[ashokrajagopal]

Originally Posted by Samurai

So for all the guys who kept thinking I am a socialist, here is the correct term. I am a democratic capitalist. And India has democratic capitalism, although nowhere as good as many European countries, but similar to USA.

If you are looking for non-democratic capitalism, that's what China has.

Samurai, IMHO that Wiki article is actually not well written, because it does not cater to time or space consistency. In many ways, it is trying to describe the Post 2nd WW social market economies, otherwise known as Brettonwoods system period, 1945-75 in the West, though it mixes up some other periods with singular examples.

The contradiction is very simple -- lets say there are two properties we define to such a system: A and B. What happens when A has to override B in order to be A ?

This is what ultimately caused the Neoliberal turn in the 1970s. The New Democrat-New Labor era of the 90s managed to keep up the social aspect of a liberal democracy by virtue of the technology burst and newly opened markets (read China, India, Eastern Europe etc). The system was predicated on growth as a constant and the minute it hits a stagnation in growth, the whole thing starts heating up as is seen in consistent crises every 8 years or so.

The current system world over is predicated on one thing -- no inflation at whatever cost. It is not that the governments or other entities would not like some inflation now; but the system is now built in such a way that the moment inflation shoots up somewhere, cracks start to appear and it need to be immediately doused, or the whole thing will come down.

Capitalism actually threatens democracies with capital flight if there are not enough tax breaks and large enough virtual spaces to keep capital thus saved. This is the reality as of now. Have a look at these images below; a few months old, but still.





How this is not an international scandal, I will never know. ( Source: cfr.org)
Even if you take some of the new behemoths like Netflix, they pay a pittance as tax thru intellectual property registered in Netherlands.

Democracy by definition is a group of people choosing a nation state and a common way of life thru a constitution. It is bound by geography.
Capital from 80s onwards is designed to bypass such a restriction.

Unless all democracies of the world unite together to bring the MNCs to pay their fair share of social contribution, the idea of Democratic capitalism is a pipe dream.
I mean, by design the most successful players of Capitalism become a success by avoiding formal social contribution. This is an inherent contradiction with the concept.

A recent example I read thru was the details of Microsoft Ireland, buying intellectual property from Microsoft Singapore to set off about 10% of corporate tax( which is the least, beggar thy neighbor tax anyway) for the next 5 years. I know there are many explanations for these kind of deals, but at the end of the day, they are dodging tax, clear and simple.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Excellent point Samurai San. I like this phrase 'democratic capitalism'. It is what several European countries have achieved in practice. If the US went down this path several countries would lean into the wind.

Sir, please look at it from the other side. If most countries in the world went into a EU style social democracy ( free education, free health care, better housing, better social security), do you really think Amazon would get humans to work as forklifts ($15/hr equal to minimum wage) or Uber would get humans to work as a car part ( cue Prop 22 law passed in California last week; drivers need not be considered employees) ?

Or think of India --- if there was some sort of social security system, do you really think the urban unskilled laborers would do the backbreaking construction work for Rs 350 ?

Unless the upper classes are ready to forego some of their wealth to contribute to society, I don't think there is anyway for the lower class's condition to improve. But we middle class and upwards are always on a lookout for a bargain, arent we ?


The frameworks for social consciousness are there in plenty. IMHO, the best one I like is John Rawls' theories of social justice. But it takes huge amount of compassionate understanding from upper classes of societies.
I mean, if one has to design a society where one has to take a random position, we would all design a fair society. It takes socially conscious political movements often at the cost of temporary growth setbacks.

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

Unless the upper classes are ready to forego some of their wealth to contribute to society, I don't think there is anyway for the lower class's condition to improve. But we middle class and upwards are always on a lookout for a bargain, arent we ?


The frameworks for social consciousness are there in plenty. IMHO, the best one I like is John Rawls' theories of social justice. But it takes huge amount of compassionate understanding from upper classes of societies.
I mean, if one has to design a society where one has to take a random position, we would all design a fair society. It takes socially conscious political movements often at the cost of temporary growth setbacks.

