Monday, December 8, 2008

Joseph Stiglitz on Iraq War costs

“War at Any Cost? The Total Economic Costs of the War
Beyond the Federal Budget”
Joseph E. Stiglitz1
Testimony before the Joint Economic Committee
February 28, 2008
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss with you the economic costs of the Iraq War. March 19 marks the fifth anniversary of what was supposed to be a short venture to save the world from the threat of weapons of mass destruction—which simply weren’t there. It is now the second longest war in America’s history, and, after the all-encompassing World War II, the second most costly, even after adjusting for inflation. In terms of costs per troop, it is by far the costliest—some eight times as expensive as World War II.
A War for Democracy
Before turning to the costs beyond the Federal Budget, I want to make three prefatory remarks. We went to war to fight for democracy; but democracy is more than just periodic elections. It involves broader notions of democratic accountability. Citizens have the right to know what they are spending their hard earned dollars on. They have a right to know what their government is doing and the consequences of its actions. Over the past two years, I have worked with a colleague at Harvard, Linda Bilmes, to estimate the full costs of the Iraq war. We published our initial study in January 2006, and I would like that paper to be entered into the record. We published a second study, concerning the costs of providing medical care and disability benefits to our returning veterans, in January 2007. I would ask for that to also be entered into the record. We have now published a book, The Three Trillion Dollar War, which estimates the true costs of the war, the veterans’ costs, and the impact on the U.S. economy. I want to point out that it required an enormous amount of work to write our book. We should not have needed to write it, and when we came to write it, it should have been a far easier task. The Administration and Congress should have provided these numbers to the American people. Five years after the beginning of this war, you should not be funding this war with emergency appropriations, which escape the normal budget scrutiny. We should not have had to resort to the Freedom of Information Act to find out how many Americans have been injured in this war. This Administration has said that it will provide everything that our troops need. We should not have had to use the Freedom of Information Act to discover that more than three years ago, senior officers in the Marines were already sending urgent requests for MRAPs—which would have saved the lives of a large fraction of those killed if we had provided them at that time.
The Soaring Budgetary Costs
1 University Professor at Columbia University and Chair of the Committee on Global Thought. 1
The second remark is that the budgetary costs themselves have been enormous—far, far larger than the some $50 billion that the Administration estimated at the beginning of the war. We are now spending that amount in operations every three months. But the costs to the Federal Budget are far larger than the day-to-day operational costs. The war has raised overall military costs: we have to pay more to recruit and retain our troops, and even with these increased expenditures, standards for recruits have had to be lowered. It will be costly to restore our military to its pre-war standing, both in terms of personnel and materiel. There are costs hidden in other parts of the budget—not only are the direct costs of the contractors high, especially as a result of single source contracting and low levels of oversight (the defense contractors and oil companies have been the only true winners in this war, evidenced by what has happened to their stock prices), but we are also paying for the contractors’ insurance for death benefits and disability. Even with these high insurance premiums, remarkably the government often winds up paying the benefits as well. In our calculations, we have not included the full costs of these, simply because it is impossible for ordinary citizens to find out what they are.
The most important costs that go well beyond the operational costs are the expenditures required to provide health care and disability for returning veterans. These are likely to be very, very high, and we will be paying these bills for decades to come. Almost 40% of the nearly 700,000 troops who fought in the one month long Gulf War have become eligible for disability benefits, and we are paying more than $4 billion a year for disability benefits from that short war. Imagine, then, what a war that will almost surely involve more than 2 million troops and will almost surely last more than six or seven years will cost. Already, we are seeing large numbers of returning veterans showing up at VA hospitals for treatment, large numbers applying for disability, and large numbers with severe psychological problems. These problems increase disproportionately with every tour of duty and with longer tours of duty; and with more than one-third of our men and women being asked to do two or three tours of duty, the numbers will almost surely mount. While in previous wars, the ratio of injured to fatalities was 2.5 to 1, in this war it is 7 to 1, and if we include those that have to be medically evacuated because of what are classified as non-hostile accidents or illnesses, the ratio soars to 15 to 1. Many of the injuries are horrific and will require a lifetime of care. It is a testimony to modern medicine—though clearly we could have done a lot more to spare our troops than we did. Most of the costs will be borne by the VA, but there will be a burden on our social security system as well. We have estimated the total costs (in present discounted value terms) in what we call our “realistic” (but still highly conservative) scenario as $630 billion.
Bills we will be paying for decades
My third prefatory remark is this: we will be facing these budgetary costs for decades to come. Even the CBO methodology, which looks ten years into the future, is too short-sighted for these liabilities which we have incurred. In the case of World War II veterans, VA expenditures peaked more than four decades after the cessation of hostilities. Furthermore, because the Administration actually cut taxes as we went to war, when we were already running huge deficits, this war has, effectively, been entirely financed by
2
deficits. The national debt has increased by some $2.5 trillion since the beginning of the war, and of this, almost $1 trillion is due directly to the war itself. But the meter is still ticking. By 2017, we estimate that the national debt will have increased, just because of the war, by some $2 trillion.
There has been much discussion of unfunded entitlements in recent years. This war has created a new unfunded entitlement—future benefits of Iraqi veterans—that may total a half a trillion dollars or more. But this is an entitlement which they have earned, and from which we should not, we cannot walk away. What we should do, now, is to recognize the financial obligations that we have incurred, that we are incurring today, and that we will incur before this War is over, and fully fund them. These obligations are much like deferred compensation: we require private firms to fully fund such obligations, and for good reason. There should not be a double standard.
When, of course, we add together all of these costs of the war, we are talking about budgetary impacts that are not just $12 billion a month (or $16 billion if we include Afghanistan), but greater than that by at least 40%. Our full cost of the war—our $3 trillion dollar tally—is twice the direct operational budget. We should remember that every month we stay in Iraq and Afghanistan is really costing us some $22 billion; every year, more than $250 billion. In another two years, the tally will exceed another half trillion.
Micro-economic costs
The focus of my remarks today, however, is on the large costs that go beyond these budgetary costs. We classify these into two categories, micro-economic costs (to individuals, especially to the troops that have served us so well and their families, and to firms) and macro-economic costs (to our overall economy, today and into the future).
We have consistently understaffed, underinvested in, and underfunded the medical and disability programs that serve our veterans. As a result, our servicemen and women returning from the battlefield in Iraq often face a new battle—with the bureaucracy to get the benefits to which they are entitled and which they deserve. When they cannot get the health care to which they are entitled, or they have to wait months just to schedule an appointment to see a VA doctor, those who are fortunate enough to have families who can afford to do so, pay for it on their own. This doesn’t diminish the cost to society; it just shifts the burden from the federal budget to these people who have already sacrificed so much.
There are other ways in which the costs to society exceed the costs to the budget, often by considerable amounts. When the government evaluates whether a safety regulation is worth instituting, it balances the costs with the benefits, that is, the savings in lives; as unpleasant as it may seem, it places a dollar value on people’s lives, which includes the loss in output. The typical numbers, called the value of statistical lives, are $7 to $8 million. But to the budget, the cost of the life of a troop is only the $500,000 death benefit. I have already noted that in this war, we have been penny wise and pound
3
foolish—a little extra spending earlier on would have made the war, in the short run, seem more costly, but it would have saved us billions in the long run. But the billions that it would have saved the budget pale in comparison to what it would have meant to those who have died unnecessarily or who face a lifetime with disabilities far worse than needed to have been the case. I am not a lawyer, but I do know this: any private employer who had acted in this way, with consequences as serious, would be liable for a suit for gross negligence.
There are other costs: for instance, the Dole-Shalala Commission estimated that in one of five families with a seriously disabled veteran, someone in the family has to give up their job to provide the necessary care.
Some of the costs are hard to quantify, but nonetheless real: Reservists and members of the National Guard who are forced to serve in Iraq find their lives and careers interrupted. Their employers lose the services of these often highly valued employees.
Economists emphasize the concept of opportunity costs. Resources devoted to the war could have been used for other purposes. One of the main responsibilities of the National Guard is to serve as a first responder in times of an emergency; their services are invaluable, and when they are not available—because they are in Iraq—everyone suffers when an emergency occurs. We saw that so clearly in Hurricane Katrina.
More broadly, we are today less equipped to handle a variety of challenges that might arise. If we are lucky, we may muddle through. We may not be so lucky. Already, one of the opportunity costs is apparent: while we were focusing on the weapons of mass destruction that did not exist in Iraq—and that we should have known did not exist—a new country joined the Nuclear Club.
Our country and our businesses are suffering due to America’s changed standing in the eyes of the world because of the war and the way it has been conducted, as shown in survey after survey. These surveys show a clear relation between attitudes towards America more generally and attitudes towards American businesses. In many quarters, the supposed war for democracy has even given democracy a bad name.
I have, so far, emphasized the direct economic costs as well as the opportunity costs—the diversion of funds that could have been used in so many other and better ways. I would be remiss, however, if I did not note that there are other costs: in the long run, the squandering of America’s leadership role in the international community, the diversion of attention from critical global issues, including issues like global warming and nuclear proliferation in North Korea—that simply won’t go away on their own, and that cannot simply wait to be addressed—may represent the largest and most longstanding legacy of this unfortunate war. 2
2 This is a point that even conservative commentators have emphasized. Anne Applebaum, for instance, noted that “Countries that would once have supported American foreign policy on principle, simply out of solidarity or friendship, will now have to be cajoled, or paid, to join us. Count that—along with the lives of
4
Macro-economic costs
