Note the “commonsense” on why international trade is for
the good of all nations, including clear understanding of the benefits from the
“international division of labour” and specialization between regions, nations,
and peoples.
Sir Thomas Roe landed at Surat in the very early years of the seventeenth century, and then traveled
by land to Delhi, noticing great poverty on the way. In Delhi, he spent many
months in the fabulously wealthy Court of the Grand Mughal, attempting to
obtain trading concessions for the East India Company. He found the Court at
Delhi to be evasive, obstructive, and corrupt. He returned to England to write
a book on his experience. The costs of this Royal Embassy were borne by the
merchants – and it was not a “permanent establishment” like the political
embassies of modern nation-states.
Then, Surat had a Mughal governor – but the Mughals had no
merchant fleet of their own, being “landlubbers.” The Portuguese had already
been on the West Coast of India for a full one hundred years.
A Study in Contrast: Diplomacy Today
Kennedy’s ambassador to Nehru was the “interventionist”
John Kenneth Galbraith, who headed the department of wartime price controls,
and was later in Harvard. Among his many “anti-capitalist” works is The
Affluent Society, which makes it evident that this modern-day Harvard
economist did not share Adam Smith’s vision of “universal opulence” if "The System of Natural Liberty” were allowed to prevail worldwide. So, he must have
enjoyed the total poverty – no affluence at all – in Nehru’s autarkic India. Of
course, he never practiced any “trade diplomacy.” And his most famous
pronouncement on our Nehru-imposed “license-permit-quota-raid raj” is, “India
is a functioning anarchy.” I suppose he was looking only at road traffic – for
there were no motor vehicles in India then. He did not think that the absence
of automobiles in this huge sub-continent meant a very big MARKET for US auto
manufacturers! He engaged himself solely in “socialist international politics.”
As far as the recently ousted British are concerned, Peter
Bauer has recounted the tale of how a senior “diplomat” at the British High
Commission in Delhi, in the early 1960s, when asked of his opinion on BR Shenoy, the only economist
to officially record his “dissent” to Nehruvian planning and the Soviet-model
of “heavy industrialization under State ownership,” was told that this brave
classical liberal was “mad.”
NOTE: This was the "Cold War" era - when propagandists in the West told their own citizens they were fighting the "Evil Empire of the Reds"!
NOTE: This was the "Cold War" era - when propagandists in the West told their own citizens they were fighting the "Evil Empire of the Reds"!
In those times, the government of India’s State Trading
Corporation used to buy the old cars of diplomats going back after their
tenures in Delhi – and “auction” them for fat profits to wealthy locals.
So, this is another reason why both the American as well as
the British automobile and motorcycle industries died.
And as for us, we cannnot even imagine how much we would have
gained as CONSUMERS – in our socialist “workers’ paradise.” We worked – but
could not spend our earnings on the best consumer goods the world had to offer.
So, always remember: Work is DISUTILITY. And the UTILITY
lies only in what we CONSUME in exchange for our hard-earned earnings.
Or, in other words, work is just sweat, toil and trouble –
while shopping is FUN!
Of course, then, as now, the movie stars and all the crony
industrialists shopped-till-they-dropped in London, Paris, Dubai, Singapore,
Hong Kong, etc.
Then, they flew back and preached swadeshi.
The best example of such a Bollywood star is Amitabh Bacchan - whose actress wife sits in Parliament as a member of the socialist Samajwadi Party that is opposed to allowing foreign investment in supermarkets! Interestingly, Amitabh himself conducts a "How to be a millionaire" clone quiz on TV - but never asks himself as to how any winner on his show might shop-till-he-dropped? Of course, the winner would have to first obtain a passport, then a visa, and then fly to Singapore or Dubai - and then, when he returned, the leeches of the Customs Department would be at him!
The best examples of "industrialists" who practice the same hypocrisy are, of course, Rahul Bajaj and Vijay Mallya, both in Parliament.
Our "collective error" lies in equating national prosperity with "manufacturing" - and not "trade." In valuing "labour" - and not "consumption."
Cronyism - now developed into fascism - is the result of these errors.
Read my post titled "Cronies cannot rescue our The State from collapse."
The best example of such a Bollywood star is Amitabh Bacchan - whose actress wife sits in Parliament as a member of the socialist Samajwadi Party that is opposed to allowing foreign investment in supermarkets! Interestingly, Amitabh himself conducts a "How to be a millionaire" clone quiz on TV - but never asks himself as to how any winner on his show might shop-till-he-dropped? Of course, the winner would have to first obtain a passport, then a visa, and then fly to Singapore or Dubai - and then, when he returned, the leeches of the Customs Department would be at him!
