Among the enemies of freedom are those who would impede the protection of public safety and liberty on behalf of criminals. The left has several reasons to desire that criminals and others who impede the freedom of law abiding citizens do so with impunity. Criminal violence and thuggery serve as metaphors to the left's design on violent power. Criminals do today what the left dreams of doing tomorrow. Because the left believes that wealth can be obtained only by theft, it believes that criminals are as moral as an inventor, entrepreneurial risk taker, or someone who saves money instead of stealing it. The state functions as a criminal thief via its taxation powers, and the left takes pleasure in this. Protection of criminals serves to destabilize society, making freedom difficult to defend. The left desires the destabilizatio of free society so it can install slave-societies like Cambodia, China, Cuba and the Soviet Union.
I just received this message and video from Jim Crum:
>Damn straight! My guess is that either the ACLU or the Sothern Poverty Law Center are involved. No one else is that stupid to find moral confusion in this. Let’s hope for the officer’s sake that the bad guy was not also a transgendered illegal immigrant, then hoo-boy! Watch out!
Showing posts with label left-wing politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label left-wing politics. Show all posts
Friday, January 16, 2009
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
The Left's Plan to Stop Terrorism?
In his book The West and the Rest (ISI Books) Roger Scruton contrasts the evolution of the European nation state, attributable to such historical developments as Roman Law, where "strangers are expressly included in the web of obligation", with tribal rule and theocracies. Scruton reminds us of the importance of public spirit to democracy.
One of the interesting questions that is facing America is whether it is capable of facing up to a realistic military threat, or whether the media and liberal establishment are committed enough to anti-Americanism and a chimerical belief in world citizenship that they will ultimately succeed in tearing apart the nation by crippling our sense of citizenship.
For instance, although there has been considerable criticism of the Iraqi War, I have not heard any suggestions from the left as to how to stop terrorism. Instead, there seems to be an implied argument that terrorism does not exist, or that radical Islam poses no threat. This is easily refutable, ignorant nonsense.
So if liberals argue that the Iraqi War is wrong strategically, the question must be what is the liberal plan to stop terrorism? Indeed, a failure of the Bush administration has been to soft-peddle this obviously important objective (of fighting terrorism via the Iraqi War) to the point of denying it.
I do not believe that we are worse off with regard to fighting terrorism because of the Iraqi War. It might be arguable that the loss of American life isn't worth the strategic accomplishments of the Iraqi War. However to prove this would require facts that do not appear in the New York Times or elsewhere.
Al Qaeda recently issued a statement that it has 12,000 fighters in Iraq. If we were not accomplishing important strategic goals there, why would al Qaeda be deploying so much of its resources to Iraq? It would be nice to know everything, like the folks at the Times, Seymour Hersh, Bill Maher, Michael Moore and the long list of left-biased journalists and academics. Unfortunately, they are unschooled buffoons with respect to this question, and their views are, well, dumb.
Many liberal and left-wing Americans delude themselves about the nature of the terrorist Islamic threat. This is not new for the left, as the Stalinist left aligned itself with Hitler in 1939-1941, and Walter Duranty of the New York Times promised us that all was well in Russia during the Stalinist 1930s. Similarly, Arthur Hayes Sulzberger recommended to his Jewish relative that he remain in Germany in 1938. The Ochs-Sulzbergers have a long history of making idealistic recommendations that harm others. Now this crew assures us that Bernard Lewis is wrong, and there is not a thing to be concerned about. So what that Christians are lynched in Palestine; that Christians are lynched in Turkey; that Christians are murdered in Nigeria; that there is an ongoing Islamic-Christian conflict in the Phillipines; that there is a five-decade-old Islamic-Hindu conflict in India; that there is an Islamic-Russian conflict in Chechnya; that the Arab-Israeli conflict is six decades old; that we have been repeatedly bloodied by Islamic attacks? So what? Islam is a peaceful religion and anyone who disagrees is biased.
It may not be that liberal factionalism has prevailed. The most interesting race in the recent election was in Connecticut, where the anti-war Ned Lamont lost to a pro-war former Democrat, Joe Lieberman. Yet, the ceaseless anti-American propaganda coming from the left-dominated media is bound to take a toll.
The liberal-left's factional anti-Americanism can be seen in its attacks on Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. The media demonized Rumsfeld, but the liberal borg's arguments lacked grounding in fact or theory and contradicted parallel arguments that it had made about Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara in the 1960s.