Finally, I want to turn to the macro-economic costs. First, I want to dispel a widespread misconception that wars are good for the economy—a misconception that arose from the role that World War II played in helping the US emerge from the Great Depression. But at least since Keynes, we know how to maintain the economy at or near full employment in far better ways; there are ways of spending money that stimulate the economy in the short run while at the same time leaving it stronger for the long run. This war has been especially bad for the economy. Some of the costs are becoming apparent only now; others we will face for years to come.
There are four major categories of macro-economic impacts. The first is through the war’s effect on oil prices. Before the war, five years ago, the price of oil was under $25 a barrel. As you know, now it has hit $100 a barrel. Before the war, future markets expected the $25 price to persist for at least a decade. Yes, there would be increased demands from China and India; but in well-functioning markets, supply responds to meet new demands. With large supplies and low extraction costs in the Middle East, markets expected production would increase in tandem with demand. The war changed this equation. How much of the increased price should be blamed on the War? In our book, we have taken a very conservative position—that only $5 to $10 of the increase is due to the war, and that the price increase will last for only 7 to 8 years. We think those assumptions are unrealistically conservative. For instance, futures markets today expect that the price will remain in excess of $80 for at least the next decade. We chose to be excessively conservative, simply because we did not want to have an unnecessary squabble: as it was, even with these very conservative estimates, the costs of the war are vastly higher than its advocates were willing to admit. (Even the CBO, at the time we did our earlier study in 2006, was projecting that the total cost of the war would amount to only a half trillion dollars, still ten times greater than the Administration had estimated at the beginning of the war. Our objective was the more modest one of trying to get people to realize that this war was going to be far more expensive than that.)
Money spent to buy oil is money not available to be spent here in the U.S. It’s as simple as that. Lower aggregate demand leads, through a multiplier, to lower national income.
The second impact arises from the fact that Iraq expenditures do not stimulate the economy in the short run as much as expenditures on, say, infrastructure or education that are so badly needed here at home. A dollar spent to hire a Nepalese contractor—or even an Iraqi—in Iraq does not have the first round, second round, or nth round impacts that a dollar spent here does.
soldiers and civilians, the dollars and equipment—as another cost of the war.” Anne Applebaum, “Why They Don’t Like Us,” Washington Post, October 2, 2007, p. A19. 5
The third impact is that both directly, and indirectly, through the mounting deficits, Iraq expenditures are crowding out investments that would have increased America’s productivity in the future.
The mounting Iraqi war debt has meant that we have had to borrow more and more money from abroad—America as a country is far more indebted to others than it was five years ago. We and our children will be paying interest on this debt. The fact that we borrowed rather than paid the bills as they came due does not mean that the war was for free; it only postponed the payments. The payments we will have to make to service this debt will lower the standard of living of Americans from what it otherwise would have been—an outcome which is particularly harsh, given that median American income today is lower than it was five years ago (which is simply to say that, adjusting for inflation, most Americans are worse off now than they were five years ago). This was true even before America went into its current downturn.
It should have come as no surprise that, when America’s great financial institutions, Citibank and Merrill Lynch, needed money quickly, there were no pools of liquid cash available here. High oil prices and high national savings in China and elsewhere have created huge pools of wealth outside the United States, and it was to these that our financial institutions had to turn. It is, and should be, a cause of concern.
Until recently, it was a surprise to some that, in spite of these obvious ways in which the Iraq war was weakening the American economy, the economy seemed as strong as it did. Was there something, after all, to the old adage about wars being good for the economy? To me, and to other serious students of the American economy, there was, however, an obvious answer. These weaknesses were being hidden, just as much of the other costs of the war were being hidden from easy view. The exposure of these weaknesses was, it seemed to me, just around the corner—perhaps even more than the long vaunted victory that remained elusively just around the corner. The macro-economic effects were being hidden by lose monetary policy, a flood of liquidity, and lax regulation. These allowed household savings rates to plummet to zero, the lowest levels since the great Depression, and fed a housing bubble, allowing hundreds of billions of dollars to be taken out in mortgage equity withdrawals that increased the irresponsible consumption boom. As I once put it somewhat graphically, the subprime mortgages and lending programs with slogans like “qualified at birth” meant that easy credit was available for anyone this side of being on a life support system. Our financial institutions and credit rating agencies came to believe in financial alchemy, that these toxic mortgages could somehow be converted into AAA assets. We were living on borrowed money and borrowed time. There had to come a day of reckoning, and it has now arrived. The games we played—which for a time allowed us to hide the true costs of the Iraq war—are now over. And, just as our troops paid a high price for our penny wise pound foolish policies, so too will our economy.
The cost to the economy of this downturn will be enormous. We do not know, of course, how long or how deep the downturn will be, but it is likely to be worse than any we have experienced in the last quarter of a century. Even if growth this year is 0.8% (as the IMF
6
forecasts), and next year growth starts to resuscitate, to 2%, and in 2010 returns to its potential growth of, say, 3.5% (a quicker recovery than most would expect), the total lost output over those three years—the discrepancy between the economy’s actual output and its potential—will amount to some one and a half trillion dollars.
Reforms
This war has been very costly. We have made many mistakes. Some have been honest errors of judgment. But when there are repeated mistakes of this size, as social scientists, we have to ask, are there some systematic patterns? Also, as policy analysts, we have to ask, are there things that we can do to avoid their repetition? In our book, we set out a list of eighteen recommendations for reform. Here, I want to highlight five.
First, we should not be funding any war years after the beginning through emergency appropriations. If we do, it should be a sign that things are not going as expected, and there should be a detailed, written explanation to Congress. Second, there should be a full, comprehensive, accrual-based consolidated accounting of all the budgetary and non-budgetary national defense costs; with so many of the costs years, even decades, down the line, cash accounting not only fails to provide an accurate picture of the cost but encourages what we have seen: short-sighted decisions to keep today’s costs down which simply raise the overall costs. And unless the accounting is comprehensive, it encourages cost shifting. Furthermore, the accounting, particularly of military expenditures, must be auditable, with those in charge held responsible. Congress passed Sarbanes-Oxley to hold private firms accountable; but the Defense Department has not lived up to these same standards. The President has not presented, on a regular basis, an accounting of how much the war in Iraq has cost us. These costs span the Departments of Defense, State, Labor, Veterans Affairs, Energy, Social Security, and other agencies. It is only through hard work that we, and others, have been able to piece together the accounts.
Third, if we think a war is worth fighting, we must force Americans to pay up front and not shift the costs to our children; we cannot pretend that one can have a war for free. We must set aside the money required to pay health care and disability benefits for the returning veterans. We require companies to do this, and we should ask nothing less of ourselves. We cannot let what they receive be hostage to the whims of a future political process, and we should not be creating enormous new unfunded entitlements.
Fourth, we must not place the burden on so few who are asked to do repeated tours of duty. It is unfair, and in the long run, as we have seen, it is costly, not just because of the toll it puts on those put through such repeated stress, but also because it will inevitably make it more difficult and more expensive for the armed forces to recruit in the future.
Fifth, we should be wary of privatizing the military to the extent that we have; it has been expensive, in so many ways. There are some things that should be privatized, but there are some things which should not: this is one area where economic theory and historical experience suggests that we should not. To the extent that private contractors are used,
7
there is a need both for greater reliance on competitive bidding and more oversight; and we need a full accounting of the costs, including those costs taxpayers will pay outside the defense department budget.
Concluding remarks
America is a rich country. The question is not whether we can afford to squander $3 trillion or $5 trillion. We can. But our strength will be sapped. We will be less prepared to meet challenges in the future, and there are huge opportunity costs. Some of our children will not have the medical care that should be a right to every citizen born in a country as rich as ours; some will bear the scars for life. We are not investing as we should in technology and science, to make our economy as competitive as it should and needs to be. We worry about the inroads China is making in Africa—but our foreign aid budget in Africa amounts to but a few days fighting in Iraq. With a fraction of the amount spent on this war we could have had a new Marshall plan, which would have done so much to win the hearts and minds of those around the world. We have talked about the huge problem facing our social security system, putting into jeopardy the economic security of our elderly. But for a fraction of the cost of this war, we could have put Social Security on a sound footing for the next half century or more.
Economists are fond of saying that there is no such thing as a free lunch. It is also the case that there is no such thing as a free war. This is not the first time that an Administration tried to enlist support for an unpopular war by trying to hide the true and full costs from the American people. And this is not the first time that America and the American economy have suffered as a result. The inflationary episode that America went through beginning in the late 1960’s was at least partly a consequence of President Johnson’s failure to own up fully to the costs and adjust other tax and expenditures appropriately. This time, the underlying economic situation is different, and, accordingly, the consequences have been different—but in many ways even more severe.
The budgetary costs of this war have been huge. But the costs that go beyond the budget are at least as large, and the meter is still ticking. Every year of this war has seen the costs rise. But even if the troops stay where they are, two more years will add, conservatively, another $500 billion to the total tally. No one can know for sure whether, when we depart, things will get better (as more Iraqis seem to believe) or worse. No one can know for sure whether staying an extra two years will make the chaos that might follow less—or greater. But it is your solemn responsibility to make the judgment: is this the best way of spending $500 billion? Is it the best way to strengthen America’s capacity to meet future challenges, to promote democracy around the world, to help create the kind of world, here and abroad, that we would like our children to inherit? For too long, this Congress and this Administration has approached the problem by dribs and drabs: a little more today might just do the trick; a little more later will help us turn the proverbial corner. But as the late Senator Dirksen said, “a billion here, a billion there, and pretty
8
9
soon you’re talking about real money.” Today, we would have to say, a trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.
Even a rich country ignores costs of this magnitude at its peril.

