names - but these beers are "made in India." The companies that make them are Indian companies - like Tuborg India (Pvt.) Ltd. What the FUCK is this?


Now, there are over 300 different kinds of beer in just Germany. Leave aside Belgium, with another 300. And Holland, too. Leave aside Irish stouts. And English ales.


All these beers are made out of "recipes" that are "industry standards." These beers taste good because the recipes are good - and because of their special ingredients, like the local water. In my experience, the best beer I have ever tasted in the Original Budweiser from the Bohemian City of Budweis. Even the USSA has not been able to replicate this Great Beer. They just bought the brand name.


This is the mistake our The State is forcing upon consumers. They are selling the use of foreign brand names in alcohol. Free Trade is a much better solution - for consumers. I bought Mauritian Black Eagle beer the other day - "made in India," and it was nothing like the orginal at all. My Indian Tuborg says its ingredients include sugar and corn syrup! No wonder it tastes awful!


A wise man once said:

Life is too short to drink Bad Beer.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Life is also too short to smoke bhoonsa maal.

And I bought a miniature bottle of Teacher's Scotch the other day - bottled in India - and it tasted horrible.


We consumers are getting SCREWED - by this import-substitution policy.


Let us institute FREE TRADE - unilaterally; that too, backed by sound money.


Let us abolish the Customs Department.


And let us drink good beer - imported.


Incidentally, I am also in favour of microbreweries, selling fresh draught beer cheap. I think this will be very good for our poor people - who drink the harshest grogs imaginable. Except in Goa, of course, where they have feni.


In either case, beer should be de-licensed and free from all taxation. And imports of anything and everything should be free.

Further Implications Of Say's Law Of Markets: Part 2

So far, I have shown how Say's Law disproves the Keynesians, the protectionists and those who oppose free immigration, like the trade unionists. Today, let us take the arguments a few steps further, and also counter the points raised by Murali yesterday - "legal and cultural objections" to free immigration.


Let us begin with the example I gave yesterday - of the bhel-puri wallah. As Say's Law reveals, once he sells his stock, he is possessed of the means to demand other stuff on the market, except for bhel-puri, of course, which he will not buy. Thus, the sale of bhel-puri creates the demand for all non-competing goods. Our bhel-puri wallah might buy a mobile phone!


There are two important aspects worth noting at this stage: first, who are his customers; and second, the fact that the bhel-puri wallah is really a "poor" man, a very small businessman, often hounded by the cops. I will examine each aspect in turn. 


First: the customers of the bhel-puri wallah are a diverse bunch of people who produce a diverse bunch of goods and services, which they have successfully sold, and which has given them the means to enjoy some bhel-puri. This shows that widespread diversity - a hugely diverse division of labour - is good for all businessmen, because there are then more and more "non-competing" goods and services on sale. In other words, the more non-competing goods on sale, the better it is for all businessmen, the greater the demand for his own produce. 


Thus, Say's Law of Markets allows us the possibility of restating Adam Smith's dictum: "The division of labour is limited by the size of the market." This could be also put in the following form: "The greater the division of labour, the greater the demand for all goods on the market." Thus, free international trade is good - because then we have the "international division of labour."


Second: We noted that the bhel-puri wallah is a very small businessman. Now, especially in a poor country like India, the bulk of the businessmen are of this variety in our cities and towns - very small businessmen. And they are victims of the police. They are hounded, robbed, and their surpluses go in paying bribes. 


Yet, capitalism is all about Big Companies. And these Big Companies are ALL producing for the "mass market." Modern capitalism is nothing but "mass production for mass consumption." Our bhel-puri wallah bought a mobile phone - and he will spend the rest of his life re-charging it. Another example: 70 percent of all shampoo sold in India comes in little 1 rupee sachets - for the poor. This has enormous implications for policy.


This shows that the bulk of demand comes from lesser off people - and, if we want prosperity, every effort must be made to ensure that these people are able to sell whatever goods and services they wish to sell.

There must be economic freedom!

And State Predation on these people must end. This is a very different approach from Keynesian "funny money" welfarism of the kind chacha manmohan s gandhi has instituted, copying the West (where it has failed most spectacularly). 


Thus, either we institute Liberty - by which we will become the world's fastest growing market for mobile phones and other gizmos; or we continue with the charade of a Predatory State pretending to be a Welfare State: free rice for all bullshit.


