We are all listening attentively about lenders on the radio, television, newspapers, and the Internet of promises to be “small business friendly”, “small business oriented”, wanting to be your “personal small business advisor” and a panoply of packages taking care of all your business needs. What small businesses really need is money, not personal hand caring services. So is there anyone out there really making small business loans? Yes. If you know where to look you can find one.
You can generally categorize banks into: 1) 10% that are actually making small business loans now and are serious about doing so, 2) 70% who will talk to you directly and indicate they are not making small business loans at this time because of the economy, and 3) 20% that slap you on the back, invite you in, and readily take your application. It is the latter group that gives us the most heartburn. It is not unusual after the initial review of your application papers for a bank represented to signal you have a good chance. Overjoyed, you begin to make plans, including executing contracts and receiving quotes for inventory, raw materials, or merchandise. Two months later, after the fourth loan committee review, you get a call that they have decided not to make the loan. The reason has little if anything to do with credit. It is typically something that was never been mentioned before and after reflection, it seems like an excuse not to make the loan in the first place.
Loan brokers such as myself are victims of the same misleading behavior. I cannot tell you how many banks have looked me in the eye and said: “Sure, we are making lots of loans. For unsecured loans of $75,000 to $150,000, we just need a credit score above 680, in business for over a year and a half, and decent financials. Real estate security is not required. We would love to entertain your applications.” Right.
What they really do is pour over the applications and pick 1 out of 100 that has the following fantasy credentials: a platinum credit score that Bill Gates would be proud of and which could support a small country, gushing positive cash flow, little competition, executed contracts stacked high on your desk, then a booming market niche. In other words, someone who doesn’t need the loan in the first place. You know the old adage: banks only give money to people who don’t need it.
It is simply psychology 101. Banks are filled up with loan officers and they have to show they are busy. If their boss walks into their office and sees nothing on their desk, they might be laid off. They have to show they are busy earning their salaries, which means receiving applications and going through the review process. It’s gotten so bad that the other day we had a client whose grandfather helped found the bank, whose father was best friends with the president, and who had received two successful loans before. Even he was turned down. Nor do they tell you the large SBA commercial loan department job layoffs of employees throughout the nation.
To prevent being too caught in this trap, look your banker in the eye and ask these questions:
1) “Tell me honestly. I don’t want to waste your time or mine. I know the credit crunch is quite depressing and there is really no secondary market. Are you actually entertaining small business loans at this time or should I wait.”
2) “How many small business loans have you personally made in the last 30 days?”
3) “What are the loan terms of the last three loans you made, including interest rate and monthly payments, for the amount of loan I am seeking?”
4) “How long will it take before I get a definitive answer?”
5) “Can you briefly describe to me the process I have to go through to get the final approval? Will you be the one making the final decision? What other people superior to you or committees will make that decision?”
But do not despair. There actually are real live prime lenders out there making small business loans. They just need to know where to look. In the next article I will discuss if such loans are available to startups.
I remember that it was the mid of September 2008 when the clamorous news regarding the economic turbulence, emerging from US and encompassing the European countries, were capturing big space in the international media. Indian economists, government, leaders and even media were silent on the issue of apprehending the turmoil’s transition to Indian economy. They seemed not worried about the predicament prevailing abroad beyond Indian boundaries despite their being well aware of the economic contagium and the economic contagiousness among world economies especially in this globalization era. They were perhaps over confident on account of the rising inflation rate and the achieved appreciably high growth rate.
ECONOMIC OUTLOOK 2008
As per the Economic Outlook issued in July 2008, the Economic Advisory Council (EAC) of the Indian Prime Minister was of the view that the Indian economy would be able to grow by 7.7 % in 2008 – 09. At that time, the Council had opined that while a large part of the sub-prime losses had been accounted for, further setbacks were possible in the months to come and conditions were unlikely to stabilize before early 2009. The outcome in the first half of 2008 – 09 was broadly along the lines expected by the Council in July. Not only this, but Finance Minister P. Chidambaram was so confident up to the last week of Oct. 2008 that he did not even slightly hesitate to declare at Sivaganga (Tamilnadu) on Oct. 25 that India would not be hit by recession and it would sustain an 08 % (more than 7.7 % as estimated by the above said EAC in its economic outlook submitted in the month of July) growth rate this year despite the global financial crisis.
CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS
It took though no longer span of time than mere one month when Mr. Chidambaram accepted the emergence of a temporary slowdown in Indian economy. On 24 November 2008, while briefing the media after the meeting with CEO’s, he said that India must be prepared for a temporary slowdown in its economy because of the global financial meltdown. But, he again commented contrarily on Dec. 16 saying, “India is nowhere near recession”. However he added that Indian economy had been impacted by the global meltdown. Here in this comment Mr. Chidambaram accepted the global meltdown impacting the economy on one hand while, simultaneously, regarded the economy recession devoid on the other. It is worth noted here that Mr. Chdambaram made this statement while being in chair as Finance Minister and the statement came after a number of events like three block-closers observed by Tata Motors, three days week being observed by Ashok Leyland, rapidly falling inflation rate, falling banking rates, dismissal of 2.5 % workforce in Wipro, loss of 65000 jobs in 121 surveyed export oriented units etc. (making the slowdown amply clear) had already come about in Indian economy well before Dec. 16. Moreover, the effect of economic depression, starting from America, Europe and other countries of the world, had become clear in Indian economy, too, up to the month of October. Before the beginning of October a decreasing trend started in the export business, the industrial production index and the revenue of indirect taxes, especially the production tax (excise duty). The GDP also decreased during the second quarter as compared to that in the first quarter of the financial year 2008-09. The total export of the country, in the month of October 2008, remained 12.1 % less than that in October 2007. Industrial production index also observed a 0.4 % decrease in that month. The production tax (excise duty) revenue in October 2008 became 8.7 % less than that in October 2007 and the growth rate of FDP in the second quarter (July to September 2008) was 7.6 % as against 7.9 % in the first quarter. Having felt the incoming of depression, the Government and RBI started taking preventive measures. RBI took steps for bringing the interest rates down and the government provided relief to industries by lowering the rates of production tax. However, the industrial sector felt all the so far taken measures (including the last bailout of Rs 3000 billion on December 09, 2008, too) insufficient and therefore was demanding one more package.
On the other hand, Hindustan, Hindi Daily, Dec.15, 2008, states that contrary to the above Mr. P. Chidambaram, as the finance minister of India, in the meeting of World Economic Forum, refused to accept the presence of depression in Indian economy. I can’t understand why Mr. Chidambaram makes contradicting versions and accepts not the things ingenuously. All the same, I appreciate that by doing so he presents himself as a true Indian politician. Leaving aside the (whatever) disingenuous comments of Mr. Chidambaram, there are but enough grounds for us not only to believe but to prove that Indian economy stands now encompassed well by depression, though because of the global meltdown.
REVIEW OF THE ECONOMY 2008 – 09
Finally the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister of India submitted the second report on the ‘Review of Indian Economy 2008 – 09 on Jan. 23. Executive Summery of the report accepts the impact of global economic and financial crisis in Indian economy when it reads as ‘the direct impact of funding constraints on the investment plans of Indian corporates and hence on growth and job creation, together with the second order effects of this development, coupled with the compression in export markets and the second order effects on this count, are the two principal channels through which the impact of the global financial and economic crisis are being felt in India’. The summery further reads as ‘India and perhaps China, would have a difficult time in the first part of the year, but should be able to show a pickup in growth in the last quarter of 2009, if not earlier’. The Council, vide its said report, expects that in the financial year 2009 – 10, the Indian economy is likely to remain relatively weak in the first quarter (April–June) and slowly pick up thereafter and the economy would show fairly strong recovery in growth in the second half of the fiscal year (Oct 2009 to Mar 2010) assuming some improvement in international economic and financial conditions. Overall, the Council assesses that growth in 2009 – 10 would be between 7.0 and 7.5 % or some what above that, with the first half of the year averaging growth close to 7.0 % and the second half an average growth of close to 7.5 % or higher. The summery reveals that it has been apprehended in the report that the merchandise trade deficit is likely to touch historic highs despite the decline in oil prices. But the Council expects that it is likely to be offset to a large extent by higher net invisible earnings.