Friday, November 28, 2008

Change must come from within.................

26th of November was yet another day which was of no use to myself or this world. As the day was drawing near the end, I was trying to do something useful for the day by attempting to read Stephen Hawking's "A Briefer history of Time". My room mate was surfing the TV when he saw the militant attacks at Mumbai coming as flash news, though he got excited, I dismissed it as another series of bomb blasts which our country had learned to live with and tried to bury myself in the book. As the clock ticked towards midnight we could figure out that this is not a bomb blast but an extremely well planned operation which is going to cause a major outrage in the world. We went to sleep around 1.00 clock still unsure of what was exactly unfolding in Mumbai.

In the morning when we switched our TV sets we saw that it had been a sleepless night for thousands of people. The whole world was watching as terror unfolded its clutches across the Mumbai, there was little anybody can do. The army was pressed into action and even their seasoned NSG commandos were finding it tough to flush the militants and save the hostages, it has been almost 48 hours since everything began but still the battle to save people is going on. 

Yesterday (Nov 27th), it was raining cats and dogs here at Chennai, our house at Velacherry had had more odds of going under water. The previous night we had a small warning with the water reaching our veranda and bathroom at the back. The fear of water flooding into our house and the terrible situation in Mumbai had me in an awful state of mind and I decided to take the day off. I was alternating between Times now and NDTV to track what is happening in Mumbai till 11, but I got pissed off with some of their predictions and decided to watch a movie instead. These days our media houses are all about reporting and TRP ratings, it is really rare to see good journalism, seems with quantity has traded for quality. 

I was browsing through my room mate Pannai's collection of movies and picked Batman Begins to watch, the recent admiration of Christopher Nolan's Dark Night made me to watch the movie though I had watched it earlier. I found myself enjoying the movie which I didn't when I saw it almost about two years ago, seems laziness and prejudice has slowly crept inside me in every walk of life. As I was going through the movie I felt what Bruce Wayne had felt in Batman, the grudge against the people who are responsible for the chaos prevalent in our society. I wished there would be a person for our country, the world to save it just like Batman did it for Gotham, though it was not pragmatic, I slept off with such a dream. 

The situation was still pale at Mumbai when I woke up, but it was turning worse in my room with water slowly starting to seep in through the back door. Myself and my room mate had an intuition that this was going to worsen, hence we just shoved all the things lying around (usually too many in a bachelors room) into shelves and prepared a backpack to go somewhere. The waters level rose at alarming rate and as we left more the level was more than a feet. Wishing the situation would turn around quickly I left for my uncle's house at Beasant Nagar.

The travel was horrendous with my share auto severing along the breadth of road which had sank under water without a trace. The journey from Velacherry to Thiruvanmayur under normal circumstances takes about 20 minutes, but it was not a normal day. When we had finished three quarters of the distance, the auto came to a virtual stand still just before the Taramani junction. I waited for about 10 minutes inside the auto and thought trotting on the foot was a better alternative to reach quickly. As I came to the T junction of Velachery road and Perungidi link road there was a deadlock which any Operating system teacher would have pretty much liked to use as an example. A section of traffic was trying to take a right towards SRP tools, whereas the traffic from SRP had blocked the entire road. Worse still there was another set of vehicles trying to take a right towards the Perungudi road.

And all the vehicle drives were not just hoping but working hard to clear the traffic with persistent honking of their horns which amused me a lot. Though vice (we will discuss later what is the vice) has spread across the length and breadth of our country there are many persons who have not been still attacked by the same, maybe our population is too huge even for a vice or disease to spread. 3 persons unaffected by these vices were trying to do something for the traffic, buoyed by their spirit I also jumped in to lend my effort as far as possible. And after a struggle for about 15 minutes we were able to regulate it a bit. The worst part was we had to persuade, plead, shout at people to ease the traffice,  everybody sounded that it is urgent for them to reach home and to them it didn't matter what happened to others. 

In other words everybody was trying to follow Adam Smith's philosophy of "In a group best result comes from everyone in the group doing what's best for himself". Little did they realize that what John Nash had corrected it as "In a group best result comes from everyone in the group doing what's best for himself and the group". (Courtesy: A beautiful mind).

After half an hour of effort, I realized it is time to leave or else it will be too late to reach my uncle's house. As I walked my way to the next bus stop more than a kilometre away I was thinking about the vices which has engulfed our society. The first and foremost one is materialism, which has spread its tentacles across the length and the breadth of our society. Everybody wants to become rich, build homes, buy ornaments, cars, etc. There is nothing wrong in being materialistic but the way in which we attain materialistic is extremely vital in determining the health of a nation. I think our understanding of God is also one of the reasons why we are like this blaming everything on God and asking him for a solution instead of trying to find out one.

Call it fate or irony the fact is, the land in which Gandhi was born, people no longer have regard for the philosophy of means and ends which he adhered till his death.  If we had indeed followed that principle of Gandhi, this country would have been a better place to live. Still it is not late, we could see a turn around in the lives of each and everyone of us, but it will take some time to see the effect. Alas, the present day Indian lives in an era of instant coffee and soap operas where he has become devoid of something called patience. 

I believe the second most important thing which is proving to be a nemesis is patience. We are not even patient enough to wait for a traffic jam to clear, instead we just jump over the yellow line and take the wrong side of the road to reach our destination  which ultimately will create a deadlock or an accident and in fact worsens the problem for everyone of us. It is not just traffic, we do it everywhere in every phase of our life from paying our bills in a shop counter to taking coffee in our offices, wherever it is possible. 

The third reason is lack of social responsibility. The definition of Social responsibility has got narrowed down, by corporate India, to the helping of orphans, old age homes and destitute children. There is also another definition of Social Responsibility used by our media, it is about people coming out to help during natural catastrophes, terrorism etc. Do these things alone constitute Social Responsibility?  I believe the above said acts are due to empathy and constitute only a part of Social Responsibility. 

During the past two days I noticed lot of people blaming the Government for its inability to tackle terror, inadequacy to tackle floods. The only question I would like to ask each one of them is, "Who is the government?". If you are blaming the government it means you are blaming yourself not someone else. 

The problems faced by our country is not due to the politicians or the administration, it due to each and everyone of us. We cannot become a developed country unless each one of us change, unless each one of us bring in control the demons in us. 

I have come across many people who talk about the problems in our system and are ready to work for the change, but they want to see the change immediately. Change in a country with such a big population will not come quickly, it might take years, even centuries. For that to occur we must start now, lets strive our best to leave this world a better place for the generations to come.

For that the Change must come from within.................

Thursday, November 27, 2008

AN AMAZING DAVID AND GOLIATH STORY


CM: What brings Howard Zinn to Cuba?
HZ: The fact that Cuba has just published its own edition of my book, which in the United States is called The People's History of the United States, though in Spanish it's been translated as La Otra Historia de Estados Unidos. They invited me to the International Book Fair to talk about my book and to participate in some other panels on the war in Iraq. I was here last spring and got to be friendly with a number of very interesting people. Cuban people are so warm. They make you feel at home and it feels good to be here. The atmosphere is a very family atmosphere. There is music and spirit… So, I was happy to come back. Cuba represents something very important in this world of wars and power plays and imperial expansion. I mean, here is this little island, which is not expanding anywhere, is not trying to take over the United States. It is, in fact, holding out in a very courageous way with meager resources against the most formidable military power in the world. This is an amazing David and Goliath story; an amazing story of heroism. So, you have to admire Cuba for being undaunted by this colossus of the North and holding fast to its ideals and to Socialism. And even though there are many problems, it's an interesting Socialism with many possibilities… Cuba is one of those places in the world where we can see hope for the future. With its very meager resources Cuba gives free health care and free education to everybody. Cuba supports culture, supports dance and music and theatre. The United States does not do that. The United States is rich enough to do this, but it doesn't. People who are in the arts in the United States, people who are dancers and poets and in theatre, they struggle to survive, and so, there is this model in Cuba for the future of health care, of education, of culture. We are in a world which is so full of violence and injustice that when we see a place that has the kind of future Cuba does, it's important to hold on to it, important to immerse yourself in it, which is what you do when you come here.
CM: Why do you think the US Government, the Bush administration in particular, does not want US citizens to visit Cuba?
HZ: I wish I could probe the minds of the people who run the United States government. I would ask somebody with really advanced knowledge in psychiatry to do that. We can only guess their motives. One of them undoubtedly is that they know that Americans and people from other countries that haven't come to Cuba are intrigued by the kind of things that Cuba has, which other countries don't have; intrigued by Cuba's progress in literacy, in medicine, in culture and so on. The United States would rather have people be ignorant to what Cuba is. If people don't come to Cuba, then the government can say whatever it wants about Cuba and can ignore its accomplishments and nobody would know the difference. But when people come to Cuba, of course, they go back to the United States and spread the word. So, the United States doesn't want that. Then, of course, the United States doesn't want an example set of a small country that fights its government successfully; that insists on surviving in spite of all the attempts to do away with it -whether by invasion, by subversion or by blockade. It's an irritant to the United States to see this model of survival of a small country. There's a psychological problem there: the frustration of this enormously powerful nation that cannot bend this little country to its will. The United States has had this problem several times in its history. It could not defeat the people of Vietnam -a tiny country in Asia with very few resources, and it just could not defeat it.
CM: Your book The People's History of the United States just sold a million copies. One of the things I found so important about the book is the need to keep the history of activism and resistance alive, which has been hidden from us. This is a particularly difficult time in the United States in terms of the dismantling of social programs. Where do you feel people in the US today get hope?
HZ: I think they get hope in several ways. First, by seeing that there are people all over the world who understand things that many Americans do not understand. When the Iraq war was first beginning about fifteen million people all over the world demonstrated against the war in a single day. That is enormously encouraging, and shows that there's a worldwide movement of resistance. How many people support the administration? You know, it's only fifty percent of the people. They look outside the United States and they see that it's eighty or eighty five percent. That's encouraging. The other thing that is encouraging is that people in the United States who might otherwise loose hope look at the history of social movements in the US and realize that these movements always look hopeless, insignificant and powerless at the beginning. Some of them would remember the recent history in the South -this is something I went through myself- where it seemed that Black people in the South were powerless. They had nothing on their side -certainly not the federal government. And yet, they rose, they organized, they agitated, they demonstrated, they went to jail. Things happened to them, but they persisted and changed the South forever. That's a remarkable story of how a powerless people can gain power and how you mustn't look at power in a superficial way or by asking who has the money or who has the guns? We have to ask, who has the commitment and the energy, and the spirit of sacrifice and is willing to take risks? Then you'll see the future.
CM: Your theatre piece Marx in Soho is playing here in Cuba. What significance do you think it has to Cuban people?
HZ: This play about Marx is significant to the Cuban people for two reasons; one of them, probably, is maybe not as necessary for the Cuban people as it is for the American people, and that is for Marx to once again bring alive his critique on Capitalism and say: Capitalism thinks it triumphed with the collapse of the Soviet Union… No, look what Capitalism has done to people. Look at its failures. Maybe the Cuban people know that. Maybe that's why they support the idea of Socialism. But I think that something very important to people in the United States and in Cuba is to give people a clear idea of what Marxism is and what Socialism is.
2005-03-00