For the past 25 years I have taught my students David Halberstam's version of the management errors that Robert McNamara made during the Vietnam War that appear in Halberstam's book The Best and the Brightest. Halberstam argued that McNamara had allowed the military to manipulate him into sending excessive numbers of troops given the nature of the Vietnamese insurgency. In other words, Halberstam argued that McNamara was too willing to be manipulated by the military. This is a valid argument if fourth generation warfare necessitates a complex of propaganda, political and surgically targeted actions for which the military is unprepared.
Now, the media's criticism of Rumsfeld is that Rumsfeld did not listen to the military and so failed to send more troops.
In short, I don't think the criticisms can be correct because they are equally ungrounded, contradictory criticisms. If McNamara has been criticized for being gullible (and establishing statistical decision systems that did not screen for accurate inputs and so listened to a biased military too much), then why would Rumsfeld be criticized for not listening to an unbiased military? What theory or body of knowledge do the Times, New Yorker, and television networks rely on to make such criticisms? What delusions lead them to imagine that they know what they are talking about?
The other criticism of Rumsfeld that also strikes me as nonsensical is that he encouraged torture at Abu Gharaib and Guantanimo Bay. In the January 2005 issue of City Journal Heather McDonald published an analysis of the left media's torture accusations and thoroughly debunked them. Yet, the media has not addressed McDonald's facts.
The main vision of the Iraqi War ought to be that to stop terrorism a conflict in a Sunni nation was necessary and that democracy might be installed that will institutionalize resistance to terrorism. However, the main point is to stop terrorism. It might be that the Iraqi War can be criticized, but it does seem to me that, if al Qaeda has sent 12,000 troops to Iraq and is attempting to base an insurgency in Anbar (opposed by Sunni tribes), the United States has pursued an intelligent strategy and needs to grapple with the insurgency using fourth generation warfare, not traditional military warfare.
Perhaps the left and the media disagree. Then it is up to the left and the media to inform us as to what their plan to stop terrorism is. Do nothing and let them explode dirty bombs? Please tell us, Seymour Hersh and Thomas Friedman. What is your plan to stop al Qaeda? If the left, the Democrats, Seymour Hersh or Thomas Friedman don't have a plan, then the question becomes: why are they so unhappy with the Bush administration?
One possible reason, which is probably true of the far left, is that there is hope that America will be harmed. Many on the far left are outright anti-American and aim to sabotage legitimate attempts to stop terrorism because they, far left Democrats, dislike America.
Because of the danger of faction; and because of the threat that the extreme left potentially poses, conservatives must insist that the left explain: What is the left's plan to stop Islamic terrorism?
One of the interesting questions that is facing America is whether it is capable of facing up to a realistic military threat, or whether the media and liberal establishment are committed enough to anti-Americanism and a chimerical belief in world citizenship that they will ultimately succeed in tearing apart the nation by crippling our sense of citizenship.
For instance, although there has been considerable criticism of the Iraqi War, I have not heard any suggestions from the left as to how to stop terrorism. Instead, there seems to be an implied argument that terrorism does not exist, or that radical Islam poses no threat. This is easily refutable, ignorant nonsense.
So if liberals argue that the Iraqi War is wrong strategically, the question must be what is the liberal plan to stop terrorism? Indeed, a failure of the Bush administration has been to soft-peddle this obviously important objective (of fighting terrorism via the Iraqi War) to the point of denying it.
I do not believe that we are worse off with regard to fighting terrorism because of the Iraqi War. It might be arguable that the loss of American life isn't worth the strategic accomplishments of the Iraqi War. However to prove this would require facts that do not appear in the New York Times or elsewhere.
Al Qaeda recently issued a statement that it has 12,000 fighters in Iraq. If we were not accomplishing important strategic goals there, why would al Qaeda be deploying so much of its resources to Iraq? It would be nice to know everything, like the folks at the Times, Seymour Hersh, Bill Maher, Michael Moore and the long list of left-biased journalists and academics. Unfortunately, they are unschooled buffoons with respect to this question, and their views are, well, dumb.
