'Phule' Movie Review

'PHULE' MOVIE REVIEW

An excellent movie about Jyotirao Phule and Savitribai Phule - the great social reformers who uplifted lower-castes and rehabilitated widows in the 1800s. They started schools for lower-caste children (especially girls) and opened shelters for widows. They ignited a revolution in Poona that spread to the whole country. Maharaja Sayaji Rao Gaekwad of Baroda rightly conferred upon Jyotirao Phule the title of 'Mahatma'. Later social reformers like Gandhiji and Ambedkar would draw inspiration from them. 'Phule' is a moving and inspiring story of courage, sacrifice and service. Written/directed by Anant Mahadevan and starring Pratik Gandhi and Patralekha Paul. Pranaam, Jyotirao and Savitribai . . .

GDP And Imports (Or Net Exports)

In 2016, two of Donald Trump's economic advisers wrote a paper titled 'Scoring the Trump Economic Plan'. They were Peter Navarro (an economics professor with a PhD from Harvard) and Wilbur Ross (a businessman). Today, Peter Navarro is Donald Trump's senior trade adviser and Wilbur Ross is America's Commerce Secretary (trade minister).

In it, they wrote:

"The growth in any nation's gross domestic product (GDP) - and therefore its ability to create jobs and generate additional income and tax revenues - is driven by four factors: consumption growth, the growth in government spending, investment growth, and net exports. When *net exports are negative*, that is, when a country runs a trade deficit by importing more than it exports, this *subtracts from growth*."

Now a country's GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is the total economic output produced *inside* that country. This output is consumed by 4 entities: households, firms, government and foreigners - so we have consumption (C), investment (I), govt spending (G) and exports (X) respectively. To get the GDP, we just add these 4 things. But these 4 components also include some things which were made *outside* the country - that is: made in other countries and imported into this country. So these things must be excluded. Hence we subtract imports (M) from these 4 components.

Thus we get the GDP equation:

Y = C + I + G + X - M

or Y = C + I + G + NX (where NX = X - M)

The second form is just for convenience - to reduce the number of terms from 5 to 4. But we are not subtracting imports just from exports - we are subtracting it from all the 4 components. Of course, arithmetically it makes no difference. But the economic meaning is important - and must be understood correctly.

Some people see the '-M' term (or the 'NX' term) and wrongly think that imports *reduce* GDP. This, as we have just seen, is definitely not the case. We subtract imports simply because:

1. They are included in C, I, G and X

2. But they are not made inside the country

So imports do not reduce GDP. And it definitely does not reduce GDP growth either. In fact, research has proved that total trade (exports + imports) increases growth. Therefore Peter Navarro and Wilbur Ross have made a very basic economics mistake . . .

Fun-facts:

# Harvard's economics department is ranked #1 in the world.

# 13 Harvard PhDs have won the Nobel Economics Prize - second only to MIT (14).

# The paper has since then been deleted from Donald Trump's official website.

India's Trade-To-GDP Ratio

The graph shows the trade-to-GDP ratio* versus the logarithm of GDP for 184 countries**. It shows a slight decreasing relationship between the two - as GDP increases, the trade-to-GDP ratio decreases slightly. India is shown by the red dot - and it is below the trendline. That is - its trade-to-GDP ratio (at 45%) is below what it should be as per this relationship (which is 70%). So there is a lot of scope (25% points) for increasing India's trade (both exports and imports) to make it on par with the world's trend relationship . . .

*[Trade = exports + imports]

**[I have left out 9 outliers whose trade-to-GDP ratio is more than 200% - these are small high-trading countries]

Data-source: World Bank

The Effect Of Trade On Growth

THE EFFECT OF TRADE ON GROWTH

Total trade (exports + imports) increases growth. Empirical research has proved this conclusively. But there is no theoretical model that shows this. This is because trade does not increase growth directly - but indirectly. And this indirect relationship between trade and growth is shown by two sets of models: growth models and trade models.

