Re: Thailand? You said? RE: Population

[Sanjeev Sabhlok <sabhlok@almaak.usc.edu>]

On Fri, 22 May 1998, Sitaramayya Ari wrote:
> 
> How did Pakistan and Bangladesh deserve inclusion in the socialist model?
> Besides running heavy industries under govt control, what did India do
> that is socialistic?

I think these issues were debated and described at length in some of the
earlier discussions. Please try to go through those debates, even if it is
a bit tedious.

However, to summarize my classifying these countries as socialistic:

a) They all followed the Fabian Socialistic model, publicly. In 
	the case of India, we call ourselves Socialistic in the first 
	line of our Constitution.
b) They all stole private property (nationalization) and prohibited
	private citizen initiative in many areas of econmic activity
c) They all had and have planning models which attempt to "coordinate"
	economic activity, centrally, a task, which as Hayek clearly
	showed, is quite impossible in the absence of local
	knowledge which only markets can provide.
d) Their intellegentsia are almost completely immersed in socialistic
	thought, which primarily shows itself up when they suppose
	themselves to possess the unique abilities to lecture to
	our masses to cut down their children, to not come to cities,
	to have biogas while they have gas and petroleum products,
	and so on. The intelligentsia think that the "poor" are fools
	who need to be told what to do, while they themselves can send
	their children abroad to study and work. Many of the
	same intelligentsia "use" the system clearly for their
	own benefit.
e) Their old and aging industrialists (except JRD Tata the great
 	competitor), claim themselves to be infants for ever and
	seek protection against ants like Singapore.
f) Political leaders in socialistic nations become surprisingly very
	rich instantaneously, since they "regulate" the economy
	and control all rents. I know of a chief minister in assam
	who possessed so much wealth before he died a few years ago
	while he actually started out life as a school teacher. He is
	typical in all socialist nations. The case of the ruling dynasties
	of India, and many of the Indian states, is too well known to bear
	highlighting.

Well, that's enough for now. I have at least one full chapter on this in
my forthcoming book (I guess that will always be forthcoming and never
actually come, if I keep on replying to every message on this list!).

Actually, almost any of the above points would qualify these S.Asian
nations as socialistic. However, the bunch of these points surely does. Or
does it not?

Sanjeev