No one ever played on that board

Monopoly, Milton Friedman’s Way

Threesomes

Among others, one has to be careful with three persons in the world, particularly, what these three persons say in their capacity, and act about it. These are the law maker, central banker, and more importantly economist working with law maker, central bank and the government.

Some time the economist who is working with the government say uncommon thing but the media always ignores because that is important to them!

The current Chief Economic Adviser in the Ministry of Finance said “one uncommon thing” in an interview to Indian Express but it seems that the persons who were there in the interaction could not notice what the Adviser said. The Adviser said:

“..an economy cannot have more than one money-creating authority.”

It is simple as well as a complex to understand. About the “money creating authority”, understanding in theory in one thing and thinking about applicability is another thing. Did any one asked him why not? No one!! But what is worth to ponder is the following:

Is there a country in the world, where there is ‘more than one creating authority?’ Close to home whether India had ever such system in her history?

I am certainly sure to answer these questions in near future!!

A(mbedkar) means D(alit) not C(apitalism)-WHY?

Friends,

I am unable to post often in this blog (which I loved) due to many responsibility landed on me, my apology for that!!

This is the 10^th year living with the word Economics than my life!! I had great opportunity to study the history of Indian economic thought subject during my B A and M. A Degrees (both in Economics) I am thrilled to dig out more than many economic historian did for many their life time!! I have also met many great economists and people.

I am now more inclined to think that most of them did what they thought is right but ended up producing not only  wrong ideas, but very dangerous ideas, some are even doing right now, to whom the Indian society think a big thinker, but the reality seems to be otherwise.

So, what I am trying to convey you is that I will be posting very limited post hereafter. But will write more on what I have read in the past 10 years on various issues for publications by different agencies.

One of them is the Ambedkar’s economics, is there anything like that? Of course what he wrote during his early career as well as during his higher education is the one which I call it as Ambedkar Economics. More essentially, the core principles on which he had worked of course after deep thinking through it.

 What went wrong with his ideas were mostly the people who took or understood wrongly is the long trend continues which have become stone-age myth now, but not that easy to break! But let me try!!

One peculiar things happens with Ambedkar free market economics is that the people who call themselves as follower of Ambedkar actually ended up misusing his writings, mis-quoting etc.

The current situation is such that the movement you say the word Ambedkar, suddenly people will think that he was Dalit icon etc, I have no problem with that. My problem with them is the word Capitalism which he cherished very much but denied saying he did not utter anything!! for hell reasons which is not quite known!!   

My question is let’s repeat the title of this post WHY A(mbedkar) means D(alit) not C(apitalism)

So, thanks for being patient!!! 

No Planning, please

Centralization is of course particularly dangerous where governance is poor but even when governance is not a serious problem, centralization is likely to be inefficient because bureaucratic decision-making, subject to multiple levels of accountability, is inherently sluggish, rule bound and unlikely to promote risk-taking. It suffers from greater inertia being less likely to acknowledge mistakes and change course when evidence begins to suggest that it should.

Chinese Democracy

Nitin Pai has a nice piece in today’s BS exploring the possibility of China becoming a democracy, but it seems to be unlikely to change its attitude towards India even it become. Remember that in this blog I have posted in this January what Prof Kishore Mahbubani said in his address in New Delhi that Chinese Government is studying the democratic models around the world.

He writes: 

• It is harder for democracies to doggedly pursue the quest for power. As we know too well, there is often a disconnect between what is popular and what is necessary. Democracies are left with the complex, time-consuming task of reconciling this difference, often at the cost of losing opportunities to maximise national power. Authoritarian states, on the other hand, are less inhibited.

Finally at Mises Institute!!!

I have not able to post any update on this blog for quite some time. The reason is simply that my research paper on liberalism and free banking ideas of Dr. B.R Ambedkar has been selected for the presentation in the Austrian Scholars Conference 2011.

I am now here to present my paper. It was great challenge for me to finally reach the Mises Institute for the Conference. Many great people have helped me in every single thing to make it this trip successful. This is my first visit to United States of America. Indeed, I am greatly thankful to all those who have helped me. I will write in detail about their individual name when I am back from the Conference.