And herein lies the pipedream, and the reason why capitalism actually works better, out of all the other economic systems.
Deep inside every one wants a "fair society" that treats everyone else equal but also gives him slight advantage over all the others. Multiply this desire with all the living citizens in a country/world and you can easily arrive at the equilibrium condition.

By the way isn't this is what drives economic engine all over the world? The desire to do/be better than others.

Now the question: how can we prioritize the desires of 90% of population over the desires of 10% of the population. One is by force: Utilizing the Govt monopoly to frame rules and laws that enforce these - which anyway does happen to a large extent even today (progressive income tax for example) - but we all know what happens when certain people gain absolute authority.

So the alternative: V.Narayan in response to my post wrote that "Education of the masses - I mean real education and not just bare minimum literacy plus grooming of the young from childhood on civic responsibilities to create the right atmosphere for change is needed"

Though I want to agree with him, I have a difference in opinion: countries like Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland may not be the best examples because they are not facing the economic constraints of a developing nation. In other words these societies can be benevolent because the public there believes that they can afford to do so, but can we?

And that's where I love your remark: Unless the upper classes are ready to forego some of their wealth to contribute to society, I don't think there is anyway for the lower class's condition to improve. But we middle class and upwards are always on a lookout for a bargain, arent we ?

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

Samurai, IMHO that Wiki article is actually not well written, because it does not cater to time or space consistency.

Wiki articles are never perfect, let's not worry about that. I didn't read it beyond the first paragraph I quoted.

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

The contradiction is very simple -- lets say there are two properties we define to such a system: A and B. What happens when A has to override B in order to be A ?

If that is the choice, you have to ask yourself a question. Which is more precious to you? Do we want capitalism at the cost of democracy? We already know democracy and capitalism are not compatible. By putting those words together, I am asking for a balance.

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

but the system is now built in such a way that the moment inflation shoots up somewhere, cracks start to appear and it need to be immediately doused, or the whole thing will come down.

Who created that system to be that way? It is not a physical law. Laws of economics and finance can be tweaked.

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

Capitalism actually threatens democracies with capital flight if there are not enough tax breaks and large enough virtual spaces to keep capital thus saved. This is the reality as of now.

But it can be fought back. Amazon tried this in NYC, and NYC asked them to get lost.

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

Democracy by definition is a group of people choosing a nation state and a common way of like thru a constitution. It is bound by geography.
Capital from 80s onwards is designed to bypass such a restriction.

And why are powerful countries, who are the main victims of this, not fighting back?

Your graph is talking about income reported, and not income generated. If US makes laws saying income generated in US, must be reported in US, will all these MNCs give up US market? NO WAY!

What happened is lobbyists for MNCs are writing the trade laws in US, because majority of politicians are legally funded by MNCs to keep the laws that way.

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

Unless all democracies of the world unite together to bring the MNCs to pay their fair share of social contribution, the idea of Democratic capitalism is a pipe dream.

Isn't that what folks like Bernie Sanders, AOC are trying to do? It is a pipe dream until people fight for it. Women's suffrage was a pipe dream too.

If just the G7 countries declare that MNCs that uses tax havens can't operate in their countries, where will the MNCs go? Find new markets in Luxemburg and Bermuda? Solutions exists, just the will is missing.

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

I mean, by design the most successful players of Capitalism become a success by avoiding formal social contribution. This is an inherent contradiction with the concept.

They do that because Capitalism is all about maximizing profits. How is that a contradiction? This is a problem to be solved. We can't call it a paradox, and just give up.

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

If most countries in the world went into a EU style social democracy ( free education, free health care, better housing, better social security), do you really think Amazon would get humans to work as forklifts ($15/hr equal to minimum wage) or Uber would get humans to work as a car part?

Why should they? Blue collar workers worked 60-80 hours/week 200 years ago. As productivity increased, people could work less hours while making more money. Should we go back to 19th century working conditions because capitalism demands it? Capitalism should be at the mercy of democracy, and not the other way around.

Right now, democracies are acting as if they are at the mercy of MNCs. If politicians controlled by MNCs are replaced, laws can change. Ultimately, it is the people who vote, not MNCs. When things get bad enough, change will come.

