It is very common to hear some environmentalist on any main stream media freaking out about the global warming and rehashing the swan song of environmentalists concerning assumed disasters that await the world if it carry on with its evil ways of fossil fuel consumption: the disappearance of islands beneath the sea, the flooding of coastal cities, more severe droughts and hurricanes, famines, disease, the displacement of tens of millions of people from their traditional homelands and the disappearance of glaciers.
However now the climate is surely changing and in this new climate, those environmentalists surprisingly are accepting their faults, yet they are not ready to take the responsibility.
Recently, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is a panel of 2500 of the best climate scientists in the world, accepted that they made a huge goof-up regarding their blow-horns about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.¹
The IPCC, which is a noble winning organization of environmentalist alarmed about the catastrophic threat of melting of Himalayan glacier by 2035, that is, within 20 years, IPCC expected the disastrous end of the Himalayan range. Now when there are no signs of any such apocalyptic change in any new future, they have accepted that it was mistake. The mistake was a result of extreme irresponsibility and carelessness of these climate scientists of the noble winning IPCC organization. First of all, they never studied the Himalayan glaciers with any objectivity and the report they issued was borrowed from a 1996 Russian study, obviously, the study was not at all authentic. Not only that, the Russian study by V M Kotlyakov also predicted a date of 2350 for an expected decrease in Himalayan glacier. The IPCC scientists and climate reporters not only copied a non-authentic study, they also goofed up with the predicted date and made it to 2035. It might be a small typographical error that advanced the apocalyptic deadline by 300 years.
Similarly, the same reputed UN’s union of environmentalists also issued a report regarding the disappearance of Amazon forests based on another baseless report by some advocacy group WWF.² The author of that report on Amazon was also not written by any specialist on Amazon forests, but by a freelance journalist with no authenticity. IPCC never considered the importance to check the validity of such apocalyptical threat before lamenting it as a possible danger to force their socialistic dream of stern governmental actions throughout the world.
Now it is well known through out the world that all these environmentalists keep lying about the shrinking glaciers, increasing hurricanes, rising sea levels and depleting rainforests. Yet nobody in the IPCC, not even the chairman Mr. R.K Pachauri is ready to take the responsibility of such so-called mistakes. Were they intentional?

Changing views of Climatologists

Some of the climate scientists have started trying to search out some feasible excuses to suggest why not all their predicted warnings about the apocalyptic changes in environment are proving to be true. Such a recent study suggests that the Earth did not warm up noticeably over the period of last decade even though the greenhouse gases are increasing dramatically because of a new stratospheric phenomenon 10 miles above our heads. The study suggests that somehow, the water vapour in the stratosphere has been decreased. As the water in atmosphere traps heat, lesser water in stratosphere means lesser heat. That is, although greenhouse gases are continually increasing, the atmosphere has changed itself in such a way that there is no global warming and in fact there is lesser heat. The atmosphere thus, has acted for the benefit of humanity.³
Although it is just an excuse, it suggests that now instead of keep issuing the threats of apocalypse every second day, environmentalists and climate scientists need to stress over searching for better excuses to hide out their deceits.

The Growing Glaciers

Despite all hullabaloo of global warming, the glaciers are growing all around the world. How is that possible that IPCC issues an unauthentic report about the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers, while the scientists from other group make a documentary about how the Himalayan glaciers are ever increasing since the last three decades?
Here is a list of 12 glaciers that have not heard the news about Global warming. They are growing and growing fast.⁴
It is a fact that the fake calls of apocalyptic dangers of global warming are not going to pay the socialist set of environmentalists any success. Yet, it would also be wrong to say that climate is not changing, climate is always changing and so do the human beings and other life forms. We evolve with time we change.
Professor Ian Plimer (University of Adelaide) in his book “Heaven an Earth” explains why CO2 cannot be a cause of global warming; here is a transcript of his scientifically recognized book Heaven and Earth.⁵
Despite the 21st century decrease in global temperature, we are perpetually warned of dangerous global warming. Every evening one can see a disturbing documentary over some news channel showing some absurd claims (just like that of IPCC claims of disappearing Himalayan glaciers etc.) all these environmentalists and green activists obviously want us to believe that if we try to live a happy, healthy prosperous life, we will be no better than the devil ready to cause havoc on earth. Obviously, they want the governments to control us and force us to sacrifice ourselves, our progress for the greater cause of saving the environment from the alleged threat of global warming.

Alternative solutions for alleged global warming

In the book Super Freakonomics⁶ the author argues that even if CO2 is causing global warming and if global warming is a real threat, then also it is not necessary that governments all around the world need to enforce draconian laws and cuts in carbon dioxide emission that would cost many trillions of dollars and will force the poor to be poorer. Rather some better geo-engineering solutions can be adopted to keep the earth cool despite the increased concentration of green house gases in the atmosphere.
Just like the present water vapor in the stratosphere can actually cause the globe to cool down irrespective of increased concentration of carbon dioxide, engineers can pump sulphur dioxide in stratosphere by a suspended hose using helium balloons. There can be numerous ways to actually control any global warming if it is occurring at any dangerous rate, but the fact is, since the 21st century, the earth is cooling off.
The environmentalists knows that it would be hard for them to contend at the issue of global warming because the evidences are totally against them and hence they are playing the new trick. Now days, the catastrophe lovers does not shout for Global Warming, rather they call for Climate Change. Climate change is a reality, climate keep changing since ever and forever. Mainstream economists, along with scientists and engineers, are increasingly joining in the climate change debate as technical experts, with the prospects of lucrative funding ultimately paid for through coercive taxation. The evolution of the climate change debate mirrors the almost universal support of economists as expert technical advisers for central banking and Keynesian policy prescriptions such as Cap and Trade policy etc.
Conclusion: Global warming is gradually proving out to be another fake call of the socialists just to dishearten the freedom loving individuals and to force common public to suffer under governmental duress and keep thinking that freedom is sinful and progress is evil. We need to save ourselves from such unholy misguiding tirade of socialist environmentalists, economists and media persons who are trying to baffle public to enforce governmental control over their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Update: A good article against Global warming fraud in “Open” : http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/international/the-hottest-hoax-in-the-world

