How India's Economy Can Grow 30% Per Year Or More

How India’s Economy Can Grow 30% Per Year Or More:

Suppose a government wishes to increase the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by twenty, thirty or forty percent in a given year over and above, say, a seven percent increase that is expected. All it has to do is print and spend an additional amount, equal to twenty, thirty or forty percent of the GDP, in that year on productive purposes. By definition, the GDP would have increased by an additional twenty, thirty or forty percent that year (not counting the multiplier effect, referred to in my letters to the press, which will depend on how the money is spent). Printing the money takes no creativity, thinking up productive purposes to spend it on does not take much either. The money can be spent directly by the government, through private parties or both ways though, of course, by spending the money directly, the government does not have to wait for private parties to come up with proposals. The important thing is that how much the GDP grows next year-- seven percent or twenty seven percent or more-- is strictly in the government's own hands.

Terms such as "deficits" (there are no deficits when all the money a government spends is printed by it; if the government does take in money as taxes or charges, the effects of deficits on interest rates occur only if the government borrows the additional money, not if it prints it) and "overheating" of the economy are worthless concepts which only serve to maintain the status quo in which various people have a vested interest. As I wrote some years ago, "people get pleasure from the pain and deprivation of others and [reference to a head of government], who is no exception, will not want [a change]".

Note that the recommendation above is to print and spend an amount equal to twenty, thirty or forty percent of the GDP IN ADDITION TO whatever the government was otherwise going to do by way of taxing (unnecessary as it is) and spending, etc. Since the production of goods and services, including consumer as well as capital goods, will rise right along with the additional spending, any effects of the additional spending will be benign. Even if some adverse effects are postulated, in no way can they overcome the huge advantage from a GDP growth of twenty seven percent or more over seven percent in a year.

During war, government spending on equipment and supplies (guns and bullets, etc.) can suddenly increase ten, twenty or fifty times. During World War II, the United States government put in place price controls (under J. K. Galbraith) to curb the inflationary effect of such spending (since production capacity was diverted to war equipment and supplies from consumer items). (It was the enormous increase in U. S. government spending during World War II that gave rise to its 'National Debt'). A similarly sudden and large increase in government spending in peace time on the production of food, clothing, shelter, transportation, etc., for the citizenry will not result in the kind of price rise the United States expected in World War II, because the production of consumer goods and services will increase along with the money supply-- even if a lot of the additional spending is directed to military purposes. In any case, price controls can be used in peace time, if necessary, as in war time.

The United States, sitting on top of the world economically and militarily, may not feel any need to increase its GDP by twenty seven percent or more in a year. For governments of countries such as India, not to do that is treasonous as well as stupid.

With a growth rate of twenty seven percent per year, a country's GDP will double every three years. India's per capita income will equal that of the United States in fifteen years (the development and implementation of environment-protection technologies will be a part of the expenditure program) and Russia's in six years. And this will not depend on the vagaries of markets (in no way can markets bring this about) but, as pointed out above, will be strictly in a government's own hands. 'Oligarchs' (there are a lot of oligarchs in India but the masses remain impoverished) can never equal a government's ability to print money and, in any case, a government has to be a dispenser of justice as well as money (often justice equals money). All the advantages of motivation, etc., ascribed to 'free enterprise' are also available to a government, as I have pointed out. Apart from standards of living, there are military and geo-strategic consequences and the ever-increasing despotism of the United States means that this has to be done on a war footing. India's government does not do it because several of India's prime ministers (Indira, Rajiv and Vajpayee) have been on the payroll of the C.I.A. and its real 'government', the Research and Analysis Wing, functions as a branch of the C.I.A. (see my article 'India's Technological and Economic Emancipation'). But what about a country such as Russia? Here another factor needs to be considered.

