There is a concerted effort to undermine Indian democracy
What is your reaction on reading this article?
Is it a grudging cynical acceptance that the Indian system is flawed and corrupt? Probably, right? And after reading this article you go on with life, and don’t think about much else.
But let’s suppose you actually read the article carefully, and noted that the article talks about an EVM being tested by:
The team of scientists from the Universites of California, San Diego, Michigan and Princeton ….
Ok, so our Indian voting machines were tested by people in America. So? In your mind, it probably raises the credibility of the article, and the flaws in our voting machines, right?
Well, let’s suppose you really had some time on your hands, and you entered the name mentioned in the article
PLUS the phrase
into Google. You turn up a bunch of results. This link was among the top few results when I searched. I didn’t bother listening to the video because what I was looking for was mentioned in the text below the video:
The computer scientists employed “return-oriented programming” to force a Sequoia AVC Advantage electronic voting machine to turn against itself and steal votes.
Did the words Sequoia AVC Advantage jump out at you? A Google search for that turns up the following link:
Ummm in case you haven’t voted in an Indian election you probably wouldn’t know that an Indian Voting Machine looks like this:
Are all voting machines alike?
Could it be possible, just possible, that the Indian EVM on display is actually MORE SECURE than the LCD Screen, Software based contraption that was tested?
Did the Hindustan Times article mention ANYWHERE that the voting machine tested was not an Indian EVM?
99% of people who read the HT article won’t bother to spend the time researching as I have just done. What then, is going to be the average person’s opinion on the Indian Voting Process?
We interrupt scheduled programming to bring you this live & exclusive broadcast
I started blogging about Economics recently because I was saddened by the lack of understanding people have about a Social Science that is critical to our survival as a race. Yes Critical.
My last few posts on Demand & Supply were to try and clarify exactly what a Free Market it is, and the criticisms and and ‘failure’ of the Free Market are false. On publishing that post, I came across this old post circa 2007 in the ‘related posts’ section. Maybe the author has received a better education since then, but if not, I will answer his questions here. The questions asked display a shocking lack of understanding of Economics and again saddens me. The author of that post wasn’t a layman, he was studying economics, and yet, did not seem to get a good grounding of fundamentals. Again, I will assume that since that post was 2 years old, the author may have been enlightened since then. But there are probably tons & tons of people like who have the same questions, and it is to the general multitude that I address this post:
I was taught that the central problems in economics were that of scarcity, of unlimited wants and how one chooses the best option. And here optimization (a mathematical apparatus) comes to the aid of economics- in finding the optimum. But are resources really scarce? If resources were really scarce, how could an economy grow? Land, of course is scarce; but the availability of land can be increased through reclamation, deforestation etc. Economics ought to be concerned about wants that are backed by purchasing power; otherwise the theory will be trying to reconcile dreams and scarce resources.
The first question – are resources really scarce? It is amazing that this question needs to be answered. But I will answer it. Off course they are! Is there an unlimited supply of steel in the world? Of gold? Of Accountants? Of course not! There are finite limits to all of these things. We may (or may not) be able to increase the amount available of these things in the long-term, but in the short term (i.e. in the next year, or the next month) – the amount of total possible steel available, accountants, oil, cellphones is finite. So yes! Resources are scarce!
The second question – ‘How could an economy grow?’ is far more complex, but let us answer it simply. An Economy grows through the creation of wealth. Wealth is created when you move a factor of production from a low-value usage to higher-value usage. So… what that means is that if you have scarce resources, you need to put them to their most efficient uses to get richer, and therefore grow!
The final statement – Economics ought to be concerned about wants that are backed by purchasing power – is PRECISELY what Economists ARE concerned about. If you refer to my previous post about demand, I defined as those people who are WILLING & ABLE to buy a good or service at a given price. The ABLE part of sentence refers to purchasing power. If you’re not ABLE to purchase something, then in an ECONOMIC sense, you do not constitute the DEMAND for a product.
Equilibrium is reached when the demand and supply curves intersect in the graph having quantity demanded and supplied on the x axis and price on the y axis. Joan Robinson (1973) wonders why one uses a metaphor based on space to explain a process which takes place in time.
