Sunday, August 26, 2007


"I am not a supporter of Globalisation", said Sven, a colleague of mine. This gave me a big food for thought!!!!!
Most of the advanced countries resort to statistics and probablity to understand/predict the behavior of the society/market and other such non-quantifiable things. We will simply follow their tradition. Not because I want to follow them but for the simple reason that they are correct here.
Isn't it more probable to find the best of brains amongst 1 billion than 200 million and much more in comparison to 8 million.
Also, isn't it more probable that more people means more capabilities, more varied interests.
Would a filthy rich country like Norway, bacause of its oil, remain so if it were to sell its oil only inside Norway?
So, would Norway be worse off without globalisation or would India be. Well, if no globalisation means no trade with other countries, India would definitely be better off than Norway. But fortunately/unfortunately, its not so.
When people say No to globalisation, what they mean is no redistribution of wealth anymore, not after the polarisation of wealth occurred due to many factors, spread across past few hundred years.
I believe highly in capitalism/freedom. (Selection based on rejection criterion, there is no better option, at present). So, every country/people/individual has the right to chose the form-of-trade or economic-policy it wants.
But this works very well for already-rich nations as long as the BIG manpower nations' people are more charmed by short-term goals of geting the best in their lifetime but not concerned with longg-term goals for the nation.
For the economy to grow, recirculation of wealth is very essential, the more the cycle goes and more vigorously it runs, the more the economy grows.
If Norway and India decide to close their economy and grow with their indegenous products, who would obviously grow more and full. Of course India. with the population and size it has, and as i said, higher probability of talents, India would have much better scope.
Anyway, the law of equilibrium would make sure that there would be lots of dynamics going on, whether you hate duncan or like closed economy, things would keep moving towards the direction of equilibrium which would stop only once the whole world acts like one country with maximisation of benefit of all but of course with weightage of skill-sets taken care of.

Saturday, August 25, 2007

NATURAL FEEDBACK SYSTEM in the society and its behavior

Gandhi freed India. Had he not done that, wont it have happened?
It would have - just the occurrence might have got delayed.
The colonies got free. Not Sun Yat Sen, not Gandhi and nor Atlee were the essential reasons. They just expedited the inevitable.
I believe in the surprising stability of the god-made natural feedback system which is present everywhere - from tangible to intangible things.
Why does the good prevail generally and not the evil.
There is nothing like good or bad, truth and evil. Nothing is absolute.
Its only that in the feedback system, which evolved or was made by god, the reference input is the truth, the holy, the correct and its that which is good. rest all are evil and untrue and bad. so whatever are the reference inputs got defined as the virtuous words.
Hence its not the truth which prevails, but what prevails is truth coz the system is designed such.
If, in the system, some noise such as a murderer running free in a society, develops, the feedback system helps him nabbed. The whole system starts working in correcting that noise as the stable feedback system doesn't allow that as a valid ouput and hence suppresses it.
Now comes the question how does the society etc. become part of this feedback system. Maybe the original one, when created was one, but how does the new one, the new society formed, the new babies born , the new countries become part of this feedback system and help it.
I believe, again this arrangement has been made by god (or evolved). we learn about the reference inputs to these stable systems through the religion or moral-science which are gist of learnings from history percolated through teachings by the scholars.
Why does religion exist? Because of this very reason.Even if you dont agree to the above given modus-oprandi behind the stability of the system, this doesn't take much ignited brain to accept that religion controls extreme emotions of human beings.
It teaches us to follow those follow those virtuous values and hence, in my philosophy, help the system (social system) become stable by helping in the direction of reference input.
(PS: for the people who don't know about feedback systems, few minutes of googling would suffice to understand my logic)
Religion is the strongest of emotion. But strangely it doesn't teach people to go against the reference inputs (which you call as virutes, in common langauge). Why? Of course becuase the history has taught that going against those virtues has failed. The nature's stable feedback system has always proved too strong for those noise. So, the religion simply teaches us to go with them, simply to be in harmoby with mother nature's (or God's) will!!!!!!