How Anarchy Would Work
Insurance companies would either sell defense or maintain proximity with Defense Companies. If we both are customers of Reliance Defense Company, and a dispute between us occurs, the dispute would be submitted to the court of Reliance Defense company, or a court patronized by Reliance Defense Company. The decision of the court would be respected. If you are found guilty, the Reliance Defense Company, or its Insurance Company would compensate me for the damages done by you. It will be then the task of Reliance Defense Company to get back their money by putting you in a debtor workhouse (prison) or by garnishing your wages. I, the Defense Company, and the Insurance Company would be in a position of inconvenience due to the damages caused by you. So, it would be in the rational self interest of Defense and Insurance companies to not deal with (Insurance companies might rate their insurance premiums up in some cases) you, or other people with criminal tendencies. If a person doesn’t have insurance, no sane person would deal with him in any manner, as they won’t be able to claim compensation in case a dispute occurs. Almost every one would have Insurance under anarchy, as without Insurance, one can’t get a job, rent a house, buy a car, travel through a private road or get into any other contractual situation.

In the case mentioned above, If I am a customer of Reliance Defense Company, and you are a customer of Tata Defense company, our dispute would first be set for arbitration in the court of the plaintiff (I)-which means: a court of, or patronized by Reliance Defense company. If the defendant (You) is found innocent, the matter has come to an end. If you are found guilty, then the arbitration would run in the Court of Tata Defense Company. If that court too finds you guilty, you would be punished. If it finds you innocent, the arbitration would move to an appeals court. The decision of the appeals court would be respected. If a person (defendant) refuses arbitration, the arbitration would be held in the court of the plaintiff, and the decision would be binding. So, a person who didn’t commit a crime will not refuse arbitration in normal cases. If he disagrees with the decision, he can take the case to his court, or a mutually consented appeals court. It is rational to assume that if the defendant and the plaintiff are customers of different Defense Companies, these Companies together might decide the court in which the arbitration would run. The courts would try to be as honest and objective as possible, as their profits depend on the number of cases they receive for arbitration. People won’t deal with dishonest Insurance companies, or their customers, as no sane person would want to be taken advantage of. So, a dishonest Insurance company would soon find it deserted by almost all its customers. An Insurance company which patronizes poor courts too would be soon deserted by its customers.

Wouldn’t Defense Companies battle?

Battles could be ruled out for two reasons.
1) Wars are costly and would result in high Insurance premiums. Most customers would desert Insurance Companies with high premiums.
2) People won’t deal with the customers of warring defense agencies as they would lose in any case. As of it, the customers of the warring agency would be forced to patronize another Insurance company, if they want to get into contracts with other people.
A court too should be honest if they want more cases handed over to them. What if a rich person bribes the court of Insurance company? If that is the case, most people won’t use those courts and Insurance companies. Nothing like that happens in the case of Government courts. People are forced to use them, even if they don’t trust them.

Fraud under Anarchy

Fraud would be kept at minimum as Defense Companies would lose their profits if they don’t. If a defense company engages in fraud, most of its customers would desert it, as people won’t deal with the customers of such a defense company, as they don’t have a legal recourse in case of crimes.

Poor under Anarchy

It is often argued that poor will be defenseless under Anarcho-Capitalism. However, the argument completely lacks sense-For several reasons.

1 ) It is very unlikely-nearly impossible that there would be extreme poverty as of now under anarchy.

2 ) Under the present system, a rich person can easily bribe a bureaucrat or a judge and get his things done as bureaucrats and judges are not risking their own funds. A private judge is risking his own funds and profits, and he would lose his income or profits if he isn’t honest or objective. It is very unlikely that bribery is going to work.

3 ) Customers would desert courts which have a poor reputation.

4 ) Insurance companies selling defense wouldn’t patronize corrupt courts as, if they do, their customers would patronize another Insurance company. Such a court would be soon out of business. Nothing like this happens under statism.

5 ) One might argue that public courts can work with proper regulation. It will inevitably founder upon these questions-Who regulates the regulators? What is the incentive? How does such a system make profit and loss calculations? Without profit-loss calculations, how does one know whether job is being performed well or not?

6 ) As Roderick Long has pointed out, “any court that got the reputation of discriminating in favor of millionaires against poor people would also presumably have the reputation of discriminating for billionaires against millionaires. So, the millionaires would not want to deal with it all of the time.”

7 ) Under anarchy, the media won’t have to spend most of its space on politics. They would divert more of their energy to exposing corrupt institutions and extraordinary achievements of men. People won’t deal with customers of dishonest defense companies, and these customers will be forced to move to another Defense company.

8 ) A rich person who commits a crime would suffer from boycott by his clients and customers when insurance companies reject him. Such a boycott affects the rich more than the poor.

9 ) Even if a poor person can’t afford to file a case, he can sell that claim, or part of that claim to a rich person. Such a system existed in Iceland. That would make sure that eventually, all sorts of criminals are punished. One can’t commit a crime against a poor person and go unpunished. If someone murders a poor person, the person who has homesteaded the estate of that poor person can file a case and get compensation.

Do Anarchists assume a change in human nature?

No change in human nature is assumed here. We, libertarians don’t take a rosy view of human nature. We see human nature rightly, and admit all its flaws. Three things have to be pointed out
1) If you believe human nature is flawed, you have to admit that the politicians and bureaucrats chosen by these flawed creatures too would be of that sort, and there would be no excuse for state action.
2) A change in human nature is not necessary for libertarian anarchy to work.
3) People with power lust are more likely to rise to the top under statism. The state attracts all kinds of rascals.

What libertarian anarchy does is that it leads to a system in which criminal acts are hard to perform. It also punishes those who resort to such acts in a just manner. Under the present system, a judge has no financial incentive to be honest and objective. He has only a moral incentive. Under anarchy, he would have both financial and moral incentive. Ask yourself which system will deal with criminals better.

Why Anarchy?

Almost every major problem mankind faces can be traced back to the state. The state drags innocent people into war. Involuntary unemployment results when a minimum wage law is passed and labor union coercion is sanctioned. Price controls result in shortages. Protectionism leads to poverty and wars. High prices and poor quality products result when Government monopolizes certain industries. Taxation prevents capital accumulation. Credit expansion leads to inflations and bubbles. Some estimates say that there were nearly 262 million deaths caused by the Government in the twentieth century. In the light of all this, I see no reason for a person who loves humanity to support the state. It should be obvious that in any sector, monopoly is bad. How do statists get around this fact? In any monopoly, there is an incentive problem. There is no incentive to provide better service at a low cost. It is not just that. There is no way to know whether the service is provided in the best possible manner in the absence of competition.

