LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT 68. KNOWLEDGE AND ITS APPLICATION: PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

68. KNOWLEDGE AND ITS APPLICATION: PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS

India in the 50s: Public V. Private Sector

We in India are used to the controversy about the relative merits of the two sectors, since the early 50s when the planning era started. Pandit Nehru committed the country to central planning, public sector occupying the commanding heights of the economy, mixed economy, big projects (money guzzlers), massive and brutal taxation to get the funds, and resort to public borrowing  and mindless deficit financing to bridge the gap. The result was massive misery via shortages, inflation. Those under 50 today may not even know how we used to struggle for our rice, kerosene, baby food, cycle and scooter tyres- even HMT watches, standing in one queue  after another.

But this experience was to come later. In the beginning we were all mesmerised by the magic of planning, big dams and factories which were promoted as the new temples of free India. As students of economics, this is what we were taught as conventional wisdom.

Somehow I woke up, in the late 50s through the pages of Swarajya, where Rajaji, M.R. Masani, Lobo Prabhu, Taya Zinkin, etc used to write on economic matters, cautioning against the License-Permit-Quota Raj! They ridiculed how the mixed economy had turned into mixed-up economy! The Swarajya annual numbers used to contain articles by some international thinkers and writers, such as Henry Hazzlitt. Their writing carried conviction because of their education, record of public service and integrity. They spoke out of experience. Masani for instance recalled an advice he had received from a British politician years earlier: 'Young man, if you are not  a socialist at 21, you have no heart; if you are one at 41, you have no head!' Masani himself had been one of the founders of the Congress Socialist Party in the 30s, and so his writings were convincing.

M.R.Masani
Photo from: Spontaneousorder,in

One thrilling aspect of their writing was that they used to quote many authorities and we learned a lot , going to the original sources. Through its pages we learned about the economic miracle of West Germany, brought about by their wizard, Ludwig Erhard, who said: turn the men and money free, and they would make the country strong!

Dr. Ludwig Erhard, author of West German Economic Miracle. 
By Koch,Eric/Anefo (National Archief)[CC BY-SA 3.0 nl. Creative commons via wikimedia commons

We learned about Wilhelm Roepke and the 'Humane Economy'. We learned about Parkinson's Law.We learned about 'The Road to Serfdom' of Von Hayek. We learned about Karl Popper: 'Open Society and its Enemies'. We learned about how Abraham Lincoln had cautioned his nation that one cannot build prosperity without thrift, by borrowing. (It was a long quotation.) Our mental horizons kept expanding. We learned that there was a world outside planning too!

Then, we heard about the Forum of Free Enterprise and  read the strong writings of A.D.Shroff and others. We heard about A.D.Gorwala and his 'Opinion'. Even on an academic level , we read P.T.Bauer of the London School of Economics, rubbishing the Second Five Year Plan, something that had been done by the American Gandhian, Richard B.Gregg earlier.

For me personally, this posed a big problem.  I had read a lot of serious literature on the nature of planning, its demerits and the social and political implications, on the comparative merits of free enterprise, etc. But our official instruction was on the merits of planning, public sector, taxation to reduce inequalities, socialism to promote welfare,etc. In the college debates, I would take the side against planning. In the  papers, or 'assignments' submitted at college, I tried to voice dissent to the official teaching, quoting other economists. My prof. was sympathetic but cautioned me that it was not wise to express such views openly in writing in the exams, as most examiners would support the official line and may not give me marks. But the conviction against central planning grew stronger in me.

Rajaji, my Master!

There was one piece of essential economic wisdom that I learned from Rajaji. Many people may not realise that Rajaji was a true socialist at heart, real friend of the poor. But the way to help them was not through doles,but by providing meaningful employment, and teaching them frugal habits. The economic problem was basically one of 'distribution'- ie spreading the benefits of economic activity among all sections of the society. But the only long term method to achieve it was through production. You must have the cake before you can think of dividing it. Rajaji used to stress that both capitalist and socialist societies got it wrong. The socialists concentrated on distribution: through progressive taxation, planning, rationing, etc which killed enterprise and freedom, and thus interfered with production. The capitalist societies focused on production, leading generally to disparities in income and wealth, and concentration of wealth and economic power in a few hands. The usual method was to think in terms of production, consumption and distribution. Rajaji said no to this. He said that production should be organised in such a way that it ensured proper distribution simultaneously, and not separaely, later on! Gandhian method of 'production by the masses as against mass production' was the ideal.