The best examples of "industrialists" who practice the same hypocrisy are, of course, Rahul Bajaj and Vijay Mallya, both in Parliament.
Our "collective error" lies in equating national prosperity with "manufacturing" - and not "trade." In valuing "labour" - and not "consumption."
Cronyism - now developed into fascism - is the result of these errors.
Read my post titled "Cronies cannot rescue our The State from collapse."
Diplomacy today continues to have nothing to do with the
liberation of international trade from politically imposed national barriers.
It is “political” – to do with “nations” that “negotiate” endlessly at various
fora like the WTO, the EU, and so on. The UN is also engaged in the same. The WTO came out of UNCTAD and GATT. Just another name, another acronym to remember - and hop that trade will be free someday.
The result – worldwide: No trade, protectionism,
immigration barriers, currency controls – and WARS EVERYWHERE!
The best example for us is the endless “diplomacy” between
India and Pakistan – while the Siachen phony War has been on for 30 years or
more.
And, of course, there is this ISI vs. RAW Spy vs. Spy
nonsense about terrorism and all that which will most certainly never end –
because of the ideology of “national socialism” that lies behind it. Just look at what Western diplomats did in socialist India and you'll know why this must be so.
Cross border trade and investments, free movement of
people, including tourists – all these are ZERO.
Diplomatic establishments are all "permanent." And the traditional meaning of the word itself has been completely lost.
(I will soon be writing a post detailing a brief history of
the world from 1850 onwards, showing how all this came about.)
National socialism also means national fiat paper
currencies and consequent inflationism – so we have “de-civilisation”
worldwide.
The era of classical liberalism was run on the International
Gold Standard. There was free international trade, free movement of people, a
free capital flows as well – which assured World Peace, because political
boundaries did not matter. Capital was accumulated worldwide – and civilization
progressed.
Civilisation is but this – the Peace between the wars.
Peace, Trade,
Wealth Creation – these (and much more, of course) constitute civilization.
What are
wars and impoverishment – but de-civilisation?
Recommended reading: Clive Bells’ Civilisation,
written in the specific context of WW2, when British soldiers were told that
their nation was at war to “save civilization.” Great essay. Bell was a member
of Keynes’ “Bloomsbury Group” – but he was an art critic, nothing more. Of
course, neither Bell, nor any other member of that group, nor most Brits, for
that matter, knew that Keynes’ gambit was aimed at destroying civilization.
The
real causes of both World Wars were protectionism and nationalism – and then
came socialism, and fiat paper currencies.
To understand why "National Socialism" is completely evil, let us look at the two word separately.
1. NATION:
A quarrel arose the other day on what India's "national animal" is - the tiger or something else - and I said it ought to be us HUMANS, with whom our The State has a very big problem!
In any case, there is nothing "national" about the tiger - it is not found in most Indian provinces, actually.
Secondly, as "cities are the ant-hills of human colonists," the following ought to be noted about them, since civilisation is all about cities.
No tigers in the city
No cows in the city
No monkeys in the city
No jawans (soldiers) in the city
No kisans (farmers) in the city
Jai Vyapari is the motto - Long Live Business
Tourists Welcome - and "the more the merrier"
No "human population problem"
I have an old post on "National Greatness" according to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe - from which I quote the following about the times in which this greatest all all Germans ever lived, some 250 years ago:
From 1648 until the Napoleonic wars, Germany consisted of some 234 countries, 51 free cities, and about 1,500 independent knightly manors. Of this multitude of independent political units, only Austria counted as a great power, and only Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, and Hannover could be considered major political players. Saxe-Weimar was one of the smaller and poorer countries, encompassing just a few dozen villages and small towns.
Look at Germany today - in the EUSSR, and their paper Euro.
Similarly, India in 1947 did have over 650 "princely states." The Portuguese had Goa, Daman and Diu. And the French had five little coastal towns.
All borders, boundaries, and regimes have been changing - even if you only look from Mughal times through the British Raj till today.
Anyway, do you need a "city mayor" or a "national whatever"?
2. SOCIALISM:
Socialism is LAWLESSNESS. Period.
It begins with the rights of trade unions to use force and violence with impunity.
It continues with all kinds of "legal plunder" - as with "nationalisation" and "land acquisition."
