Reason for Liberty

Overproduction doctrine

deadmanoncampus — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 05:14:02 +0000

One of the greatest fallacies on economic depressions is that it is caused by overproduction. “Overproduction is the natural tendency of capitalism to expand the production of commodities that does not acknowledge the limits of the market (demand). Since the production and circulation of goods is not planned and firms are in constant competition for larger profits and greater market share, capitalist’s booms are always followed by busts as we see in the business cycle. In short, capitalist markets are NOT self regulatory.” This Marxian myth is based on the fact that in a depression there are unemployed factors of production and unsold surplus of goods.The adherents of these fallacy conclude from this that the capitalistic system produces too much in the period of boom,which is cleared away in the depression period.

Whatever be the popular perception,the idea that depressions are caused by overproduction is pure hogwash.Human needs are unlimited and as long as there are unsatisfied wants,there can be no overproduction.When this fact is pointed out,the supporters of this doctrine state that though there are unsatisfied needs,people lack the purchasing power to buy the unsold goods.What they fail to notice is that some money exist even in the deepest deflation and it could be used to buy the unsold goods.The fact that businessmen would suffer losses is besides the point.It leads our attention to the fact that businessmen bid up the costs ,which means:prices of the factors of production,so that they would suffer losses.Why did that happen? Such a question takes us back to the Austrian theory of business cycle.It is only the Austrian theory that explains the bidding up of costs and the cluster of errors,which is due to government intervention in the economy-specifically,government manipulation of money and credit.There is no general overproduction of goods.There is overproduction of specific goods and underproduction of other goods.It means that credit expansion has led to malinvestments-which means:investment in wrong lines of production.Depression is the period of liquidation of these investments in wrong lines of production.

What people fail to realize is that overproduction of specific goods and underproduction of other is not caused by anything inherent in capitalism,but due to government intervention.A free uncontrolled,unregulated economy would never lead to overproduction.

Isn’t Everyone Selfish?

deadmanoncampus — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 04:12:33 +0000

A man feels: He has emotions. A man thinks: He has the capacity to reason. A thinking man acts. An action results in emotions: An acting man feels. It is neither possible, nor desirable on the part of a man to act suspending either his thoughts that leads to the act or the emotions he derive as the result of his act. Man is not omniscient: He might not always be able, with utmost certainty, to predict in advance the results of his acts or the emotions which results from those results. Nevertheless, he expects some results and those results are not the ends, but a means to an end – which apparently is, happiness or an end to his discomfort. Ascetics hope to derive pleasure from discomfort, ‘humanitarians’ from mass-slaughters and masochists from pain. Nevertheless, pleasure is the end-No matter what its nature might be. It goes without saying that man is not a being which acts without giving a moment’s thought to the results or his emotions resulting from those results. Even the insane are not devoid of it.

No man can escape the fact that every human act is directed by thought, on a conscious level or not. No man can escape the fact the ends of his acts results in emotions, though those emotions might not be in his direct control. There is no getting around it. No amount of sophistry can alter these facts. Even when one acts contrary to his desires, those acts aim at a certain goal from which he hopes to derive a feeling of comfort.

Every act is an exchange and every exchange happens in the first place as man, at the moment of the action, values the results higher than the efforts. A man wakes up from the bed when he values wakening to the comforts of the bed. One enters or stays in a relationship only when he values it higher than the state of its lack. A man does a job he despises only when he values his wage higher than the labor. One pays a beggar a penny only when he values the payment less than the discomfort aroused. One gives up his life for an ideal only when he values it greater than his life without. Every human act is selfish.

When one bends forward to pick up a cake in front of him on a table, no one brands his act as ‘selfless’. When one exchanges a day’s labor for his wage, no one screams ‘sacrifice’. Yet, the very same men brands a mothers love ‘selfless’ and perceives a mother looking after her child as ‘sacrifice’. None of these men hesitate to state that he who asserts those acts to be ‘selfish’ holds a ‘materialistic’ & ‘rational’ view of life. It is of course, rational. No view, but, is more materialistic and offensive than what places a piece of cake or a days wages over the closest of relationships. Such men are of course, of ‘I fucked her, but I couldn’t have helped it” School.

It is often asked: Isn’t an act of charity selfless? What could a man hope to derive from such an act? One could feel any of the three: happiness, resentment or blankness. There is no other way one can feel. One might do it for the sheer pleasure of it. Apparently, there isn’t anything selfless about it. It just draws light on the character and real intentions of men branding such an act selfless. A man might act contrary to his pleasure: He might donate what he has to charity striving against all his ‘instincts’ hoping to derive pleasure or prestige. He might even ‘succeed’ in making himself believe his own magnanimity; not knowing repression is draining all his energy. Deep inside, he feels resentment. Nevertheless, he too had aimed at something. His betrayal doesn’t alter the fact that he too has emotions. What could now, be said of one who feels nothing at all-blankness? Man is neither a robot, nor a machine. It is neither possible, nor advisable for a person to act without giving a moments thought to the results of his act or the emotions he wish to derive from those acts. No man can act cutting off emotions and rationality. Even a robot or machine should be programmed or acted on by a rational man who aims at certain ends.

It is usually argued an act of charity is above an act of achievement as the intentions constituting the act are superior to that of an act of achievement. Who do you think to be superior-A man devoting his mind to a creative purpose, or a man who dispenses with the products of others creativity? Who has done more good to the world? To answer a question of this sort is to approve of its obscenity. Ends and means, obviously are far, far superior in the former.

A business man’s goal, they say is not alleviation of poverty, and it is just an unintended consequence of his acts. It is the same men who strive for ‘good’ (which they equate with charity) by governmental action: by initiation of force. Does ‘charity’ done by force say anything of the moral status of that person? Isn’t it too an unintended consequence, with the difference that the motive is not pleasure, but fear? Why do you state the first and evade the second, the principle involved being the same? Why do you consider ‘good’ motivated by fear superior to that of what caused in the pursuit of wealth? Why, then, do you persist again and again in what you pretend to believe in?

A similar mode of reasoning can be found in their argument that capitalism ended slavery and kicked out the feudal lord off his throne not out of mercy, but out of self-interest. 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? One should ask one selves.