Rajaji was vilified by Nehru as being pro-big business, pro-rich, pro-princes,pro-America, etc. This was a totally dishonest and diabolical portrayal. Rajaji opposed centralised planning because it too concentrated income and wealth ie economic power in the hands of a few- just like capitalism did. Capitalism did it in the hands of a few capitalists;socialism and planning did this in the hands of a few politicians and bureaucrats. Capitalists could be regulated and controlled by the govt and public, if competition was ensured. But, there was no power to control the govt -its bureaucrats and politicians who promoted a permit-licence-quota-raj, bred corruption and thrived on it! What Rajaji advocated was free-enterprise, of essentially moderate sized enterprises, in an atmosphere of open competition and meaningful regulation! It was not a free-for- all!

Why did Rajaji advocate a pro-American stand? At one level, it was because it was a democracy.As such we had more in common with it than with the totalitarian regimes. The Soviet bloc was brutal and suppressed human freedoms, culture and religion.. ( He had friends in both blocs).But the deeper reason was more practical. India was spending a lot on defence, especially against Pakistan and China. If India aligned with the US, it would give us a defence umbrella, restrain Pakistan, strengthen us agaisnt China, and release our defence spending for economic development! ( We can see the wisdom of this even now: how Pakistan is taking advantage of American military aid; and in the conflict with China, Nehru had ultimately to seek US help.)

Knowledge and its application in the two sectors.

I came out of college a convinced free-enterpriser.But Providence gave me a job only in the Public Sector! In the course of my service, I had to interact extensively with both: leaders from the private sector, owners and Chairmen, directors and executives, employees and union leaders. How do knowledge and its application fare in the two?

I would say:  equally bad! 

There are good and bad individuals in both- as men of knowledge, leaders.But as organisations, both are equally bad.

I have already talked enough about the Public Sector. It is the common impression that the Public Sector is hopeless,beyond  redemption. This is true. It is however not due to the nature of the enterprise as such, but due to the nature of the men running it, and the nature of the manner it is run.

The private sector is usually held up as the model of efficiency.This is pure bunkum. Much of the so called efficiency is related to only one aspect- financial performance. But we know that much of this is engineered by accountants and publicists.See how many private enterprises are in the doldrum. How many leading companies are hauled up for financial misdeeds and manipulation of accounts!

Before criticising Air India for its inefficiency and loss, we should realise how many private airlines have failed-both in India and abroad. Big names have tumbled. Before criticising HMT watch division, we should see that even private companies like Hegde-Golay failed! Every company is not Titan! And successful companies like Ajanta have dealt with clocks, not watches! In the end it comes not only to what we do, but how we do it. And above all, who does it. 

The private sector scores comparatively here. Unless the man has some stuff, no one can run a private enterprise even for a day.Even a pan-beedi shop calls for some practical skills. People respect authority, position but in the private sector, this is based on competence. An idiot cannot continue as Chairman for long- he must at least be clever enough to manipulate people. The greatest factor in the private sector is not knowledge and skill in one self, but the ability to find knowledge and skill, and  nurture and retain it!  Most top level people have that freedom in the private sector, if the promoters want results.

It is not that the top man has to be a technical professional- even in a professional enterprise. I have seen engineering companies run by engineers going to ruin. I have seen companies run by qualified accountants failing.Managerial skill is more than technical competence. 

Paternalistic and Professional Management Types

I have seen both professional- technocrat types and paternalistic types in the private sector. I believe it is the paternalistic type which wins in the long run- as it is the heart which people trust and  respect. You can get a truck load of professionals. But where do you get a good person? And how many?

