Dated 23rd May 2012
23 MAY, 2012, 05.57AM IST, SWAMINATHAN S
ANKLESARIA AIYAR,ET BUREAU
Both democracy and capitalism give the
freedom to choose between alternatives
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/columnists/swaminathan-s-a-aiyar/both-democracy-and-capitalism-give-the-freedom-to-choose-between-alternatives/articleshow/13403212.cmsIn March,
I accepted a daunting assignment: to lecture college students in Pune on The Morality of Capitalism. Predictably, this produced many sniggers. Capitalists are crooks, I was told. They milk you for all they can get. They cheat you in a thousand ways. Banias are notorious for using 'fixed' weighing scales and adulterating goods . They black-market goods subject to price controls, ranging from urea to kerosene.
They filch subsidised grain and sugar from the public distribution system and sell it in the open market. Bigindustrialists are worse, I was told. They make fancy claims about their products in advertisements , but deliver substandard stuff. They demand - and typically get, in return for bribes - sundry subsidies and tax breaks.
They wallow in tax evasion and black money. They manipulate import and export invoices to illegally accumulate dollars abroad in tax havens. They pay lip-service to competition , but actually succeed by using money, muscle and influence to buy or bully their way through the system.
Where's the morality in this lot? Answer: capitalism empowers people though the freedom to choose what to buy or produce .
Freedom to choose is a high moral principle. Democracy is based on the same principle. Paradoxically, democracy has a high moral cachet while capitalism is looked down on. Yet, democracy can match capitalism flaw for flaw. True, businessmen make fancy claims and don't deliver.
But don't politicians also promise the moon, and not deliver? Are promises in election manifestos less bogus than those in commercial advertisements ? Businessmen claim they want to serve the public interest by creating jobs in backward areas, when their actual aim is to get rich. But don't politicians also claim to be promoting the public interest while lining their pockets?
Businessmen may adulterate their products. But don't politicians constantly adulterate their supposed policies and principles? Capitalists may wallow in black money. But are politicians any different? They spend thousands of crores on elections - where does the cash come from? Politics is supposed to be public service. In fact, it has become the shadiest of businesses, in which you invest black money (in elections) in order to make even more black money (through bribes and extortion).
Crony capitalism , a sadly widespread phenomenon , is a perversion of capitalism. It is a perversion of democracy too. Businessmen use money to promote their interests. So do politicians. US politician Jesse Unruh said, "Money is the mother's milk of politics." Do politicians use muscle? But of course. Once politicians hired musclemen for dirty work. The musclemen have now entered politics themselves in thousands.
I accepted a daunting assignment: to lecture college students in Pune on The Morality of Capitalism. Predictably, this produced many sniggers. Capitalists are crooks, I was told. They milk you for all they can get. They cheat you in a thousand ways. Banias are notorious for using 'fixed' weighing scales and adulterating goods . They black-market goods subject to price controls, ranging from urea to kerosene.
They filch subsidised grain and sugar from the public distribution system and sell it in the open market. Bigindustrialists are worse, I was told. They make fancy claims about their products in advertisements , but deliver substandard stuff. They demand - and typically get, in return for bribes - sundry subsidies and tax breaks.
They wallow in tax evasion and black money. They manipulate import and export invoices to illegally accumulate dollars abroad in tax havens. They pay lip-service to competition , but actually succeed by using money, muscle and influence to buy or bully their way through the system.
Where's the morality in this lot? Answer: capitalism empowers people though the freedom to choose what to buy or produce .
Freedom to choose is a high moral principle. Democracy is based on the same principle. Paradoxically, democracy has a high moral cachet while capitalism is looked down on. Yet, democracy can match capitalism flaw for flaw. True, businessmen make fancy claims and don't deliver.
But don't politicians also promise the moon, and not deliver? Are promises in election manifestos less bogus than those in commercial advertisements ? Businessmen claim they want to serve the public interest by creating jobs in backward areas, when their actual aim is to get rich. But don't politicians also claim to be promoting the public interest while lining their pockets?
Businessmen may adulterate their products. But don't politicians constantly adulterate their supposed policies and principles? Capitalists may wallow in black money. But are politicians any different? They spend thousands of crores on elections - where does the cash come from? Politics is supposed to be public service. In fact, it has become the shadiest of businesses, in which you invest black money (in elections) in order to make even more black money (through bribes and extortion).
Crony capitalism , a sadly widespread phenomenon , is a perversion of capitalism. It is a perversion of democracy too. Businessmen use money to promote their interests. So do politicians. US politician Jesse Unruh said, "Money is the mother's milk of politics." Do politicians use muscle? But of course. Once politicians hired musclemen for dirty work. The musclemen have now entered politics themselves in thousands.
In the recent Uttar
Pradesh election, 47% of those elected had pending criminal charges.
