3 ms·

India suffered economic malaise from 1975 to 1995 as a result of this and other protectionist schemes. As the economy stagnated the population continued to grow

India suffered economic malaise from 1975 to 1995 as a result of this and other protectionist schemes. As the economy stagnated the population continued to grow. As a result, there was a severe rivalry over resources in society. The real salaries of bureaucrats and private sector workers fell in real terms over those decades. And as a result of this corruption skyrocketed and India's public institutions were ruined. You should never go full socialist/protectionist in this way. India is a good example, even if you don't want to learn from Communist China pre-1980s or Russia in the Soviet era.

seanmcdirmid 8y ago
Socialism has little relation to protectionism; eg the current president of the USA is all for the latter and not at all for the former.
- xxpor 8y ago
  Marx was actually in favor of free trade: But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade. - Karl Marx, On the Question of Free Trade (1848)
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    I don’t think that disproves my point. You can be socialist and free trade or socialist and protectionist, without needing too much cognitive dissonance. Socialism greatly precedes Marx of course, whose contribution to it we typically call communism.
  - briandear 8y ago
    So in Marx’s view, free trade is actually a bad thing. He is for it just like someone might vote for termites if their objective is to destroy a building so they could have power over how it’s rebuilt and who gets to live in it. Good for him, bad for the building and the people currently living in it.
- pedro_hab 8y ago
  Not quite true. Soviet Union tried to be self-sufficient, only importing what it needed. [1] China, Venezuela, North Korea are quite protectionist. The most notable socialist/communist countries are protectionist. It's the same as saying none of those countries are socialism/communism because they caused millions of dead. We noticed the pattern, when some socialist gets into power, they will use that huge power, being protectionist and often end up killing millions. 1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2144779?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/2144779?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con...
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    I still don’t see how that disproves my point; protectionism wasn’t limited to socialist countries, and socialist countries didn’t magically become capitalist when they eschewed protectionism. And anyways, the Soviets were big on trade, especially with other communist and socialist countries, they hardly practiced protectionism inside the Eastern Block!
    - briandear 8y ago
      The Soviets didn’t view the Eastern Block as independent countries, just extensions of the Soviet empire. It’s like saying the US is for free trade if they only allowed trade between California and Puerto Rico. While the Eastern Bloc counties weren’t de jure territories of the Soviet Union, they were certainly de facto territories. Look at Prague Spring and then try to argue that the Soviets didn’t own that country.
  - gubbrora 8y ago
    China, Venezuela, North Korea are at constant risk of political boycott so need to be protectionist. But that doesn't mean it's an inherent feature.
billfruit 8y ago
Iirc, Indian government was on the verge of going broke in 1991, and had to initiate economic reforms which were contingent for loans from large international lenders. It even had to pawn and airlift tonnes of gold bullion to IMF to get loans.
kamaal 8y ago
>> The real salaries of bureaucrats and private sector workers fell in real terms over those decades. And as a result of this corruption skyrocketed and India's public institutions were ruined. Lower salaries were only an excuse. In reality it's hard to resist money, when you get several multiples of your yearly pay in a week. These days that multiple is more than 1000, and increases by 1000x in various bribe jobs. Heck your ordinary junior engineers and other mid level cops in bribe facing government jobs are double digit crorepatis these days. And I'm only talking of the low end corruption. The high end goes really high. The reason corruption exists is because people want to be corrupt and there are people who pay.

seanmcdirmid 8y ago

Socialism has little relation to protectionism; eg the current president of the USA is all for the latter and not at all for the former.

xxpor 8y ago
Marx was actually in favor of free trade: But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade. - Karl Marx, On the Question of Free Trade (1848)
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  I don’t think that disproves my point. You can be socialist and free trade or socialist and protectionist, without needing too much cognitive dissonance. Socialism greatly precedes Marx of course, whose contribution to it we typically call communism.
- briandear 8y ago
  So in Marx’s view, free trade is actually a bad thing. He is for it just like someone might vote for termites if their objective is to destroy a building so they could have power over how it’s rebuilt and who gets to live in it. Good for him, bad for the building and the people currently living in it.
pedro_hab 8y ago
Not quite true. Soviet Union tried to be self-sufficient, only importing what it needed. [1] China, Venezuela, North Korea are quite protectionist. The most notable socialist/communist countries are protectionist. It's the same as saying none of those countries are socialism/communism because they caused millions of dead. We noticed the pattern, when some socialist gets into power, they will use that huge power, being protectionist and often end up killing millions. 1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2144779?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/2144779?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con...
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  I still don’t see how that disproves my point; protectionism wasn’t limited to socialist countries, and socialist countries didn’t magically become capitalist when they eschewed protectionism. And anyways, the Soviets were big on trade, especially with other communist and socialist countries, they hardly practiced protectionism inside the Eastern Block!
  - briandear 8y ago
    The Soviets didn’t view the Eastern Block as independent countries, just extensions of the Soviet empire. It’s like saying the US is for free trade if they only allowed trade between California and Puerto Rico. While the Eastern Bloc counties weren’t de jure territories of the Soviet Union, they were certainly de facto territories. Look at Prague Spring and then try to argue that the Soviets didn’t own that country.
- gubbrora 8y ago
  China, Venezuela, North Korea are at constant risk of political boycott so need to be protectionist. But that doesn't mean it's an inherent feature.

billfruit 8y ago

Iirc, Indian government was on the verge of going broke in 1991, and had to initiate economic reforms which were contingent for loans from large international lenders. It even had to pawn and airlift tonnes of gold bullion to IMF to get loans.

kamaal 8y ago

>> The real salaries of bureaucrats and private sector workers fell in real terms over those decades. And as a result of this corruption skyrocketed and India's public institutions were ruined. Lower salaries were only an excuse. In reality it's hard to resist money, when you get several multiples of your yearly pay in a week. These days that multiple is more than 1000, and increases by 1000x in various bribe jobs. Heck your ordinary junior engineers and other mid level cops in bribe facing government jobs are double digit crorepatis these days. And I'm only talking of the low end corruption. The high end goes really high. The reason corruption exists is because people want to be corrupt and there are people who pay.