India! I dare you to be rich

Category Archive: Bad ideas!

More on Hitler’s socialist (collectivist) worldview

Despite his political overthrow of the German Marxists, Hitler was a committed socialist, not very different from Nehru, Arvind Kejriwal or Narendra Modi.

The key to the socialist worldview is a collectivist mindset that totally disregards private property and other rights of individuals.

Some people believe that Narendra Modi is different to Nehru or Arvind Kejriwal. He is not. He is PRECISELY in the same mould. In his case socialism includes the collectivism of the "Hindus".

FOR DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE NAME OF THE POOR

FOR DESTRUCTION OF INDIVIDUALISM IN THE NAME OF THE NATION/"PEOPLE"

FOR DESTRUCTION OF FREE THOUGHT IN THE NAME OF TOTALLY OBEDIENCE TO THE STATE (TO HIM)

FOR THE ASSERTION OF COLLECTIVIST RACIST SUPREMACY

FOR THE ASSERTION OF RACIST HATRED AGAINST THE JEWS

FOR DISTORTION OF HISTORY TO CREATE A MASSIVE JINGOIST (ULTRA-NATIONALIST) GROUPIST FEELING AMONG THE PEOPLE

Continue Reading

Che Guevara – a self-declared BLOOD THIRSTY mass murderer who “really liked killing”

I've been ignoring Che Guevara for long – a known MEGA criminal, but given the fraudulent remaking of his image by millions of people who should have known better, it is important to assert – and if necessary, repeat – the truth about him.

Watch this first, and watch with care! Che EXPLAINS HOW HE WAS THIRSTY FOR BLOOD AND HOW HE LIKED KILLING. A more vicious criminal can barely be imagined. On par with the worst that mankind has ever generated.

Sources for Stefan Molyneux's video:

Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life by Jon Lee Anderson

Companero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara by Jorge G. Castaneda

The Motorcycle Diaries: Notes on a Latin American Journey by Ernesto Che Guevara

Exposing the Real Che Guevara: And the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him by Humberto Fontova

http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/gavinfoster/2009/12/09/so-who-is-this-che-guevara-then

http://www.cubanet.org/htdocs/CNews/y09/enero09/23_O_3.html

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1535

http://liberpress.blogspot.co.uk/2007/10/mi-primo-el-che.html

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rFE7nTO-iLcC&pg=PA104

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/terrorism/terror-1965.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba%E2%80%93United_States_relations

http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=326351&CategoryId=14510

NOW WATCH THIS:

NOW READ THIS:

http://www.therealcuba.com/MurderedbyChe.htm

Hey Urban Outfitters: Che Guevara Was a Murderer and Your Poster Is Not Cool

There's MUCH MORE but I think this should do. If you have any more links you wish to share, do so through the comments.

Continue Reading

Deepak Chopra, is my fist to your face a ‘normal’ or ‘paranormal’ experience? (cf. his challenge to James Randi)

Deepak Chopra has been duping gullible Americans for a long time now (e.g. see my post: Deepak Chopra’s gravy train – from duping millions of IGNORANT gullible Americans!).

Having comprehensively failed to provide ANY proof for the paranormal (sprits, ghosts, telepathy, etc.) he has come out with an ‘attack’ strategy to defend his empire against the ever-growing power of James Randi's BLUNT challenge to the entire world, re: the paranormal.

Not one charlatan anywhere in the world can survive Randi's assault against chicanery, falsehood and superstition. Randi's $1 million prize has changed the world. For ever.

Listen to Deepak Chopra for a moment:

In this video, Deepak Chopra states, "Everything in the physical world is a perception". "Experience is experience, whether it is so-called normal or so-called paranormal".

Well, Mr Chopra, how about my fist to your face? Would the pain you experience, the blood vessels that rupture upon your jaw breaking under the physical force of the fist be a mere 'perception' or would it have anything to do with the OBJECTIVE REALITY?

According to you, a dream sequence in which you dream of my fist on your face amounts to THE SAME thing as the actual fist on your face. A retrieved memory (e.g. of a sunset) is the SAME as the actual thing.

According to you, consciousness (a product of energy: matter being equal to energy) is the SAME thing as the existence of the paranormal (i.e. ghosts, spirits, telepathy, seances).