This approach has for quite some time disturbed me. Why is it that we take ‘equilibrium’ to be favorable? Equilibrium is a thing very commonly found in Physics. One of the meanings is that ‘it is a state of rest’ and this is precisely the meaning economists provide. For, in equilibrium, the quantity demanded will be equal to quantity supplied and all is well. Coming to think of it more, why would a stagnant economy be favorable? What is more frightening is that, we are taught that it is what economic policies should aim at!
Firstly, the Demand & Supply curves that we draw are a) Theoretical Constructs and b) Are snapshots of Demand & Supply at a given point in time, to keep things simple. Trying to teach students Demand & Supply with a 3 dimensional graph of demand & supply over time is only going to increase the global suicide rate, and the global internal combustion rate. Furthermore, Joan Robinson (1973) was all praise for China’s Cultural Revolution, which seriously puts her credibility in doubt!
Second – Equilibrium, in the case of Economics, is again, A THEORETICAL CONSTRUCT. When left completely to themselves, Demand & Supply will organise themselves around the equilibrium price BUT they may never ever reach the actual equilibrium price. That is to say that the world is TRYING to get to a ‘state of rest’ but will never actually do it. Buyers want to buy as much as they can, at the lowest price available to them, sellers will only sell more if they can get more money for selling more. So it should be blatantly obvious, that these 2 sets of people are working at opposite ends, and the result will turn out to be ‘somewhere in the middle’. It is not ‘a state of rest’ meaning people stop producing more, or buying more. The reason equilibirum is considered ‘Optimal’ is because it is at this point that there is MATCH in terms how much people want to buy, and how much they want to produce.
So…it is an efficient & fair allocation of scarce resources (at the equilibrium point).
What does ‘fair’ mean in this context? – it doesn’t mean an end to the Middle East Crisis or the end of World Hunger. It specifically means that all those who are willing & able to buy something at a given price will be able to – AND – all those who are willing & able to produce at a given price will be able to. At the equilibrium price, you are not producing any more of a good than you have to – and everything that is produced is consumed – so the resources that were used in the best possible way, without any wastage, or shortage. This WHY you want to target your economic policies towards the ‘Equilibrium point’. But in reality – this point may never actually be reached, for a variety of reasons. In an ideal world, where supply and demand react instantaneously, on the split fraction of a second, and there were no taxes, no subsidies, then yes, you may actually accurately hit the equilibirum price. But in all other cases, the prices you see are an approximation of the Equilibrium OR Market Price based on the current circumstances.
Prices, according to the mainstream neoclassical theory are determined based on the intersection of demand and supply; that too in a static set up. Prices, in today’s world is certainly not fixed in the before said manner. The producers decide the price based on the cost of raw materials and other items needed for production, wages and salaries of employees, advertising costs, existing taxes, etc. So this means, prices in an economy has more correspondence to the supply side than the demand side.
What is the significance of the demand side? One of the reasons could be to point out the importance consumers have in deciding the prices in a ‘perfectly competitive’ economy. It would signify consumer sovereignty in such an economy. Again, this belief of ‘consumer sovereignty’ is something one would like to have, but is absent totally.
This particular part really shocks me, and it just goes to show how much damage bad teachers can do. the author of the post seems to be entirely clueless about the determinants of Supply. The supply curve is derived from the Marginal Cost curve of all the suppliers in the universe. ‘Marginal Cost’ = the change in cost of producing one more unit of the good. So the supply curve IS A REPRESENTATION OF THE SUPPLIERS’ COSTS!!!!!!!!!
Second, consumers ‘decide the price’ by actually buying something. Yes, a supplier sets his or her OWN price – but that MAY or MAY NOT be the market clearing price. The consumer ‘soverignty’ referred to here is that if the price the supplier sets is too high, consumers will not buy a good from that specific supplier, but will go to another one, or buy less of it than the supplier would like. Therefore, in order to make more money (by selling more, but only the more money the supplier makes is greater than the cost of making more), the supplier has to improve his product to justify the higher price, or lower the price, i.e. tend towards the equilibirum price. That means, the reaction of consumers to the price affects how the supplier will behave. Again, this immediate change in prices only occurs in the IDEAL situation. In reality, we don’t have an infinite number of buyers and sellers in the market. In some cases, there are only a few suppliers, and in others, only a few buyers (more on this later).
