Reverse Henry-Fordism

There are no sellers without buyers.

That’s the first law of practical economics. Everyone knows this to be true, whether or not one has ever taken a course in Economics. Everyone except, apparently, a few Ph.D economists who seem to forget this rule when they are hired by the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, etc., from which they migrate, back and forth, between offices in Republican administrations and these right-wing think tanks.

For these worthies, the “first law” is replaced by the dogmas of deregulation, “trickle-down” and market fundamentalism: impoverish the masses, throw money at the rich who will then invest it, and then “the invisible hand” of the unregulated free market will bring forth a cornucopia of goods and services.

Never mind that there will be few if any buyers for these consumer goodies.

Henry Ford saw the fallacy of such a policy when he raised the wages of his workers. His competitors in the auto industry were aghast. “Why did you do that?,” they asked. Ford is said to have replied, “If I don’t pay them more, who will buy my cars?”

It took awhile, but Henry Ford was eventually proved to be right. In 1935, in the depths of the great depression, Congress passed the Wagner Act which greatly enhanced the power of labor unions to bargain collectively on behalf of their members. And after World War II, the G.I. Bill allowed millions of returning war veterans to go to college and then to enter the work force as trained professionals. The ranks of the middle class swelled, and as a result of this gain in disposable income, so did the nation’s economy. In an ongoing and sustainable economic symbiosis, the investments of the capitalists “trickled down” to increase the worker’s productivity, income and purchasing power, which in turn “percolated up” to provide generous returns on these investments. Like the fabled golden goose, this economic arrangement promised a perpetual production of “golden eggs” of shared prosperity.

Then came Reaganomics, which allowed the ruling oligarchs with their insatiable appetites for “more, still more,” to dismantle the unions, to cut back workers’ salaries and benefits, to ship manufacturing and management jobs overseas, to starve the tax base through loopholes, regressive tax rates, and off-shore incorporations, and to strip the government of its Constitutionally stipulated function of regulating commerce. (Article One, Section Eight). As most citizens have consequently drifted toward poverty and serfdom, and the government has been taken “to the bathtub” to be drowned, the upward “percolation” has been drying up. Rather than protect and perpetuate the economic system that produced their wealth, the privileged class is cooking and devouring the golden goose.
Senator Bernie Sanders reports the resulting plight of the American middle class:

The economy is doing great, except for 90% of the people in the economy. The reality is that we have the hollowing out of the American economy. Median family income declined by $2500 in the last seven years. 8 million people lost their health insurance. 3 million people lost their pensions. This is a strong economy? You’ve gotta be insane to believe that.

Meanwhile, the richest one percent of the population possesses more wealth than the bottom ninety percent. (See also G. William Domhoff: “Wealth, Income and Power“).
This is how a once-flourishing economy shrivels up and dies: the few who own and control the nation’s wealth refuse to share that wealth with the many who produce that wealth.

Ahead lies ruin for rich and poor alike.

For those with eyes to see, and a willingness to see, the consequences of this unconstrained and unregulated greed are apparent and irrefutable: a constriction of the economy which, unless met immediately with decisive and painful countermeasures, must lead to economic collapse. We can expect no such countermeasures from the Bush (“the fundamentals are sound”) administration. With the bursting of “the housing bubble,” consumer debt has reached its limit: the national credit card is maxed out. Under Bush, the cost of food has doubled, and of gas has tripled. (Neither food nor fuel are counted in Bush’s phony Consumer Price Index, which consequently understates the gravity of current inflation). As the average family spends more on necessities such as food, medical care, home heating and transportation to and from work, “luxuries” simply must drop out. No more vacations. Fewer trips to the movies and to restaurants. Fewer purchases of new cars (the old one will have to do for a few more years). Businesses fail, workers are fired, stocks plunge, unemployment rises, the dollar falls, the cost of imported goods (which means, due to outsourcing, most consumer goods) rise. Still less disposable income to pay for higher priced goods and services. More businesses fail, more workers are fired, etc. Down, down, down, goes the spiral.

No sellers without buyers.” It’s so obvious, so indisputable, even tautological. How can anyone doubt this fundamental rule of practical economics, much less promote policies that defy it? Answer: because just as history is written by the victors, political/economic dogma is written and taught by those with great wealth and power. And anti-government, trickle-down, market absolutism are the dogmas of those who own and control the nation’s wealth: dogmas that Friedrich Nietzsche called “a master morality,” and that John Kenneth Galbraith characterized as a “moral justification for selfishness.”

