Should Ratan Tata advise Mukesh Ambani about how to use his wealth?

Should Ratan Tata advise Mukesh Ambani about how to use his wealth?

A couple of days ago famous industrialist Ratan Tata commented about the lavish life style of another billionaire business tycoon Mukesh Ambani quoting his 27 storied Mumbai house viz., Antilla. Tata said that Mukesh Ambani's house Antilla represents the rich Indian's lack of empathy for the poor. His remarks: "The person who lives in there should be concerned about what he sees around him and [asking] can he make a difference. If he is not, then it's sad because this country needs people to allocate some of their enormous wealth to finding ways of mitigating the hardship that people have." 

Is Ratan Tata right in his remarks or is he misguided in his judgements? Is he aware about the role of an entrepreneur in an economy or is he ignorant of this basic economic fact? Or is his remarks has some underlying assumptions which make those remarks perfectly apt for Mukesh's lifestyle? Let me deal with these questions one by one. I take two scenarios to carry out my analysis. In first scenario we assume that Mukesh Ambani is an honest entrepreneur and his profit comes from the market competition. In second scenario we assume that, Mukesh is not an honest entrepreneur and his profit comes from his business ties with government officials and his manipulation of the system of State. We see the implications of Ratan Tata's remarks under both these scenarios.

Scene 1: Mukesh is an honest entrepreneur

I first make an assertion and then go onto prove it. If Mukesh is an honest entrepreneur then his profit - which he earned in the market competition - is absolutely legitimate, and if he don't desire to do a philanthropist work then that is his voluntary choice. Ratan Tata has no right whatsoever to advise Mukesh about allocating his honestly hard earned wealth amongst the poor people or to comment on his lavish lifestyle.

As Ludwig von Mises explained, the only way in which an entrepreneur can make profit in the market competition is by serving and fulfilling the most urgent wants of his customers in the best possible way, and that best possible way is of providing top quality goods at the lowest possible price. Only those entrepreneurs succeed and make profit in the market process who can ascertain and fulfill the subjective wants of customers in the best way compared to his counterparts. 

By producing and selling top quality goods at a lowest possible price successful entrepreneurs allow even the very poor people to buy his products. By allowing them to buy his products he lifts their standard of living; he lifts them out of their poverty even without raising their nominal meager income. That happens because with the falling prices in the market with the same amount of nominal income people can now buy more goods and services i.e., their real income rises. And no sane person will deny that this is the real way of increasing prosperity in the society; this is the true way of eliminating poverty and lifting the standard of living of millions of poor people. 

Philanthropy, about which Ratan Tata is advising Mukesh, will only help poor people in a very short run i.e., for the urgent immediate consumption purposes. Such help to poor people will actually harm them in the long run by making them dependent on such easy free money. It will not cultivate any habit of hard work and independent living in those people. Redistributing the income will only exacerbate the problem of poverty because human nature is such that most people will always prefer the free goods. Such allocation of rich peoples' income will make everyone of us poor too because rich people play an important role of providing essential savings for the economy. And without savings it is impossible to sustain a labor population in present time which is involved in production of intermediate capital goods. And without capital goods it is impossible to increase the future production of final consumption goods, and without that progress (so-called growth) is not possible. Capitalist class - which includes people coming from all strata of society, and not just rich - plays a pivotal role of supplying this saving. If they are forced to allocate their saving to poor people, who will mostly use it for immediate consumption, then society and economy cannot progress and without progress everyone of us will be poor one day for sure.

And people should not forget another vital economic truth that, honest entrepreneur do not become rich by exploiting the public, but they are made rich by their consumers i.e., the same public. Consumers voluntarily buy the products sold by such sellers because they prefer their products over other sellers. And in this process they give their portion of income to these entrepreneurs making them rich in turn. Profit is a signal that the businessman is fulfilling the most urgent wants of his consumers in a best possible way, and that's why he is rich. On the other hand those entrepreneurs who make losses are not fulfilling consumers' wants properly and so they remain poor in turn by going broke! (to deeply understand the beautiful system of profit & loss I will advise my readers to read Mises' wonderful book, Profit and Loss).     

 

So, if Mukesh is an honest entrepreneur then he has all the rights to keep and use his profit in whatever way he wants to. 