As regards to the inflation rate, the report states that WPI inflation peaked at close to 13 per cent in August 2008. Consumer price inflation continued to rise to 11 per cent in October and November due to price increase in primary foodstuff. The Council expects that the WPI inflation rate for manufactured goods is likely to fall to 4 per cent in February and fall further by the end of March 2009 and this falling trend may continue for a few months into the next fiscal year due to the base effect, given that a large part of the price surge happened between March and June of 2008. However, inflation in primary foods is stated to likely remain elevated at near about 8 %. The report also expects that inflation in energy prices will be negative, as will be that in some non-food primary articles like iron ore. Overall the headline WPI inflation rate is likely to go down to near about 4 % by the end of February or the beginning of March, with a potential for more declines after that. CPI inflation will also fall, but the extent of the fall is unlikely to match that for WPI, considering the expected higher rate of food inflation and its larger weight in the consumer price indices.
All the same, the Council is of the view that the present crisis has come upon the Indian economy at a point of time where several of its components are in relatively strong shape. It opines that Indian enterprises have learnt the hard lessons of the importance of managing business and financial risks, and are thus to that extent in a better position to ride out the storm of this crisis. Indian banks have also gone through a transformational process. Whatever deterioration in asset quality the present crisis brings in its awake, Indian banks today are better prepared to deal with it than at any time in their history. On Jan. 23, 2009, in Singapore, Mr. Om Prakash Bhatt, Chairman, SBI, while speaking on ’60 years of Indian Republic and future challenges’, also presented the same opinion by saying that Indian banks are safe in the present time of world depression despite here the banks of the world’s big economies are collapsing. He further added that the Indian banks are in a strong position on account of their managerial skill of world level which they had well achieved when doors for foreign banks were opened in Indian economy.
Going through the executive summery of the report, one can conclude that the Council though accepts that the economic crisis (named as Depression 2008) has encompassed Indian economy but it believes the situation to be temporary. Therefore the Council confidently speaks of the Indian economy likely and rather believably to show fairly strong recovery in growth in the second half (Oct 2009 to Mar 2010) of the present fiscal year. The confidence of the Council is based on its belief regarding some improvement in international economic and financial conditions. I don’t agree with the optimistic stand of the Council. Nor I am aware of whether the reason of the Council’s being so optimistic is a political strategy or an economic analysis. Moreover, contrary to the conclusion and the opinion of the Council mentioned in the said summery, some big organizations like World Bank, IMF and National Association of Business Economists (of America), have revealed in their separately carried on surveys that the prices of necessary commodities would go down by up to 23 % in 2009. First time in the last two and a half decades the world may face a decrease in the world growth rate and the trade pool. On the basis of a survey of 185 countries, the World Bank has estimated, in its report titled as World Economic Situation and Prospects that in the first half of 2009 unemployment would be the biggest problem before the world. In addition to this, ILO report entitled The Global Wage Report 2008-09 holds that difficult times lie ahead for the world’s 1.5 billion wage earners. The report further states, “Slow or negative economic growth, combined with highly volatile food and energy prices, will erode the real wages of many workers, particularly the low-wage and poorer households. The middle classes will also be seriously affected”. The report warns that tensions are likely to intensify over wages. Based on the latest IMF growth figures, the ILO forecasts that the global growth in real wages will at best reach 1.1 per cent in 2009, compared to 1.7 per cent in 2008, but wages are expected to decline in a large number of countries, including major economies.
CONCLUSION
Indian economy can’t remain untouched by any economic turmoil in the rest of the world. The present economic slowdown in Indian economy also is an aftermath of the recession prevailing in almost all big economies of the world. Therefore, the conclusions made and inferences drawn by some big organizations like World Bank, IMF, National Association of Business Economists (of America) and ILO on the basis of extended survey and analysis of the world economies are not only applicable to Indian economy but they are believable, too, at least more than those drawn by national agencies like ‘Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister of India’ from their own national level surveys. The above said big organizations have not given any indication towards their being expectant regarding start of economic upswing from the third quarter (Sept. to Dec.) of 2009 and onward. Hence the world economic scenario may rather worsen throughout the present fiscal year.
Amid misgivings over his spending blueprint, President Barack Obama has decided to provide billions of dollars in federal lending aid aimed at struggling small business owners. (March 16)
 Every country stands for its own development. For this purpose the state introduces and implements new policies and programmes such as Special Economic Zones Act. After 60 years of its independence India with its 110 core population has evolved a new paradigm of its political economy which is confusing. The policies and programmes initiated by Indian government to create a âglobal villageâ based on free market economy and free trade among nations cutting across all barriers, abolition of national boundaries and dismantling the nation âstate system giving priority to âmarketâ over the âstateâ . After the enactment of Special Economic Zone Act 2005, it created tremendous effects on political economy of the country.