American press reports 3-4 years ago referred to satellite-based technology the United States has had in place to monitor "the conversations of foreign leaders" (not just conversations over the telephone or other electrical/electronic media though it includes ability to monitor electrical/electronic communications of all kinds also). Since at least 1977, the United States has been able to keep individuals under 24-hour video and audio surveillance by satellite. Psychologist B. F. Skinner of Harvard made no secret of "my spies" keeping me under such surveillance, one use of which is a C.I.A. program started by Skinner to "control" a targeted individual's behavior by various verbal (including the use of conditioned stimuli, ratio schedules, etc.) and other means. I was targeted primarily due to Skinner's personal motivation flowing from the fact that I had exposed his plagiarism and destroyed his school of psychology (see my article 'A Harvard Sophomore's Plagiarism and B. F. Skinner's') but also because I have been the only threat to the United States' ability to keep India economically, technologically and militarily weak and under its boots (in part through my 'influence' on Prime Minister Indira Gandhi --about which Skinner asked "How about your political contacts on either side-- Mrs. Gandhi?" though I had not breathed a word about any such 'contacts' -- and former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi-- both of whom were assassinated for this reason by India's Research and Analysis Wing on the C.I.A.'s orders). But it would have been surprising if the United States had not used such surveillance and control over other foreign leaders.

An article in a Russian newspaper by an American capitalist consultant on Russia a couple of months ago referred to "the mysteriously self-destructive behavior" of Russia's leaders, referring to the dismantling of the benefits system (the same system of benefits can be administered by private contractors, if desired, who will be paid by the government and those who got free transportation before can still get free transportation), but such behavior started in the mid-eighties, with Mikhail Gorbachev. It is more than likely that similar surveillance and control has been used against Soviet/Russian leaders.

It is noteworthy that both the United States government and the Indian government had proceeded to implement my proposal about money, as I have described in letters dated August 1, 2001, September 6, 2001 and April 13, 2001 (also letters about stock market manipulation by the U.S. Treasury Department by pumping money into the stock market; Bush made a trip through an underground tunnel from the White House to the Treasury Department to see the set up created for such manipulation) that appeared in the American online newspaper thecurrentonline ( http://www.thecurrentonline.com/se/the-current/2.14134/web-submission-terrorism-1.1969806 ). The Vajpayee government set up a separate Cabinet Committee on Economic Strategy for the purpose of stealing my proposal about money. When I pointed out that they were trying to STEAL my proposal about money, they stopped implementing it.

I have said (see my blog titled 'Nuclear Supremacy For India Over U.S.' ) in letters to the press in 1998 and subsequently that the firangis gave the Nobel prize in Economics to the mediocre Indian named Amartya Sen as a substitute for the Nobel prize for me since they would not let their crimes against me, committed in collaboration with India’s RAW and India’s prime ministers, be exposed. When Clinton, as president, held a White House conference on the “New Economy”, the “New Economy” was the economy that my proposal about money leads to; of all the dozens of Nobel prize winners in Economics, he invited Amartya Sen to the conference -- though Sen had absolutely nothing to do with the “New Economy” -- because he is their mediocre Indian substitute for the greatest Indian of all time they have been committing crimes against. When Amartya Sen was given the Nobel prize, Vajpayee left New Delhi for several days to avoid meeting him, because he knew Sen was the firangis’ dummy substitute to cover their crimes against me, but RAW kept Sen waiting in New Delhi several days till Vajpayee yielded and gave him all the honours CIA-RAW wanted him to receive as a substitute for me.

Further elaborations on the above article are in the following article titled 'A Magical Solution to India's and the World's Economic Problems' (I have dealt with many other ancillary issues related to my proposal about money in letters and articles to the press over the past dozen years ):-

A Magical Solution To India's & the World's Economic Problems:

At the time of the 'supercyclone' that hit India in Orissa about nine years ago, I pointed out that the more money the Indian government prints and spends on relief, the more the Indian economy will benefit ( see my proposal about money in my article ‘How India‘s Economy Can Grow 30% Per Year Or More‘ on satchandra.sulekha.com), because the amount so spent will increase the Gross Domestic Product by several times that amount. So long as the money so spent is used for productive purposes-- on both goods and services-- and is not taken from money earmarked for other purposes but is additional money printed by the government, the more money the government prints and spends, the better for India. Instead of a thousand crores, the government should spend a hundred thousand crores and even more, on short term as well as long term measures. I said the same at the time of the tsunami disaster in 2004. I said India lacks neither money nor manpower-- civil or military-- to deal with this or any other problem and should reject the military "coalition" which the United States had seized the opportunity to draw India into.