"Democratic socialism" is even worse with its legislation that violates property - which is RAPE - as with the US-UN "War on Drugs."
(The UN has an ILO, and what they call Human Rights were drafted by socialists like Harold Laski.)
As compared with this STATE VIOLENCE on persons, their properties, and their liberties, The Free Market is completely peaceful and harmonious. Thus, we may use the expression "an aggressive ad campaign" - but the advertiser never assaults anyone, and his "campaign" is not at all like, say, Rommel's campaigns in North Africa, which used ARMOURED TANKS.
Free International Trade would mean World Peace - the international division of labour, free tourism and the movement of people, which means cultural exchanges and "understanding" of different cultures. So much to gain for all of humanity.
Let us now proceed to a STUDY IN CONTRAST:
This column by India's new Chief Economic Advisor, a former IMF man, a professor at the University of Chicago, in Mint today, titled, "The heart of the US election." What lies at this heart, according to Rajan, is "a tension between democracy and free enterprise."
What about the Freedom to choose one's "medium of exchange"?
Never ask an IMF man this.
Nor any Chicago prof either.
This university is the place where positivism - or "measurement": STATISTICS - is SCIENCE.
Thus, Chicago U justifies "monetary policy" - with all its "data" about paper money - and dubs it "scientific."
As far as the tension between Freedom and Democracy is concerned, I recently quoted Ron Paul's unequivocal stand on the matter:
The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with freedom. While our Constitution certainly features certain democratic mechanisms, it also features inherently undemocratic mechanisms like the First Amendment and the Electoral College. America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Yet we've been bombarded with the meaningless word "democracy" for so long that few Americans understand the difference.If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion.
The USSA has already become a place where they are all "born to be jailed" - because of all the "anti-drug legislation."
Obama taught "constitutional law" in Chicago U - and Ron Paul gave him an "F" for his views on this subject.
Also, do read this article on the lawyers' licenses that Obama as well as his wife Michelle gave up: she is from Harvard Law School, whose "legal positivism" is best seen in the film Paper Chase.
Thus, "national socialism" rules America - and the world, today.
We can also call it FASCISM, CORPORATISM, or plain and simple NAZISM.
Raghuram Rajan's column is appearing courtesy "Project Syndicate" - another "interesting" accreditation to his views.
However, it is PRECISELY such views that are sowing the seeds of confusion all over those parts of the world today where popular revolts have overthrown tyrants - and the people are looking for solutions. In all such places the US-UN combine to project Freedom and Democracy as synonymous - when they are NOT, most spectacularly in the instance of "capitalist and free enterprise America" itself. US-UN "interventions" in such areas, using armed force and even "covert operations" of intelligence agencies, thereby gain unwarranted legitimacy. These people, and these nations, ought to be "informed" - and then left alone. Interventionism is NOT required in foreign policy. This is what is anti-peace, anti-trade, and anti-civilisation as well.
And it all comes from the University of Chicago.
But the Government of India's deliberate choice of such a Chief Economic Advisor is not particularly intriguing. Prime minister Manmohan, an "eminent economist" himself, has a Prime Minister's Economic Advisory Council headed by a former Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, C Rangarajan. And Sonia Gandhi, their boss, has a National - that dirty word - Advisory Council full of welfarists who need these inflationists.
While Rajan is a former IMF man, so is good ol' Montek, heading the Central Planning Commission and trying to "measure poverty" all the time. And as for Rajan's worthy predecessor, Kaushik Basu, he is now with the World Bank!
I shall end with the following about Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, and how he treated World Bank-IMF "advisors." This is from a previous post:
Vaclav Klaus regaled me with the story of how some World Bank - IMF "economists" phoned him when he assumed office as President of the Czech Republic, seeking an appointment so that they could offer him "advice." He told them he knew more Economics than them, and did not need their advice. Fuck off from Prague, dudes, he told them. Return to Washington DC or wherever the fuck you came from.
Peter Bauer's tribute to BR Shenoy, titled "Hero and Saint," concludes with some very important words on the "influence" of such "official advisors to governments" with impressive designations, as opposed to that of this great dissenter, who was ridiculed, hounded out of academia, and subsequently died in obscurity: that the so-called "economists" who signed on the dotted line actually had no "influence" of their own. They were "chosen as advisors" simply because Nehru knew well they would rubber-stamp all he wanted to get done.
But Shenoy had a genuine influence of his own - and on his successors, including Bauer himself, whose "conduct" was deeply inspired by Shenoy.