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

La Sa Ramamirtham - the astounding tamizh writer

அடையாளங்கள் - லா.ச.ரா.

தருணத்தின் தர்க்கத்தினின்னு இன்னும் மீளவிலை. தேடினால் வராது; ஆனால் எதிர்பாராத சமயத்தில் பின்னால் வந்து தோளை தொடும் தருணத்தின் ஸரஸம்.

எண்ணத்தோடு, அதனினும் மஹத்தான இன்னொரு எண்ணம் இழையும் ரஸாயனத்தில், மனம் நித்யத்வத்துடன் உராய்கையில், வேறு ரோமாஞ்சலி, நெஞ்சடைப்பு, தனக்குத்தானே தனிழப்பு, பயம், கணமேயுகம். யுகமே கணம் - கோடுகள் அறிந்த நிலையில் எல்லாவற்றையும் தாங்கிக் கொண்டு ஒரு ஆனந்தம் - ஆனால் நொடி நேரமே தாள முடியாது. ஆனால் அதில் அமுதம் உண்டு விட்டேனே! அதற்காக அலைகிறேன்.

தரிசனத்துக்கு ஆதாரம் அன்புதான். அன்பின் பெருக்கு. அன்புக்கேற்றபடி ஆவாஹனம் ஆவாஹனத்துக்கு ஏற்றவாறு தரிசனம். தரிசனம் என்பது என்ன? அன்பின் அலைச் சிகரத்தில் சமயத்துக்கேற்றவாறு அவள் தோன்றுவிதம், ரூபம். இங்கு அரூபமும் ரூபம்தான்; ஆமாம் யார் அவள்?

நித்யத்வத்தில், மானிடப் பரம்பரை வழிவழி. நம்பிக்கையின் தீவிரத்தில் செதுக்கப்பெற்று, அதே வழிவழி பக்தியில் ஊறி, இலக்கியமென்றும் இசையென்றும் கலை, ஞானம், விஞ்ஞானம், தியானம் என்றும் பல்வகை வழிபாடுகளில் செழித்தவள்.

அவள் எங்கும் நிறைந்த சக்தி ஆதலால் அவளை தனி உருவத்தில் முடக்குவதற்கில்லை.

வான் நீலம் அவள் நிறம்.

வாழை மரத்தில் ஆடும் தலைவாழையிலை அவள் பச்சைப் பட்டுப்பாவாடை.

அதோ செம்பருத்திச் செடியில் எட்டா உயரத்தில் என்னப் பார்த்து நாக்கை நீட்டிச் சிரிக்கிறாள்.

துளும்பிய கண்ணீர்த் துளியில், குமுறும் இடியில் நிறைந்த மனதில், இருவரிடையே தேங்கும் மௌனத்தில்.

பூவரச மரத்தினின்று தானே சுழன்று சுழன்று உதிரும் இலையின் காவிய சோகத்தில்.

கிணறுள், அதோ ஆழத்தில் சுரந்து கொண்டேயிருக்கும் தாரைகளில்,

கோபுர ஸ்தூபி உச்சியில் உட்கார்ந்து சிறகைக் கோதி, உடனே பறக்கும் பச்சைக் கிளியின் சொகுஸில்,

அடுத்த சமயம் அதே ஸ்தூபி மேல் கழுகின் சிறகு விரிப்பில்.

சொல்லிக் கொண்டே போகலாம். உவமைகளில், உருவங்களில், அடையாளமாய்த் தன்னைக் காட்டிக் கொள்கிறாள். உள்ளத்தின் நெகிழ்ச்சியில் அவள் நடமாட்டம்; மௌனத்தின் உச்சிதான் அவள் வாழுமிடம்.

திரிகரண சுத்தியில் எப்பவுமே இருக்க முடியாது. சுத்தமாயிருக்க ப்ராயத்தனம் தான் செய்ய முடியும். அழுக்கு சேர்ந்து கொண்டே தான் இருக்கும்.

ஆனால் சில அபூர்வ சமயங்களில், முகூர்த்த வேளைகள் என்றே சொல்லலாம். தருணங்கள்; நான் என் பாசாங்குகளைக் களைந்து, பொய்மையில் மூழ்கிக் கிடந்த என் நாணயம் தானே மேல்வந்து, நான் யாருடனும், எதனுடனும் விரோதமில்லாமல் புவனத்தின் ஜீவஸ்ருதியோடு இழைந்துபோன வேளையில், இதயத்தின் அமுத கலசம் பொங்குகையில், தன் ஸஹிக்க முடியாத சௌந்தர்யத்தில் அவள் தோன்றுகிறாள். என் உள்ளத்தின் சதுப்பில் இறங்கி நடக்கிறாள். மார்பை இருகைகளாலும் பொத்திக் கொள்கிறேன். அவள் பாதச்சுவடுக்ளின் இன்பம் தாங்க முடியவில்லை. அதோ அவள் கொலுசு சப்தம் கேட்கவில்லை?

அவள் தருண்யை.

தெய்வம் வேண்டாம். ஆனால் தரிசனம் கட்டாயம் வேண்டும்.

வார்த்தைகள் கிளிஞ்சல்கள்.

அடையாளங்கள் (கட்டுரையின் சில பகுதிகள்) - லா.ச.ரா. (லா. ச. ராமாமிருதம்)

Friday, November 14, 2008

Remember the bottom billion in our brave new world

This editorial was from Financial Times UK
This weekend an attempt will be made by world leaders to redesign capitalism. A new financial architecture will be put in place. This effort will fail unless the bottom billion – those living on less than a dollar a day – are invited from the shadows and allowed to work with us in forging our brave new model.
Just a few weeks ago it was hoped that Main Street could avoid the fallout from a disgraced Wall Street. That has proved to be another case of bankers’ self-interested delusions. It is in the nature of streets to meet. The results were as predictable as they are awful. Yet, with great effort, we will recover.
For those in Africa who live in the world’s hardest circumstances, this crisis can seem academic. Yet there is a threat that they will be overwhelmed by a new wave of poverty, just when there had been the beginnings of real sustained economic change. While Africa is sheltered from the immediate impact of the crisis because of its relative isolation from the global financial system, it will be buffeted by the after-shocks: falling demand for exports, slowing capital flows, reduced remittances, sluggish growth and the threat of development aid drying up.
The food and fuel crisis knocked the poor off their knees; the financial crisis threatens to kick them when they are down. This must not be allowed to happen. Instead the crisis offers a moment of opportunity. When financial vested interests are weak and laisser faire fundamentalism on the ropes, there is a chance to finally live up to the oft-broken commitment to the poor while also regulating the more irresponsible sides of capitalism.
Just as the crisis has been international because of globalisation, any new reforms will also need to be international. As Robert Zoellick, president of the World Bank, has remarked, a modernised multilateralism must put global development on a par with international finance. The next round of globalisation must be one where economic opportunities and responsibilities are more widely shared.
This moment of flux offers the chance to revive ideas that have been around for some time but have been heavily resisted. First is the Tobin tax. In 1978 James Tobin, the Nobel economist, proposed a tiny tax of 0.5 per cent or less on all foreign currency ex­change transactions to deter speculation and pay for development. Some calculate this tax could yield $375bn (€289bn, £253bn) annually. Even at half that amount, it is on a par with the amount that should already have been directed to development globally. This levy, even if it is cut to 0.005 per cent would limit volatility in small economies whilst generating enormous sums for the poor. It would also cost taxpayers nothing.
Second, we need to institutionalise the means by which profits from carbon trading can be channelled to development. As Germany has already shown, this is a vast market. It involves creating incentives for polluters to pollute less while generating resources for development. It is a smart, painless way to create revenues and jobs while bringing the poor into the global economy. A Europe-wide scheme is planned, but in Washington it should be seized upon as an effective mechanism for growth and development. It, like the Tobin tax, is tax neutral to the consumer while curbing overproduction of carbon dioxide and helping the world’s poorest.
Third, this new round of globalisation must not be accompanied by a return to protectionism. Make Poverty History called for progress on debt, aid and trade. Trade is the area in which the least has been delivered. We need to pursue a stand-alone trade deal for Africa that supports regional integration, delivers improved market access, addresses supply-side constraints such as weak infrastructure, deals with the most damaging subsidies and allows governments to determine their own development strategies.
The voice of Africa’s poor will barely be represented in Washington. The world cannot afford to disenfranchise 900m potential producers and consumers. Of course the Bretton Woods institutions need reform, but this cannot simply come in the form of a different carve-up between countries that have newly acquired more power and those that have always had it. Investing in Africa through effective aid and trade may seem counterintuitive at a time of hardship, but is a necessity. Globalisation has been a boon for many, but has not benefited everyone. Reform of the global economy will not work until all are connected and involved.