Isn’t voluntary taxation better?

Voluntary taxation is a contradiction in terms. Taxation implies that money is collected at the muzzle of a gun. How could it be voluntary? Lets forget the definitions for a moment. Voluntary taxation is defined by minarchists as, people are not coerced to pay their taxes. People are free to pay their taxes. But this sheer aspect doesn’t make the taxation voluntary. If an area milkman forces every other milkman to stop selling milk in your neighborhood, and then says ‘you are free to buy milk from him, by your own volition’, is that really voluntary, or are you forced to buy milk from him because he has eliminated all the possible options using force. Lets say you say ‘I want to raise my own cow and make my own milk’, to which the milkman forces you to do it. Although he is allowing you to pay him voluntarily, he is forcing you to seek anybody else’s services thereby making it involuntary taxation. The problem with minarchy isn’t just that state collects its revenues using coercion. State prevents anyone from competing with it.

Why do minarchists make an exception for defense, law and police? Some minarchists believe in the Non Aggression Principle. Why don’t they apply it to the case of Security? How monstrous is it to forcefully extort money from a person maintaining the pretense of protecting him? It could be argued that these are public goods and can’t be provided privately. But, this argument was refuted several times. In the past, most of the roads and lighthouses (Public goods theorists usually point out the case of light house. Ronald Coase has pointed out the fallacy. Light house owners charge people for using the harbor) were privately owned. By 1800 there were over 60 private road companies in the United States and by 1830 they had built over 400 private “turnpikes” (highways). Out of 46 Lighthouses in England in 1820, 34 were privately owned. There was privately produced law in the ancient Ireland and medieval Iceland, for instance. And several thinkers have envisioned how libertarian anarchy would work- and it sounds perfect.

Why do I want to impose anarchy on people against it?

Some argue if people don’t want Anarcho-Capitalism, imposing it over them would be violating their freedom. If you tell a thief to not rob from your house, will you be imposing your views on him? If someone takes your money by force, gives you stale food, forbidding you from buying food from anyone else, is that right or wrong? If you tell that person to not do it, will you be imposing your views on him? Will you be violating his freedom? That precisely is what Government does. It forcefully takes money, gives poor quality defense, and forbid us from buying the service from private organizations.

Is human nature consistent with anarchy?

State is a relatively new institution. Mankind has lived hundreds of thousands of years without a state. If so, is it true that human nature is not inclined to live under a state? How come we are living under a state then? Slavery and serfdom existed for a long time. Doesn’t that mean slavery is consonant with human nature? If so, how men got out of it? Obviously, when people realized the advantages of co-operation, people shifted to the present system. When people realize the advantages of anarchy, they would move into such a system. No change in human nature is required. Blaming human nature for being flawed doesn’t make any sense. People are mostly corrupt under the present system as people respond to incentives. Under statism, men have every incentive to be corrupt. To say that anarchy won’t work as human nature is flawed is tantamount to saying that capitalism won’t work as most people are poor. A person who makes such an argument fails to understand that it is precisely the lack of Capitalism which made the people poor.

Minarchy isn’t sustainable

There is no empirical or theoretical evidence to prove that a constitutionally limited government is sustainable. Government power has increased steadily in countries like United States and Britain. Tax experts like Irwin Schiff has pointed out that according to the law and constitution of United States, taxation is illegal. He is in jail now, and his book “Federal Mafia” is banned. That’s not an aberration, but the result of a limited Government. I admit that Anarcho-Capitalism was not the dominant form of social organization for the large part of human existence. But so wasn’t democracy or a limited Government. These are recent developments. The limited Government in United States broke down after 8 decades as of a civil war-But it took 1000 years for the near Anarcho-capitalistic system to break down in Celtic Ireland, and 290 years in Iceland. Who do minarchists support democracy and a limited Government then, when it is obvious that anarchy is far more workable?

How can one support Anarcho-Capitalism when it was never practiced anywhere?

It is true that pure Anarcho-Capitalism was never put into practice anywhere. However, that can’t be an argument against anarchy. A person who invents an electric bulb doesn’t have to prove that there were electric bulbs in the past. A new invention, innovation or theory is something which crushes all existing conceptions. It is unprecedented. I think this should be obvious and it makes no sense to argue against it.

Empirical Evidence for Anarcho Capitalism

Anarcho capitalism was not practiced in most parts of the world for most of the human history. However, there were societies which were really close to Anarcho-Capitalism. There was the law merchant in the past, as Bruce Benson has pointed out. Such a system has worked in Iceland, Celtic Ireland, American old west, British colonies in North America, Rhode Island, Albemarle, and Pennsylvania. There is a lot of historical evidence to prove that these societies worked really well and had sophisticated legal codes. Crime rates were strikingly low. In Celtic Ireland, it lasted for nearly thousand years. It was a civilized, advanced society as there was no Government administered justice. Even when these societies collapsed, it was not due to extreme anarchy, but due to contradictions in the anarchistic structure. Iceland is a classic example, where chieftains were granted more power, and religious issues led to a civil war.

Further Empirical Evidence: Present day Somalia

Somalia hadn’t a central Government since 1991. Yet, it has an efficient telephone system and mobile phone network, which is far better than that of its neighboring countries. The same is true of the electricity system. The situation is Somalia is much more peaceful than it was under the Government, and hence it is easier to do business there. There is a clan system which enforces contracts, though there isn’t a monopoly Government to enforce law. There was an improvement in 14 out of 18 development indicators after the collapse of the state in Somalia. One indicator was the same, and the other one, GDP, was blown up by the Government during its rule. Peter Leeson points out that “Under statelessness life expectancy in Somalia has grown, access to health facilities has increased, infant mortality has dropped, civil liberties have expanded, and extreme poverty has plummeted. In many parts of the country even security has improved. In these areas citizens are safer than they’ve been in three decades.” Even World Bank Economists like Tatiana Nenova and Tim Harford admit that things are getting better in Somalia. These Economists aren’t anarchists by any stretch of imagination.