One of the best paternalistic types I met was  Sri A.Sivasailam of the Amalgamations group. I had been an admirer of his father, S.Anantharamakrishnan for his enterprise, without ever knowing him. This name became familiar to me through their advertisements in the Swarajya. I had followed the fortunes of the company through the years. I noted how they brought Ford trucks in the late 70s and the venture failed. I felt sad, as if it was my own loss. The Simpson group had been long associated with the automobile industry. I could not stomach that this truck venture failed. I had occasion to meet Sivasailam and asked him about it. He told me that there were no quality problems but service problems. The truck had a front-tilting cabin, which was new in India then. But the real problem was service net-work. The Tata and Leyland trucks had had a long innings in India, had a well-established servicing network  throughout the country, could be repaired by locals even in villages. Our drivers had also been familiar with them through long exposure and use. Ford Trucks lacked all this. They could not set up such service networks so soon. If a truck got stuck on the way, it had to await the arrival of the service vehicle and team from the nearest point, could be hundreds of miles away!Then there was a more tricky factor. The Tata and Leyland trucks would withstand overloading, but the Ford trucks were manufactured to precise international standards and the margins of tolerance were more strictly defined! This rendered the trucks unpopular with the operators! Sri Sivasailam did not sound bitter and had no rancour against the competition..

Then I asked him something more personal. I felt that his group had not expanded much after his father. In the face of the expanding economy, this did not sound happy. Why had he not expanded ? This touched him deeply. He told me feelingly that his father had been a stickler for quality and standards of both performance and conduct, who would take personal interest in all matters. He had chosen his collaborators carefully and had remained with them. He said that he would not like to expand the business beyond what would permit personal care and supervision. He had to be faithful to the standards set up by his father, and it would be enough  if he maintained  those standards and nurtured the enterprises he had founded! There were some other, more personal factors. I felt sorry that I had raised this question. Later I had met some of his senior executives. They were all senior in age too, and mature with wisdom. They were not the dashing, dynamic type. Standards, reliability, respectability- these ideals governed them. Were they outdated? Did the modern world value such virtues, or only the balance sheet? Sivasailam is one man I respected in business circles, though I admired others.

A. Sivasailam.
Picture taken from TAFE CAFE, October,2011. Thanks.


Efficiency in the private sector- Interviews.

This was much later in my career. But I had experience of the ruthless efficiency of private enterprise earlier. I won an all-India essay competition conducted by the Forum of Free Enterprise in my student days and I got a cheque for the prize amount. We students did not have bank accounts then. So to encash the cheque,I took it to the local cooperative town bank.The secretary took the cheque in hand, had a look at it, and almost stood up.  The cheque had been signed by A.D.Shroff, president of the Forum, and T.D.Kansara, secretary, and also chairman of the Bank of India, pre-nationlisation. "Oh, it is Shroff!", the secretary exclaimed and asked his assistant to just pay me the amount, without charging any fee for collection! Such was Shroff's standing as the leader of the private sector! I had been such a fool. I did not know the value of the cheque and the signatures on it! I could simply have kept the cheque framed! What is money-it comes and goes.Will Shroff come again? or Men like him?

I had more experience of the efficiency of pvt sector, direct and indirect. A friend at college, a year junior, used to come to me for help with studies. He used to boast that his father knew Murugappa Chettiar and Arunachalam (of the AMM group) personally, and any time he could get a job there , and the marks in the exam did not matter. He used to talk, as if they were family members. And then it happened. One day he was told that Chettiar ( I did not know which) was visiting Trichy and my friend was called to meet him.  Chettiar engaged him in conversation for some time, all friendly and unrelated to the job. It had not appeared to be an interview at all. Then at the conclusion, Chettiar said that he would be visiting some other place some time and asked my friend to note down the address and meet him there. He took some paper and scribbled the address. As he was about to put it in his pocket, Chettiar asked for it. He had a look at it and said:'What! Your handwriting is so hopeless, worse than that of a school boy.And you want a job with us?' That was the end of my friend's dream of a job with AMM!

My own experience of job-interview in the private sector was interesting. Immediately after the MA exam, my professor asked me to apply to some private bank , without waiting for the formal results. I did and within  a week was asked to "appear for a test" on some day in Madras.. I did not know what the test was.I reached Madras that morning and proceeded to the bank, expecting some test in general knowledge. But  there was a group of some 200 candidates ! I was handed over a regular question paper, in three parts: Economics, statistics and exchange arithmetic. All had been subjects for MA, but Statistics was in the first year. I answered the Economics portion, skipped the statistics completely, and solved the exhange arithmetic, but in my own way, without showing the working steps. Within 5 days, I was called for a "preliminary interview", the interview board consisting of GM from their economic dept., a DGM, and an AGM. They had the answer paper with them , with several things marked.  They said that they had called 16 people for the interview, that I had been ranked third, but that they had some doubts and apprehensions about my answer paper. First, why had I not answerd the statistics. I told them that I had studied statistics in the first year, but in our exam system it did not come in the second year and so I had no touch with it then. Statistis was full of formulas and equations and such stuff. Unless I remembered everything I could not answer. 'I could not bluff', I said, and so I had not answered it.