Remember the bottom billion in our brave new world

This editorial was from Financial Times UK
This weekend an attempt will be made by world leaders to redesign capitalism. A new financial architecture will be put in place. This effort will fail unless the bottom billion – those living on less than a dollar a day – are invited from the shadows and allowed to work with us in forging our brave new model.
Just a few weeks ago it was hoped that Main Street could avoid the fallout from a disgraced Wall Street. That has proved to be another case of bankers’ self-interested delusions. It is in the nature of streets to meet. The results were as predictable as they are awful. Yet, with great effort, we will recover.
For those in Africa who live in the world’s hardest circumstances, this crisis can seem academic. Yet there is a threat that they will be overwhelmed by a new wave of poverty, just when there had been the beginnings of real sustained economic change. While Africa is sheltered from the immediate impact of the crisis because of its relative isolation from the global financial system, it will be buffeted by the after-shocks: falling demand for exports, slowing capital flows, reduced remittances, sluggish growth and the threat of development aid drying up.
The food and fuel crisis knocked the poor off their knees; the financial crisis threatens to kick them when they are down. This must not be allowed to happen. Instead the crisis offers a moment of opportunity. When financial vested interests are weak and laisser faire fundamentalism on the ropes, there is a chance to finally live up to the oft-broken commitment to the poor while also regulating the more irresponsible sides of capitalism.
Just as the crisis has been international because of globalisation, any new reforms will also need to be international. As Robert Zoellick, president of the World Bank, has remarked, a modernised multilateralism must put global development on a par with international finance. The next round of globalisation must be one where economic opportunities and responsibilities are more widely shared.
This moment of flux offers the chance to revive ideas that have been around for some time but have been heavily resisted. First is the Tobin tax. In 1978 James Tobin, the Nobel economist, proposed a tiny tax of 0.5 per cent or less on all foreign currency ex­change transactions to deter speculation and pay for development. Some calculate this tax could yield $375bn (€289bn, £253bn) annually. Even at half that amount, it is on a par with the amount that should already have been directed to development globally. This levy, even if it is cut to 0.005 per cent would limit volatility in small economies whilst generating enormous sums for the poor. It would also cost taxpayers nothing.
Second, we need to institutionalise the means by which profits from carbon trading can be channelled to development. As Germany has already shown, this is a vast market. It involves creating incentives for polluters to pollute less while generating resources for development. It is a smart, painless way to create revenues and jobs while bringing the poor into the global economy. A Europe-wide scheme is planned, but in Washington it should be seized upon as an effective mechanism for growth and development. It, like the Tobin tax, is tax neutral to the consumer while curbing overproduction of carbon dioxide and helping the world’s poorest.
Third, this new round of globalisation must not be accompanied by a return to protectionism. Make Poverty History called for progress on debt, aid and trade. Trade is the area in which the least has been delivered. We need to pursue a stand-alone trade deal for Africa that supports regional integration, delivers improved market access, addresses supply-side constraints such as weak infrastructure, deals with the most damaging subsidies and allows governments to determine their own development strategies.
The voice of Africa’s poor will barely be represented in Washington. The world cannot afford to disenfranchise 900m potential producers and consumers. Of course the Bretton Woods institutions need reform, but this cannot simply come in the form of a different carve-up between countries that have newly acquired more power and those that have always had it. Investing in Africa through effective aid and trade may seem counterintuitive at a time of hardship, but is a necessity. Globalisation has been a boon for many, but has not benefited everyone. Reform of the global economy will not work until all are connected and involved.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Salutation To A Brave Soul Who Valiantly Fought Her Honor

This article by Vidya Bhushan Rawat at Countercurrents.org once again reinforces the fact that we have a long way to go.

They came in large number with their OB vans, photographers and anchor persons. Much before she could come and join the press, the hall at the Indian Social Institute in Delhi was fully overcrowded. Every body present thought that for that day there was enough 'news' to spread the TRPs. I had never seen such a 'concern' from the commercial media for the communal violence against the Christians, so it was quite surprising that the popular faces of the TV were there to broadcast live the 'historic' press conference.

Yes, I am talking about Sister Meena, an Adivasi nun who was raped by the Hindutva's thugs in kandhamal district of Orissa On August 24th. In her statement made to the press She said, "

On August 24th, around 4:30 pm, hearing the shouting of a large crowd, at the gate of Divyajyoti Pastoral Centre, I ran out through the back door and escaped to the forest along with others. We saw our house going up in flames. Around 8:30 pm we came out of the forest and went to the house of a Hindu gentleman who gave us shelter.

On 25th August, around1:30 pm,the mob entered the room where I was staying in that house, one of them stopped me on my face, caught my hair and pulled me out of the house. Two of them were holding my neck to cut off my head with axe. Others told them to take me out to the road; I saw Fr. Chellan also being taken out and being beaten. The mob consisting of 40–50 men was armed with lathis, axes, spades, crowbars, iron–rods, sickles etc. They took both of us to the main road. Then they led us to the burnt down Janavikas building saying that they were going to throw us into the smouldering fire.

When we reached the Janavikas building, they threw me to the verandah on the way to the dining room which was full of ashes and broken glass pieces. One of them tore my blouse and others my undergarments. Father Chellan protested and they beat him and pulled him out from there. They pulled out my saree and one of the stepped on my right hand and another on my left hand and then a third person raped me on the verandah mentioned above. When it was over, I managed to get up and put my petticoat and saree. Then another young man caught me and took me to a room near the staircase. He opened his pants and was attempting to rape me when they reached there.

I hid myself under the staircase. The crowd was shouting "where is that sister, come let us rape her, at least 100 people should rape." They found me under the staircase and took me out to the road. There I saw Fr. Chellan was kneeling down and the crowd was beating him. They were searching for a rope to tie us both of us together to burn us in fire. Someone suggested to make us parade naked. They made us walk on the road till Nuagoan market which was half a kilometer from there. They made to fold our hands and walk. I was with petticoat and saree as they had already torn away my blouse and undergarments. They tried to strip even there and I resisted and they went on beating me with hands on my cheeks and head and with sticks on my back several times.

I am not putting the entire text which is already available to various websites where the nun says openly how the police never protected her and it was not even doing its basic duty of filing her FIR. Instead, it discouraged her from doing so. Her horror story moved every one but more than that was her immense courage to come in the forefront against the guilty who are being protected by the inefficient and corrupt state government of Orissa. For the past one year, the Hindutva's hate campaign against the Christian missionaries in Orissa and other parts of the country have not resulted in anything. Despite the terror the work of these communities in the far flung areas of the country is praise worthy. Despite all the blames of evangelism, the work of the missionaries in the poor communities in India is unparallel. No one can deny the fact that such an enormous amount of work particularly in the health and educational sector in India is much disproportionate to the number of the community in the country, which denied education to large part of the its masses named as Dalit-Bahujans and an educational set up dominated by brahmanical elites of the country.

Orissa's horror story did not end in frightening the community workers. It is terror in all the forms. From burning the churches, demolishing their holy book, to attacking the social institutions of the community and even when such things fails to dampen the spirit of the community then the final assault. And the final assault is in the form of molestation, rape and indignity heaped upon women and men both. It is beyond shock that such mishaps of history are defended shamelessly on the television channels and widely circulated internet debates.

So, it was refreshing to see a large number of media persons to show their concern when they received an intimation for the press conference of Sister Meena. The timing was accurate at 2 pm. But the entire media was much before the organizers could make it there. The TV Cameras, the photographers, the anchors cum reporters, every one was settling for the final moments. There were cries from behind where the full team of camera persons were ready to 'shoot' the minutes details. The still photographers were preparing for the final assault.

Around 2 pm, as Father Dominic Emanuel came and announced modalities of the press conference saying that the sister would read her statement to the press and nothing more and nothing less. He made it clear that no further question would be taken in this regard as the sister was not in a position to speak and also the matter was subjudice.

The journalists, particularly from the electronic media were shocked as they thought of having an 'exclusive' interview with sister. They thought that the sister would give them lucid details of the incidents and then they would run it for several days like what they have been doing regarding Arushi murder case or Jessica Lal murder case. They perhaps forgot that a victim of the feudal communal mindset in India need a lot more than just courage to speak to the national media. Even when many of the Sangh Parivar people say that the charges of rapes were false, I do not want to comment on the hired pen-pushers who do not have the courage to come open and accept that something horrible has happened. The sister's narration moved every one who understands that how a woman mustered courage to speak of her plight to the 'national' media. It is time to stand with her and provide her mental support. We all know what happened to kandhamal and that if Hindu Rastra becomes a reality in this country, it would be a Kandhamal kind of rastra. Remember, a Hindu Rastra would be a great calamity for India, warned Ambedkar.