1. Growth models like Romer model and Lucas model show that technology and knowledge increase growth. And an important source of technology and knowledge is trade.

2. Trade models like Ricardo model and Heckscher-Ohlin model show that trade increases specialisation and efficiency. And specialisation and efficiency increase growth.

Thus these two sets of models indirectly show that trade increases growth . . .

Why Trade Is Good (Both Exports And Imports)

WHY TRADE IS GOOD (BOTH EXPORTS AND IMPORTS)

GDP is given by the basic equation:

Y = C + I + G + X - M

or Y = C + I + G + NX

where NX = X - M

These equations *seem* to say that GDP consists of net exports (or trade surplus) and hence:

1. Exports are good

2. Imports are bad

3. Trade surplus is good

4. Trade deficit is bad

1 is correct and 3 is partially correct. But 2 and 4 are fallacies. They are bad in themselves; what is worse is they make people miss an important economic variable: total trade (ie, exports + imports). Research has conclusively proved that total trade has a strong positive impact on economic growth.

Believing fallacies 2 and 4 leads to a zero-sum-game mindset. But trade is not a zero-sum-game. Trade (exports + imports) gives us:

a) A bigger market for our exports

b) Cheap and good-quality products

c) Specialisation and efficiency

d) Knowledge and technology

So we must avoid fallacies 2 and 4 (which are due to a wrong understanding of the GDP equation) and instead look at total trade (exports + imports):

T = X + M

Indian Economy: Oct-Dec 2024

INDIAN ECONOMY: OCT-DEC 2024

The urban employment data has just come out for Oct-Dec 2024. I look at 3 indicators of employment:

1. Worker Population Ratio (WPR)

2. % of workers in industry and services

3. % of regular wage/salaried workers

I make two comparisons - I compare Oct-Dec 2024 with:

a) Oct-Dec 2023 (the same quarter of the previous year)

b) Oct-Dec 2019 (the last normal/pre-Covid Oct-Dec quarter)

The graph shows these comparisons . . .

1. Worker Population Ratio (WPR):

a) This has increased by 0.4% points over the previous year. This is good news.

b) And it has increased by 2.9% points since the pre-Covid period. This is also good news.

2. % of workers in industry and services:

a) This has increased by 0.4% points over the previous year. This is good news.

b) But it is still 0.4% points below the pre-Covid period. This is not good news.

3. % of regular wage/salaried workers:

a) This has increased by 0.7% points over the previous year. This is good news.

b) But it is still 0.6% points below the pre-Covid period. This is not good news.

Thus the Indian economy is recovering from the Covid crisis - but it has not yet recovered fully . . .

India Budget 2025-26: Analysis

INDIA BUDGET 2025-26: ANALYSIS

# Fiscal deficit is decreasing from 4.8% of GDP (2024-25) to 4.4% (2025-26) - a decrease of 0.4% points. This is good.

# Nominal GDP is estimated to grow/increase in 2025-26 by 10.1%.

The 4 Budget components are changing from 2024-25 to 2025-26 like this:

1. Revenue Receipts (good income - ie, taxes)

This is increasing by 11.1% - which is more than the GDP growth rate (10.1%). This is good.

2. Capital Receipts (bad income - ie, loans)

This is *decreasing* by 0.0%. This is very good.

3. Revenue Expenditure (bad spending - salaries, schemes, subsidies)

This is increasing by 3.5% - which is less than the GDP growth rate. This is good.

4. Capital Expenditure (good spending - ie, infrastructure)

This is increasing by 17.4% - which is more than the GDP growth rate. This is good.

So this is a pro-growth and fiscally disciplined Budget . . .

How To Analyse/Evaluate India's Budget

HOW TO ANALYSE/EVALUATE INDIA'S BUDGET

(A framework to analyse/evaluate the Budget)

A. The Budget has 2 flows of money:

1. Inflow (Income) is called 'Receipts'.

2. Outflow (Spending) is called 'Expenditure'.

B. The Budget has 2 types of accounts:

1. Short-term transactions (that do not create assets/liabilities) go into the 'Revenue Account'.

2. Long-term transactions (that create assets/liabilities) go into the 'Capital Account'.

Thus we have:

2 Flows X 2 Accounts = 4 Components

These 4 components are:

1. Revenue Receipts: This is mainly taxes. This does not create any liability for the government. So this is good income.