But surely even you can distinguish between my fist on your face and a dream about a fist on your face?

Randi is making a simple point: regardless of there being a God or not, there is NO SPIRIT, NO GHOST, NO TELEPATHY, NO REBIRTH, NO PARANORMAL.

Randi accepts my fist as real. It can be empirically recorded, photographed, weighed. Its impact on your face can be tested through any damage caused to REAL facial cells/muscles/capillaries.

Not only that, Randi fully accept that dreams/ imaginations are REAL – to the dreamer. He will not deny your reported dream of my fist landing on your face. Your dreams are not, however, the real thing.

NONE of this is proof (or otherwise) of any paranormal.

You, Deepak Chopra, are guilty of defrauding the public with falsehoods regarding things you can never demonstrate objectively. You trade in "belief". You are a scamster.

Through this ridiculous statement on youtube you are making a pernicious attempt to destroy science and human progress for the sake of your petty pelf and gain.

Fortunately, charlatans like you will not only be thoroughly exposed, this ridiculous youtube video will haunt you for ever.

[Disclaimer: As you can well appreciate, the 'fist' is used here in a figurative sense, illustratively, as part of a logical argument.]

ADDENDUM, FROM FB

Continue Reading

Adam Smith would turn in his grave at Gandhi’s gross misrepresentation of his work

Gandhi had not read Adam Smith (and had no intention of reading Smith or any of the moral philosophers, as he proudly confirmed in his speech in 1916). But he did have opinions about Smith. Drastically incorrect opinionsLet me cite, then briefly discuss.

In The Harijan

You know how Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations, after laying down certain principles according to which economic phenomena are governed, went on to describe certain other things which constituted the ‘disturbing factor’ and prevented economic laws from having free play. Chief among these was the ‘human element’. [Sanjeev: what is this!] Now it is this ‘human element’ on which the entire economics of Khadi rests; and human selfishness, Adam Smith’s ‘pure economic motive’, constitutes the ‘disturbing factor’ that has got to be overcome. - Harijan, 21-9-34, p. 253 [Source]

A discussion in 1934

263. NEW LIFE FOR KHADI [summary of a discussion with some khadi workers about the need to reorganize khadi work.Before October 21, 1934]

While thinking about the reorganization of khadi production you should not forget that in certain matters the economics of khadi and the commonly prevalent economics are poles asunder. I am always reminded of one thing which the well-known British economist Adam Smith has said in his famous treatise The Wealth of Nations. In it he has described some economic laws as universal and absolute. Then he has described certain situations which may be an obstacle to the operation of these laws. These disturbing factors are the human nature, the human temperament or altruism inherent in it. [Sanjeev: surely a most amazing misrepresenatation!]

Now, the economics of khadi is just the opposite of it. Benevolence which is inherent in human nature is the very foundation of the economics of khadi. What Adam Smith has described as pure economic activity based merely on the calculations of profit and loss is a selfish attitude and it is an obstacle to the development of khadi; and it is the function of a champion of khadi to counteract this tendency. Hence, the tactics normally adopted in a profiteering business have no place in khadi activity. For instance, cheating, fraud, falsehood, adulteration, exploiting people’s addictions or their baser feelings things practised in mill industries and ordinary trade—are to be completely shunned in khadi activity. [Sanjeev: Gandhi is smearing the entire manufacturing and trading sector. Adam Smith shows how markets will weed out bad apples, unless sheltered by government; that remains true till today.]

The policy of paying minimum wages to the weaver or spinner with a view to increasing profits can have no place in khadi activity. [Sanjeev: who would EVER pay a minimum wage to "increase profits!" - but I'm glad Gandhi opposed minimum wage, nevertheless].
 At the same time, khadi activity cannot be carried on by incurring losses as a result of unpractical attitudes. The reason why our khadi organizations incur losses today is the inefficiency of our workers. In khadi activity spinners and other workers get full reward of their labour but the middlemen and organizers get nothing more than their due share. [Sanjeev: Gandhi was clearly smitten by the - false - labour theory of value] [Source]

SAME INTERVIEW TO KHADI WORKERS [On or before August 24, 1934] [1 This appeared under the title “Khadi—A New Orientation” as a “gist of Gandhiji’s remarks” to prominent khadi workers of Andhra, including Pattabhi  SitaramayyaSitarama Sastri and Narayana Raju, The discussion continued for two days.]