           The term âpolitical economyâ came from the two Greek words âPolitikoâ and âOikonomia, where âPolitikoâ stands for the state and society and âOikonomiaâmeans managing the house hold economy. Political economy thus means a study of the state, society and house hold economy. The concept of political economy arose historically as the economic doctrine of a new class â the capitalist class. It has been evolved since the days of Aristotle who gave a model of public good through guaranteeing each person private possession of what he was rationally and morally entitled. Private property was elaborated later by Locke, Adam Smith, Ricardo and the physiocrates, who came to be known as the Laissez Fairists in Economics, or, the liberal democrats in politics. Adam Smith referred to political economy as a branch of the system of civil government. It was concerned with public policy.
           In Marxian view, political economy can be regarded as a subject which studies the social relations evolves between different classes of people in course of production, distribution, exchange and consumption. Political economy belongs to the broad land of economics, which opens on to political science. After a prolonged period of hibernation, the subject has again been resurrected.
Marxist political economy makes a study of how the productive forces are used under the given relations of production taking account of the lines and trends in technical progress; political economy studies the influence of production relations on such progress and its socio economic consequences. Marxist political economy starts from the assumption that human vital activity is objectively based on social material production which includes manâs interactions with the nature and whole range of relations which arise in the process. It has been realized that every political action has its obvious economic repercussion, and every economic action has had its political implications.
 The liberal school of political economy offers economic implications of political facts and factors. The liberal school has economized politics. The liberal system focuses on the atomistic individual as the relevant unit, on the description of economic behavior in terms of subject choices among alternatives, on the notion of social welfare as the maximizations of individual utility sums. The socialist system views the entire economic system as the basic unit, views economic progress in terms of the growth of the forces of production and focuses on ârelations of productionâ âsurplus valueâ and the rapid increase of social product.
By contrast the Gandhian system eschews both the notions of the atomistic autonomous individual maximizing his utility in a self regulating economy and the notion of processes of production autonomously effecting changes in the organization of production ,class relationship and the magnitude and distribution of social product instead of the Gandhian model suggest that the fundamental attribute of human economic behaviour lies in the relationship of individual to socioeconomic micro groups and the relationship of micro groups to society .The basic economic act is neither the choice between economic alternatives nor the social division of natural products, but the adjustment between individual and the micro groups to which they belong, and of those micro groups to society .It is this collaboration which is the basic theme of the Gandhian system of political economy.
The Gandhian system is viewed in micro groups that are fundamental constituents of the economic system and given full scope to develop their potential in the context of no coercive forms of political control. Social welfare is defined in terms of the functioning of the collaborative micro groups vis âa-vis its members. Gandhi believed that the introduction of technology and patterns of development must be consistent with the full employment objective.
Today economist speaks of sustainable development and ecological values. Gandhi was not against industry but as he predicted it could not give people more employment. His constructive programmes were to give employment to all people whether it be kadhi, gobar gas or tree plantations, where all can be engaged in constructive work. Gandhian economics is an alternative to overcome the exploitation of both capitalism and communism for the exponents of human social order.He was against the large scale use of machinery which kept millions without work. Swadeshi is one of the core elements in the socio-economic organisation of Gandhian system.
Gandhi observes
                      âLife here will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom, but it will be an oceanic circle whose centre will be the individual, always ready to perish for the village, the latter ready to perish for the circle of the villages, till at last the whole becomes one life composed of individual, never aggressive in their arrogance, but ever humble sharing the majesty of the oceanic circle of which they are integral unitsâ. The idea of the circle stands for integrating, fullness and self-sufficiency. He wrote that independence must begin at the bottom. Thus every village will be a republic or Panchayat having full powers. It follows therefore, that every village has to be self sustained and capable of managing its affairs even to the extent of defending itself against the whole world.â
 Politics and economy are considered as two basic factors in determining the nature of the state and society. They are interrelated to such an extent that the changes in one affect the other, and hence both are âdynamicâ and âflexibleâ ingredients of the national and the international systems. Politics and economy taken together as political economy refers to âmanaging the economy of the stateâ. Conceptually political economy connotes the relationship between the state, society and the economy, the causeâeffect relationship between technological change and the process of development, the economic relations among the different nations of the world.
