Free-Market Capitalism Vs Government-Controlled Socialism

In 2005, Tamil movie director Shankar Shanmugam made a movie called Anniyan ('Stranger'). The hero was a vigilante who goes around killing corrupt government officials. He launches his anti-corruption campaign in an auditorium by giving a slides-presentation on a big screen (!). In it, he first shows old black and white photos of Singapore and Hong Kong from 1945 – they were just small and poor fishing villages. Then he shows pictures of the two places today – big, rich and modern cities. Then he asks: "These two countries have made so much progress since 1945. We became free in 1947. Why are we still a poor country?". He answers: "It is because of our corruption. So from tomorrow, I will start killing anybody who takes a bribe."

It is a powerful scene. But it is only half-correct: it asks the right question – but gives the wrong answer. People are fundamentally the same in every country. Indians are not much different from the people of Singapore and Hong Kong – with roughly the same mix of good and bad. So it is not that we are significantly less moral than Singaporeans and Hong Kongers. But if that is the case, then what is the answer to the vigilante's question?

Human nature is the same everywhere. But different societies have different destinies because of different systems. Systems are destiny. And economic destiny is decided by the economic system. In 1945, Singapore and Hong Kong adopted free-market capitalism. But in 1947, India adopted government-controlled socialism. The results are there for everybody to see . . .

India, Socialism and Free-Market Capitalism (FMC)

What is capitalism? The dictionary says it is an economic system in which 'the means of production are privately owned'. 'Means of production' means farms, factories and companies. 'Privately owned' means not owned by the government but by individuals, families and groups. So capitalism is an economic system in which individuals, families and groups (not the government) own farms, factories and companies. Now how else should an economic system be? And how else has it been – since the beginning of civilisation? It is nothing but the natural economic system.

If capitalism is the natural economic system, why have a term for it? That too a term ending with 'ism' – as if it is an ideology? The word 'capitalism' was coined by Karl Marx – for two reasons:
1. To defame/slander the natural economic system
2. To distinguish it from his economic system 'socialism' – in which the government owns farms, factories and companies.

India became free in 1947. Nehru was a socialist. So he chose socialism as our economic system. With socialism, our economy grew at an average rate of 3% and our population grew at 2%. So our average income grew at 1% per year. Meanwhile, the East Asian countries (Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong) and the South East Asian countries (Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore) did not make this mistake. They adopted capitalism and grew at 10%. The result: By 1990, the East Asian countries became high-income countries and the South East Asian countries became middle-income countries. And we? We were still a low-income country – though in 1947, these countries were poorer than India.

Finally in 1991, the Soviet Union (the world's biggest socialist economy) collapsed – and proved that socialism is an inefficient economic system (China had wisely converted to capitalism in 1978 itself). The same year we had an economic crisis and we converted to capitalism under Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao. Since then, our economy has grown at an average rate of 7% and our population has grown at 1% – so our average income has grown at 6% per year. As a result, we have drastically reduced our poverty and are on track to eliminate it. We have also become the world's 5th biggest economy and are on track to becoming, yes, a superpower. All this is due to the free-market capitalism (FMC) we embraced in 1991.

So now we have a choice:
A. Continue with free-market capitalism and become a First World country.
OR
B. Go back to government-controlled socialism and remain a Third World country.

Which Is The Best Job For Me?

Which is the best job for me? How to find the best job for me?

There are fundamentally 4 types of activities:
1. Working with Things
2. Working with People
3. Working with Information
4. Working with Ideas

Based on this, we can classify jobs also into 4 types. No job is a 'pure' job – ie, involving only one type of activity. Every job is a 'mixed' job: involving all the 4 types of activities – but in differing quantities. And in every job, one of the 4 types of activities will predominate. Thus there are fundamentally 4 types of jobs.

Different people enjoy doing different types of activities. Some enjoy working with things, some enjoy working with people, etc. So there are fundamentally 4 types of people:
1. Thing-workers
2. People-workers
3. Information-workers
4. Idea-workers

So the key to happiness is to:
1) Find out which type of activity we enjoy doing
2) Do a job in which that type of activity predominates.

Right-Wing Intellectuals & Intellectualism

A majority of intellectuals happen to be Leftists. And the Right refers to this majority as 'intellectuals' – not as 'Leftist intellectuals'. This seems to be a reasonable and acceptable approximation. But it is actually a dangerous mistake. Why? Because every time we refer to Leftist intellectuals as just 'intellectuals', we are saying that intellectualism and the Left are one and the same. We are surrendering the intellectual space to the Left. We are running away from the intellectual battle-field. Many right-wingers are fine with this. They say: "Leftists are thinkers; we are workers. They are arm-chair/ivory-tower people; we are real/practical people. They can keep their thought/thinking. We will do social work and build a strong society. We will do political work, win elections and rule the country. Thus we will build a strong India".

This kind of thinking is ignorance at its worst. What is a nation? What makes a great nation? What is a society? What makes a strong society? These are fundamental questions. And to know their answers, all we have to do is look at the 5000-year-old history of India. When we do that, we see that for 4000 years India was the greatest civilisation in the world. India's empires were the richest and most powerful empires in the world. How were these political and economic achievements possible? They were possible because they were built on the foundation of thought/thinking: philosophy, mathematics and science. Our kings, emperors, warriors, soldiers, traders, merchants, artisans, craftsmen, farmers and farm-workers built our rich and powerful empires – no doubt. But our philosophers, mathematicians and scientists laid the foundation for it.

What does all this mean for us today in the 21st century? The right-wing/nationalist project is to make India a superpower – technologically, economically and militarily. And to achieve this, it is not enough to simply 'build a strong society, win elections and rule the country'. Because a country can become strong technologically, economically and militarily only if it has a solid foundation of thought/thinking. So to make India a superpower, we must begin with the domain of thought/thinking. We must stop surrendering this domain to the Left. We must take it back and make it our own. And for that, the first step is to stop referring to Leftist intellectuals as just 'intellectuals' – and call them by their correct name: 'Leftist intellectuals' (or better still, just 'Leftists'). Then we must take the second step: developing right-wing/nationalist intellectuals.

Demonetisation, Modi and the 2019 Election

In November 2016, Prime Minister Narendra Modi in one stroke scrapped all ₹500 and ₹1000 notes. These accounted for 85% of India's cash. And India's economy is 80% informal/unorganised – which is heavily cash-based. The new notes took a long time to arrive – and people stood in long queues in banks and ATMs for many weeks. More importantly, demonetisation (DeMo) devastated the cash-intensive informal sector. Many small-scale enterprises shut down – and threw their unskilled workers into unemployment and poverty. The impact showed both in the form of a lower growth rate and also a higher unemployment. Of course, there were going to be long-term benefits: more formalisation, more digitalisation, more tax-payments, etc. But these are of interest only to economists. In a democracy, a political party has to face elections every 5 years. In this case, there were only 2.5 years to go for the next national election. So DeMo looked like a politically suicidal move.

Over the next 2.5 years, the Indian economy grappled with two major problems: unemployment and agrarian distress. Unemployment reached a 45-year high and it had definitely been made worse (if not created) by DeMo. Agrarian distress was also at least partially due to DeMo – because agriculture is also a cash-intensive sector. The 2019 national election approached and political scientists said the BJP would pay for its sins. Specifically, the Prime Minister would pay for his sin: DeMo. So the BJP which had won a majority on its own in 2014 would now fall to around 200 seats. Even the NDA would not win a majority – it would get around 250 seats. So the BJP/NDA would need one, two or most probably all three of the 'neutral' state parties (TRS, YCP, BJD) to form the government. Narendra Modi would become Prime Minister once again – but this time he would be much weaker. This was the consensus opinion of almost all political scientists.

Then the election happened. And the BJP won 303 seats – with the NDA winning totally 358 seats. Even by itself, this was an earthquake. And coming in the wake of a politically suicidal move like DeMo, it was a double-earthquake. So how did Narendra Modi manage to pull it off? He did it mainly through many pro-poor welfare schemes – but that is less important. What is more important is the basic fact that he pulled it off at all. Let this sink in: Narendra Modi carried out a politically suicidal move like DeMo and then went on to win 300+ seats. So what does this mean? It means only one thing: Narendra Modi is politically invincible. He is electorally bullet-proof. He can do anything (I repeat: ANYTHING) – and still win the next election. Conventional political wisdom can go to hell . . .

Narendra Modi's Welfare Capitalism

India's economic models:

Period	Prime Minister	Economic Model
1991–1996	P V Narasimha Rao	Capitalism
1998–2004	A B Vajpayee	Capitalism
2004–2014	Manmohan Singh	Socialism
2014–2019	Narendra Modi	Welfare Capitalism

Welfare Capitalism = 50% free-market capitalism + 50% pro-poor welfare schemes

2019 National Election and Modi-Shah's BJP

In 2014, BJP won 282 seats and reduced Congress to 44 seats. It was only the second time that a party other than Congress had won a majority. And it was the first time in 30 years that any party had won a majority. How did this happen? Economists gave 4 reasons:
1. 12% inflation
2. Low job-creation
3. Massive corruption scams
4. Modi's 12-year track record as Gujarat CM – and promising the same for India.

This looked like a logical explanation. Then the 2019 election should have been a return to the 'normal' state of elections in the coalition era (1989 onwards). That is – BJP should have got around 200 seats and Congress should have got around 100 seats. Instead, BJP got 303 seats and Congress got 52 seats. What does this mean?

It means the above explanation for the 2014 election was wrong. BJP's majority (and Congress's decimation) was not just due to the above 4 factors – which were temporary in nature. Instead it was also due to something far more fundamental and long-term in nature. And this was the transformation of BJP from a semi-national party into a real national party (what Congress was till 1989) – under the leadership of the Modi-Shah duo. The process started in 2014 (with Shah focussing on Uttar Pradesh) and continued in 2014-19 (with Shah focussing on the whole country). That is – during 2014-19, Amit Shah extended his 2014 Uttar Pradesh model to the whole country.

There is another story here, of course. In 1998-99, BJP first formed the government under Atal Bihari Vajpayee. In 1991, P V Narasimha Rao had started India's journey towards a free-market capitalist (FMC) economy. During 1999-2004, Vajpayee continued this journey by carrying out FMC reforms. Now FMC reforms lift poor people out of poverty – but the process takes longer than 5 years. And poor/illiterate people are the majority in India. As a result, BJP/NDA lost the 2004 election (much to the shock of economists).

Cut to 2014. Narendra Modi had run Gujarat for 12 years as an FMC reformer. So economists expected him to continue the same as Prime Minister. But Modi had learnt from 2004 that India is not Gujarat and so a purely FMC approach would not win the 2019 election. So he pursued a two-track approach. On the one hand, he carried out economic reforms – Goods & Services Tax (GST), Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC), Ease of Doing Business (EoDB), etc. These reforms strengthened the Indian economy – and will lift poor people out of poverty (after some time). On the other hand, he also carried out pro-poor welfare schemes – giving houses, toilets, gas-cylinders, etc to the poor. These schemes made poor people happy – by immediately improving their quality of life.

A nationalist party must make the country strong. But it must also win elections. It can make the country strong only if it is in power – not if it is sitting in the opposition. So Modi's two-track approach aimed to achieve both these objectives.

But this governance approach alone would not win the election – even with its pro-poor welfare schemes. Because having a good product is not enough; you also need a good distribution network – to take your product to your customers. Good business = good product + good distribution. Similarly, good politics = good governance + good organisation*. So a complimentary organisational approach was also needed. And Amit Shah did this by aggressively expanding BJP's organisation machinery. He took BJP into the East. He made BJP reach out to poor people – who had benefited from Modi's welfare schemes. He made BJP reach out to lower castes, Dalits and Adivasis. Thus he expanded BJP both vertically (socially + economically) and horizontally (geographically):

BJP's Base	Before Modi-Shah	Under Modi-Shah
1. Geographic	North + West	North + West + East
2. Economic	Middle Class	Middle Class + Poor
3. Social	Upper Castes + Lower Castes	Upper Castes + Lower Castes + Dalits + Adivasis

Therefore the 2014 election gave us a glimpse of BJP's long-term strategy under the Modi-Shah duo. And the 2019 election has shown us its culmination.

*The complete equations are:
1. Good business = good product + good distribution + good marketing
2. Good politics = good governance + good organisation + good campaigning

Life, Change And The Self

LIFE, CHANGE AND THE SELF

Everybody always talks about how the world is always changing. True. But the equation of your life has two major variables: the world and YOU. And people don't talk much about how you also keep changing. Change in this variable is simply assumed to be a continuous increase in knowledge level - which is due to accumulation of knowledge, which in turn is due to experience. As if man is a vessel that just keeps getting filled. But it's not only that. The 'vessel' itself keeps changing. That is - not just what we know but also what we think, what we want, what we like, etc (basically who we are) keep changing continuously.

So dealing with a 'fast-changing world' is the easy part. It is dealing with a continuously changing YOU that is much more challenging - and therefore much more exciting . . .

Surf Excel's Holi Ad

Surf Excel made an ad for Holi, and media praised it for 'promoting Hindu-Muslim harmony'. Some people questioned the ad - and media called them 'trolls'.

The ad shows an apartment colony on Holi. The children of the colony are bombarding people with colours. Then a girl comes and tells them to throw colours at her. She keeps doing this till all their colours are finished. Then she calls somebody out. He is a boy wearing a skullcap and white kurta-pyjama. She goes with him to a mosque and he goes inside to pray.