2. Capital Receipts: This is mainly loans (a liability). Government has to repay this – with interest. So this is bad income.

3. Revenue Expenditure: This consists of salaries, pensions, schemes, subsidies and interest payments. This does not make the economy more productive – so this is bad spending.

4. Capital Expenditure: This is mainly infrastructure (an asset). This makes the economy more productive – so this is good spending.

Thus we have 2 'good' components:

1. Revenue Receipts (good income)

2. Capital Expenditure (good spending)

And 2 'bad' components:

1. Capital Receipts (bad income)

2. Revenue Expenditure (bad spending)

The 4 components must be seen relative to the GDP. So ideally, compared to last year:

1. The 'good' components must increase relative to the GDP.

2. The 'bad' components must decrease relative to the GDP.

That is, ideally:

1. The increase in the 'good' components from last year must be greater than the GDP growth rate (the greater the increase, the better).

2. The increase in the 'bad' components from last year must be less than the GDP growth rate (the lesser the increase, the better).

Finally, the most important number in the Budget is the Fiscal Deficit:

Fiscal Deficit = Spending – Income (excluding loans)

It is expressed as a % of GDP. It must be as low as possible. So the Fiscal Deficit must decrease as much as possible. The greater the decrease, the better.

Thus by:

1. Looking at the Fiscal Deficit

2. Comparing the increase in the four components with the GDP growth rate

We can say how good or bad a Budget is . . .

Caveat: Revenue Receipts must increase by increasing the tax base – not by increasing the tax rates.

India's Informal Sector Workers: PLFS Vs ASUSE

How many informal sector workers are there in India? Two different surveys are giving two very different numbers. The Annual Survey of Unincorporated Sector Enterprises (ASUSE) says it is 12 crore. But the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) says it is 20 crore!

ASUSE explicitly gives this number. PLFS does not explicitly give this number - but we can calculate it as:

Number of informal workers = % of informal workers among non-agricultural workers X Number of non-agricultural workers

And number of non-agricultural workers = % of non-agricultural workers X Number of all workers

And number of all workers = Worker Population Ratio X Total population

So number of informal workers = % of informal workers among non-agricultural workers X % of non-agricultural workers X Worker Population Ratio X Total population

= 73.2% X 53.9% X 43.7% X 120 crore = 20.7 crore!

A caveat: PLFS defines informal enterprises as proprietary* and partnership* (P & P) enterprises. Whereas ASUSE defines them as enterprises that are not registered under the Companies Acts - so this means not just P & P enterprises, but also self-help groups, cooperatives, societies/trusts, etc. So ASUSE has more enterprises than PLFS. Then ASUSE's number of informal workers must be more than PLFS's. But the opposite is the case here! In fact, PLFS's number is almost twice the ASUSE's number!

The only way to explain this discrepancy is that many (almost half) P & P enterprises (which are considered informal in PLFS) are registered under the Companies Acts - and hence not covered by ASUSE. Also, since registered enterprises will be bigger than unregistered enterprises, the fraction of registered P & P enterprises can be less than half to account for this discrepancy. But it still has to be a large number. So what is the probability that so many P & P enterprises (which PLFS considers informal for a reason) are registered under the Companies Acts? If anybody can explain this discrepancy, I will be grateful . . .

*[Crudely speaking, 'proprietary' means one owner and 'partnership' means a few owners]

Best Movies Of 2024

BEST MOVIES OF 2024

1. Phulwanti

2. Main Atal Hoon

3. Article 370

4. Razakar

5. Gladiator 2

6. Kingdom Of Planet Of Apes

7. Alien: Romulus

RBI, Inflation And Interest Rate

Last week the November inflation number came out at 5.5% - below the upper limit (6%) of the inflation target. So the media is saying that RBI must cut the interest rate. Is this view correct?