Many liberal and left-wing Americans delude themselves about the nature of the terrorist Islamic threat. This is not new for the left, as the Stalinist left aligned itself with Hitler in 1939-1941, and Walter Duranty of the New York Times promised us that all was well in Russia during the Stalinist 1930s. Similarly, Arthur Hayes Sulzberger recommended to his Jewish relative that he remain in Germany in 1938. The Ochs-Sulzbergers have a long history of making idealistic recommendations that harm others. Now this crew assures us that Bernard Lewis is wrong, and there is not a thing to be concerned about. So what that Christians are lynched in Palestine; that Christians are lynched in Turkey; that Christians are murdered in Nigeria; that there is an ongoing Islamic-Christian conflict in the Phillipines; that there is a five-decade-old Islamic-Hindu conflict in India; that there is an Islamic-Russian conflict in Chechnya; that the Arab-Israeli conflict is six decades old; that we have been repeatedly bloodied by Islamic attacks? So what? Islam is a peaceful religion and anyone who disagrees is biased.
It may not be that liberal factionalism has prevailed. The most interesting race in the recent election was in Connecticut, where the anti-war Ned Lamont lost to a pro-war former Democrat, Joe Lieberman. Yet, the ceaseless anti-American propaganda coming from the left-dominated media is bound to take a toll.
The liberal-left's factional anti-Americanism can be seen in its attacks on Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. The media demonized Rumsfeld, but the liberal borg's arguments lacked grounding in fact or theory and contradicted parallel arguments that it had made about Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara in the 1960s.
For the past 25 years I have taught my students David Halberstam's version of the management errors that Robert McNamara made during the Vietnam War that appear in Halberstam's book The Best and the Brightest. Halberstam argued that McNamara had allowed the military to manipulate him into sending excessive numbers of troops given the nature of the Vietnamese insurgency. In other words, Halberstam argued that McNamara was too willing to be manipulated by the military. This is a valid argument if fourth generation warfare necessitates a complex of propaganda, political and surgically targeted actions for which the military is unprepared.
Now, the media's criticism of Rumsfeld is that Rumsfeld did not listen to the military and so failed to send more troops.
In short, I don't think the criticisms can be correct because they are equally ungrounded, contradictory criticisms. If McNamara has been criticized for being gullible (and establishing statistical decision systems that did not screen for accurate inputs and so listened to a biased military too much), then why would Rumsfeld be criticized for not listening to an unbiased military? What theory or body of knowledge do the Times, New Yorker, and television networks rely on to make such criticisms? What delusions lead them to imagine that they know what they are talking about?
The other criticism of Rumsfeld that also strikes me as nonsensical is that he encouraged torture at Abu Gharaib and Guantanimo Bay. In the January 2005 issue of City Journal Heather McDonald published an analysis of the left media's torture accusations and thoroughly debunked them. Yet, the media has not addressed McDonald's facts.
The main vision of the Iraqi War ought to be that to stop terrorism a conflict in a Sunni nation was necessary and that democracy might be installed that will institutionalize resistance to terrorism. However, the main point is to stop terrorism. It might be that the Iraqi War can be criticized, but it does seem to me that, if al Qaeda has sent 12,000 troops to Iraq and is attempting to base an insurgency in Anbar (opposed by Sunni tribes), the United States has pursued an intelligent strategy and needs to grapple with the insurgency using fourth generation warfare, not traditional military warfare.
Perhaps the left and the media disagree. Then it is up to the left and the media to inform us as to what their plan to stop terrorism is. Do nothing and let them explode dirty bombs? Please tell us, Seymour Hersh and Thomas Friedman. What is your plan to stop al Qaeda? If the left, the Democrats, Seymour Hersh or Thomas Friedman don't have a plan, then the question becomes: why are they so unhappy with the Bush administration?
One possible reason, which is probably true of the far left, is that there is hope that America will be harmed. Many on the far left are outright anti-American and aim to sabotage legitimate attempts to stop terrorism because they, far left Democrats, dislike America.
Because of the danger of faction; and because of the threat that the extreme left potentially poses, conservatives must insist that the left explain: What is the left's plan to stop Islamic terrorism?
The Failure of American Public Debate
The New York Sun reports that various politicians and pundits have been offering pessimistic assessments about the Iraqi conflict. Henry Kissinger, the foreign policy expert from the 1970s and 1980s who did not predict the important emergence of Islamic terrorism in the millenium, advises us that the war in Iraq is not winnable. The same Sun article quotes John McCain as saying that "there's only one thing worse (than deploying more troops), and that is defeat." Today, the Sun quotes Senator Obama of Illinois as saying that "a substantial number of American troops ought to be withdrawn" from Iraq. Thomas Friedman of the Times (Paid access, November 8) insists that the Bush team arrived in Iraq with too few troops (ignoring that, like Friedman, the Bush team was mostly in the United States and that it relied on the US military, specifically Tommy Franks, to project troop strength). Friedman, bombastic and ill-informed as always, suggests either reshaping Iraq into a federation (bad) or leaving Iraq by a fixed date (worse).