On the face of it, it seems to be a nice ad that promotes positive feelings/relations among people of different religions. Now let us look at it a little more closely:
1. If it weren't for the girl, the children would have ruined not just the Muslim boy's white clothes but (more importantly) his trip to the mosque and his prayer. The apartment colony is India and the children are Hindus. So:
a) Minorities (Muslims/Christians) have different circumstances and therefore special needs.
b) Hindus are ignorant of this and hence trample on Muslims/Christians' special circumstances/needs.
2. Children suffer from ignorance - so Hindu children ill-treat Muslims/Christians due to ignorance. But adults don't suffer from ignorance - so Hindu adults ill-treat Muslims/Christians not due to ignorance but due to bias/prejudice.
3. The girl is a liberal who protects the Muslim boy and opens the eyes of the Hindu children. Similarly, liberals protect Muslims/Christians from Hindus and educate Hindus about their bias/prejudice.

Thought/Thinking: Left Vs Right

Indian Leftism is nothing but hatred - ie, hatred of Hinduism and Hindus. But they call this hatred as 'thought'/'thinking' and themselves as 'thinkers'. Unfortunately the Indian Right has swallowed this falsehood - and therefore sees thought/thinking as an enemy. But the real enemy is hatred. Thought/thinking has been the foundation of India and Hinduism for 5000 years. It is also the most powerful weapon in the war against hatred.

Hatred Of Hinduism And Hindus (HHH)

# The British created a virus called Hatred of Hinduism (HoH).
# Our liberals mutated it into Hatred of Hinduism and Hindus (HHH).
# They labelled this hatred as 'secularism' - and (more importantly) any questioning of this hatred as itself 'hatred' (of non-Hindus).
# So Hindus are reluctant to question HHH - because they don't want to be accused of 'hatred'.
# This is the most brilliant pre-emptive strike in the history of ideological warfare.

See Hatred Of Hinduism

Law Of Mistakes

LAW OF MISTAKES

The number of mistakes you will make is proportional to:
1. The distance between where you are and where you want to be
And
2. How much of that distance you cover.

Thinkers And Workers

There are fundamentally two types of activities:
1. Working with people and things - ie, 'Working'
2. Working with ideas and information - ie, 'Thinking'
1% of humans are thinkers and 99% of humans are workers. The job of thinkers is to supply ideas. The job of workers is to implement those ideas.

This is the most fundamental division of labour in society. A society/country prospers when it gets this division of labour right. And it decays when it gets this division of labour wrong.

How Is Your Life?

HOW IS YOUR LIFE?

1. "I am where I should be."
Status = Great
2. "I am going where I should be."
Status = Good
3. "I'm in the wrong place, but I have a way out."
Status = Average
4. "I'm in the wrong place, and I have no way out."
Status = Perfect. Because you are experiencing life in all its glory, beauty, intensity and madness . . . ! ;-)

Society/System: Sheep & Wolves - 2

99% of people live in the system called society. They are the sheep. 1% of people run the system called society. They are the wolves.

For the system to run properly, the sheep must follow some rules: don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, don't kill. In order to run the system properly, the wolves must lie, cheat, steal and kill.

For the wolves, there is only one rule: don't get caught. Every now and then, a foolish wolf gets caught. Then the other wolves throw him to the sheep. The sheep stamp the foolish wolf and kill him. Then both the sheep and the wolves go about living their lives and performing their functions. And the system keeps running . . .

See Society/System: Sheep & Wolves

Reservation for Upper Castes

RESERVATION FOR UPPER CASTES

When we became free in 1947, we had a legacy of a 1000-year-old unequal social system - which had excluded two groups: Dalits (15%) and Adivasis (7.5%). So to give them a level playing field, they were given reservation in education and government jobs in 1950. Dr B R Ambedkar said this system would be there for 10 years - and then abolished.

But in 1960, this system was extended by 10 more years saying it had not yet achieved its objective. Why did it not achieve its objective? What were the things that had to be done to make it achieve its objective? Nobody asked. This trend continued every 10 years thereafter.

In 1990-93, a new dimension was added. Another 27% reservation was given to the 'poor' among the Shudras (40%) - who were the bottom of the 4-layer social system. Now the total reservation came up to 50%. Supreme Court said reservation must not go above this level - to strike a balance between merit and social justice. But some states violated this rule.

Now we are in 2019. We have had 58 years of reservation for Dalits & Adivasis and 25 years of reservation for 'poor' Shudras. What is the situation today? What is the economic condition of the people of these groups? Is it satisfactory? If not, why - even after 58/25 years of reservation? What are the things we should really do to uplift them? These are fundamental questions. But we are not even asking them.

In 1947-50, we gave 15% and 7.5% reservation to SCs and STs because that was their population. But in 1990-93, we gave only 27% reservation to OBCs - though they are 40% of the country. Why? Answer: To stay within the Laxman Rekha of 50%. OBCs demanded 40% reservation - but they were kept at bay by using the Laxman Rekha.

Now we have erased that Laxman Rekha. So all hell will break loose. First, there is no moral ground left to say no to 40% reservation for OBCs. Next, SCs and STs are today 17% and 9% of the country. So they will also demand their quota to be increased. And so on and so forth.

We have opened the gates of hell . . .

PS: SC/ST reservation is going to the children of IAS/IPS officers, doctors and engineers - who don't need it. It is not going to the children of farmers and factory workers - who need it. So SC/ST creamy layer must be excluded from reservation (like OBC creamy layer).

India's 2019 National Election and Narendra Modi

INDIA'S 2019 NATIONAL ELECTION AND NARENDRA MODI

Since 1991, economists have been saying that India needs big-bang reforms to eliminate poverty and become a superpower. But big-bang reforms are impossible in a democracy. So the next-best option is incremental reforms - which grow the economy at a respectable 7-8%. And that is what both P V Narasimha Rao and Atal Bihari Vajpayee did.

When NDA came to power in 2014 (after the disastrous UPA period), everybody thought it would be Incremental Reform Govt - 3 (IRG-3) - after Rao's IRG-1 and Vajpayee's IRG-2. But the new Prime Minister was different. He was not interested in incremental reforms. He wanted to carry out the big-bang reforms that economists say India needs. So he carried out not one but two big-bang reforms: demonetisation and GST. When a weak man starts exercising, he will become strong - but only after some time. In the meantime, he will feel only aches and pains. And this is exactly what is happening with the Indian economy.

Humans see only short-term pain and not long-term gain. That is why people in every country vote against govts that carry out radical reforms. Everybody is saying 2019 will be a test for Modi/BJP/NDA. They are wrong. 2019 will be a test for us - Indians. Can we see not just the short-term pain but also the long-term gain of fundamental reforms? May we all have the wisdom to make the right choice next year . . .

2018 People Of The Year

# For their heroic struggle to preserve the traditions of the Sabarimala temple
# For their courageous fight against the violence of the Communist government
# For their brave campaign against the dictatorship of the Supreme Court
# For their inspiring battle against the anti-Hinduism of the Republic of India
The devotees of the Lord Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala - especially the women - are 2018's People Of The Year . . .
Swamiye sharanam Ayyappa . . . !

How Demonetisation Digitalised India's Economy

Capgemini and BNP Paribas's World Payments Report - 2018 (PDF) on how demonetisation digitalised India's economy:
# The Indian Government's demonetisation program resulted in the world's second-highest growth in non-cash transactions (33.2%).
# India is forging ahead of its peers - as open banking, P2P lending and demonetisation KRIIs (Key Regulatory and Industry Initiatives) take hold.
# India is expected to overtake Australia by 2018 and Canada by 2019 - and become the #9 country in the world (in the number of non-cash transactions).
# The government's financial inclusion measures have led to higher adoption of debit and prepaid cards.
# Debit cards contributed the highest growth of 76.2%.
# Credit card volumes grew by 38.1% - compared with 27.8% in 2015.
# The number of payments via mobile wallets increased by 75.5% in 2016.
# The financial literacy program Jan Dhan Yojana led to a 27% increase in financial inclusion during 2014-16.
# Initiatives to note include the development of an open API stack - a set of APIs that enable governments, businesses, startups and developers to use a single digital infrastructure to provide remote, paperless, cashless and consent-based service delivery.
# Other aspects to note include a push for digital payments through demonetisation efforts including the Bharat QR code & Aadhar Pay and growing demand for e-wallets.
# The National Payments Corporation of India's (NPCI) efforts to bring digital payments into the mainstream and financial inclusion measures by the government are driving India towards increased digital transactions.

India's #MeToo Movement

INDIA'S #MeToo MOVEMENT

For a long time, a man could do anything to a woman if he had money or power (or both). So a lot of rich/powerful men did a lot of wrong things to a lot of women - and kept getting away with it. This has been a great evil in our society. Now - after all these years of Adharma - finally Dharma seems to be coming. Everybody has started talking about the problem and - more importantly - the victims have started exposing their abusers. Hopefully this is the beginning of a process that will deliver justice to the victims and punishment to the culprits. Hopefully this will bring an end to rich/powerful men abusing women and getting away with it. From now on at least, let all men treat all women with respect - if not out of decency, then at least out of fear . . .

यत्र नार्यस्तु पूज्यन्ते रमन्ते तत्र देवताः।
यत्रैतास्तु न पूज्यन्ते सर्वास्तत्राफलाः क्रियाः।।

yatra naaryastu poojyante ramante tatra devataah ।
yatraitaastu na poojyante sarvaastatraafalaah kriyaah ।।

Where women are worshipped, there the Gods are happy ।
Where women are not worshipped, there all work is useless ।।

- MANU SMRITI [3.56]

Sabarimala Temple and Hinduism

Yes, Indian society is chauvinist/patriarchal/misogynist. And this chauvinism/patriarchy/misogyny (CPM) comes from 1000 years of Turkish/Mughal/British feudalism – not from Hinduism. So the traditional bar on females (of age 10-50) at Sabarimala temple had nothing to do with today's Indian society's CPM.

What is Hinduism? It is not a monolithic religion like Islam and Christianity with a uniform set of beliefs and practices. Hinduism is a way of life with a thousand different traditions – each with its own unique set of beliefs and practices. This co-existence of a multitude of different traditions – ie, diversity – is what gives Hinduism (and India) its strength. So the best way to weaken Hinduism (and India) is to erase this diversity by imposing an artificial uniformity in the name of a false equality. And that is exactly what liberals have done. They cleverly portrayed the bar on girls/women at Sabarimala as another instance of Indian society's CPM – and won the battle.

There are about 2 lakh temples in India. All except around 20 of them - ie, 99.99% - allow both men and women. Around 10 temples don't allow men and around 10 don't allow women. This is due to the unique traditions of these 0.01% temples. It has nothing to do with 'equality' or 'inequality'.

Many right-thinking Hindus are trying to defend Sabarimala against the Supreme Court verdict by talking about the entry of women into mosques. This is a wrong approach. If tomorrow Supreme Court orders the entry of women into mosques, then will that make the Sabarimala verdict right? Should Hindus then accept the Sabarimala verdict? Absolutely not. The bar on girls/women aged 10-50 at Sabarimala is based on a logical reason, and should therefore remain - regardless of whether women are allowed into mosques or not. Entry of women into mosques is a separate issue - and must not be connected with Sabarimala in any way whatsoever.

See:
1. A brief explanation of the Sabarimala tradition (5 mins)
2. A detailed explanation of the Sabarimala tradition - 1 (25 mins)
3. A detailed explanation of the Sabarimala tradition - 2 (25 mins)
4. Famous temples where MEN are not allowed

Jobs, Wages and Employment in India

Key features of jobs, wages and employment in India*:
1. Growth creates fewer jobs than it used to.
- A 10% increase in GDP now results in less than 1% increase in employment.
- Unemployment among the youth and higher educated has reached 16%.
2. Wages are rising but they are below the 7th Pay Commission's minimum.
- Wage rates have grown in most sectors at 3% per year or more.
- 82% of male and 92% of female workers earn less than ₹10,000 a month.
3. Replacement of workers by machines has slowed down.
- ₹ 1 crore of fixed capital in organised manufacturing supports 10 jobs.
- Contract workers are nearly 30% of all workers in organised manufacturing.
4. Productivity has increasingly diverged from wages.
- Labour productivity in organised manufacturing increased by 6 times over the past 30 years, but wages increased by only 1.5 times.
5. 'Surplus Labour' industries still dominate as 'new' service economy grows slowly.
- 'Surplus labour' based industries account for more than 50% of service sector employment.
6. Gender disparities are still high but are reducing in some cases.
- Women are 16% of all service sector workers but 60% of domestic workers.
- Women earn 65% of men's earnings.
7. Women's participation in the paid workforce is low but some states perform much better than others.
- While only 20 women are in paid employment for every 100 men in UP, this number is 50 in Tamil Nadu and 70 in the North East.
- Government programs are crucial.
8. Caste disparities are large but government policy is reducing them.
- Scheduled castes are 18.5% of all workers but 46% of leather workers.
- Caste earnings gap is larger than gender earnings gap.
9. Crafts remain big employers and are central to the rural non-farm economy.
- With over 500 officially listed arts and crafts, the sector represents immense cultural value, ecological positives and crores of jobs.

*Source: "State of Working in India 2018" (PDF) by Centre for Sustainable Employment, Azim Premji University.

Law Of Learning

LAW OF LEARNING

Learning happens when we transition from one state to another. And the amount of learning is proportional to the difference between the two states.