Indian Environment Minister Jairam ramesh says:: There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am all for climate science but not for climate evangelism. I think people misused the IPCC report,” Ramesh told a news channel here.
Stressing that the IPCC’s weakness was that it didn’t do original research and derives assessments from published literature, the minister announced a climate change panel for India. Economic Times

1. Times of India IPCC retracts 2035 alarm on Himalayan glacier melt [↩]
2. The Telegraph After Climategate, Pachaurigate and Glaciergate: Amazongate [↩]
3. NPR News ,Atmospheric Dry Spell Eases Global Warming [↩]
4. 12 more glaciers that haven’t heard the news about global warming, Turns out the IPCC’s chicken little story that all the Himalayan glaciers are melting is just another exaggeration. Or fraud. Take your choice. You know, like the stats coming out of East Anglia CRU. And its claim that Antarctica is melting. And that Greenland’s ice cap is melting. And that sea levels are rising. And that the polar bears are dying. Fact is, some glaciers are retreating, but many others around the world are growing. [↩]
5. Professor Ian Plimer is Professor of Mining Geology at University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at University of Melbourne [↩]
6. SuperFreakonomics,Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance [↩]

War has a Role in Peace¹

While accepting “Noble Peace Prize” at Oslo, Obama did not forget to mention his recent decision to escalate conflict in Afghanistan soil. He further argued that his decision to increase 30,000 some more US troops in Afghanistan is justified to protect the world from terrorism and extremism and to maintain peace.
In short, Obama declared that wars are essential for the establishment of peace. He also paid his tribute to his “Heroes” Mahatma Gandhi and civil rights leader Martin Luther King.
Some will say that Obama wrongly mentioned Mahatma Gandhi as his ideal; Mahatma Gandhi obviously is known as apostle of peace and pacifism. How could a Gandhian support wars? Could Gandhi be a supporter of wars? Are not wars the ultimate and most excruciating form of violence?
It is a well known fact that wars ultimately causes violence, wastage and poverty. Yet, if some nation is all set to attack you and threat other nation, than the nation under the threat of attack would presumably try to defend itself. Self-defence is a natural right, no one can argue against it. Self-defence cannot be termed as violence. Yet, what about pre-emptive wars?
Is it right to attack a nation just because it may or may not attack you in future?
Does self-defence includes pre-emptive wars to be staged in order to dishevel and destroy the other nations. Is it necessary to destroy and defeat all in order to establish peace? Are wars necessary to sustain peace?

Mahatma Gandhi on Wars

As Obama reverberates himself as being a disciple of Gandhi, we should look at Gandhi’s attitude about Wars. Gandhi ji was obviously against staging any war, he was a supporter of Non-violence, yet there was not a war that he did not support. He supported all the wars in his life time. The apostle of peace Gandhi himself supported British in the Boer War, Zulu War, WW1, WW2.
In 1914, Gandhi himself joined British army as volunteer for the Ambulance corp. to serve the injured Indian and British soldiers at Zulu war. One may understand his compassion for the suffering of soldiers; he was not taking part in active violence.
Yet, in April 1918, Mahatma Gandhi urged Indian youth to take part in British army as war recruits. Perhaps to show his support for the Empire and help his case for India’s independence, he deemed it necessary to take part in the war.² He might have considered it as pacifist way of non-violence, that is rather than fighting against the British rulers, let the Indian youth fight for the British Empire and in turn demand or beg independence as reward. It should be mentioned that while he openly demanded Indian youths to help British army in World War1, he felt aghast when some Indian youth tried to protest against British brutality on Indians “violently” and because of that, he took his Non-cooperation movement back in 1922.³ Obviously, Gandhi was strictly against any form of violence against British Empire by Indians, yet he was ready to recruit Indian youths to kill enemies of British empire, including the Zulu protesters. For Gandhi, the most necessary peace was, peace of Indians against British Empire.
For Gandhi, the pacifist form of war in order to establish and sustain peace was non-violent, hence although he urged Indian youths to fight and die in battle grounds for British Empire, he also maintained that Indian youths must not fight against British rulers in India, because that would be direct violence, and that was not acceptable to Gandhi. Why was Gandhi ready to recruit Indian youths to “co-operate” with British Army in Imperial wars, while he himself was launching the Non-cooperation movement?
During the WW2 again, Pacifist Mahatma Gandhi again favored offering Indian moral support to British army in 1939 when Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Obviously, it seemed right decision as Nazi Germany obviously was violent. Yet, when other leaders of India objected Indian youth’s inclusion in British war, Gandhi declared that India could not be party to a war ostensibly being fought for democratic freedom, while that freedom was denied to India itself. As the war progressed, Gandhi drafted a resolution demanding for British to Quit India. Obviously, his pacifist support for British army during the wars became the saddle of deal for Indian independence. Gandhi realized that British Empire would be exhausted after the two consecutive world wars and hence he declared that even if some Indians directly fight violently against British Empire, he would not take his Quit India demand this time as he did after the World War1.⁴
He knew it was the ripe time to force exhausted British Empire to Quit India.
Thus, it can be seen that if Obama mentions that he took his inspirations from Mahatma Gandhi, he does not sound hypocrite or wrong.