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

Unless the upper classes are ready to forego some of their wealth to contribute to society, I don't think there is anyway for the lower class's condition to improve.

Compare the condition of lower class from now to 40 years back. You will see a huge difference. I am old enough to remember. In the 70s, a servant's kid didn't have ambition beyond getting a sweeper job in a stable company. Right now, my cook's daughter is preparing for IAS exam. And the kids of our farm hands from the 80s/90s, they are working in MNCs or moved abroad. Because of the social policies of the government, upward mobility is quite possible in India.

[ashokrajagopal]

Originally Posted by Samurai

If that is the choice, you have to ask yourself a question. Which is more precious to you? Do we want capitalism at the cost of democracy? We already know democracy and capitalism are not compatible. By putting those words together, I am asking for a balance.

Who created that system to be that way? It is not a physical law. Laws of economics and finance can be tweaked.

See, here you are giving a normative statement, as to how it should be. This is fine and clearly understood as normative. But the question is, how would the existing system be defined any other way to reach this normative condition. Everybody considers US is a democracy. Everybody considers US runs capitalism. Where capitalism had to override democracy, it has clearly overridden it most of the time. For last 40 years. That is a descriptive statement I am making. All the while claiming the system as democratic capitalism. This is why I went after that article -- because that's not really saying any concept, but just presenting some good policies from the past.

And why are powerful countries, who are the main victims of this, not fighting back?

Your graph is talking about income reported, and not income generated. If US makes laws saying income generated in US, must be reported in US, will all these MNCs give up US market? NO WAY!

What happened is lobbyists for MNCs are writing the trade laws in US, because majority of politicians are legally funded by MNCs to keep the laws that way.

The reason for this is that democracy has been, and very well is losing ground to capitalism for a while now. The laws are written for the corporations and people directly benefitting from the corporations will support them. Pretty much the same applause that we hear for corporate tax reduction in India. This is why I said unless the upper class is ready to lose something nothing is going to change. Think of this scenario, any leader in India, even Modi himself running in a more socially conscious, tax the MNCs platform. Indian elections span 2 months. Where do you think Nifty would be ? It's very easy for global capital to bully Indian investors political opinion.

Isn't that what folks like Bernie Sanders, AOC are trying to do? It is a pipe dream until people fight for it. Women's suffrage was a pipe dream too.

If just the G7 countries declare that MNCs that uses tax havens can't operate in their countries, where will the MNCs go? Find new markets in Luxemburg and Bermuda? Solutions exists, just the will is missing.

This, is the actual description. Just the prospect of the politician you mentioned in the primaries is enough to see how complicated the situation is. The moment somebody wants to do some taxing, the establishment threatens a crash and the "moderate" centrists pull it back to status quo. There has to be radical social movements.
The will is missing, sure and that is because of the complacency and love of status quo for the upper - middle echelons of the society.

They do that because Capitalism is all about maximizing profits. How is that a contradiction? This is a problem to be solved. We can't call it a paradox, and just give up.

Why should they? Blue collar workers worked 60-80 hours/week 200 years ago. As productivity increased, people could work less hours while making more money. Should we go back to 19th century working conditions because capitalism demands it? Capitalism should be at the mercy of democracy, and not the other way around.

Aren't we at 19th century level inequality already ?
We have Amazon warehouse workers wearing adult diapers to save minutes. More over, we are having this conversation in a country that cleared the 40 hr work week to 60 hr work week to boost some sort of "growth". How much resistance did we see from civil society for this ?

Right now, democracies are acting as if they are at the mercy of MNCs. If politicians controlled by MNCs are replaced, laws can change. Ultimately, it is the people who vote, not MNCs. When things get bad enough, change will come.

In my opinion, as we have discussed many times, situation is really bad already. But the well off people are just turning the other way. People are acting as if they are not just at mercy of, but in some way indebted to these MNCs.

Compare the condition of lower class from now to 40 years back. You will see a huge difference. I am old enough to remember. In the 70s, a servant's kid didn't have ambition beyond getting a sweeper job in a stable company. Right now, my cook's daughter is preparing for IAS exam. And the kids of our farm hands from the 80s/90s, they are working in MNCs or moved abroad. Because of the social policies of the government, upward mobility is quite possible in India.