RSS, Brahmin Guilt and Action Vs Knowledge

The RSS was born out of nationalism. But there was another element in its DNA: Brahmin guilt. The RSS was founded by Brahmins who were not just nationalist but also happened to be guilty about the historical role of Brahmins in Indian society. In their view, Brahmins had been ivory-tower philosophers who had cut themselves off from the rest of Indian society and buried themselves in Vedas and Shastras – while India was being conquered and ruled by foreign invaders. And that is why India was under slavery for 1000 years. So the two sins of Brahmins were elitism and intellectualism. Thus the RSS has, since its birth, tried to make amends for these two sins by giving primacy to:
1. Action over knowledge
2. Quantity over quality.

How To Change A System

HOW TO CHANGE A SYSTEM

Is a system best changed from inside or from outside? The answer is that both internal and external stimuli help to change a system. But the nature of the two stimuli - and the role they play - are different. The external stimuli will be direct assaults demanding immediate and fundamental change - based on first principles. Whereas the internal stimuli will be indirect pushes towards gradual and incremental change - based on the rules of that system.

Greatest Strength/Interest: True Potential

1. Every person has a certain greatest strength/interest.
2. Our greatest strength/interest is our true potential.
3. When we exercise our true potential:
a) We are at our happiest
b) We are of maximum use to society.
4. So success is:
a) Discovering our true potential
b) Doing work that exercises our true potential.

Atal Bihari Vajpayee: A Tribute

ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE: A TRIBUTE

Yes, we knew you were old
Yes, we knew you were sick
Yes, we knew it was a matter of time
But still . . .
When the news finally came
It took some time to sink in
And when it did sink in
A heaviness descended on our chests
An emptiness filled our hearts
A darkness wrapped around our souls
For we have not lost a leader
But we have lost our father.

Suddenly after all these years
Of a long silence
And a longer forgottenness
Your voice rings in our ears
Your face shines in our eyes
Your smile lights up our hearts
We hear you again
We see you again
We feel you again
Just like it was yesterday
All these years of separation
Filled up in a mere instant.

Leader, poet, philosopher
You built a modern Brahmastra
And adorned Mother India's arms
You built modern necklaces
And connected India's corners
You built modern airwaves
And connected Indians all over
You freed our economy
And unleashed prosperity
By slaying the demon of socialism
You ruled us for 6 golden years
A rule that ended too soon
Cut short by our own stupidity
If only we had given you more time
If only we had given you more power
Today we would be in a different place
For you did not need us
But we needed you.

So this is what it feels like
To lose someone
Whom we thought was far away
But was so close to us
Indeed was a part of us
The wise tell your achievements
And contributions to the land
But somehow none of that
Really matters to us now
For we have not lost a leader
But we have lost our father
We are your orphaned children
We now have only your memories
To console us in this darkness.

We lost you in 2004 itself
2018 is just a technicality
How you must have laughed then
At our monumental stupidity
No doubt you would have said
"Forgive them, Father
For they know not what they do"
For the loss was not yours
But the loss was ours
We, your foolish children.

The most painful words are "What if"
What if we had been wise
What if we had given you more time
What if we had given you more power
What if . . .
But gone is gone
And the past shall not return
How do we fill this emptiness?
How do we lift this heaviness?
How do we dispel this darkness?
How do we bring back the light?
People miss the light
Only after it goes out
We will now miss your smile
Because we will never see it again.

A selfless child wishes peace
For his departed father
But we are selfish children
All we see is our loss, our sorrow
We, your selfish children
Why did you have to be so good?
Why did you have to be so kind?
Why did you have to be so gentle?
If only you had been like others
This would not hurt so much
We would have thrown a flower
And walked on ahead
Without looking back
But this time is different
Because you were different
A poet among rogues
A saint among sinners
A philosopher among knaves.

There will never be another like you
None with your heart
None with your voice
None with your words
None with your smile
And above all
None with your love
Farewell, our beloved father
Go to your Divine Father
Let your wisdom be with us
Let your strength be with us
And above all
Let your love be with us
We, your orphaned children.

India's Anti-Knowledge Society/Culture

The 21st century will be the knowledge century. Knowledge will play a central role in this century. A country's success or failure in this century will be decided by knowledge. So to succeed in this century, a country must give importance to knowledge. And all the countries of the world are doing this: China, America and many others. All, that is, with one exception: India.

In no other country is knowledge as disrespected as it is in India. Among professions, research/academics is the least respected profession. And education has neither value in the market nor respect in society. A doctorate has less value/respect than a post-graduate, who in turn has less value/respect than a graduate. An anti-knowledge culture pervades our society. People with knowledge are treated with hostility at worst and indifference at best. In the 21st century, this disrespect for knowledge is suicide. Yet we are doing it. Why?

The reason/cause is simple: Our guilt about the caste system. The caste system was a hierarchical and hereditary social system. And it put the knowledge-workers (Brahmanas) at the top of the hierarchy. When India was invaded, conquered and ruled by foreigners (Turks, Mughals, British) for 1000 years, this system became rigid and led to inequality. When we became free in 1947 and started to modernise, we rightly decided to abandon the degenerated caste system. That (again, rightly) meant giving equal respect to a) people of all castes and b) people who do all types of work. So far, so good. But in our over-eagerness to repair the inequality of the degenerated caste system, we (wrongly) took one more step: We stopped giving respect to knowledge itself. The result is the anti-knowledge culture that pervades our society today.

We must distinguish between a hereditary social group (ie, caste) and a social function (here, knowledge). It is one thing to refuse to give special privilege to a hereditary social group who historically performed the knowledge-function in society (ie, Brahmins) -- which is right. It is another thing to refuse to give respect to the social function of knowledge -- which has always been important and is most important in the 21st century. But this is exactly what we are doing. And its consequences are disastrous.

Some people say that our lack of respect for knowledge is due to our systems -- ie, we don't have the right systems in place. (Example: We need more money for research -- both from government and industry) True. But who will build those systems? The Chinese? The Americans? Nobody will do it for us. We have to build our systems ourselves. And we can build the right systems only if we have the right mindset/culture (because everything begins with mindset/culture). So first we must change our anti-knowledge mindset/culture to a pro-knowledge mindset/culture. That is, we must start giving knowledge the respect it deserves in the 21st century world.

PS: A parallel phenomenon (which has the same root-cause) is our attitude towards excellence/quality. We think excellence/quality is anti-equality and mediocrity is pro-equality.

The "Biggest Mistake Of Your Life"

At any point of time in your life, the "biggest mistake of your life" is the decision/choice you made that took you away from the path (that you now think) would have taken you to the point that you now want to be at.

Secret Of Happiness?

SECRET OF HAPPINESS?

Happiness comes from work - not from money. Yes, we need money to live. So the equations are:
1. Work you like + Enough money to live = Happiness
2. Work you don't like + Lot of money = Misery
So what will your life be? Equation 1 or 2? The choice is yours. In the 20th century, option #1 was not available. But in the 21st century, it is definitely available. You just have to search for it.

Your passion should be your job - it shouldn't be your hobby. If you say "I do X from Monday to Friday because it pays me a bomb. But on weekends/holidays I do Y because I love it." then you are living in hell. If you love Y, then why on earth are you doing it only on weekends/holidays? You should be doing it Monday to Friday! You will say "Y doesn't pay any money". That was true in the 20th century - not today. It may not be immediately obvious - but with imagination and experimentation, you can definitely figure out how to make money (enough to live) out of your passion. Or you can continue living in your hell. The choice is yours.

Wisdom: A Mathematical Model/Equation/Definition

A MATHEMATICAL MODEL/EQUATION/DEFINITION FOR WISDOM

W = L1×C1 + L2×C2 + . . . + Li×Ci + . . . + Ln×Cn

Where:
W = Wisdom
n = Number of problems solved
Li = Learning from problem i
Ci = Complexity of problem i

A problem is described by a set of equations - and each equation contains some parameters:
f1(x1,x2,...,xk,...,xp) = 0
f2(x1,x2,...,xk,...,xp) = 0
...
fj(x1,x2,...,xk,...,xp) = 0
...
fm(x1,x2,...,xk,...,xp) = 0

Where:
m = Number of equations that describe the problem
p = Number of parameters in the problem

1. Li = Learning from a problem
Li = e/m
Where:
e = Number of equations discovered (out of m)

2. Ci = Complexity of a problem
Ci = m × p × (c1 + c2 + . . . + cj + . . . + cm)
Where:
cj = Complexity of equation j

3. cj = Complexity of an equation
cj = V1 + V2 + . . . + Vk + . . . + Vp
Where:
Vk = Number of possible values of parameter k

Law Of System Complexity

LAW OF SYSTEM COMPLEXITY

A system must have a certain minimum level of complexity to perform its function. Above that level, its efficiency will be inversely proportional to its complexity.

Law Of Mathematical Models

LAW OF MATHEMATICAL MODELS

The probability of a mathematical model predicting the real world correctly is inversely proportional to its complexity.

First Law Of Decision Making

FIRST LAW OF DECISION MAKING

Every decision must be made at the last possible moment so as to:
1. Have maximum information for making the decision
2. Give your brain maximum time for processing that information.

Laws Of Information Flow And System Efficiency

Laws of information flow and system efficiency:

1. First Law:
A system's efficiency is proportional to the amount/volume/quantity of information that flows in it.

2. Second Law:
A system's efficiency is proportional to the rate/speed/velocity at which information flows in it.

'Major Economy': Definition?

Media keeps saying India is the fastest growing 'major' economy. So which are really the fastest growing economies (regardless of 'major' or 'minor')?
1. Libya - 55% (GDP: $30 billion, #95)
2. Ethiopia - 8.5% (GDP: $70 billion, #65)
3. Vietnam - 7.7% (GDP: $200 billion, #50)
4. Ivory Coast - 7.6% (GDP: $35 billion, #90)
5. India - 7.5% (GDP: $2.5 trillion, #6)

The top 4 are all small countries. So it is easy to say "India is the fastest growing major economy". But is there any precise definition of 'major economy'? Where do you draw the line between 'major' economies and the rest? Do you take the top X economies as 'major'? In that case, what is X? 10? 15? 20? How much? Or do you take a GDP value as a cutoff for 'major' economies? And in that case, what is the cutoff? $ 1 trillion? That will translate to X = 15. Or is it some other value? Or should we take some other parameter?

Hatred Of Hinduism (HoH)

When the British conquered India, they were intelligent enough to figure out a few things:
1. India is the world's oldest and greatest civilisation.
2. It has a way of life called Hinduism - which is its foundation.
3. The only way for them to rule India was to weaken it first.
4. And the best way to weaken India is to attack its foundation - ie, Hinduism.

So the British created a virus called hatred of Hinduism (HoH) and injected it into Indian society. They did this mainly through their education system. And they did it mainly to the Indian upper class.

The British drilled the following program into the brains of upper-class Indians (through their education system) for 200 years:
1a. Western civilisation is the richest and most powerful civilisation in the world.
1b. The foundation of Western civilisation is Christianity.
1c. So the root cause of the West's wealth and power is Christianity.
1d. So Christianity is progressive, enlightened and forward-looking.
2a. India has been a slave nation for 1000 years.
2b. The foundation of Indian civilisation is Hinduism.
2c. So the root cause of India's poverty and weakness is Hinduism.
2d. So Hinduism is backward, primitive and regressive.
3. Thus there is only one hope for India: to erase Hinduism and become a duplicate of the West.

And upper-class Indians absorbed this program completely . . .

The British left in 1947. But the virus they created continued to thrive - under the names of 'liberalism' and 'secularism' . . .

* * *
Four types of people hate Hinduism:
1. Liberals/secularists
2. Communists
3. Islamic fundamentalists
4. Christian fundamentalists

But there is one small distinction among them. #2, #3 and #4 each have their ideology - and hatred of Hinduism is a part of that ideology. But for #1, hatred of Hinduism is itself their ideology.

PS: Was the British propaganda against Hinduism correct? Yes, it is true that India was a slave nation for 1000 years. But India is a 5000-year-old civilisation - and for the first 4000 years of her history, she was the richest and most powerful civilisation in the world. India's empires (Maurya, Gupta, Chalukya, Rashtrakuta, Chola, Vijayanagara) were the richest and most powerful empires in the world. And the root cause of this wealth and power was Hinduism. But nothing lasts forever. So after 4000 years of wealth and power, Hinduism developed some weaknesses. As a result, India was conquered by foreign invaders and became a slave nation.

Law & Order Vs Subsidies

How do we achieve a state of zero rapes? Keeping people safe is the job of the law & order system. And what is the state of our law & order system? Forget high-level things like technology; the most basic thing is manpower. India's police force has only 130 cops per lakh people. The international standard is 200 cops per lakh people. This means our police force is under-manned by 35% - around 10 lakh cops. How can such a weak system do anything at all? The obvious solution is to recruit these 10 lakh cops. But we don't have any money to pay their salaries. Why? Because we are spending 1.5% of our GDP (₹ 2.5 lakh crores) on wasteful subsidies.

We are happily spending lakhs of crores on wasteful subsidies. So obviously we don't have any money for basics like law & order. Want zero rapes? Begin with zero subsidies. Because the path to zero rapes begins with zero subsidies.

Legislature, Executive, Judiciary

The universe has 3 phases: beginning, existence and end. Accordingly, the Supreme Being has 3 functions: creation, preservation and destruction. In Hinduism, these 3 functions are assigned to the 3 Gods: Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.

