Opinion

6 Reasons Why I Don’t Want India To Become A ‘Superpower’

Who will involuntarily pay the hefty price for the inflationary cost of maintaining a core nation?

[dropcap]M[/dropcap]ainstream economists and politicians are always immersed with the illusionary episodes on ‘structural transformation’. This phase is “seen”, whereas I am certain that the mass tends to subconsciously circumvent the“unseen” side. This article is a critical attempt to rationally expose the “unseen” costs involved in making, maintaining and middling of India as a superpower nation.

I am not scorning the social efforts of the citizens, but holistically questioning the rationale of economic costs enlisted in the process of proselytizing the semi-periphery status (developing power) into core status (superpower). Nothing comes for free and so easy, as camouflaged by the politicians because the health of any master in the world is unhealthy without conscription of ‘purchasing power’ of the subjects. Other things being equal, for any superpower, a mystical document called ‘social contract’ should always hail the principles of the Leviathan. Following are the crucial “unseen” reasons that I have chalked down to prove my scandalous assertion:

1) Nationalism is a religion, whereas government is its god

“Nationalism is a measles of mankind”, said Albert Einstein. The theme of nationalism is to indirectly convince the global society that “my humans are better than your humans”. To achieve the core status, in this so-called‘anarchic’ international system, propaganda efforts and imposed orders are the DNA of any nation. Without these two crucial parameters, nationalism cannot be cultivated and citizenry cannot be maintained. The health of nationalism begets mercantilism and discards the wealth of ‘free’ trade. Nonetheless, the ‘free’ labour movement is superseded by the fascistic nationalism. Ultimately, military expenditures exceed the cosmopolitan thinkers.

2) Collective egoism

The word ‘We’ is as lime poured over men, which sets and hardens to stone, and crushes all beneath it and that which is white and that which is black are lost equally in the grey of it. It is the word by which the depraved steal the virtue of the good, by which the weak steal the might of the strong, by which the fools steal the wisdom of the sages. What is my joy if all hands, even the unclean, can reach into it? What is my wisdom, if even the fools can dictate to me? What is my freedom, if all creatures, even the botched and impotent, are my masters? What is my life, if I am but to bow, to agree and to obey? But I am done with this creed of corruption. I am done with the monster of ‘We,’ the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood and shame. And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this one word: ‘I’.” — Ayn Rand. A truth is a truth, in the democracy, even if ‘majoritarian’ disbelieve it. Google: Voluntaryism.

3) Tax Terrorism

Are citizens enjoying something called ‘tax choice’? Is India able to tackle the inflation in her fiscal deficit, without pauperizing the society? Why is India unfriendly to a recent cryptocurrency called Bitcoins? I see that citizens are paying three types of taxes: a) direct taxes, b) indirect taxes and c) inflation. “Inflation is taxation, without legislation”, said Milton Friedman. Keeping aside the apoplithorismosphic (fear of deflation) behaviour of RBI aside, I am forecasting that in order to superficially experience the core status, India cannot survive without tax terrorism. Tax terrorism ‘builds’ the limb of a superpower nation, but ‘breaks’ the limb of citizens. The matrix of taxation is highly complicated, now. This ‘legal robbery’ (taxation) requires a Misesian revision, rather than a Keynesian approach. India should take an immediate note of this, before promising anything related to the optimum allocation.

4) Right to self-determination

No doubt there is ‘unity in diversity’. There is no catallaxy. “Catallaxy is the order brought about by the mutual adjustment of many individual economies, in a market,” – F. A. Hayek. ‘Unity from diversity’ is the need of the hour, but unfortunately a strongest social factor called ‘casteism’ de-motivates the scope of integrity. Rather than commenting on draconian political populist programme called reservation policy, I prefer to highlight that few regions like Kashmir, Manipur, Nagaland, Bodoland, etc. are legally intimidated at gun-point (for the process of integrity), and this political action is purely antithetical to catallaxy. To become a core nation, in practice, right to self-determine persist only on constitutional papers.