Changing standards of Noble peace prize community

Mahatma Gandhi was nominated for Noble Peace prize many a times, but he was rejected every time. The last time Gandhi was nominated, the Noble prize committee rejected Gandhi because of his known support for Indo-Pak war.
Based on a telegram from Reuters, The Times, on September 27, 1947, under the headline “Mr. Gandhi on ‘war’ with Pakistan” reported:

“Mr. Gandhi told his prayer meeting to-night that, though he had always opposed all warfare, if there was no other way of securing justice from Pakistan and if Pakistan persistently refused to see its proved error and continued to minimise it, the Indian Union Government would have to go to war against it. No one wanted war, but he could never advise anyone to put up with injustice. If all Hindus were annihilated for a just cause, he would not mind. If there was war, the Hindus in Pakistan could not be fifth columnists. If their loyalty lay not with Pakistan, they should leave it. Similarly Muslims whose loyalty was with Pakistan should not stay in the Indian Union.”⁵

That became the reason for Gandhi’s rejection for Noble price of peace.
Yet now, when every body is familiar with Obama’s support for Afghanistan war, when Obama himself argues and justifies his decision to escalate combat against Afghanistan on the platform while receiving the Noble price, nobody really think that he should not get a Noble because his support to wars.
Maybe now, the Noble Committee agrees that War is necessary for maintaining peace and that preventive war are a part of establishment of peace. Obviously, this is a change in the attitude. Gandhi was rejected the Noble for his support to war against Pakistan in order to keep peace, while Obama has been given Noble despite of his support to war at Afghanistan to keep peace.

How Gandhian Idea would help Afghanistan Situation?

Pacifism of Gandhi suggest that the native Afghans should openly help US troops in order to fight against Taliban and Osama Bin Laden and after the end of Taliban and Osama Bin Laden, the Afghans should peaceful demand evacuation of US troops from Afghanistan. That is the appropriate way and it will ensure the non-violence of Afghans supporting US army against Taliban. Gandhi might have urged Afghan youth to recruit themselves along with US troops to fight against Taliban. A Gandhian may request Indian government too, to help US army to fight against Taliban as a “pre-emptive non-violent measure to maintain peace.”

Libertarian Idea on Pre-emptive Wars

Unlike Pacifists, a libertarian does not believe in preventive wars. A libertarian cannot support an attack on a nation or a person on the name of defensive necessity. The right to self-defense does not mean to attack first in order to remove any chances of being under attack. Libertarian sense of Self-Defense necessarily means No use of Violence at first but full right to defend yourself within your limits if you are being attacked. An Indian libertarian might not have thought of fighting for British Empire and than to argue for his own independence. Rather he would have preferred to fight against the British Empire, as they were the invaders, attackers because self-defense is not a right, it is basically a duty of a freedom lover, a Libertarian, or a Libertarian might have simply adopted non-cooperation in all accounts, including no-operation for British Empire in their wars too.
Unlike a pacifist Gandhian, a libertarian will oppose Obama’s decision to increase troops in Afghanistan and will demand a sudden end to all war fronts, just like Ron Paul did during his famous Libertarian speech “What If” in assembly–

1. Obama :War has a role in Peace, Times of India [↩]
2. Role of Mahatma Gandhi in WW1, Wikipedia [↩]
3. Mahatma Gandhi, Non-cooperation, Wikipedia [↩]
4. World War2 and Quit India, Wikipedia [↩]
5. Mahatma Gandhi, the Missing Laureate, Nobleprize.org [↩]

Often the politicians assume that it is their responsibility to provide certain services like health care or education for the needy on behalf of the compulsory tax collected from the common citizen. Thus, they propose the single payer socialized Universal Health Care System¹ or Universal Education System² with the theme of Education for All, where everybody is free to take free advantages of the medical care or education system, while government pays for the cost of it. The general intention of such politicians who exhort such an idea is to gain the public vote; it is nothing different than bribing the voters monetarily in order to get their votes to make a government. Yet, the politicians are clever clowns, they never let the voters to realize their real intentions, rather they propagandize about the socialized system and suggest that it benefits the poor of the nation. The results obviously turn out to be opposite.

The Socialized Medicines

The idea behind socialized medicines is the forced economic equality³ of citizens, i.e. no matter you have earned money, you cannot have any better medical treatment than the lazy person who never thought of earning and saving for his medical security. Thus, the socialization of medicines is not only the abolition of causality of individual efforts and his earnings; it is abolition of the cost in spending of income.
As visits to doctor are free to individuals while the taxpayers collectively pays for them in socialized system, each individual realizes the benefit of his visit to the doctor, while millions of taxpayers pays for the visit. Obviously it is an insignificant amount, thus every individual is encouraged to take advantage of the system without considering the wastage. As a result, the number of visits to doctor increases abruptly. The absence of cost to the individual patient results in an enormous increase in the medical tests, hospitalization and surgeries performed, most of which remains unnecessary and that adds to the cost of system furthermore, also the system requires a huge bureaucracy to administer it and that further increases corruption and the cost to the collective. The result of the system is simply to raise the fees of doctors and medical facilities and to create scarcity of hospital beds and doctor’s time. The redundant medical tests and surgeries performed often delays the meeting of genuine needs of the patients and many a times, it becomes impossible for the patient to actually get the required treatment.
To solve out these problems, government thoroughly bureaucratize the medical field by controlling the doctors’ wages and price control of medicines, government also restricts doctors from practicing freely. Ultimately, the profession of doctor and medicines becomes unattractive and unprofitable and the talented individuals prefer not to opt for it. That further creates scarcity of efficient doctors. As government has no rational way to determine the necessary treatment in any individual case, the doctors starts denying the necessary treatment for the people, thus increases corruption.