The RBI's Bulletin in July said that India's neutral/natural interest rate is around 1.5-2%. What does 'neutral/natural interest rate' mean? The top table illustrates this:

a) When the real interest rate is at the neutral/natural level, it neither decreases nor increases inflation. This is neutral monetary policy.

b) When the real interest rate is above the neutral/natural level, it decreases inflation. This is contractionary monetary policy.

c) When the real interest rate is below the neutral/natural level, it increases inflation. This is expansionary monetary policy.

Currently the inflation and interest rate situation is:

1. Inflation is 5.5% - above the target level (4%). So it must be decreased. That is - real interest rate must be above the neutral/natural level of 1.5-2%. 

2. But the repo rate is 6.5%. So the real repo rate = 6.5% - 5.5% = 1%, which is less than the neutral/natural level (1.5-2%).

3. So monetary policy is actually expansionary - ie, tending to increase inflation!

So to what level must inflation come down to justify a rate cut (in an already expansionary monetary policy)? The bottom table illustrates this. If inflation comes down to 4.5% (Case 1) then the repo rate can be cut to 6.25%. Because then the real repo rate will be 6.25% - 4.5% = 1.75%, which is above the lower limit (1.5%) of the neutral/natural level (1.5-2%) - which it has to be because inflation (4.5%) will still be above the target level (4%). Whereas inflation coming down to even 4.75% will not justify a rate cut (Case 2).

Of course, this is by taking the lower limit (1.5%) of the neutral/natural interest rate (1.5-2%). If we take the upper limit (2%) then inflation has to come down all the way to its target level (4%) to justify a rate cut (Case 3). Even inflation coming down to 4.25% will not justify a rate cut in this scenario (Case 4).

Low Salaries: Law Of Demand And Supply

The internet has many posts criticising the low salaries for:

1. Assistant Professors (like ₹ 35,000/month) in many colleges and universities

2. Fresh engineers (like ₹ 3 lakh/year) in companies like TCS, Wipro and Infosys

Wage is the price of labour. And the most fundamental law of economics is that all prices are decided by demand and supply. High demand or/and low supply leads to a high price/wage. And low demand or/and high supply leads to a low price/wage. Low salaries for Assistant Professors and fresh engineers are simply a reflection of the high supply of these workers.

The average wage of a casual labourer (like farm workers and construction workers) in India is ₹ 400/day. So if a farm/construction worker works 30 days a month, he/she will earn only ₹ 12,000/month - for doing back-breaking work in the hot sun the whole day. Is this fair? Of course, it is not. But the world does not run on fairness - it runs on the laws of economics, especially the law of demand and supply . . .

Why Did The Industrial Revolution Happen In Europe – And Not India Or China?

WHY DID THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION HAPPEN IN EUROPE – AND NOT INDIA OR CHINA?

How did the West become rich? Why did the Industrial Revolution happen in Europe - even though historically, India and China were more advanced in science? This is the biggest question in economic history. Economic historian Eric Jones answered this question in his book 'The European Miracle' (1981). The ultimate determinant of history is geography - and a unique combination of geographical factors put Europe on a unique path of political, economic and technological development:

1. Latitudes: India is in the tropical/sub-tropical zones, China and Europe are in the sub-tropical/temperate zones. The tropical and sub-tropical zones were prone to droughts and famines - which retarded India's and China's development. But North Europe (Britain, France, Germany - the growth engine of Europe) is in the temperate zone - so it did not have this problem.

2. Coastline: India and China have short/smooth coastlines - but Europe has a long/jagged coastline. So India and China did not give much importance to sea transport, but Europe gave it a lot of importance - and hence advanced in shipping. The earth's surface is 70% water - so Europe's advancement in shipping enabled it to reach all parts of the world, and conquer them.