No student of economics graduates without studying ‘perfect competition’. It is very much entrenched in economic theory as taught today. Why? The answer given is that it is the ideal state for an economy. Or rather, as the name suggests, it is ‘perfect’. Then we are taught about imperfect competitions keeping in mind what is good or ideal-perfect competition.
One of thoughts one could have is ‘why is it considered perfect’. The price is assumed to be given or it is said that the firm is the price taker. Another query would be- is perfect competition possible? The main driving force behind corporations and businesses is money or precisely speaking, profits. Would firms like an atmosphere where they are unable to fix prices and hence unable to earn more profits? It reeks of Orwell’s Animal Farm. Why would there be any competition at all? Aren’t differences that lead to competition? Would there be any incentive to produce or to diversify?
The first mistake the author makes in this case, is taking the definition of ‘Perfect’ to mean ‘Ideal’. That is incorrect. The use of the word ‘Perfect’ in this context, is the same as when you refer to a ‘Perfect Storm’. Is a ‘Perfect Storm’ an ideal storm? A storm you desire to have? Of course NOT! The dictionary definition of the word ‘Perfect’ can be found here. When we talk of perfect competition, we mean the dictionary definitions 6 & 7 – i.e. ‘through, complete, utter, pure unmixed’ competition.
It is again, a theoretical construct used to describe a specifc situation. It allows you to ‘predict’ what would be the case in the real world, if there was some situation similar to this. Are there situations similar to this? Yes there are – the Stock market is one such example.
If this student of Economics did not understand these basic fundamentals, what hope is there for the trillions of people who have never had a lesson in economics. Is it then any wonder why the garbage spewed by Marx is so common, worldwide?
Where I define a much-maligned term.
A ‘Free Market‘ is a Market in which the Price of a good or service is determined solely by the Demand & Supply for that good (or service).
But what the hell is a Market?
A Market is a system by which goods and services are exchanged
I.e. Bill Gates wants to sell a computer. Laloo Prasad wants to buy a computer. If these 2 get together and perform an exchange, one can say there is a market for computers. It’s a very small market. But it’s still a market.Whoopy. So, that’s a market.
Now what the hell is Demand?
The demand for a good is the quantity of that good which people are WILLING & ABLE to purchase, at a given price.
Let’s suppose I ask Bill gates – what is the most that he would be willing to pay for a cup of coffee. The absolute most he’d pay – that if even the price were 0.0001 cents, or paise more, he would _not_ buy that cup of coffee. He tells me $10. And let’s suppose he’s the only freak in the world who would buy a cup of coffee for $10. And let’s also, for now assume there is no such thing as sales tax on the coffee, and there are no taxes or subsidies on people who run coffee places, no taxes or subsidies on coffee growers, coffee shippers or any income tax on Bill Gates.
It can then be said that if the price of Coffee is $10, then the demand for Coffee = 1 Cup.
Now let’s suppose the price is lowered to $9. At $9, even I wouldn’t mind buying a cup of Coffee.
Now here is where Economists make their first assumption – they assume people to be ‘Rational’* – what that means, in this case, is that if the MOST Bill Gates is willing to Pay for Coffee is $10, then logically (or rationally, or whatever), he would ALSO be willing to pay for a cup of coffee if it was LESS than $10.
SO – if the cup of coffee is priced at $9, there are two extremely rich idiots willing to buy the coffee, – me and Bill Gates.
So if I were to make a table it would look like this:
Now if the price of Coffee was lower by another dollar, me & Bill gates would definitely buy it – but so would other people. It probably won’t even be a sequential increase, but a geometric increase, i.e. if the price drops by $1, the quantity might increase by more than 1 cup. Now if I plot this as a graph, it looks like this:
The more expensive the coffee gets, the lower the quantity of coffee ‘Demanded’. The cheaper the coffee gets, the higher the quantity demanded.