“In reorganizing your khadi production, you should not forget that the science of khadi, in some respects, works on diametrically opposite lines to that of ordinary business. You know how Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations, after laying down certain principles according to which economic phenomena are governed, went on to describe certain other things which constituted the “disturbing factor” and prevented economic laws from having free play. Chief among these was the ‘human element’. Now, it is this ‘human element’ on which the entire economics of khadi rests; and human selfishness, Adam Smith’s “pure economic motive”, constitutes the “disturbing factor” that has got to be overcome. What applies to the production of mill-cltoh, therefore, does not apply to khaddar. Debasing of quality, adulteration, pandering to the baser tastes of humanity, are current staple in commercialized production; they have no place in khadi, nor has the principle of highest profit and lowest wages any place in khadi. On the contrary, there is no such thing as pure profit in khadi. And there should be no loss. Loss there is, because we, the workers, are still incompetent novices. In khadi, the prices realized return to the prime producers, the spinners, the others getting no more than their hire. [Source]

MY COMMENTS

Gandhi was a good man, with strong convictions, but a very poor student. He didn't read widely nor care to understand the foundations of the liberty (he did get a glimpse through Thoreau, which gave him a libertarian streak).

This smearing of Adam Smith is atrocious! His grievous mistakes in understanding Adam Smith (and classical moral philosophers) was made worse with Nehru's mindless acceptance of Laski and other socialists.

The lack of diligent study by these two leaders has cost India dearly.

If Gandhi had understood Smith and the price system, imagine what we'd have become long ago! – A FREE country. But that was not to be.

Till today there are not more than a handful of people in India who understand Smith. Such has been the TERRIBLE influence of Gandhi on India – as far as economic policy is concerned.

[See also this: http://adamsmithslostlegacy.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/libels-of-adam-smith.html]

Source: Adam Smith: A Moral Philosopher and His Political Economy, by Gavin Kennedy

Continue Reading

Gandhi’s shocking ignorance of economics and false pride in his ignorance.

It was extremely disappointing to read this speech that Gandhi gave in 1916 at age 47. This was the fully matured man, not some baby starting his journey. So we can't ignore his confusions since these are very similar to opinions widely held in India today. They might have spread through him, paving the way for Nehru and his godchildren like BJP.

In his speech he made some STARTLINGLY BAD ASSUMPTIONS AND FALSE STATEMENTS. The full speech is available hereThese assumptions and falsehoods include:

  • the minimum and the maximum wealth a man should have is 'none’ [So this means we should aim for ZERO economic growth].
  • being wealth is directly correlated to immorality [depends - how immoral are Bill Gates or Warren Buffet? There is no correlation between wealth and immorality.]
  • train and steamer travel has created "a great deal of mischief" [FALSE!]
  • there are fundamental differences among Western and Indian "conditions" (there are not; all humans respond to the same incentives) [FALSE!]
  • wealthy societies tend to increased suicide [FALSE!]
  • premature births and congenital defects have increased in wealthy societies [FALSE!]

Gandhi’s speech at Muir College Economic Society, Allahabad, December 22, 1916

When I accepted Mr. Kapildeva Malaviya’s invitation to speak to you upon the subject of this evening, I was painfully conscious of my limitations. You are an economic society. Frankly and truly, I know very little of economics. [An economist friend] found that I had not even read books on economics by such well-known authorities as Mill, Marshall, Adam Smith and a host of such other authors. In despair, he ended by advising me to read these works before experimenting in matters economic at the expense of the public. He little knew that I was a sinner past redemption.

In South Africa I observed almost invariably that the greater the possession of riches, the greater was their moral turpitude. Our rich men, to say the least, did not advance the moral struggle of passive resistance as did the poor. The rich men’s sense of self-respect was not so much injured as that of the poorest. I venture to think that the scriptures of the world are far safer and sounder treatises on laws of economics than many of the modern text-books.