Murali pointed out that westerners are opposed to "illegal immigration." But what does True Law state on Private Property. Does the US Immigration Department own the United States of America? Or is there, indeed, a "patchwork" of private property? In which case, each private property owner has the full right to decide who should enter his area. If I rent a room in a US hotel, US Immigration should not be able to disallow me entry.


As far as "cultural" objections to free immigration are concerned, these are "tribal mindsets" at work - not the sort of "rugged individualism" capitalism is all about. In any case, they make zero economic sense. Immigrants from different cultures are good for a country precisely because they make the division of labour more and more diverse. In Pondicherry, for example, I met a Frenchman who has been living there for 40 years, running three French restaurants. Such immigration is for bidden in Goa. And in Pondicherry of the old days, there were lots of Vietnamese running their own restaurants - and the city is poorer because they have upped and left. Mexicans in the US have popularised their cuisine. 


There is much people of diverse cultures can successfully sell that is "non-competitive" - like handicrafts and jewellery. Would the USA be a better place with just European food, burger joints and the like? And have you ever tried Vietnamese nouc mam sauce? Isn't Britain better off with all the Indian restaurants? And I did find a Vietnamese restaurant in London! Give me a "cosmopolitan" city any day. And do note that all these diverse restaurants ADD to overall demand - unlike Keynesian funny money.


We in India should therefore consider ourselves fortunate that none of our cities are homogeneous. They are all true "catallaxies." Catallaxies, which are "open trading arenas" - open to strangers, that is - are the "key to an Open Society," something I discussed in a column once. We can either have catallaxies and open societies - based on rugged individualism - or we can have "closed communities." 


Say's Law, as I discussed yesterday, makes a strong case for rugged individualism. Our heterogeneous society is best placed to make such a world, and such an Open Society, happen.


(This series on Say's Law is continued here.)

Further Implications Of Say's Law Of Markets: Take #2

Today is the 130th birth anniversary of Ludwig von Mises. This post is written in his honour. He hated the Keynesians and he upheld Say's Law against their vicious attacks. It is Say's Law that proves the truth of Mises' words below, written for the benefit of the working classes who mistakenly support socialism, unionism and Keynesianism:

In the capitalist society there is a place and bread for all. Its ability to expand provides sustenance for every worker. Permanent unemployment is not a feature of free capitalism.

Murali's comment to my previous post - on Jean Baptiste Say's Law of Markets, and its implications on the current economic crisis, has prompted me to write another post on this vital law, this time explaining some of its other practical implications. In the world of classical liberal political economy, if you were not an adept at Say's Law, you were not considered a political economist worth your salt. It is therefore important to know all about this law of markets - a law that John Maynard Keynes thought he had disproved.


First, let me restate the law:

The sale of X gives rise to the demand for all non-X.

If X sells, it creates the demand for all non-competing goods.

Thus, if a bhel-puri wallah sells his stock, he will be possessed of the means to purchase all other, non-competing goods on the market, except bhel-puri, which of course he will not buy. This disproves the deliberately misleading Keynesian formulation of Say's Law as "supply creates its own demand." The supply of bhel-puri does not create the demand for bhel-puri. The supply and sale of all other, non-competing goods and services do.  


Now, the first objection the Keynesian will have to this formulation is that the market tends towards over-production, so without Keynesian monetary boosts, recessions are inevitable. But Say's Law says:

Markets Clear - If Prices Are Not Rigid Downwards 
(due to interventionism).

Thus, ANYTHING PRODUCED will finally be sold - even as junk, if prices are allowed to fall. There is NO OVERPRODUCTION. And there is NO CASE for any monetary boost to "stimulate consumption." 

Indeed, as the Austrian School of economists have proved with theory, and as history has proved today as well, it is this sort of monetary tinkering based on Keynesian "macroeconomics" that is the root cause of all boom-and-bust "business cycles."

Say's Law asserts the obvious: That SAVING and INVESTMENT and INCREASED PRODUCTION lead to INCREASED DEMAND for ALL GOODS AND SERVICES. This is the ONLY WAY to boost demand permanently. 


Keynesian inflationism destroys savings; erodes capital; and thereby reduces production. If at all it boosts consumption, this is during the temporary, heady and short period of the artificial boom, for inevitably the bust must follow, and this is invariably of longer duration than the boom. Further, there have been historical periods of "stagflation," when inflationism failed to boost consumption at all, and economic stagnation combined with high inflation.  

Second: Say's Law proves that all businessmen are best off if they DO NOT COMBINE in protectionist groups. Such groups, if successful, reduce the supply and sales of all non-competing goods - and this reduces demand for all businessmen who do NOT compete with these goods. Thus, whereas Amul Cheese may want protection, it makes no sense for Kingfisher Beer to support this claim, and vice versa. 