Let’s here what Mother Theresa had to say on this topic before I end:The Charitable woman Mother Theresa was as charitable when it came to her words on Rand’s eulogy on Selfishness:”Selfishness is a lot like lust. A little bit of lust is good, or there wouldn’t be babies. Too much lust and you get a Clinton, or worse.Every living creature has a sense of Self.Cockroaches do not see anything wrong with eating crickets.A little bit of Selfishness is good and necessary to human life.But too much Selfishness, and you get Objectivist knuckle-draggers who don’t even have enough sense to appreciate my altruism.”

Amen!

Is Socialism a Bad Word?

Unpretentious Diva — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:46:02 +0000

LONDON: In an effort to combat soaring teenage pregnancy in UK, government has ordered local
authorities to press girls as young as 13 to have contraceptive jabs, which can make girls infertile for upto three months, a policy that has sparked outcry in the country.
The Labour government has identified failures by teenage girls to take the daily pill correctly as one reason for soaring under-age pregnancy rates, which was the highest in Europe. Now British health and education ministers have ordered council and health chief executives to increase the uptake of “long-acting” contraception in teen pregnancy “hot spots”.
Times of India

Why is so that British girls are so keen to be pregnant?
Why is preteen sex so normal in Britain?
By providing such injections, UK government may get some success in controlling birth rate, but what about the rise in infections such cases will cause?
British kids are having sex at very young age, who is responsible for this? Who should address this?
Schools? Government?
There is a rise in teenage pregnancy and it is the government which suffers if a lot of teenage girls want to have a baby. Government suffers because it needs to pay for the girl.
Government pays the pregnant girls and families with single mothers.
It is a very socialistic Idea. It is just like the idea of Universal Health care.

The socialistic government want to help the single mothers. But now, every other teenage girl want to be mother because she gets incentives for being a mother and their families gets monetary profits.
So who dig the pit? Socialists did it.
It remained the idea of all socialist schools, be it religious or political.
The religious socialism exclaimed sacrifice of Good Man in favour of the guilty one; Jesus Christ is the epitome for that. Political socialism exclaimed sacrifice of the hard worker for the lazy one. Marx was epitome for that.
And UK government pays the teenage single mothers on behalf of the tax payers’ money which is sacrifice a honest worker does.
Socialism never works and it always causes havoc and it is right what is happening in Britain. While trying to help the single mothers, they actually provided incentives for every teenage girl to be a single mother. And now the government is suspicious about the situation.
The government is obviously not worried about the girls anymore, it is more worried about the money it has to give for the single mothers.
The experts say that it will promote promiscuity and those injections and implants will not protect against the rampant spread of sexually transmitted disease. Some health experts also say that the drugs are unsuitable for girls who are still growing.
Also, after being injected, girls will think that ‘Nothing can happen to me because I can’t get pregnant” and that attitude will obviously be dangerous because those injections just cannot provide safety against the sexually transmitted diseases.
Can schools and government address the problem?
They are constantly failing in doing so.
And why should a school or government be responsible for a kid if he/she is promiscuous or irresponsible towards his/her sexual behaviour?
In the case of Britain, the government is responsible. It is a socialist government.
The parents hold minimal rights over their kids.
They even cannot smack them.
A father was arrested by police and locked in a cell overnight after smacking his son’s bottom.
Mark Frearson’s young son had wandered off alone after dark while they were at a Plymouth shopping centre together.
Mr Frearson, who is separated from the boy’s mother, found his son in a park 10 minutes later and smacked him once.
But a passer-by reported it to Plymouth police and four officers arrived at his house, took him away and locked him in a cell awaiting questioning.
BBC News
The government has tried everything to renounce the freedom, parents feel difficult (almost impossible) to control and discipline their own kids and teach them some rational moralities and attitudes regarding life.
Government and schools find it difficult to teach students about the bad effects of teenage sexual escapades and pregnancies.
According to figures from five of England’s 152 primary care trusts, girls as young as 13 have been administered injections and implants.
What will be the definition of molestation when even the girls of age 13 are being given anti-pregnancy injections?
I reiterate, socialism is the cause for all this, and responsible is the government.

Socialistic Humdrum

Unpretentious Diva — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:52:07 +0000

Recently, NDTV reported about the situations of the governmental hospitals in Delhi. The mortality rate of Infants in the Delhi government hospitals is about 31%, much higher than what can be expected in an average health-care system.
NDTV further clarifies that, it is not the question of lack of investment in government hospitals, but the problem is more of the wastage of resources and careless attitude.
It is not like India spends very less in healthcare system, yet the system is suffering from unprofessional attitude.
Indian Health Minister Ramadoss scheduled an enquiry about the lapses in Delhi government Hospital systems. Watch!