The irony is that some of the Church people from Orissa went and met Mr Lal Krishna Advani, just a few days before nun's press conference and Advani in turn expressed his 'gratitude' to the missionaries as how he studied in Christian schools. He then went on to condemn the incident of rape on the nun and said that there should be dialogue among all the religion. Now, somebody, should have told Advani that this is not a question of dialogue but bringing culprits to the book. Those who initiate such a dialogue with a criminal gang are criminal and have betrayed their very cause. The nun has her original identity as a tribal from Orissa and it is important to understand that she paid a price of her faith. Sangh Parivar's loyal intellectuals would always like to debate and then justify their positions after each event. If we continue to legitimize them by initiating a dialogue with them we make them representative of non Christians-non Muslim population of India which is highly objectionable. The Muslims and the Christians who initiative such a fake religious dialogue with them must be isolated and boycotted.

Finally, the sister arrived with her face covered with mask escorted by responsible friends like John Dayal and others but see the rush among the photographers. They heckled with each other to take photograph of the nun with different angle. It was just shocking to see how they were just fighting to take per photographs as if it was a photo session with a Bombay beauty queen. There was no understanding that a victim of the fascist onslaught was here to explain her plight. In a civilized society a victim of a such a horrible act would have found enough people from media and civil society speaking on her behalf but the scandalous silence of these sections of the society, added with Sangh Parivar's assertion that she was lying as if a woman is very happy to say that she was raped, compelled the sister to speak to the media. It is further when the state government and its police which was unable to protect the nun from the humiliation. The state government wanted her to identity the accused in Orissa itself without giving her due protection. It needs not to be elaborated here how Orissa and Kandhamal district in particular have become an area where Christians are being targeted and hounded. And the government's inaction has further deteriorated the situation with Christians still finding it difficult to return their home. In such a scenario when the media has no time to follow up their own stories, a brave woman speak her plight should have been welcomed. A society where the victim is asked to prove her innocence can not be termed as civilized society and those who claim for it must hang their head in shame. We must admit that we live in one of the most brutal society and the only civilized thing about us is our civilized constitution without being effectively used to protect its citizens who need it.

Many in the crowd said that there was nothing wrong in photographers taking the photos in such a way. It was great that media was present but it should properly think that not everything is meant to strengthen your TRPs. A person's plight needs to be heard properly. If you need to take photographs to do your 'professional' duty, do it with grace, understanding the importance and seriousness of the issue. I know these days the TV cameras are everywhere even when the dead bodies go from the family and the reporters are asking the family people ' how are you feeling'. But it is not just media fault. People are also eager to see their faces on TV and print so we see they do 'speak' on the camera how 'great' their dear one was.

One thing is clear that the friends in support of Sister including CBCI need our solidarity for not making this incident cheap and vulgar. Friends like John Dayal and others handled this issue graciously and did not allow the 'crazy' media anything that would be termed a cheap publicity. Secondly, by supporting the sister's courageous act of speaking to the nation her plight and her conviction to get justice, need to be encouraged. In this country the exploiters, rapists, and all those anti social elements get away with the law because the victims are victimized more than the tormentors. The Christian community has shown their great courage by siding with the sister. Let the media put pressure on the government of Orissa as well as the central government to act on the issue fast and get the sister a justice. Tragically, nothing has happened and the media will wait for another juicy story to which can raise their TRPs and the Hindutva terror would go unabated all over the country and the victims of this terror would rarely find space in our national media unless there is some 'masala' in it. One sincerely hope that with this press conference, the media will understand that serious issues need to be tackled seriously and they are not here to get more advertisement and market their channels. Let us see how many of them turn up to cover the issues if the CBCI organize another press conference related to violence against Christians in any part of the country. One hope the editors are listening and will do the needful. One can only hope that such atrocious and tedious process of law will not demoralize her further. Let us salute her spirit to get justice. Let us stand with her in this hour of crisis. Let us hope she get justice so that our faith in the institution of law remains intact.

Monday, November 10, 2008

Is bailout really neccessary, no I don't think so now.

Few days back, I wrote a post stressing the need for bailout. I came across an article which which pointed out that how the bail out is going to make life worse for the common man me explain how it is going to be worse.


Say Mr.X has taken a loan of $200,000 from a mortgage firm for buying a house. The mortgage company in order securitize the loan, converts the it a bond and sells the bond in the open market. The bond is bought by an investment bank or a mutual fund or a pension fund since it offers good returns. In order to securitize their investment, the entity which bought the bond insures it with an Insurer. when Mr.X defaults, then it sets off a chain reaction which affects all those involved in the chain of events, i.e. the mortgage company, investment bank & insurance company.

The guys with with fat pay checks in Wall street never cared about the fact that this vicious chain may crash. All that mattered to them were profits, never the means to achieve it. Wall street being the brainchild of capitalism came up with a master plan to save their skin from this economic breakdown. The US government $700 billion bailout save only the financial companies from bankruptcy and leaves Mr.X in total disarray.

The bailout has put a double burden on the common man, first $700 billion has been made raised from the tax payers money which includes Mr.X's contribution also. We need to remember Mr.X has been shown door from his house has he has defaulted his payments. His house would be auctioned off now and say it is sold for $50,000. Mr.X still has a liability of $150,000 to his mortgage company. In other words he needs to pay for the house he doesn't have and also he has to pay for preventing the financial institutions from crashing, the very same institutions which has left him in lurch. These guys do have a lot of brains.

Had this bailout not happened the entire world economy would have collapsed and a new world system might have been formed. Of course we would have faced many problems, but I sincerely believe it might have cut off the wings of Capitalistic Imperialism. The bankers have made sure that this didn't happen and Capitalism continues to thrive so that they can reap it's benefits.

What lower oil prices mean for the world

Oil prices are a barometer of the world economy. Rising prices between 2003 and 2007 reflected the best global econ­omic growth in a generation. This high economic growth was brought to an end not only by underpricing of risk, excess liquidity and over-confidence but also by an increasingly unsustainable commodity boom – of which oil was a crucial part. Now, as the world has dropped into recession, oil prices have fallen by more than half.
This fall also reflects the power of price itself. For rising prices set in motion decisions by consumers, governments and businesses that have changed the course of demand. Now the recession is also weighing increasingly heavily on demand.
Of course, a price “collapse” to the $60-$70 range is a collapse only if one forgets that the average oil price in 2007 was $72 a barrel (and $66 in 2006). The tight balance between supply and demand was not the only factor driving the increase in oil prices. The last explosion in oil and other commodity prices began in the late summer of 2007, as a weakening dollar set off a “flight to com­modities”.
Certainly, oil prices were also driven up throughout July 2008 by psychology; what Professor Robert Shiller of Yale describes as “contagious excitement about investment prospects”. It was almost like bets in a poker game, with a $200 prediction being raised by a $250 prediction, which would in turn be raised by a $500 prediction. It was all self-reinforcing, creating its own ­reality.
Yet there were two hidden assumptions in this contagion of enthusiasm. The first was the belief in “decoupling” – that the rest of the world was insulated from a US economic downturn. The reality of the past several months has demonstrated the opposite: how closely economies are linked together in a globalised world. Brazil, Russia, India and China became the up-and-coming “Brics” by virtue of ­globalisation.
The second hidden assumption was that price does not matter. Both demand and supply, it was assumed, would not budge as prices soared. Yes, this was just possible, but it would have been the first time in economic history. As it turned out, cycles are still with us.
What was all the more odd about this “contagious excitement” is that, while the price was going up, the energy fundamentals were declining along with the overall economy. Petrol consumption in the US had hit “peak demand” in 2007 and was beginning to decline. On a global basis, estimates for demand growth for 2008 have fallen from as high as 2.1m barrels a day at the beginning of the year to 200,000 barrels a day now. Or perhaps zero.
The world oil market is caught in what Cambridge Energy Research Associates two years ago described as a “Global Fissure” recession scenario. Total US oil demand over 2008 is down 1m barrels a day compared with last year. The last time demand dropped this much was in 1981, on the eve of the recession that was – until now – known as the “worst recession since the Great Depression”.
The fall in oil prices is a great bounty to hard-pressed consumers. If you compare the average US petrol price in July ($4.14 a gallon) with October ($2.26) on an annualised basis, the savings to American consumers are $282bn (€220bn, £180bn). The fall in oil prices is a sort of de facto tax cut – a stimulus package that does not have to be approved by the Congress or paid for out of the beleaguered Treasury.
What will happen to oil prices in Global Fissure? One of the most important determinants – just as in the 2003-2007 increases – is the pace of global economic growth. But, this time, the question is how deep and long the recession and how big the hit on consumer spending. The other crucial question is oil supply itself. How large will be the flow of new oil supplies that have been stimulated by the rising prices and have been under development but were delayed by shortages of people and equipment? Watch what happens in 2009.
Lower prices are forcing energy companies to cut their budgets and hold back on starting some new projects. This will make itself felt in a new turn of the cycle after an economic recovery. In the meantime, it is not only investment in new oil and gas and electric power projects that will be restrained.
The energy policies of the new US administration, as in other countries, will emphasise greater energy efficiency and renewables. A “green stimulus programme” is already high on the transition agenda. But the worried question around Washington now is: to what degree lower prices will crimp investment in renewables and ­efficiency.
The answer will not be determined just by energy prices, important as they are. The biggest impact will come from the health of the economy, the nation’s fiscal position and the availability of capital and credit. With the costs of two wars and a vast financial bail-out, and with an impaired credit system, resources for other purposes are likely to be constrained.
In such circumstances, some kind of charge or auctioning for carbon permits may suddenly take on new attractiveness, not just for combating climate change but as a revenue-raising measure for a federal government that certainly needs the money.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

காணாமல் போகிறேன் .....