I for one, would say more social policies. But this optimistic statement can be used only with 40 years. If you replace with 10 years, i would say we have regressed socially. Not just India. From India s perspective, i would say we grew aspirational growth till about 2010, and then on a slow regression. Assets have inflated, inequality has increased, cost of social mobility is high and we are facing a low employment scenario.

I may be called pessimistic or cynical, but I would choose the term realistic.

[srini1785]

The discussions in this thread are digressing a lot.

I think we need to remind ourselves here that this thread is about economics and not about social justice , Socialism Vs Capitalism etc which are topics in the socio - political sphere.

True, its difficult to discuss economics without getting political but we must try to provide subjective info and not get into emotional debates.

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by srini1785

The discussions in this thread are digressing a lot.

I think we need to remind ourselves here that this thread is about economics and not about social justice , Socialism Vs Capitalism etc which are topics in the socio - political sphere.

True, its difficult to discuss economics without getting political but we must try to provide subjective info and not get into emotional debates.

Oh but all of these are indeed interlinked in macroeconomic realm - unless you are interested in only microeconomics which does not have any social or political undercurrents.

To give you a better perspective of why we can never isolate stuff:



With all these above players in the economy - it is natural to have social and political "emotions" because they determine the policies and actions based on an assumption of what is "right" and what is "wrong".

[ashokrajagopal]

Originally Posted by srini1785

The discussions in this thread are digressing a lot.

I think we need to remind ourselves here that this thread is about economics and not about social justice , Socialism Vs Capitalism etc which are topics in the socio - political sphere.

True, its difficult to discuss economics without getting political but we must try to provide subjective info and not get into emotional debates.

I can categorically state that there is no Economics without politics.
Economics is politics.

I agree to an extend that terms like Capitalism, Socialism etc may alter the flow of discussions. But if we don't talk about individual policies, acts, rules etc in daily life, we are not talking Economics.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by srini1785

I think we need to remind ourselves here that this thread is about economics and not about social justice , Socialism Vs Capitalism etc which are topics in the socio - political sphere.

I think you are trying to say we should stick to business economics, like the business schools do. But this is a general economics thread, which includes both socioeconomics and business economics. Economics comes under humanities if you study via BA/MA route.

Let me quote an old post:

Originally Posted by Samurai

What did Keynes say about who should be an economist?

There is a reason why economists must study sociology, otherwise they will act like investment bankers who caused 2007 crash. These days most people study economics/finance via MBA route, which completely blinds them towards the humanities part of economics. Even I am guilty of that, but I have been trying to fix that in the last few years by reading about the history of economics.

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

See, here you are giving a normative statement, as to how it should be. This is fine and clearly understood as normative. But the question is, how would the existing system be defined any other way to reach this normative condition.

Unless the requirement is defined, you can't look for a solution.

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

Everybody considers US is a democracy. Everybody considers US runs capitalism. Where capitalism had to override democracy, it has clearly overridden it most of the time. For last 40 years. That is a descriptive statement I am making.

US is not really a democracy. Just yesterday evening, Thomas E Ricks ( two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting as part of teams from the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post) told that USA is an oligarchy on MSNBC. Jump directly to 5:20 video position. He is an American journalist and author who specializes in the military and national security issues. He is repeating what I have heard from many folks over years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5ZUcJyhLj8

So, let's not use USA an example of normal democracy, what with electoral college, senate and gerrymandering.

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

The moment somebody wants to do some taxing, the establishment threatens a crash and the "moderate" centrists pull it back to status quo. There has to be radical social movements.

And that is happening in USA. Take the Justice Democrat movement.

Kyle Kulinski and Cenk Uygur are two owners of two different popular youtube channels focusing on progressive politics. In 2017, they got tired of just talking and decided to start a political action committee (PAC) called Justice democrats. The other two co-founders were Saikat Chakrabarti and Zack Exley, who were techies and practically unknown unlike the first two names. Basically they all wanted to create politicians to represent the regular people and not special interests like businesses or religions. To be justice democrat, you can't take money from special interest group, but raise funds purely through individual donations.