5) Crony capitalism

USA, the so-called superpower, possesses the highest debt in the world, albeit printing money out of thin air, and continues to lecture about human rights and democracy. China is “rising peacefully”, but are Chinese disdaining libertarianism? Asian Tigers are unable to claim their core nation status, without yielding up liberty in exchange for regional security. Are all these [core] nation-states able to enhance ‘perfect competition’, without ‘oligarchic’structuralization of their respective markets? I believe that “mondustrial policy” is the software applicable to add more fuel to the fire, in order to attain the core nation status. Mondustrial policy is a fusion of “monetary policy” and “industrial policy”,  and it describes the Fed’s creation of new money during the 2008-2009 financial crisis in order to rescue certain firms, such as Bear Stearns and AIG, and certain markets, such as commercial paper and money-market mutual funds, “at the expense of others”, by purchasing securities and making loans. It was coined by Stanford economics professor John Taylor.

6) The Abenomics of Modi

“Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” — Lord Acton. When newly elected Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe promised new deficit spending and pedal-to-the-metal monetary inflation, the proponents of superpower theory were excited. And indeed, debasing the yen seemed to work for a few months, with analysts saying Indian policymakers should follow Japan’s lead. Does anyone else have a sense of deja vu? Monetary debasement transfers wealth within an economy by subsidizing exports at the expense of the entire economy, but this effect is delayed as the new money works its way from first receivers of the new money to later receivers. The Bank of Japan gives more yen to buyers using dollars, euros, and other currencies, but this is nothing more than a gift to foreigners that is funnelled through exporters. Because exporters are the first receivers of the new money, they buy resources at existing prices and make large profits. As most have noted, exporters have seen a surge in their share prices, but this is exactly what one should expect when government taxes all to give to the few. Eventually, the monetary debasement raises all costs and this initial benefit to exporters vanishes. Then the country is left with a depleted capital base and a higher price level. The good news is that Japan does know how to rebuild its economy. It did it the old-fashioned way seventy years ago—hard work and savings. India is set to follow this path to attain superpower status. Nevertheless, PM Narendra Modi’s slogan “minimum government, maximum governance” is economically an expropriation of the ‘acting agents’ and is an intrinsic threat to the economic liberty of all.

I would conclude by saying that ‘human action’ (acting agencies) is a purposeful behaviour, or ‘Action is will put into operation and transformed into an agency, aiming at ends and goals, is the ego’s meaningful response to stimuli and to the conditions of its environment, is a person’s conscious adjustment to the state of the universe that determines his life.’ Such paraphrases may clarify the definition given and prevent possible misinterpretations. But the definition itself is adequate and does not need complement of commentary. What superpower theorists fail to realize is that the various measures that they suggest are not capable of bringing about the beneficial results that they aim at. On the contrary, they are producing as well as sustaining, a socialist state. Proceeding step by step, on this way to superpower, it finally reaches a point in which all economic freedom of individuals has disappeared. Heard about USA’s PRISM and India’s CMS?

Facebook Comments

About the author

Jaimine Bezboznik

Jaimine Bezboznik

Very 'critical' box writer. A blasphemous writer awaiting sedition charges for making Readoo.in readers to think critically and anarchistically.

  • Rakesh Pathare

    You are trying too hard by throwing academic jargons but your logic is somewhat contradictory.
    Tax terrorism? Yes, but it is NOT what can make India a superpower anyways. India will progress only if the system is eased, bureaucracy is killed off and last traces of Nehruvian deadwood is wiped out. Similarly all other issues you mentioned, if they persist, India is not becoming a superpower anyways.

  • Thanks for writing in, Rakesh.

    First of all,

    There was not any specific intention to impress my readers with the usage of jargons. But, yes, it is just that information is a choice and many continue to not blissfully upgrade their autodidactic attitude in order to pass the bucks on writers. Read: Attention Economics.

    Second thing,

    I am unsure about my logical paradoxes, but it would be very obliging if you could highlight those contradictory premises to my notice so that I can exactly refute your coherence.

    Third thing.