History provides numerous examples of such “justifications” by those privileged with wealth and power. Out of the middle ages came the doctrine of “the Divine right” of royalty to rule in luxury. This was supplanted by the Protestant claim that personal wealth was the sign of Divine grace. In the gilded age of the late nineteenth century, the Robber Barons embraced the theory of “social Darwinism;” their wealth proved their superior “fitness” to survive. And now we have the regressive dogmas of Reaganism, of Bushism, and, let’s admit it, to some degree at least, of Clintonism: “trickle down,” unconstrained capitalism, the wealth of the few as the key to the wealth of all others. “The rising tide” that lifts all yachts, the regressives assure us, lifts the dingys as well.

The fundamental error of “trickle down” economics is not that it is false, but that it is a pernicious half-truth. As noted above, in a healthy economy, investments do in fact yield results that “trickle down” to the benefit of the workers and the public at large. But as Abraham Lincoln correctly noted in his first inaugural address, “Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed.” Thus “trickled-down” benefits of investment presuppose the “percolated-up” wealth that is produced by labor. An economic theory that touts “trickle-down” benefits of investment to the neglect of the production of labor and the well-being of the workers, is a theory that must fail in its application.

The doctrines of regressive economics – “trickle down,” market absolutism, minimalist government – are dogmas in the literal sense of that word: like creationism and dialectical materialism (Marxism-Leninism), they are believed and promulgated independently of evidence and practical experience. If they are applied and fail, there is always an excuse at hand that does not allow a suspicion that the dogma itself may be flawed. In contrast, progressive economics is empirical, experimental and pragmatic: constant in ends, and adaptable in means. As with numerous schemes in FDR’s New Deal, the progressive policy is tried and, if it fails, it is discarded and a new approach is attempted, and so on until policy is found that “works.” (For an expansion of this point, see my “Beautiful Theory vs. Baffling Reality.”).

The public must reject these false dogmas of regressive economics, and the sooner the better; better for both the public in general and for the oligarchs. The longer that these dogmas dictate public economic policy, the greater will be the fall and the greater will be the retaliation of the people against their oppressors.

No untried utopian schemes need to be invented to replace the current kleptocracy. Only a restoration of a system that has proven itself in the past: a regulated capitalism combined with a social democracy dedicated to the welfare of all citizens and founded on the consent of an informed public as manifested in honest, accurate and verifiable elections. And that latter condition presupposes the existence of a free, independent and diverse media, along with a public education system staffed with well-paid, competent and dedicated teachers.

In short, what is required is a return to the liberalism — “the New Deal,” “The Fair Deal,” “The New Frontier,” “The Great Society” — that Ronald Reagan and the regressives have abolished in the past twenty-seven years. The programs and policies of Reagan’s liberal predecessors were all imperfect, as are all human endeavors, but unlike the regressive politics of today, these earlier administrations had within themselves the means of adaptation, correction and improvement.

We the people know the way out of the political and economic morass in which we find ourselves. But if we are to escape, we must do so ourselves. We can expect no help from the corporate media or from the politicians of both political parties that have led us into the present crisis.

* Note: These ideas are presented and defended at greater length in “Remedial Economics for Regressives;” Chapter 9 of my book in progress, Conscience of a Progressive).

Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. He has taught Philosophy at the University of California, and in Utah, Colorado and Wisconsin and is the co-editor of The Crisis Papers. His e-mail is: Read other articles by Ernest, or visit Ernest's website.

19 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. brs said on June 20th, 2008 at 8:25am #

    The blind spot of the upper class in the US is that wealth came to most of them without work. They are the intellectual heirs of the European aristocracy and believe that they are superior by birth. Genetics determines their superiority and God forbid they should have to prove it by producing anything. They are too good to sully their lily white hands. Bertrand Russell said that any society that scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity and tolerates shoddy philosophy because philosophy is an exalted activity will have neither pipes nor theories which hold water. We have reached that point. Failures of physical infrastructure such as the Minneapolis bridge and repeated crane collapses stem from a lack of respect and understanding of basic mechanics and structural maintenance. Laws of physics do not need courts. They enforce themselves. Some of the theories which do not hold water are well summarized here by Professor Partridge. The ongoing debacle in Iraq incorporates both failures; a poorly thought plan and failure to respect the physical resources necessary to accomplish the objective coupled with massive corruption.