Recall that, in our protectionist heydays, there was precious little available in Indian shops - and all businesses suffered. Our markets had zero catallactic energy. 


Thus, Say's Law proves that the business interests of a particular class of traders called "importers" must be supported by all. 


Further, it makes a rock-solid case for "rugged individualism" on the part of all businessmen. It opposes mixing politics - particularly protectionist politics - with business.

The same is true with regard to immigration restrictions. These exist in the West because of a few very powerful trade unions, like the US Automobile Workers' Union. These unions demand visa restrictions because they fear that immigrants will "take away their jobs." 


But the fact remains that all immigrants are NOT competing with autoworkers. Some may come as doctors and nurses. Some may come as dishwashers and construction labourers, restaurant waiters and cooks. And some as software engineers. After all, labour is NOT a homogeneous entity. And there is therefore nothing called "unskilled labour." Further, the demand for labour is always the demand for a particular skill.

If immigration was free, Say's Law proves that overall demand would rise, because as the workers in the non-competing areas managed to sell their services, they would buy whatever they needed from that very same market. I daresay if the USSA had opened up to immigration two years ago, their crisis in the housing market would well nigh be over.

There is more: Because automobile workers' unions are so influential and powerful, the US automobile industry has collapsed. General Motors has been nationalised! Obviously, an important cause of this collapse is the high cost of domestic labour. 

So here is a third and final implication of Say's Law: That all non-competing businessmen gain the most if ALL goods and services are sold at their most competitive price, which is, of course, the LOWEST PRICE.

THIS INCLUDES LABOUR.

Thus, cheap and abundant labour is good for an economy, just as cheap and abundant coal or oil or natural gas or timber is. If labour is cheap, all businesses benefit. All costs are lowered. More goods and services are produced and there is more competition. Thus, workers in all industries gain as consumers - even though their individual wages may be lower. For example: If waiters and cooks can be hired cheap, restaurants will be cheap, there will be more of them - and more workers will be able to eat out.


Cheap labour is beneficial to other, non-competing businesses in another, vital way: consumers have more to spend on the other offerings of the market. Thus, if cars are cheap in the US, the US consumer has money left over to buy beer, jeans, CDs and books. 


This implies that free immigration and cheap labour are GOOD for all American businessmen. Further, there is NO REASON for all workers to join socialist trade unions. Karl Marx's slogan, "Workers of the world - Unite!" makes as little sense as "Businessmen of the World - Unite for Protectionism!"

So, just as Say's Law of Markets suggests RUGGED INDIVIDUALISM as the best policy for businessmen, so also does it suggest the same for workers. Trade unionism and labour market restrictions hurt all workers outside the combination - and thereby hurt all other businesses, and the workers employed in them, too. Workers must compete with each other - just as businessmen must, too. After all, workers in the same factory compete for the next promotion, don't they? As Mises put it: 

Under capitalism everybody is the architect of his own fortune.

Say's "Law of Markets" thus makes a water-tight case for free trade, for free immigration, and for laissez faire. It supports the logic of open borders and the free mobility of capital, goods and labour. It tells us what really boosts demand permanently - which is, increased production of goods and services, based on higher savings and investment. It totally explodes the Keynesian myth that monetary stimulation to boost consumption is good for an economy.

Jean Baptiste Say was known as the "Adam Smith of France." His Law of Markets is as unshakable as the Law of Gravity - despite all the efforts of the evil, lying Keynesians. Truth keeps on working, as Mises said, even if the textbooks contain lies. This law makes a logically indestructible case for free markets and free competition. It makes a solid case for rugged individualism. It opposes politics - which is what the Keynesians, Marxists, protectionists and union bosses have injected overdoses of into our lives, thereby damaging civilisation, even to the point of destroying it.

If you want to learn more about Say's Law, I suggest the late Professor WH Hutt's A Rehabilitation of Say's Law, available from the Mises Institute in PDF, as an e-book, and also as a proper book. Follow this link.


WH Hutt was an outstanding classical liberal; that too, despite being educated at the London School of Economics during the heydays of Fabian Socialism. Hulsmann reports that Hutt, while a student at the LSE, attended a guest lecture by Mises - and then he "broke on through to the other side."


Hutt was born into the British working class - which is why his works against trade unionism are all the more worth studying.


Part 2 of this post can be read here.