Not only the Delhi hospitals, but even the health ministry is suffering from all such mismanagement and mal-investment. Ramadoss himself keeps worrying himself about the smoking and drinking habits of the Bollywood actors, restricting common man from public smoking and all other political stunts a minister performs for gaining public attentions, though on major health-care issues like the case of Delhi government hospitals, he remains ignorant. Obviously, the allocated money for the health-care ministry goes in all such waste activities, while the major issues for which the money should be used properly remains ignored.
Is it a problem of bad politics, or corrupt politician?
Answer is no. basically, no sort of politician how-so-ever honest he may go, can establish a good national-health-care system.
The reason is simple, the resources of India are limited, and they are far less than what is necessary for such a large community. The resources need to be utilized in most appropriate and optimized manner, but that is not possible in socialistic system India is following since long.
Socialism is unworkable because without the profit-and-loss calculations it’s impossible for a Socialist planner to rationally allocate the resources.
So, although the aim of Indian government for its health-plan is great, but it is not simply feasible. And since the limited resources are never allocated rationally on the basis of maximum profits and minimum loss, the system crumbles down under the weight of extreme wastage.
How it can be improved?
It is foolish to expect the socialist health-care system to be a success in India.
The private nursing homes and healthcare hospitals certainly provide a better chain of facilities for the consumers. Obviously, the private health-care system too, cannot provide standard health-care for the citizens. Yet it would certainly stop-gauge the wastage of resources by allocating the resources, doctors, health-care personals and money in much rational and optimal ways. Obviously, private health-care systems help in providing proper care for a big part of the citizens.
The need is to increase the man-resources in health industry which ultimately will make the health-care system pretty much less costly.
Indians are in dire demand of doctors and nurses and other health-care workers. Yet the supply of man-resources is extremely low. To increase that supply, Indian government needs to liberate the education system and let the private sector provide incentives for the common students of India to be attracted towards medical services in private sectors in plenty. Education and Health-Care department essentially needs freedom from governmental statist socialist grip.
Is professional attitude necessary in education and health-care system alone?
Every year, Delhi sees an increase in number of police men and governmental-security-services and security guards. Yet, the crime never come under-control, it increases with double speed.
Some may blame it on the increasing population of NCR and the yawning difference between the “economic-classes”. Some may blame it to the corruption pervaded in police departments. Yet, none will point out that the police department and Home-Security ministry is also suffering from the same unprofessional attitude.
When some farmers commits suicide in UP, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh or Vidharbha, the Indian youth starts protesting and demanding for the Industrial Status of agriculture so that farmers may become capable. But when thousands of people suffers or dies being victims of various sorts of crimes, no one asks or even think for a privatized or partial-privatized system of security forces.
Who can deny that the telephone and mobile services improved dramatically after the liberalization of telecommunication sector of India?
Indian police system also suffers from wastage of resources. Mostly, policemen finds themselves busy in checking for the victimless crimes, and effect-less deeds.
One may find the policemen checking for “love-couples” freely expressing and enjoying their love in some park or restaurants, is love a crime?
Or you will find them checking for some sort of small weapons like army knives or hand pistols. Ahh, it is illegal to have pistols in India, why? Is self-defence also a crime? Yet, police cannot stop the business of illegal hand-guns. It is wastage of police force. One may find police checking sex-workers and pestering and blackmailing them. How can prostitution or pimping be crime if the persons involved are engaged with sense of mutual-benefits and none of them is primarily complaining any sort of exploitation? Yet, police will keep a vigil on the sex-workers, no matters in same Delhi hundreds of girls get raped each year.
The socialist civil-security system fails because mostly the socialist system wastes the resources in victimless and affectless crimes.
Just as when the means of production of any good or service are monopolized by the state, the result is havoc; we see similar problems when the state owns the means of production of the service of protecting the innocent and going after the guilty.
Government wastes resources because it can keep wasting without feeling any loss. While a private service provider won’t waste his resources and his money in issueless subjects, because it will cause him loss, government remains immune against the fear of loss, and hence government gets no incentive in saving and effectively using the resources.
Whatever government spends in such service sectors like civil-protection, health-care, education etc, it has already extracted that amount and much more from the productive sectors of the economy. And that leverage, plus the monopolized situation where government has to answer nobody, causes all corruption, mal-investment and wastage. And when all these wastages reaches to an extent that the productive sectors can no longer hold the expenses government wastes, the economy crumbles.
That’s what happened with American Economy. The two extreme wars, Katarina cyclone, and mal-investment in pestered co-operations like The Auto-Industry and banking caused the economy see failure.
Now, if government says it was caused because of lack of regulations, than yes that is true, but the regulation is needed on government spending, not on the productive market. As far as Government will remain away from the productive sectors and public service sectors, as much the economy of that nation will strengthen.

Exam-Cheats, the Indian students under scrutiny

Unpretentious Diva — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 12:27:53 +0000

Technology is coming in to address two of the biggest issues that education in India faces: leakage of question papers and forgery of marksheets and certificates.
Institutions like Bangalore University and Visveswaraya Technological institute are considering a technology that will enable them to print question papers at the examination venue just an hour before the test.
Times of India
According to a private research, 68% of middle class students and 75% of high school students cheats in general during exams. Why cheating is so high? We talk of controlling corruption, where the root lay? The only way to find out the root of the problem is to analyze this problem from the standpoint of a student. What rational he uses to decide whether to cheat or not?
The decision to cheat or not is guided by emotions. Cheating cause feeling of guilt, yet, the good grades and marks causes a satisfaction. If feeling of guilt exceeds the feeling of satisfaction, the student denies cheating. Emotions rise on one’s values and ideas. The basic idea behind cheating is that morality is a dichotomy of self-interest versus self-sacrifice. Cheating is considered to be a “selfish” thing to do, which results an advantage in class and in life. The “rational” thing to, either justified by godly rewards, effective considerations, or a gauche appeal to social harmony, requires an instantaneous personal sacrifice. In this situation of clash, the “moral” choice is understandably difficult for students to justify. Without rational ideas to justify honesty and integrity, hard-working and “practical” students believe that morality only holds them back from success in life, and that they can “play by the rules” once they are out of school, and give lip-service to morality when it comes to more abstract and non-practical matters.
It is a dreadful fault created by bad and irrational philosophy. The concept which students need to understand is that the choice between the practical and the moral is a false dichotomy. Morality is the rational way for a successful life, not an impediment. Teaching the practical “selfish” value of honesty is the best way to discourage cheating. Students must understand that it is selfish and hence beneficial for them to be honest, and to cheat is selfless, wrong and irrational.
The first and foremost purpose of education is to inculcate the practical knowledge and thinking abilities that allow success in life and career. Cheating aborts both goals. In a career, success or failure has materialistic consequences on one’s work and the people it affects. A % in biology exams is just a number, but a doctor like Munna Bhai M.B.B.S who takes shortcuts with patients, or a construction engineer who takes shortcuts with buildings, or a politician who takes shortcuts with the voters endangers both his career and other people’s lives. The vital aim of education is not a mark sheet, but practical skills and knowledge, and cheating dispossess oneself of that knowledge.
The short beneficial consequences of cheating are outweighed by the long-term harms. Teachers are required to stress on the rationality of the practical values of their lessons, and the harm the student do to themselves when they forfeit their education.
Student thinks, they deceive others by cheating and gains profit, but cheating is a form of self-deception, it is self-destruction. Cheating in future will cause oneself to lose a grip of what his skills actually are. Someone who cheats during the mid-term exams will find out that he is unprepared for the final exams. Students who cheats at entrance level competitive exams will find themselves helpless during the higher class exams. The more a student cheats, the more moron and ignorant he becomes of his actual knowledge, though he feels like he is a smartass! Its simple self-destruction and hence immoral, while “selfishness” is to be HONEST, and “selfishness” is a virtue, the morality of life. The more forward a student gets by his falsehoods, the harder he has to work in order to maintain his unearned position. Even if his fraudulently earned degree or diploma may get him a dream-job, he will still be unqualified and undeserving for it, and forced to continue his deception and cheating at work. He will attempt to hide his inadequacies and worthlessness from his co-workers and bosses just as he hid it from classmates and professors. Cheating is an addictive habit like alcoholism which turns out to be a sickness that will surely destroy a career even if it does not destroy the cheaters fraudulent and unearned mark sheets.
Honest students compete on the basis of their skill and hard work. Their mutual excellence inspires and motivates among themselves to success and brilliance. On the other hand, the dishonest classmates and co-workers who cheats. Compete by the standards of who is the better liar, better cheater. They lose the “selfish” goal of education to gain practical and actual brilliance in the chosen subject and their career. Their peers do not inspire and motivate them, in stead it increases the peer-pressure as they create a constant threat of having their lies and cheats unmasked. As the cheaters lose the concentration of their goals, they slip behind.
The solution to the rise of cheating is not technological advance, nor it is to attempt to instill a vague sense of moral guilt, but to explain and prove that cheating is counter-productive and self-destructive. Honesty does not require guilt or the threat of punishment. Instead, selfishness, ambition, integrity, and pride should lead one to success. To be successful is selfish, and Honesty is the key success. To be Honest is to be Selfish!
(Remark:: Another form of cheat is the government installed reservations for the SC’s and ST’s, they suffer the same consequences as that suffered by the students who cheats in entrance exams. Basically, Government promotes cheating and corruption by these irrational caste-race-class based reservations and subsidies.)