What is fascinating about all of these analyses is the willingness to make strong or absolute assertions without the benefit of a falsifiable theory or a body of empirical evidence that would point to the viability of one theory over another. Rather, pundits like Friedman and Kissinger and politicians like Obama and McCain (with whom I viscerally agree) pretend to know what they are talking about.
What is revealing about the discussion about Iraq is not just the failure of US intelligence and strategic planners (on both the intelligence and military sides) to anticipate and devise an updated strategy that would anticipate the diverse tribal and religious differences in the Arab world and methods for effectively handling terrorism, but the degree to which the politicians, press and media continue to remain uninformed. The arguments being made in the public press suggest a failure of American public debate and an unwillingness to learn.
In particular, Kissinger, McCain, Friedman, Obama and their ilk have had many years to conceptualize an intelligent response to terrorism and to develop a method of proactively responding to strikes like 9/11. Yet, no ideas are forthcoming. Instead, given their assessment that the American military has failed to respond competently (a point concerning which they offer no information and are apparently utterly uninformed), the "pundits" and politicians carp critically but offer no body of falsifiable theory nor any empirical evidence for their endless complaints and criticisms. Those of us who have other occupations (I work in the human resource management field) are forced to spend our valuable time reading about Iraq because those who are paid to do so have done such an incoherent and, plainly put, stupid job.
For example, consider Kissinger's claim that the war in Iraq is not winnable. This is obviously false. We can win any war by redefining it as a total war and killing the entire country of Iraq. I am not suggesting this as an option. However, the use of our moral restraint as propaganda to attack us is a tactic that ought not be permitted to work indefinitely. Perhaps total war ought to be an option against population groupings that support terrorism. I'm not sure why saying it isn't is "realpolitik". Because Kissinger says so? But Kissinger hasn't come up with a solution to terrorism, so what does he really have to offer? Is he the kind of 17th century physician who used leeches to bleed patients? I suspect that the entire field of foreign affairs has this quality of quackery. So why is the public taking the quacks seriously?
The Iraqi war is certainly winnable. The question is which path maximizes the US's interests. One thing that I am certain of: defining the war as not winnable is not in the US's interests. Kissinger ought to reframe his analysis to make it more precise. Someone who has failed to grasp the nature of or project methods to resolve the terrorist assault on America, like Kissinger, ought to be busy revising his theories and doing some basic reading instead of offering advice that has proven unsuccessful in the past. Yet, I do not hear anything new.
It seems evident that in dealing with a multiplicity of terrorist groups the concept of winning and losing that held true through World War II may no longer apply. The question is, how to convince the people of Iraq to support a moderate government and how to convince them to take action to stop terrorist violence. This might involve securing control of specific territories, providing economic support in those areas, propagandizing to the remaining areas, targeting specific terrorists and eliminating immigration here to the United States. There are likely other approaches. One might be total war.
But we are not hearing about them. What we are hearing is that the US's media, press and politicians lack ideas.
What is fascinating about all of these analyses is the willingness to make strong or absolute assertions without the benefit of a falsifiable theory or a body of empirical evidence that would point to the viability of one theory over another. Rather, pundits like Friedman and Kissinger and politicians like Obama and McCain (with whom I viscerally agree) pretend to know what they are talking about.
What is revealing about the discussion about Iraq is not just the failure of US intelligence and strategic planners (on both the intelligence and military sides) to anticipate and devise an updated strategy that would anticipate the diverse tribal and religious differences in the Arab world and methods for effectively handling terrorism, but the degree to which the politicians, press and media continue to remain uninformed. The arguments being made in the public press suggest a failure of American public debate and an unwillingness to learn.
In particular, Kissinger, McCain, Friedman, Obama and their ilk have had many years to conceptualize an intelligent response to terrorism and to develop a method of proactively responding to strikes like 9/11. Yet, no ideas are forthcoming. Instead, given their assessment that the American military has failed to respond competently (a point concerning which they offer no information and are apparently utterly uninformed), the "pundits" and politicians carp critically but offer no body of falsifiable theory nor any empirical evidence for their endless complaints and criticisms. Those of us who have other occupations (I work in the human resource management field) are forced to spend our valuable time reading about Iraq because those who are paid to do so have done such an incoherent and, plainly put, stupid job.
