Showing posts with label Free Trade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Free Trade. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 02, 2012

We Want Everything, Period. [A short story]



“Who gives a damn about saving a bunch of cats out in some jungle?” Varun poured angrily at Rishabh. “They aren’t just any cats man, they are tigers. They are majestic. You know that! And since when does it matter what cats they are. They are animals, they have the right to live on that land just as any of us.” Rishabh said trying to sound polite but totally missing it. “We can be callous about such a thing sitting here in our comfortable conditioned air, but there are people out there who cannot be fed, because they can’t buy their own food. You know why, because they don’t have jobs. They haven’t had any idea what livelihood means.” Varun saw it very clearly & tried to shine a torch down Rishabh’s brain. But he sensed no activity through his eyes. 

“I understand that the people are poor & they need to be fed. That’s honorable, but do you really think that a national park, a beautiful forest needs to be destroyed for such industry?” Rishabh thought he was good at asking rhetorical questions, but Varun was too thick to understand the rhetoric. Varun looked at him furiously. He had taken it way too personally than the situation demanded. He was justified in taking it personally, because on this one his neck was way out there. His firm wouldn’t win that contract for constructing those factories if Rishabh didn’t sign in on the agreement, the agreement to use the forestland to build a swanky new Special Economic Zone. Rishabh’s influence in the upper house of the parliament was exactly what was needed to spearhead such a project on this scale. This was never heard of, not even in the most advanced & fastest growing nations in the world. This was a project that would create jobs for a million people & could sustain a metropolis with their livelihood. It was an ultimate experiment in economics by trying to inject supply into a system that was ready to begin consumption. 

Varun said, frustrated, folding the sleeves of his fifteen thousand rupee shirt, sorry, his $300 custom made shirt. He sat on Rishabh’s table to add emphasis by towering over him. Rishabh calmly, yet firmly sat in his chair holding his point in between them like an unlit cigarette. Varun tried to explain, “look, we can really help these people. We are going on all fours with this one. The mere amount of working capital that we need to raise, you could build 10 expressways with that. We are very committed to make this nation the best capitalist system anyone has ever seen. This is it for us Rishi.” Rishabh looked at the window, he saw dew gathered at the corners of the glass. He said, slowly, while exhaling the fictitious smoke, “That piece of forestland is the only one we have in this region to protect the tigers. Besides there are several dozen rare species of frogs & other animals, some of which haven’t even been cataloged yet. How do you wish to destroy such a pool of natural diversity with the aim that these people will eat better? I have nothing against those people, in fact I will be more than happy to find a man earn a decent living & live a dignified life, but what you are asking to do here, is to destroy a piece of nature. It is like asking your mother to cut some part of her heart just so she can feed you. There is no going back after this.” Rishabh was concerned not just about the impact of deforestation, but also about the fact that there is no way to re-create it anywhere else. 

“But what about civilization?” Varun asked in a very dejected tone of a child who was just denied the toy it craved for, for a thousandth time. “We really do care about the forest, but this location is pivotal. It is extremely close to the water source, where we plan to construct a massive dam, so that we can harness electricity, pollution free. We don’t contaminate anything, just delay the flow of the stream that’s all.” Varun said with a chuckle. “Once the power issue is solved we have hired the best architects from all over the world to build this nice green city for us, which will host it’s own conservation system to preserve water & electricity. There would be no waste.”

“Are your genius planners going to give an advance evacuation notice to the animals living there too?” Rishabh said mockingly. “I’d love to see a draft of that one.” Rishabh’s idea of a joke was not just to insult the hollow sense of respect that Varun showed, but the sheer pretentiousness of the way people looked at nature & it’s importance to us. People believe that the nature, this planet is separate from them, form their fate. People tend to believe that whatever is happening to this planet is not going to affect them, because living in a city forever has blocked their senses. There is no connection towards the world around them. It is like losing a sense, of touch, of smell, of sound, of taste. It is like forgetting what a breeze of fresh air feels like. People might as well be zombies, if they felt that the nature was not something worth protecting. And the dams & their pollution free power, what good is that, if there is no one left to breathe the fresh air?

Rishabh’s whole idea about the planet & what one species’ capacity to influence its fate was hinged upon a fact that unchecked deforestation has been responsible for the loss of a lot of species of animals & plants. All these extinct species were part of the same ecosystem that man is. They must have served some purpose in their chain of events. They must have been someone’s food & they must be eating something else. They were maintaining that unsaid balance. But now they are no more, for industry encroached & tore down their habitat. Any attempt to re-create that artificially for those species was merely keeping them alive for our scientific amusement. When it’s gone, it’s gone. The connection is severed, the link is lost, the umbilical cord is cut, and that event collapses on itself. That system will now have to find different ways to keep on doing what it used to do before. New food chains had to be forged, new habitats, new balance within this chaos.