DEFINITION OF SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE
           A special economic zones is a geographical region that has economic; laws more liberal than a countries typical economic laws. According to the SEZ Act 2005, A SEZ is a âspecially delineated duty free enclave and shall be deemed to be foreign territory for the purpose of trade operations and duties and tariffs. A SEZ also been viewed as âa geographical region with different economic laws than a countries typical economic laws with the main goal of attracting foreign investmentâ. âA SEZ or a Free Trade Zone (FTZ) is typically an enclave of units operating in a well âdefined area within the geographical boundary of a country where certain economic activities are promoted by a set of policy measures that are generally not applicable to the rest of the countryâ.
           The concept of special economic zones is not new. In an International Labour Organization (ILO) report traces the roots of the concept to 13th centaury Spain and in more recent times to Ireland and Puerto Rico, which established Export Processing Zones (EPZ). Export Processing Zones is the former name of the Special Economic Zones. The countries like China, United Arab Emirates, Malaysia, India, Jordan, Philippines and Russia have utilized the concept of SEZ. In 1986, there were 176 zones across 47 countries. Now the number has increased to over 5000 across 147 countries. Â
The zones are known by different names in different parts of the world. Most often these are Free Trade Zones (FTZ),Industrial Free Zones (IFS) Export Processing Zones (EPZ) Bonded Free Zones and Special Economic Zones (SEZ).
         Export Processing Zone is the ancestor of SEZ. An Export Processing Zone is relatively small geographically spread area within a country. The purpose of which is to attract export oriented industries, by offering them especially favorable investment and trade conditions as compared with the reminder of the host country. The EPZ is just an industrial enclave but SEZ is an integrated township with fully developed infrastructure. The UN Industrial Development Organization (UNID) identifies five basic attributes of EPZ s are:
 ? EPZs are dominated by market mechanisms.
 ? EPZ are restricted to a limited region.
 ? EPZs specialize in the production of exports goods and offer special incentives for such production.
 ? Their major aims are to attract foreign investments, earn foreign exchange and to generate employment
? Secondary aims are technology transfer, development linkages and regional            development .
Policies taken by the governments for the development of the nation obviously affect the people. SEZ policies are for the development of the country. These Developmental projects have economic, political and social impact. In Gandhian political economy, village level development is needed. Land needed for the establishment of the SEZs projects also affected the political economy of the country. Tax incentives, Foreign Direct Investment, New type of employment generation also affect the political economy of the country. The macro economic changes driven by SEZs will push the countries down the path of increasing socio-political crisis. Â
A BRIEF HISTORY OF INDIAâS SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONES
India became independent in 1947 and chose self- sufficiency along with economic autonomy. The Industrial Policy Resolution of 1948 marked the beginning of the evolution of the Indian Industrial policy. The Resolution not only defined the broad contours of the policy. But it delineated the role authority of the state in industrial development both as an entrepreneur and as an authority
The industrial policy Resolution of 1956 gave the public sector a strategic role in the economy. It categorized industries, which would be the exclusive responsibility of the state or would progressively come under state control and others. Earmarking the pre-eminent position of the public sector, it envisaged private sector coexisting with the state and thus attempted to give the policy framework flexibility. India opted for a planned economy with emphasis on state sponsored industrialization. The argument was that capital being scare in India, it was essential to regulate the flow of the available capital in to socially desirable channels. This was achieved by an elaborate system of industrial licensing and state monopoly and control over key industries.                                                                                                                       Â
More than 80% of the Indian population is still living in agricultural field. Agri-centered model of development was prevalent during the 1950sand the 60s. Agriculture contributes approximately one-fifth of total gross domestic product (GDP). It provides the means of livelihood to about two-thirds of the countryâs population. The Sector provides employment to 59 percent of the countries workforce and is the single largest private sector occupation. Agriculture accounts for about 10 percent of the total export earnings and provides raw material to a large number of industries.
During the Jawaharlal Nehruâs period, foreign collaborations were promoted in certain sectors and foreign investment was encouraged. First Export Processing Zone (EPZ) was set up in 1965 at Kandla, in Gujarat. This was a predecessor of the Special Economic Zone in India. The Santa Cruz EPZ in Mumbai became operational in 1973.
After the death of Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi became the prime Minister of India in 1966. She also did a lot for the economic development of the country. The Foreign Investment Board was set up in 1968. In 1973, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) was enacted.. India set up the Santa Cruz Electronics Export Processing Zone (SEEPZ) between1973-74. It was the first EPZ which was dedicated to the electronic industry.