  2. Lloyd Rowsey said on June 20th, 2008 at 9:44am #

    I would send this to a friend, but brs’ perfect addendum would be lost. Thank you both. And I will only add — an old axe of my own — that Milton Friedman was no mathematician, much less a great one.

  3. Adam said on June 20th, 2008 at 10:13am #

    I would like to know the author’s definition or understanding of “dialectical materialism” and why he thinks its just as erroneous as free-market dogma. Not doubting that it is, but I’m weary of one-sentence a priori arguments against Marx. There’s a very important baby being thrown out with the bathwater.

    Although some excellent points were raised in the first half of the article (and in the excellent comment above), I believe a more radical analysis of capitalism and the current human condition is needed. When you honestly look at what capitalism really is and where it came from then a “regulated capitalism” is no more justifiable than a “regulated racism” or a “regulated misogyny.” The giant gorilla in the room, Western industrial civilization from which springs capitalism but 20th century socialism as well, needs to be addressed. Marx was by no means the only more radical perspective. Consider indigenous and feminist perspectives as well.

  4. hp said on June 20th, 2008 at 10:50am #

    Very simply put, “a society of cheaters and the cheated.”

  5. Lloyd Rowsey said on June 20th, 2008 at 10:52am #

    The quotation from Lincoln, Adam, about labor being prior too and independent of capital, captures enough of the baby for me. And when you (very properly) introduce history, we must not only recognize that the gorilla in our room has been in here a very long time, but that it has the ability to destroy the room…and the house…and the world. What with the nuclear weapons situation. This is not to counsel despair, just to say we have to mind our p’s and q’s.

    As for “more radical perspectives”? It seems to me that anarchism is more radical than most if not all indignenous or feminist perspectives.

  6. Michael Dawson said on June 20th, 2008 at 1:14pm #

    Henry Ford is one of the most over-rated and mis-interpreted figures in human history.

    He did not raise wages to help his workers or anybody else’s.

    You could read about it, if you bothered to care:

    Stop giving capitalists credit they don’t deserve!

  7. DavidG. said on June 20th, 2008 at 5:41pm #

    Speaking about Henry Ford, I just did a post about him called ‘Driving To Hell.’

    It suggests that the car has brought about the demise of our planet. You might be interested in my thoughts.

  8. Brian Koontz said on June 20th, 2008 at 10:38pm #

    This article is ridiculous in one key way – many of the capitalists (and virtually all of the big ones) are multinational. It literally doesn’t matter to those if the American economy is ruined because they can just go feed on the next victim, that is to say the next country’s exploited class. Sure, the US may be trashed, but there’s always China, India, there’s always Europe, the African continent is opening up for business, Asia is booming, the Middle East is getting friendlier.

    Americans are not special. They are not going to be protected by the American elite. They are going to be devoured.

    Notice that in the Henry Ford quote his buyers lived close to him – the buyers were Americans. That’s not the case for the capitalist future of the world – the capitalists will be here and there and everywhere searching for the most exploitable workforce and finding buyers wherever enough capital groups together.

  9. Brian Koontz said on June 20th, 2008 at 10:51pm #

    “The ongoing debacle in Iraq incorporates both failures; a poorly thought plan and failure to respect the physical resources necessary to accomplish the objective coupled with massive corruption.”

    There is no debacle in Iraq – Iraq is a tremendous success story. The American multinationals are getting just what they want – massive transfer of funds from American taxpayers to them, enhanced and perpetrated by their own incompetence (which leads to cost markups and ongoing projects). The military-industrial complex is getting just what it wants – by not controlling the country they can maintain perpetual war which means perpetual war funding.

    It’s only from the perspective of the American taxpayer and the Iraqi people that Iraq is a debacle, but those people are not in control of the situation and they have no power to end it.

    Iraq is a “debacle” just like Vietnam was a “debacle” just like Iran will be a “debacle”. Stop being a fool and start seeing who gains and who loses from perpetual war.

    This is the Age of Orwell which the American state fully understands.

