I see no reason for giving the capital employed in agriculture greater protection than the capital vested in other branches of trade, manufacture, or commerce.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I would argue that no financial instrument counted as regulatory capital should be allowed to receive any protection from losses.
If an industrialist can sell his products anywhere in India and the world, why should a farmer not be allowed to do so?
From my earliest acquaintance with the science of political economy, it has been evident to my mind that capital was the product of labor, and that therefore, in its best analysis there could be no natural conflict between capital and labor.
I said that if I were an industrialist or entrepreneur, I would invest in agriculture-based enterprises, for there is so much that can be done in manufacturing, in food preservation.
I support the view that free trade in goods and services is a win-win situation. I'm not so convinced that free flows of capital without restriction is a win-win situation.
The land is not in the least bit fertile and yet the cattle herds grow larger and larger. A cow represents capital investment here.
Throughout the industrial era, economists considered manufactured capital - money, factories, etc. - the principal factor in industrial production, and perceived natural capital as a marginal contributor. The exclusion of natural capital from balance sheets was an understandable omission. There was so much of it, it didn't seem worth counting.
Every major food company now has an organic division. There's more capital going into organic agriculture than ever before.
The labour of the farmers, no doubt is of greater value than the financial capacity of the government and non-government institutions which can only play a supportive role.
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. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.