While Varun pretended to be a capitalist, his idea was to destroy a resource to create another one for the betterment of only one species. The man, the homo economicus, the rational ape. Varun dreamed far ahead into the consequences of such an enterprise & how many people will get their livelihoods from this location. The want of man, that’s what he thought of. His principle philosophy was that of consumption feeding the need for creating supply. He only saw a few cogs in the bigger picture of man’s universe & mistook it for the whole thing. Pretending to be a capitalist in a socialist’s coat, he never really knew what he really was. He felt that capitalism was to allow better transfer of money from one place to the other, from one hand to the next. His idea of capitalism was to facilitate trade & grow industry for the betterment of civilization. But the nature of a true capitalist doesn’t merely end here. The capitalist, the captain of industry always considers the cost. There is a cost, not just of capital but the cost of economy, the cost of ecology & finally a cost on humanity. A self-sustainable industry; is a capitalist dream. 

“There is nothing wrong about man wanting more.” Rishabh said in a small voice. “You remember both of us growing up, don’t you? We had so little to begin with & we built it inch by inch, in our own separate ways. We never really looked back, have we?” Rishabh was almost apologetic. Varun lost the track of Rishabh’s line of thought, “How do you believe that was possible, our current state of being? We have been taking advantage of the same system of wants that I am trying to build here. We wanted & we could achieve it. The man has tremendous ingenuity & you know it. We can re-create a thousand such eco-systems if we wanted to. This is ‘the man’ we are talking about. The animal that eventually taught itself to speak, to grow food, to change its habitat. The only intelligent life on this planet that can even think about it’s repair. Do you think a tiger or a bunch of frogs would be able to think of such a thing?”  Varun continued with a tone of indifference, “Some species are always lost in the race of time. They don’t survive because perhaps they don’t mean to survive. Their extinction might be nature’s process of weeding them out. The humans removed them because nature is acting through us. Nature is directing us to remove unsustainable species & replace them with a much more sustainable one. I mean, we are part of that same nature, we are not different, are we?”

Rishabh couldn’t believe Varun’s logic, but chinks began to appear in his armor. Rishabh was on the verge of breaking down, but he held on. “These million jobs you are about to create, how do you think these million people feel about the nature that we are speaking of destroying?” “They don’t need to know” Varun replied quickly. “They don’t need to know in the same way you don’t need to know how the computer was made just because you choose to use it. They don’t need to know, because they can’t do anything about it even if they want to. They want everything. Period. Don’t you get this? They want to consume, they want to spend, for that they need money, they can earn it or they can rape, pillage or murder for it. Isn’t this industry a cleaner way to achieve that outcome?”

Rishabh drew a large breath as if he was about to inhale the entire room. “You make a lot of logical short cuts Varun, you always have. That’s why you can live with the consequences of your actions so easily. You don’t seem to understand that for every connection lost in nature, there may not be a new connection to replace it with. Where now you see deserts, there were forests with abundant diversity of life. What do you think made them into a desert? Even re-wiring a river to flow in another direction can change the future of an entire topography. Can destroy entire civilizations. Wars are fought for that sort of thing. Do you honestly believe that our planet needs to suffer for the consumption needs of a few million? Why not make a better plan to work around this problem, to make it more sustainable, spend a little more to make sure that you don’t disturb the natural order of things? We want everything too Varun, we want to survive with what we have & not regret later when it’s gone & we were too late to acknowledge its importance.”

Varun gasped as if it was his last breath, “You can’t fathom the kind of capital we are sinking into this. You bureaucrats have never understood how much it costs to create the development that we see. You never seem to notice the price we pay so that you can go abroad to give lectures about our country’s growth story. It is we on the frontlines, battling the fibrillations of the economy. We shape the future as you sell it to your voters. We have already paid the price you are asking us to pay.”

Rishabh said furiously, “Let me ask this one last time Varun, do these people whose consumption stories you are parading really understand what they are building their lofty towers on? Do they really understand what is the price we, as animals sharing this planet, have paid just so they could buy a better soap? Don’t you think they should know?”

Varun disregarded the whole line of thought, “Even if they knew they can’t stand across a fucking bulldozer when we would have pummeled the mountain. They can’t do anything, they haven’t done anything about it so far, and they just want everything. All we are doing is satisfy that want. For every demand, there has to be supply.”

Rishabh chuckled this time, “They can do much more than what you believe. They can vote. Why do you think you are talking to me right now? I represent their voice & I represent their choices. They might regret not having the television they wanted, but they won’t regret it if they still have the fresh air they are breathing, the clean water they are drinking & the food they are eating.”