  10. Lloyd Rowsey said on June 21st, 2008 at 12:21am #

    It’s past my bedtime, and I’ll try to continue this discussion tomorrow. But if he thinks he’s refuting anything Partridge said about Henry Ford, Michael Dawson should really try to find something more timely and supportive of his criticism than the 1984 article in Monthly Review he cites:

    He should also point out where Partridge asserts that Henry Ford raised wages “to help his workers.” Since Ford’s (alleged) question, “Who will buy my cars?” clearly shows he had his own interests primarily in mind.

    In fact, if either Partridge or brs thinks the critical posts from “lefties” rate their rebuttals, I’ll almost certainly not continue this discussion tomorrow.

  11. hp said on June 21st, 2008 at 4:25pm #

    I agree, Brian. a smashing success for the demonic miscreants.

  12. Brian Koontz said on June 21st, 2008 at 8:45pm #

    Iraq is a postmodern capitalist dreamworld – first destroy the country, then rebuild it, then destroy it, rebuild it, etc., while providing “security” and claiming control over the government and resources. Claim you are “fighting terror” so that Victim Group #1, the American taxpayer, is pacified. Control the national media so that group can’t see the massive carnage and chaos. Destabilize the country so that militia groups rise so that you can pit one against another like a snake. Victim Group #2, the Iraqi people, suffer terribly, but since they are poor, non-Western, and underwent a decade of horrific sanctions the power-component of the international community doesn’t care.

    The war in Iraq went so tremendously well, with zero effective resistance inside the US and not much more elsewhere, that the Bush regime stepped up it’s ambition with pressure on Iran, the Middle East’s biggest threat to Western Imperialism. If Iran proves to be as much of a “debacle” as Iraq did there may no longer be a state threat to Israel in the Middle East, or to American oil hegemony there.

    Meanwhile, the American taxpayer – ignorant, bewildered, stressed, and despairing, complains about only one thing – the price of gas. The complicit American knows at the back of his mind, a place he refuses to reach, that if only the American imperialist machine is successful enough enough scraps will fall from the table so that Americans can continue to lord over the rest of the world. So why bother resisting the war? If we aren’t victimizers we’ll be victims, and we sure don’t want to end up like the Iraqis, or the Africans. Better to be the Roman, or rather the Roman’s cared-for slave, than the Christian eaten by lions.

    While the left covers the crimes of the Bush regime quite thoroughly, they almost entirely ignore the complicity of the American people, a complicity that extends to the working class itself. Considering a typical member of the American working class makes 40 times more money than the median global citizen, there is literally no “starvation class” in America, and hence no bottom-feeders. Americans are quite aware that the reason there is no starvation class in the criminal capitalist American society is because it’s important to pacify Americans (in order to safely enable a claim that the society is democratic), and the prime method of pacification is for the American elite to take care of Americans’ basic needs and a bit more.

    There are two major reasons why the American left largely avoids the subject of the complicity of the American people – the American left sympathizes with Marx for whom the working class can do no wrong. The second, and far more important, is that the political goal of the American left is not social justice, it’s not to eliminate oppression or state terror and it’s certainly not to end capitalism. It’s to transfer money from the American capitalists to the American workers. Considering the American capitalists obtained this money largely from non-Americans, this is a transfer of criminal blood-money from the mob boss to the mob underlings. It doesn’t address the victims of American capitalism – victims located in Asia, in Africa, in Eastern Europe, and elsewhere.

    Whenever a prominent member of the American left turns toward global socialism (which unlike blood-money transfer threatens the existence of the American elite), as did Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X, they are killed. That’s the world we find ourselves in today.

  13. hp said on June 21st, 2008 at 9:12pm #

    “Better to be the Roman, or rather the Roman’s cared-for slave, than the Christian eaten by lions.”
    And isn’t it ironic that this ‘being’ permeates from top to bottom, in the USA.

  14. joeblow said on June 22nd, 2008 at 2:18pm #

    Mr. Koontz –

    Perhaps you’re referring to a working class with which I am not familiar.