The Morality Of Abortions

deadmanoncampus — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:40:17 +0000

All of us believe in the right of one to possess ones own life. No sane person would argue against the right of one to possess his own life & no sane person would argue that he prefers death to life. If one does he contradicts himself through that statement. Even the fact that he exists to utter those words is an apparent proof of the fact that he prefers life to death. One, after all, is free to die!

One’s right to live-which means: to possess one’s own body is impossible in a society where aggression is a rule। If freedom to aggress is accepted as a rule, most of us would have a hard time holding on to own ones own property–And one’s own body is the most important of ones possessions. Most thinkers and philosophers, though not opposed to the above argument, usually attempts to rationalize abortions by trying to fit it into some moral framework.

The most cited argument is as follows- “A child, yet to be born is just a potential newborn child. It has no reasoning power and resides in the mother’s body. It can have no rights at all.” A newly born child too lacks reasoning power, is incapable of most actions & is dependent on his parents. It is only that it has the power to acquire those skills-In the similar manner a potential new born child is capable to grow into a born child. If a newly born child has the right to his life as it is a potential adult, why is it that an unborn child, which is a potential newly born child doesn’t have it? Needless to mention, the argument contradicts itself.

Let’s hear what the Brilliant Economist, Scholar, Historian, Moral Philosopher & Anarcho-Capitalist, Professor Murray Newton Rothbard has to say on this topic: “Most fetuses are in the mother’s body by the mother’s freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic “invader” of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as “murder” of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother’s body.” Murray they go on to argue that a mere promise is not a legal contract & one can’t have any legally enforceable contract with an unborn child.

I’ll draw an analogy to refute the above argument। Let’s assume for the sake of an argument that an implicit contract has moral & legal validity. I am driving my car through the highway. I meet you in the middle of the journey & am offering you a lift. The vehicle reaches near an abyss & I am now speeding up the car and shouting at you-“How dare you invade into my property? Get down!” Is it right or wrong? If not, why? There is an implicit contract here and one can’t have any such contract with an unborn child, you say? Very well! Imagine it is your new born child that I am giving a lift-with your consent, of course. What if I am doing it to him? This is very much similar to a mother deciding to abort the child. There is an implicit contract with you, you say? Very well! Imagine now, that you agree to me that I can force him to get down from the driving vehicle whenever I want. Am I wrong in doing so? If so, in what sense? Our contract was that I am free to do so & the child, apparently is not capable of making any such contract. This is very much similar to both parents deciding to abort the child. Do I not have the perfect right to aggress against that invader? One should further keep in mind that Murray & other libertarian thinkers do not agree to the legal enforcement of implicit contracts & promises. None of the counter arguments I made above has any validity under such premises.

One should think twice before getting into any vehicle in a Libertarian society. It could be a murder attempt!

Economic meltdown explained

renegade_division — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:20:03 +0000

Lemme explain the readers of this blog, the current global economic meltdown in simplest examples. I presume the reader of this article to be a complete noob of economics. Those a bit more expert in economics, might wanna read this article written by Robert Murphy, days before the financial meltdown occurred.
The worst recession in 25 years

What I am trying to explain you here is called Austrian theory of business cycle, the only theory which consistently explains every recession and economic boom. If you want detailed and exhaustive discussions on it, you are free to surf through Mises Institute’s forums.

Lets presume a family of 4 people, Steve’s family. Steve’s father works in a Multinational firm on a regular salary with performance based bonus. Steve every week gets some weekly allowance from his dad, so his sister.

Every week upon receiving the allowance of $100, Steve goes on his usual to spend on his needs, he is a very economically efficient person, he budgets all the money he receives very accurately with no wastage of money.

The Booming Years

One day, his father’s boss calls his father into his office and tells him that they are going through a business deal which will get them massive amount of profits, and his father will receive 50% increment on his yearly salary. That is, instead of receiving $50,000 that year, his father will now get $75,000 every year.

Steve’s father is really excited about this news. Since the Boss assured that the deal will go through, Steve’s dad goes to the local bank and takes a loan of $25,000. He plans that as soon as he will get the increment he will pay the loan back.

He walks back to his home, and tells the news to everyone. Since he already has the cash in hand, he gives the proportional extra allowance to Steve, his sister and Steve’s mom.