Their manifesto? Lots of progressive stuff, which many only understand as SOCIALISM.

Soon they were able to convince two rookie US congress representatives to join them. Both were Indian Americans, Ro Khanna and Pramila Jayapal. In 2018, they kept looking for new faces to join this new gang. They put it in lots of candidates all over the country. Shockingly, 28 of them won their primaries and 7 of them made it to the US congress. Yup, the entire Squad was the creation of Justice democrats, including AOC. All people of color.

In the 2020 election, due to their initial success and the fame of Squad, Justice democrats had access to much bigger pool of aspiring candidates. This time they were more picky too, and fielded lot less candidates. Therefore, 12 of the 15 they fielded won their primaries. And 10 out of those 12 won the general election. This kind of success is really rare in politics. All the 7 from 2018 won their re-election since their constituents really liked them. Notice that DNC really hates Justice Democrats and hardly helped them, even though they all ran as democrats.

These are the 3 new addition to the original 7. Remember, democrats lost many congressional seats this time, while justice democrats grew by 42%.

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

I for one, would say more social policies. But this optimistic statement can be used only with 40 years. If you replace with 10 years, i would say we have regressed socially. Not just India. From India s perspective, i would say we grew aspirational growth till about 2010, and then on a slow regression. Assets have inflated, inequality has increased, cost of social mobility is high and we are facing a low employment scenario.

I may be called pessimistic or cynical, but I would choose the term realistic.

See, you are looking for revolution, or at least a steady linear improvement towards what is desirable. However, revolutions are hardly sustainable. In fact, they are violent. Drastic changes result in repeated over-corrections. What we need is evolution, where change happens slowly that no one is overly uncomfortable or shaken to the core. There should be time to get adjusted. Ingrained habits, beliefs, ideologies take multiple generation to change, otherwise resistance will be very strong. If you have trekked a mountain range, you'll notice that you can't keep climbing up all the way to the peak. Instead you get to climb up 200m, climb down 150m, climb up 100m, climb down 120m, climb up 130m, and so on whole day until you finally achieve an effective climb of say 500m. Societal changes happen this way. Changes that come incrementally are sustainable. This is why American attempts to impose democracy is many feudal/dictatorships usually fail.

[srini1785]

The question that started this thread was :

Originally Posted by FanaticOnWheels

I just had this question in mind, and I thought I'd put it up for discussion.


Suppose you have a company that makes a profit of x rupees. That more or less means, it started of with, say, 100/-, and ended up with 100+x /-. Now, if the total amount of money in this world (which, I believe, is printed based on the gold reserves of a nation), is constant, then every company in this world cannot make a profit, right? (As that would mean generation of x/y/etc rupees at every point, which would keep adding up indefinitely!)

Plus, if I make a profit, that means I sell something more than what it's worth, so someone is buying it at more than what its worth, so he, in a way, is making a loss? (Though this approach might be shaky).

So it only makes sense that if the net money reserves in the world is constant, the total losses and the profits must be equal?

Am I going wrong somewhere?

To now what we are discussing :

Originally Posted by alpha1

I will let Godwin's Law take its course :
--------------
"as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches " That is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds, the point at which effectively the discussion or thread often ends.
-------------------------

[ashokrajagopal]

Originally Posted by Samurai

And that is happening in USA. Take the Justice Democrat movement.

Kyle Kulinski and Cenk Uygur are two owners of two different popular Youtube channels focusing on progressive politics. In 2017, they got tired of just talking and decided to start a political action committee (PAC) called Justice democrats. The other two co-founders were Saikat Chakrabarti and Zack Exley, who were techies and practically unknown unlike the first two names. Basically they all wanted to create politicians to represent the regular people and not special interests like businesses or religions. To be justice democrat, you can't take money from special interest group, but raise funds purely through individual donations.

Their manifesto? Lots of progressive stuff, which many only understand as SOCIALISM.