Scene 2: Mukesh is a dishonest entrepreneur

But, if Mukesh Ambani is a dishonest entrepreneur and his profit comes solely from his friendships with the government bureaucrats and politicians then he has no right whatsoever on his wealth. Profit generated by such dishonest political maneuvering is immoral. In a system of government such businessmen are working not to serve their consumers but only to serve the politicians and bureaucrats who help them in restricting the market competition. They actively lobby government so to establish their monopolies in the market. Through these monopolies then they fleece the consumers. And because their profit depends on exploiting the political system they don't care about their consumers. In fact they go to any length to harm their consumers for making such illegitimate and immoral profits. 

This type of system is historically known as 'fascism' and sadly in today's world most of the businessmen, especially the big business houses are making their fat profits by this way only.

If Mukesh Ambani (also Ratan Tata and all others) is doing his business in cahoot with the government officials then his profit is illegitimate. If one day India becomes truly a free country then he should be stripped of his illegal profits (property) and should be convicted and punished for his crimes against the people. He and all such dishonest business tycoons should be incarcerated, may be hanged.       

Conclusion

Looking at these economic facts, if Tata and Mukesh both are honest businessmen and they really want to help people of this country then instead of  allocating their profit to the poor people they should use that capital in producing top quality goods at the lowest possible price. They should try to provide as many economic goods as possible to people of India through market competition. Tata and Mukesh both can profit by serving the needs of poor people. There exists a thriving market even in remotest rural poor areas of the world as C. K. Prahalad has shown. All capable entrepreneurs (existing and new ones) should provide top quality private schools, hospitals, private roads, electricity, water works, sanitation, home etc. goods in these areas at the lowest possible price. That will be the best possible moral way of making a difference in poor peoples' lives; that is the only way in which these entrepreneurs can help the poor in mitigating their hardships. Allocation/redistribution of wealth will only result in misery for all of us.   

Repression in SEX

Attempts to achieve sexual equality are not unique to present-day Anglo-American society. A brave and fascinating experiment in women's liberation was conducted by the Israelis when they set up their rural communes, the kibbutzim, during the colonization of Palestine in the early part of this century. A central part of their semi-Marxist ideology was the total emancipation of women from all inequalities (sexual, social, economic and intellectual) that had been imposed upon them by traditional society. According to Israeli Utopian theory, the burden of child-rearing and home-making was the root cause of sex-role differentiation and female inequality. Therefore radical changes in family structure were instituted. Traditional marriage was replaced by a system of cohabitation in which a man and woman were assigned shared sleeping accommodation within the commune but retained their separate names and identities. The children were removed from special contact with their parents and reared with others of the same age in community-run nurseries where they played, ate, slept and were educated. Adults were supposed to think of all the kibbutz children as joint social property and were discouraged from developing particularly close relationships with their own offspring. Thus freed from the 'domestic yoke', women were expected to engage in agricultural and productive work to the same extent as men, and men were likewise expected to share in traditional female work. Classically feminine clothes, cosmetics, jewellery and hair-styles were rejected. In order to be equals of men, it was thought women would have to look like men as well as share traditionally male roles. When anthropologists Melford and Audrey Spiro examined the achievements of the kibbutzim in 1950, the experiment appeared to have been largely successful and their preconception of human nature as 'culturally relative' was held to be confirmed. However, in 1975 Melford Spiro returned to the kibbutz for a follow-up study and was surprised to discover that in the intervening quarter-century striking changes had occurred in the domain of marriage, family and sex-roles which 'all but undid the earlier revolution' (Spiro, 1979). The younger generation of women, although raised with unisex models (women driving tractors and men in domestic service occupations) and taught from early childhood that men and women are the same in nature, were now pressing to be allowed fulfilment in the role of mother. 