Abolish The Ministry Of Commerce - And The Customs Department, Too

This news report makes it apparent that our Commerce Secretary, Rahul Khullar IAS, knows NOTHING about the Science of Economics, and is essentially a "mercantilist" who believes exports are good for India and imports are bad, because he is focused on managing the "trade deficit." In this report, Khullar says that India's markets are open to foreigners, because the trade deficit is rising. Really, dude?


What about the trade deficit of Karnataka or Goa or Pondicherry? How come we never think of that?


In reality, if money were GOLD - which would be "private money" - each Individual would manage his own trades, and ensure he is not in deficit. As far as the nation-state is concerned, in such a scenario, if there was a trade deficit, and gold was being exported, domestic prices would fall - and the deficit would correct itself as exports automatically increased.


In the current scenario, Khullar is deliberately misreading the signs: our trade deficit is rising not because we are open to foreign trade - we are not - but because the prices of some of our crucial imports are rising, like crude oil. Gold imports are also showing a steep rise. Otherwise, we are a closed nation: the ports of the West Coast export iron ore of low grade - and import nothing. This is mercantilism. Mercantilists look upon a positive balance of trade as "good," whereas the Science of Economics looks upon imports as the most beneficial thing about foreign trade - because what we import we cannot produce domestically at the same advantage.


International trade is best understood through the Law of Human Association - a law that has been developed by a correct reading of David Ricardo's famous Law of Comparative Advantage (or costs). According to this law, even in non-market situations, human beings associate gainfully with each other even if one is worse than the other in all respects. Thus, although my girlfriend is a better cook than me, and she also washes dishes better and faster than I do, we both gain if I do what I am "least worst" at - which is washing dishes. 


This law of human association, when taken into market situations, is even more telling - like the case of a surgeon and the man who looks after the cleanliness of his equipment. Even if the latter is much, much slower at the job, the surgeon gains by hiring him, so that he can focus of surgery, where he earns much more. I have a column explaining this vital Law of Human Association here.


The lesson to learn is that the "international division of labour" - which means "international specialisation" - increases the wealth and productivity of the whole world, including those who are the least competent and least skilled.


Thus, there can be either free trade - or there can be barriers to trade, which is what we have around our borders: protectionism, based on mercantilist fallacies. If we opt for free trade, then the customs department and the commerce ministry can both be abolished - and not only India, the whole world will gain. Say's Law of Markets will come into play - internationally.


If you understand the theories of free trade, you understand that the whole world will gain by such a policy - and there will also be international peace.


If you are a mercantilist, you keep your own people poor, you make the whole world poorer, you wage political wars over trade - and, what is worse, you convey the false impression to your citizenry that you are somehow doing something useful for the "national economy," like looking after the "trade deficit."


Which is why my t-shirt on the right-hand bar says "Private Economies."


I do NOT believe in the National Economy - nor do I trust those who purport to be its caretakers, like Rahul Khullar, IAS.

Continue With Rural Development? The Same Old Crap! Or Urbanisation Powered By Unilateral Free Trade?

What is the greatest threat to our lives: Terrorists or Maoists?


I would say: ROAD TRAFFIC!


200,000 people die on our unsafe roads every year, and many times more are seriously injured.


But at a a national workshop on rural development programmes in areas most affected by the Maoist movement, our Central State Police Minister, Palaniappan Chidambaram, said that Maoists are a bigger threat than terrorists - while forgetting all about road traffic deaths, of course.


The news report says:

In the first eight months of this year, the number of civilians killed by Maoists is 10 times more than those killed in terror attacks, he [Chidambaram] said at a national workshop on rural development programmes in areas most affected by the rebel movement.

The one-day "workshop," held in Nude Elly, was attended by all the top brass connected with "rural development": first, the Rural Development Minister, Jairam Ramesh, a political flyweight, Rajya Sabha MP from Andhra Pradesh; there was Montek, who heads the Planning Commission, the "economist"; there was minister for road transport and highways C.P. Joshi and tribal affairs and panchayati raj minister V. Kishore Chandra Deo.


The Annual Budget for rural development is 87,800 crore rupees. (One crore is 10 million.)


The news report says:

The rural development ministry is the nodal agency for development schemes, including the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), the Indira Awas Yojana, the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) and the National Rural Livelihood Mission. It has been allocated 87,800 crore rupees in the year to 31 March to implement these programmes. This includes the allocation to the department of drinking water and sanitation.

s.