 But I pointed out that the bank had not been fair. They had simply asked me to appear for a test, without specifying the subjects. The city students had been able to ascertain the details, while I could not do it from the mofussil centre. So it was not fair on their part to have included it. Now, the gentlemen looked at each other , excused themselves for a few minutes, the GM went out to consult the Chairman, and came back  and told me: 'Gentleman, you are right. So, we are cancelling the question for all'. Statistics left out, I topped the list!

Then began the second part of the interview. They said that my answer to the exchange arithmetic had been the only correct answer. But they were not convinced, because the  working steps were not shown. I had just given the answer! What was the guarantee that I had not somehow known that this question would come, or had not simply copied?

I was stumped- such a doubt had never occurred to me! But I was young, and alert and knew the subject. I told them: "What is so great about this arithmetic?. Evitt and Holgate are the two authorities. According to both of them, the exhange rates always moved within a narrow band, the variation ranging from 1/32 to 1/64 percent. You had to apply the rate appropriate for the purchase or sale transaction. We know the actual  dollar-sterling, dollar-rupee and rupee-sterling rates from the newspapers. We know the variation cannot be greater than the band prevailing. So, I had taken the actual market rates, applied the band and arrived at the answer. The answer cannot contradict the market! If you want, I can repeat the exercise here , in front of you. I at least know the method." They were satisfied.

But the real grilling began now, on the economics paper. They had marked specific sentences and began to ask me on them. They wanted to know whether they were my own, or I had quoted some one without citing the source. I told them that  we were taught to be intellectually honest, always giving credit where it was due. Even so, we read and absorbed a lot and unconsiously we may write based on the thought of some authority. We always rode on others' shoulders, but we would only follow those authorities whom we liked. They had noted one sentence in particular: I had written- I still remember, after 50 years- that "the difference between a developed and developing country is not one of degree but of kind". They wanted to know where I got it from! I told them that it was the result of my own reflection,based on my studies and reading. I told them I had reflected a lot on the subject of development, in the context of planning V. free enterprise controversy, that I was opposed to planning as it reduced everything to quantitative dimensions and this sentence reflected my view that planning was inappropriate for development, as more fundamental, qualitative changes were called for.. 

The interview came to an end after about 4 hours. I was called for two more interviews, the last one with the Chairman and the Board. I was finally offered the position of a "Covenanted Officer" ( whatever it might mean) but I did not accept it as it contained some clauses which were one-sided, favouring the bank, and placing the candidate at some disadvantage. 

About a week later, my prof sent for me. I thought I had offended him in some way. He was a person we all respected deeply, and I really felt uneasy . I met him, and was relieved to find it was not that at all. He had heard from  the bank about my performance. He said that he felt proud about me, that I had done the college proud. Taking the job was my own decision, but as my teacher he felt happy! Oh, I felt so relieved, happy, and simply broke down. I told him that all I learnt was from him ,due to his example and encouragement and blessings.

The whole episode shows how knowledge, quality, standards prevailed those days in the private sector. It was really tough for people to get in. But I think the people looked for something more or deeper than mere academic knowledge, which was but the starting point. They looked for character.They tried to judge the person as a whole, over several situations, not just in a few hours on a day.

Interviews- public sector

Such intensity I did not experience in the public sector, at any stage. People interviewed candiates as a matter of routine, and few people were endowed with any academic spirit or enthusiasm. Only once did I meet such a person- a retired ICS fellow, a Parsi gentleman. Our organisation had engaged him to interview people for promotion- by itself a sinister move, as the intention was elimination, not selection, and the final say rested with the management. He used to ask many questions of  people and almost every one  felt that he was cynical, sadistic, negative , was not satisfied with anything, etc. Any way, my turn came and I went in. In the course of the initial conversation, I happend to mention , "no sir, that would be the post hoc error". The man jumped! He asked me whether I knew what it meant, whether I knew the full thing. I repeated it: post hoc,ergo propter hoc- meaning 'after this, therefore on account of this' and explained that it was a logical fallacy and gave some examples. He asked me how  I knew this, where I had picked up.I said I had studied logic at college and happened to remember this. He then went on asking me  so many other things in logic, I lost patience, and hope. He was like a university don, examining a candidate on his thesis; only here, there was no thesis, but my future at stake! This went on for more than 90 minutes- for him it seemed the world had stood still!