Like all of the other major industrialized countries, India also have a Universal Health Care System¹ run by the state and central government. The governmental hospitals provide health care to the masses at the tax-payer expense. Most important drugs are often provided free of charge. Obviously, on papers, nothing can seem any better than the universalized health care system. Universal Health Care system is the proposed health care facility for all the eligible residents of a political region, and the costs of the treatment and care are borne by the government funded program, that is by the tax-payers money.
Somehow, government establishes the idea that the health care is a sort of fundamental right for the citizens and it is governmental duty of the system to provide health care facilities; obviously, the tax-payers need to pay for that duty.
In 1981, there were approximately four medical practitioners per 10,000 citizens, in late 80′s that number fell to 3 medical practitioners per 10,000 citizens. One can assume that as a reflex of population increase. In late 90′s there were approximately 10 hospital beds per 10,000 individuals.
The abysmal data further deteriorates when one look at the geographical distribution of medical facilities and hospitals. Uttar Pradesh, with a 1991 population of more than 139 million, had 735 hospitals as of 1990, while Kerala, with a 1991 population of 29 million occupying an area only one-seventh the size of Uttar Pradesh, had 2053 hospitals. The data suffices the evidences of failure of the government planning of health care system.
Yet, it would be wrong to criticize or blame the government for the failure because it is not the failure of government itself; rather it is the failure of the corrupt idea that health care is some sort of fundamental right. It is the failure of our own perception that there is a need of a governing body to regulate our most personal orders of life.
Here is a proposal for improvement.
>The major problem of Indian Health Care System is the terribly low number of medical practitioners’ available for the citizens.
In order to improve and increase the number of available medical experts we need to eliminate all licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical doctors and other health-care personnel, that is, we need to industrialize the health care sector. There is a huge demand for medical professionals, yet Indian government is not able to provide them, the only reason is the governmental regulations. Once such regulations are removes or eased out, their supply would almost instantly increase, prices would fall, and a greater variety of health-care services would appear on the market.
One may ask that without any governmental regulating body, how will it be possible to discriminate between an eligible and efficient medical practitioner and a “Neem Hakim”?
The solution is within the market premises; competing voluntary endorsement agencies would take place of the compulsory government licensing. Obviously, these endorsement or accreditation agencies would be run by the same social organizations and NGO’s that keep promoting the causes of citizens and society welfare.
Why would a medical college or hospital look for any such accreditation or certification from a NGO?
The health care providers will look for such accreditation if they believe that such recognition would enhance their own reputation, and that their consumers care about reputation, and are willing to pay for it.
Furthermore, as there won’t be illusion in the consumers mind that there is any thing like “national standard” of health care, they would be more cautious, will increase their search costs for better facilities and make more discriminating health-care choices, and that trend would further the need of the health-care providers to have some certification from some reputed NGO to bank on that.
Won’t the Health-Care Providers bribe the Competitive Endorsement Agencies and corrupt the market?
Governmental licensing system is already corrupt, the only problem is, there is no other way out to get rid of the corruption. In a free market, once a health-care provider commits a mistake, it would loose its market. In addition, the certification provider agency will also loose its reputation and credentials to provide any further endorsement.
> The other major problem of the Indian health care system is the huge prices of medicines and medical devices. Would the free market be able to cater all those costs? Will the medicines be further costly due to the lack of governmental subsidies?
Governmental subsidies are not the solution for the high costs of medicines and medical facilities. The solution is to eliminate all governmental restrictions on the production and sales of pharmaceutical products and medical instruments that currently hinders innovations and increases costs.
In absence of governmental interference and restrictions, costs and prices would fall and a wider spectrum of better products would reach the consumers faster.
The free market would force the health care providers and the consumers to act in accordance with their own risk assessment. The competitive drugs and medical instruments manufacturers and sellers, in order to safeguard themselves against product liability cases and also to increase their customer belt, would provide increasingly better product descriptions and guarantees.
>The other important issue in the Indian health care market is the presence of alternative health care facilities such as Ayurveda and Unani herbal medicinal practices. Should government restrict or ban someone like Baba Ramdev or private institutes like Patanjali Ayurvedic Hospital services? Should government devote further more resources and tax-payers money to scientifically verify the validity of Ayurveda and Unani medical practices?
In reality, governmental interference always causes deterioration, corruption and wastage.² The market itself provides checks for any such stream of medical practices. Any such institute that stands on its own credentials and the reputation it gains within the consumers’ belt itself remains enough self-cautious and answerable. The free market would obviously promote the alternative health care systems freely to innovate and invigorate.
>Another issue in the urban Indian health care sector is the rising prices of the medical insurances. The solution is the deregulation of health-insurance industry.
Insurance agencies can provide insurance against the events over whose outcome the insured has no control. Since a person’s health or lack of it lies within his own hands, many of the health risks are basically uninsurable. Furthermore, for the insurable health risks also, better pooling system free of governmental restrictions should be provided. Because the current system (which obviously is a huge failure) is only partly concerned with insurance, rather it is more concerned with the corrupt idea of Universal free medical facilities for all citizens, it restricts the right of the insurer to refuse or to exclude any individual risk as uninsurable, and the industry cannot discriminate freely amongst different groups’ risks.
This is a case where egalitarianism holds no worth. Health-care insurance is a case where discrimination is justified and necessary. As for example, anyone can have heart problems, but the risk with an alcoholic consumer are surely much more than the risk with a non-alcoholic consumer. Obviously, the non-alcoholic consumer should not be pooled in the same group of the alcoholic consumer, the insurance agency should discriminate the two consumers and the heart health risks involved with the two on the premises of one being alcoholic and other being non-alcoholic.
Deregulation of health insurance industry will remove such discrepancies.
Deregulation of the industry means to restore it in an unrestricted manner. It means to allow the insurers to offer any possible contract whatsoever for the consumers, to include or exclude any risk, and to discriminate among its consumers to pool them in different groups based on any criteria including their hereditary conditions, health habits and addictions. In deregulated health insurance market, the uninsurable risks would lose coverage and the individuals will become further more cautious. The variety of insurance policies for the remaining insurable risks would increase and prices will fall drastically. The most important thing is, the individual responsibility of the consumer in health care will gain more emphasis and that would provide an environment for better habits and proper living attitudes amongst the citizens.
We have further discussed this particular issue of health insurance here –³
India has a huge demand of medical services and as discussed earlier, governmental restrictions cannot supply the much required services.
Until the governmental restrictions are not removed, the health-care system of India will have serious problems and we, being the consumers will suffer those problems. Furthermore, we being the tax-payers will keep paying for the same problem

1. Universal Health Care system, Wikipedia [↩]
2. Separation of Science and State, Reason For Liberty [↩]
3. Indian Insurance System and Free Market., Reason For Liberty [↩]

Someone forwarded me a link to this video:
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVrHW2suW2A]

Those who do not wanna watch it, its an investigative report on Chennai private colleges where Taliban-style rules were enforced on the students. There is so much segregation among guys and girls in those colleges that Americans are going to be reminded of the Jim Crow laws era when blacks and whites were made to attend school separately.