But, obviously, all this SHIT is not working - because it cannot. Economic Law cannot be violated. Economic Law says the "division of labour" - which is the "specialisation" by which wealth is created - is maximised in cities and towns, because there are bigger markets there, because population density is high. A tea-shop in Pondicherry earns much more than a tea-shop in the jungles of Jharkhand - and it is not surprising that there are migrants from Jharkhand to be found in Pondicherry (I met two young boys) as also in Nude Elly. In Nude Elly, in fact, girls from Jharkhand are to be found working as housemaids. They have their own church in Green Park, where they meet their fellow Jharkhandis on Sundays, worship, socialise, and exchange news.


Nothing much can be achieved by spending 87,800 crore rupees on Rural Development. It is just "pork barrel politics." Corruption. It is interesting that chacha manmohan s gandhi bravely told the audience at this workshop that "there must be 'zero tolerance for corruption' in the implementation of schemes intended for these regions." Then how come he "tolerates" so much corruption in his own Cabinet?


There is ANOTHER WAY - and that is URBAN DEVELOPMENT, that too, along the twin coastlines, powered by unilateral free trade.


So, imagine a libertarian politician at the helm making a speech to the Jharkhandis:

Ladies and gentlemen,

There is NO HOPE for you in these jungles. If you want to progress, you must shift to where the MARKET beckons - and that is the COAST. So, go, all you tough young men and women, go to a coastal town or city of your choice and engage in free international trade. Come home with your profits - and return again.

For those who cannot go or do not want to go, government handouts are NOT the solution. Government CANNOT create jobs. But government can DESTROY jobs - by overtaxation, by restrictive licensing, and by the OUTRIGHT BANNING of trades.

Your trades in MAHUA and HANDIA are banned because of the previous government. We are setting them FREE - alongwith ganja. Sell these lovely drinks and smokes to tourists. Let there be mahua plantations instead of tendu leaf collection. Smoke cigarettes. Smoke ganja.

And remember: If you want tourists to come, there must be PEACE. No tourist will come to where he can get SHOT! That is why there are no tourists in KABUL these days.

So say OM SHANTI. And let there be peace.

Oppose the Maoists - tooth-and-nail. They are zeroes even in CHINA!

It is either Capitalism - which requires peace.

Or Communism - which requires WAR.

Choose ladies and gentlemen.

(Wild cheering.)

Get my drift, dudes?


MORONS ON TOP!

It's The Ethics Of Liberty versus Inflationist-Welfarism

The Great Big Lie of the Inflationist-Welfarists led by chacha manmohan s gandhi is that State Aid is required to "help the poor." Actually, poor refugees from Europe made America the richest place on Earth - because they had Liberty (and Property). And this was BEFORE the dawn of the HORRIBLE 20th Century.


The poor should themselves find the very idea of State Aid INSULTING.


They themselves should demand LIBERTY.


This means the FREEDOM to engage in consensual trades - without let or hindrance from corrupt State Authorities.


Further, the poor should be instructed by activists to realise that this inflationist-welfarism is all a very "false philanthropy" anyway. The State is a broke institution. In many provinces, they cannot even meet their wage bills. The State is just printing paper money to pay for all the bullshit welfare schemes like the MGNREGA, the cheap rice, and the free schools where the kids' brains get dumbed down. This is causing inflation - which ERODES the SAVINGS of the poor. This ERODES the PRECIOUS CAPITAL of the poor. What bloody NONSENSE is this?


Increasing the quantity of money in circulation NEVER makes a nation rich - not even if the money is gold or silver. The Spaniards and the Portuguese plundered South America for gold and silver - and spread inflation throughout Europe. The price of gold and silver fell!


The British, on the other hand, traded. The British bought pepper, nutmeg and other spices from the East and sold them at a high profit in the West. They brought tea into India from China - and sold it in England. They brought sugar from Jamaica, tobacco from Virginia - and it is the British who got rich, not the Spaniards or the Portuguese.


This is the essence of Adam Smith's An Inquiry into the Nature & Causes of the Wealth of Nations: that the wealth of a nation is NOT its stock of gold; rather, its wealth consists in the properties and possessions of The People. If the people own lots of goodies, the nation is rich. Thus, Adam Smith recommended "The System of Natural Liberty" - which means free trade and the freedom to trade.


Tp put it another way: The People must produce and sell goods and services and only then will they get rich. If they just increase the amount of money in circulation - even if that money is gold - they will fail miserably. 


Now: What are the "Ethics of Liberty"?


Very simple: First and foremost, we must aim at satisfying our Customers, who are our Kings. We must NOT cheat them, but we must try hard at keeping them happy and satisfied, so they keep coming back to us for their particular needs. If we do this - and are allowed to do so - we survive honourably and morally.