 At the end, when the ordeal was over, I told him that I had studied the subject more than 18 years before at college, and asked him how he cold expect me to remember so much,when subsequently we had been doing other things!  He told me that people were very superficial, did not get beyond  a few words and phrases, He had to find out how much they knew, to find out their depth! 'You have got your job- why should I come in the way? But I want to know what you are as a person!" Then he asked me how I remembered things so well, when it was not related to my job. By then I had developed some confidence and told him : Sir, what is in these jobs? Everything is written down, you cant attempt anything new, you have to work to please your boss.There is no intellectual content or stimulation in these jobs. We are from the middle class with families , so we can't try something else, especially without any specialised qualification. We tend to become dull. We work to earn our bread,but to keep myself mentally alive, I read books, sometime updating on my college subjects."

This was a mistake, for he again engaged me. He asked me on what subjects I read, and  the last book I had read. I knew I was trapped, for whatever I mentioned he was sure to question me on that! So I avoided all academic subjects, and took a blind shot. I mentioned Future Shock by Alvin Toffler, thinking the old man might not have noticed this latest book.. Oh, no! He had read it and started asking me about the theme, the main arguments, etc. This continued for another half an hour. At the end, he stood up, and shook my hand. He had himself studied logic more than 40 years earlier and was happy to find a fellow 'drunkard' like him!

In the public sector such interactions are rare, exceptional. The seniors have their postition and do not interact; interview means just questioning. The top man is always thinking of his next assignment, after retirement. So he is busy cultivating the bureaucrats, or contacts in the private sector! Almost no one reads any thing to develop new insights, or methods. If you tried anything, there would be trouble. Ask bank chairmen what they had read on banking theory, after they cleared their professional exam, if any. Or chairman of any public sector company about pricing public utilities. And ask the FM about the principles and ethics of taxation!

We are all Indians!

But the private sector is not much different, or better. We are Indians first, private or public sector. Even in the IIMs, you find the professors regurgitating foreign theories and ideas, however unsuited to our requirements or environment. At one time we heard about Quality Circles, Kaizen, etc. What happened to them? Like the rest of the world, the management graduates are only busy selling toilet soap and tissue paper! Or playing with your money in the name of financial management, or doctoring balance sheets of companies to boost non-existent or declining profits. In all these years, I found only three professors from the IIMs dealing with Indian themes, concerns, methods, insights, needs: Prof. N.S.Ramaswamy, Prof. S.K.Chakraborty, Prof.R.Vaidyanathan. Others are only trying to implant America in India. Indian private sector is a vassal of the American, now the agent of the Chinese! Many exporters I knew have turned importers, because it is so much easier to make money that way and ,ultimately, making money is all the private sector game! 

It is here the public sector is so vital. But people in authority do not realise. The concern about Railway is not profit- it is national service. Railway is still one of the few things that promotes the national feeling- though here too linguistic politics has invaded, and now we have zones to coincide with the lingusitic states. HMT was such a national icon. We can't say the same thing about Telecom: it is a disgrace. Postal Dept is a victim of technology- all over the world. But the courier companies in the private sector are neither efficient, nor professional. The private telecom companies, cable operators, set-top box providers- are all money oriented, not service oriented. Any day, the street-corner kirana shop is much better than the modern superbazars, who often give you a computerised bill , charging you for items or quantities you did not purchase!