A society needs rules to run properly. And rules also have 3 phases/functions: making them, enforcing them and interpreting them. So society created a system called 'government' to make, enforce and interpret rules. But if all these 3 powers are with one body, it will lead to concentration of power. And concentration of power leads to corruption. Because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So the government is divided into 3 bodies - with each body doing one of the 3 functions. Legislature makes the rules, executive enforces the rules and judiciary interprets the rules. This is called separation of powers. It is a fundamental feature of a democracy. So a healthy democracy requires:
1. The 3 bodies must be independent.
2. The 3 bodies must respect one another.
This is the Dharma of democracy. It enables a democracy to give freedom, equality and justice to its people. Without it, a democracy cannot even exist - let alone function properly.

By trying to impeach the Chief Justice of India on completely baseless legal grounds and for purely partisan political reasons, the Congress Party has declared war on the judiciary - one of the 3 pillars of our democracy. And in doing so, it has directly violated the sacred Dharma of our democracy. Dharmo rakshati rakshitah, Dharmo vinaashati vinaashitah.

Dharma Vs Adharma

DHARMA VS ADHARMA

Hatred is Adharma, Love is Dharma
Falsehood is Adharma, Truth is Dharma
Slavery is Adharma, Freedom is Dharma
Chaos is Adharma, Order is Dharma

Stupidity is Adharma, Intelligence is Dharma
Ignorance is Adharma, Knowledge is Dharma
Cowardice is Adharma, Courage is Dharma
Weakness is Adharma, Strength is Dharma

May He remove our Adharma
May He fill us with Dharma
May He take us from Adharma to Dharma

May we fight against Adharma
May we fight for Dharma
May we defeat Adharma with Dharma

Ambedkar, Hinduism, Buddhism

Liberals have falsely projected Ambedkar as anti-Hindu. The truth is he was a staunch nationalist.

Myth #1: Ambedkar converted from Hinduism to Buddhism.
Truth: Hinduism is not a religion - it is a way of life. So the question of converting out of Hinduism does not arise. Ambedkar rejected the orthodox Hindu/Indian religions (Shaivism, Vaishnavism, Shaktism) and embraced a heterodox Hindu/Indian religion (Buddhism).

Myth #2: Ambedkar hated Hinduism.
Truth: Ambedkar did not hate Hinduism. He only hated casteism and untouchability. And these were corruptions which had crept into Hinduism under Turkish/Mughal/British rule. If Ambedkar hated Hinduism, he would have converted to a non-Hindu/Indian religion (Christianity).

Best English/Hollywood Movies of 2017

The best English/Hollywood movies of 2017:

1. Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
2. Dunkirk
3. Lady Bird
4. The Post
5. Darkest Hour
6. Shape Of Water
7. Hostiles
8. All The Money In The World
9. Logan Lucky
10. Thank You For Your Service

ಕಲಿ ಯುಗ / Kali Yuga

ಕೃತ-ಯುಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾಡು-ಪ್ರಾಣಿಗಳು ಕಾಡಿನಲ್ಲಿದ್ದವು
ತ್ರೇತಾ-ಯುಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಅವು ಮಾರುಕಟ್ಟೆಗೆ ಬಂದವು
ದ್ವಾಪರ-ಯುಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಅವು ಅರಮನೆಗೆ ಬಂದವು
ಕಲಿ-ಯುಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಅವು ದೇವಸ್ಥಾನಕ್ಕೆ ಬಂದಿವೆ.

In Krita Yuga, wild animals were in the jungle
In Treta Yuga, they entered the market
In Dwapara Yuga, they entered the palace
In Kali Yuga, they have entered the temple.

2017 India: Man Of The Year

• For becoming the Chief Minister of India's biggest state with a landslide majority
• For grabbing Uttar Pradesh's administrative machinery with both hands and whipping it into action
• For cracking down on Uttar Pradesh's notorious crime and lawlessness
• ‎For kickstarting the development of India's second-most backward state
• For driving one more nail into the coffin of anti-Hinduism

Yogi Adityanath is 2017's Man Of The Year . . .

Best Kannada Movies of 2017

Best Kannada movies of 2017:

1. Maarikondavaru
2. ‎Ondu Motteya Kathe
3. ‎Railway Children
4. ‎Happy New Year
5. ‎Dayavittu Gaminisi

Best Hindi/Bollywood Movies of 2017

Best Hindi/Bollywood movies of 2017:

1. Hindi Medium
2. ‎Secret Superstar
3. ‎Ghazi Attack
4. ‎Toilet: Ek Prem Katha
5. ‎Raag Desh
6. ‎Mukti Bhawan
7. ‎Gurgaon
8. ‎Newton
9. ‎Death In The Gunj
10. ‎Rangoon

Special mention
* Sarkar 3

Hindu Capitalism

Hindu capitalism:

• Free-market capitalism is the most efficient economic system.
• But capitalism is a basic economic system - the devil is in the details.
•‎ So each civilisation must build a capitalist system based on its culture.
• ‎Accordingly the West developed a Christian capitalism and China developed a Confucian capitalism.
• Now India must develop a Hindu capitalism . . .

'Star Wars: Last Jedi' - Review

Review (contains a spoiler):

A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, there was a brilliant Jedi Knight called Anakin Skywalker. But his desire for power made him succumb to the Dark Side of the Force - and he became a Sith Lord: Darth Vader. He became the evil Emperor Palpatine's trusted right-hand man. He kills the Emperor only in the end - to save his son Luke Skywalker. This was the story that the first six Star Wars movies told us. But here's a question: if Anakin Skywalker / Darth Vader was truly ambitious, then why stop at being the #2 guy? Why not become the #1 guy?

Force Awakens (Episode 7, 2015) was nothing but a remake of A New Hope (Episode 4, 1977). That is, it was nothing but a repeat of the original story - with just the characters recycled: 'Kylo Ren' instead of Darth Vader, 'Supreme Leader Snoke' instead of Emperor Palpatine, 'Rey' instead of Luke Skywalker, 'Finn' and 'Poe Dameron' as Rey's companions (filling in for Princess Leia and Han Solo) - and Luke Skywalker himself taking the place of Master Yoda. Rian Johnson's Last Jedi (Episode 8) also repeats the original story - but with one important change: the above-mentioned twist.

The first half is just a mountain of new characters, new plotlines, light-sabre duels and space-ship battles. The recipe looks something like "1 kg potatoes + 1 kg onions + 1 kg carrots + 1 kg beans + 1 kg peas + 1 kg garlic + 1 kg chillies + 1 kg tamarind + 1 kg salt + 1 kg pepper" - ie, over-stuffed. It is only in the second half, when the above-mentioned twist kicks in, that the movie finds its logic and direction. A leaner and meaner Last Jedi would have been much better. But that is too much to expect - considering the money Disney has at stake.

There isn't much of acting here. Adam Driver's Kylo Ren is - with his conflicts and torments - potentially the meatiest character (like Hayden Christensen's Anakin Skywalker was in the original story). But the script simply doesn't give the character the time and scenes needed to do justice to it. Mark Hamill with his grey hair and beard looks venerable enough as the elderly Jedi Knight. But the performance that stays with you is Carrie Fisher's. She exudes grace and dignity in her final innings as Princess Leia. Last Jedi will be Star Wars fans' fond farewell to her. Goodbye, dear princess. You will always be in our hearts - and the Force will always be with you . . .

PS: The good news is Rian Johnson has rescued this trilogy after its disastrous start by J J Abrams. The bad news is Abrams will be back to direct Episode 9.

ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಅರ್ಥಶಾಸ್ತ್ರ

ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಅರ್ಥಶಾಸ್ತ್ರ:

• ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಬಳಿ ಸ್ವಂತ ಹಣ ಏನೂ ಇಲ್ಲ. ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಹಣ ಎಂದರೆ ಜನರ (ತೆರಿಗೆದಾರರ) ಹಣ. ಸರ್ಕಾರ ಹಣ ಖರ್ಚು ಮಾಡಿದಾಗ, ಆ ಹಣ ರಾಜಕೀಯ ನಾಯಕರಿಂದ ಬರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ - ಅದು ಜನರಿಂದ ಬರುತ್ತದೆ.
• ಸರ್ಕಾರದ/ಜನರ ಹಣ ಸೀಮಿತ, ಅಸೀಮಿತವಲ್ಲ. ಅದನ್ನು ಯಾವುದಕ್ಕಾದರೂ ಖರ್ಚು ಮಾಡಿದರೆ, ಆಗ ಬೇರೆಯದಕ್ಕೆ ಖರ್ಚು ಮಾಡಲು ಹಣ ಕಡಿಮೆ ಆಗುತ್ತದೆ.
• ವಾಮವಾದಿಗಳು ದಕ್ಷತೆಯು 'ಶ್ರೀಮಂತ-ಪರ' ಮತ್ತು 'ಬಡವರ-ವಿರೋಧಿ' ಎಂದು ಸುಳ್ಳು ಹೇಳಿ ಅಪಪ್ರಚಾರ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಆದರೆ ಸತ್ಯ ಎಂದರೆ: ದಕ್ಷತೆಯೇ ಪರಮ ಬಡವರ-ಪರ ಗುಣ ಮತ್ತು ಅದಕ್ಷತೆಯೇ ಪರಮ ಬಡವರ-ವಿರೋಧಿ ಗುಣ. ಯಾಕೆ? ಯಾಕೆಂದರೆ ಬಡವರೇ ಸರ್ಕಾರವನ್ನು ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಅವಲಂಬಿಸುವರು. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಸರ್ಕಾರ ಅದಕ್ಷವಾದಾಗ, ಅದರಿಂದ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ನಷ್ಟವಾಗುವುದು ಬಡವರಿಗೇ. ಆದುದರಿಂದ ನಾವು ದಕ್ಷತೆಯ ಮಹತ್ವ ಅರ್ಥ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕು.
• "ಬಡವನಿಗೆ ಅಕ್ಕಿ ಕೊಟ್ಟರೆ, ಅವನ ಹೊಟ್ಟೆ ಒಂದು ದಿನ ತುಂಬುತ್ತದೆ. ಆದರೆ ಅವನಿಗೆ ಬತ್ತ ಬೆಳೆಯುವುದು ಕಲಿಸಿದರೆ, ಅವನ ಹೊಟ್ಟೆ ಇಡೀ ಜೀವನ ತುಂಬುತ್ತದೆ" ಎಂದು ಆಫ್ರಿಕಾದ ಗಾದೆ ಇದೆ. ಸುಮ್ಮನೆ ಬಡವರಿಗೆ ಹಣ ಕೊಟ್ಟರೆ, ಅವರ ಬಡತನ ಹೋಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಅದು ಅವರನ್ನು ಬಡತನದಲ್ಲಿಯೇ ಇಡುತ್ತದೆ. ಅವರನ್ನು ಬಡತನದಿಂದ ಆಚೆ ತರಬೇಕೆಂದರೆ, ನಾವು ಅವರಿಗೆ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುವ ಮತ್ತು ದುಡಿಯುವ ಸಾಮರ್ಥ್ಯ ಕೊಡಬೇಕು. ಅಂದರೆ, ನಾವು ಅವರಿಗೆ ಶಿಕ್ಷಣ, ಆರೋಗ್ಯ ಮತ್ತು ಮೂಲವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆ (ರಸ್ತೆ, ನೀರು, ವಿದ್ಯುತ್ತು) ಕೊಡಬೇಕು. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ, ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಹಣ ಹೂಡಿಕೆಗೆ ಹೋಗಬೇಕು - ಖರ್ಚಿಗಲ್ಲ.
• ಸಾಲ ಒಳ್ಳೆಯದಲ್ಲ. ಏಕೆಂದರೆ, ನಾವು ಸಾಲ ಮಾಡಿದಾಗ ಆ ಸಾಲದ ಮೊತ್ತವನ್ನು ತೀರಿಸುವುದಷ್ಟೇ ಅಲ್ಲ - ಅದರ ಮೇಲಿನ ಬಡ್ಡಿಯನ್ನೂ ಕೂಡ ಕಟ್ಟಬೇಕು. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ನಾವು ಸಾಲ ಮಾಡಬಾರದು. ಅಂದರೆ, ನಮ್ಮ ಖರ್ಚು ನಮ್ಮ ಆದಾಯಕ್ಕಿಂತ ಕಡಿಮೆ ಇರಬೇಕು. ಇದು ಅರ್ಥನಿರ್ವಹಣೆಯ ಮೂಲಭೂತ ನಿಯಮ. ಪ್ರತಿಯೊಂದು ಕುಟುಂಬಕ್ಕೂ ಇದು ಗೊತ್ತು. ಆದರೆ ವಿಚಿತ್ರ ಎಂದರೆ, ನಾವು ಈ ನಿಯಮವನ್ನು ಯಾವತ್ತೂ ನಮ್ಮ ಸರ್ಕಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಅನ್ವಯಿಸುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
• ‎ಒಂದು ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆ ಎಷ್ಟು ಸರಳವೋ, ಅದು ಅಷ್ಟೇ ದಕ್ಷವಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಈ ನಿಯಮ ತೆರಿಗೆ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಗೆ ಅತ್ಯಂತ ಪ್ರಸ್ತುತ. ತೆರಿಗೆ ವಿನಾಯಿತಿಗಳು ತೆರಿಗೆ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯನ್ನು ಬಹಳ ಸಂಕೀರ್ಣ ಮತ್ತು ಅದಕ್ಷ ಮಾಡುತ್ತವೆ. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಎಲ್ಲ ತೆರಿಗೆ ವಿನಾಯಿತಿಗಳನ್ನು ತೆಗೆದುಹಾಕಬೇಕು. ಬೇಕಾದರೆ ತೆರಿಗೆ ದರಗಳನ್ನು ಇಳಿಸಬಹುದು.
• ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಕೆಲಸ ನಿಯಮಗಳನ್ನು ರಚಿಸುವುದು ಮತ್ತು ಅವುಗಳನ್ನು ಜಾರಿಗೆ ತರುವುದು. ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಕೆಲಸ ವಸ್ತುಗಳನ್ನು ಉತ್ಪಾದಿಸುವುದು ಅಲ್ಲ. ಖಾಸಗಿ ಕ್ಷೇತ್ರ ಈ ಕೆಲಸವನ್ನು ಹೆಚ್ಚು ದಕ್ಷವಾಗಿ ಮಾಡುತ್ತದೆ. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಎಲ್ಲ ಸರ್ಕಾರಿ ಕೈಗಾರಿಕೆಗಳನ್ನು ಖಾಸಗೀಕರಣ ಮಾಡಬೇಕು.
• ಮುಕ್ತ-ಮಾರುಕಟ್ಟೆ ಅರ್ಥವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರತಿ ವಸ್ತು ಮತ್ತು ಸೇವೆಯ ಬೆಲೆಯನ್ನು ಅದರ ಬೇಡಿಕೆ ಮತ್ತು ಪೂರೈಕೆ ನಿರ್ಧರಿಸುತ್ತವೆ. ಪ್ರತಿ ವಸ್ತು ಮತ್ತು ಸೇವೆಯ ಬೆಲೆ ಈ ರೀತಿ ನಿರ್ಧಾರವಾದರೆ, ಸಮಾಜದ ಸಂಪನ್ಮೂಲಗಳು ಅತ್ಯಂತ ದಕ್ಷವಾದ ರೀತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಿಯೋಜನೆ ಆಗುತ್ತವೆ. ಈ ನಿಯಮವನ್ನು ಯಾವುದೇ ರೀತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಉಲ್ಲಂಘಿಸಿದರೆ, ಅದರಿಂದ ಅದಕ್ಷತೆ ಉಂಟಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಎರಡು ಪ್ರಮುಖ ಉಲ್ಲಂಘನೆಗಳೆಂದರೆ:
1) ಸರ್ಕಾರ ಯಾವುದೇ ವಸ್ತು ಅಥವಾ ಸೇವೆಯ ಬೆಲೆಯನ್ನು ನಿಯಂತ್ರಿಸುವುದು
2) ‎ಸರ್ಕಾರ ಯಾವುದೇ ವಸ್ತು ಅಥವಾ ಸೇವೆಯ ಬೆಲೆಯ ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ಭಾಗವನ್ನು ಕೊಡುವುದು (ಇದಕ್ಕೆ 'ಸಬ್ಸಿಡಿ' ಎಂದು ಕರೆಯುತ್ತಾರೆ)
ಸಬ್ಸಿಡಿಗಳು ವಸ್ತುಗಳ ಮತ್ತು ಸೇವೆಗಳ ಬೆಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಕಡಿಮೆ ಮಾಡುತ್ತವೆ. ಇದರಿಂದ ಸಮಾಜದ ಸಂಪನ್ಮೂಲಗಳು ಅದಕ್ಷವಾದ ರೀತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಿಯೋಜನೆ ಆಗುತ್ತವೆ. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಸಬ್ಸಿಡಿಗಳು ಒಳ್ಳೆಯದಲ್ಲ.