This did not come to me as news, I had friends from those universities who told me about these things years ago. I went to a much more liberal private college so all those things came as a big shock to me. I was told that if a guy was found talking to a girl, he was fined(not always through money, but through social service etc etc).

Contrary to the natural reaction(which would be appalling at the horror of these policies), my topic is different. Considering the fact that all the colleges covered were Deemed Universities(they don’t receive any funding from the government, but only have accreditation from the government regarding their course work), that is they are private colleges, it begs the question, would free market serve Taliban and enforce Talibani rules if its participants demanded things that way? Would salons refuse to cut beards? Would private roads refuse to allow cars with female drivers in them? Would a private pond owner refuse to allow Buddhists to drink water from their pond?

The answer to all these questions is a shocking YES. The truth is, for all theoretical purposes, it is clearly possible that the Market would serve those things. There can be salons which refuse to shave men, private roads where women are not allowed to drive, and ponds which do not serve Buddhists, blacks, or the lower caste people. Just like in Chennai Deemed universities do not allow their boys and girls to mix socially.

But to understand why it is so, we must first ask the question, are any of these an act of aggression against anybody’s private property rights? Second question is, if it is not an act of aggression against private property rights of any individual, is it any kind of moral violation of an individual’s right to equality(if not right against his liberty). The answer to the first question is clear, when a salon refuses to employ its employees and its property to be used in a manner they don’t deem fit, when a private road does not deem fit to allow a certain type of individuals to use their property, when a pond owner does not allow the people of a certain religion, race or caste to use his property, none of these actions are a violation of anybody’s private property rights. In fact the whole point of “property” is to restrict non-owners from using the object against the wishes of the owner.

If I can prevent you from entering my house without actually violating your rights in any manner, how come by not allowing you(a black guy) in my saloon a violation of your rights of any kind.

Similarly when the Chennai private college owners refuse to allow their male and female students to mingle with each other, its their private property rights to enforce any laws they deem fit. If the parents do not think that their kids should be brought under this rule they are free to take their kids out and put in a more liberal college. The only place where this kind of rules would be private property rights violations if parents were forced to pay for these colleges through taxation and they had no choice.

In addition to that, the college cannot beat the students, or physically punish the student in any form for any kind of non-aggressive violation, because the body of the student is his property, irrespective of where it is located. Colleges have full rights to fail such a student or kick him out from the college for violation of their rules.

Second question which I asked earlier whether it is some sort of moralistic violation of an individual’s right to equality, well the answer is, that there is no such thing as universal “right to equality”. I might be a barber who promises right to equality to all my customers, but that does not mean everybody must be obliged to do the same in a free society. A white supremacist should be equally free to serve only white customers.

In a liberal(and free) society there will be standardized label adopted by the companies, claiming to be “equal treatment business establishment”(that is they serve all customers equally), and liberal minded customers would flock to businesses bearing such labels. Just like there will be “Whites Only” labeled restaurants who would shoot in their foot by not serving all the non-white customers, and white liberal customers.

What is the Market’s nature against such discriminatory institutions?

Market forces clearly work against the discriminatory institutions. The road owner refusing to allow women to drive through his road is directing all that traffic to other road owners. Since private roads will operate on subscription basis, families with women drivers will have even their male drivers using the non-discriminatory road networks, clearly damaging the male-drivers only road owner.

Similarly a college institution which pops into Chennai which puts no such Talibani restrictions on their students will attract all sorts of liberal students. The conservative schools must find other ways to actually attract the market. For example in America private catholic schools are more desirable even among the non-Catholics because of their performances. Also if you are a liberal, there is no more liberal school than the public schools in America. So all the Market demand for a Liberal school is crunched in by the public schools, therefore most of the good private schools in America are run by conservative Catholics.

Conclusion

If a newspaper editor refuses to publish your opinions, it is not a violation of your constitutional “freedom of speech” or “first amendment” rights. There is no right to equality on private property, because guaranteeing a right to equality means violating the right to liberty. Only one of these can be upheld at a time.

The market serves its participants. If there are enough number of irrational individuals who wanna follow their own irrational way of life, the market will serve them without prejudice. It may be an issue of rationality vs irrationality, but it is not an issue of Libertarianism.

About the above mentioned Chennai colleges, they will have more to worry about in the coming years when they will realize that Gay and Lesbian rights movement get huge support from their colleges.

Lets say if you somehow had the psychic ability to be able to predict the future demand and supply of wheat, say up to 6 months to 1 year in future. How do you think you would be able to use this ability to do good in the world? You could go to all the wheat farmers and tell them how much the future supply and demand of wheat would be, so the farmers will now be able to produce wheat more in accordance to how things are going to be at the end of the wheat season.

If the supply is going to go down considerably(say because in Southern India its going to rain a bit too much thus destroying the wheat crop), the wheat farmers will be geared up to produce more wheat that season to compensate for the fall in supply thereby fulfilling the demand of the market. Thereby benefitting both the consumer and the farmer.

Similarly if its going to rain pretty well and it will result in sufficient harvest, the farmers will produce less, put less money on the crop and it will create a bountiful harvest.

Wouldn’t this foresight into the future going to help the poor farmers. Unfortunately we face two problems in realization of this scenario.

1. You don’t have such a psychic ability.
2. You cannot just convince the farmers out there that what you are telling them is true

That is, there is no such psychic ability possessed by anyone who can predict the future demand and supply with accuracy. The closest to such a prediction you can come to, is to study weather, study the crop cycles, study the soil, and then make an educated prediction. Even when you are able to make such a prediction you face the problem of convincing the farmers. Why should farmers believe you who says that there will be a shortage of Wheat coming harvest season, or believe me who says that there will be an abundance of wheat this harvest season. There must be a solution to this problem.

I bet the way most Indians are educated to think will think of a centralized government solution of this problem. One possible solution which was given to me by someone really smart went something like this:

Govt should organize a national level exam(on the scale of IAS-Indian Administrative Services exam), to find out the most intelligent soil, agriculture, wheat scientists and form a group which will then issue advisories on how much wheat the farmers must produce. This committee must be kept away from the political pressures, and must be paid very highly so that we are able to attract the most intelligent IITians-Agro scientists etc etc.

