|
|
|
Articles |
|
FOOD FOR
THOUGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Capitalism and prudence
By :
Dr. Zafar Altaf
|
ARTICLE (January 23 2010): It was in the seventies that I was witness to
debates between the British politician and American economist Milton
Freedman. The American economist was trying to convince the British
politicians about the monetary system in economics rather than the work of
Keynes. The problem with the American was that he was sitting on a decadent
society in the US for it had come to be seen as a society where the ethical
system had broken down.
Keynes had taken his political skills from British political philosopher
Edmund Burke who did write on the political ethical system as far back as
1905. Keynes was working at the time on the ethical basis for economics and
was seriously and severely influenced by the work of Edmund Burke. Burke was
the same political philosopher that took Warren Hastings to the House of
Commons to be prosecuted for corruption.
That Warren Hastings escaped punishment was held later on as a parochial
decision. The expected goals were to be based on a system of evaluation that
worked the ethical system in place. Actions taken in the twilight zone had
to be such as to confirm the integrity of the individual taking that
decision. Burke held that the current benefits were to be set aside for
future hazy benefits and that the current was never to be preferred if that
was in the zone that could not be held to the high level of honesty.
He went so far as to say that the chance of getting an eventual reputation
for honesty was better than a current benefit that was based on financial
resources. Burke had criticised the King for trying to set up a selection
process that was based on corruption and patronage. Is that happening now?
It is. Keynes on the other hand was of the opinion that economics was part
of politics.
Governance was not something that could be achieved in isolation for the
goodness was to be facilitated. The presumption that went into it was that
if the community was happy then the fairer social arrangements will enable
the inhabitants to play their role. The state of mind has to be evenly
matched and it can be possible to cultivate the mind to that level of
thinking.
The object of politics is social contentment. Keynes indicated this in a
number of different ways and was called by certain names like physical calm,
material comfort and intellectual freedom. Public events caused a different
kind of personal events. The political goods were such that Burke was placed
into the very great.
The interventions were designed to be so developed as to create happiness of
the governed. So there were important aspects that were to be different, but
that were to mean a set of different interventions to allow the system to
work differently and nothing was taken to subvert this. So the political
element was to be determined in terms of humanity, reason and justice that
would make or break a system.
That enabled Keynes to talk of Burke differently from the likes of Freedman.
Societies were tolerant and could take the severity of social events, for
quite sometime before the response turned sour. Most of the propositions of
Keynes had an element of tolerance. In terms of political and social events,
the truth of events was preferred to the falsehood that could be easily
preferred.
Falsehood was never an option, for Keynes and by that very option the
establishment of truth over the other was encouraged and made to go into
public service. Rocking the boat for honesty was not something that was
looked down upon, but that was desirable even if it meant that the system
could lead to a considerable amount of inconvenience. Truth telling was,
therefore, an essential element in Keynes' philosophy. His work on the
economic consequences of the treaty of Versailles was something that had to
be written by the likes of him for that placed him in a different comity of
people in the formation of nationhood.
Keynes was so mesmerised by truth, by seeking to consider two aspects of the
policy that he would follow. He felt that morals were not to be disturbed.
The current social system was such that this was easily said than done.
People were involved with the revolutionary ideas of recreating a society
and that was to be their greatest effort. Political standards were to be
created so as to develop and portray the concept of those values that were
forever projected by the social elements in a society.
Burke, therefore, pushed Keynes to different heights and different levels of
thinking. The bureaucracy was next in consideration for the system to take a
different kind of meaning. Redistribution of wealth was necessary if the
rich were to be made to play their part in society. Those were the days when
debates between economists were so involved as to allow that kind of debate
amongst the practitioners.
The high ground that philosophy was to create at that time indicates the
level of thinking that was available to the public in general. This has been
lost in the modern sense and the fast pace of life is partly to blame.
Deliberation has its importance and anyone who has read Burke understands
what I mean when I talk about him in conjunction with the likes of Milton
Freedman and Keynes. Political economics came later, for during the times of
Adam Smith and others, it was moral jurisprudence that was at stake. What a
difference a change in nomenclature was to make.
Where does all this lead to? The banks are once again in turmoil for one
aspect of intention that has not been understood is to do with the moral
imperatives. Either the international donors think that the Third World is
incapable of comprehension and, therefore, can be led astray or that they
are unable to comprehend what is going on or, therefore, to kick the dust in
their eyes is a better course.
It is time to rethink the development and the aid policies, if only one were
to make them work better. One has only to see the powers of ill-intention
that permeate this world to understand that neither Freedman nor Keynes is
really relevant. The world has moved on and if the developed world is going
to be in the realm of greed, then the entire world will seek a different
course of action and since they will be in the majority, they will do as
they choose to do.
The course is simple in as much as the effort has to be prudent and sincere
and this alone will lead to a better actionable programme. The alternate is
also available but that is fraught with danger. The likes of Iraq and
Afghanistan are nothing as compared to what will happen in the future. So
beware. The nations stand warned. Pakistan has suffered the consequences of
these policy initiatives and lost out to other countries not very receptive
to them.
Time has come to take stock of the issues once again and work the system
better. Pakistan must be self reliant and then work at what is its own best
pace. That ought to work. There will be failures, but that is what life is
all about. They alternate-success and failures. Good luck with your
failures. It is better to suffer for your own actions rather than for some
other's actions.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2010
|
|
Back to News Index |
|