ರಾಜಕೀಯ/ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ಸಿದ್ಧಾಂತಗಳು

ರಾಜಕೀಯ/ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ಸಿದ್ಧಾಂತಗಳು:

ಹಣಕಾಸು ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆ, ಅರ್ಥವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆ ಮತ್ತು ಸಾಲ ಮನ್ನಾ

ಸಮಾಜದಲ್ಲಿ ಅನೇಕ ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ಚಟುವಟಿಕೆಗಳು ನಡೆಯುತ್ತಿರುತ್ತವೆ. ಕೃಷಿಗೆ ರೈತರು ಟ್ರ್ಯಾಕ್ಟರುಗಳನ್ನು ಖರೀದಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ, ಕೈಗಾರಿಕೆಗೆ ಉದ್ಯಮಿಗಳು ಕಾರ್ಖಾನೆಗಳನ್ನು ಕಟ್ಟಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ, ವಾಣಿಜ್ಯಕ್ಕೆ ವ್ಯಾಪಾರಿಗಳು ಕಂಪನಿಗಳನ್ನು ಶುರು ಮಾಡುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಈ ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ಚಟುವಟಿಕೆಗಳು ಆರಂಭವಾದ ನಂತರ ಆದಾಯ ಗಳಿಸುತ್ತವೆ. ಆದರೆ ಅವುಗಳನ್ನು ಆರಂಭಿಸಲು ಹಣ ಬೇಕು. ಈ ಹಣ ಎಲ್ಲಿಂದ ಬರುತ್ತದೆ? ಶ್ರೀಮಂತರ ಬಳಿ ಹಣ ಇದೆ, ಆದರೆ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ಜನರ ಬಳಿ ಇಲ್ಲ. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ, ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ಜನರಿಗೆ ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ಚಟುವಟಿಕೆಗಳನ್ನು ಆರಂಭಿಸಲು ಹಣ ಕೊಡಿಸುವ ಒಂದು ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆ ಬೇಕು. ಆ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯೇ ಹಣಕಾಸು ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆ.

ಶರೀರ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡಲು ಅದರ ಜೀವಕೋಶಗಳಿಗೆ ರಕ್ತ ಬೇಕು. ರಕ್ತಪರಿಚಲನಾ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆ ಶರೀರದ ಜೀವಕೋಶಗಳಿಗೆ ರಕ್ತ ತಲುಪಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ಶರೀರಕ್ಕೆ ರಕ್ತ ಹೇಗೋ, ಅರ್ಥವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಗೆ ಹಣ ಹಾಗೆಯೇ. ಅರ್ಥವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡಲು ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಹಣ ಬೇಕು. ಈ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಪೂರೈಸುವುದು ಹಣಕಾಸು ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆ. ಅಂದರೆ - ಶರೀರಕ್ಕೆ ರಕ್ತಪರಿಚಲನಾ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆ ಹೇಗೋ, ಅರ್ಥವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಗೆ ಹಣಕಾಸು ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆ ಹಾಗೆಯೇ. ಅಥವಾ - ಹಣಕಾಸು ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆ ಅರ್ಥವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯ ರಕ್ತಪರಿಚಲನಾ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆ ಇದ್ದ ಹಾಗೆ. ಹಣಕಾಸು ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯ ಪ್ರಮುಖ ಭಾಗ ಎಂದರೆ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕುಗಳು. ಬೇರೆ ಭಾಗಗಳೂ ಇವೆ, ಉದಾಹರಣೆ: ಶೇರುಮಾರುಕಟ್ಟೆ.

ಜನ ತಮ್ಮ ಉಳಿತಾಯವನ್ನು ಬ್ಯಾಂಕುಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಇಡುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಬ್ಯಾಂಕುಗಳು ಈ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಅವಶ್ಯಕತೆ ಇರುವವರಿಗೆ (ರೈತರು, ಉದ್ಯಮಿಗಳು, ವ್ಯಾಪಾರಿಗಳು) ಸಾಲದ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ನೀಡುತ್ತವೆ. ನಂತರ ಇವರು ತಮ್ಮ ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ಚಟುವಟಿಕೆಗಳಿಂದ ಬಂದ ಆದಾಯದಿಂದ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕುಗಳಿಗೆ ತಾವು ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡ ಸಾಲಗಳನ್ನು ತೀರಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಹೀಗೆ ಹಣಕಾಸು ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯ ಈ ಚಕ್ರ ತಿರುಗುತ್ತಲೇ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ಮತ್ತು ಅರ್ಥವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯ ಯಂತ್ರ ನಡೆಯುತ್ತಲೇ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ.

ಈಗ ಸಾಲ ಮನ್ನಾ ಮಾಡಿದರೆ ಏನಾಗುತ್ತದೆ? ಆಗ ಸಾಲ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡವರು ತಮ್ಮ ಸಾಲಗಳನ್ನು ತೀರಿಸ ಬೇಕಾಗಿಲ್ಲ. ಅದರ ಪರಿಣಾಮ ಏನಾಗುತ್ತದೆ? ಆಗ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕುಗಳು ಸಾಲಗಳನ್ನು ಕೊಡುವುದನ್ನು ನಿಲ್ಲಿಸುತ್ತವೆ. ಅಂದರೆ ಹಣಕಾಸು ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯ ಚಕ್ರ ತಿರುಗುವುದು ನಿಲ್ಲುತ್ತದೆ. ಯಾರಿಗೆ ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ಚಟುವಟಿಕೆಗಳಿಗೆ ಹಣ ಬೇಕು (ರೈತರು, ಉದ್ಯಮಿಗಳು, ವ್ಯಾಪಾರಿಗಳು) ಅವರಿಗೆ ಅದು ಸಿಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಆಗ ಅವರು ತಮ್ಮ ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ಚಟುವಟಿಕೆಗಳನ್ನು ನಡೆಸಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ರೈತರು ಟ್ರ್ಯಾಕ್ಟರುಗಳನ್ನು ಖರೀದಿಸಲು ಆಗಲ್ಲ, ಉದ್ಯಮಿಗಳು ಕಾರ್ಖಾನೆಗಳನ್ನು ಕಟ್ಟಿಸಲು ಆಗಲ್ಲ, ವ್ಯಾಪಾರಿಗಳು ಕಂಪನಿಗಳನ್ನು ಶುರು ಮಾಡಲು ಆಗಲ್ಲ. ಅಂದರೆ - ಇಡೀ ಅರ್ಥವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯ ಯಂತ್ರವೇ ನಿಂತು ಹೋಗುತ್ತದೆ.

'ಅರ್ಥವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆ' ಎಂದರೆ ದೊಡ್ಡ ಕಂಪನಿಗಳ ದೊಡ್ಡ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು ದೊಡ್ಡ ಕಚೇರಿಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಕುಳಿತಿರುವುದು ಅಲ್ಲ. ಅಥವಾ ಶೇರುಮಾರುಕಟ್ಟೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ದಲ್ಲಾಳಿಗಳು ಕೂಗಾಡುವುದು ಅಲ್ಲ. ಅರ್ಥವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆ ಎಂದರೇನು? ರೈತರು ತಮ್ಮ ಹೊಲ-ಗದ್ದೆ-ತೋಟಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಅಕ್ಕಿ-ಬೇಳೆ-ತರಕಾರಿಗಳನ್ನು ಬೆಳೆಯುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಇದು ಅರ್ಥವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆ. ಮತ್ತು ನಾವು ನಮ್ಮ ಕಚೇರಿ-ಕಾರ್ಖಾನೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡಿ, ಸಂಬಳ ಪಡೆದು, ಈ ಸಂಬಳದಿಂದ ಆ ಅಕ್ಕಿ-ಬೇಳೆ-ತರಕಾರಿಗಳನ್ನು ಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತೇವೆ. ಇದು ಅರ್ಥವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆ. ಈ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆ ಇಲ್ಲದೆ ನಾವು ಬದುಕುವುದೂ ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ. ಆದರೆ ನಾವು ಈ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯನ್ನು ಸರಿಯಾಗಿ ಅರ್ಥ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡೇ ಇಲ್ಲ. ನಾವು ಏನು ಮಾಡಿದರೂ ಈ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆ ಸರಿಯಾಗಿಯೇ ನಡೆಯುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು ಭಾವಿಸಿದ್ದೇವೆ. ಇದಕ್ಕಿಂತ ದೊಡ್ಡ ಭ್ರಮೆ ಇನ್ನೊಂದಿಲ್ಲ. ಈ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯ ಕೆಲವು ಆಧಾರಸ್ತಂಭಗಳಿವೆ. ಅವುಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಒಂದು ಎಂದರೆ: ಸಾಲ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡವನು ತನ್ನ ಸಾಲವನ್ನು ತೀರಿಸಬೇಕೆಂಬ ಪವಿತ್ರ ಧರ್ಮ. ಸಾಲ ಮನ್ನಾ ಈ ಆಧಾರಸ್ತಂಭವನ್ನು ಚೂರುಚೂರು ಮಾಡುತ್ತದೆ. ಇದರಿಂದ ಇಡೀ ಅರ್ಥವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯೇ ಕುಸಿದು ಬೀಳುತ್ತದೆ.

ನಮ್ಮ ರೈತರು ತೀವ್ರ ಸಂಕಷ್ಟದಲ್ಲಿ ಇದ್ದಾರೆ, ನಿಜ. ನಾವು ಅವರಿಗೆ ಪರಿಹಾರ ನೀಡಲೇಬೇಕು. ಆದರೆ ಸಾಲ ಮನ್ನಾ ಎಲ್ಲಕ್ಕಿಂತ ನಿರುಪಯೋಗಿ ಹಾಗೂ ಹಾನಿಕರ 'ಪರಿಹಾರ'. ಏಕೆಂದರೆ ಸಾಲ ಮನ್ನಾ ಅರ್ಥವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯನ್ನು ನಾಶ ಮಾಡುತ್ತದೆ, ಮತ್ತು ರೈತರು ಅರ್ಥವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಅತಿ ಸೂಕ್ಷ್ಮ ಸ್ಥಿತಿಯಲ್ಲಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ಅವರಿಗೇ ಇದರಿಂದ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಹಾನಿ ಆಗುತ್ತದೆ. ನಮಗೆ ರೈತರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಅಷ್ಟೊಂದು ಕನಿಕರ ಇದ್ದರೆ, ನಾವು ಎಲ್ಲಾ ರೈತರಿಗೆ ಸಹಾಯಧನ ನೀಡಬೇಕು. ಯಾರು ತಮ್ಮ ಸಾಲಗಳನ್ನು ತೀರಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೋ, ಅವರಿಗೂ ನೀಡಬೇಕು. ಅಷ್ಟೇ ಅಲ್ಲ - ಯಾರು ಸಾಲವನ್ನೇ ಮಾಡಿಲ್ಲವೋ, ಅವರಿಗೂ ನೀಡಬೇಕು. ಆಗ ಹಣಕಾಸು ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆ ಮತ್ತು ಅರ್ಥವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯನ್ನು ನಾಶ ಮಾಡದೇ ರೈತರಿಗೆ ಸಹಾಯ ಮಾಡಿದಂತಾಗುತ್ತದೆ.