Socialized System against Advancement of Technology

As the total cost of the medical care for the collective populace becomes unbearable and beyond the budget of government and scarcity of doctors, researchers and practitioners also increases the problems, government eventually starts opposing the advancement in medical technology. Any new technology, such as implantation of artificial heart proves to be major threat to the government’s budget. The free market incentives that work to reduce the cost of such new technologies before it may become available to the common mass are absent under socialized system. As government in no way can afford providing such technology to the masses freely, it actually starts opposing and restricting in advancement of new medical technology.
Furthermore, government deliberately excludes many categories of medical procedures ranging from cosmetic surgeries to bypass surgeries in order to contain the collective price of the Universal Medical Care System. Thus, people who could have afforded such medical procedures for their own help by their own money in free market are denied to have such facilities in socialized system.

Increase in Bureaucratic Corruption

As the Free Health Care System results in enormously increased demand of services and scarcity of doctors, medical facilities, hospital beds and resources, the medical sector becomes the free zone for political and bureaucratic corruption. As politicians and government official realizes that government cannot satisfy the demand of citizens, they start taking advantages of the situation through bribery, frauds and corruption. In order to contain the spending on collective medical care of whole populace and to increase the profits of the corrupt politicians, bureaucrats and government officials’ including doctors, government begins denying and prohibiting necessary medical procedures too to the common person. Not only the medical advancement is reduced and opposed by government, it also starts denying medical services to those citizens whom the government considers as only marginally valuable to the nation, such as infants or aged. As aged and infants does not pay any additional tax to the government budget, while their necessary demands of medical are high, they suffer neglect. On the other hand, government keep increasing taxes on the taxpayer citizens on the name of trying to provide necessary treatments for the poor, old and infants. Thus, the same socialized medical system that begins with an aim to provide funds for medical care of poor, infants and aged, turns out to be a sacrificial citadel for them.⁴
To believe that there can be something like “free lunch” is a great mistake. If government promises for free lunch, no one should be surprised to find out that it increases malnutrition and starvation. He may find himself on short rations of government in order to have fund for those whom the government considers more valuable than him on social and political priority. Thus, such socialized free-health care, or free-education for all, or free-lunch, food, water for the poor and underprivileged often proves to be phoney, corrupt and inefficient. Yet, government keep propagandizing such issues and programs just in order to keep its hold on political power and vote bank of the masses. Ultimately, all this increases extreme corruption in the system, and poverty and scarcity of resources and services for the masses. In order to reduce and ultimately remove the problem of corruption in India, Indians need to realize the irrationality of collectivism and to abolish it instead of abolishing the causation and cost of individual earning and living.
Huge number of such socialized programs including Universal Medical Care, Education for All, food for all, minimum wage rates and employment for all run by government in India are the actual cause of extreme corruption that we Indian suffers.
The POTUS Barack Obama and his Democrat comrades are also trying to push such forced economic equality on US citizens by means of luring the citizens and propagandizing such socialized programmes of Universal Health Care, Public education for all and many other such programmes. Obviously, their motive is to gain political mileage and promising vote bank to maintain their ruling power. Yet, the American citizens should realize the irrationality of such collective systems and prefer not to be the victim.

1. A discussion on Indian Health Care Problems, Indian Health Care–an Overview [↩]
2. The Myth of Complete Education, Education for All [↩]
3. Egalitarianism creates Forced Economic Inequality amongst the citizens that proves to be more drastic than the natural inequality of free system, Freedom Versus Egalitarianism [↩]
4. Socialized system turns to Common Minimum Program, The story of Socialism, Public Welfare and Brain Drain [↩]

In a free-society with individuals having complete self-ownership, (Capitalist society) the production of wealth vitally depends on division of labor, a system of production in which all the labor required is broken down into separate, distinct occupations. Obviously, each individual is free and self-responsible enough to decide at his own to what occupation suits him well and serves his self-interests in most proficient way. A society of free self-governing individuals essentially depends on each individual’s self-interest and his ability to exploit his own talent and efforts for fulfilling his needs, desires and self-interests and that makes rational-selfishness as the virtue of the free individual. Division of labor increases the amount of knowledge used in production in ratio to the number of specializations and sub-specializations involved in the process of production. Auto producers have different body of knowledge than that of petroleum, refinery producers, wheat producers have different set of knowledge from both of the previous, and further they have different set of knowledge than the farmers engaged in producing other foodstuffs, vegetable growers, or dairy farmers.
In a non-division of labour system like that of socialist system or the collectivist systems, self-sufficiency becomes the central motive of individuals as they acts as collectivist and self-interest is forgotten. The total capacity of society to incur and further develop knowledge decreases abruptly as all individuals engage in acquiring self-sufficiency by means of adopting and following the common set of wealth production.