3. Divisions: Both India and China are unified land areas. But Europe is divided by seas, rivers and mountains into separate geographical units - and these separate geographical units became separate countries (Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc). And these separate countries continuously competed with one another technologically and economically - and put Europe on a path of technological and economic development. India and China, on the other hand, were ruled by single empires - and did not have this division and competition.

4. Central Asia: Central Asia is a vast grassland whose people were horse-riding tribals. And these tribals (Turks and Mongols/Mughals) invaded the nearby advanced civilisations of India (to the south) and China (to the east) - and retarded their development. But Europe is far away from Central Asia - and so escaped this problem.

5. Americas: North America and South America were thinly populated continents rich in natural resources. America is 10,000 km from Asia - but only 5,000 km from Europe (half the distance). So it was easier for Europeans to go to the Americas, occupy them and get their vast natural resources - which accelerated Europe's development.

Dharmonomics: Dharma And Economics

DHARMONOMICS: DHARMA AND ECONOMICS

Last month Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James Robinson won the Nobel Economics Prize for showing how institutions produce economic growth. In particular, they have shown the importance of 3 institutions:

1. Law and order 

2. Enforcement of contacts

3. Protection of property rights 

In ancient Indian philosophy, the concept of Dharma (order/morality) had 3 main components:

1. Satya (truth)

2. Asteya (not stealing)

3. Ahimsa (non-violence)

We can see that the 3 components of Dharma are similar to the 3 institutions that produce economic growth . . .

'Phulwanti' Movie Review

'PHULWANTI' MOVIE REVIEW

Based on the famous novel (of the same name) by the great Marathi writer Babasaheb Purandare, 'Phulwanti' is a beautiful meditation on the relationship between knowledge and the scholar (and art and the artist) - and also the real meaning of love. The script, direction, acting, set design, costume design, music and choreography are all top-notch. The movie has English sub-titles.

[An economist's irrelevant aside:

A civilisation that can produce a great work of art like Babasaheb Purandare's 'Phulwanti' is indeed a great civilisation. Where we have fallen short is in building efficient systems - like economic system, administration system, etc . . .]

Why Government Must Be Small

WHY GOVERNMENT MUST BE SMALL

What should be the size of the government? Should it be big or small? Liberals want a big government that provides a lot of generous welfare schemes to as many people as possible. Conservatives want a small government that only performs its core functions of maintaining law & order and providing public goods (because a big government has to be funded by high taxes - and taxes reduce the social surplus). And centrists/realists say that the government must be neither big nor small - but of the optimum size: ie, the size that maximises the long-term growth rate.

These ideological preferences aside, there is one argument in favour of a small government. And we are seeing it in today's Indian politics. The Congress Party is promising the expensive and wasteful Old Pension Scheme (OPS) in every state election - and government workers are voting for it. In theory, democracy is the rule of the majority - and must work for the good of the majority. But as the economist Mancur Olson showed in his 1965 classic 'The Logic Of Collective Action' (for which he shockingly did not get the Nobel Prize) small groups can hijack a democracy. And the voting behaviour of government workers in India is a perfect example of this phenomenon.

Thus if the government becomes big, then government workers will become a big and powerful lobby - and will vote for wasteful government programs like the Old Pension Scheme (OPS). So this is a good reason for keeping the government small . . .

Working Hours, Stress And Salary In India

WORKING HOURS, STRESS AND SALARY IN INDIA

(The Dichotomy Of The Indian Economy)

Anna Sebastian Perayil, a 26-year-old chartered accountant at Ernst & Young, sadly died in July due to overwork and stress. Many people are asking: "Why didn't she quit?". Well, this question applies not just to her but to almost all middle-class Indians in metropolitan cities - who are doing high-stress jobs. According to a survey conducted by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) 60% of Indian workers suffer from high stress - the world average is 20%. So the question arises: Why don't all these people quit their jobs and do jobs that are less stressful?

Graph 1 shows an ideal economy:

1. There is a linear relationship between working hours/stress and salary (blue line). As working hours/stress increases, salary also increases - but linearly.