So… is that really it as far as that whole fuzzy concept of ‘Demand’ goes? Yes? No, no, seriously. Whenever anybody anywhere uses the term ‘Demand & Supply’, the ‘Demand’ that they are referring to in that sentence, is this very concept.
Now people gunning for Nobel Prizes and PhDs and whatnot will complicate matters by taking about Marginal Utility theory, Indifference Curves and all sorts of other nutty concepts to show you that they really did do some work over the 25 year duration of their PhD. But it doesn’t change anything I’ve just told you.
When somebody talks about Demand (for something), they are simply telling you, how much people are willing to pay for / buy something at whatever the current price of that something is.
(move on to next post – Supply).
So… apparently, there are at least 2 people with nothing better to do with their time, and one of them is impersonating me – I’m complimented and touched. My blog has pretty much lying disused, and I had pretty much forgotten about it until I started receiving a barrage of comments today…. one of these kind commentors alerted me to some hilarious goings on at Dilip D’Souza’s site, which has made my morning, requiring to forgo my morning coffee – thanks guys you saved me $2.10 today. Actually, I’ll probably buy the coffee anyway.
Not that it will count for anything, but I have not been commenting on his site – and have pretty much been out of the ‘blogging scene’ for ages, except for the occasional rant here or there. I find myself mostly obsessed with Facebook these days, and for somebody with my level of bombast it is a lot more real-time than blogging.
But whoever has been commenting, I have to say, I am quite impressed at the amount of time on your hands, and like the Pakistani Government, I extend my diplomatic and moral support to your cause.
Initially, I was thinking of not publishing most of the comments left on my site (simply because it’s a chore), but it goes against my comment policy, so I am going publish them now. Anyway, I am going back to work, I really do have better things to do – so, my dear impersonator, thanks for driving traffic to my blog, but I don’t ake any money off it, and I don’t even really look at it myself. So feel free to mess with it. All I ask is don’t impersonate me while abusing Barkha Datt, lawsuits are painful.
Why statistics truly can be used to prove anything
Let’s suppose there is a country called UnequalStan.
In UnequalStan, there are 2 people – Gareeb, who earns $1/day and Amir, who earns $100/day.
By the World Bank’s definition, Gareeb falls below the widely accepted ‘Poverty Line’ and therefore, you could say that 50% (or 1 out of 2 people) in UnequalStan are poor.
Now let’s suppose that UnequalStan’s population increases by 3. You now have 5 people in living in UnequalStan. The new additions are Gareeber, Amirer & Bill Gates.
Gareeber earns 50 cents (or $0.50) / day, where as the other two earn $100/ day as well. So, applying the definition of ‘Poor’ as explained above, UnequalStan looks like this:
- Bill Gates
So kids, what is the change in poverty levels in UnequalStan? Is it:
- A reduction of 10% (going from 1/2 to 2/5 or from 50% to 40%)?
- An increase of 100% (because there was 1 person before, and now there are 2 )
- Farmers are dying in Vidharba
- Aishwarya Rai married a tree
Now since I am not a famed economist, and nobody calls me for conferences, my answer was 1 (although I was dying to answer 4 as well…)
From the above link, we can draw the following conclusions:
- The author of said article has a huge bias against the Congress
- The author is in favour state-sponsored murder
- The author is in favour of women getting the shit kicked out of them for going to a pub
- No matter how ‘intelligent’ somebody claims to be they are still human beings, subject to the regular human emotions, and capable of making an ass of themselves.
oh my beloved India, why must you take 3 steps back for every step forward? Why? why? why?
By now, we must all have heard about what happened to a poor blogger who dared to criticise NDTV. What that blogger said, we will never know, because he has removed is post (and I have been unable to find in the Google Cache, despite people’s attempts to link to it).
This is a sad and despicable state of affairs – and reeks of plain gunda-gardi. There was NO reason for NDTV to do what it did. The fact a large news organisation had to resort to petty lawyering to silence a blogger simply shows what prehistoric times these people still live in.