Free Market Economist Mises in Indian Parliaments by Chandra

This idea was once brilliantly explained by Mises but now the Indian Politician Sharad Joshi explains the food crisis in India.

“This country enjoys the highest standard of living ever known in history because for several generations no attempts were made toward “equalization” and “redistribution.” Inequality of wealth and incomes is the cause of the masses’ well-being, not the cause of anybody’s distress. Where there is a “lower degree of inequality,” there is necessarily a lower standard of living of the masses”.

The below lines is from Sharad Joshi
“It is an old observation in economics that with increasing incomes the standards of nourishment rise”.

What is not the mart yet to say by Chandra?

The Mint columnist Niranjan Rasadhyaksha writes that the “Markets are learning mechanisms. Information is transmitted through prices. And mistakes usually get minimized over time”. This is what the free market economists along saying. Is anyone out there? Read full.

Economics =Supply and Demand by Chandra

Anandi R writes “The classical theory of demand, the foundation on which other principles of economics are built, states that prices are determined, other things being equal, by the demand and supply forces in the market”.

However it is true what actually need at present is that the “Indian farmers are rational and better informed in a near competitive market. The prices are market determined and are ruling higher than the MSP. So we should focus more on the real sector problem rather than spinning along with the markets”.
Read more

May 8, Friedrich August von Hayek 109 Birthday by chandra

There are insighting ideas that different economist and learners have rememberd
GMU Economist Don Boudreaux wished brief passage from page 104 of Hayek's 1973 book Law, Legislation, and Liberty, Vol. 1: Rules and Order:
Another one is from the The Road to Serfdom: here
my favourate one is from his discussion with staff at Stanford
“No discovery ever been made in economics then discovery is to be made” more here

What the Economics of College is all about!= one page article=101 page comments By Chandra

Thomas Sowell is a great living free market economist, who never hesitated, to argue his heart felt strong ideas that are not only radical in nature but also intellectual with lucid in character. I read hundred’s of his articles and some of his videos also.

The most recent one is such a great article. I have just collocated all his comments posted for this article, really it is interesting,

The Economics of CollegeBy Thomas SowellTuesday, April 22, 2008
A front-page headline in the New York Times captures much of the economic confusion of our time: "Fewer Options Open to Pay for Costs of College."
The whole article is about the increased costs of college, the difficulties parents have in paying those costs, and the difficulties that both students and parents have in trying to borrow the money needed when their current incomes will not cover college costs.
All that is fine for a purely "human interest" story. But making economic policies on the basis of human interest stories -- which is what politicians increasingly do, especially in election years -- has a big down side for those people who do not happen to be in the categories chosen to write human interest stories about.
The general thrust of human interest stories about people with economic problems, whether they are college students or people faced with mortgage foreclosures, is that the government ought to come to their rescue, presumably because the government has so much money and these individuals have so little.
Like most "deep pockets," however, the government's deep pockets come from vast numbers of people with much shallower pockets. In many cases, the average taxpayer has lower income than the people on whom the government lavishes its financial favors.
Costs are not just things for government to help people to pay. Costs are telling us something that is dangerous to ignore.
The inadequacy of resources to produce everything that everyone wants is the fundamental fact of life in every economy -- capitalist, socialist or feudal. This means that the real cost of anything consists of all the other things that could have been produced with those same resources.
Building a bridge means using up resources that could have been used building homes or a hospital. Going to college means using up vast amounts of resources that could be used for all sorts of other things.
Prices force people to economize. Subsidizing prices enables people to take more resources away from other uses without having to weigh the real cost.
Without market prices that convey the real costs of resources denied to alternative users, people waste.
That was the basic reason why Soviet industries used more electricity than American industries to produce a smaller output than American industries produced. That is why they used more steel and cement to produce less than Japan or Germany produced when making things that required steel and cement.
When you pay the full cost -- that is, the full value of the resources in alternative uses -- you tend to economize. When you pay less than that, you tend to waste.
Whether someone goes to college at all, what kind of college, and whether they remain on campus to do postgraduate work, are all questions about how much of the resources that other people want are to be taken away and used by those on whom we have arbitrarily focused in human interest stories.
This is not just a question about robbing Peter to pay Paul. The whole society's standard of living is lower when resources are shifted from higher valued uses to lower valued uses and wasted by those who are subsidized or otherwise allowed to pay less.
The fact that the Soviet economic system allowed industries to use resources wastefully meant that the price was paid not in money but in a far lower standard of living for the Soviet people than the available technology and resources were capable of producing.
The Soviet Union was one of the world's most richly endowed nations in natural resources -- if not the most richly endowed. Yet many of its people lived almost as if they were in the Third World.
How many people would go to college if they had to pay the real cost of all the resources taken from other parts of the economy? Probably a lot fewer people.
Moreover, when paying their own money, there would probably not be nearly as many people parting with hard cash to study feel-good subjects with rap sessions instead of serious study.
There would probably be fewer people lingering on campus for the social scene or as a refuge from adult responsibilities in the real world.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.
The full comments here

Mr Edward de Bono, you are absurdly wrong! By Chandra

This is with reference to The Indian Express interview of Walk the Talk with Dr Edward de Bono on Published on 21 April, 2008.

In this interview, Dr Edward de Bono said that “You know something interesting about Islam? The Prophet Muhammad had more to say about thinking than any other religious leader”.

This statement is totally wrong and also misleads the Indian society and the world on the subject of religion.

It seems that Dr Edward is absurdly ignorant of what Swami Vivekananda said more than hundred years ago was “If you read the Koran, you find the most wonderful truths mixed with superstitions how will you explain it? That man was inspired, no doubt, but that inspiration was, as it were, stumbled upon. He was not a trained Yogi, and did not know the reason of what he was doing. Think of the good Mohammed did to the world, and think of the great evil that has been done through his fanaticism! Think of the millions massacred through his teachings, mothers bereft of their children, children made orphans, whole countries destroyed millions upon millions of people killed (The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Volume 1, page.184).

When we have, such a versatile man of the great philosopher of he world Religion How such misleading statement simply eating out of mouths in Indian as well as world society. One can say, one of the great philosopher, who explained deeply was Swami Vivekananda.

Basic Economics is killed allegedly! By Chandra

Atilio Borón writes from a recent meeting and actually he made strong observation with our intellectuals ideas, particularly the below paragraph is worth notice.
“In line with its predecessor, the new book is a distillation of prejudices, stereotypes and commonplace statements, warped by exhausted and sterile minds. It would waste of time and energy to try to find a single sophisticated theoretical argument amongst its pages in defence of neoliberalism of the kind embodied by Friedrich von Hayek, Ludwig von Mises or Karl Popper. What there is, however, is an accumulation of ideas that do nothing more than serve to feed the most reactionary and recalcitrant spirits, and a profound disrespect for what, in scientific circles, is known as “evidence”, that is to say, the support given by data extracted from experience to a theoretical argument”. The full article is here.