    I’ve lived the vast majority of my long life in the working class, and I’m living here today. The working class people with whom I’m familiar ( but to whom I’m not close ) are not aware that the US is an empire. They know almost nothing about American foreign policy, in general, as they receive most of their information from local mainstream newspapers and from radio and television news. Most are entirely unaware of alternative sources of information and those who are aware, tend to think of such sources as “wack-jobs,” fools, liars, or “America Haters.” Most seem still to believe that the US is an essentially benevolent nation, truly attempting to help less fortunate nations rid themselves of poverty, misery, and totalitarian governments. A relatively significant percentage still support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, though they feel we’re not doing enough to “win,” and – you’re right, they’re worried about oil prices. Most tend to think we can still become energy-independent, if we’d just drill more oil here at home…

    It’s important, methinks, that you realize that the American working class, too, is a victim of American capitalism. Most working class folks know very little of what goes on throughout the world – or here at home – because they are mired in one or two or more grim, demeaning jobs with low salaries and few if any benefits. Their days are filled with hard work, lots of disrespect, few pleasures, and few, if any, bright options. As children, they were sent off to America’s public schools where they were taught that sitting still and being quiet and obedient were infinitely more important than curiosity, understanding, real education, self-fulfillment, or even honesty and integrity. They were taught that their opinions and questions were entirely unimportant, and that there were “others,” their betters, who had the right answers, the ONLY right answers, and that they would be given these answers if they would simply shut up, listen, and memorize. They were taught that dreams and aspirations were mostly the stuff of laziness, foolishness, and profound immaturity, and that they should buckle down and learn how to fit nicely into the service or manufacturing industries.

    They were bright, energetic, passionate, determined kids – and they learned their lessons well.

    Now, as adults, they somehow do not see their frustrating, confusing, anxiety-ridden, overworked, under-rewarded lives as “40 times more” rewarding than that of your “global citizen.” They don’t ponder the existence or non-existence of a “starvation class,” or feel that they’re receiving crumbs from the capitalist class in order to pacify them… They’re overworked, underpaid, exhausted, uneducated, and trying very, very, very hard to do the best they can.

    Exactly where in “back of their minds” do you think they’re keeping all of this deep social /political awareness of the “American Imperialist Machine?” Give me the location, would you? I’ll pass on the information and see to it that they stop “refusing to reach” for it…

    As to the so called “Left” and it’s “sympathy” for the working class:
    I get most of my information from CounterPunch, DV, and Z-Mag. I’m unable to discern this “sympathy” for working people at these sites, though I visit each of them every single day. On the contrary – my perception is that the Left very much dislikes working people, though their disdain is often shrouded in cutesy phrases about “educating” working folks, or “enlightening” them, or “waking them up.” Indeed – I don’t think the Left, the Center, or the Right gives a shit about working people. I think the Left, the Center AND the Right profoundly dislike and frequently even despise the working class. I think if there was a quote revolution unquote tomorrow, much of the working class would end up in detention / reeducation centers for a while, so that they could learn – finally!!! – to be and to think more like their betters in the middle and coordinator / scientific classes.

    The problem with such a scenario, of course, is that the middle class and the coordinator classes would be unable to do any such thing without using huge numbers of working people to actually do the work, build and maintain the required structures, transport the detainees, fix and maintain the transport vehicles, care for the injured, the sick, the wounded… As I see it, the working people actually DO the work, actually create the wealth, actually maintain the whole fucking world, while the rest of the population spends most of their time disliking, despising, or merely laughing at them – at them and their supreme foolishness. Dear lord, they hunt, they fish, they eat meat, they go to church, they fight, they drink, they smoke tobacco, they ride those off road vehicles that roar about throughout the forests and fuck everything up. And they don’t even know what’s going on! They’re just stupid, ignorant, useless…

    Well, they carry the whole fucking society on their backs, and at some point, those portions of society which are riding about on those already exhausted shoulders, ought to find some way to communicate with them, respect them on their own terms, and become friends with them. Until and unless this happens, there will be no significant, enduring change here in the Empire – or anywhere else. In the meantime, when your car breaks down – see if Alexander Cockburn, some of the cool authors here at DV, or some Libertarian talking head can fix it for you. When your electrical system or plumbing goes out – find an educated radical to take care of it. When you or one of your friends or family needs to get to a hospital, see if you can get some of the more enlightened folks to stabilize the patient, get him or her into the ambulance, and get them to the hospital alive. Once there, see if you can get a doctor, an administrator, a public health expert, a cool, knowledgable radical, etc., to ACTUALLY take care of the patient – as opposed to writing orders, giving orders, dispensing advice, and wandering off to pick up a fat paycheck…