Second: When we Spend the Money we have Earned the HARD WAY - then the FUN BEGINS, and we are the Customer, and we are then the King. We must NOT be forced into buying JUNK by Customs Guards paid for by Protectionists. We must demand the BEST goods, the BEST products, the BEST services. 


This is why Free International Trade and the Freedom to Trade go hand in hand.


See you all again tomorrow.

Liberty - From Here To Eternity

The State does NOT create wealth; rather, it destroys it. In the England of old, the King was never rich, but the merchants of the Olde City of London were fabulously wealthy. They were not selling computers, cars and the like those days. But the fishmongers, the grocers, the vinters who imported and sold wine - these were rich beyond belief. Edward II once had only 2 shillings in his treasury. And as for Henry V, when he went to battle at Agincourt, he had to pawn his jewels with the merchants of the City to raise the necessary funds. Thus, during the send-off ceremony organised for him, the Lord Mayor sat on his right - which is why, till this day, the Lord Mayor of London is second only to the King.

In India, we think the King - or The State - will create the wealth. He will make steel. He will give us "employment." This is a great delusion. This great delusion is multiplied by the fact that The State produces the money - paper notes. Today, Mamata Banerjee is running to the Centre for funds - from Pranabda. The Centre has no funds; all they will do is print more and borrow more. Similarly, here in Pondicherry, I just read that the government of this tiny city has borrowed 4,400 crore rupees (44 billion) from the Reserve Bank of India - and cannot pay it back. With so much money, the city could be built anew. Here, there is so much commerce on the streets - too much commerce, too little street. A sum of 4,400 crore rupees could have built so many miles of broad thoroughfares. Where has the money gone?

In my view, everything begins with "self-help." We must NOT look to the Centre, to Nude Elly, for its "funny money." The merchants of London gave the King his taxes; they did not seek his assistance in running their affairs, building their streets, or other civic facilities. So, each city and town must raise its own internal resources - in gold - and elect its own Mayor, an honest and honourable man, to perform the essential tasks of maintaining a city so that commerce can transpire peacefully. The purpose of a city is commerce.

There were no "political parties" in England - not until the 17th century. In India, our political parties are all gangs of anti-socials - which is what socialism is all about. The Lord Mayors of London were all wealthy merchants themselves, among the wealthiest men in the world. But if you look at chacha manmohan, sonia gandhi, beta rahul, advani, sitaram yechury - none are creators of wealth. They are all wealth destroyers. All these parties must be abolished.

There is only ONE legal principle required to obtain Liberty for all - and that is the Inviolability of Property. If Property is violated by private persons, it is either theft or trespass. Ditto for whatever local government the people set up to run their cities and towns. The local government is established to protect Property, not to violate it. If this Principle is followed, all will be well. Perfect order will prevail along with perfect Liberty. 

The Principle of Property applies even more so to money - for money must be tangible Property and not a paper note.

As far as public thoroughfares are concerned, they are "public property" and they should not be obstructed by private persons. It is the task of the local government to ensure that all thoroughfares are kept clear of obstructions. This is not happening now. Not in Nude Elly - and certainly not in Pondicherry. Every city and town mayor must focus on this issue - roads and traffic regulation. This is much more important than the RAW and IB and their "security concerns." Over 200,000 people die on our unsafe streets every year, and many times more are injured. The IPS are as much a disgrace as the IAS. Both "services" must be abolished.

Outside the cities, lies the countryside - and here, apart from roads, what matters most is the provision of clear Property Titles. This must be done by the people through their own, new agencies, using GPS technology. The patwari system is a complete failure under IAS maladministration. It must be abolished. 

Since cities are NOT self-sufficient, and all the needs of the city come from outside, it is in the interest of the city to see that outlying farmers, for instance, can easily bring their produce to market. These arrangements can be organised by collaboration between each city and its outlying villages. In this manner, real estate development will also occur in the rural areas, benefiting all. Satellite towns will also develop.

It must be noted that England till date does NOT possess a "written constitution." Such a device is totally unnecessary. A bunch of jokers crowded into a room cannot agree on anything - and the end result is disaster for a billion people. A written Constitution is required to establish and then "limit" the government set up. This has not happened anywhere in the world - including the USSA. 

All that is required is the Principle that Private Property is Inviolable by all. If this is "public opinion" then none can use force to take away either the Liberty or the Property of anyone else.