Businessmen use influence
to get what they want. Politicians are surely ahead of them in this game. Just
ask Congressmen: if you have access to 10, Janpath, all doors open to you. In
sum, politicians in a democracy are opportunistic rascals . Yet, democracy is
viewed as a highly moral system. Why? Because it empowers citizens through free
choice. That makes it superior to any other form of government.
Lenin criticised democracy on exactly the same ground that many criticise capitalism. He said elected politicians were opportunistic rascals representing their own class interest, not the public interest. So, he proposed replacing them with a politburo of noble intellectuals genuinely working for the masses. Alas, this endeavour ended in mass murder, misery and ultimate collapse.
Democracy has a thousand flaws. But as Churchill once said, "It is the worst system except for all the others." Benevolent dictators often felt they were more principled and moral than crooked politicians in democracies. Yet, all autocracies ultimately failed because of a fatal flaw: they did not give citizens the freedom to choose their leaders.
For the same reason, centrally-planned economies also failed. These too aimed to create noble economic systems free of the greed and grab of capitalism. Yet, they failed for the same reason as autocracies: they did not empower citizens to choose. People repeatedly fled from communist to capitalist countries : from East Germany to West Germany, from Red China to Hong Kong, from North Korea to South Korea.
Now, the communist states had full employment and assured security for the aged and handicapped . Yet, people fled to capitalist countries where neither jobs nor welfare were assured. What was assured was freedom to choose, and that mattered above all. They wanted freedom to choose their political leaders, freedom to choose their job or business, and freedom to buy goods they liked.
Capitalism, like democracy, is "the worst system except for all the others" . It too has rascals parading as leaders. But it too turns out to be the best. This is not just a matter of efficiency . It is, above all, a matter of high morality. Freedom is a fundamental human right. Adam Smith, father of capitalism, disliked capitalists. He said businessmen rarely met without concocting some scheme to milk consumers.
But, he said, once capitalists had to compete in a market system, they had to woo consumers with ever better goods and services, thus producing a social good that was never part of their original aim. Smith said capitalists were rascals, but capitalism was a good system.
He could have said the same of politics: democratic politicians are rascals, but democracy is a good system. Both systems are saved from rascality because they rest on the same moral principle: freedom to choose.
Lenin criticised democracy on exactly the same ground that many criticise capitalism. He said elected politicians were opportunistic rascals representing their own class interest, not the public interest. So, he proposed replacing them with a politburo of noble intellectuals genuinely working for the masses. Alas, this endeavour ended in mass murder, misery and ultimate collapse.
Democracy has a thousand flaws. But as Churchill once said, "It is the worst system except for all the others." Benevolent dictators often felt they were more principled and moral than crooked politicians in democracies. Yet, all autocracies ultimately failed because of a fatal flaw: they did not give citizens the freedom to choose their leaders.
For the same reason, centrally-planned economies also failed. These too aimed to create noble economic systems free of the greed and grab of capitalism. Yet, they failed for the same reason as autocracies: they did not empower citizens to choose. People repeatedly fled from communist to capitalist countries : from East Germany to West Germany, from Red China to Hong Kong, from North Korea to South Korea.
Now, the communist states had full employment and assured security for the aged and handicapped . Yet, people fled to capitalist countries where neither jobs nor welfare were assured. What was assured was freedom to choose, and that mattered above all. They wanted freedom to choose their political leaders, freedom to choose their job or business, and freedom to buy goods they liked.
Capitalism, like democracy, is "the worst system except for all the others" . It too has rascals parading as leaders. But it too turns out to be the best. This is not just a matter of efficiency . It is, above all, a matter of high morality. Freedom is a fundamental human right. Adam Smith, father of capitalism, disliked capitalists. He said businessmen rarely met without concocting some scheme to milk consumers.
But, he said, once capitalists had to compete in a market system, they had to woo consumers with ever better goods and services, thus producing a social good that was never part of their original aim. Smith said capitalists were rascals, but capitalism was a good system.
He could have said the same of politics: democratic politicians are rascals, but democracy is a good system. Both systems are saved from rascality because they rest on the same moral principle: freedom to choose.
FRIDAY, MAY 18, 2012
http://jaindanendra.blogspot.in/2012/05/government-has-no-solution-to-economic.html
Inspite of all efforts made by the government and inspite of Finance Minister repeatedly claiming that growth story of India is intact and totally decoupled with global crisis, all figures pertaining to current economic status of the country indicates that the economic situation is not as good as politicians claim to be. This conclusion is not only that of mine but that of economic experts which is visible in following article published in popular News Paper.
It is undeniably a bitter truth that the medicine of reformation and medicine of LPG (Liberalization, Privatization and Globalization) which has been considered as panacea for all problems and all types of sickness and which has been treated as efficiency booster for Indian growth engine has been the real cause of all problems Indian economy is facing.
To make is clear one may say that medicine used to cure the sickness of Indian economy is really a poison for not only Indian economy but for common men too.