The death and destruction the United States has inflicted on Iraq is greater than any country has suffered from the tsunami. All countries should refuse any assistance from the United States or cooperation with it in tsunami relief or any other enterprise.

In a letter to the Indian press several years ago, I pointed out that Indian Railways need not collect any fares from passengers (or freight charges) at all since the government can print all the money it needs to pay for the service, at a negligible cost (the cost of printing the money) and, in the process, greatly benefit the economy. In fact, as I have said (letter published in three parts in The Observer of Business and Politics, New Delhi, on March 11, 12 & 13, 1997), the government need not take in any money at all-- in the form of taxes, charges or borrowings-- when it can print all the money it wants. The more money the government prints and spends for goods and services, the more the economy will benefit (printing paper currency can be replaced with, say, electronic insertion of funds into accounts for certain purposes). This applies to all goods and services and all governments. On the issue of the monetization of government benefits in Russia in 2004, I said that providing benefits in kind has the advantage of ensuring that the money is used for productive purposes.

After I wrote the above, an editor in Hong Kong asked "Ever heard of inflation?"
I replied that I have dealt with the issue of inflation, both in the 1997 letter cited above and elsewhere. When I said that providing benefits in kind will ensure that the funds are used for productive purposes, it also meant that it will ensure there is a corresponding increase in the production of goods and services. Inflation occurs when the production of goods and services does not keep pace with the money supply. In the 1997 letter I refer to controlling prices, if necessary.

Going beyond the demand-supply mechanism involved in inflation, I have pointed to the role of "inflationary expectations" in generating inflation and what the government can do to avoid generating "inflationary expectations". For example, I have pointed to the feasibility and desirabilty of not raising railway fares even if fuel prices go up and not raising fuel prices even if the price of imported crude oil goes up-- to avoid generating "inflationary expectations". I said that India pays for imported crude oil in dollars and so its ability to import oil depends on the size of its dollar holdings. The consumers in India pay for oil products in rupees. The government need not raise the prices of oil products; it could even provide oil products -- or anything else, such as food, housing, transportation, etc., -- to the people free of charge because it can print all the money it wants and can reimburse the producers of such goods and services simply by printing the money. In the case of disaster relief, I said that the government could simply invite any and all individuals and organisations to “find a need and fill it and be reimbursed at double your cost”. I said that in normal times, a 50% profit may be incentive enough. The Indian Finance Minister now regularly uses this term “inflationary expectations” and my argument has had the effect of the government often not raising prices of oil products, railway fares, etc., when it otherwise would have. But it is far from applying the consequences of my argument consistently.

After I pointed out a "multiplier effect" because of which each rupee printed and spent by the government increases the Gross Domestic Product by several rupees, the United States Department of Labor estimated that each dollar the U.S. government provides to unemployed people as unemployment compensation increases the Gross Domestic Product by more than two dollars. The multiplier effect occurs because, suppose you are building a new railway line; the suppliers of the goods and services that the government buys to build the railway line use that money to buy further goods and services (which may be inputs into the goods and services they are selling to the government such as steel, vehicles and wages to their employees who will use the money to buy other goods and services such as clothing and food or TV sets); the suppliers (of steel, vehicles, etc.) to the government‘s suppliers will use the money to buy still further goods and services, and so on; the money the government spends on building the new railway line starts off chains of economic activity that has the effect of increasing the Gross Domestic Product by several times the amount of money the government spent on building the new railway line. The same applies to money spent on disaster relief, or anything else.