Rishabh added emphatically, “We Want Everything. Period.”

Monday, September 12, 2011

A Reluctant Historicist

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

I have grown up reading that quote. But what should we learn from history? Should we just learn about what happened in the past or should we learn from the actions that were provoked because of what happened in the past? Everything there is to learn from history gives us a chronological story of when & how the events took place. This can breed in us a misplaced arrogance of probably identifying a pattern or a trend in which history proceeds to become the present. We might get tempted to say, "of course, that was going to happen anyway, what else could happen?" These patterns might very well exist, but each of these patterns is tainted by our own way of looking at it. 

Karl Popper, in Open Society & its Enemies calls this imagination of a historical trend as Historicism. Although this term predates Popper it's a good place to start thinking about history. A historicist looks at the past & starts drawing conclusions based on facts & interpretations to come up with a theory of historical development/evolution. It is akin to irresponsibly use a spreadsheet to drag a trend to eternity. This so called knowledge of the evolution of history seems mystical but at the same time is an important part of the fabric of assumptions of how any society grows. 

For a long time I assumed that the system that we are living in is a good one. I mean, the democratic system, where anyone can do what we want to do under the common context of the law. I still think it's a great system. But perhaps due to lack of any major turbulence in my life or perhaps sheer ignorance about what's happening around 'my' world, I began to believe in its obvious permanence. It seems obvious, only due to a lack of understanding of how it feels to be in any system other than my own experience. Now I begin to question, if this experience was worth anything at all! The ignorance, the assumption of permanence & taking the system's function for granted. One of the major traits of an historicist is to passively assume that the system will remain the way it is & it will have a DNA of its own. All the good & bad things about it will continue to be so (within an assumed historical trend) but with minor modifications as the social context changes with time. So my assumptions about political, social, educational, economical & the capitalist system that it is the way it is & will remain the way it was, were based on nothing but a Thanksgiving turkey like assumption. I believed that I am safe because I was fed & taken care of all year long. Well what will happen when my Thanksgiving day arrives & my theory of this world is roasted in a big fat oven? 

My assumptions about the complex adaptive nature of the universe are also based on a similar mix of arrogance of knowing too much but not knowing the full importance of what I already know. I tend to assume that when things are in a flux, they very well might remain in flux until a trigger brings them back to their so called, Mean Value. But this is one man's stupidity speaking. Imagine a world of people where we each have our own opinions of our systems around us & we each approach them in our own way. Some of us will be allowed & applauded to think on our terms where as the less dominant (popular) ideas will be suppressed. Democracy.

If we see a nation coming together to protest against something as hard to prove & easy to prosecute as corruption, we can observe the anti-historistic attitude in the minds of these people. They seem to assume that they can control their system's fate (which ideally they should be able to, in a democracy) & steer it into a direction of corruption free growth & prosperity. How many of us have honestly visualized the after effects of this, in a country like ours? There are various models to refer in other countries, but what about a model state of affairs for our nation? What will it finally mean to take charge of the course of this nation's future history? Do all the people standing with a candle in their hand & cap on their heads actually understand the economic, political, social impact of their actions when they face the same incentives & threats as the people they wish to prosecute? I don't know the answer.

I have begun to believe that there are two types of historicists. One who truly believes in his version of historical evolution & hopes that the cycle will repeat the way it has in the past. The other type of historicist is a reluctant one, who has to accept that without a movement as viral as the current protest against corruption & without serious resources to protect against personal vendetta from the affected parties - it is nearly impossible to get the system to move one way or another. In short, become a fish big enough so that other fish can't hurt me & my cause. I guess I have become a reluctant historicist, which deeply bothers me since I believe in taking charge of my own life & not succumb to any patterns or trends that I am 'supposed' to follow. That's a weird contradiction to live with, but this time I can't seem to figure which of my assumptions is wrong?

Saturday, March 26, 2011

Protecting Values


Why should rich world powers involve themselves in the internal conflicts of the countries with oppressive regimes? Like in Libya.

Two options lie ahead of us (whether of rich or poor-oppressed nations):

  1. We can tolerate that other people are being oppressed & they should rise up against their own evils.
  2. Another approach is that we should intervene and get rid of the oppression & help those people stand up on their own feet, sooner.

What are the pros & cons of such an approach?
To intervene or not intervene?

The foremost reason is "trade" or "economic relations" between different regions of the world. When it was easy to get away with not moving around & live within self sustainable means, there was no incentive to reach out to see what the world had to offer. Even if there was an incentive as we can see in hindsight, it wasn't always economically viable. Instead local economics dominated over the minds of the locals. Since there was no conception of what goods/resources the world can offer, there wasn't any desire to explore the possibility. Fortunately not all people thought this way & some of them explored (mostly for the search of treasure to loot or countries to colonize) but nevertheless ventured out on funded expeditions. Once the goods from the new lands were brought back, there was an immediate comparison between its value with locally available goods. This might have created a dichotomy of value, what can we make better than them & what can they make better than us?