Division of Labour and Benefits of Talent

A division of labour system provides enough space and incentive for the individuals occupied in different sets of knowledge of specialization and sub-specializations to devote all their human intellect and efforts to not only use the current knowledge but also to discover, invent and innovate new ways and knowledge to increase production. Division of labour enables a society to use the benefits of geniuses to the maximum extent, while it provides maximum incentive for the genius to use his intellect in development, innovations and entrepreneurship. In a collectivist society, this is not possible, as the genius in such societies, along with other common individuals, must devote most of his time in attaining self-sufficiency first. In India, some decades ago and even at present, division of labour is not definitely present; most of the young students devote their time to achieve degrees from governmental education system in order to gain some or any sort of job in government or private service sector. Hardly anyone devotes his intellect and abilities to any set of specialization of knowledge based on his interest and abilities. Hardly anyone think of devoting his time in research works and furthering knowledge, hence, Indian society lacks innovators. That doesn’t mean that Indian society is or was incompetent of innovations and inventions in present or past, the lack of it only represents the partial slavery imposed by the collectivist system and socialist government under which, the genius amongst the collective is wasted upon. Even if some genius struggle such situation and still manages to radiate his intellect, he never gains the full essence of his own efforts and hence is lost due to the lack of incentives.
In a free society with division of labor, geniuses are able to devote their time to science, invention, organization and direction of productive activity of others and thus instead of being lost in obscurity, they becomes Einsteins, Darwins, Brails and Fords. In a free society not only the genius but everyone is enabled to concentrate on the kind of work he is best suited and that promotes his self-interest based on his intellectual capacity and body endowments. Hence, such a society helps the individuals with rare talents in music, arts, sports, medicines, engineering, etc. In absence of division of labour, along with productive geniuses, such people with specific talents to be athletes, or painters, writers, philosophers, actors, sculptors, musicians, surgeons, engineers etc often lacks enough opportunities and are forced either to forget about their specific interests and talents, or to pursue their talents and suffer poverty and scarcity of opportunities. Since division of labour provides enough opportunities and complete freedom for the innovators, inventors, developers and directors of labour, such a free society necessarily provides enough space for machinery usage and modernization of process of production, also, it provides complete freedom for the genius and common producers to use the resources with utmost efficiencies hence increase the wealth production manifolds. Division of labour increases the efficiency of learning process in connection with production by making education and communication and all activities concerned with transmission, storage and development of knowledge into specializations. In a free society with individual sovereignty, individual may remain unemployed only because of his own choice; otherwise, market provides enough opportunities for the individual to engage in any productive process or service to earn self-dependency. Such few, who by nature lacks any potential to attain self-dependence (naturally disabled or victims of accidents etc) can easily attain benevolent support from the free individuals of the society in attaining self-dependency. As a free-society essentially represents most beneficial conditions for wealth production under division of labour, individuals in such society prospers with ease and further their life in the pursuit of their happiness.

Division of labour and consistency with freedom

Private ownership of the means of wealth production is the fundamental pre-condition of the pursuit of self-interest. Division of labour essentially depends on private ownership of means of production, which is based on the nature of gains of free division of labour. The most important ones are the multiplication and transmission of knowledge and benefits of the talented. The rational idea of private property ownership comes out from the fact that individuals possess unique independent minds, which permits and necessitates them to have separate independent knowledge and to make independent judgements, decision, and act on them with his separate independent calibre. In a free society every individual gains from the fact that other people possess knowledge that he does not and an intelligence separate and often much greater than his own. To maintain maximum benefits, it is necessary that others be able to acquire and apply their knowledge in production on their own initiative with perfect decision making freedom, without having his approval, orders, permissions or license, as he would be certainly unable to give in any rational way as he necessary lacks the knowledge and intelligence that would be required to make such decisions. To act, work and produce, people must possess material means of actions and production, In order for them to act independently from one another, they must possess wealth independently from one another that is there must be private property, including private ownership of natural resources and other means of production. Private property rights are essential condition for proficient production, prosperity and more importantly individual freedom as it provides maximum space for efficient usage of resources in virtue of producing wealth hence eradicating poverty of masses.
A libertarian society provides property rights in order to provide peaceful, justified, conflict-free and productive usage of resources. Unlike human body, external bodies and natural resources are not directly controlled by one’s will and initially they are unowned. In order to provide a rational, conflict-free rule of assignment of property rights, a libertarian society prefers the Lockean law of homestead that provides the relevant objective link of appropriation that is the transformation and using of the previously unowned resource. This approach provides the relevant objective motive of justice as the first user of a previously unowned resource naturally have a better claim than the second or consequent users. This is pertinent with independence of Individuals as the first owner of the resource can definitely let others to possess the resource for production at some rent or dealing for a period, or he may completely sell-off his property rights to other. The relevant question in such situations is not that who possess the resource; rather it is who the owner of the resource is. As explained earlier, a natural resource is not wealth until a man uses his talent and labour to make the resource productive and useful for the men, as the first user transformed that unowned resource into wealth making it possible to be used for the benefits of men, he naturally is the reasonable owner of the resource and deserves complete property rights over it. Obviously all the consequent wealth produced by the help of that resource is also inadvertently the rightful property (in fact, the results of his labour and intellect) and he holds complete right over it. In case, he suffers lack of talent to use the resource to maximum beneficial extent, he obviously gains the chance to sell-off his property right freely to other individual interested and able in using that resource proficiently. Such a system essentially provides justice and peace as it avoids any specific conflict, it is based on reason as the first user of the resource definitely posses a far important link with the resource than the later users. Once the first comer sells his property right to others, he naturally abolishes any objective link with that resource, wealth or property. Self-ownership and property rights essentially provide complete freedom for individuals to possess and accumulate wealth and further produce it freely and hence abolishes the common norms of partially slavery under government in the form of compulsory taxation, fiat currency, licensing system, censors, bans and criminalization of acts that in no way involves any aggression of a man by other.

