This charge of High Treason has been REPEATED subsequently, as it seems to be a Bad Habit with them, so when they sanctioned the construction of a State-owned Nuclear Power Plant in the Konkan, with French equipment, resulting in the poor local sheeple getting turfed out of their traditional as well as "eco-sensitive" HOMELANDS - I once again termed this action on their part TREASON.
The third time I found them acting in this manner was when the last Union Budget imposed heavy taxes and import duties on gold and platinum - and thus, when these taxes and import duties were increased by 50 percent the other day, it was the very same High Treason on their part, to me, and I leveled this charge upon our The State in this post. Then, I drove the point home in my subsequent post, that of this morning.
During the past few weeks, this blog has been repeatedly arguing AGAINST "direct" Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs) paper dollars being pumped into our stock markets - saying this is NOT a "sign of economic health" - that it is nothing but "asset-price INFLATIONism" - while arguing IN FAVOUR of Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) into REAL BRICK-and-MORTAR facilities that will engage in "production and exchange" while also EMPLOYING the poorest among our numberless such poorest workers; and then, not only that, but because these poorest workers will then be employed-alongside-CAPITAL that they do NOT themselves own, CAPITAL that BELONGS to FOREIGNERS, their WAGES will rise-and-keep-rising - because their PRODUCTIVITY will increase - for workers are NOT paid according to "work" as such - or coolies would be rich! - rather, workers are paid according to their OUTPUT - and workers-employed-alongside-CAPITAL that does NOT belong to them PRODUCE MORE.
The example I gave then pertained to RETAILING - that the REAL ISSUE is NOT about the "small shopkeeper," but rather about that small shopkeeper's POOR EMPLOYEE.
It scarcely needs further elaboration to prove that foreign-owned supermarkets - or ANYTHING ELSE that is brick-and-mortar - will EMPLOY the poorest workers, train them and place them to work alongside their own CAPITAL - and that this is NOT ANTI-NATIONAL - that this is NOT TREASONOUS at all.
On the contrary - this is actually PATRIOTIC - though NOT in any "chauvinistic" or "nationalistic" NARROW SENSE - for the FACT is that this also benefits Good Foreigners who have Good Intentions.
Which goes to say MUCH about the UPA as well as their Combined Opposition!
They are in the CLEARANCE BUSINESS - as I just wrote.
And their motto of "export everything and import nothing" impoverishes The World - while fomenting WAR - as it is NATIONAL SOCIALISM of the worst kind.
I also proved-beyond-doubt that their INFLATIONism + DEVALUATIONism + PROTECTIONism is ANTINATIONAL.
Today, I wish to FOCUS ATTENTION on why Foreign Direct Investments MUST be LIBERATED from their "clearance business-as-usual" - because I have this excellent and lucid lecture on the BENEFITS of such an open policy framework delivered by Ludwig von Mises in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 1958 to buttress my arguments, from which below are pasted select quotes:
The standard of living is lower in the so-called developing countries because the average earnings for the same type of labor is lower in those countries than it is in some countries of Western Europe, Canada, Japan, and especially in the United States. If we try to find the reasons for this difference, we must realize that it is not due to an inferiority of the workers or other employees.
[The cause of this difference in the standards of living] is not personal inferiority or ignorance. The difference is the supply of capital, the quantity of capital goods available. In other words, the amount of capital invested per unit of the population is greater in the so-called advanced nations than in the developing nations.
A businessman cannot pay a worker more than the amount added by the work of this employee to the value of the product. He cannot pay him more than the customers are prepared to pay for the additional work of this individual worker. If he pays him more, he will not recover his expenditures from the customers. He incurs losses and, as I have pointed out again and again, and as everybody knows, a businessman who suffers losses must change his methods of business, or go bankrupt.
Since other nations started later, and since the British did not stop investing capital, there remained a large difference between conditions in England and conditions in those other countries. But something happened which caused the headstart of Great Britain to disappear.
What happened was the greatest event in the history of the nineteenth century, and this means not only in the history of an individual country. This great event was the development, in the nineteenth century, of foreign investment. In 1817, the great British economist Ricardo still took it for granted that capital could be invested only within the borders of a country. He took it for granted that capitalists would not try to invest abroad. But a few decades later, capital investment abroad began to play a most important role in world affairs.
Without capital investment it would have been necessary for nations less developed than Great Britain to start with the methods and the technology with which the British had started in the beginning and middle of the eighteenth century, and slowly, step by step — always far below the technological level of the British economy — try to imitate what the British had done.
It would have taken many, many decades for these countries to attain the standard of technological development which Great Britain had reached a hundred years or more before them. But the great event that helped all these countries was foreign investment.
Foreign investment meant that British capitalists invested British capital in other parts of the world. They first invested it in those European countries which, from the point of view of Great Britain, were short of capital and backward in their development. It is a well-known fact that the railroads of most European countries, and also of the United States, were built with the aid of British capital. You know that the same happened in this country, in Argentina.
Mises then proceeds to discuss INDIA and NEHRU:
The situation in the world today, created by the system of expropriation of foreign capital, consists either of direct expropriation or of indirect expropriation through foreign exchange control or tax discrimination. This is mainly a problem of developing nations.
Take, for instance, the biggest of these nations: India.
Under the British system, British capital — predominately British capital, but also capital of other European countries — was invested in India. And the British exported to India something else which also has to be mentioned in this connection; they exported into India modern methods of fighting contagious diseases. The result was a tremendous increase in the Indian population and a corresponding increase in the country's troubles. Facing such a worsening situation, India turned to expropriation as a means of dealing with its problems. But it was not always direct expropriation; the government harassed foreign capitalists, hampering them in their investments in such a way that these foreign investors were forced to sell out.
India could, of course, accumulate capital by another method: the domestic accumulation of capital. However, India is as hostile to the domestic accumulation of capital as it is to foreign capitalists. The Indian government says it wants to industrialize India, but what it really has in mind is to have socialist enterprises.
A few years ago the famous statesman Jawaharlal Nehru published a collection of his speeches. The book was published with the intention of making foreign investment in India more attractive. The Indian government is not opposed to foreign investment before it is invested. The hostility begins only when it is already invested. In this book — I am quoting literally from the book — Mr. Nehru said, "Of course, we want to socialize. But we are not opposed to private enterprise. We want to encourage in every way private enterprise. We want to promise the entrepreneurs who invest in our country, that we will not expropriate them nor socialize them for ten years, perhaps even for a longer time." And he thought this was an invitation to come to India!
The problem — as you know — is domestic capital accumulation. In all countries today there are very heavy taxes on corporations. In fact, there is double taxation on corporations. First, the profits of corporations are taxed very heavily, and the dividends which corporations pay to their shareholders are taxed again. And this is done in a progressive way.
Mises also says something CRUCIAL against protectionism in this lecture:
The prerequisite for more economic equality in the world is industrialization. And this is possible only through increased capital investment, increased capital accumulation. You may be astonished that I have not mentioned a measure which is considered a prime method to industrialize a country. I mean protectionism. But tariffs and foreign exchange controls are exactly the means to prevent the importation of capital and industrialization into the country. The only way to increase industrialization is to have more capital. Protectionism can only divert investments from one branch of business to another branch.
Protectionism, in itself, does not add anything to the capital of a country. To start a new factory one needs capital. To improve an already existing factory one needs capital, and not a tariff.
I trust my reader will now TREASURE this KNOWLEDGE - and SPREAD it! WORLDWIDE - for the poorest, that too, while also in the wider interests of ALL - including especially all the WEALTHY CAPITALISTS of the Entire Planet.