ஒரு முறை என் கேமரா
என்னை மீட்டு குடுத்தது;
ஒரு முறை என் புல்லாங்குழல்
என்னை மீட்டு குடுத்தது;
ஒரு முறை என் தோழி
என்னை மீட்டு கொடுத்தாள் ,
நான் தான் அடிக்கடி
தொலைந்து போகிறேன்.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Credit crunch for dummies


Once there was a little island country. The land of this country was the tiny island itself .The total money in circulation was 2 dollars as there were only two pieces of 1 dollar coins circulating around.
1) There were 3 citizens living on this island country. A owned the land. B and C each owned 1 dollar.
2) B decided to purchase the land from A for 1 dollar. So, now A and C own 1 dollar each while B owned a piece of land that is worth 1 dollar.
* The net asset of the country now = 3 dollars.
3) Now C thought that since there is only one piece of land in the country, and land is non producible asset, its value must definitely go up. So, he borrowed 1 dollar from A, and together with his own 1 dollar, he bought the land from B for 2 dollars.
*A has a loan to C of 1 dollar, so his net asset is 1 dollar.
* B sold his land and got 2 dollars, so his net asset is 2 dollars.
* C owned the piece of land worth 2 dollars but with his 1 dollar debt to A, his net residual asset is 1 dollar.
* Thus, the net asset of the country = 4 dollars.
4) A saw that the land he once owned has risen in value. He regretted having sold it. Luckily, he has a 1 dollar loan to C. He then borrowed 2 dollars from B and acquired the land back from C for 3 dollars. The payment is by 2 dollars cash (which he borrowed) and cancellation of the 1 dollar loan to C. As a result, A now owned a piece of land that is worth 3 dollars. But since he owed B 2 dollars, his net asset is 1 dollar.
* B loaned 2 dollars to A. So his net asset is 2 dollars.
* C now has the 2 coins. His net asset is also 2 dollars.
* The net asset of the country = 5 dollars. A bubble is building up.
(5) B saw that the value of land kept rising. He also wanted to own the land. So he bought the land from A for 4 dollars. The payment is by borrowing 2 dollars from C, and cancellation of his 2 dollars loan to A.
* As a result, A has got his debt cleared and he got the 2 coins. His net asset is 2 dollars.
* B owned a piece of land that is worth 4 dollars, but since he has a debt of 2 dollars with C, his net Asset is 2 dollars.
* C loaned 2 dollars to B, so his net asset is 2 dollars.
* The net asset of the country = 6 dollars; even though, the country has only one piece of land and 2 Dollars in circulation.
(6) Everybody has made money and everybody felt happy and prosperous.
(7) One day an evil wind blew, and an evil thought came to C's mind. "Hey, what if the land price stop going up, how could B repay my loan. There is only 2 dollars in circulation, and, I think after all the land that B owns is worth at most only 1 dollar, and no more."
(8) A also thought the same way.
(9) Nobody wanted to buy land anymore.
* So, in the end, A owns the 2 dollar coins, his net asset is 2 dollars.
* B owed C 2 dollars and the land he owned which he thought worth 4 dollars is now 1 dollar. So his net asset is only 1 dollar.
* C has a loan of 2 dollars to B. But it is a bad debt. Although his net asset is still 2 dollars, his Heart is palpitating.
* The net asset of the country = 3 dollars again.
(10) So, who has stolen the 3 dollars from the country ? Of course, before the bubble burst B thought his land was worth 4 dollars. Actually, right before the collapse, the net asset of the country was 6 dollars on paper. B's net asset is still 2 dollars, his heart is palpitating.
(11) B had no choice but to declare bankruptcy. C as to relinquish his 2 dollars bad debt to B, but in return he acquired the land which is worth 1 dollar now.
* A owns the 2 coins, his net asset is 2 dollars.
* B is bankrupt, his net asset is 0 dollar. ( he lost everything )
* C got no choice but end up with a land worth only 1 dollar
* The net asset of the country = 3 dollars.
************ **End of the story; BUT ************ ********* ******
There is however a redistribution of wealth.
A is the winner, B is the loser, C is lucky that he is spared.
A few points worth noting -
(1) when a bubble is building up, the debt of individuals to one another in a country is also building up.
(2) This story of the island is a closed system whereby there is no other country and hence no foreign debt. The worth of the asset can only be calculated using the island's own currency. Hence, there is no net loss.
(3) An over-damped system is assumed when the bubble burst, meaning the land's value did not go down to below 1 dollar.
(4) When the bubble burst, the fellow with cash is the winner. The fellows having the land or extending loan to others are the losers. The asset could shrink or in worst case, they go bankrupt.
(5) If there is another citizen D either holding a dollar or another piece of land but refrains from taking part in the game, he will neither win nor lose. But he will see the value of his money or land go up and down like a see saw.
(6) When the bubble was in the growing phase, everybody made money.
(7) If you are smart and know that you are living in a growing bubble, it is worthwhile to borrow money (like A ) and take part in the game. But you must know when you should change everything back to cash.
(8) As in the case of land, the above phenomenon applies to stocks as well.
(9) The actual worth of land or stocks depends largely on psychology.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Bail out is neccessary

I came upon this article by Scott A.Kjar

"Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson needs to change his reading list. Instead of reading the balance sheets and income statements of the failing banking industry, he needs to read Henry Hazlitt's classic book Economics in One Lesson. It will cost Paulson far less than the $700 billion that he is spending on the bailout, and he might just learn a little economics in the process.

Hazlitt delivers his "one lesson" in chapter 1, and proceeds to spend the rest of the book giving examples. His lesson, based on the work of Frédéric Bastiat, is that "the art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."

For example, in chapter 2, Hazlitt delivers the well-known "broken window fallacy" in which a hoodlum breaks a shopkeeper's window with a rock. The common folk see it as a tragedy, but an astute Washington bureaucrat could argue that it creates new jobs for glaziers. As Hazlitt points out, though, any resources that the shopkeeper spends on the new window would have been used elsewhere, perhaps for a new suit. So while the glazier gets new business, the tailor loses the same amount of business. There is no net benefit; in fact there is a net loss. Absent the hoodlum, the shopkeeper would have had both a window and a new suit; given the hoodlum, the shopkeeper has a window but no suit. Even though the damage was to the window, it is the suit that is lost to the shopkeeper and, hence, to society.

In chapter 6, entitled "Credit Diverts Production," Hazlitt discusses government lending policies, such as additional credit to farmers or business owners. However, he points out, the recipients of such programs are rarely the more-productive farmers and business owners. After all, the more-productive people are able to borrow their money from private lenders. It is only the less-productive individuals and firms, unable to get funds on the free market, that must turn to government.

For example, suppose that there is a farm for sale. A private lender would normally be willing to lend money to farmer A who has proven his abilities in the past, rather than to farmer B, who has demonstrated a lower level of productivity than has A. However, because government taxes citizens or borrows money itself in capital markets, private lenders have fewer funds available to lend to A. Instead, government lends the money to B on the grounds that B is underprivileged, in need of a hand, or some other politically based argument. The more productive borrower, A, loses out on the scarce land while the less productive borrower, B, gains the resources. Because the less-productive individual acquires the scarce resource, there will be less total production, and the entire society is worse off.

Further, Hazlitt states, the government takes bigger risks with taxpayers' money than private lenders take with their own money. Private lenders who make bad loans will go bankrupt and be forced out of business. But when the government gets involved, it lends funds for riskier ventures since the bureaucrats who approve the loan face no personal recriminations — much less loss of profit — for error.

In other words, private lenders would take Action A while government lenders would take Action B, and Action B is the less-productive path. After all, there is no need for government to take Action A: it can be handled quite well in the free market.

So it is with the current rash of bailouts. Whatever the final price tag — $500 billion, $750 billion, $1 trillion, more — the fact is that government gets its money either from taxes, borrowing, or the printing press. It is hard to raise taxes by $1 trillion on short notice, and since there is a small hurdle that slows the government's ability to print the money,[1] we know that government will issue bonds. In other words, government will borrow the money from private capital markets.

As Hazlitt points out, though, the private capital markets (those that aren't bankrupt and standing in line for a bailout) would otherwise lend their funds to more-productive ventures. If private capital wants to lend directly to the failing banks, it is already capable of doing so. The fact that such private capital is not lending to the banks is a clear indication that the government's current bailout is contrary to free-market principles.

The argument that the government is somehow pumping new capital into the market is absurd. Government is actually borrowing the money from the capital markets that it is in turn injecting into the capital markets. There is no additional source of funding; there is only a diversion of funds from more-productive outlets to less-productive outlets, with government acting as the middleman.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson needs to read this book.

So when Henry Paulson argues that it is necessary to pump money into credit markets to prevent them from freezing up, he doesn't bother to realize that the money he pumps into the credit markets is coming directly out of the very same credit markets. He is doing little more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic; shuffling the money from one set of financial intermediaries to another does not increase either liquidity or solvency. It merely delays the problem for a few brief moments.

Even the failing banks pay lip service to their fiduciary responsibility, but any privately funded firm that took money from more-productive people to give it to less-productive people would soon go out of business. Only the government can violate Hazlitt's logic and survive, because only government can socialize its losses through the tax system."

Though his argument theoretically seem correct, I believe the bail out is necessary without which lot of banks would collapse and the one to be most affected would be the common man. The bailout might be helping the banks whose policies were managed by the greedy and dumb guys, who failed to foresee the catastrophe, but I don't find this reason to be strong enough for people who had invested in these institutions also to suffer. The increasing liberation policies and complex instruments make the functioning of banks and economics incomprehensible to an ordinary man and is really tough to expect him to analyze this situations beforehand, when seasoned economists themselves have been left confused. The bailout in turn must be followed by stricter regulations of the market and trail of those responsible.