The common excuse of politicians for the current economic crisis is, due to well-planned regulations, Indian economy is least suffering and has maintained a good GDP growth rate of 5.3%, while most of the other nations are suffering deep negative growth. By such bombastic claims of growth because of the government regulations, Indian government not only eludes the common man, but the current government also makes a political strongpoint for the upcoming general election.
Yet recently, one of the most prominent economists of India Mr. Surjit Bhalla has claimed that this is false comfort based on incorrect calculations. Citing OECD data, he says India actually had negative growth (-11.8%) in Q4 of 2008, not the 5.3% claimed by the government.¹
In addition, OECD based report says that in comparison, Indian economy fall with negative growth of 11.8% if we compare the GDP of 2007 for the fourth quarter with the fourth quarter of 2008.
Indian growth is far worse than in the US (-6.2%), UK (-8.4%) or European Union (-8.2%), though better than in Japan (-17.8%) or Korea (-28.8%).
Indian central statistical organization (CSO) calculates the growth rate by comparing the GDP in fourth quarter of previous fiscal year (2007) with the GDP of fourth Quarter in current fiscal year (2008). On the other hand, most of the other countries calculate their GDP growth rate by comparing the previous Quarter (Q3) of the same fiscal year with the current Quarter (Q4), adjusting the calculations and annualizing the GDP growth by multiplying it with four.
Indian government denies this standard procedure of calculation because of the agricultural dependence of Indian economy, arguing that agricultural data are too much volatile and season dependent
Indian economist Swami Nathan Ayer provided a better option of calculations. He simply calculated the change and comparison of non-agricultural growth and agricultural growth separately, and his figure suggested that the non-agricultural growth in Fourth quarter of fiscal year is 3.5% that is much less than what government has announced, also, the collective agricultural and non-agricultural growth of India for the fourth quarter of 2008 is Negative 1.6%.²
Obviously, it is clear that the government figures for GDP are nothing but sort of eluding concept to swing favours of electorate, claiming the government’s ability to tackle the tricky situation of meltdown.
Similarly, China also has registered a growth rate of 6%-7% in the recent quarter and obviously the western governments blames both India and China of manipulating their GDP rates falsely.
Yet the question is does the GDP growth rate matters?
As a matter of fact, GDP growth rate does not signify the potential of India or China to counter the global recession.
Even if we consider that the GDP of both India and China is absolute zero or may be negative, the potential China and India have to come over the current recession period is much more than USA in comparison, and till now, India and China have adopted much better policies than USA.
The main problem with emphasizing GDP is that it only measures aggregate movements of money and cannot measure whether the consumption is efficient or productive. Hence, one of the problems with any stimulus plan is that many policy makers simply look at steps to increase GDP in the short run and ignore the long-run implications — the unseen consequences of policies. For example, building pyramids could indeed boost GDP; however, there is very little economic utility gained from building pyramids and hence in longer turn, such expenses turn out to be burdensome and bad non-productive-assets, causing a new cycle of recession.
The US Keynesian economists often suggest that Americans were funded in part by Asian countries, which, having experienced a calamitous financial crisis in 1997–98, sought to park their savings in safe havens (e.g., US Treasury bonds). As a result, this immense savings distorted the marketplace and caused the ensuing bubble.
In other words, the Asian people saved too much money, lent the United States and other Western governments money at cheap rates, and therefore created an asset bubble. So according to the Western economists, the habit of Asians to save money is the basic reason behind the economic meltdown, and they say that American fell prey to this because of their habits of spending more than what they can earn.
The Keynesians on the other hand, also claims that Asian economies, specially China and India are about to roll down as the production houses and factories of China are closing down because of decreasing exports, outsourcing services are also suffering a lot, and the commercial-construction bubble has also popped up. The stock indices of both China and India have lost all heights people have lost jobs.
The Keynesians obviously claim that in order to survive the downturn, Asian economies should start spending and distributing money to encourage the Asian consumers to spend more and more. Governments should implement a universal car-ownership scheme, build hundreds of aircraft carriers, make new houses, distribute them, and reduce interest rates to zero across the board.
The first thing to be observed is, USA is suffering meltdown because of the extreme habit of spending more and saving nothing or very little. Second thing is, Americans are habitual for taking debts and loans, which often prove out to be the bad assets for the lending banks.