Stealing ideas & designs was probably as old as then. But it doesn't change the economic basis of trade. We buy what we think is more valuable than the money we spend on it. If we believe that someone in a far away land can make something better than us & it can be economically transported with the least possible risk - we can hope to buy it at a reasonable price. This is the basis of international trade or at least the version that the WTO wants to believe.

With massive explosion in distribution networks, it is far more prudent to find such economic value in a lot more nations than our own / our neighbors. So if a supply chain is disrupted on account of internal conflict in some part of the world, it automatically affects the lifestyle & economics of the nations that depend on the output of these strife led countries.

But are there rules of protecting such economic interests of the world?
Are there rules of engagement meant for the rich countries, which can be relied upon to engage in such situations?
What should be the priorities of the intervening nations - to protect their own interests or the interests of those oppressed?
Can being selfish truly absolve the world's conflicts & create a better environment for trade?

So intervention even if it sounds ridiculous in the newspapers & borderline meddlesome - does it not ensure that markets remain free & their access remains equitable?

I think international diplomatic relations are much more necessary to protect the smooth functioning of the markets as much as they are important for usurping oppressive regimes. But it will be exceptionally naive to assume that all the intervening parties will have the best intentions in mind. All of them, under the guise of freeing markets can have ulterior motives to control or dominate the region for themselves.

Will this lead to controlled colonization of the nations under strife?
Should a super power be trusted with the authority to benevolently return the state to the rightful rulers after the conflict is over?

This was exactly the reason why most nations came under the oppressive regimes in the first place. Laying tremendous trust into the hands of someone powerful, in order to run the state as they please, until the state stabilizes. Besides, the rulers never left. Remember Caesar?

The power, it seems, to turn the wheels of global trade & commerce will always lie in the hands of the powerful. As Muammar Gaddafi quoted in one of his speeches, 'The Strong will always rule".

Is power of the people stronger than one regime?
Is the wit of the people greater than one regime?
Is camaraderie a reliable force to sustain trade?
Finally, why does it always end up being a question about sustainable trade? Don't we have anything better to do?

There are examples of good governance leading to tremendous improvement in the standards of living of people. Singapore is an example that comes to mind. There are contradictions in the way the world works & they more or less evolve from they way people think about their values. The most ancient dichotomy lies between the values of the West vs the East. Western nations believe that free trade is the way ahead & they have evolved their political systems surrounding the assumptions arising out of it. Since they have been more prosperous with their approach, despite the price paid in history - this model of global capitalism seemed very juicy not to adopt. If these values spread, it will not only benefit the West, but also benefit the nations who adopt them. This has also been demonstrated by India, China, Brazil, & so on. So there lies an economic incentive in spreading your values & protecting your economic interests.

The East on the other hand has perhaps evolved its idea of capitalism from a more socialistic or a communist point of view.

But, as your interests more & more depend on how other people lead their lives, it becomes necessary to set the path straight once in a while by intervening & suppressing the volatility in policy, The Economist has a brilliant argument, which seems logically correct so far - that in order to be able to promote its model of economic well being, it has to intervene & the moment it sacrifices its values by not intervening, the economic model will blow up in its face.

As for why don't we have anything better to do than just trade?
Well, we weren't always like this. In Matt Ridley's book, The Rational Optimist - he cites that 'Transacting is not a natural phenomenon'. Humans developed the idea of trading/exchanging at least 100,000 years ago. They seemed to have figured out the logic, that the more you trade the more you prosper. Animals, although show examples of transactions in isolation it is nothing compared to the way we humans have evolved. If trading was such a dominant revelation in human thought, then it is necessary to ask, why did the industrial revolution not happen sooner?

Now comes the biological kicker - human tendency, like other animals is to isolate & create special factions which share amongst themselves but not with outsiders. This has hugely restricted new ideas & inculcated group think amongst cultures. Well the obvious advantage of trade, specialization, production & consumption is apparent from our current urban lifestyles. But is it worth protecting? Are these values really so important that we have to try & show others the right path towards them?

What if, there is some hidden, unknown sense of life underlying the values of oppressed state - that the intervening world fails to see?

To answer that I'd like to cite what Ridley cites which more or less sums it up for why protecting markets is sometimes more important that protecting political ideologies -

'Political decisions are by definition monopolistic, disenfranchising and despotically majoritarian; markets are good at supplying minority needs.'

- simply put - if we don't like an outcome of an election, we have to live with it. But if we don't like a hair dresser, we can always look for another one.