The problem with the above solution is, that it simply is the worst possible solution of the problem, it is so bad that its just going to worsen the problem. As long as the “National Advisory Committee” gives good recommendations its good, but when they will screw up which will happen more often than not, its going to create disaster. Plus it is actually no different than the Central Planning we have followed from Independence till 1990s, I am sure that gave us some amazing results. Also it basically excludes 99.99% of other people who could have been right.

So what’s an alternate more efficient solution? Wouldn’t it be better if every individual can take part in this process of prediction the wheat prices in future? Not only anyone wishing to take part must be able to take part, it should work more efficiently than handing out the power to a few individuals. It must penalize the participant if their prediction turns out to be wrong, and must give more weight to the prediction of an accurate individual.

The system would basically allow the farmers to sell wheat at a fixed price on a future date. That is if a farmer is producing wheat for the harvesting of June 09, and currently it is Jan 09, then he must not worry about the uncertainty of the wheat prices in future. Someone must assure him the price he is going to get.

Ladies and Gentlemen, presenting Commodity Futures.

Let me first explain you the concept of Futures contract. In finance a futures contract is a standardized contract to buy and sell a standardized quantity of commodity at a future date at a market determined price. The price is determined by the instantaneous equilibrium between the forces of supply and demand among competing buy and sell orders on the exchange at the time of the purchase or sale of the contract.

In simple words, if I am a wheat farmer, and you are a wheat price speculator, buy the wheat from me now, which will be delivered to you on a future date when the harvest occurs. If you think in the future the wheat price is going to be $700 per quintal, then lets sign a contract where you pay me $700 per quintal, and I will deliver to you wheat on that future date. If on that future date, the price of wheat is $700 or more, you make profit, if its less than $700 then you make loss. In either case the headache from my head of worrying about the future wheat demand is gone. My work as a farmer is now to simply grow wheat, and not worrying about the trading of the wheat.

This is a much better way to discover the future prices of any commodity compared to putting the burden on the poor farmers, or to give the task to one elite intelligent group of Oxford graduates. In this way anyone in the market can take part in the price discovery of the commodities. The risk of wheat prices plummeting has been taken off from the farmer, and is handed to the guys who are more focused on the task of predicting the future prices. If they succeed they make the profit, and they will trade even more futures and become larger contributor in the price discovery. If they fail they will be penalized for making the wrong prediction.

Futures trading is not new to the world. In fact from wikipedia entry on Futures:

The origins of futures contract can be traced to Ancient Greece, in Aristotle’s writings. He tells the story of Thales, a poor philosopher from Miletus who developed a “financial device, which involves a principle of universal application.” Thales used his skill in forecasting and predicted that the olive harvest would be exceptionally good the next autumn. Confident in his prediction, he made agreements with local olive-press owners to deposit his money with them to guarantee him exclusive use of their olive presses when the harvest was ready. Thales successfully negotiated low prices because the harvest was in the future and no one knew whether the harvest would be plentiful or pathetic and because the olive-press owners were willing to hedge against the possibility of a poor yield. When the harvest-time came, and many presses were wanted all at once and of a sudden, he let them out at any rate which he pleased, and made a large quantity of money.

In the modern times, Futures trading has been around in America for over two centuries. In 1848, the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT – the world’s first modern futures exchange) was formed. In India the futures trading has been going on with some big government support since 2002. In terms of trading volume Mumbai Stock Exchange is world’s largest stocks and futures trading exchange.

Since my article is focused for Indians and I am using Wheat as an example, let me talk a bit about two major Commodity exchanges in India(there are more than 20 overall).

1. National Commodities and Derivatives Exchange(NCDEX) – Wiki – A regulated online commodity exchange based in Mumbai.
2. Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd(MCX) – Wiki – An independent commodity exchange based in Mumbai with 84% of Market Share in 2008.

Lets take an example of what a Wheat futures contract specifications in India consists of.

http://www.ncdex.com/product/Agro_product.aspx?comm=WHE

Name of commodity – Wheat
Ticker Symbol – WHTSMQDELI
Unit of Trading – 10 Metric Tonnes (That is one contract deals with 10 metric tonnes of wheat)
Quotation Price – Rs per Quintal (This means that if you read the price of Wheat contract Rs 830, it means that on the delivery date market thinks the price is going to be Rs 830 per quintal).

Tick Size – 20 paisa (that means the price of Futures contract can go up and down by 20 paisa or more.

Delivery center – Delhi (once the Futures contract expires you can take the delivery of the contracts from Delhi delivery center)

There are many other things involved with trading commodities, the details of which are out of scope of this article. The conclusion I wanna put in is that Grain futures trading can be a very powerful way to actually serve the people, to help the poor farmers by taking the risk off their hands, as well as make a living while doing that. There are tremendous risks involved with futures trading and you might lose all your capital in it. So instead of trying to become all out commodity trader, try to hedge your wealth with a real job.

Before you become any kind of trader I would suggest you to read this book by Nicholas Taub:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan:_The_Impact_of_the_Highly_Improbable