Jesus saith unto them: “Children, how hard it is for them that trust in riches to enter into the kindgom of God. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God!”

I should not have laboured my point as I have done, if I did not believe that, in so far as we have made the modern materialistic craze our goal, in so far are we going downhill in the path of progress. I hold that economic progress in the sense I have put it is antagonistic to real progress. Hence the ancient ideal has been the limitation of activities promoting wealth. This does not put an end to all material ambition. We should still have, as we have always had, in our midst people who make the pursuit of wealth their aim in life. But we have always recognised that it is a fall from the ideal. [Sanjeev: This is hugely insulting] It is a beautiful thing to know that the wealthiest among us have often felt that to have remained voluntarily poor would have been a higher state for them. That you cannot serve God and Mammon is an economic truth of the highest value. We have to make our choice.

Western nations today are groaning under the heel of the monster-god of materialism. Wallace… shows how factories have risen on the corpses of men, women and children, how as the country has rapidly advanced in riches, it has gone down in morality. He shows this by dealing with insanitation, life-destroying trades, adulteration, bribery and gambling. He shows how, with the advance of wealth, justice has become immoral, deaths from alcoholism and suicide have increased, [Sanjeev: This is absurd nonsense] the average of premature births and congenital defects has increased [Sanjeev: This is absurd nonsense], and prostitution has become an institution.

==

Later, the writer of the article states:

“Mr. Gandhi in the course of his remarks … thought that the economist had a place in the economy of nature when he occupied the humble sphere for which he was created. If an economist did not investigate the laws of God and show them how to distribute wealth so that there might not be poverty, he was a most unwelcome intrusion on the Indian soil. [Sanjeev: no issue with elimination of poverty, but not distribution of wealth; that's part of social insurance]

He would utter the note of warning that Indian conditions being in some respects so essentially different from the English and American conditions, it was necessary to bring to bear on the matters that presented themselves to the economists a fresh mind. As regards intercourse with other nations, he said that he did not think that they necessarily advanced one little bit in their moral growth by bringing their masses with others into physical contact and pointed to Indians in South Africa as an instance. The rapid locomotion such as steamers, trains and others dislocated so many of their ideals and created a great deal of mischief. [Sanjeev: How ridiculous can Gandhi get?]

As regards the question what was the minimum and the maximum wealth a man should have—he would answer in the words of Jesus, Ramkrishna and others who said ‘none’.

Continue Reading

Scathing reviews/ critiques of Thomas Piketty’s Capital

The frequency with which foolish ideas come back to the scene and destroy the prospects of progress is alarming.

This is a placeholder for the ridiculously ill-informed and incompetent "economist", Thomas Piketty who has revived the idea that "inequality" is the business of economists.

First, my views on "equality" (or inequality):

Let’s not waste time discussing inequality. Poverty removal is the goal.

Why are Americans not jealous of the rich?

Don’t be jealous. Be happy!

The dangerous idea of equality

Beware the delusions of equality

My views on The Spirit Level: propaganda masquerading as social science

Economic inequality MUST NECESSARILY increase over time in a free society, even as poverty is completely put to rest (e.g. there is GUARANTEED to be more economic inequality in an agricultural society than in a hunting gather society, and similarly more in an industrial society than agricultural society). But there is a huge amount of variability and social mobility, so these trends are VERY long term and not much can be read into short term movements. 

Let me post a few comments/critiques from various people which demolish Piketty's ridiculous thesis. I'll keep adding as time permits. The blogworld is full of commentary on how Piketty doesn't understand liberty, political economy, economics or even basic statistics. Why this fuss about a deeply confused man?

Let me say that I've not read his book and have no intention of reading it. The case against economic equality is FOOLPROOF. No Picketty can change my mind on such a basic truth. Let there be liberty and let governments protect property rights. And remove dire poverty. No more. 

Deirdre McCloskey rebuts the idea that economic inequality per se is an issue for anyone to care about. Crony capitalism – involving the theft of money from the people (which is precisely what BJP/Congress have been doing in India) – is definitely wrong. But what can POSSIBLY be the issue with inequality based on providing value to society?
"‘You have to ask what the source of the inequality is. If the source is stealing from poor people, I’m against it. But if the source is, you got there first with an innovation that everyone wants to buy, so you get paid some crazy sum, you ought to be paid so much, don’t you think?" [See full article here]

Piketty's data is deeply flawed.