A city mayor - and some "aldermen" or "councillors" - are not rulers. They do not "make law" as legislatures do. They are just like the governing body of a club. That is all each city and town needs. They must find their own people - because everything depends on the use of "local knowledge." If it is your city, then your people must look after it. I also believe trained and experienced city administrators can be hired from abroad - and they should.

This, in brief, is all that a "constitution of liberty" is all about. Private property, private law and private money. Liberty - and perfect order. Peace. Prosperity. Of course, foreign trade should be unilaterally freed - and the cities and towns on the coast should do this on their own. It is in their own interest to do so. The Customs Department should be abolished.

I am also of the view that all the tax arms of the socialist State should be done away with. Local taxes should be raised in each city, from owners of Property - and they alone should be entitled to vote for the mayor and aldermen. Universal suffrage is a disaster. In either case, you need Liberty more than the empty vote. No one in Nude Elly can open a beer bar - but they can vote! What sense does that make?

The motto of the Olde City of London is domini dirige nos, which translates to "Let God be our Guide." That is the motto of Liberty. They did not say "let the King be our Guide" - as we stupid Indians did.

Here in Pondicherry I awoke to the sweet sound of the muezzin's call of prayer - "Allah ho Akbar." This, too, means much the same. That God is Great, that God is our Guide, that no King and no Man can order us around. The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, like the Lord Mayors of London, was a merchant, as was his wife Khadija.

With this, we can rid our nation of the pernicious disease of "politics" - and those who call themselves "politicians." Like the word "democracy," all these words are meaningless these days; or their meanings have been completely distorted. These words come from Ancient Greece, and they meant other things there.

I delivered a lecture once at the YMCA in Mangalore titled "Politics: The Root of all Corruption." When we chose Socialism and Statism, we politicised everything, and thereby corrupted everything. 

Virtue comes from The Market. When markets are free and Competition is fierce - everyone tries harder and harder to keep his customers happy. Towards this end, they "study the happiness" of the public. This is something no State ever does. All the State does is give you the Big Stick - up your ass. Get rid of that stick - and you will be free. Fix your cities and towns, free your markets, and you will slowly but surely be able to rebuild this shattered civilisation - if that word can still be applied to this sub-continent. Just keep one Principle in mind - that Property must be inviolable.

There arises the question of "unowned" things - and these should be free for "homesteading" on  a first-come-first-served basis. This includes things like radio spectrum, virgin forest lands, oil and gas fields etc. The principle here is "finder's keepers" - something all schoolchildren know only too well. 

And as for me, I have no interest in the "trappings of authority." I am awaiting for the members of my reggae band - The Ganjeras - to arrive so we can start rehearsing for an album and maybe even a show. Our first number planned is "Veeru Was A Good Man" to the tune of Bob Marley's "Johnny Was A Good Man." Let the sandalwood tree be Free! 

My Sympathies Are For The Poor Alone

The June 11 issue of Outlook Business dedicated to "corporate social responsibility" (CSR) to which I had contributed against the motion was not available anywhere in Orissa, and I managed to find a copy only in the swanky Rajiv Gandhi Airport in Hyderabad. Yesterday, I read through the issue and quite frankly must confess that I have never read such a load of patronising and condescending tripe in my life before. You can find the entire issue here.

To begin, the proponents for CSR assert that "hunger is India's greatest problem" and they quote the fucking World Bank "measurement" that since 90 percent of Third World people survive on less than $1.25 a day, they must be hungry. I wonder if any of these bozos have ever walked the streets of our cities - like I do. This morning, for instance, here in Pondicherry, I breakfasted on 5 steaming hot idlis and one fat dosa for just 15 rupees (20 cents) from a roadside stall opposite the railway station - and that should keep me going till sundown. Lots of poor and hungry customers were being fed via the "division of labour." None had to buy "cheap rice" from our The State, nor did they have to grind it, steam it, fry it, or make coconut chutney. Just 15 rupees - and clean, healthy food at that.

But if we were to really examine the conditions under which these businessmen and women work to stave off real - and not imaginary - hunger, we will surely discover that the "health inspector" (there was a huge Public Health Department building nearby) preys on them, as do other predatory government agencies. This is a Predatory State - from Top to Bottom.

There are other problems such people face as well. For example, these food stalls never get water supply. They have to carry water from far distances. Further, if commercial space was increased, its value would fall - and these stall-owners would graduate to shops. 