ಮುಕ್ತ-ಮಾರುಕಟ್ಟೆ ಅರ್ಥವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆ

ಮುಕ್ತ-ಮಾರುಕಟ್ಟೆ ಅರ್ಥವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಬೆಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಮಾರುಕಟ್ಟೆ ಶಕ್ತಿಗಳು (ಅಂದರೆ ಬೇಡಿಕೆ ಮತ್ತು ಪೂರೈಕೆ) ನಿಯಂತ್ರಿಸುತ್ತವೆ. ಅಂದರೆ ಈ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಒಂದು ವಸ್ತುವಿನ ಬೆಲೆಯನ್ನು ಅದರ ಬೇಡಿಕೆ ಮತ್ತು ಪೂರೈಕೆ ನಿರ್ಧರಿಸುತ್ತವೆ. ವಸ್ತುವಿನ ಬೇಡಿಕೆ ಜಾಸ್ತಿ ಇದ್ದರೆ ಅಥವಾ/ಮತ್ತು ಪೂರೈಕೆ ಕಮ್ಮಿ ಇದ್ದರೆ, ಅದರ ಬೆಲೆ ಜಾಸ್ತಿ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ವಸ್ತುವಿನ ಬೇಡಿಕೆ ಕಮ್ಮಿ ಇದ್ದರೆ ಅಥವಾ/ಮತ್ತು ಪೂರೈಕೆ ಜಾಸ್ತಿ ಇದ್ದರೆ, ಅದರ ಬೆಲೆ ಕಮ್ಮಿ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ.

ಹೀಗೆ ಮುಕ್ತ-ಮಾರುಕಟ್ಟೆ ಅರ್ಥವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯು ಎಲ್ಲ ವಸ್ತುಗಳ ಬೆಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ನಿರ್ಧರಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ಅಷ್ಟೇ ಅಲ್ಲ, ಅದು ಮತ್ತೊಂದು ಕೆಲಸವನ್ನೂ ಮಾಡುತ್ತದೆ. ಅದು ಏನೆಂದರೆ: ಜನ ಬಯಸುವ ವಸ್ತುಗಳನ್ನು ಬೇಕಾಗಿರುವ ಪ್ರಮಾಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಉತ್ಪಾದಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ಉದಾಹರಣೆ: ಜನ ಒಂದು ವಸ್ತುವನ್ನು ಬಹಳ ಬಯಸುತ್ತಾರೆ, ಆದರೆ ಅದರ ಉತ್ಪಾದನೆ ಕಡಿಮೆ ಇದೆ. ಅಂದರೆ, ಅದರ ಬೇಡಿಕೆ ಜಾಸ್ತಿ ಇದೆ ಮತ್ತು ಪೂರೈಕೆ ಕಮ್ಮಿ ಇದೆ. ಆಗ ಏನಾಗುತ್ತದೆ? ಮುಕ್ತ-ಮಾರುಕಟ್ಟೆ ಅರ್ಥವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯುಲ್ಲಿ ಅದರ ಬೆಲೆ ಜಾಸ್ತಿ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ಜಾಸ್ತಿ ಬೆಲೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಜಾಸ್ತಿ ಲಾಭ. ಆಗ ಆ ಜಾಸ್ತಿ ಲಾಭವನ್ನು ಗಳಿಸಲು ಬೇರೆ ಉತ್ಪಾದಕರು ಆ ವಸ್ತುವನ್ನು ತಯಾರಿಸಲು ಶುರು ಮಾಡುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಆಗ ಉತ್ಪಾದನೆ ಹೆಚ್ಚುತ್ತದೆ. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ (ಜನ ಬಹಳ ಬಯಸುವ) ಈ ವಸ್ತು ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಪ್ರಮಾಣದಲ್ಲಿ ದೊರೆಯುತ್ತದೆ. ಅಷ್ಟೇ ಅಲ್ಲ - ಈ ವಸ್ತುವಿನ ಪೂರೈಕೆ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿದರಿಂದ ಇದರ ಬೆಲೆ ಕಮ್ಮಿಯಾಗುತ್ತದೆ (ಮುಕ್ತ-ಮಾರುಕಟ್ಟೆ ಅರ್ಥವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯುಲ್ಲಿ). ಆದುದರಿಂದ ಜನ ತಾವು ಬಯಸುವ ವಸ್ತುವನ್ನು ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಪ್ರಮಾಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಪಡೆಯುತ್ತಾರೆ ಮತ್ತು ಅದನ್ನು ಕಡಿಮೆ ಬೆಲೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪಡೆಯುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಹೀಗಾಗಿ ಮುಕ್ತ-ಮಾರುಕಟ್ಟೆ ಅರ್ಥವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯ ಎರಡು ಲಾಭಗಳಿವೆ.

ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಮುಕ್ತ-ಮಾರುಕಟ್ಟೆ ಅರ್ಥವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಬೆಲೆಗಳು ಎರಡು ಕೆಲಸಗಳನ್ನು ಮಾಡುತ್ತವೆ:
1. ಅವು ಎಲ್ಲ ವಸ್ತುಗಳ ಬೇಡಿಕೆ ಮತ್ತು ಪೂರೈಕೆಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ನೀಡುತ್ತವೆ.
2. ಅವು ಜನ ಬಯಸುವ ವಸ್ತುಗಳನ್ನು ತಯಾರಿಸಲು ಉತ್ಪಾದಕರಿಗೆ ಪ್ರೋತ್ಸಾಹ ನೀಡುತ್ತವೆ.

ಕೆಲವು ವಸ್ತುಗಳ ಬೆಲೆ ಬಹಳ ಜಾಸ್ತಿ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ಇದರ ಅರ್ಥ ಈ ವಸ್ತುಗಳನ್ನು ತಯಾರಿಸುವುದು ಬಹಳ ಕಷ್ಟ ಮತ್ತು ದುಬಾರಿ. "ಈ ವಸ್ತುವಿನ ಬೆಲೆ ಇದನ್ನು ತಯಾರಿಸುವ ಶ್ರಮ ಮತ್ತು ಖರ್ಚಿಗಿಂತ ಬಹಳ ಜಾಸ್ತಿ" ಎಂದು ನಮಗೆ ಹಲವು ಬಾರಿ ಅನಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ನಮ್ಮ ಅನಿಸಿಕೆ ಸರಿಯಿದ್ದರೆ ಆ ವಸ್ತುವಿನ ಲಾಭ ಬಹಳ ಜಾಸ್ತಿ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ಆಗ ಆ ಅಧಿಕ ಲಾಭವನ್ನು ಗಳಿಸಲು, ಬೇರೆ ಉತ್ಪಾದಕರು ಆ ವಸ್ತುವನ್ನು ತಯಾರಿಸಲು ಶುರು ಮಾಡಬೇಕು. ಇದರಿಂದ ಆ ವಸ್ತುವಿನ ಪೂರೈಕೆ ಹೆಚ್ಚುತ್ತದೆ - ಮತ್ತು ಅದರ ಬೆಲೆ ಇಳಿಯುತ್ತದೆ. ವಸ್ತುವಿನ ಬೆಲೆ ಈಗಲೂ ಜಾಸ್ತಿ ಇದ್ದರೆ, ಈ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯೆ ನಡೆಯುತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಅರ್ಥ. ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ಕಾರಣ ಏನು?
1) ನಮ್ಮ ಅನಿಸಿಕೆ ತಪ್ಪು. ಅಂದರೆ ಆ ವಸ್ತುವನ್ನು ತಯಾರಿಸುವ ಶ್ರಮ ಮತ್ತು ಖರ್ಚಿನ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನಮ್ಮ ಅಂದಾಜು ತಪ್ಪು. ಆ ವಸ್ತುವನ್ನು ತಯಾರಿಸುವುದು ನಮ್ಮ ಅಂದಾಜಿಗಿಂತ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಕಷ್ಟ ಮತ್ತು ದುಬಾರಿ. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಅದರ 'ಜಾಸ್ತಿ' ಬೆಲೆ ಸರಿಯಾಗಿಯೇ ಇದೆ.
ಅಥವಾ
2) ಬೇರೆ ಉತ್ಪಾದಕರು ಆ ವಸ್ತುವನ್ನು ತಯಾರಿಸಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಾಗುತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ಅಂದರೆ ಕ್ಷೇತ್ರದಲ್ಲಿ ಮುಕ್ತ ಸ್ಫರ್ಧೆ ಇಲ್ಲ ಮತ್ತು ಹೊಸ ಉತ್ಪಾದಕರಿಗೆ ಸುಲಭ ಪ್ರವೇಶ ಇಲ್ಲ.

"ದುಬಾರಿ ವಸ್ತುಗಳ ಬೆಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಸರ್ಕಾರ ನಿಯಂತ್ರಿಸಬೇಕು" ಎಂದು ಕೆಲವರು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಸರ್ಕಾರ ಬೆಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ನಿಯಂತ್ರಿಸಿದರೆ ಏನಾಗುತ್ತದೆ? ಆಗ ಮೇಲೆ ವಿವರಿಸಿದ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆ ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣವಾಗಿ ಕುಸಿದು ಬೀಳುತ್ತದೆ. ಮಾರುಕಟ್ಟೆ ಶಕ್ತಿಗಳ ಬದಲು ಸರ್ಕಾರ ಬೆಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ನಿಯಂತ್ರಿಸಿದರೆ ಬೆಲೆಗಳು ತಮ್ಮ ಎರಡು ಕೆಲಸಗಳನ್ನು ಮಾಡಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ. ಅಂದರೆ ಅವು ಉತ್ಪಾದಕರಿಗೆ ವಸ್ತುಗಳನ್ನು ತಯಾರಿಸಲು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರೋತ್ಸಾಹ ನೀಡುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಆಗ ಬೆಲೆಗಳು ಕಮ್ಮಿ ಇರುತ್ತವೆ, ನಿಜ - ಆದರೆ ಉತ್ಪಾದನೆಯೂ ಕಮ್ಮಿ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ಆಗ ಆ ವಸ್ತುಗಳನ್ನು ಬಯಸುವ ಎಲ್ಲ ಜನರಿಗೂ ಅವು ಸಿಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಕೆಲವರಿಗೆ ಮಾತ್ರ ಸಿಗುತ್ತವೆ, ಬೇರೆಯವರಿಗೆ ಸಿಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ - ಅವರ ಬಳಿ ಅವುಗಳನ್ನು ಖರೀದಿಸುವ ಹಣ ಇದ್ದರೂ ಕೂಡ. ಇದೇ 'ಸಮಾಜವಾದಿ' ಅರ್ಥವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆ. ಇದು ಅತ್ಯಂತ ಅದಕ್ಷ ಅರ್ಥವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆ. ಇದರ ಅತ್ಯುತ್ತಮ ಉದಾಹರಣೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸೋವಿಯೆಟ್ ಸಂಘ. ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಪರಿಪೂರ್ಣ ಸಮಾಜವಾದಿ ಅರ್ಥವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆ ಇತ್ತು. ಸರ್ಕಾರ ಎಲ್ಲ ವಸ್ತುಗಳ ಬೆಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ನಿಯಂತ್ರಿಸುತ್ತಿತ್ತು: ಅಕ್ಕಿ-ಬೇಳೆ-ತರಕಾರಿಯಿಂದ ಹಿಡಿದು ಬೈಕು-ಕಾರು-ಕಂಪ್ಯೂಟರಿನವರೆಗೂ. ಕೊನೆಗೆ ಏನಾಯಿತು ಅಂತ ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ಗೊತ್ತು. ಆ ದೇಶ ವಿಶ್ವಶಕ್ತಿಯಾಗಿದ್ದರೂ 1991ರಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣವಾಗಿ ಕುಸಿದು ಬಿತ್ತು. ಒಂದು ಅರ್ಥವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯ (ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಸಮಾಜವಾದ) ಅದಕ್ಷತೆಯನ್ನು ಸಾಬೀತು ಪಡಿಸಿಲು ಇದಕ್ಕಿಂತ ಬಲವಾದ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಸಿಗುವುದು ಅಸಾಧ್ಯ.