'Women's rights' had taken on almost exactly the reverse meaning to that in our society. The kibbutz government had become predominantly male, apparently because the women showed little interest in politics, and a traditional division of labour along sexual lines had become established. Men were doing most of the productive work, while women were doing mostly community and service work such as teaching, nursing and housekeeping. Marriage had reverted to its original form, with a full wedding ceremony and celebration, and public displays of attachment and 'ownership'. previously almost taboo, were now commonplace. The units of residence had changed from the group to the married couple, and couples were now claiming and gaining the 'right' to enjoy the company of their own children. Children slept with their own parents and spent a great deal more time with them. Women had also shown a return to traditional 'femininity' in terms of appearance, temperament (empathy and lack of assertiveness) and hobbies. 'In the one place where feminists thought their ideal existed, the feminine mystique is ripening as fast as the corn in the fields' (New York Times, April 1976). This collapse in what had seemed to be a successful campaign to abolish gender differences might be explained in terms of exposure to outside – for example, city – influences, but on close examination Spiro found this explanation to be unsatisfactory. Studies of play preferences of kibbutz children revealed that the girls most often played 'mother' (bestowing care and affection on a doll or small animal), while the most common game played by boys was imitating animals (not the domestic animals with which they were familiar, but wild and ferocious animals like snakes and wolves). Social learning theory cannot easily explain why girls should adopt a culturally appropriate model (the parenting woman) in their fantasy play, while boys adopt a culturally irrelevant model (wild animals). Biological pre-dispositions towards nurturance and aggression in girls and boys respectively seems far more plausible as an explanation of this difference. A careful examination of evidence like this led Spiro to conclude that the sex-role counter-revolution that he had observed in the modern kibbutz represented a reassertion of nature, rather than conformity induced by reactionary social influences. For a person previously committed to 'cultural relativity theory', this was a considerable turn-about in attitude. The first sign of a confrontation between nature and ideology in the kibbutz concerned the issue of public nudity. The ideological authorities had early on determined that sexual equality would best be promoted by disregarding all differences in male and female anatomy. Boys and girls in the children's houses were therefore raised in a theoretically 'sex-blind' atmosphere, using the same toilets and showers and dressing in front of each other. This worked perfectly well until the girls reached puberty, at which point (quite spontaneously and contrary to prevailing social attitudes) they developed intense feelings of embarrassment and began to demand privacy. The girls began to rebel actively against these mixed-sex arrangements, refusing to admit boys into the showers with them and undressing with the lights out, or in some private place. For some time the authorities refused to change the system but were eventually convinced that the discomfort of the girls was to be taken seriously, and today most kibbutz high schools have separate bathroom facilities for boys and girls.Again, it is difficult to see how cultural influences could be held responsible for this failure of ideology. Why should shame associated with nudity strike selectively at pubescent girls and not at boys of the same age, or younger girls? The modesty that girls develop at puberty is apparently not due to social guilt induction; much more likely, it is an aspect of the female coyness which is biologically preprogrammed because it served the mating strategy of high partner selectivity and general sexual reserve.

