Why didn’t the Tatas (and others who extol the virtues of the free market) acquire their land on the open market? (Rahul Siddharthan)

Now let me get this straight. It is not enough for  AmitShruti, me, the editors of the Mint, etc. to just write in support of property rights for farmers. We should have actually gone ahead and pooled our money and bought the land on the free market for Tata?

11 thoughts on “OK…

  1. Kind of OT,

    1. It is not fair to accuse Tata of crony capitalism because of restrictions on acquisition of agricultural land.

    2. Even if there were no restrictions over acquisitions, in view of the fractured nature of land holding IMO there still remains problem of ensuring transactions (about which I wrote here, apology for link soliciting)

  2. Totally OT

    Is there any site/blog which covers the problems India faces and how free market can provide solutions in detail in FAQ like format. Just so that you know where I am coming from, I was talking about power shortage in Maha. with some colleagues and opined that power generation and distribution should be privatized, they countered that Delhi has private player but the power situation is not any better, I was not sure about the answer.

  3. Still OT,

    Don’t you feel depressed that no one comments on this blog, except for me ? If you do, how do you cheer yourself up, I can do with the advice.

  4. Really, this is what you have stooped down to? You should leave such low-hanging fruits for other to pick (like has been done in the comment thread of that post). You, sir, are meant to pick the difficult ones.
    Seriously, just see that comment thread if you haven’t. There wasn’t even a prima facie case to shout “crony capitalism” in this case (unlike, say, the hotel that was sold for peanuts by govt. in Bombay).

  5. Gaurav, if there were such a site, it would be open to the criticism that it is offering simplistic and glib solutions to the world’s problems. It would make as much sense as the guides that offer “100 physics problems. Fully solved!” If you understand the first principles, you will be able to tackle any number of physics problems – if you don’t, solving 100 problems is neither here nor there.

  6. I don’t know Ravi, Economics is more like Engineering than Physics. And why care about criticism, does Jagadguru care, or big boob, or his boy toy ?

  7. it would be open to the criticism that it is offering simplistic and glib solutions to the world’s problems.

    For instance, I don’t think your posts face much criticism along those lines. And rightly so. Because unlike those who sell “pulp libertarianism” your posts are mostly based on genuine practical considerations, you have your feet solid on the ground.

    What is the argument against a bunch of Ravikirans putting up a site consisting of “Examined Life”-like “FAQ” posts that doesn’t apply to your blog?

  8. Gaurav,
    1) Yes, it is more like engineering than physics, but the point still remains. Every engineering problem is unique, more unique than physics problems
    2) I meant that I would make that criticism. I care about criticism by me.

    It actually depends on what we are talking of. I seem to have been mislead by the term “FAQ”. But I now see what Gaurav was asking for – 100 clones of me with ample time on our hands studying each problem individually and explaining it from a free market perspective. No, I have nothing against such a blog, but I am not sure if one such exists.

Comments are closed.