Relevant to what is said in the articles above are some comments I made on my article (‘How India’s economy can grow 30% per year’) on merinews.com; note that the Indian government’s recent brave stance in WTO negotiations has been prompted by what I said about exports and imports in one of my comments reproduced below; CIA-RAW continue to steal my work while committing the most heinous crimes against me:-

My first comment on my own article on merinews.com:

A fragment from my blog (since the ignoramus -- though, in fairness, he may be no more ignorant than economists in general -- below referred to 'devaluing the currency' ) : "When an American psychologist was given the Nobel Prize in Economics a couple of years ago, I pointed out that his work had not the millionth part of the significance my work has for Economics. ... "Balance between exchange rates and inflation"? Exchange rates are irrelevant for an economy which grows on money printed and invested by the government and inflation is not a problem when the production of goods and services keeps pace with the money supply. "Rational tax system"? Taxes are not needed and are an irrational holdover from the past when a government can print all the money it wants. All the so-called 'macroeconomic issues' are simply swept away and become irrelevant when you implement my proposal about money. " I have also shown that a crore of goods and services sold domestically is worth several crores of goods and services sold abroad, so far as the effect on India's prosperity is concerned. An economy the size of India has no need to either export or import for prosperity, though it may still do so for various reasons, including using exports and imports as a geopolitical tool. The best use for the brainless and impertinent person who posted below that I can think of is grinding him up -- along with other economists, if he is one -- for use as fertiliser, to grow onions, stinking onions. Or he can be made into canned dogfood and exported to earn foreign exchange; as I said in a column which appeared in Indian Express more than a decade ago, that is about all the foreign exchange India really needs.

My second comment on my own article on merinews.com:

Continuing with what I said below: The author is the world's greatest behavior scientist -- acknowledged in those terms -- and a science of behavior is the foundation science all social sciences, including Economics. As he has shown elsewhere, economists are absolutely the most clueless people he has even encountered -- who rely on ad hoc, half baked theories of behavior -- and a basic science of behavior provides much more powerful tools. But beyond the inadequacies of their theories of behavior, I have shown how they are unable to reason in any kind of a productive way.

My third comment on my own article on merinews.com:

The poster below is brainless and knows nothing of Economics. The money printed under my proposal about money will be used as investment so that the production of goods and services increases right along with the money supply. Foreign investment is neither needed nor desirable when you have an unlimited amount of investment capital available by simply printing the money. All the issues -- inflation, etc. -- have been dealt with in my blog ( which can be found by doing a Google search with the words: India nuclear supremacy Satish )and elsewhere and can only be touched upon in a short article like this. This poster should read, study and absorb what is said here and in the blog before he comments on my proposal about money, though being a functional illiterate may make that impossible for him. My proposal about money is the greatest development in social science -- greater than Marx or Freud -- and, arguably, the greatest development in human history. Its author is India's greatest scientist -- look up his bio in Marquis' Who's Who In America 2010 and earlier editions) and Marquis' Who's Who In the World (2010 and earlier editions) -- and as far above the poster below as the poster below may be above a cockroach. As even this article notes, both the United States government and the Indian government had proceeded to implement my proposal about money by stealth.

My fourth comment on my own article on merinews.com:

As I have said in my blog, ignorant and enslaved 'inferior Indian n i g g e r s' like the one commenting below are the rule rather than the exception in India but India can surpass the United States both militarily and in economic strength despite such people.

My fifth comment on my own article on merinews.com:

As I pointed out in my letter dated September 6, 2001 in thecurrentonline ( http://www.thecurrentonline.com/se/the-current/2.14134/web-submission-terrorism-1.1969806 ), the Cabinet Committee on Economic Strategy that was formed by the Vajpayee government to steal my proposal about money was separate from the already existing Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs. My letter sequence appeared in thecurrentonline under the editors' title "Terrorism" (http://www.thecurrentonline.com/se/the-current/2.14134/web-submission-terrorism-1.1969806 ).

For more on my proposal about money, see my blog 'Nuclear Supremacy for India Over U.S.' :
( http://nuclearsupremacyforindiaoverus.blogspot.com/ ).