The most significant “left” party of India, the CPI (M) announced its political manifesto for the upcoming 15th general election.¹ Despite being a socialist country at its base, Communist front never gained any political importance on Indian political frame and always remained restricted to a limited regional area of West Bengal, Kerala and a little more part of south Indian states. Yet, for the 14th general assembly and making of the previous government, CPI (M) played an important role, the left front had balance of power and a political agreement with Congress for the most part of last government tenure and then they walked out against each other last year when the term of government was about to be completed.
Now once again, the communist are seeking grounds for their political existence in India. CPI (M) is the major force trying to raise a third front to work for creating a non-Congress, non-BJP government. We will see the political manifestos and ideologies of the Congress lead UPA front and BJP lead NDA front later on, here let us discuss the recently issued manifesto of CPI for the upcoming elections.
Protectionist Communist India
Despite the fact that Indian and even Chinese government are against the protectionist moves of USA and want to establish Free Market², CPI-M has mentioned its protectionist idea in the manifesto.
The CPI-M has proposed a full stop for privatization of profitable state firms, obviously, being communist they want to control the profitable sectors; they have proposed a ban on foreign investment in the retail sector.
Now such an idea can be put forth only by communists.
In the current scenario of economic crisis, when whole world is facing economic slump, the Indian GDP has also suffered a huge drop from 9% growth to 5.1% growth. It is well explained and well-experienced fact that direct foreign investment causes the major improvement and growth of the economy, raises the job opportunities, productivity, and hence reduces the poverty, Direct investment is always better than the foreign aid and loans for the government from other governments because it reduces the chances of wastage of capital because of red-carpeting, corruption and government involvement, also, the efficiency of direct foreign investment is much more than the foreign aid because investment provides incentives of profit for both the investors and the sector getting the investment.³
The major economic issue of India is the decrease in foreign investment as it simultaneously decreases the productivity, betterment of infrastructure and progress and hence increases unemployment. Thus, such a political move by CPI-M may seem to be anti-rich or anti-capitalist, basically, it is anti-poor and any such ban will harm the Indian economy further.
Increasing Taxes on Rich
CPI-M has proposed an increase in taxes on rich industrial houses of India, obviously, the main agenda of communists always remain looting the rich, wasting major part of that money, and distributing the left-over in poor.
The communists really believe that money falls from sky, and if money is distributed equally, things will be better, but the reality is different. Neither the money falls from sky nor does it grow on trees.
Communists support the robbery of the producer on the name of “social justice”. What they ignore is, a poor is not poor because someone is rich, and by looting the rich and distributing his richness in poor, the poverty cannot be reduced, it will further increase.
Anyone looking into the matter with a keen eye will understand that this proposal from CPI-M is again not only anti-Indian but it is anti-poor too and surely is against socialist justice.
For a call of justice, one cannot discriminate people on the name of economic class. Just because some are rich and majority is poor one cannot call for looting the rich, and if some political party proposes such robbery, it is nothing but unjust.
Yet the matter is not of social justice. The rich already are paying for all wasteful expenses of government and a further increase in taxes also will not make them poor, yet the incentive to produce more will be lost and that will increase poverty. Obviously, these pseudo-intellectuals have nothing to do with economic facts, realistic procedures, and rational approach towards life, liberty and citizenship.⁴
Socialists and communists often bemoan and criticize the capitalist emphasis on profits and loss and the rational way to increase profit, poverty and hence reduce poverty of whole society. Instead of trying to emphasize on removing poverty, they try to workout a plan to reduce economic differences and focuses on distributing the wealth. The left often overlook the fact that for distributing the wealth, the first and foremost step is to produce wealth, and when a nation have to produce wealth to reduce poverty as it is the only way, the free market is the only viable option.
Swaminathan Aiyer explained the issue of left in his article for Times of India properly.⁵
When India is already facing economic slump and the Indian economy may face the first ever deflation period since 1991 in near future, any move of increasing taxes will harm Indian economy further and basically, it will cause more unemployment, poverty and corruption, it will spread more social-unjust.
Blocking the Nuclear Deal
CPI-M has also proposed a checking block on Indo-US nuclear deal for provision of nuclear power plants. Since always, Indian left has opposed the Indo-US nuclear deal. Being a libertarian, I have no interest in this big government policy too, yet considering the current scenario when India is surely unable to provide electricity to most of the rural area and major part of urban India faces black-outs and power-cuts, what options does the CPI-M provides to tackle the situation?
Being environment friendly, the communists opposes coal thermal plants too, so how will they solve out the power crisis? Nuclear power plants are the only viable options at present to tackle the ever-increasing power crisis. Even the communist ruled state West Bengal is suffering from power cuts. The need is, to not only introduce the new nuclear technology to produce and provide electricity, but also induce private sector in producing electricity through nuclear plants.
Obviously, this proposal is also anti-poor, anti-development and anti-India, it is irrational, illogical and inappropriate too, but communists can propose such measure because they never think about production and increasing productivity, their main issue is distribution, first they want to rob and control all production process and than they want to distribute, without having any idea of how the wealth is produced.
Inflation, Price Control
CPI-M has also lashed out the current UPA government over the issue of inflation and has proposed to decrease fuel prices. The idea of price control through taxes and subsidies is nothing new and is based on the same principle of distribution without looking for production. A government can surely subsidize fuel prices and hence decrease them, but government cannot produce fuel. By reducing fuel prices, the government increases taxes and prices on other commodities hence it solves nothing.
On the other hand, by decreasing fuel prices from their actual cost, the government will provide incentive for further misuse and wastage of fuel and that will further increase the pollution and the so-called green house effect.
Just as carbon taxes are a ridiculous idea, decreasing fuel prices through subsidies is also ridiculous, it does not support any poor nor decreases poverty, although it will increase wastage pollution and misuse.
The Gujarat Issue
The manifesto has yet again criticized Gujarat riots and has proposed to provide compensation for the riot victims; furthermore, they have proposed to set some new preventive laws against agitation and riots. The Gujarat pogrom was the evidence of the fact that monopoly of government over security forces can be dangerous, and the issue can be tackled with only by promoting the idea of private security system and emphasis on “self-defense”⁶ . Making further bulgy regularities holds no value nor does it provide any solution. How can any political party suggest further big interventionist and totalitarian government as the solution for the crimes of totalitarianism of government? On the other hand, whole manifesto simply ignored the issue of Nandigram and Singur, there is nothing about property rights for the farmers and poor living in slums. There is no mentioning about the illogical SEZ. There is nothing about Narmada issue and related property rights of the people deemed to be displaced because of the Narmada Dam issue.
We have seen how the policy of government compensation created blood ridden riots and murders in Nandigram and Singur, obviously, by proposing compensation for Gujarat victims, CPI-M has tried to invoke emotional support without providing any rational solution.
Overall, the election manifesto of the left provides no rational point to debate and elect. The problem with Indian election scenario is, the other fronts are also not much rational nor are they much different from the left, even the extreme right of India is basically socialist and anti-individual liberty. We will see the political issues of other parties and national fronts, as they will come on and then we may discuss how to solve out this problem of intellectual bankruptcy in Indian political environment.

1. CPM releases manifesto, Livemint news [↩]
2. China, India call for Free Market, Reason for Liberty [↩]
3. Foreign Aid versus Foreign Investment, Reason for Liberty [↩]
4. Population, Poverty and Production, Reason for Liberty [↩]
5. Swaminath Aiyer, Times of India [↩]
6. Self-Defense, Reason for Liberty [↩]

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez who rose to the chair in 1999, and since then been holding power despite the Washington backed coup attempt of 2002, is certainly in news now than ever before. Chavez has always been vocal about his aim of establishing 21st century Socialism in his country. Whatever that means, lets hope the almighty Marxist Praxis does not trust price controls as the economic tool towards that dream.