Take banking. What is the big difference between them in the quality of service? Most banks do not care who or what the customer is. They charge you for withdrawing your own money, with which they play and make profit ( or incur loss, if it is public sector.) Some banks even charge you when you deposit cash! Most banks will give you loan for unproductive purposes like consumer loan, car loan, personal loan. Housing loan is easily given if you are an employee, with salary. But the banks are in league with the builders, and after they entered the fray in a big way, real estates prices have also risen in a big way, just because the loans are available, though at unreasonle rates. For others it is difficult. Educational loan is both difficult to get and costly to service. But if you are a small manufacturer or entrepreneur, no bank will touch you with a pair of tongs, though on paper various govt.schemes are available.Private banks do not favour them, but the public sector banks are indifferent.But the same banks will service big corporate defaulters in big ways. Credit card dealings with banks-especially new private sector banks or foreign banks is to be avoided if one is sensible. They are like the blade companies. And no bank in any sector deals with you as a person- you are just a number, and they are happy not to deal with you in person! Phone them /SMS them/mail them, but don't meet them! In all these areas, how has new knowledge or technology improved matters? Earlier we were wary of carrying cash.Today we are wary of carrying the card; nay, even keeping the card at home, for one never knows when the money will be syphoned off, even when the card is with you! The rain- it falleth on the just and also on the unjust fella- sang an old poet. Now we can say: hightech - that is availabe to the regulars and the rogues; only, the rogues are better at the game!

Knowledge> Technology> Gadgets

Knowledge is translated to technology; technology is reduced to machinery at production stage, and gadgets for consumption. Technology applied to production has rendered small enterprises almost impossible to operate and survive. Latest machinery costs a fortune in any field; it necessitates large investment, requiring large returns through large sales; at the same time the technological upgradation results in reduced employment, but requires people with high and higher qualifications. Small and marginal units are edged out. 

At the consumption level, the gadgets reduce users to the level of automatons , going through and repeating routine motions.. Though the gadgets are supposed to embody high technology, the normal user is no more than an elementary schooler: he knows just to push the buttons but nothing about the technology! He only has to study the literature to understand how to use the gadget. He is just a literate idiot! People do not realise how it reduces the quality of life in the long run. Those used to computers cannot concentrate on a serious book on a serious subject even for an hour. Why, many people cannot even read the editorial page of a newspaper or an academic journal.

Technology is common to both the sectors but see how they are deployed. The transmisssions in private TV channels are much better than Doordarshan, as also the production values.But the quality of programs is equally silly and horrible in both! Govt FM stations are horrible in the quality of transmission, but they sit on a huge pile of invaluable archival material. The private FM stations are so good, but they broadcast trash mostly! Printing technology has vastly improved, but it benefits advertisers in the newspapers more than the readers.The govt textbooks, and all Indian textbooks generally are still printed badly on poor quality paper! Govt school, hospital,office buildings are still built poorly and maintained even more poorly. Visit a govt office or college  in Bangalore and show me a window without a broken  or missing glass! Show me one lift which functions properly, or one corridor which is properly lit! Show me one school with all teachers present, or one hospital with all doctors in attendance! This is a sector which no knowledge can reach or no technology can touch or transform! It is the fault of the people who run them. They cannot manage; they can only damage! Why should they work if they can get paid without it? The only area where one really feels the beneficial result of technology is railway reservation: you can book tickets from anywhere to anywhere from anywhere at any time! 

Much-hyped IT sector


So much is written about the IT sector. It has the greatest concentration of highly literate but least educated, and even less cultured young brutes. Watch them outside their work environment and see how uncivilised  and uncivil most of them are. Husband-wife IT pair is a deadly combination. The work culture is such that it is believed that if you stick to one company for long, you are no good, so you keep hopping every few years- there is no long-term relationship, leave alone loyalty. The company also feels that the seniors cost more; they can get fresh juniors , with the latest qualification,  at less cost. So the whole industry resembles a railway platform or airport lobby: all are in transit, no one is permanent or long term! And yet they talk of organisational culture! It is just making money, while the going is good!

No Free Enterprise but crony-capitalism
No socialism but group tyranny

In the actual world, there is neither free enterprise, such as Adam Smith advocated, nor real socialism of an idealistic type. What prevails is big-business-govt nexus ie crony capitalism, in the name of free economy. What prevails in the name of socialism is a rule by a group of powerful families or politicians ,with a military nexus. Technology is used by them to entrench themselves in power. Whichever party comes to power in the so called free West- Conservatives, Liberals, Social Democrats. Christian Democrats, Labour, Republicans, Democarats- has to survive by the support of the capitalists.They support the party at elections, and the party returns the favour on forming the govt. Labour has found the labour force unmanageable, while technology has taken the sting out of trade unions. Whatever may be the state of knowlege and technology, the economy is run as a matter of political expediency.And the political class   lacks both knowledge and wisdom; the really knowledgeable cannot influence matters: especially when it matters.