Now this small economy of 4 people has extra cash flow(which technically nobody is sure of), and people are ready to spend. Steve’s father goes and buys that new car he wanted. Steve’s mom, gets new cell phone connections and hands the phone to Steve, his sis, and herself.

Steve on the other hand, is now able to make a flashy girlfriend, since now he realizes that he can clearly afford to take her to expensive restaurants, to holiday on a beach, etc etc. He also gets a used Car for himself since now he will be able to afford the monthly fuel and maintenance expenditure.

Months pass by, but there is no sign of deal going through. And soon a year passes by. The family has done large amount of expenditures, all perfectly economically calculated, adjusted for the $75,000 salary of Steve’s dad.
Since Steve’s dad’s boss ensures that the deal will pass through and he will get his deserved increment, his Dad goes to another bank and takes another loan for $25,000. Now the total loan on the family is $50,000 + Interest from the first loan.

The family consistently gets another extra $25,000 this year. So everything continues the way it is. Another year passes by, and now Steve’s dad is worried about the financial liquidity of the family. The bank which gave his dad the first loan got in touch with him and somehow Steve’s dad convinced them that he will be able to pay their loan back to them.

The Bust

Now at the end of third year, when Steve’s dad gets his salary of $50,000, he needs $25,000 immediately to adjust the family budget, but now his Credit history has gone so bad that he cannot get any more loans from any bank. So his Dad is now only able to allocate $100 per week to Steve, similarly, the rest of the family gets less money. This $50,000 is simply not sufficient to cover the various ventures, and new investments family has started. For example, there is no way the Cell phone bills can be paid now. Steve cannot fuel his Car anymore, he cannot spend on his girlfriend anymore.

The Meltdown

And just when they thought that they have faced all the problems, they seem to be just started. The banks from which Steve took loan, are now knocking on their doors demanding their money back. Steve’s family is now in big trouble. After days of consideration, Steve’s Dad comes up with two possible solutions.

1) Cut back all the excess expenditures, sell Steve’s car(that means Steve must dump his girlfriend), sell his Dad’s car, cancel all the Cell phone subscriptions, mortgage the house they live in, for Loan, return all the previous loans, and slowly buy their house back over the years.

2) Go to the local Mafia boss/Loan Shark who does not need credit checks, take $75,000 loan from them and continue on their life and hope that they will pay the loan back once their life goes back to normal. This way Steve gets to keep his car, girlfriend, his cell phone, and nobody cuts down any expenditure. Steve terms it as the “Bailout Plan”.

Steve’s Mom’s arguments

We cannot go to the local Mafia boss for loan, there is no way we will be able to pay that much amount of loan with our current expenditures. We must go for the first plan, let Steve’s car be sold, his girlfriend dumped, cell phones connection canceled, and over the years we will be able to pay all our loans back.
If we choose the “Bailout option” we will not be solving the problem but only postponing it to eventually come back at us at even bigger level.

Steve’s arguments

You have gotta bail us out Dad. I need more liquidity. I have to pay my gas bills, phone bills, restaurant bills. If you don’t pay me, I will have no social life ever, I will become the most unpopular kid in the school, and surely you don’t want that, do you?
So bail me out dad please, you know that I will pay you back that money as soon as you get that increment, and my allowance actually increases.
If you don’t bail me out, then my social life will go to hell, I will be much more stressed, and won’t be able to concentrate on my studies, so I will not be able to become a successful man in future, if you don’t bail me out right now.

Steve’s Sister’s arguments

This problem is all a result of Steve’s greed. Only if Steve was less greedy. What was the need for him to go and get a new girlfriend, and a car.
Look at me, whenever I needed the car I just used Steve’s car. Whenever I had to dine out somewhere, I just tagged along with Steve on his date. Look how much savings I have done. We must choose the first option.
…..
[After she does some thinking that if Steve gets to keep his car she will also benefit from this]
…..
On second thoughts I support the Bailout option. Lets bail Steve out with his situation, after all we need to maintain our social status too.

Well here the story ends.

Now lemme explain you who is what in real world. Steve’s Dad is the Government. Steve’s Boss is Federal Reserve. Steve is the Market. Steve’s sister is the general public.

So what really happened?
The Federal Reserve inflated the money supply believing that it will result in more economic growth. It does not. So all that extra money resulted in massive economic malinvestment. When all that investment eventually failed to balance the books all hell broke lose.
Now the only solution is to let these companies fail and lets start from scratch, but as you might know what has happened, that govt has taken EVEN MORE loan, they are going to sustain all those malinvestments by pumping even more money in the economy.

Its like solving the problem by overdoing the cause of the problem.

Government’s Help for the Economic Crisis

Unpretentious Diva — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 13:24:47 +0000

Recently on Tuesday, October 16th 2008, RBI announced to inject Rs 2000 crores to help the mutual fund crisis of the Indian banks.
On first account, it may sound like a real example where the government proves its significance to help and foster the economy of country, but on a little deeper analysis, it will show simply that it is no help or try by government to help the economy, but it is just a fraud a robbery, it is a simple game of money and power by the government to further hold the life-line of freedom.
Basically, RBI is transferring Rs 2000 crores from the tax-payers of India to a few financial institutions. After all, from where does the all money of RBI comes from?
RBI or government doesn’t create any wealth; it is us, the Tax Payers of India whose money it is. And who will get benefited, some of the big banks and financial institutes of government choice.
It is assumed that these Rs 2000 crores will be used to revamp the Industries and stock market and will be used to strengthen the mutual funds for credits and liquidity. But how reasonable it is to induce the tax-collection of Indians for a particular market?
The taxpayers are not going to be treated as equivalent to shareholders of a firm that just acquired Rs 2000 crores in assets. The taxpayers are not going to get a cut of the monthly mortgage payments (less the servicing costs on the Rs 2000 crores in new debt) tied to the government’s massive profits. Instead, the government will simply increase its yearly spending by a few thousand crores. Maybe it will have to spend the money on homeownership programs, or homebuilder job retraining or midday meal programs, but the net income from those government-owned assets certainly won’t translate into a Rupee-for-rupee tax cut. That is, while the money of the Indian Tax payers will be used, the actual creator of money, the common tax-payer won’t get any benefit from it.
On the other hand, the government officials running this operation will make out the favours on both ends, when the mortgage-backed securities are coming and when they are going.
The RBI is simply buying the shares of the mutual funds market at a beneficial rate, and in future at some point, there will again be a push to “privatize” the secondary mortgage market, and the government’s share at that time will be auctioned off at very charitable prices to politically associated institutions. For example, maybe the Rs 2000 crores assortment is auctioned off for Rs 500 crores. (Perhaps the big banks have to set up subsidiaries owned by minorities and women who get preferential treatment in the bidding process or the bidding process may also work according to reservation quotas. But whatever the hoax, they will find a way to justify the low prices.) When all is said and done, the government will have played hot potato with the liquidity, and the national debt borne by taxpayers would be Rs 1500 crores (=Rs 2000 - Rs500 ) crores higher. The favoured financial institutions would be “up” roughly the same amount, collectively.
Not to mention that during all this transactions, there are enough and ample amount of possibilities to further create a Hawala scam.