Thomas Piketty wants to keep billions of people poor to stop a few from becoming rich (Robert P. Murphy)

What Thomas Piketty Gets Wrong About Capitalism

Shocking Quotes from Piketty (Robert Murphy)

Piketty Can’t Even Get His Basic Tax History Right (Robert Murphy)

Showing Problem With Piketty Using Neoclassical Models (Robert Murphy)

A Fleshed Out Example Showing Problems With Piketty (Robert Murphy)

Larry Summers Unwittingly Blows Up Piketty’s Whole Book (Robert Murphy)

Why Thomas Piketty is Wrong About Inflation and Interest Rates

Why Thomas Piketty's wealth equation doesn't work in Britain (Kitty Ussher)

Something to Celebrate (Steve Landsburg)

To a Correspondent About Piketty (Don Boudreaux)

The Piketty Bubble? (Alex Tabarrok)

Piketty-Piketty (Don Boudreaux)

A (Long) Note on Piketty (Don Boudreaux)

Down the Lane with Piketty (Don Boudreaux)

Piketty's Numbers Don't Add Up, MARTIN FELDSTEIN, Wall Street Journal 

Brett on Piketty

Morgan Kelly's review

The Piketty Code (Dick Langlois)

High Taxes Are Not What We Need (Stephen Moore)

Why Following Thomas Pikkety’s Economic Advice Would Be Foolish (Nathaniel Ward)

"If the writer starts discussing income inequality data as if it tells us something useful about economic inequality, I know I can pretty much ignore anything the author has to say" [Source]

Steve Horwitz's Facebook post (links to an article that states;

"Piketty states, “From 1980 to 1990, under the presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the federal minimum wage remained stuck at $3.25, which led to a significant decrease in purchasing power when inflation is factored in. It then rose to $5.25 under Bill Clinton in the 1990s and was frozen at that level under George W. Bush before being increased several times by Barack Obama after 2008.” (Page 309).
Wrong, Professor Piketty. The federal hourly minimum wage rose twice in the presidency of George H.W. Bush, from $3.35 to $3.80 in 1990 and then to $4.25 in 1991, a 27 percent total increase. Then, under President Clinton, it rose to $4.75 in 1996 and $5.15 (not $5.25, as Piketty states) in 1997, a 21 percent total increase.
The next increase in the minimum wage, from $5.15 to $7.25 over three years, a 41 percent increase, was signed into law in 2007 by President George W. Bush. The federal minimum rose to $5.85 in 2007, to $6.55 in 2008, and to $7.25 in 2009. President Obama has not yet signed a minimum wage increase into law, despite beginning his first term with the political advantage of a Democratic Congress."

What do the Piketty data problems really mean? (Tyler Cowen) [19th century data seem to indicate that a “Piketty world,” even if we take it on its own terms, far from being a disaster, would likely be accompanied by rising real wages and declining consumption inequality, albeit rising wealth inequality.]

A Piketty problem? [Economist]

Piketty vs. Giles (Bob Murphy)

Inequality and the Fate of Capitalism (By Scott Winship)

Deirdre McCloskey Contrasted With Thomas Piketty (Don Boudreaux)

The Piketty Kerfuffle (Sinclair Davidson)

Phil Magness on Piketty's U.S. Wealth Data

More on Piketty (Phillip Magness)

Another Piketty Oddity (Phillip Magness)

Is Piketty’s “Second Law of Capitalism” fundamental? (Tyler Cowen) – demolishing even the basic economics of Piketty

Piketty Owes His Readers Some Answers

Thomas Piketty’s Problematic Political Philosophy Part I: Normative Arguments (by KEVIN VALLIER on MAY 30, 2014)

Thomas Piketty Pens Communist Manifesto for 21st Century

Piketty: A Wealth of Misconceptions

Piketty is an economic illiterate (Steve Kates)

Piketty v. Solow (Alex Tabarrok)
Piketty on Kuznets (Scott Sumner)

Continue Reading