Monday, October 6, 2008

International Peace By Mahatama Gandhi

I do not believe that an individual may gain spiritually and those that surround him suffer. I believe in advaita. I believe in the essential unity of man and for that matter of all that lives. Therefore I believe that if one man gains spiritually, the whole world gains with him and, if one man falls, the whole world falls to that extent. (SB, 27) There is not a single virtue which aims at, or is content with, the welfare of the individual alone. Conversely, there is not a single moral offence which does not, directly or indirectly, affect many others besides the actual offender. Hence, whether an individual is good or bad is not merely his own concern, but really the concern of the whole community, nay, of the whole world. (SB, 27) Though there is repulsion enough in Nature, she lives by attraction. Mutual love enables Nature to persist. Man does not live by destruction. Self. love compels regard for others. Nations cohere because there is mutual regard among individuals composing them. Some day we must extend the national law to the universe, even as we have extended the family law to form nations-a larger family. (SB, 22) Mankind is one, seeing that all are equally subject to the moral law. All men are equal in God's eyes. There are, of course, differences of race and status and the like, but the higher the status of a man, the greater is his responsibility. (MM, 137) My mission is not merely brotherhood of Indian humanity.

My mission is not merely freedom of India, though today it undoubtedly engrosses practically the whole of my life and the whole of my time. But through realization of freedom of India I hope to realize and carry on the mission of the brotherhood of man. My patriotism is not an exclusive thing. It is all-embracing and I should reject that patriotism which sought to mount upon the distress or the exploitation of other nationalities. The conception of my patriotism is nothing if it is not always, in every case without exception, consistent with the broadest good of humanity at large. Not only that, but my religion and my patriotism derived from my religion embrace all life. I want to realize brotherhood or identity not merely with the beings called human, but I want to realize identity with all life, even with such things as crawl upon earth. I want, if I don't give a shock, to realize identity with even the crawling things upon earth, because we claim descent from the same God, and that being so, all life in whatever form it appears must be essentially one. (MM, 135) It is impossible for one to be an internationalist without being a nationalist. Internationalism is possible only when nationalism becomes a fact, i.e., when peoples belonging to different countries have organized themselves and are able to act as one man. It is not nationalism that is evil, it is the narrowness, selfishness, exclusiveness which is the bane of modern nations which is evil. Each wants to profit at the expense of, and rise on the ruin of, the other. (MM, 134) I am a humble servant of India and in trying to serve India, I serve humanity at large....

After nearly fifty years of public life, I am able to say today that my faith in the doctrine that the service of cue's nation is not inconsistent with the service of the world ,ms grown. It is a good doctrine. Its acceptance alone will ease the situation in the world and stop the mutual jealousies between nations inhabiting this globe of ours. (MM, 135-36) Interdependence is and ought to be as much the ideal of man as self-sufficiency. Man is a social being. Without inter-relation with' society he cannot realize his oneness with the universe or suppress his egotism. His social interdependence enables him to test his faith and to prove himself on the touchstone of reality. If man were so placed or could so place himself as to be absolutely above all dependence on his fellow-beings he would become so proud and arrogant as to be a veritable burden and nuisance to the world. Dependence on society teaches him the lesson of humanity. That a man ought to be able to satisfy most of his essential needs himself is obvious; but it is no less obvious to me that when self-sufficiency is carried to the length of isolating oneself from society it almost amounts to sin. A man cannot become self-sufficient even

in respect of all various operations from the growing of the cotton to the spinning of the yarn. He has at some stage or other to take the aid of members of his family. And if one may take the help from one's own family, why not from one's neighbours? Or otherwise what is the significance of the great saying, 'The world is my family'? (MM, 136) Duties to self, to the family, to the country and to the world are not independent of one another. One cannot do good to the country by injuring himself or his family. Similarly one cannot serve the country injuring the world at large. In the final analysis we must die that the family may live, the family must die that the country may live and the country must die that the world may live. But only pure things can be offered in sacrifice. Therefore, self-purification is the first step. When the heart is pure, we at once realize what is our duty at every moment. (DM, 287) The golden way is to be friends with the world and to regard the whole human family as one. He who distinguishes between the votaries of one's own religion and those of another miss-educates the members of his own and opens the way for discord and irreligion. (MGP, I, 359) I live for India's freedom and would die for it, because it is part of Truth. Only a free India can worship the true God. I work for India's freedom because my Swadeshi teaches me that being born in it and having inherited her culture, I am fittest to serve her and she has a prior claim to my service. But my patriotism is not exclusive; it is calculated not only not to hurt another nation but to benefit all in the true sense of the word. India's freedom as conceived by me can never be a menace to the world. (SB, 43) We want freedom for our country, but not at the expense or exploitation of others, not so as to degrade other countries. I do not want the freedom of India if it means the extinction of England or the disappearance of English-men. I want the freedom of my country so that other countries may learn something from my free country, so that the resources of my country might be utilized for the benefit of mankind. Just as the cult of patriotism teaches us today that the individual has to die for the family, the family has to die for the village, the village for the district, the district for the province, and the province for the country, even so, a country has to be free in order that it may die, if necessary, for the benefit of the world. My love therefore of nationalism or my idea of nationalism, is that my country may become free, that if need be, the whole country may die, so that the human race may live. There is no room for race-hatred there. Let that be our nationalism. (SB, 43) There is no limit to extending our services to our neighbours across State-made frontiers. God never made those frontiers. (SB,44) My goal is friendship with the whole world and I can combine the greatest love with the greatest opposition to wrong. (SB, 152) For me patriotism is the same as humanity. I am patriotic because I am human and humane. It is not exclusive, I will not hurt England or Germany to serve India. Imperialism has no place in my scheme of life. The law of a, patriot is not different from that of the patriarch. And a patriot is so much the less a patriot if he is a lukewarm humanitarian. There is no conflict between private and political law. (MM, 133) Our non-co-operation is neither with the English nor with the West. Our non-co-operation is with the system the English have established, with the material civilization and its attendant greed and exploitation of the weak. Our non-co-operation is a retirement within ourselves. Our non-cooperation is a refusal to co-operate with the English administrators on their own terms. We say to them: 'Come and co-operate with us on our terms and it will be well for us, for you and the world.' We must refuse to be lifted off our feet. A drowning man cannot save others. In order to he fit to save others, we must try to save ourselves. Indian nationalism is not exclusive, nor aggressive, nor destructive. It is health-giving, religious and therefore humanitarian. India must learn to live before she can aspire to die for humanity. (SB, 113)

I do not want England to be defeated or humiliated. It hurts me to find St. Paul's Cathedral damaged. It hurts me as much as I would be hurt if I heard that Kashi Vishvanath temple or the Jumma Masjid was damaged. I would like to defend both the Kashi Vishvanath temple and the Jumma Masjid and even St. Paul's Cathedral with my life, but would not take a single life for their defense. That is my fundamental difference with the British people. My sympathy is there with them nevertheless. Let there be no mistake on the part of the Englishmen, Congressmen or others whom my voice reaches, as to where nay sympathy lies. It is not because I love the British nation and hate the German. I do not think that the Germans as a nation are any worse than the English, or the Italians are any worse. We are all tarred with the same brush; we are al! members of the vast human family. I decline to draw any distinction. I cannot claim any superiority for Indians. We have the same virtues and the same vices. Humanity is not divided into watertight compartments so that we cannot go from one to another. They may occupy one thousand rooms, but they are all related to one another. I would not say: 'India should be all in all, let the whole world perish.' That is not my message. India should be all in all, consistently with the well-being of other nations of the world. I can keep India intact and its freedom also intact only if I have good will towards the whole of the human family and not merely for the human family which inhabits this little spot of the earth called India. It is big enough compared to other smaller nations, but what is India in the wide world or in the universe? (SB, 171-72) Not to believe in the possibility of permanent peace is to disbelieve in the godliness of human nature. Methods hitherto adopted have failed because rock-bottom sincerity on the part of those who have striven has been lacking. Not that they have realized this lack. Peace is un-attained by part performance of conditions, even as a chemical combination is impossible without complete fulfillment of the conditions of attainment thereof. If the recognized leaders of mankind who have control over the engines of destructions were wholly to renounce their use, with full knowledge of its implications, permanent peace can be obtained. This is clearly impossible without the Great Powers of the earth renouncing their imperialistic design. This again seems impossible without great nations ceasing to believe in soul-destroying competition and to desire to multiply wants and, therefore, increase their material possessions. (MM, 59-60) I do suggest that the doctrine [of non-violence] holds good also as between States and States. I know that I am treading on delicate ground if I refer to the late war. But I fear I must in order to make the position clear. It was a war of aggrandizement, as I have understood, on either part. It was a war for dividing the spoils of the exploitation of weaker races-otherwise euphemistically called the world commerce.... It would be found that before general disarmament in Europe commences, as it must some day, unless Europe is to commit suicide, some nation will have to dare to disarm herself and take large risks. The level of non-violence in that nation, if that event happily comes to pass, will naturally have risen so high as to command universal respect. Her judgments will be unerring, her decisions firm, her capacity for heroic self-sacrifice will be great, and she will want to live as much for other nations as for herself. (MM, 60-61) One thing is certain. If the mad race for armaments continues, it is bound to result in a slaughter such as has never occurred in history. If there is a victor left the very victory will be a living death for the nation that emerges victorious. There is no escape from the impending doom save through a bold and unconditional acceptance of the non-violent method with all its glorious implications. (MM, 63) If there were no greed, there would be no occasion for armaments. The principle of non-violence necessitates complete abstention from exploitation in any form. (MM, 63) Immediately the spirit of exploitation is gone, armaments will be felt as a positive unbearable burden. Real disarmament cannot come unless the nations of the world cease to exploit one another. (MM, 63) I would not like to live in this world if it is not to be one world.