Asians and in particular Indians do not believe in taking loans and often try to avoid increasing any toxic asset, Indian banks also maintain proper check up for their ability to repulse the bas loans, they require 20–30% down payments on houses, and two-thirds of all loans are funded by deposits. As a result, despite huge fiscal deficits of Indian government (which are nothing huge in comparison with deficits of US government) Indian citizens are not suffering too much national debts, also most of them saves at least 50% of their earnings which proves out to be good resource for investment later on and avoid the chances of bad assets and non-payable loans.
Indian situation is way better than American in following ways—
1) Unlike Americans, Indians acknowledge that a venture can fail, and it is responsibility of the entrepreneur if they fail.
U.S government believes that if some entrepreneur fails, whole economy will go down, and hence, entrepreneurs have no right to fail, government bails them out.
On the other hand, although Indian government also seek a way to provide sympathy and to an extent a sort of protection also for the entrepreneurs and businessmen, yet Indian government have avoided providing any direct bailout package for any of the suffering enterprises. The Kingfishers and Jet Airlines did not get any economic stimulus from the government nor the government tried to sacrifice Indian tax-payers money to secure Satyam co. after the fiasco. Government have provided help in both cases indirectly to some extent, yet in comparison, Indian situation is more capitalistic and liberalized than US bailout philosophy.
2) While US have opted to turn its path from privatization to nationalization, India and China have paced up their privatization programs. The IPO of China railways are under consideration of privatization and Indian railway ministry also have plans to partly privatize railways. Obviously, both China and India are going more and more liberalized and capitalist, reducing the control of government on production units systematically.
3) Indian and Chinese GDP are not dependent on loans and household debts, in case of USA, the unpaid loans and debt is the major reason for the bad assets.
4) Although neither India nor China recognizes property rights in proper manner and are at early stages of capitalism, yet the land reforms by China and India have better the situation. This includes granting land-use rights to peasants, empowering them to lease or transfer land to others, that is, proper property rights for the farmers. Gradually, this phenomenon will establish the importance and inalienability of property rights in legal system.
5) Asian economies are opening capital markets, lowering real-estate taxes and abolishing others like the stamp tax on home purchases. Thus, providing more freedom and reducing government interventionism in the market and exchanges.³
6) India has privatized all of the big national banks and insurance agencies including LIC India co. China is obviously one step further to India, China government privatized the Agricultural bank of China recently.
7) The major point of difference is, in place of prompting up the housing bubble, both Indian and Chinese governments have restricted themselves only to reducing taxes and repo rates, as a matter of fact, this is capitalist step. On the other hand, the Fed and US government are trying their best to prevent price deflation by burdening the American tax-payers with huge fiscal deficits of hundreds of billions in form of mortgage backed securities.
Both India and China have suffered job losses. In 2008, at least 67,000 factories across China have closed down and hundreds of thousands of migrant workers have moved back to family farms. Obviously, the process is painful, yet Chinese government is not bailing out any of the factories, rather the failed companies and factories are encouraged to opt for bankruptcy to cut off the non-productive-units.
That is the proper capitalistic way. USA on the other hand have opted to cover the failed institutes, companies and factories by providing them bail out and hence adopted the socialistic frame.
9) Despite all warnings about deflation of currency, Indian and Chinese governments so-far have avoided any plan to induce currency in form of mortgage backed securities, or foreign debts and loans, not the governments have induced any sort of increased taxes on citizens. As a matter of fact, the Indian government is actually enjoying the downturn of inflation rates as fall of prices is obviously in favor of the citizens; furthermore, it increases the spending and consumption too.⁴
As the prices are falling, the huge number of people who lost their jobs and hence their purchasing power, are able to maintain their consumptions to a healthy limit, on the other hand, those who have not been affected by the downturn have got opportunities on behalf of fall of prices. Obviously, this will boost up the economic front of India. In addition, such increased spending will not affect the basic importance of the habit of savings by Asians because these spending will be natural and not enforced by government interventions.
Overall, it can be said that in present context, economies like India and China are more capitalistic and openly favoring free market than the Western economies.
Recently, India and China jointly appealed USA to maintain the standards of free market⁵ , obviously, in these changed premises, it is the east and not the best that may provide a new wave of liberalization, justice to the individual and hope for freedom.
Let us hope the changed situation bring out the betterment.