    I suggest you to reread my critical point on tax terrorism from holistic view, in order to decipher the real mode of rape which is unlikely to be boldly condemned by the majoritarians because expropriation of personal wealth is now a social norm. Without this paranoia (terrorism), the system is malfunctional. Read: Catallaxy. By the way, the current Hindu government in power has logically contradicted its both budget by keeping income tax static and spurring indirect taxes for growth and development and nevertheless targeting inflation with apoplithorismosphobic RBI to impress the fooled ones.

    Fourth thing.

    Red tapism is the wealth of the healthy government. The incentive factor is niskanenian than misesian. Read: Mises v/s Niskanen. Therefore, the sustainability of the Indian bureaucracy will never wither away because of [the] infatuation deficit with free market capitalism and excessive obsession for statism.

    Kindly share my article with your peers and conduct vigilantism. Feel free to write back.

  • Amit

    The big words used by Jaimine in his article made me look them up and increased my vocabulary. So, thanks for that. Also, the grammar of the piece is pretty decent. So, it wasn’t painful to read on that front. However, the actual argument seems canned, unoriginal, inconsistent, and inapplicable. There is liberal use of verbatim from authors of a certain leaning, without critical analysis or understanding of specific conditions or examples.

    Here are some examples that I noticed:

    1. While on the one hand, the author shows disdain for nationalism, on the other hand he wants to champion “right (of NATIONS) to self-determination.” The two are inherently contradictory.

    2. Right of nations to self-determination is in itself a logically problematic right. First, let me ask if I have the right to self-determine and declare my house in Delhi as a separate nation in which rules of Delhi shouldn’t apply. If not, then when does this right become sacrosanct? Does size matter, and if it does, isn’t that tyranny of the majority (even if within a minority)? Let us take the example of Kashmiris. Let us assume that a majority of them want to self-determine as an independent nation. Do they have this right? And if so, then what about that minority of Kashmiris who want to stay with India? Do they have a right to their homes and land? If not, then isn’t the majority of the Kashmiri nation trying to impose on this minority? If their imposition is legitimate, then why isn’t the imposition of the majority of Indians, of which the Kashmiri minority wants to be a part, not legitimate? My conclusion is that right of nations to self-determination is bullshit. What we need is right of people to live with liberty, justice, peace, and dignity. Liberty entails preservation of those parts of the culture that don’t encroach upon others’ liberty. So, you can prefer apples over mangoes,wear a dhoti or a mini skirt, and speak your dialect, but you cannot stop a woman from pursuing her profession nor discriminate against her on grounds other than her abilities to perform, for example. India has the right idea that nations can co-exist within a country, and they do not need self-determination if there is a common legal framework that allows for liberal cultural diversity. EU is moving the same direction. We need to strengthen this model, not weaken it. If we let a (sub) nation within India decide its own course, it will lead to suppression of minority within that nation by giving legitimacy to the notion of nation itself. India is the ultimate un-nation nation, or rather multi-national country.

    3. The idea of nationalism as “my humans are better than your humans” is not the only idea of nationalism. It could alternatively be (a) “my laws, systems, values, are better than yours”, or (b) “I enjoy my culture, and I want to preserve it.” Nationalistic belligerence can be solely be defensive to support some notion of preservation as opposed to dominating others. Many sub-national movements within India have been about cultural and resource preservation, not domination. However, if India were to strengthen its notion and implementation of the idea of a multi-national country, the gripes of its sub-nations can be addressed, and have been addressed in most of its corners. If other countries around it follow this lead, there will actually be no strife between them, and I wouldn’t be surprised that they merge in some form for greater economic access and defense capabilities against those who do not subscribe to this liberal multi-nation union concept. EU is an example of a somewhat successful experiment in this direction.

    4. Even understanding of a term super-power is dominated by the western notion of the term. I understand super-power as a cultural entity that is powerful mainly in defending itself, but not necessarily immoral or intentionally overbearing. The author clings on to the latter quality, which is unoriginal.