It is quite simple fact, if RBI and Indian Financial Ministry is injecting capital or “liquidity” that money has to come from somewhere. If it is taxed or borrowed, then it is just a shell game; the liquidity is drained from elsewhere, to be injected into the Indian Banks.
On the other hand, if to inject liquidity, RBI simply issues new currency notes, than it will further increase the inflation to extreme heights. Why? It has already been explained here in the article

The price of Rice, What Caused it go so high?

By issuing new currency notes, government doesn’t create any new wealth; after all there are not extra tons of wheat corn and soybean produced, just because government issued new notes.
Now some people may say that the step taken by the RBI to inject Tax-payers money, (without giving the tax-payers any benefit of it) in the mutual fund and credit market is essential for the banks to survive. And they will say that these banks are necessary for Indian economy to grow healthy. People say that if there won’t be banks available for giving credits and lending money, business transactions will stop.
What they miss out is Banks don’t lend their own money; they lend other people’s money (their depositors’ and their stockholders’). Just because the banks disappear doesn’t mean the lenders will. Borrowers will still want to borrow and lenders will still want to lend. The only question is whether they’ll be able to find each other.
As any user of Shadi.com can tell you, the technology for finding partners has improved since the 1990s. When a firm wants to raise capital, why can’t it just sell bonds over the web? Or issue new stock? Or approach one of the hedge funds that seem to be swimming in cash? Or borrow abroad?
I am not sure that banks are so much necessary that government transfers such a huge amount of money from Tax-payers pockets to these banks which won’t flinch to auction your house if you have taken a loan from that bank to own a house. And if it is necessary, than PM Man Mohan Singh and Finance Minister P.Chidambaram must explain with a debate, that why these banks are important and if the Indian Tax payer is expected to help these banks, then why should not the common tax-payer gains from this transfer directly?
Recently, Jet Airways re-employed the 1500 employees it expelled from the job, why it happened? Why were those employees expelled?
They were expelled because government hasn’t reduced the Fuel costs and taxes involved with petroleum and hence the aviation market was not able to bear the burden of such a large crew and fleet as it is not gaining anything because of high fuel costs.
Not only private air services, but government owned AIR India is also thinking of proposing a no-salary-5 year-leave for its 15000 employees.
Doesn’t this example simply show that the interference of government authorities in any economic market ruins its easy-going procedure? Why cannot and should not the market decide the Fuel prices and the flight prices? Why should government decide the fuel prices and why should it take taxes?
By announcing this Rs 2000 crores of injection of liquidity in market, Financial Ministry of India has actually announce that just like it controls public education sector by its boards, now it will control the economic sector and markets too as it has got a larger share of it. More importantly, the money the government has use or will use for this buying of market, is our, the common tax-payers money who will get no benefit from all this embezzlement, yet we will have to face a national debt of Rs 1500 crores. The only way by which government can help Indian economy is by keeping away from it, but nah, it won’t do that.

India again is in socialist grip of Statism and government, there’s no Capitalism in India.

Government Stimulus During Recession

deadmanoncampus — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 05:17:37 +0000

The Nobel Laurete Paul Krugman,in his shockingly offensive article has put forward some solutions to the present economic crisis-Each one of them wrong and a dangerous step to take.He says that the nonfinancial economy is too desperately need of “help”. “The government should spend and spend.Let fiscal responsibility go to hell.We shouldn’t be concerned about the budget deficit at all.”

Let us take his points one by one.

1) “The Federal Government can can provide extended benefits to the unemployed, which will both help distressed families cope and put money in the hands of people likely to spend it.”

Wouldn’t extending benefits prolong unemployment? Wouldn’t it delay the shift of workers to fields where jobs are available? In the first place,the money put in the hands of the distressed families is taken from the tax payer.To say that it would increase spending is tantamount to saying that a robber would give a boost to the retail trade.In the second place,what we need isn’t more spending and consumption,but more saving and investment.

2) “The Federal Government can provide emergency aid to state and local governments, so that they aren’t forced into steep spending cuts that both degrade public services and destroy jobs. And this is also a good time to engage in some serious infrastructure spending, which the country badly needs in any case. What we need right now is more government spending.”

The only way the government can help not to prolong the depression is to reduce its role in the economy.It involves cutting taxes-especially taxes which tampers with saving and investment. It should also be kept in mind that all government spending is consumption.The ideal policy is laissez faire-Not to interfere in the economy in any manner.