Glenn Wilson, The Great Sex Divide, pp. 63-66. Peter Owen (London) 1989; Scott-Townsend (Washington D.C.) 1992.

                       Main Directory                        


Source

Jesus crucified again in Reagans America

go here

FREEDOM, Love and Alone ness

go here

OSHO says

go here

from SEX to Super consciousness

Eternal Quest
Religiousness is the last luxury, says Osho. Western psychotherapy helps us adjust so we can live in “normal insanity,” but once all our material needs are fulfilled, something in us still aches for more – for freedom, expansion, bliss. The 120 questions and responses in The Eternal Quest are about this search, with all its peaks and pitfalls. Osho emphasizes how vital it is for us to ask genuine, basic questions if we want real answers, and has a mercilessly compassionate way of dealing with those who have not understood the point. Inspiring, profound and playful, this book covers everything from the science behind OSHO Dynamic Meditation to why we suffer in love and life.

SOURCE

From SEX to Super consciousness

More

AUDIO Book free download

suppression

Home | Meditation | Mystic Musings | Enlightenment | Counseling | Psychic World Therapies | Hidden Mysteries | Stories | Downloads | Life of Masters | Resources

Osho on Suppression or Transformation of Sexual Energy Question: Beloved Master, When do I know if my sexual energy is transformed or just repressed? Osho: It will not be difficult. It will be the simplest thing to know. When sexual energy is repressed you will have sexual dreams, you will have sexual fantasies -- you cannot avoid them. When sex energy is transformed, you will not have any sexual dreams, you will not have any sexual fantasies. This is the simple criterion.  I will end with a small story.... In Gautam Buddha's time there was one beautiful woman -- she was a prostitute, Amrapali. One Buddhist monk was just going to beg when Amrapali saw him. She was simply amazed because kings have been at her door, princes, rich people, famous people from all walks of life. But she had never seen such a beautiful person -- and he was a monk, a beggar with a begging bowl. She was going on her golden chariot to her garden. She told the bhikkhu, "If you don't mind, you can sit with me on the chariot and I will lead you wherever you want." She was not thinking that the bhikkhu would be ready to do it, because it was known that Buddha did not allow his bhikkhus to talk to women, or to touch any woman. And to ask him to sit on a golden chariot in the open street where there were thousands of people, hundreds of other bhikkhus, other monks...She was not hoping that he would accept the invitation, but he said, "That's good," and he climbed on the chariot and sat by her side. It was a scene. She was one of the wealthiest women the world had known.  The world knows only two women -- one in the West, Cleopatra, and one in the East, Amrapali -- who are thought to be the world's most beautiful women. And a bhikkhu with a begging bowl...!A crowd was following the chariot, "What is going on there? Nobody has ever heard..." And then the bhikkhu said, "My camp has come. Thank you for your being so kind to a poor man. You can drop me here." But Amrapali said, "From tomorrow, the rainy season is going to be here." In the rainy season the bhikkhus, the monks, don't move. They stay in one place -- only for the rainy season. The remaining months they are always on the move from one village to another village. "From tomorrow, the rainy season is going to begin. I invite you to stay with me. You can ask your master."   He said, "Jolly good, I will ask the master. And I don't see that he will object, because I know him -- he knows me, and he knows me more than I know him." But before he reached, many others had reached and complained that the man had broken the discipline, the prestige, the respectability... that the man should be expelled immediately. The bhikkhu came -- Buddha asked him, "What happened?" He told the whole thing and he said, "The woman has asked me to stay with her for the coming four months' rainy season. And I have said to her, `As I know my master I don't think there is any problem, and my master knows me better than I know him.' So what do you say?" There were ten thousand monks, and there was pindrop silence. Gautam Buddha said, "You can accept her invitation." It was a shock. People were thinking he would be expelled, and he was being rewarded! But what could they do. They said, "Just wait. After four months Buddha will see that he has committed a grave mistake. That young man will be corrupted in that place, in a prostitute's house. Have you ever heard of a monk staying for four months...?" The man stayed for four months, and every day rumors were coming that "this is going wrong" and "that is going wrong." And Buddha said, "Just wait, let him come. I know he is a man who can be trusted. Whatever happens he will tell himself. I don't have to depend on rumors." And when the monk came, Amrapali was with him. He touched Buddha's feet and said, "Amrapali wants to be initiated." Buddha said, "Look, about all these rumors... When a real meditator goes to a prostitute, the prostitute has to change into a meditator. When a repressed person who has all the sexuality and is sitting on a volcano goes to a prostitute, he falls down. He was already waiting for it -- not even a prostitute was needed. Any woman would have done that." The question is saying that all the religions have taught you to repress your sexual energy,and they have created repressed people all around. And those repressed people are very angry with me for the simple reason that I am saying repression is not going to help you.The energy has to be transformed, otherwise the energy will drag you down more into darkness than towards light.   Do not repress anything. Whatever is natural is good. Whatever is natural is to be accepted with totality. You have to do just one thing: don't be against nature but just be a watcher. Just remain a witness in everything, whether it is eating, whether it is walking, whether it is making love... just remain a witness and you will be surprised. Witnessing is an absolute guarantee of transformation, and you will see the difference. You won't have any sexual dreams, you won't have any sexual fantasies. And if you repress, then you are going to be in trouble.  Even Mahatma Gandhi, who was repressing his sexuality, at the age of seventy years was having nocturnal emissions. It is ugly. But I am grateful to him because he was truthful. He at least accepted it. Your so-called saints will not accept it. Repression will show itself -- there is no doubt about it. Some day or other it will bring sex to your mind, either waking or sleeping.  But if the energy is transformed then you will have a radiance, a glow, a certain light around you, a certain silence surrounding you; a blissfulness, a coolness that not only you will feel but those who are open also will feel. If you just pass by their side they will feel that not only a person has passed but a phenomenon has passed. Something of your inner core will have touched them. Some music is bound to be heard by those who have ears. And as far as you are concerned there is an absolute distinction: you won't have any ideas, waking or sleeping, about sex. Source: from book "The Sword and the Lotus " by Osho ^Top                                                                                                    Back to Meditation Solutions

 

SOURCE