Soon they were able to convince two rookie US congress representatives to join them. Both were Indian Americans, Ro Khanna and Pramila Jayapal. In 2018, they kept looking for new faces to join this new gang. They put it in lots of candidates all over the country. Shockingly, 28 of them won their primaries and 7 of them made it to the US congress. Yup, the entire Squad was the creation of Justice democrats, including AOC. All people of color.

In the 2020 election, due to their initial success and the fame of Squad, Justice democrats had access to much bigger pool of aspiring candidates. This time they were more picky too, and fielded lot less candidates. Therefore, 12 of the 15 they fielded won their primaries. And 10 out of those 12 won the general election. This kind of success is really rare in politics. All the 7 from 2018 won their re-election since their constituents really liked them. Notice that DNC really hates Justice Democrats and hardly helped them, even though they all ran as democrats.

These are the 3 new addition to the original 7. Remember, democrats lost many congressional seats this time, while justice democrats grew by 42%.

I know about these cases, but you have to widen the picture a bit here.
Dems had House majority, and close to 50% in Senate when the $3 trillion bailout was passed, some details of which I had written in this thread earlier.
The bailout was not just skewed towards Wall street and big business, it was actually designed for Wall street. When a crisis comes, the establishment moves quickly ( Democrat and Republican), while the progressives are still picking pieces of legislation out trying to mainstream some small policy.
This came up in discussion earlier when Chamath Palihapitiya was saying on MSNBC openly that the bailout is actually a farce and unfairly trying to rescue industries like Aviation. While the stimulus passed to 0 opposing votes in Senate ( which includes Bernie Sanders), nobody had a clue on actually what is happening until the news started coming out in 3-4 weeks.

Think about it, while there was an upcoming US election, and one prominent candidate for Primary was all about Medicare for all, they had Covid 19 and US reporting maximum number of deaths. This was the year for them to point out why free health care is all important, but they failed miserably.

Sometimes, I also put on an optimistic hat, and hope for a larger progressive presence. Only because I believe that is the only way forward for humanity in future, in the light of Climate crisis etc.
These people are young; not just the Squad, other new faces like Jamal Bowman, Cori Bush etc. I hope they evolve into a better force.

But right now, they are consistently bringing knives to a gunfight.

See, you are looking for revolution, or at least a steady linear improvement towards what is desirable. However, revolutions are hardly sustainable. In fact, they are violent. Drastic changes result in repeated over-corrections. What we need is evolution, where change happens slowly that no one is overly uncomfortable or shaken to the core. There should be time to get adjusted. Ingrained habits, beliefs, ideologies take multiple generation to change, otherwise resistance will be very strong. If you have trekked a mountain range, you'll notice that you can't keep climbing up all the way to the peak. Instead you get to climb up 200m, climb down 150m, climb up 100m, climb down 120m, climb up 130m, and so on whole day until you finally achieve an effective climb of say 500m. Societal changes happen this way. Changes that come incrementally are sustainable. This is why American attempts to impose democracy is many feudal/dictatorships usually fail.

Nope, actually quite the opposite.
I do not have any hope in any revolution; I think I have written before -- what do we do the day after ?

My pessimism is because of the lack of mainstreaming of Economics -- which is why I keep linking it all the time, not just in this thread.
Majority of the people have no clue of how Economics flows around them, and how it forces people to make decisions, often against what they would have chosen otherwise.

For example, we have the news about Govt clearing WFH for IT industry indefinitely, and we see people going gaga in Social media about how rosy its going to be.
But the whole Industry in India is built on Tax break zones. And Govt gave the tax breaks to create urban centres which can create second order and third order employment. The whole of ORR in Bangalore, the whole of Madhapur area in Hyderabad stands on people coming to work there.
Its okay for people like us because it makes no difference if we WFH.
Its not okay for all the working people in urban centres at all.
Now, of course, media just needs to create a public opinion, which is why you wouldn't see any discussion about how the tax aspect is going to be in mainstream media.
But the point is, S/W engineers in India owe it to the society also, not just because of "solidarity" or anything, but just because the society gave these tax breaks, and that enabled the industry.
If we look thru the economics, we can clearly see as to why one must be more socially conscious. But, by design, the information around us is parsed to exactly avoid that kind of discussion.