    5. Ayn Rand and other individualists are seductive but unholistic philosophers (if one can call them that!) and economists who completely failed to incorporate human psychology and the evolution of it into their theories. Western science and philosophy has been pretty successful at thinking of simple entities in isolation, such as mass, chemicals, viruses. When it comes to complex entities and systems, such as economies, human behavior, human body, the same principles struggle to explain interacting webs. The author does not seem to understand the shortcomings of Western thought because the Eastern thought is not rigorous enough to provide a convincing alternative either. The term “we” is not as destructive as Ayn Rand describes. We (pardon the pun) have reached this stage of dominance over other species because we hunted, cultivated, collected, protected, and out-competed against our rival species through cooperation. We are not the strongest or the fastest. Back 10,000 years ago, probably our intelligence was of little use as an individual unit. Our faculty to read emotions, develop language and be a social being is based on our existence as tribes and large families. Even today, tribes that can continue their “pre-historic” lifestyle tend to be happy, if not happier than our urban individualisitc selves. To deny our need to bond as “we” is to deny our history, our evolution, and our psychology, Has anyone wondered why there are mass school shootings, serial killings, and depression in the West? It is most likely due to the loneliness of an individualistic philosophy and outlook towards life. However, the other extreme of this is to define “we” as a complete nation or country to which most people cannot relate nor hold accountable, as in communism.

    6. Don’t get me even started on the so-called “tax terrorism”. It is unfeasible to allocate your individual earnings to each and every public head and project that you want to fund, and for the service providers to think of who to serve. Should you decide if and how much should the fire department get of your earnings? Should the fire department open its ledgers to decide to what extend to respond to you in case you cry for their help based on how much you paid? NO system in the world is set up to do that. That is why we have division of labor where some of us decide for others what will be done with our taxes. In a democratic system, we can boot out those who do not use our tax money as per our wishes. Give an alternative if you are not convinced about this framework. Don’t just let out an intellectual fart.

    I think that you have potential, but you are not there yet in critical thinking. I hope this feedback helps.

    • Thanks for your feedback, Amit.

      As I told earlier, in this age of information, ignorance is a choice. I haven’t intentionally used jargons to impress my readers. May be the self-claimed critical thinkers like you are not upgrading yourselves with the subject, than doing “ad hominem” promptly. I am obliged to you for attempting to reply, here. Following are my endemic refutations to your concrete premises:

      1) No where I am even propagating THE theory of nation-state. If you’d read my article with the intent to understand than with the intent to reply, you would have ratiocinated that I am condemning theory of social contract as well as nationalism, in general.

      2) Before you blissfully catalyse your further ignorance, and before elaborating logical fallacies to me on delhi and kashmir, I suggest you to read some basics on homesteading, subjective theory of value, catallaxy and praxeology.

      3) Again. Please enlighten yourself on “private property rights”. Hans-Herman Hoppe and Robert Murphy are better than Lord Ganesha to intellectually comment on this point. GOOGLE the said names.

      4) Value is subjective. What exactly is your definition on “super power”, first?

      5) Tell me how “ethically” legitimate it is for 51% to decide what 49% should be doing, first. By the way, not people, only individual thinks, acts and “reasons”.

      6) When the very psyche of yours acknowledge that expropriation is moral without letting people to have an ambiance of volition, I wonder what makes you sacrosanct to comment against “others” psychology and its studies?

      Still, thanks. I hope you thoroughly read, before commenting hereafter. Please do not judge me whether I belong to the category of critical thinking or not, because I didn’t ask-ed you yet.

      • Amit

        Simple question: How do you reconcile your disdain for the notion of a nation and your championing of rights of nations to self-determination? How do you not find it contradictory?

        You say that “No where I am even propagating THE theory of nation-state.”, and I said that “While on the one hand, the author shows disdain for nationalism” So, you couldn’t even understand that I understand your disdain for nationalism. You are funny man. Take care.

        • First of all, Amit, I support natural rights. I advise you to question the epistemology of my ideas, second thing. Whereas, “right to secede” is a natural right and not a constitutional right. Since I have not assented to India’s constitution, therefore, I do not confine myself with any “mainstream” ideology. Also recommending you “again” to review my idea from heterodoxical view than obsolete consciousness. I am also NOT propagating nation’s right to self-determination as it will simply beget another cobra effect i.e. statism. As long as the society isn’t based on the principles of voluntaryism, individuals like me will face harsh charges because “I” advocate the idea of rothbardian society in a hobbesian society like India. Google: Voluntaryism.