Venezuela is currently suffering from severe shortages in the supply of various goods, in particular rice. The nation reminds us of the erstwhile USSR in this aspect, as it does in many other perspectives. Only that direct physical force against the masses has not been let loose yet. Venezuela has been reeling under the impact of shortages in the supply of various goods since 2003, and now the crisis has hit rice supply as well. Keeping up with propaganda records, Chavez has launched a propaganda tirade against private suppliers. He has accused private suppliers of hoarding supply of rice. There could be a certain element of truth in it, suppliers could indeed be hoarding supplies to a certain extent. But that’s definitely not where the fundamental problem lies. The causal problem of this crisis lies in price-controls which have grown in size ever since 2003.

I will first explain the economic basics of prices, and then lead into the cause of shortages, inflation and hoarding.

What are prices, and what do they say? The price of a product simply shows how much money you should give up to obtain it. Then, what do you prices say? And why do prices of commodities change so often in markets? The answer is, people are willing to give up different quantities of money for the same homogeneous product at different points of time. This might sound vague, so lets get on with an example.

You are given 3 bags of rice. You have a particular preference scale based on your individual liking, and it shows those immediate needs that you would like to satisfy with the three bags of rice. The first immediate need that you fulfill with a bag of rice is to feed yourself. So, the first bag of rice goes to feeding yourself. You decide to use the second bag of rice to make some cakes. The third bag goes to feed your pet dog. This explains your preference scale. Your highest valued purpose is to feed yourself, followed by making some cakes, and finally feeding your dog.

Now imagine, you have only two bags of rice, and you are to decide what among the different uses of rice you are going to sacrifice. Since you have feeding your pet dog the least important of all uses, you decide to let your dog starve. Now suppose your neighbor has some extra bags of rice in his kitchen and he is ready to sell it to you for some money. How much would you be ready pay for that extra bag of rice which you would use now to feed your dog? You would see if the utility (or use) you gain from that extra third bag of rice is more than the utility you attach to the money you pay to your neighbor for that extra bag. Lets assume you would probably pay $2 to get a third rice bag from your neighbor, and you use it to feed your starving dog.

Lets further assume now that you have only one bag of rice. So you would have to give up on both feeding your dog as well as making tasty cakes. Now again, your neighbor has an extra bag of rice. How much would you be ready to pay for that second bag of rice? The same kind of reasoning as used earlier applies here as well, you would buy the second bag of rice only when the utility you achieve by buying it is greater than the utility you attach to its price. Perhaps you’d be ready to pay $5 to get the second rice bag from your neighbor, to make some cakes.

Now lets go further and assume that you have no rice bags with you. And again, your neighbor has an extra bag to sell. This time too you’d buy the bag of rice only when the utility you gain from the rice bag you buy is greater than the utility that you attach with the money that you spend to buy it. Now, you would be ready to pay almost anything to buy that bag of rice from your neighbor, and that’s because the utility you attach with the bag of rice is your life itself. You would have to starve without that bag of rice.

We have now seen three instances where the price offered to buy an extra bag of rice varies, quite drastically in fact. Economists explain this as the “law of diminishing marginal utility”. Marginal utility of a commodity is the utility that you gain (or lose at times) from an additional unit of the commodity.

This explains why prices change at different moments in the market. When there is excess supply of a commodity in the market, people would have the liberty to use those commodities for less valuable goals, like how you used the third bag to feed your pet dog. So they are willing to pay only low prices. On the other hand, when there is deficit in the supply of a commodity, people are strained to obtain sufficient goods. They are forced to cut down on their frivolous expenses, like your preference to feed your pet dog. The price of the commodity in this case is high. This explains how prices are set in a market.

What the market does is it rations the goods that are available to the most immediate needs by raising prices when supplies are constrained. So, high prices enables everybody to satisfy their most intense immediate demands, while restricting them from using further units of the commodity towards less intense needs.

So when supplies are inadequate, the price of the commodity increases to make sure that the commodity is diverted towards the most urgent needs rather than being wasted in satisfying less intense needs. This means that suppliers would gain lots of profits.

The suppliers then invest this extra revenue to expand their production in order to gain more profits. Note, monopolies might restrain from producing more to maintain current profits, but they won’t be able to do it for long, until competing firms sensing profits enter the business to produce more of the commodity. This increase in supply would cause prices to go plunge. So high prices leading to high profits are market signals to encourage increased production. And this is how the free market deals with the economic problem.

Governments on the other hand have a very different way of dealing with high prices due to insufficient production of a commodity. They deal with the economic problem with price ceilings. The Government sets arbitrary prices to commodities whose prices are “too high”, and it thinks the problem is solved. But that’s exactly where the problem starts. The lower prices leaves no profits to be gained or even sends firms right into losses, and that discourages firms from increasing production. Witnessing lower prices, consumers demand more of the commodity than they would at the genuine free market price level. That is like, if a sack of rice were available for just 50 cents you’d probably buy hell a lot of rice bags and waste them for weird reasons. We have in hand a very critical situation, production of the commodity plunges due to decreasing profits or outright losses, but at the same time people are demanding more of the commodity. This leads to shortages.

This is what is being experienced in Venezuela because of price controls imposed by Chavez’s government.

The other fact to remember is that price controls which are imposed initially on a a few commodities are spread to other commodities as well. In fact governments are forced to spread the price control regime because of their initial mistake of controlling prices of a few commodities. Why does this happen? When the price of a commodity is arbitrarily set low, people are encouraged to demand more of the commodity but since there is not sufficient supply available, goods are sold to people on a first come first serve basis. This could have a very important side-effect. The supplies do not get diverted to the most intense needs because those customers whose demand for the product is extremely important is prohibited from bidding higher prices for the commodity.

So when such needs are not satisfied, consumers search for alternative goods to buy. People who failed to secure rice because of the shortages would try to buy wheat which is not controlled by the government’s price control regime. As more people who failed to get rice start bidding for wheat, the price of wheat skyrockets. And now the government steps in again to impose price controls on wheat as well. And thus, the price control regime keeps spreading and turns into a universal price control system, with no kind of free market pricing to guide production and consumption.

Now coming to the problem of hoarding. First reason why some people hoard supplies is because they are unsure about the availability of future supplies due to chronic shortages. The second type of hoarding is carried out by speculators who expect a higher price for the product in the future when the price control regime collapses, or they might sell the supplies in the black market at prices higher than the government set arbitrary ones. It must be realized that the problem of hoarding is definitely not the cause of the shortage, it is a minor side effect of the real culprit–price controls.