ಅಧಿಕ ಬೆಲೆಗಳಿಗೆ ಪರಿಹಾರ ಸರ್ಕಾರಿ ನಿಯಂತ್ರಣ ಅಲ್ಲ. ಅಧಿಕ ಬೆಲೆ ಸಮಸ್ಯೆ ಅಲ್ಲ - ಅದು ಕೇವಲ ಸಮಸ್ಯೆಯ ಲಕ್ಷಣ. ನಿಜವಾದ ಸಮಸ್ಯೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಕಡಿಮೆ ಉತ್ಪಾದನೆ. ಮತ್ತು ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ಕಾರಣ ಕ್ಷೇತ್ರದಲ್ಲಿ ಮುಕ್ತ ಸ್ಫರ್ಧೆ ಇಲ್ಲದಿರುವುದು ಹಾಗೂ ಹೊಸ ಉತ್ಪಾದಕರಿಗೆ ಸುಲಭ ಪ್ರವೇಶ ಇಲ್ಲದಿರುವುದು. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ನಿಜವಾದ ಪರಿಹಾರ ಎಂದರೆ ಕ್ಷೇತ್ರದಲ್ಲಿ ಮುಕ್ತ ಸ್ಫರ್ಧೆ ಮತ್ತು ಹೊಸ ಉತ್ಪಾದಕರಿಗೆ ಸುಲಭ ಪ್ರವೇಶ ತರುವುದು. ಆಗ ಉತ್ಪಾದನೆಯೂ ಹೆಚ್ಚುತ್ತದೆ ಮತ್ತು ಬೆಲೆಗಳೂ ಇಳಿಯುತ್ತವೆ. ಇದರ ಬದಲು ಏನಾದರೂ ಸರ್ಕಾರ ಬೆಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ನಿಯಂತ್ರಿಸಿದರೆ, ಅದು ಒಬ್ಬ ರೋಗಿಗೆ ಔಷಧಿಯ ಬದಲು ವಿಷ ಕುಡಿಸಿದಂತಾಗುತ್ತದೆ.

ಬಹುಸತ್ಯವಾದ ಮತ್ತು ಏಕಸತ್ಯವಾದ

ಸತ್ಯ ಏನು? ಇದು ಮಾನವನ ಅತ್ಯಂತ ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ. ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ಎರಡು ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಉತ್ತರಗಳಿವೆ:
1) ಅನೇಕ ಸತ್ಯಗಳು ಇವೆ
2) ಒಂದೇ ಸತ್ಯ ಇದೆ

ಈ ಎರಡು ಮೂಲಭೂತ ದೃಷ್ಟಿಗಳಿಂದ ಎರಡು ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಸಿದ್ಧಾಂತಗಳು ಮೂಡುತ್ತವೆ:
1) ಬಹುಸತ್ಯವಾದ
2) ಏಕಸತ್ಯವಾದ

ವಿಶ್ವದ ಎಲ್ಲ ಪ್ರಮುಖ ನಾಗರಿಕತೆಗಳು ಜನಿಸಿದ್ದು ಏಷ್ಯಾ ಖಂಡದಲ್ಲಿ. ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಮೂರು ಪ್ರಮುಖ ಭೂಭಾಗಗಳಿವೆ:
1. ಭಾರತ
2. ಪೂರ್ವ ಏಷ್ಯಾ
3. ಪಶ್ಚಿಮ ಏಷ್ಯಾ

ಭಾರತ ಮತ್ತು ಪೂರ್ವ ಏಷ್ಯಾದ ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಸಿದ್ಧಾಂತ ಬಹುಸತ್ಯವಾದ. ಪಶ್ಚಿಮ ಏಷ್ಯಾದ ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಸಿದ್ಧಾಂತ ಏಕಸತ್ಯವಾದ. ಭಾರತದ ಬಹುಸತ್ಯವಾದಿ ದೃಷ್ಟಿ ಒಂದು ಬಹುಸತ್ಯವಾದಿ ಜೀವನ ವಿಧಾನವನ್ನು ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಸಿತು. ಅದರ ಹೆಸರು 'ಹಿಂದು ಧರ್ಮ'.

ಈ ಮೂರು ಭೂಭಾಗಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಅನೇಕ ಮತಗಳು ಜನಿಸಿದವು:
1. ಭಾರತ: ಶೈವ, ವೈಷ್ಣವ, ಶಾಕ್ತ, ಬೌದ್ಧ, ಜೈನ, ಸಿಖ್
2. ಪೂರ್ವ ಏಷ್ಯಾ: ಕನ್ಫ್ಯೂಷಿಯನ್, ತಾವೋ, ಶಿಂತೋ
3. ಪಶ್ಚಿಮ ಏಷ್ಯಾ: ಯಹೂದಿ, ಕ್ರೈಸ್ತ, ಇಸ್ಲಾಂ

ಬಹುಸತ್ಯವಾದಿ ಮತಗಳ ಎರಡು ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಲಕ್ಷಣಗಳು:
1. ಅನೇಕ ದೇವರುಗಳನ್ನು ಪೂಜಿಸುವುದು
2. ಬೇರೆ ಮತಗಳನ್ನು ಸಹಿಸುವುದು
ಏಕಸತ್ಯವಾದಿ ಮತಗಳ ಎರಡು ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಲಕ್ಷಣಗಳು:
1. ಒಂದೇ ದೇವರನ್ನು ಪೂಜಿಸುವುದು
2. ಬೇರೆ ಮತಗಳನ್ನು ಸಹಿಸದಿರುವುದು

ಏಕಸತ್ಯವಾದಿ ಮತಗಳ ಮೂರು ಮೂಲಭೂತ ನಂಬಿಕೆಗಳಿವೆ:
1. ತಾನೊಂದೇ ಸತ್ಯ
2. ಬೇರೆ ಎಲ್ಲ ಮತಗಳು ಸುಳ್ಳು
3. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ತಾನು ಬೇರೆ ಎಲ್ಲ ಮತಗಳನ್ನು ಅಳಿಸಿಹಾಕಬೇಕು

ಈ ಮೂರು ನಂಬಿಕೆಗಳ ತಾರ್ಕಿಕ ಪರಿಣಾಮ ಸಾಮ್ರಾಜ್ಯವಾದ, ಅಂದರೆ:
1. ಬೇರೆ ಮತಗಳಿರುವ ದೇಶಗಳನ್ನು ಸೈನ್ಯದಿಂದ ಆಕ್ರಮಣ ಮಾಡಿ, ಗೆದ್ದು, ಆಳುವುದು
2. ಅಲ್ಲಿನ ಜನರನ್ನು ತನ್ನ ಮತಕ್ಕೆ ಮತಾಂತರ ಮಾಡುವುದು.

Hindutva: Hindu Fundamentalism or Nationalism?

Encyclopedia Britannica on 'Hindu fundamentalism':

"What is usually called 'Hindu fundamentalism' in India has been influenced more by nationalism than by religion, in part because Hinduism does not have a specific sacred text to which conformity can be demanded. Moreover, conformity to a religious code has never been of particular importance to Hindu groups such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). For the members of such groups, Hinduism is above all a symbol of national identity rather than a set of rules to be obeyed.

"The nationalistic orientation of the RSS is reflected in its name, which means 'National Volunteer Corps'. Similarly, the name of the BJP means 'Party of the Indian People'. Neither the RSS nor the BJP advocates the creation of a Hindu state. The principal concern of both groups is the danger posed to the Hindu nation by Christian and Islamic proselytisation among the Scheduled Castes (formerly untouchables) and lower-caste Hindus. In RSS tracts, there is little reference to specific Hindu beliefs, and its members acknowledge that they are not themselves religious.

"The nationalism of the RSS and the BJP is also reflected in their religious and moral demands; in this respect they differ significantly from Christian fundamentalist groups in the United States. In a notorious incident in 1992, the Babri Masjid (Mosque of Babur) at Ayodhya was demolished by a mob of Hindu nationalists; the subsequent rioting led to the deaths of more than 1,000 people. Although there was real religious fervour associated with the belief that the site of the mosque was the birthplace of the Hindu god Rama and the location of an ancient Hindu temple, the attack was above all a reflection of the Hindu nationalists' belief in the essentially Hindu character of India. The fact that Hindu nationalism is sometimes called 'Hindu fundamentalism' illustrates how indiscriminately the term 'fundamentalism' has been used outside its original American Christian context."

Universalism & Absolutism, Polytheism & Monotheism, Tolerance & Intolerance

Q: What is the truth?
There are two fundamental answers for this question:
A. There are many truths
B. There is only one truth

Accordingly, there are two fundamental philosophies:
A. Universalism
B. Absolutism

Asia is the cradle of all the world's major civilisations. It has three major regions:
1. India
2. East Asia
3. West Asia

Philosophically, India and East Asia were/are universalist and West Asia was/is absolutist. India's universalist philosophy gave birth to a universalist way of life: Hinduism.

Each region gave birth to several religions:
1. India: Shaivism, Vaishnavism, Shaktism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism
2. East Asia: Confucianism, Taoism, Shintoism
3. West Asia: Judaism, Christianity, Islam

Philosophy is the foundation of religion. Universalism expresses itself in religion as polytheism and tolerance. Absolutism expresses itself in religion as monotheism and intolerance.

'Secret Superstar': Review

Review:

* India has 940 females for every 1000 males. The natural sex ratio is 950 females for every 1000 males. So this means about 70 lakh girls and women are 'missing' in India.
* India's male life expectancy is 67 years and female life expectancy is 70 years - only 3 years more. In industrialised countries, female life expectancy is 7 years more than the male life expectancy.
* India's male literacy rate is 82% and female literacy rate is 65% - almost 20% lesser.

People say we ill-treat girls and women from their birth to their death. They are wrong. We start ill-treating them even before their birth. We kill girls before they are born. If they are born, we don't treat them as full humans having equal rights. And we say it is 'normal' for a man to beat his wife. The condition of girls and women in our country does not make for a very pretty picture.

Sociology tells us that agricultural society is gender-unequal and industrial society is gender-equal. So as India transforms from an agricultural society to an industrial society through the technological and economic process of modernisation, the situation will improve. True. Technology and economics are powerful forces. But there is another force that is even more powerful - the most powerful force in the world: love. And the greatest love in the world is a mother's love.

Advait Chandan's Secret Superstar is a no-holds-barred examination of India's shameful treatment of its girls and women. This itself would make it a good movie. But at its heart, it is a simple story about a mother's love for her child/daughter. Secret Superstar is beautiful, wonderful and uplifting. It is a moving tribute to the heroes of the world - and the visible gods: the mothers. Maatru devo bhava . . . Janani swargaat api gariyasi . . . Vande maataram . . .

America, White Racism and Donald Trump

Ta-Nehisi Coates on America, white racism and Donald Trump:

• With one immediate exception, Trump's predecessors made their way to high office through the passive power of whiteness — that bloody heirloom which cannot ensure mastery of all events but can conjure a tailwind for most of them.

• It is often said that Trump has no real ideology, which is not true — his ideology is white supremacy, in all its truculent and sanctimonious power.

• But whereas his forebears carried whiteness like an ancestral talisman, Trump cracked the glowing amulet open, releasing its eldritch energies.

• But that is the point of white supremacy — to ensure that that which all others achieve with maximal effort, white people (particularly white men) achieve with minimal qualification. Barack Obama delivered to black people the hoary message that if they work twice as hard as white people, anything is possible. But Trump's counter is persuasive: Work half as hard as black people, and even more is possible.

• Trump truly is something new — the first President whose entire political existence hinges on the fact of a black President. And so it will not suffice to say that Trump is a white man like all the others who rose to become President. He must be called by his rightful honorific — America's first white President.

• The scope of Trump's commitment to whiteness is matched only by the depth of popular disbelief in the power of whiteness.

• The collective verdict holds that the Democratic Party lost its way when it abandoned everyday economic issues like job creation for the softer fare of social justice. The indictment continues: To their neo-liberal economics, Democrats and liberals have married a condescending elitist affect that sneers at blue-collar culture and mocks the white man as history's greatest monster and prime-time television's biggest doofus. In this rendition, Donald Trump is not the product of white supremacy so much as the product of a backlash against contempt for white working-class people.

• That black people, who have lived for centuries under such derision and condescension, have not yet been driven into the arms of Trump does not trouble these theoreticians.

• Ostensibly assaulted by campus protests, battered by arguments about intersectionality, and oppressed by new bathroom rights, a blameless white working class did the only thing any reasonable polity might: elect an orcish reality-television star who insists on taking his intelligence briefings in picture-book form.

• Trump's white support was not determined by income. He assembled a broad white coalition that ran the gamut from Joe the Dishwasher to Joe the Plumber to Joe the Banker. So when white pundits cast the elevation of Trump as the handiwork of an inscrutable white working class, they are being too modest, declining to claim credit for their own economic class.

• If you tallied the popular vote of only white America to derive 2016 electoral votes, Trump would have defeated Clinton 389 to 81.

• The focus on one subsector of Trump voters — the white working class — is puzzling, given the breadth of his white coalition. Indeed, there is a kind of theatre at work in which Trump's Presidency is pawned off as a product of the white working class as opposed to a product of an entire whiteness that includes the very authors doing the pawning. The motive is clear: escapism. To accept that the bloody heirloom remains potent even now, some five decades after Martin Luther King was gunned down on a Memphis balcony — even after a black President; indeed, strengthened by the fact of that black President — is to accept that racism remains, as it has since 1776, at the heart of this country's political life.

• But if the broad and remarkable white support for Donald Trump can be reduced to the righteous anger of a noble class of smallville firefighters and evangelicals, mocked by Brooklyn hipsters and womanist professors into voting against their interests, then the threat of racism and whiteness, the threat of the heirloom, can be dismissed. Consciences can be eased; no deeper existential reckoning is required.