Artificial Vs Natural

Unpretentious Diva — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 23:11:47 +0000

Often it is assumed that human are different from nature. And that causes the point of contention between natural and artificial.
This duality between Nature and Human is asserted by two means, firstly, it is said that Human Constructs are artificial, they are not natural. Otherwise, the other way is to state that some human constructs are artificial while some are natural.
Indian philosophies says that Nothing can go against the laws of nature (Taitreya Vedanta) furthermore, it says that even the supernatural, the almighty god, can never break any natural law because it is what he made, that is, no miracle is possible and whatever happens, happens in accordance with natural universal laws.
Another Indian philosophy says that nature and artificial are one in same, there is neither dichotomy nor any duality (Advait Vedanta).
I completely agree with the philosophy of Advait Vedanta.
By default, whatever which exist, is natural. Something which can be said as unnatural would be something which is impossible to occur and which cannot exist at all. It means that, to state something or someway as better than others because it is ’ natural’ is redundant and wrong. Also, to speak of some existing phenomenon as artificial or unnatural is absurd. So, Artificial can never be unnatural, what is it then?
Irrespective of one is creationist or evolutionist, human cannot be said as unnatural. Artificial is that, which is a natural product of human efforts by means of human intelligence, and again human intelligence is also a part of nature and no human intelligence can ever break any natural law (human may not be able to comprehend all natural laws an phenomenon). So what is artificial Intelligence? It must be clear that Artificial Intelligence is nothing like unnatural and it is completely natural because to say something as beyond nature or unnatural is to assert that it is supernatural and that is impossible.
Nature is beyond biases, it is neutral. Everything is neutral despite the consequences of it, irrespective of how common or rare it is, when it occurs or doesn’t occurs, whether it is profitable or detrimental, good or bad for human or other species, and so on. That which is natural, which occurs or exists, cannot be assumed to be good or bad by virtue of it being natural. Nature doesn’t have any intrinsic value (Nirguna Brahma). To say that which is natural is inherently good or bad means that everything is either good or bad, and that is absurd.
Also, nature is not static, it is dynamic, it is in a state of constant flux (Parivartan Sansaar ka Niyam hai!). So, whatever is natural doesn’t necessarily mean that it is universal or inevitable or permanent. It means that whatever is current in present scenario can very well be outmoded rendered and archaic in the future. Thus, appealing to the past as ‘natural’ is simply an irrational argument. What once was natural can be outdated over time, and what once was just a dream in past can be natural in present. The present and future is no less “natural” and naturalness of things in the context of past, present and future is irrelevant.
The irrational concept of natural/artificial duality is manifested in the arguments of the primitivists, anti-civilizaionists, and radical environmentalists. The contemporary science and technology and expanded horizon of human labour is criticised as “unnatural” while the more archaic and self-sufficient ways of living are “romanticised” as ‘natural’. Human civilization is signified as inherently against the nature and human is considered as the “destroyer of nature”. Radical egalitarians also uses same dichotomy as they suggest egalitarianism as ‘natural’ while hierarchy is considered to be ‘unnatural’.
The conservatives also try to use this irrational concept of artificial/natural duality. Dogmatic class hierarchy, religious authority, racism, casteism, nationalism, linguistic preferences and biases have been characterised as ‘the natural order’ as if they are the unalterable laws of nature and intrinsic authorities and deviations from them is considered as ‘unnatural’, anyone going against them is considered as antagonistic with nature. Conservative philosophy strongly appeals to tradition as being ‘natural’, and divergence from tradition such as homosexuality, live-in relationships, sodomy, secularism, multiculturalism, inter-caste, inter-religion, inter-continental marriages and sexual relations are assumed as “unnatural”.
Socialistic and Statist theory supporters also use this artificial/natural duality to assert that a centralized political system involves man existing in ‘the state of nature’, and the rise of centralized political organization is considered as some ‘inevitable natural law’. While freedom is considered as “unnatural” and anyone rejecting the idea of statist government is considered as opposed to “nature”, Miniarchist, anarchists are considered as unnatural or are compared with a primitives “natural state” before centralized political organization took place.
As a matter of fact, all these various types of social phenomenon and organization can certainly be analyzed as profitable or more beneficial than other, yet, none can be said as “unnatural”. In fact, whether or not they are “natural” is totally irrelevant to such an appraisal because they all are “natural” and none is anti-natural or supernatural.
The concept of duality between artificial and natural is a misnomer and is irrational which diverts the real points of contentions.

The Beast

Unpretentious Diva — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 06:31:54 +0000

Standing in the forest the beast hears her footsteps’
His fire stirs as he craves the young girl,
Raging his desire consumes him’
Aching his lust drives him’
His want for her taking over his entire being.

Sensual and beautiful the young girl steps softly’
Fear and excitement fill her belly,
She knows that the beast desires her’
That she will be consumed by him if caught,
Yet she taunts him, luring her prey into the open.

As the beast comes close his heart beats like the thump of a deep drum’
His breathing deep and controlled,
His sadistically evil side feasting on her tenderness’
Using her for his pleasure,
Satisfying his craving to the fullest.

As she sees her beast she knows deep inside’
Knows that he shall be hers,
She will lure him out into the open’
Vulnerable will he be at his most intense moment,
She knows that through love she will ultimately tame the beast inside.

As he grabs her to take her, she suddenly turns and looks into his eyes’
The piercing affect of that gaze drives all the way to his soul,
His heart softens as he looks upon the sensual creature he holds’
The need to devour her, over come by the ache to hold her,
Seeing the pain they both share so deep the beast cannot harm her for his own greed,
He simply pulls her close in a warm embrace.
Protecting and cherishing all that is dear to him’
Forever he will guard and protect her heart and soul’
For it is forever that the beast will be tamed by her.

Allowing himself to be captured’
The beast realizes that the one whom controls him’
is the one whom loves him the most,
Looking deeply into each others eyes they realize that they have a bond’
Not a bond like most have, but one that goes beyond mere mortal thought,
A bond that shall last for eternity,
For the beast loves her with all that he is.

Governments, Sex-Ed and Religion

Unpretentious Diva — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:09:33 +0000