I will give another example, Facebook/Google investing in Jio. The instinct for common man is to clap, but its very clear from Economic terms that there is GDPR in EU, DOJ cases against them in US and even legislative moves in AU ( about FB).
It is very clear that thru investments, they are trying to lock in Data rights. So, more than any investment, the MNCs are trying to cartelize the vast data in India. But in the mainstream, it is not a problem on either side because we have our own monopolist to worry about.
I mean, discussions usually run into whether the homegrown monopolist is better than the global monopolist, but at the end of the day its just rock and hard place.

I would say the world was a much more compassionate place about 20 years or so ago, at least in democracies. People used to understand the social conditions around them. And I see this declining steadily which is a reason for pessimism.

[civic-sense]

The politics that Bernie, AOC and gang are peddling in America is just a sugar-coated version of Socialism. Bernie wants them to believe that adding Democratic to Socialism magically transforms it to something different. And AOC calling it progressive politics does not make it any different.

Trouble for them is it is difficult to sell socialism and Communism to Americans, so they have to rebrand them. Luckily for America, most of them who lived through the cold war era can see through the bluff. It is only the millennials who who have not seen what the socialist countries went through fall for the AOC and gang politics.

That's how they come. In sheep's clothing. Saying, "this time it is different". "Real socialism has not been tried, yet". Once they gain their trust they would lose their skins and the wolves come out.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

Think about it, while there was an upcoming US election, and one prominent candidate for Primary was all about Medicare for all, they had Covid 19 and US reporting maximum number of deaths. This was the year for them to point out why free health care is all important, but they failed miserably.

I agree. That just took my breath away. The insanity of it... Since we live in India, you and I have nothing to gain if it goes either way. So we are truly neutral third party observers, with no agenda. That is why I usually use USA for any such analysis, there is plenty of data, true freedom of speech, and plenty of experiments.

When a county with 4% of world population is having 20% of world's COVID cases and deaths, while also being the richest country in the history of the world, they think providing free healthcare is a bad idea.

It shows how the capitalistic propaganda has brainwashed many generations of people to vote/argue against their own interest.

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

Sometimes, I also put on an optimistic hat, and hope for a larger progressive presence. Only because I believe that is the only way forward for humanity in future, in the light of Climate crisis etc.
These people are young; not just the Squad, other new faces like Jamal Bowman, Cori Bush etc. I hope they evolve into a better force.

I think it is happening, but slowly. That is ok, educating changing minds take time. People should get time to evolve, and I don't mean politicians. The politicians always go whichever way winds blow. Educate the masses using very effective orators, and that will start the momentum in the right direction. Most politicians these days are not leaders, they follow the mood of the people instead. That is what Trump did, he found a huge section of unhappy people, channeled their anger and took it to places no one imagined.

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

My pessimism is because of the lack of mainstreaming of Economics -- which is why I keep linking it all the time, not just in this thread.

Majority of the people have no clue of how Economics flows around them, and how it forces people to make decisions, often against what they would have chosen otherwise.

Where are they supposed to learn it? Business schools totally hide the part about socioeconomics. There are plenty of so called economics experts who simply don't look beyond business economics. Don't even get me started on stock market gurus...

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

Now, of course, media just needs to create a public opinion, which is why you wouldn't see any discussion about how the tax aspect is going to be in mainstream media.
But the point is, S/W engineers in India owe it to the society also, not just because of "solidarity" or anything, but just because the society gave these tax breaks, and that enabled the industry.

I have founded two software companies (pvt ltd), but I am not guilty of this. Never got a tax break, because I always stayed outside SEZ. Even the startup tax holiday for 3 years is a mirage, extremely difficult to achieve that status.

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

If we look thru the economics, we can clearly see as to why one must be more socially conscious. But, by design, the information around us is parsed to exactly avoid that kind of discussion.

I would say the world was a much more compassionate place about 20 years or so ago, at least in democracies. People used to understand the social conditions around them. And I see this declining steadily which is a reason for pessimism.

Yeah, totally true. We see that in this thread itself. Those of us who do have compassion are labeled as outliers or socialist by those who don't even understand how economics affects their lives.