• In law and economics and then in custom, a racist distinction not limited to the household emerged between the 'help' (the 'freemen', the white workers) and the 'servants' (the 'negers', the slaves). The former were virtuous and just, worthy of citizenship, progeny of Jefferson and, later, Jackson. The latter were servile and parasitic, dim-witted and lazy, the children of African savagery.

• Black workers suffer because it was and is our lot. But when white workers suffer, something in nature has gone awry. And so an opioid epidemic among mostly white people is greeted with calls for compassion and treatment, as all epidemics should be, while a crack epidemic among mostly black people is greeted with scorn and mandatory minimums. Sympathetic op‑ed columns and articles are devoted to the plight of working-class whites when their life expectancy plummets to levels that, for blacks, society has simply accepted as normal. White slavery is sin. Nigger slavery is natural.

• Speaking in 1848, Senator John C Calhoun: "With us the two great divisions of society are not the rich and poor, but white and black; and all the former, the poor as well as the rich, belong to the upper class, and are respected and treated as equals."

• On the eve of secession, Jefferson Davis, the eventual President of the Confederacy, pushed the idea further, arguing that such equality between the white working class and white oligarchs could not exist at all without black slavery: "I say that the lower race of human beings that constitute the substratum of what is termed the slave population of the South, elevates every white man in our community. It is the presence of a lower caste, those lower by their mental and physical organisation, controlled by the higher intellect of the white man, that gives this superiority to the white labourer."

• "These days, what ails working-class and middle-class blacks and Latinos is not fundamentally different from what ails their white counterparts", Senator Barack Obama wrote in 2006: "Downsizing, outsourcing, automation, wage stagnation, the dismantling of employer-based health-care and pension plans, and schools that fail to teach young people the skills they need to compete in a global economy". Obama allowed that "blacks in particular have been vulnerable to these trends" — but less because of racism than for reasons of geography and job-sector distribution. This notion — raceless anti-racism — marks the modern left, from the New Democrat Bill Clinton to the socialist Bernie Sanders. Few national liberal politicians have shown any recognition that there is something systemic and particular in the relationship between black people and their country that might require specific policy solutions.

• If anyone should be angered by the devastation wreaked by the financial sector and a government that declined to prosecute the perpetrators, it is African Americans — the housing crisis was one of the primary drivers in the past 20 years of the wealth gap between black families and the rest of the country. But the cultural condescension toward and economic anxiety of black people is not news. Toiling blacks are in their proper state; toiling whites raise the specter of white slavery.

• A narrative of long-neglected working-class black voters, injured by globalisation and the financial crisis, and forsaken by out-of-touch politicians, does not serve to cleanse the conscience of white people for having elected Donald Trump. Only the idea of a long-suffering white working class can do that.

• "You can't eat equality", asserts Joe Biden — a statement worthy of someone unthreatened by the loss of wages brought on by an unwanted pregnancy, a background-check box at the bottom of a job application, or the deportation of a breadwinner.

• Certainly not every Trump voter is a white supremacist, just as not every white person in the Jim Crow South was a white supremacist. But every Trump voter felt it acceptable to hand the fate of the country over to one.

• The white working class functions rhetorically not as a real community of people so much as a tool to quiet the demands of those who want a more inclusive America.

• What appeals to the white working class is ennobled. What appeals to black workers, and all others outside the tribe, is dastardly identitarianism. All politics are identity politics — except the politics of white people, the politics of the bloody heirloom.

• Any empirical evaluation of the relationship between Trump and the white working class would reveal that one adjective in that phrase is doing more work than the other. In 2016, Trump enjoyed majority or plurality support among every economic branch of whites.

• The real problem is that Democrats aren't the party of white people — working or otherwise. White workers are not divided by the fact of labour from other white demographics; they are divided from all other labourers by the fact of their whiteness.

• Packer concludes that Obama was leaving the country "more divided and angrier than most Americans can remember", a statement that is likely true only because most Americans identify as white. Certainly the men and women forced to live in the wake of the beating of John Lewis, the lynching of Emmett Till, the firebombing of Percy Julian's home, and the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Medgar Evers would disagree.

• The triumph of Trump's campaign of bigotry presented the problematic spectacle of an American President succeeding at best in spite of his racism and possibly because of it. Trump moved racism from the euphemistic and plausibly deniable to the overt and freely claimed.

• The implications — that systemic bigotry is still central to our politics; that the country is susceptible to such bigotry; that the salt-of-the-earth Americans whom we lionise in our culture and politics are not so different from those same Americans who grin back at us in lynching photos — were just too dark.

• Incorporating all of this into an analysis of America and the path forward proved too much to ask. Instead, the response has largely been an argument aimed at emotion — the summoning of the white working class, emblem of America's hardscrabble roots, inheritor of its pioneer spirit, as a shield against the horrific and empirical evidence of trenchant bigotry.

• The inference is that the Democratic Party has forgotten how to speak on hard economic issues and prefers discussing presumably softer cultural issues such as "diversity". It's worth unpacking what, precisely, falls under this rubric of "diversity" — resistance to the monstrous incarceration of legions of black men, resistance to the destruction of health providers for poor women, resistance to the effort to deport parents, resistance to a policing whose sole legitimacy is rooted in brute force, resistance to a theory of education that preaches "no excuses" to black and brown children, even as excuses are proffered for mendacious corporate executives "too big to jail".

• The first black President found that he was personally toxic to the GOP base. It was thought by Obama and some of his allies that this toxicity was the result of a relentless assault waged by Fox News and right-wing talk radio. Trump's genius was to see that it was something more, that it was a hunger for revanche so strong that a political novice and accused rapist could topple the leadership of one major party and throttle the heavily favoured nominee of the other.

• Trump, more than any other politician, understood the valence of the bloody heirloom and the great power in not being a nigger.

• In a recent 'New Yorker' article, a former Russian military officer pointed out that interference in an election could succeed only where "necessary conditions" and an "existing background" were present. In America, that "existing background" was a persistent racism, and the "necessary condition" was a black President.

• And so the most powerful country in the world has handed over all its affairs — the prosperity of its entire economy; the security of its 300 million citizens; the purity of its water, the viability of its air, the safety of its food; the future of its vast system of education; the soundness of its national highways, airways, and railways; the apocalyptic potential of its nuclear arsenal — to a carnival barker who introduced the phrase "grab 'em by the pussy" into the national lexicon. It is as if the white tribe united in demonstration to say, "If a black man can be President, then any white man — no matter how fallen — can be President". And in that perverse way, the democratic dreams of Jefferson and Jackson were fulfilled.

• Trump's legacy will be exposing the patina of decency for what it is and revealing just how much a demagogue can get away with. It does not take much to imagine another politician, wiser in the ways of Washington and better schooled in the methodology of governance — and now liberated from the pretence of anti-racist civility — doing a much more effective job than Trump.

India's Politics: Right & Left

India's politics - Right and Left:

Islam & Christianity: Absolutism and Imperialism

The central feature of the West Asian religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) is absolutism. That is, all the 3 religions say:
1. It alone is true
2. All other religions are false
3. So it must replace all other religions.

Absolutism logically leads to imperialism - which consists of:
1. Military conquest
2. Political control
3. Religious conversions.

Demonetisation + GST = Slowdown in India's Economy?

All these days we knew that our political system is built on the foundation of corruption. Now we are realising something else: our economy is just like our politics - it is also built on a foundation of corruption. This is clear from the slowdown in the economy following two major measures against corruption: demonetisation and GST.

Last week the Prime Minister said he will not hurt the country's long-term economic interest for the sake of his short-term political interest. This sounds like a typical political statement. But its corollary is very true: the Prime Minister has hurt his party's short-term political interest for the sake of the country's long-term economic interest. In any democracy this is a bold gamble. In India it is suicide. (Forget the Uttar Pradesh election result: now it's a different ball-game altogether)

The Prime Minister has taken not one, but two big gambles. Most economists say both DeMo and GST will improve the economy over the long term. But 'long term' is an unaffordable luxury for a political party in a democracy. And this is not just any democracy - this is India. So cross your fingers and watch how the economy performs over the next several months. India-Pakistan cricket matches are just for time-pass. This is the real high-stakes edge-of-your-seat nail-biting cliffhanger . . .

PS: If this gamble works, it will be for two reasons:
1) The faith that crores of poor Indians have in the Prime Minister
2) The awesome quality of the alternative option.

'Blade Runner 2049' Review: Science Fiction and Philosophy

Review:

Q: What is 'the real world'?
A: The world we live in, the world we know - the world we see, hear and touch every day.

Q: What is philosophy?
A: Asking questions about the world and about life. What is truth? What is reality? Is there a truth/reality beyond this world?

Q: What is science fiction?
A: An imaginary story set in an imaginary world of the future with imaginary advanced science & technology.

We live every day in 'the real world'. We accept it as it is and don't ask any questions. Art - especially science fiction - can be a powerful tool for looking at our world in a different way and asking questions about it. That is, science fiction can be a powerful tool for philosophy.

In movies, the best examples of this are the Wachowski brothers' Matrix 1 (1999) and Matrix 2 (2003). Matrix 1 dealt with reality vs perception. Matrix 2 dealt with free will vs determinism.

In other words, science fiction is the means and philosophy is the end. This is how it should be. The problem is sometimes the opposite happens - science fiction becomes the end and philosophy becomes the means. That is - instead of using science fiction to ask philosophical questions about our real world of today, a book/movie tries to ask philosophical questions about an imaginary science-fiction world of the future. This is not philosophy - it is pseudo-philosophy.

The classic examples of this are Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and Ridley Scott's Blade Runner (1982). American and European critics hailed both these movies as masterpieces - because they don't know the difference between philosophy and pseudo-philosophy.

And now Dennis Villeneuve gives us the sequel to Blade Runner - Blade Runner 2049. Again, American and European critics have hailed the movie - calling it the 21st century version of Blade Runner. They are absolutely right. In Blade Runner, a man falls in love with a robot. In Blade Runner 2049, a robot falls in love with a hologram.

The Anti-Hindu Anti-Secular Republic/Constitution of India

The Republic/Constitution of India is anti-Hindu and anti-secular:
1. Article 30 gives special rights to minorities (Muslims + Christians) to run their own educational and cultural institutions. But Hindus do not have these rights.
2. The Hindu Religious Institutions & Charitable Endowments (HRICE) Acts place Hindu temples under the control of state governments. But mosques and churches are free from such government control.
3. Muslims and Christians have separate family laws based on their religions – while Hindus have secular family laws.
4. Article 25 gives the freedom to propagate religion – which is misused by Christian missionaries to abuse Hinduism and fraudulently convert poor Hindus.

To change our anti-secular republic into a secular republic, we must:
1. Delete Article 30.
2. Scrap the Hindu Religious Institutions & Charitable Endowments (HRICE) Acts.
3. Enact a Uniform Civil Code (UCC).
4. Delete the word 'propagate' from Article 25.

Hindutva and Free-Market Capitalism (FMC)

* Hindutva is nationalism.
* The aim of nationalism is to build a strong country.
* A country can be strong only if its economic system is efficient.
* Free-market capitalism (FMC) is the most efficient economic system.
* So FMC is an integral part of Hindutva.

What Is Hindutva?

What is Hindutva?

* A nation is a cultural entity.
* Culture is the foundation of a nation.
* Hinduism is nothing but the Indian way of life.
* So Hinduism is the foundation of the Indian civilisation.
* The best way to strengthen a nation is to strengthen its culture.
* So the best way to strengthen India is to strengthen Hinduism.

The Cardinal Virtues of Hinduism

The cardinal virtues of Hinduism:

1. Satya (Truth)
2. Nyaya (Justice)
3. Buddhi (Intelligence)
4. Jnana (Knowledge)
5. Dhairya (Courage)
6. Shakti (Strength)
7. Shrama (Hard work)
8. Anushasana (Discipline)

'We Are One'

We Are One

Shiva or Vishnu
Rama or Krishna
Allah or God
What's in a name?

Vedas or Geeta
Ramayana or Mahabharata
Quran or Bible
What's in a book?

Shankara or Nanak
Buddha or Mahavira
Muhammad or Jesus
What's in a man?

Yugadi or Sankranti
Dasara or Deepavali
Ramzan or Christmas
What's in a day?

Temple or gurudwara
Mosque or church
What's in a place?

A poor field grows one crop
A rich field grows many crops
A weak tree grows one fruit
A strong tree grows many fruits.

The more the flowers
The more beautiful the garden.
The more the trees
The more beautiful the forest.

Fools want less, the wise want more
Fools say this is mine, that is yours
The wise say mine is yours, yours is mine.

When we divide, we have less
When we share, we have more
Fools divide, the wise share
Sharing decreases nothing
Sharing increases everything.

Gold, silver and diamonds
Are all false wealth.

Broad minds
Large hearts
Smiling faces
Are the true wealth.

Hands that help
Arms that support
Ears that listen
Voices that soothe
Are the true wealth.

Friends and neighbours
Brothers and sisters
Are the true wealth.

Fools destroy their wealth
The wise nourish their wealth.

Fools think strength is in
Narrow lanes, thorny fences and stone walls.
The wise know strength is in
Open fields, warm sunshine and cool breeze.

Everything here
Belongs to all of us
We have a choice
We can be fools
Or we can be wise
We can be small
Or we can be big.

The happiness of each
Is in the happiness of all
We can be happy together
Or be unhappy separately
The choice is ours.

The wealth of each
Is in the wealth of all
We can be rich together
Or be poor separately
The choice is ours.

The strength of each
Is in the strength of all
We can be strong together
Or be weak separately
The choice is ours.

Because we are one
Beyond all lines
Left, right or centre
We are all one.