The Venezuelan economy is in the mud, and the price control regime is spreading all over the economy. The system is bound to collapse and cause serious problems to the Chavez government. It should also be observed if Chavez does a Stalin here, to use force against his own people. Reports emanating from Caracas already show the seizure of rice processing units, and also the spread of the price control regime towards other goods like meat, sugar ad other goods. Just another case of price controls bringing disaster.

Venezuela will not be able to reach Socialism because Socialism is an impossible theory, it demonizes the same tools by which pro-Free Market economies achieve efficiency in distribution of resources and satisfies the demand of the market. In the name of achieving more Socialism Hugo Chavez keeps on grabbing more and more power, and this is causing Venezuelan people to lose their Liberties.

America used to be the prime destination of the best and brightest immigrants from whole round the world, but with its stride to adopt for socialism in form of protectionism, and announcements to cull tax reliefs to the companies employing foreigners working on H1B visa and other issues, now America is loosing its shine.¹
What the dangerous threatening groups like KKK could not do in years, is being done by US government and its protectionist policies within months. Such is the nature of poison of socialism and US is hell bent to take its gulp now.
US enjoyed the luxury of being the strongest magnet for the immigrants for long time, and those immigrants actually made USA the world’s most innovative and technically sound nation, now the lustrous history is about to be faded. India and even so-called communist China are gradually picking up race for being the strong magnet to catch the best minds ready to innovate and deliver ways, techniques and procedures to produce wealth. Immigrants actually can be the major engine of productions, knowledge, technology, economical success and pride and none other than Americans no this reality.
Yet for their newly acquired colors of socialism in form of protectionism, they are at the brisk of loosing that extra edge.
Around 1 lakh Indians are about to return to India in the next 3 to 5 years span, and according to a new American study, this is going to harm US as deeper as the current economic crisis is harming.²
We used to discuss about the harms of brain drain which the native countries of the immigrants suffers, and now the same immigrants when will return to their native countries with much acquired skills, knowledge, technological know-how, new innovative ideas and practices which they learned and skilled well in US, the native countries whole round the world will gain their services and hence the consequential wealth production gains. Obviously, it would be a loss from all sides for the USA.
On the other hand, other nations like India can gain from the opportunity.
Immigrants used to love US because of the environment of individual freedom and support for talent irrespective of the caste, economic class, colour, and religion or creed bias. Yet, when now US government is hell bent to provide reservation and special treatment for the US citizens and workers, things are going to change.³
The immigrants are returning to India because of better environment India has provided since 1991 with its spree for liberalization.
As the private sector in India now is the main source of wealth production, and it is not as murky and intervened by Indian government as it was before 1991 periods, the highly skilled professionals feel they can get their rewards for their talent and hard work in Indian private sector.
Yet, all this can go in vain too. India is not so free of socialist plots and illusions even now.
The same Indian government, which is strongly opposing US socialist moves in form of protectionism, giving reason for globalization and free market principles, is very much used to the ways of reservations, price control, labour control and even salary control.⁴
Even now, Indians believe the myths of population explosion and consider that with such huge population, distribution and redistribution of wealth is necessary otherwise, many will suffer poverty. Even now, Indian politicians and majority electorate still believe that reservations, quotas, economic stimulus and direct money vouchers for poor can really help in eradicating poverty. People in India still believe that by enforcing compulsory and free education for all, they will solve the problem of poverty of masses. Even now, the Indian electorate believes that by dividing people on name of caste, creed, religion, and sex and hence making profitable vote banks to win majority votes, politicians actually help Indian public.⁵
With such political environment, what will happen if tomorrow Indian government enforces reservations in private sector?
India is already suffering with high unemployment rates, and with the economic downturn, the number of jobs is vanishing day by day. With this new crop of talent coming back to India, the competition will obviously increase and the private sector will gain more opportunity to garner the best amongst the better.
Will it strangle Indian and make them further poor?
No, actually, competition and freedom never make anybody poor; government policies, interventions, quotas and reservation do spread poverty though.
With better professionals and innovative minds, the investors will gain more opportunities and ways to produce more, more production will provide more and varied jobs, self-employment and earning opportunities. The more the private sector will remain free from governmental interventionism, the more it will produce wealth and reduce poverty. India is already a bug hub for R&D services, with the strength of these returning immigrants; India will gain in many other sectors too.
To utilize this opportunity, Indian government need to keep off from trying to intervene in private sector and let it thrive on its own.
Now when we have an opportunity to let all live free and earn their life with their respective talents, we can create a work ethic based on freedom, peace and equality.
Yet the problem is, with the politics of vote bank,⁶ can we let the private sector free to explore chose, liberate and procreate the talent in India or just like USA, Indian government will also start intervening in private sector on the name of protecting the vote banks? Indian government is already preparing to provide economic stimulus for the immigrants returning to India after loosing their jobs, now if government tried to intervene in private sector and production house, obviously instead of helping India to be the next strongest magnet for innovative brains and the topmost wealth production house, this returning crowd of talent will end as a burden on India and nothing else.
We should realize that the problem of poverty cannot be solved by reservations or bailouts or economic helps, poverty can be solved out only by means of productions, wealth creation and job creation, as government cannot create productive jobs, only private sector, investors, and the common individual citizens like you me and us can, the more government allow us to be free, the more able we find ourselves to create jobs for others. We should understand this fact too, that by providing reservation or special packages for some sects to gain vote banks, politicians actually hurt the thread of creating jobs and producing wealth and that causes further poverty, discontent and depletion and the consequences of such scenario often turn out to be dark.
Let us hope we Indian will learn from our mistakes soon and will not allow politicians to divide us on the name of caste gender and religion and let us thrive in our live based on our own hard work talent to make our own destiny earned by our own self.
Let us hope we will gain from this reverse brain drain by promoting liberalization and individual freedom rather than making it a further burden on our socialistic frame.

1. The threat of Protectionism, Reason for Liberty [↩]
2. USA will suffer the cost of loosing the best talent, Times of India [↩]
3. Obama the new Robin Hood, gargid [↩]
4. Obama the new Robin Hood, gargid [↩]
5. Population, Poverty and Production, Reason for Liberty [↩]
6. Story of socialism, welfare and brain drain, Reason for Liberty [↩]