True Capitalist Society - V

There is something inhuman about libertarian economics.Today, I was told MGNREGA scheme increased inflation. There could be many drawbacks of MGNREGA scheme. But the way fans of libertarian economics view it, is completely distasteful. However, I'm not sure whether they really understand what libertarian economists like Milton Friedman wanted to convey.

I checked what Milton Friedman had to say on this. In this video (posted below), he mentions minimum pay rise for workers. He, in fact, maintains the minimum pay rise is justified as it is basically driven by inflation and not the cause of it. Now, let's compare those union workers with unorganized labourers who benefit from MGNREGA scheme.

It's obvious that the latter's economic situation is far worse than those of union workers. Let's say the price of commodities have increased in commensurate with their income. In the worst case, their economic condition is as good as it was before. But what about social conditions?

The barbaric landlords can't exploit them by paying very low wages to work in their fields. The barbaric real estate developers can't get the work done by giving only food. The barbaric families can't keep them as slave domestic help.

In India these social conditions matter. I would think MGNREGA is a much needed idea in a poor and feudal society like ours. What we need is efficient implementation. Even with its present 15% efficiency, we are curbing exploitation by that much amount. But the fans of libertarian economics have lost all their humanity and can't see social conditions. Did people like Milton Friedman ever think their fans would be bunch of barbarians?

Rationale for Caste Reservations

I heard this story when I was young. There were openings in a bank and many girls from a college appeared for the test and the interview. To the utter surprise of many, one girl not particularly considered bright or even average got the job whereas some of her smarter friends didn't. Few people in the college inquired about it. From the bank insiders they came to know that, the girl came from a Brahmin family which recently lost their lands because of land reforms and were in dire condition financially. So, some people influenced on her behalf(as banking along with most of the other sectors were dominated by Brahmins). The story ended with a sarcastic remark that some of the girls that lost out came anyway from dirt poor families and since they were traditionally poor, they wouldn't feel the pain unlike this nouveau pavre girl.

The story can't be verified. However, I wonder whether there is any truth in the impression that people observe poverty in groups that are traditionally prosperous and wealth in groups that are traditionally poor.

For many years, I keep hearing from many Malayali non-Brahmins, how Brahmins in Kerala lost out:  they didn't take up British education quickly unlike other Brahmins; they weren't smart enough to control their landholdings when they had the maximum landholding compared to any other caste etc... I've even watched a movie on their pitiable situation. There was a sexual exploitation news involving a Brahmin girl which again highlighted their sorry state of affairs in the media. All these made me wonder whether they were indeed an exception to the typical caste situation in other parts of India. But later I came across this study by K C Zachariah (Religious Denominations of Kerala, 2016).

These are the rankings from the study with regards to Hindu castes.

Working in government/semi government jobs proportionate to their population;

1. Brahmins

2. Nairs

3. OBC Hindus

4. Dalit Hindus

Educational attainment:

1. Brahmins

2. Nairs

3. OBC Hindus

4. Dalit Hindus

More importantly, ranking by prosperity(or least number of people living in poverty):

1. Brahmins

2. Nairs

3. OBC Hindus

4. Dalit Hindus

The caste hierarchy structure is still reflected in these rankings after all the social justice measures (including reservations and land reforms).

I don't think there is anything wrong in this. The idea behind social justice initiatives was that social and cultural capital would help the privileged castes and they would never go down. It has been proven correct in Kerala until now. Also, Kerala has the highest HDI, and none of the social justice measures (some of the oldest in India) seem to have adversely affected the society in general as all castes have moved up. Education and prosperity which used to be the monopoly of the privileged castes have been spread across. Even though ideal equality of the castes haven't been reached, the gap has been reduced considerably.

Now I wonder why non-Brahmin people still worry about Malayali Brahmins. In fact, they should be more bothered about their own people (most of these worrying people come from OBCs and Nair castes, so I don't think they have much consideration for Dalits). That makes me wonder whether an odd poor Brahmin invokes more sympathy not just for himself but for his whole caste because he himself was and is an anomaly. A rich Dalit getting benefits of the reservations sets tongues wagging, - even though, the caste altogether always struggle to fill their justified proportion in education or job- because a rich Dalit is an anomaly. Thus those individual cases are generalized for the whole Dalit castes.

Reference:
Religious Denominations of Kerala, K C Zachariah