2. Most of the jobs pay a salary that can support a middle-class lifestyle (red line) for a family.

Graph 2 shows today's Indian economy:

1. The relationship between working hours/stress and salary is not just non-linear but exponential. The salary increases only at a high level/value of working hours/stress. 

2. To live a middle-class life in a metropolitan city (ie, house + car + etc) you need that high salary.

In the ideal economy (Graph 1) people can choose the combination of working hours/stress and salary that they are comfortable with - and still live a middle-class life. That is - they can give up some salary in return for lower/lesser working hours/stress. The choice can also be dynamic: People can do high-stress/high-salary jobs when they are young - and switch to medium-stress/medium-salary jobs when they are middle-aged. But in today's Indian economy (Graph 2) there is no choice. If you want to live a middle-class life, you *have to* do a high-stress/high-salary job. You are forced to choose between two extremes: low-stress but low-salary jobs versus high-salary but high-stress jobs - there is nothing in between.

Real development means building the economy shown in Graph 1 - so that there are no more tragedies like Anna's . . .

Why Socialism Is Illogical And Unnatural

WHY SOCIALISM IS ILLOGICAL AND UNNATURAL

(The Logical Mistakes Behind The Conception Of Socialism)

Around 1800, the Industrial Revolution started in Britain. It consisted of two major changes:

1. The 3 factors of production are land, labour and capital. During the Agricultural Age, the most important factor of production was land. With the Industrial Revolution, capital (ie, machines/factories) replaced land as the most important factor of production.

2. During the Agricultural Age, capital consisted of small/simple tools like the plough. And these tools were owned by the workers. Example: Farmers owned their ploughs. With the Industrial Revolution, big/expensive machines/factories became the new capital. And these were owned not by workers but by rich merchants - ie, a separate group of people: the 'capitalists'.

Thus the new economic system was dominated by both capital and capitalists. Hence it was called 'capitalism'.

During the Industrial Revolution, the condition of the factory workers was bad. Wages were low, the work was hard/long and working/living conditions were bad. So some social thinkers of 1800s Europe (mainly France and Britain) said that these problems were due to the private ownership of capital. Hence the solution was the opposite of this - ie, the social ownership of capital. That is - they proposed an alternate economic system: 'socialism'.

The socialists made two mistakes. First mistake: These social thinkers were all city people. So they saw only the problems of the factory workers - who were also in the cities. But who were these factory workers? They were farm workers in villages who had moved to the cities and become factory workers. The condition of the factory workers was bad. But the condition of farm workers was even worse. That is why they had left their farms/villages and moved to the cities/factories. But since the socialists were city people, they did not see the poverty of the farm workers in the villages. This was a cognitive bias - ie, the selection bias.

Second mistake: The socialists jumped to the conclusion that the bad effect of capitalism (ie, the bad condition of factory workers) was due to the most visible/glaring feature of capitalism: the ownership of capital by capitalists, or the 'private' ownership of capital. They did this without any logical (let alone scientific) cause-effect analysis. [The truth was that the bad condition of factory workers was just the first stage of capitalism. Over time, capitalism would reform itself and the condition of factory workers would improve. And this is exactly what happened in Europe in the 1800s. Thus capitalism is a self-correcting economic system] So here the socialists committed a logical fallacy - ie, the causal fallacy.

Thus socialism was the product of a cognitive bias (selection bias) and a logical fallacy (causal fallacy). And Karl Marx took this one step further - he turned 'social ownership of capital' into 'government ownership of capital' . . .

Donald Trump Vs Kamala Harris Debate Highlights

Highlights from the just-finished debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris:

Issue: Economy and cost of living

Kamala: "I will give tax cuts to middle class families and small businesses"

Trump attacked Biden and Kamala for increasing inflation.

Question to Trump: "Your proposed import tariffs will increase prices"

Trump: "No, they will not. And Biden has not removed the tariffs that I had put earlier"

Kamala did not say anything about Biden not removing Trump's tariffs - and instead attacked Trump's policies.