For example, consider Kissinger's claim that the war in Iraq is not winnable. This is obviously false. We can win any war by redefining it as a total war and killing the entire country of Iraq. I am not suggesting this as an option. However, the use of our moral restraint as propaganda to attack us is a tactic that ought not be permitted to work indefinitely. Perhaps total war ought to be an option against population groupings that support terrorism. I'm not sure why saying it isn't is "realpolitik". Because Kissinger says so? But Kissinger hasn't come up with a solution to terrorism, so what does he really have to offer? Is he the kind of 17th century physician who used leeches to bleed patients? I suspect that the entire field of foreign affairs has this quality of quackery. So why is the public taking the quacks seriously?
The Iraqi war is certainly winnable. The question is which path maximizes the US's interests. One thing that I am certain of: defining the war as not winnable is not in the US's interests. Kissinger ought to reframe his analysis to make it more precise. Someone who has failed to grasp the nature of or project methods to resolve the terrorist assault on America, like Kissinger, ought to be busy revising his theories and doing some basic reading instead of offering advice that has proven unsuccessful in the past. Yet, I do not hear anything new.
It seems evident that in dealing with a multiplicity of terrorist groups the concept of winning and losing that held true through World War II may no longer apply. The question is, how to convince the people of Iraq to support a moderate government and how to convince them to take action to stop terrorist violence. This might involve securing control of specific territories, providing economic support in those areas, propagandizing to the remaining areas, targeting specific terrorists and eliminating immigration here to the United States. There are likely other approaches. One might be total war.
But we are not hearing about them. What we are hearing is that the US's media, press and politicians lack ideas.
Enron and the End of Post Modernism
The notion that reality is socially constructed; that ethics are local or conventional; that power rather than truth has authenticity; and that the will to power is the ultimate arbiter of factuality has never been a very convincing point of view. Indeed, that this perspective has gained legitimacy in academia suggests a decline of standards and of competence. Happily, the notion that reality is socially constructed was debunked once and for all in 2001, in the form of Enron's bankruptcy.
The management of Enron attempted to socially construct the firm's legitimacy. It ignored the social context of ethics, pretending that its own, localized definition of ethics was enough and that the public image rather than the substance was sufficient to achieve ethical virtue.
Enron did not really earn money and was not a profit-maximizing firm. It pretended to earn money. Its profits were socially constructed, and Wall Street concurred with this social construction of profit maximization. Enron's approach to rejecting reality in favor of social construction is consistent with English departments' arguments for conventionalism and the will to power. It worked well with business school academics, who touted Enron's creativity, and it also worked well with stock analysts, in part becuse they were graduates of the same business schools and in part because they were told that if they didn't play along they'd be removed. Much as the post-modern left is suppressive and totalitarian, so the employees of Enron were subjected to tight, authoritarian social control that ensured that "politically incorrect" views were inhibited.
Enron had all of the pathologies of the post-modern left. It was narcissistic. It was paranoid. And it was sociopathic. It claimed to be ethical but it was manipulative. It claimed to democratically care about its employees, but its goal was to harm and steal from them. Indeed, Enron claimed to create a revolutionary form of organization based on "asking why?", an assent to the post-modern left's claim to egalitarianism and skepticism. But of course, like the post-modern left, Enron was a fraud.
The post-modern left claims that power is more important than reason, and alas, Enron was a power company. Its chairman, Ken Lay, sought political power in Washington rather than focusing on management of his firm. Post modernism claims that social construction defines our perception, and indeed, social perception defined Enron's success which was not real for at least several years before its public demise. Enron rejected reason, much as post-modernism rejects reason, and its managers believed that they could construct a perpetual pyramid scheme based on social belief rather than truth. They were wrong. Enron failed, just as any social scheme that the post-modern left advocates will fail.
Like the New Left, Enron fell because it had no empirical support. The belief in power is not the same as empirically-derived rules of law. Substantive truth will win out over popular delusion, and if popular delusion, the ideas of the left, prevail, then our society will die. Liberalism and the new left avoid rather than address reality.