Nearby was a very wide open drain that the French built to separate the "white town" from the rest. Even in the 1980s when I lived here I often told people that this should be covered and the space gained thereby used for shops - because the commercial areas were, even then, overcrowded. No one has thought of this during these 25 long years - while fools fed on fucking World Bank data feel concerned about "hunger."

Every single "philanthropist" arguing in favour of CSR has a deep desire to "educate the poor" - but these people do not need to be taught by Anu Aga or Shiv Nadar how to make idlis and dosas. Anu Aga - who sits on the National Advisory Council (NAC) that hangs around sonia suggesting ways and means of widespread "capital consumption" writes that she wants to educate the poor so that her engineering firm can hire trained people. In which case, she ought to set up a Thermax Engineering College - which is all that Thermax knows. Shiv Nadar writes that he is setting up a Shiv Nadar University to teach "arts & sciences" - but he doesn't say that State Universities should be shut down and top-notch foreign universities freely allowed to set up shop - for shop it is, and education, we all know, is a Big Business, and has nothing much to do with philanthropy.

There are some goras on their side as well - the head of Dell computers, some woman from Hewlett-Packard, and some "management guru" totally ignorant of even the basics of Market Economics. I recently bought a Dell laptop and threw it into the sea! Shouldn't these people focus on creating better products - as Steve Jobs of Apple is doing. I have earlier written how both Azim Premji as well as Bill Gates are engaged in "false philanthropy."

Then there is Mahindra Motors writing about how they renewed a forest near their plant in Nashik. But forestry and timber could be Big Business for the poor. Imagine sandalwood, ebony, teak, rosewood and mahogany being freely grown instead of being State Property. And shouldn't Mahindra's own products be better? I recently drove a Mahindra Scorpio jeep my friend owns - and gave up! Felt like a bloody truck!

There is also a "measurement" of CSR provided by the Tata Institute of Social Science (and another by KPMG). What has this Tata Institute ever contributed to our understanding of society? And have you ever taken a ride in a Tata Indica - as I did from Madras Airport to Pondicherry? Incidentally, the library at the Delhi School of (Mathematical) Economics is named after Sir Ratan Tata.

We have also had a Birla Institute of Technology co-existing with the Ambassador car. Not to mention a Bajaj Institute of Management.

To understand what can really help the poor, you must read ALL of Peter Bauer, who was a "development economist" who toured the entire Third World, observed the poor in markets - especially "informal markets" - and wrote about what he saw. It was he who said something very important about Third World poverty - and that is:

Poverty indicates just one thing - the absence of economic achievement.

He then went on to add:

Economic achievements are made in markets.

All these corporate types who profess to being philanthropic ought to read Samuel Smiles' Self-Help, written in Victorian England - a book that outsold the Bible, and fired the Japanese in their catch-up with the West. It tells the stories of many, many people of humble origins who struggled against great odds - including poverty - and rose to incredible heights through sheer effort, perseverance and dogged hard work. Such books are positive motivators - and I am proud to say that I personally edited and wrote a foreword to an Indian edition of this great book, published by Liberty Institute many years ago.

Poor people need Liberty. They need Property - including commercial property: shops. They need roads. They need modern modes of transportation, especially urban transportation. And they need encouragement. They do NOT need this patronising and condescending CSR bullshit - that too, from a bunch of CRONIES of our The State, who do not want to compete with foreigners themselves, and want to keep on selling second-rate "capital goods" to our poor people. Such people deserve to be DISGRACED.

We have had endless people faking concern for the poor - from Nehru to Manmohan to Sonia to all the NGOs put together; and now we have these rich bozos who know nothing and want to "educate" poor people who are already possessed of knowledge valuable in the market. They never utter the sweet word LIBERTY! - only because they fear it. They thrive on the misuse of State Power: the "customs barrier." Which is why I tell all poor people - never buy swadeshi; always buy videshi. Buy the best. Unilateral free trade - for the poor, against all these bozos. I have no sympathy for these bozos. All my sympathies lie with the poor.

The only true friend of the world's poor was Peter Bauer - and do read my eponymously titled tribute to him.

In the end, if there is anything that everyone needs to understand, it is Economics. It is this vital subject that is being mistaught by our The State in India, as I pointed out yesterday. If these CSR bozos go about "educating" our people, with State support, it will be DISASTER!

To conclude, let me quote Ludwig von Mises:

Whether we like it or not, it is a fact that economics cannot remain an esoteric branch of knowledge accessible only to small groups of scholars and specialists. Economics deals with society's fundamental problems; it concerns everyone and belongs to all. It is the main and proper study of every citizen.

I hope you get the reason for my strong moral outrage.