Issue: Abortion

Trump: "States must decide this matter"

Kamala: "Trump is responsible for the Supreme Court striking down the Roe Vs Wade verdict (the right to abortion)". Kamala attacked Trump aggressively with emotional examples - because this is an important issue for women (who are 50% of the voters).

Question to Kamala: "Illegal immigration reached an all-time high under the Biden government - and you were in charge of border security. Why did you act only in the last 6 months?"

Kamala did not answer the question - and instead attacked Trump's policies.

Trump counter-attacked Biden and Kamala.

Question to Trump: "You plan to deport all illegal immigrants. How will you do it?"

Trump did not answer the question - and instead attacked Biden and Kamala.

Kamala counter-attacked Trump.

Question to Kamala: "You have flip-flopped on a lot of issues - like banning fracking"

Kamala: "I will not ban fracking". She did not say anything about her other flip-flops.

Trump attacked Kamala.

Question to Trump: "Do you have any regrets about the January 6 riots by your supporters?"

Trump did not answer the question - and instead attacked the Democrats.

Kamala attacked Trump.

Question to Trump: "Do you accept that you lost the last election?"

Trump: "No, I do not accept"

Question to Kamala: "Do you think Trump will suppress the vote this time?"

Kamala did not answer the question - and instead attacked Trump.

Issue: Israel-Gaza war

Kamala: "I want a two-state solution that gives Israel security and Palestine freedom". A balanced answer.

Trump: "Kamala hates both Israel and Arabs" (!)

Question to Trump: "Do you want Ukraine to win its war against Russia?"

Trump: "I just want the war to end"

Kamala attacked Russia and Trump.

Question to Kamala: "Do you accept responsibility for our retreat from Afghanistan?"

Kamala defended the retreat - and attacked Trump for creating the problem by negotiating with the Taliban.

Trump defended himself - and counter-attacked Biden and Kamala.

Question to Trump: "Why do you talk about Kamala's race?"

Trump: "I don't care about her race"

Kamala attacked Trump as a racist.

Question to Trump: "What is your alternate plan to the Democrats' health insurance program (Obamacare)?"

Trump did not give any specifics - and just attacked Obamacare.

Question to Kamala: "You have flip-flopped on health insurance policy"

Kamala attacked Trump and defended Obamacare.

Question: "What will you do to tackle climate change?"

Kamala: "I will revive America's manufacturing". A very strange answer to give.

Trump attacked Kamala.

Closing statements:

Kamala: "We have very different philosophies - I look forward and he looks backward"

Trump: "Why didn't she do anything for 4 years as Vice President?". He attacked Biden and Kamala. 

Summary:

# Trump was his usual self - with his personal attacks and sweeping statements. But his simple language appeals to most ordinary Americans.

# Kamala is a good debater - and was well-prepared with data-points and specific policies. But she was weak in defending her and Biden's track record.

# The moderators conducted the debate well and were fact-checking both the candidates - especially Trump.

'Capitalism': The Natural Economic System

Karl Marx told two big lies:

1. He called the natural economic system (which is free and efficient) as 'capitalism' - to make it look unnatural.
2. He proposed a government-controlled economic system (which is unnatural and inefficient) called 'socialism' - and said it is better than 'capitalism'.

Today the whole world's economic debate/discussion is about Marx's second lie - ie, which economic system is better: 'capitalism' or 'socialism'? Half the people say 'capitalism' is better, and half the people say 'socialism' is better.

But there is zero debate/discussion in the world about Marx's first lie. Very few people realise that the so-called 'capitalism' is nothing but the natural economic system. Funnily, this includes even the people who support it (because it is efficient).

Karl Marx thus succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. In fact, his ghost is laughing even today . . .

PS: Capitalism is the natural economic system. So capitalism the system came first - and capitalism the word/idea came later. Socialism is the unnatural economic system. So socialism the word/idea came first - and socialism the system came later . . .