Must Read Books Published Recently

I like reading books like talking or walking with a close friend. Reading books which interest you are more pleasurable than anything else. It is the book that gives the world view of matter that matters man and nature, other things in between.

In the current education system in government schools in India, is such that they do not deal with books which has world views and helps them only in their jobs!

Reading books while thinking in authors views is like watching birds flying at fifty thousand feet height from the ground.

The following are some of the interesting books which I have come crossed recently, though it has been long time, five years of gaps reading books seriously.

By virtue of observations, the truths are simple but detailed in books- the ways and means of it.

Just forget the title of the books, dive into the content of it!

• agriculture is not merely an occupation in India. It is a way of life and must be protected and preserved at all costs. 

• young people in southern states, or in the north-eastern states, may have different perspectives, and this could be a very interesting subject for further exploration

• I gave Mahatma Gandhi’s example that he never went to court for his release and insisted that political matters had to be dealt with only politically. 

• Government cannot change the nation; selfless people change it

• There is a detailed narration of certain clusters as in Tiruppur (hosiery), Sivakasi (crackers) and Surat for diamonds. He also refers to what he characterises as Vaishyavisation of India or the morphing of backward castes into the business class.

• The poor Raghul Gandhi who did not know his job want to know badly others job to do good

• Yengde provides an unflinchingly honest account of divisions within the Dalit community itself-from their internal caste divisions to the conduct of elite Dalits and their tokenized forms of modern-day untouchability-

Read, well

Whether you like it or not, I strongly believe that one has to read between the lines to do things different in musings of once own. I simply follow as a matter of fact that unless you have something different to say or argue its better to keep mum and watch what's going around you. There are very good articles in today's newspaper/blogs etc. Here are some list:

Access to loos: Amartya Sen’s views fail the smell test

Let’s Shake Up the Social Sciences

Narendra Modi may end up making the Congress scion look less ineffective

Can China change course?

Barking up the wrong tree

The untold farm rebound story

"I said I too loved Hindi, which is my mother tongue, but that did not mean I should behave like a fool."

It does matter whoa you are!

When Kaushik Basu, chief economic adviser to the Finance Ministry, called for a certain class of bribes to be legalised, ‘civil society' simply shut its eyes and brain. The National Campaign for Peoples' Right to Information — a flag bearer of civil society — maintained a studied, shameful silence. Professor Basu was not pushing this idea in his private blog. He put it up on a Government of India website. Yet, thundering anchors who ‘skewer' politicians in television interviews uttered not a squeak. Had this insane idea come from a Ramdev, or even a Lalu Prasad, and not from a certified PLU member, imagine the fun the media would have had trashing it.

The Beast G, back Ahead

Some excerpts from a review article by Francis Fukuyama on new edition of F A Hayek's 1960s book The Constitution of Liberty. The current President of Mont Pelerin Society is Prof.Kenneth Minogue. He said to me (during the February's MPS Asia Regional Meeting which I attended) that this book is Prof.Minogue's favourate and the best among Hayek's books!! 

• In an age when many on the right are worried that the Obama administration’s reform of health care is leading us toward socialism, Hayek’s warnings from the mid-20th century about society’s slide toward despotism, and his principled defense of a minimal state, have found strong political resonance. 

• Unlike Beck, Hayek was a very serious thinker, and it would be too bad if the current association between the two led us to dismiss his thought. Hayek always had problems getting the respect he deserved; even when he was awarded the Nobel in economic science in 1974, the awards committee paired him with the left-leaning economist Gunnar Myrdal. With the passage of time, however, many of the ideas expressed in “The Constitution of Liberty” have become broadly accepted by economists — e.g., that labor unions create a privileged labor sector at the expense of the nonunionized; that rent control reduces the supply of housing; or that agricultural subsidies lower the general welfare and create a bonanza for politicians. His view that ambitious ­government-sponsored programs often produce unintended consequences served as an intellectual underpinning of the Reagan-Thatcher revolution of the 1980s and ’90s. Now that the aspirations of that revolution are being revived by Tea Partiers and other conservatives, it is useful to review some of the intellectual foundations on which it rested.

• Hayek’s skepticism about the effects of “big government” are rooted in an epistemological observation summarized in a 1945 article called “The Uses of Knowledge in Society.” There he argued that most of the knowledge in a modern economy was local in nature, and hence unavailable to central planners. The brilliance of a market economy was that it allocated resources through the decentralized decisions of a myriad of buyers and sellers who interacted on the basis of their own particular knowledge. The market was a form of “spontaneous order,” which was far superior to planned societies based on the hubris of Cartesian rationalism. He and his fellow Austrian Ludwig von Mises used this argument against Joseph Schumpeter in a famous debate in the 1930s and ’40s over whether socialism or capitalism offered a more efficient economic system. In hindsight, Hayek clearly emerged the winner.

How does sentiment of Fraternity of fellow feeling arise?

J. S. Mill says that this sentiment is a natural sentiment:

• "The social state is at once so natural, so necessary, and so habitual to man, that, except in some unusual circumstances or by an effort of voluntary abstraction he never conceives himself otherwise than as a member of a body; and this association is riveted more and more, as mankind are further removed from the state of savage independence. Any condition, therefore, which is essential to a state of society, becomes more and more an inseparable part of every person's conception of the state of things which he is born into, and which is the destiny of a human being. Now, society between human beings, except in the relation of master and slave, is manifestly impossible on any other footing than that the interests of all are to be consulted. Society between equals can only exist on the understanding that the interests of all are to be regarded equally. And since in all states of civilisation, every person, except an absolute monarch, has equals, every one is obliged to live on these terms with some body; and in every age some advance is made towards a state in which it will be impossible to live permanently on other terms with any body. In this way people grow up unable to conceive as possible to them a state of total disregard of other people's interests."

Catallactics matters

Sauvik has great piece Catallaxy, key to an Open Society in Mint today.

Some excerpts:

• Yet, community is a bogus value in a market society, which, in order to succeed, must be urban and cosmopolitan. Community makes sense in a village comprising one caste or in a small, exclusive tribe where everyone knows everyone else. It makes no sense in a city where individuals operate, peacefully trading with complete strangers. For such a society, the appropriate political value is “catallaxy”, which means an open trading arena. But first, a little about this word.

• In the 20th century, Austrian economists alone used the word “catallactics” to denote the science of exchange. In Ludwig von Mises’ Human Action(1949), the section dealing with traditional economic issues is titled “Catallactics”. Derived from the Greek word for “exchange”, Mises mentions that catallactics was first used by the British economist and theologian Bishop Whately in the previous century, which means the word was well known to the classical political economists. Mises’ student from his Vienna years, Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek, confessed to having “fallen in love with this word”, for which he discovered two additional meanings that the ancient Greeks ascribed to it: first, “to welcome into the community”; and second, “to turn from enemy into friend”. These connotations of the word indicate its importance to an Open Society.
  
  
• Hayek defines community as “a common recognition of the same rules”. Such rules can be religious or tribal—or they can be secular. In an open catallaxy, only one rule need be recognized by all: private property. Happily enough, as Hayek also points out, this rule has been the cornerstone of open markets for millennia. Whenever people exchange, they exchange properties. Thus, most trade takes place without legal paperwork of any kind. Hayek said that the rule of private property operates in all of us “between instinct and reason”. We follow the property rule without knowing why. We have given up the instinct to plunder, to snatch and grab—but we don’t know why.