[Cessna182]

Recently, the Haryana government raised the fees for Govt. MBBS courses to close to 40 lakhs, which will be waived to a large extent if the doctors work for the government hospitals after graduating. Irony of ironies? Government doesn't mention that every graduating doc can get that job!

I was wondering that even if it costs 20 lakhs to graduate a doc, why not make it free? If you have 1000 government docs graduating every year it is just 200 crores! The babus and ministers making such decisions spend more than that on their helicopter rides and "security".

The problem in India is that very few people have actually read any economics book, attended any economics lecture or even watched a credible documentary about how the global economy works. But everyone is entitled to an opinion.

India cannot afford a system where education becomes market linked. No successful developing country has done that. In fact, the paucity of scholarships makes so many Indians visit countries like Germany etc for a cheaper education. Many of the folks from India who still believe in the neoliberal nonsense have benefited from such scholarships.

Yet, they'd be the first ones to say education should be privatised in India. That free education and healthcare is socialism and communism.

Let's just hope that our future policy makers will have more pedagogic and practical experience about development economics, and form opinions based on facts and not myths

[am1m]

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

People used to understand the social conditions around them. And I see this declining steadily which is a reason for pessimism.

Originally Posted by Samurai

Those of us who do have compassion are labeled as outliers or socialist by those who don't even understand how economics affects their lives.

Pay no heed to those 'labellers' who don't offer any real information or facts but just use terms they might have read about somewhere and react the way they have been conditioned to.

I think a lot of people are reading this thread and learning from the fact-based posts you two are adding. Please keep doing so and many thanks!

[V.Narayan]

RCEP Trade Block formed today. Largest trade block in the world.

Fifteen countries have formed the world's largest trading bloc, covering nearly a third of the global economy.

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is made up of 10 Southeast Asian countries, as well as South Korea, China, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

The pact is seen as an extension of China's influence in the region. Members of the RCEP make up nearly a third of the world's population and account for 29% of global gross domestic product.

The deal excludes the US which under Trump withdrew, in 2017, from Trans Pacific Partnership .That deal was to involve 12 countries and was supported by Trump's predecessor Barack Obama as a way to counter China's surging power in the region. Negotiations over the RCEP lasted for eight years. The deal was finally signed on today.

India was also part of the negotiations, but pulled out last year over concerns that lower tariffs could hurt local producers. Signatories of the deal said the door remained open for India to join in the future.

Although the RCEP was an ASEAN initiative, it is regarded by many as a China-backed alternative to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a proposed deal that excluded China but included many Asian countries.

RCEP is expected to eliminate a range of tariffs on imports within 20 years. It also includes provisions on intellectual property, telecommunications, financial services, e-commerce and professional services. But it's possible the new "rules of origin" - which officially define where a product comes from - will have the biggest impact. Already many member states have free trade agreements (FTA) with each other, but there are limitations. The existing FTAs can be very complicated to use compared to RCEP. Businesses with global supply chains might face tariffs even within an FTA because their products contain components that are made elsewhere.

A product made in Indonesia that contains Australian parts, for example, might face tariffs elsewhere in the ASEAN free trade zone. Under RCEP, parts from any member nation would be treated equally, which might give companies in RCEP countries an incentive to look within the trade region for suppliers.

Australia, Japan and China have signed the deal, despite political & trade differences. India chose to stay out to protect its manufacturing and agro industries which it believed could not compete in a free trade environment and India’s large market would get further swamped with imported goods to the further detriment of local manufacturing capabilities. India's staying in the RCEP or not is not a black and white issue of free trade. The biggest attraction for China and other nations of having India in there is easier access to its market which is expected to grow for the long term. It is also a reflection of how 30 years after liberalization Indian industry is still not in a position to compete globally without fear. Some of that blame lies at the door step of the Central & State Governments which is reflected in our rather weak 'ease of doing business index'. Some of it lies at the door step of Indian industry which, with exceptions, has not pursued the quest for world class. With the world's largest trade block at its borders the geo-political equations for India will change gradually but soon enough.

https://www.livemint.com/news/world/...402188531.html