Aaj Kamran Kay Saath

[sparklingway]

The fact still remains that railways, Airlines and steel mills are grossly under performing and eating up the national reserves.Something will have to be done about it.One route may be to privatize them . It has happened elsewhere, why cant it happen in our country.

Being a staunch Marxist, I'm often in heated debate with my colleagues over privatization.

Even after their arguments, I still believe that we've got to let go off this crapload of state corporate power. PIA, Railways and Steel Mills should be privatized. But not like MCB, not like the Cement Mills of the '90s, not like HBL, not like UBL and certainly not the way PTCL was (since our money is still tied up in the procedure as Arabs won't give it to us).

Also, even before approval of privatization CCP should be asked to conduct study into the finances of the bidders so as to verify their "real" board members and to eliminate the monopolization of power.

Privatization of these would require a serious political resolution. No political party can do this viably without any serious challenge by its electorate. All of these have employees greater than 20,000. And easily 1/3rd of them would be laid off (with severance packages of course) and hence they would create a lot of hue and cry as well.

My point was not anti-privatization, but the glorification of known criminals and robber barons and the way they are portrayed as "hones, self made and hard working men" within the minds of the general populace who consider them angels.

But as one of my friends, put it, even the most "educated" of Pakistanis are confused about their political and economic ideological leanings. Remember, most Pakistanis want governments to strictly enforce price controls over not just food, but on cement, on bricks, on petrol, on electricity, people want price control on everything and these include people who have been taught and believe in the free market. Similarly, people want the state to store grain for them through PASSCO, they want state control over everything and at the same time they desire privatization. This is a visible sign of a confused ideological growth.

As she aptly summarized:-

We can’t decide if we are socialists, Islamists or neo-liberals. We want the government to be all those things simultaneously – pro-poor, libertarian with respect to taxation, an efficient runner of public sector enterprise without resorting to the bogeyman of privatization, a firm rejecter of all IMF/World Bank dictation and aid, and preferably, we’d like a way to achieve all this in an interest-free Sharia compliant way!

 

[Martian]

Being a staunch Marxist,...... ![/B][/COLOR]

People who run/direct a system are more important than the system itself.

For example, chinese model of communism is more successful than soviet model.

In Pakistan, Gen Ayub's free market economy was as bad as ZAB's fedualistic socialism or Gen Zia's Islamist economy or Gen Musharraf's neo liberal policies.

Policies of these regemes were only show-off and without substance. All these people were hypocrites and insincere to the nation and its people.

Any economic system is ok if people running it are sincere and competent.

 

[sparklingway]

People who run/direct a system are more important than the system itself.

Not necessary always but fairly important.

For example, chinese model of communism is more successful than soviet model.

Totally fallacious argument. If you're comparing China's economic boom than that is an entirely fallacious, irrelevant and crappy argument.

In Pakistan, Gen Ayub's free market economy was as bad as ZAB's fedualistic socialism or Gen Zia's Islamist economy or Gen Musharraf's neo liberal policies.

Everything had their problems. The "trickle down effect" has been proven to be a myth worldwide. ZAB went overboard on certain sectors, underboard on certain sectors and the people handling the nationalized industries were incompetent. Zia's policies have had a fallout but the development basics were sound during his time thanks to just one man, one of the most famous development economists of modern times Dr. Mahbub ul Haq. The economic plans in the early '80s were sound. The foreign policy has had a negative effect but that does not mean that economic policies were not sound. The Azizian years have left a hollow basis for the economy and increased inequality and was based almost entirely on FDI.

Policies of these regemes were only show-off and without substance. All these people were hypocrites and insincere to the nation and its people.

I would disagree with the statement. The economists who handled the Ayub years were dedicated to their cause. We can't judge their intentions (association with the big 22 families etc) but they certainly weren't hypocrites as they applied what they believed in.

ZAB's economic managers did what they believed in only to a certain extent and then he fired them and kept replacing them with people who would suck up to him rather than real performers.

Zia's time saw sound and stable economic policies. This does not mean that the foreign policy, domestic policies and brutal destruction of the political system was justified.

Azizian years don't deserve a mention.

Any economic system is ok if people running it are sincere and competent.

No. That is a very hollow and superbly fallacious argument. It's like saying everything is right as long as the person doing it has the right intentions. Superbly wrong. One has to have convictions and views about handling things having studied their long term and short term effects and their outcomes.

I can clearly see that this is just the Everybody-destroyed-Pakistan-We-never-had-since-rulers-I'm-an-upper-middle-class-elitist-and-in-reality-I-don't-give-a-crap-about-the-country argument.

 

[Martian]

Chinese economic managers were more wise than soviets. Chinese communism ensured that old feudals are eliminated then they provided equal growth opportunities to their people. Chinese gradually opened up their economy to foreign investment and private ownership while soviets were rigid and time frozen.

Generals have same competency in economic matters as we civilians have of defence. It is a fact that pakistani generals always adopted economic policies that were suited to our washington masters. They were islamist because 1st Afgan War required it and they were liberals beacuse Bush wanted so. It is a joke that a feudal was socialist and a marxist is thriving in USA.

 

[sparklingway]

Chinese economic managers were more wise than soviets. Chinese communism ensured that old feudals are eliminated then they provided equal growth opportunities to their people.

Maoism is entirely different from Leninism and later Stalin's views. Land holdings were eliminated (almost entirely) in Soviet Russia as well.

Chinese gradually opened up their economy to foreign investment and private ownership while soviets were rigid and time frozen.

Would they have done had the Cold War continued to date?

Generals have same competency in economic matters as we civilians have of defence.

Civilians can be competent in defence, at least to a certain extent. Generals cannot differentiate between monetary and fiscal policies.

It is a fact that pakistani generals always adopted economic policies that were suited to our washington masters. They were islamist because 1st Afgan War required it and they were liberals beacuse Bush wanted so.

To a certain extent, but they did what their economic managers told them and most of them were trained by the Washington consensus (IMF, WB, etc).

It is a joke that a feudal was socialist and a marxist is thriving in USA.

Engels was the son of a wealthy textile manufacturer. Nothing wrong with ancestry. Bhutto was leftist, not as a reactionary but his earlier writings attest to that as well. Also, studying isn't thriving.

 

[Saquibk]

Mansha is a pure professional businessman. He didnt go into politics or philanthropy. There are very few fields in which Pakistan can claim to be on top of the world. And textiles is one of them, specially the spinning sector. Do we know that Pakistan exports large quantity of yarn to China and China's spinning industry is being shut down. Before that Pakistani industry did the same to US textile industry. Pakistan imports cotton from USA and exports finished textile goods to USA. Such is the competitiveness of the Pakistani industry. And Mian Mansha is the most important leader of the textile industry. And dont think that it is because of cheap cotton. Mostly some cotton is imported in the country and the local cotton is also available at the price of imported cotton.

 

[Martian]

ZAB was a lestist feudal whose later generations are also leftist but still fedual. And according to you, ZAB was a good leftist but his economic managers were wrong people. ZAB was a populist and hypocrite only and miserably failed in delivering his promises.

 

[sparklingway]

ZAB was a lestist feudal whose later generations are also leftist but still fedual. And according to you, ZAB was a good leftist but his economic managers were wrong people.

Can you read and understand simple English? I stated that he kept on firing his economic managers based on petty political grounds and personal loyalty. That means that it was his fault not the faults of his economic managers.

ZAB was a populist and hypocrite only and miserably failed in delivering his promises.

History cannot be summarized in a single all encompassing statement.