Doors of the Indian economy were opened during the 1980s, by Indira Gandhi and later by Rajiv Gandhi. From 1984 to 1989, the policy was to enable the middle class to consume more so as to raise the internal demand. This resulted in the raise of imports and the growth of Foreign Direct Investment. The government tried to raise the level of exports in order to balance this phenomenon. In 1984, the Free Zone policy received a fresh start. By 1991, the Indian economy was opened up for linking up the Indian market with the world leading to free flow of trade and commerce .The multilateral Financial Institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund while assisting the developing countries like India also insisted upon restructuring the polity and the administrative machinery. Following a change in the policy regime in this period and the formation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) with India becoming its founder member, it opted for a liberalized capitalist strategy. There had been introducing policies since July 1991 particularly in the industrial sector.
De-reservation of industries for the public sector was one of the major step taken by the government as part of the policy changes in the industrial sector. It was against the earlier 17 industries were reserved, there are now industries like defense production, atomic energy, coal and lignite, railways and mineral oils reserved for the public sector. Core industries like iron and steel, electricity, air transport, shipbuilding, and heavy machinery industries such as heavy electrical plants telecommunication cables and instruments are now open to private sector participation. Besides, equities held by the government in selected public sector enterprises like ONGC etc are now available to mutual funds, financial institutions, the general public and workers through a policy of divestment
In1998, the first private SEZ started its operations in Surat .This was under the jurisdiction of the Mumbai (SEEPZ)Development Commissioner, who was a nominee of the central Government.
From the beginning of the 21st century, most of the developing countries in the world have recognized the importance of facilitating international trade for the sustained growth of the economy and increased contribution to the GDP of the nation. As part of its continuing commitment to liberalisation, the Government of India has also adopted a multi-pronged approach to promote foreign investment in India. The Government of India has pushed ahead with second-generation reforms and has made several policy changes to achieve this objective. The annual growth rate ranged between six and nine percent.
Bharathiya Janatha Party (BJP) government decided to re-launch the Free Trade Zone Policy in 2000. It changed the name of Export Processing Zone (EPZ) to Special Economic Zone (SEZ). The policy intended to make SEZs an engine for economic growth supported by quality infrastructure complemented by an attractive fiscal package both at the Centre and the State level with the minimum possible regulations.Â
The salient features of the SEZ scheme are:
v No licenses required for import
v Manufacturing or service activities allowed.
v SEZ units to be positive net foreign exchange earner within three years.
v Domestic sales subject to full customs duty and import policy in force.
v Full freedom for sub contracting.
v No routine examination by customs authorities of export/import cargo.
 The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government Currently in power enacted Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 which was passed in June 2005 and came into force on 10th February 2006 with the notification of the SEZ Rule in 2006. The Act provides for drastic simplification of rules and single window clearance on matters relating to the union and state governments .The state governments have also been enacted their own SEZ laws to cover State subjects.
The Act provides for single window clearance mechanisms for developers and operators for ensuring orderly development of SEZs, the responsibility is assigned to the Board of Approval, constituted by the union Government. The Union Government may set up a SEZ on its own or on the basis of proposals of the state government or private developers after the Board of Approval has duly screened them .At the regional level, the Development Commissioner and his /her office will exercise administrative control of SEZs. The Labor Commissionerâs power is also delegated to the Development Commissioner. There is an approval committee to approve /reject /modify proposals for setting up units in SEZs. All suits of civil nature and notified offences in SEZs will be tried and settled by specially notified courts and affected parties may appeal to high courts against the orders of the designated courts. The  corporate units operating under SEZs will enjoy special privileges and protection granted by law.
         The Act offers a special fiscal package to the units set up in the SEZs. This package includes, exemption from customs duties, central excise duties, service tax, central sales taxes, and securities transaction tax to both the developer and the units set-up, tax holiday for 15 years like 100 percent tax exemption for five years ,50 percent for next five years, and 50 percent for the ploughed back export profits for the next five years.100percent income tax exemption for 10 years in a block of 15 years for SEZ developers.