The management of Enron attempted to socially construct the firm's legitimacy. It ignored the social context of ethics, pretending that its own, localized definition of ethics was enough and that the public image rather than the substance was sufficient to achieve ethical virtue.
Enron did not really earn money and was not a profit-maximizing firm. It pretended to earn money. Its profits were socially constructed, and Wall Street concurred with this social construction of profit maximization. Enron's approach to rejecting reality in favor of social construction is consistent with English departments' arguments for conventionalism and the will to power. It worked well with business school academics, who touted Enron's creativity, and it also worked well with stock analysts, in part becuse they were graduates of the same business schools and in part because they were told that if they didn't play along they'd be removed. Much as the post-modern left is suppressive and totalitarian, so the employees of Enron were subjected to tight, authoritarian social control that ensured that "politically incorrect" views were inhibited.
Enron had all of the pathologies of the post-modern left. It was narcissistic. It was paranoid. And it was sociopathic. It claimed to be ethical but it was manipulative. It claimed to democratically care about its employees, but its goal was to harm and steal from them. Indeed, Enron claimed to create a revolutionary form of organization based on "asking why?", an assent to the post-modern left's claim to egalitarianism and skepticism. But of course, like the post-modern left, Enron was a fraud.
The post-modern left claims that power is more important than reason, and alas, Enron was a power company. Its chairman, Ken Lay, sought political power in Washington rather than focusing on management of his firm. Post modernism claims that social construction defines our perception, and indeed, social perception defined Enron's success which was not real for at least several years before its public demise. Enron rejected reason, much as post-modernism rejects reason, and its managers believed that they could construct a perpetual pyramid scheme based on social belief rather than truth. They were wrong. Enron failed, just as any social scheme that the post-modern left advocates will fail.
Like the New Left, Enron fell because it had no empirical support. The belief in power is not the same as empirically-derived rules of law. Substantive truth will win out over popular delusion, and if popular delusion, the ideas of the left, prevail, then our society will die. Liberalism and the new left avoid rather than address reality.
Compassionate Socialism Causes Child Starvation in India
Despite much of the ballyhoo about Indian privatization, India remains a primarily socialist country, and the socialism has resulted in massive child hunger. The Associated Press reports via Yahoo! that 46 percent of Indian children are underweight. The article attributes this to rural versus urban living, but the real problem is the crowding out effect of above-market wages to public sector employees. After six decades of compassionate socialism in India, India's children are hungry.
According to Answers.com, "India followed a primarily socialist economic path between 1947 and 1980." After 1980, India began to privatize some industry, and the nation's economy began to grow. By 2003, India had increased the percentage of private sector employment to below 35%. According to a chart located here 180 million Indian workers work for the public sector while only 80 million work for the private sector. However, this actually reflects a trend toward the private sector. India's recent growth is due to the transfer of employment to the private sector.
The problem of an employment crowding out effect is serious. Writing for the World Bank, Glinskaya and Lokshin find that public sector wage premiums range between 62 and 102 percent over the private-formal sector and between 164 percent and 259 percent over the informal-casual sector and that "India has one of the largest differentials between wages of public workers and workers in the formal private sector" in the world.
The high wages in the public sector, which still dominates the economy, reduces demand for employment. The result is that those who have primary sector jobs are better off, while those who do not go hungry.
Six decades of compassionate socialism has resulted in starvation in India. Unlike New York, Indians cannot flee to Colorado or Nevada. They are stuck in a backward, socialist society.
According to Answers.com, "India followed a primarily socialist economic path between 1947 and 1980." After 1980, India began to privatize some industry, and the nation's economy began to grow. By 2003, India had increased the percentage of private sector employment to below 35%. According to a chart located here 180 million Indian workers work for the public sector while only 80 million work for the private sector. However, this actually reflects a trend toward the private sector. India's recent growth is due to the transfer of employment to the private sector.
The problem of an employment crowding out effect is serious. Writing for the World Bank, Glinskaya and Lokshin find that public sector wage premiums range between 62 and 102 percent over the private-formal sector and between 164 percent and 259 percent over the informal-casual sector and that "India has one of the largest differentials between wages of public workers and workers in the formal private sector" in the world.
The high wages in the public sector, which still dominates the economy, reduces demand for employment. The result is that those who have primary sector jobs are better off, while those who do not go hungry.
Six decades of compassionate socialism has resulted in starvation in India. Unlike New York, Indians cannot flee to Colorado or Nevada. They are stuck in a backward, socialist society.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