There’s an old saying that in polite social circles one should never discuss religion, politics, or sex. Well, I never promised to be polite here so, since this article isn’t about politics, I guess that just leaves sex and religion, still, I’ll try to stay as “polite” as possible.
Sex and religion will always be interwoven with judgments; it’s just a fact of life, but what about the facts of life?
In India even after all tries by the various states governments to launch sex-ed at school level, sex education remained a bubble of controversy, and not only the religiously motivated groups and political parties* but the school teachers opposed sex-ed on behalf of culture and religion. Irrespective of the fact that India is facing a huge trouble in the face of HIV and other STDs, and it is the nation with extreme numbers of cases of child molestation, rapes and unwanted pregnancies the people just couldn’t accept the idea of sex education. But it is not about India.
Recently,in Australia where in a most odd pairing, Catholics and Muslims united to protest again explicit, forms of sex education in government schools. At present (all) children in government schools get secular sex ed.
I feel sure most people would agree that sex education of children is a sensitive but important aspect of their learning. However, let’s be clear we’re not talking simple birds and bees stuff here, it’s full on, hands on (often on quite literally) learning—everything from homosexuality to how to put on a condom correctly.
I guess the extreme Muslims’ view on sex, and more particularly sex for women is simple. A woman exists for the pleasure of her husband—that’s it, that’s pretty much all any good Muslim needs to know. I feel quite certain, too, that full sex education isn’t going to be on any Catholic school curriculum anytime soon. Although, I actually find the thought of a nun waving a piece of phallis shaped plastic around kind of kinky. It’s like an image straight from the pages of some sleazy men’s’ magazine, isn’t it? I guess nuns in full habit are often depicted as deranged and depraved sex fiends in porn. Yes, there’s something outrageously cheeky and titillating about the forbidden combination of nuns and sex, isn’t there? It’s like nuns are some kind of divine beings for whom sex and all things sexual just simply don’t exist.
Ah, but I digress…
So what exactly is sex education anyway? Well, certainly it’s about knowing the anatomy and physiology of human body; the actual act of sex; reproduction and, more relevant particularly in today’s sexualised world, it’s also about prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy.
Every week, in America alone, approximately 8,000 teenagers and children contract sexually transmitted diseases. Sexually active teen’s ages 15 to 19 have the highest STD rates of any age group, and nearly half of the 18.9 million new STD cases in 2000 were among youths ages 15 to 24. (Again in America, around 3,000 girls fall pregnant every week and the ratio is similar in Australia.) While gays and lesbians are quite simply just another (excuse this pun) fact of life. So, surely, the full scope of sex education is a good thing. It’s not as if sex education is, as some people seem to think, equivalent to giving kids some kind of inferred permission to engage in sex.
On the other hand, certainly everyone is entitled to raise their children, within the common boundary of what’s acceptable to the community, with the same morals and social values as themselves?
We live in a society where sex is everywhere. It’s used to sell everything from cars to choc milk. It’s there on everyone’s TV. It’s in every newspaper, magazine, and posted on every billboard. It’s talked about. It’s laughed about. You just can’t avoid it. So, I suppose it’s only fair and reasonable that some parents may want to make an effort to protect their children from, and at least have some control over, what they consider a deviation from their own good values and judgements.
Yes, politics, religion and sex… An atheist has the right to bring their child/children up without a belief in a god or gods. While a left winger is entitled to raise their child/children to be accepting of socialistic ways. Whether or not you agree or disagree with these things, they’re still freedoms everyone is entitled to. We tend to take them very much take for granted, so why should sex education be different?
Sex education is a health issue. I suppose, if you really wanted to, you could make it an elective course, allowing parents to opt out for their children. It may be a stupid thing for them to do (at least in my opinion) but they could do it.
As for the Church, theoretically more babies mean more followers. But how, then do you explain the marked decline in Catholics around the US, at least. And getting new priests (and, I assume, nuns) from this country is a serious problem for them.
It is my belief that better education combined with increased availability of information, through the Internet, cable TV, even cell phones, allows people to learn about other religions, or arguments against religions, and gives them more options. Unfortunately, it seems that many of those who are turning their backs on religion are placing their faith in UFO’s, Bigfoots (Bigfeet?) and lake monsters, instead.
As for my school-days, I didn’t need anything graphic forced down my throat by the state/school system to understand what sex and STD’s etc were about and I sure didn’t need to waste time on it when I did go to school taking a class specifically for it.
I know not all children have good parents that taught them anything about the basics to being alive or procreation, and personally if your an orphan or fosterchild etc and raised by the state then by all means force feed away.
I personally believe this would be a non-issue if the courses on sex ed were “parent selected” electives in all high school curriculum’s, allowing those that did not wish to be assaulted with such to educate themselves and or their own children.
Unfortunately most liberal education systems and governments believe that the “people are incapable of self responsibility and or teaching their own children and go to great lengths to keep such activities from occurring.
Churches and protestors of such things have no business disrupting schools with demonstrations when it’s the government that’s responsible. Their time would be better spent attempting to buy off the politicians responsible for backing the legislation. After all that’s how the offending courses got put into the schools to begin with, (someone convinced or paid off a politician).
I know this sounds like I am against sex education…I am not, what I am against is the “State” forcing sex education on children whose parents don’t want them to receive the “States” version of it.
Once again about the Muslim’s views on sex, People tend to hate and fear that which they don’t understand. They also tend to hate those who are markedly (and sometimes even just barely) different from themselves. They tend to forget that those others will view them with the same fear and hatred, and for the same reasons: they are different.
In the US, and in much of western Europe as well, people tend to think of themselves as enlightened, modern, civilized people, and we tend to think of the followers of Islam as barbaric, medieval brutes. They, on the other hand, think of themselves as devout, civilized and enlightened, and think of US citizen as despotic, hedonistic, heretics.
Who’s right?
Sexuality in any culture or religion which is male dominated is going to be biased against women, simply because those men will have, to one degree or another, taken the reins of power into their own hands, yet cannot help but view the sexual attraction of women as a threat to that power. As women gain more real power, like they have in the West, men tend to lose that fear of their sexuality, seeing them more and more as equals, in the boardroom and the bedroom. Admittedly, even in US, people are not quite at that point yet, but they are much farther along than most Muslim countries. And part of the reason that Muslim and Catholic leaders protest against sex education is that it demystifies female sexuality to some degree, allowing the young to see women more as equals and less as property.
This de-mystification can also all to easily lead to emasculation of a society and a trans-valuation away from natural bio-ethical truths.
Religious fundamentalism is all too often close minded.
The Islamic and the Christians both suffer from overt “fundamentalist” idealism and un-yielding dogmas that lead to direct confrontation.
The problem is not in the cultural identity of the individual. It is in the individual religious zealot’s resolution to continue along a chosen path without regard to logical observation that is the real culprit. Both east and west has too many examples to list.
It is a short sighted mistake to assume that a patriarchal society is also by default a misogynist one. Well established gender roles give structure to a chaotic environment and are often a necessity in economically poorer regions for survival.
Every culture in history that has lost touch with its biological orientation gender identity has fallen into decadence and decline.