Skip to main content


I reserve the right to be wrong.

So, it turns out the people of India (1.28 billion and counting) have British Fabianism to thank for the mysterious missing affluence that should characterise their country by now. For 46 years from its independence until 1991 India's government owned and controlled the majority of industries, attempting a middle way between the state command economy of the contemporary Soviet Union and the surviving semi-free market of the US .

One key characteristic of this control was tight regulation through occupational and business licensing in a hopelessly corrupt mess called the License Raj.

Apparently the growth situation over those four-and-change decades was so uniquely slow it became known as the Hindu rate of growth. B Shantanu discusses it at some length, explaining the snail's pace rate of economic growth, much like that of the entire so-called Third World at the time, as it went through rapid population growth but achingly slow per-capita GDP increase.

The figures are in fact average economic growth during the 50's to 80's of 3.5%, but due to that rapid population growth per capita incomes grew at only 1.3% per annum. This trend will probably come up again in future articles about nations - Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Haiti, Venezuela, Cuba, Laos, North Korea - that remain poor as of the early 21st Century.

Courtesy of Wikipedia - size of 5 econs per capita as %-ages of United States GDP per capita.

Rajnikant Puranik at Swarajya Blogs investigates the term itself, pointing out its in-built cultural racism. Calling a growth rate by a cultural identifier is, admittedly, bizarre, and smacks of the unintentional racism of the German Historical school or Institutional school of economics.

He posits any number of better names referencing the fiend Nehru, his progeny and the principal that underlay this ridiculous experiment; socialism.
  • In 1947, South Korean per capita income was less than 2 times bigger than India's.
  • By 1960, South Korean per capita income was 4 times larger than India's
  • By 1990, South Korean per capita income was 20 times larger.
That's a pretty damning comparison between the quasi-socialist Indian experiment and the capitalist Korean experience, one which has led to the ROK becoming an OECD member and graduating into the club of countries characterised by pretty much universal affluence, while India remains, even after several decades of rapid economic growth, in 131st place in terms of nominal per capita GDP.

Socialism as state ownership of the commanding heights of the economy and comprehensive state welfare services had - and still has - the Fabian Society of London as its intellectual hearth. These guys advocate for democratic state socialism precisely as put into practice by such Fabians as Nehru and his offspring in India.

As Puranik makes clear, much of the regulation and a minority of the state controlling interests in businesses remain even to this day, products of pork-barrel politics, and if only the country could cast aside the last vestiges of its awful socialist past it could easily achieve double-digit economic growth that would lift its entire population out of poverty in only 20-or-so years.


Popular posts from this blog

What Lingos Are Most Similar to English, Though?

Commentaryism - The Death Toll of Capitalism

How many people have died because capitalism exists? How many would still be alive if it had never existed? Let's dig in!

We will take two approaches over the course of this blog post by looking at the the death tolls attributed to the word in its broad popular definition - everything socialists don't like - versus the toll that fits the definition offered previously on this blog.

By the same token I will not lay any outsized figures at any other mode of production's door except where that mode of production demonstrably caused the problem that killed people. It's political ideologies that really matter here, and this is where the first big problem with even trying to lay a specific body count before capitalism runs into problems - there is no political ideology called capitalism.

Now then, Alfonso Gutierrez says in a comment thread that "capitalism and free-markets have murdered billions of people" which is a risky claim at the …

Trickle-down Economics as Economic Theory in Reality

I watched an interview with Deirdre McCloskey on the Youtube channel of the Institute for New Economic Thinking. [1]

After doing so I contributed to a comment thread, recreated in full below, wherein a chappy who claimed to be an economist tried to convince me that trickle-down economics actually is a serious thing after all. This was in response to my posting a link to Thomas Sowell's article The Trickle-Down Lie, and I am so far unconvinced by the tale the economist in question spun for me.

He cited a paper from the 90's as his example, and I entreat you to have a gander at its abstract and compare that to trickle-down as described by David Stockman in his interview with William Greider on supply-side economics. [2][3][4]

Steve Horwitz isn't in love with the phrase, but offers a decent definition;
It’s hard to pin down exactly what that term means, but it seems to be something like the following: “those free market folks believe that if you give tax cuts or subsidies to …