1. The Negative GDP growth rate of India, Times of India [↩]
2. The Negative GDP growth rate of India, Times of India [↩]
3. Economic Crisis and stimulus by Government, Reason for Liberty [↩]
4. Falling prices is the cure of Deflation, Reason for Liberty [↩]
5. China, India and call for Free Market, Reason for Liberty [↩]

Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, was often considered as one of the most powerful men on earth. What is interesting about Alan is that he was once an acolyte of the novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand, and a proponent of the Gold Standard. It is indeed an irony that he later renounced his views on Gold Standard and headed the very institution he attacked–The Federal Reserve.
As advocates of a free market economy know, it is a characteristic of the enemies of capitalism that they blame the evils of interventionism on the free market. It is, they say, the “laissez faire” policies of Alan Greenspan, which caused the present economic crisis. They conveniently forget that Greenspan gave up his views on Capitalism long ago. It is also forgotten that the existence of the Federal Reserve is incompatible with a free market economy. How is Government manipulation of money and credit a free market policy? Isn’t it a form of central planning? Isn’t it ridiculous to blame the present mess on Capitalism when Capitalism never existed in the first place?
There is one thing in common between those who blame Capitalism for the present crisis. It is that they are totally ignorant of Economics, and yet hold strong opinions on the topic.
As of a gross misrepresentation of terms, anti-capitalists now hail Greenspan as a “laissez-faireist”. As everyone, including anti-capitalists know, a full free Capitalism never existed anywhere in the world. All nations known as Capitalist are “mixed economies”. Isn’t it the same men who remind us this fact when we point out the fact that higher the degree of freedom, higher the prosperity who blame all these evils on Capitalism? When an allegedly ‘Capitalistic’ nation “breaks down”, value judgment is placed on the system, ‘Capitalism’ and when a Socialistic nation is tyrannical, value judgment is placed on individual leaders and not on Socialism. It just obviates that they know the truth deep inside. In a mixture of Statism and Capitalism, it is Statism which causes all the evils and it is Capitalism which takes the blame. Statism means force and Capitalism means freedom.
The very same men argue Soviet Communism failed not because the system was intrinsically evil, but as human nature is flawed. They argue, the flaw isn’t in bureaucracy as such, but in individual men. They scream ‘evils of commercialization’ when it comes to a private enterprise. Why is value judgment passed on the system when it comes to the Free Market? Why is value judgment passed on individual men when it comes to bureaucracy or statism? The answer is obvious.
To make sense of the present crisis, one should first have a strong causal theory.
This phenomenon of boom-bust cycles is clearly explained by the Austrian theory of Business Cycles. Economic depressions are caused by nothing inherent in the free markets, but due to government interference in the market-specifically, government manipulation of money and bank credit. At any point in time, a particular amount of money would be spent in investment and savings and the rest in consumption. This investment-consumption pattern would be decided by the time preference of the people. If time preference is low, the investment consumption proportion would be high and if time preference is high, it would be low. The boom starts when banks print money and lend it at lower interest rates to businessmen and the general public. The increased money supply lowers the rate of interest below the market level artificially. This artificial lowering of the interest rates makes several projects seem profitable to businessmen which wouldn’t have appeared so otherwise. If the interest rates had fallen due to lower time preference of people, and was backed by real savings, boom-bust cycles wouldn’t have taken place. But, the artificial lowering of the interest rates sends wrong signals to businessmen about the savings-consumption pattern of individuals. Businessmen are mislead to think that there are more savings, when there isn’t. This low interest rate sends a signal to the entrepreneurs that consumers are asking for more goods and services in the future. In order to fulfill those future demands at a future date entrepreneurs starts new long term capital projects in present time which will enable them to produce more in future and thus meet the future demand of consumers. This leads to mal-investments. The recession is the necessary part of liquidating these mal-investments.
The Federal Reserve kept the interest rates artificially low and encouraged people to borrow, which lead to the housing bubble. Add to this: The community Reinvestment act forced banks to lend to poor debtors. Add to this: Government licensed rating agencies gave AAA rating to mortgage backed securities. In an entirely free market, lending to poor debtors would never have happened, as it won’t be profitable. It was Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies which made it profitable.
It makes no sense to blame the present crisis on deregulation.51, 000 new regulations were added in the past 12 years. The financial and housing system is highly controlled by the Government. There was never a free market in finance and housing. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government-sponsored, government regulated mortgage giants. Banks are chartered, defined and regulated by the Government. Government promoted increased home ownership. The existence of the Federal Reserve is totally incompatible with Capitalism. Artificially low interest rates wouldn’t have been possible in the absence of the Fed. The existence of the Securities and Exchange Commission too is incompatible with Capitalism.
Let’s now analyze Alan Greenspan, the man, in detail. My introduction to Alan Greenspan was through an article-“Gold And Economic Freedom” he wrote for Ayn Rand’s “Capitalism-The Unknown Ideal”. In the article, Greenspan made a strong case for free banking, the Gold Standard and a free economy. It is safe to assume that he renounced his free market views for the Chairmanship of the Fed. He is no longer an Objectivist or a Capitalist. He might be considered as a traitor to Objectivism and Capitalism. He wrote in his autobiography about Objectivism that “as contradictions inherent in my new notions began to emerge the fervor receded”.
When Greenspan was asked whether Ayn Rand would have been a fan of the Federal Reserve, he answered that they never discussed the issue in particular. This is certainly a dishonest statement. In his 1966 article for the Objectivist Newsletter, Greenspan himself wrote these words: “Under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy’s stability and balanced growth.” And More: “A free banking system would have been compelled, by economic necessity, to put the brakes on this process of runaway speculation. Credit and investment, in such a case, would be drastically curtailed; the banks which made unprofitable investments, the enterprises which proved unproductive, and those who dealt with them, would suffer—but that would be all; the country as a whole would not be dragged down. However, the “anarchy” of a free banking system had been abandoned—in favor of “enlightened” government planning.” However, when Greenspan was made the Chairman of the Fed, he didn’t even make a move to institute the Gold Standard.

In his Biography, Greenspan wrote that he has always harbored nostalgia for the Gold Standard which guaranteed price stability. Further, he wrote that he doesn’t see the likelihood of its return in the near future and it is a necessary cost for the existence of the welfare state. What is this statement intended to mean? It is certainly that the Federal Reserve creates money out of thin air to fund the welfare state.Moreover,Greenspan got it all wrong.Price stability is both unachievable and undesirable. As Friedrich Hayek had once written ,the “impossibility of achieving in practice an absolute stabilization of the level of prices in a dynamic economy has been proven time and again.”

When he was asked in a recent interview whether he was wrong, he replied-”Well, partly.”
“A critical pillar to market competition and free markets did break down,’ Greenspan said. ‘I still do not understand why it happened.’” “Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief.” Was this the man who wrote this about the 1929 Crash that “The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market–triggering a fantastic speculative boom.”? He blamed the fraud of Enron, WorldCom and Global Crossing on “infectious greed”. Wasn’t it Greenspan who wrote for the Objectivist Newsletter that “it is precisely the ‘greed’ of the businessman or, more appropriately, his profit-seeking, which is the unexcelled protector of the consumer?”
The greatest crime that Greenspan had done was not his inflationary policies during his term. It was that he “admitted” that his belief in enlightened self interest was wrong! Greenspan was just passing the blame to the market. Surely, this man is a hypocrite!

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.