A few thousands of people or businessmen in India might have become Billionaire and a few lacs of them might have become millionaire due to reformatory policies of Manmohan Singh but the economic condition of at least 110 crores of India population has deteriorated from bad to worse and moving towards the worst. People of India might have access to mobile, TV and internet at cheaper rate but daily use essential commodities and infrastructure is beyond the access of common men. In reformation era begun in 1991 , lifestyle of rich has become such as if they are in heaven but the life style of common men has become as if they are living in Hell.
Life of common men has become miserable, pathetic and pitiable. There is none to listen to their problems .They cannot visualize any remedy for their troublesome life. They cannot dream of adequate education , medical care and livelihood for their children , they cannot afford admitting their child in good school , they cannot dream of medical treatment in hospitals , they cannot dream of electric power , they cannot dream of pure water and a small house to live in and they cannot be sure of food and cloth even for survival in coming days keeping in view the relentless price rise and inflation going beyond control..And they have to bear with all types of tortures and troubles arising due to pro-elite class policies of the government and they cannot dream of justice even from police or the judiciary.
Politicians may shed a few Crocodiles Tears on the eve of election but in fact they flourish only by extracting the blood of common men and by enjoying the fruits meant and sanctioned in the name of poor. Politicians become billionaire in a span of two or three after their election to State Assemblies or Parliament but common men cannot dream of a few thousand of rupees for their survival.
Will our government explain from the core of their heart and tell honestly to the people of India what they have done to raise the standard of living of common men and are they successful in this task to any small extent?
Are our politicians still having faith in policies of reformation to cure the failing economy, to ensure equitable distribution of so called GDP growth, to give relief to ailing poor people and to cure the cancer of corruption?
People should ponder over the question and answer whether policy of reformation have proved a boon or curse for common men during last two decades?
http://jaindanendra.blogspot.in/2012/05/great-manmohan-singh.html
Great Manmohan Singh
Manmohan Singh represents the collective wisdom of 120 crore Indians in the capacity of Prime Minister of India.
May anyone say that Mr. Singh has done justice with his post and with responsibilities entrusted to him by voters of this country and by elected MPs of various parties? He has tarnished the image of good persons like Narendra Modi or Nitish Kumar for the vested interest of his party and that too sacrificing the interest of the Nation.
Is he not questioned by common men, Team Anna, Ramdeo, Opposition parties, MPs of his own party called as Congress Party or UPA?
It will not be an exaggeration to say that MMS has committed more blunders and caused more damage than what little good things he has done for the country during his tenure as PM of the country.
He will prove to be the worst PM even if his performance is compared with that of other PMs of Congress Party, not to speak of opposition parties.
He is responsible for large scale corruption and its escalation and unprecedented rise during his rule.
His economics and his clean image has done nothing good for the country but his silence, inactivity and ineffectiveness have caused huge damaged to Indian culture, has demotivated the talented officers working in Indian administration , has broken the record of corruption by keeping mum on all evil deeds of his colleagues and it is his party who promoted the culture of flattery and bribery under the banner of Sonia or UPA using the mask of clean MMS.
Who is accountable, responsible and punishable for pitiable present fiscal ill-health of the country?
If a clerk or an officer do not execute the plan and fail to achieve the target, he or she is taken to task, who will teach the lesson to non performers like PM, FM or other ministers who promised a lot to voters but did nothing but only looted voters.If a bank does not perform as per expectation , if bad assets rises in a bank or if cases of fraud rises in any bank, junior officers are taken to task but the top ranked officers like ED or CMD who framed polices for better performance , who dictated employees to do this or not to do that , who supervised them , who monitored staff but who completely failed to curb malpractice are never taken to task. Why?
When Chadra Sekhar was PM of this country it was told that the country had to sell gold to save the image.Not after rule of Doctor MMS, Pranab, Chidambram and their colleagues the economic position of the country moving from bad to worst. Now the current government is only selling Public sector undertakings in the name of Disinvestment for survival of the government or to cope with fiscal deficit or curent account deficit or trade deficit.
Is there anyone to learn the lesson from present critical state of economy and take step to punish the real culprit.
Is there anyone to learn the lesson from present critical state of economy and take step to punish the real culprit.
Now, at least after publication of latest survey report and performance marking of UPA ministers conducted by various surveyors,
Will media and members of ruling party now stop character assassination of person like Narendra Modi or Nitish Kumar who made their respective state number one and became an example for Chief Ministers of other states to follow?
Will current government stop now exploitation of poor 110 crore people of India in the name of secularism or democracy or social welfare or reservation or minority or in the name of supremacy of Parliament?
Last but not the least , will politicians in general learn to think about nation , act for the nation and refrain from mean minded approach based on this quota or that , stop caste based decisions and adopt patriotism from the core of their heart?
Will they stop horse trading to run the government?
Will they learn to say spade a spade?
Last but not the least , will politicians in general learn to think about nation , act for the nation and refrain from mean minded approach based on this quota or that , stop caste based decisions and adopt patriotism from the core of their heart?
Will they stop horse trading to run the government?
Will they learn to say spade a spade?
No comments:
Post a Comment