    If you run into anyone with magical powers, see if you can get them to Bang! – zap the working class off the face of the earth. Then, 6 months or a year later *** if you’re still alive *** you can write and tell us how much time you’ve spent, during that time, thinking about, reading about, and pondering politics, the world situation, and the machinations of the capitalist class… Maybe, however, you’d be off in a vacant lot somewhere, with a few of your friends, gulping down a few beers, smoking a cigarette or two or three, and getting ready to go to bed early before getting up to do it all again – and again, and again and again…

  15. Brian Koontz said on June 22nd, 2008 at 4:49pm #

    “And isn’t it ironic that this ‘being’ permeates from top to bottom, in the USA.”

    It’s hardly ironic. The poor in the United States understand the pain of suffering, of low-status, of oppression. They enjoy inflicting this same pain on others, who they demonize just like the elite in the US demonize them. In the criminal global capitalist hierarchy there are innumerable points, and unless you’re at the very top or the very bottom you have experience BOTH at oppression and at being oppressed, at both feeling the pain of receiving oppression and the pleasure of giving it.

    Here’s one personal story showing just this – I (a white guy) was riding my bicycle to work, and was heckled by three hispanics because they were in a car (requiring greater wealth and hence displaying greater status). This is a pretty mild form of oppression as oppression goes, but it illustrates the point that everyone who lives in a capitalist system is corrupt. Until we destroy the system there are no truly good people in the world.

    People who we call “good” are people who *try* to be good, and sometimes succeed. People who fight their own corruption. Those are the *best* people living today.

    Noam Chomsky is a classic example. We can see the strain he lives under to be moral. That’s why he’s so disciplined, because he knows that corruption always waits for him and he doesn’t want to yield to it.

    By destroying capitalism and building a just society, we will enable not just justice but morality – the goodness of humanity – to prevail.

  16. hp said on June 22nd, 2008 at 7:46pm #

    Brian, why is it the poor of that Shanty Town in India do not allow themselves to suffer by proxy, position themselves as victims and neither do they wish ill of their ‘betters.’ They press on with their ‘industry’ and live with each other in an realistic way which puts the American so-called poor (at least compared to the Indians) to shame. Amid their lowest of the low castes, they show dignity, honor and spirit the likes of which is rare in the US at any class level.

  17. Brian Koontz said on June 23rd, 2008 at 7:12am #

    The poor of India are not morally superior to the poor of the US – the reason for the difference in behavior is differences in the structural and economic history of the two countries.

    I don’t know the history of India much at all, but I know they are not an imperialist society, though they seem to rapidly be becoming one. All I know about India is that they were under British domination for a time.

    Starting in the late 19th century, the United States became an imperialist society. A way to define imperialism is “capitalist exploitation abroad”. Profit is funneled from other countries to the United States, where it starts out in the hands of the capitalist exploiters and then depending on the national politics gets divvied up in any number of ways.

    Under Imperialism the national economy is no longer of defining importance. It becomes more profitable (potentially and often actually) for the poor to get imperialist blood-money transferred to them from the local capitalists than to build local and national economies.

    It’s embarrassing that Chomsky celebrates “advances in democracy” in the United States when those advances amount to a transfer of blood-money from local capitalist to local worker – all Imperialist societies (the Soviet Union is another example, as is Western Europe) feature these “advances in democracy” and all of them never extend the “advances” outside their own borders.

    The poor in the US have been living in a vastly wealthy criminal society for over a century now and their culture reflects that. The poor of India have been living in a colonized society, then a “free” society, and their culture reflects that. The poor of the two countries are equally moral, with vast differences in their culture resulting from vast differences in their structural and economic history.

  18. siamdave said on June 23rd, 2008 at 8:16am #

    – capitalism is tried and found wanting on Green Island

  19. hp said on June 23rd, 2008 at 8:39am #

    The poor of India would laugh at your incomprehensibility (to them) and continue on with their personal industry. Their OWN lives.
    For someone who doesn’t know much about India, you certainly have some conditioned thoughts.
    Conditioning doesn’t just apply to the bad guys and the ‘poor.’