          Please enlighten thyself!

          • Amit

            My my, such an enlightened little kid. How cute!

            Oh enlightened one pray how shalt thou voluntaryist society deal with the following:
            1. Conflicts with those who assent to the law of the land: for example, if you are a voluntarist and someone steals your stuff.
            2. Unsaid contracts: You always pay a doctor 100mg of gold (I guess that is what libertarians want to pay with, or bitcoin), when you visit her. Once you are in a lot of pain, and you go there in an emergency, and don’t ask for the price, and she doesn’t tell you the price upfront. You get the treatment, and she asks for a larger price that comes as a shock to you. How will such a situation be resolved?
            3. A voluntarist who stops being that in a frame of his life and commits a breach of contract with unspecified punitive or corrective measures?
            4. Parental abuse of a child when the child is unable to even contemplate on her contract with her parents.

            Is the answer to have clear voluntary contracts for EVERY aspect of life? I assert that civilization progressed to the point it has by reducing the cognitive burden by evolving a psychology where assent to the law of the land is automatic. Law of the land is changed, through means both nonviolent and violent, only when it becomes too burdensome to a powerful segment of the population, either by their numbers or wealth or influence or means to bring violence. The reverse philosophy that you blindly follow is an ideal pipedream where conflicts do not exist because you start with the assumptions that everyone follows the non aggression principle and has clear contracts for every damn thing. There are other ideal pipedreams too… such as everyone works for the society, no matter how large that society is, and everything is shared equally, aka communism. You are just on the opposite end of this spectrum.

  • Thanks for replying, Amit.

    Thank you for complimenting too and I can vouch that piles of enlightenment have been decoded by you from this post.

    Anyways,

    1) Robert Murphy, Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, etc. have coherently answered to all the said mechanisms and issues pertaining to this genre of society. You may also read my proffer on “privatization of roads”, here: http://www.notbeinggoverned.com/who-will-build-the-roads/

    2) There is no such thing as “unsaid” contract, in the dictionary of libertarianism. May you’ve misread the premise. Bitcoin isn’t on par with gold and money, first of all. It is cryptocurrency. If your question is on medical arbitration, then it is a diff. case altogether. Your premise on such an event is incoherent and can also be restricted to other modes of transaction.

    3) You already know the answer. But, still, you may review this link: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html AND http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html

    4) Murray Rothbard precisely dealt here: http://www.l4l.org/library/chilroth.html AND http://mises.org/library/children-and-rights

    Let me remind you that “civilization” commenced due to the ambiance of liberty. If you’re crediting government, then shouldn’t you be also reading my another piece: http://yuvarevolution.org/give-freedom-shut-fk/

    Your static analysis on land requires extreme inquisitiveness, as I am not comprehending your statement “law of the land is automatic”. It seems you’ve not read all those concepts that I recommended in my previous reply. Never mind. You can do, if agog. Second thing, your so-called refutation of my ideology is not impartial. How do you expect my conjectural idea to function, when your obeisance to the statism catalyses your confirmation bias against mine? I am not a communist, by the way. I plead you to not argue for arguing sake with me, or else I shalt be unreplying to your next queries.

    Have a nice weekend!

  • Pingback: Namaste, I am from #BanChod » Readoo.in()

  • Pingback: Happy Dependence Day, India - The Common Indian()

  • Pingback: ccn2785xdnwdc5bwedsj4wsndb()

  • Pingback: xcmwnv54ec8tnv5cev5jfdcnv5()

  • Pingback: xntnctawc4n7nangrscfzsdfgf()

  • Pingback: Clora Filarecki()

  • Pingback: quick fast free instagram followers()

Interesting updates directly to your inbox!

Join our mailing list to receive weekly updates from our website.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Follow us on social media for interesting updates and support us!