 There is a three-tier administrative structure. On the top, a Board of Approval at the level of the Union Government has been set up for the functioning of the SEZs. Next an authority has been created by the state governments for creation and promotion of the infrastructure within each state. Finally, in SEZ mechanism /authority is provided for single window approval.  According to the 2005 Act, these zones can be set up by the developers, who could be private real persons, companies, both Indian and foreign, as also the State governments or the central government by themselves or jointly with private parties. It is also being envisaged that some of the existing Export Processing Zones would be converted into Special Economic Zones. The SEZ Act, 2005 supported by SEZ Rules, has come in to effect on 10th  February 2006.
THREE CATEGORIES OF SEZ
In India SEZs are divided in to three categories, Multi-product SEZs Sector specific SEZs, Free Trade and Ware housing Zone (FTWZ). The first category signifies a SEZ where units may be set up for manufacture/rendering of services of two or more goods in a sector or good/services falling in two or more sectors. For multi-product service SEZ, a contiguous area of 100 hectares or more is required.Â
The second category defined as a zone meant exclusively for one or more product/services. The minimum area requirement is 100 hectors of contiguous and vacant land. Within sector specific SEZs, Bio-technology, Gems and Jewellery, Non conventional energy, electronics, hardware and software SEZ-including IT can be set up with minimum area has been relaxed to 50 hectares for Assam, Meghalaya, Nagaland and, Arunachalpradesh, Uttaranchal, Sikkim, J&K, Goa and the Union Territories.
 Free trade and warehousing zone (FTWZ) is the third category which minimum area requirement is 40 hectares of contiguous and vacant land. Built up area should not be less than 10 hectares.
There are 19 functional SEZs in the country which were set up prior to SEZ Act, and 154 SEZs that were notified under SEZ Act 2005. The maximum numbers of SEZs are coming up in the IT sectorThe total land requirement for the formal approvals granted till date is approximately 44,268 hectares. Out of this, about 87 approvals are for State Industrial Development Corporations (SIDCs) State Government ventures which account for over 21,169hectaresÂ
ISSUES RELATING SEZs IN INDIA
One of the main issue is related with SEZ is locating land for SEZs. Many state governments are in the process of establishing SEZs. The issue of displacement, that of compensation or land price, rehabilitation, residential property development and land speculation, the threat of possible relocation of units from other parts of the state to SEZs and the consequent loss of revenue have been flagged . Farmers are protesting against the forced acquisition of their lands. The development of SEZs would lead to the destruction of employment of peasants whose land will be acquired and will create very little employment for high tech or high skilled persons and total net employment generated may well be negative. Handing over thousands of hectares of land cheaply to promoters of industry and relaxing the laws of the land, including those that relate to the welfare of the industrial workers, protection of the environment, taxation, etc, would automatically promote industrialization and solve the nagging unemployment problem of the country overnight. The farmers/peasants in various states such as West Bengal, Orissa, Maharastra, and Punjab have opposed acquisition of their land for SEZs. The highest level of opposition has been observed in West Bengal when land was acquired by the state government for the Tata group at Singur and Salim group of Indonesia at Nandigram. Besides the loss of agriculture land, concerns have also been raised about the project affected People.
Using water for SEZs is one of the major problems rising from different parts of the country. Mundra SEZ as per official website of the SEZ, it expects to get at least 6 million liters per day from the Sardar sarovar project, as promised by Gujarat water infrastructure Ltd.
The another main issue is rising from different parts of the country, the labour laws applicable to the rest of the country have been relaxed for the SEZs. The existing laws are well intentioned and they promote worker welfare. Relaxing such laws exclusively for the SEZs shows the governmentâs lack of conviction in its own commitment to social justice.
In some SEZs, the state governments are joint venture partners. In the case of some, special incentives by way of concessional electricity and water tariffs have been offered .In almost all the cases, valuable lands have been given away at concessional prices.
Considering the SEZ Act, it violates the letter and spirit of the Indian Constitution; it infringes the Fundamental Rights of the citizen guaranteed in part 3rd of the Constitution. Relaxation /inapplicability of many labour Laws (including under the Industrial Dispute Act, Contract Labour Act, Factories Act, Minimum wages Act, Trade Union Act), Environment (Protection) Act is inapplicable to SEZs ,No environmental clearance needed.  Violates  Panchayat Raj Act (1996) for local self government, violating laws granting rights and control to adivasi communities over their land, violating many international conventions on human rights.
To sum up, SEZs and other emerging developmental issues can be seen in a broad perspective and theoretical underpinnings of neo-liberalism. As far as Indian polity is considered the implications emerging from SEZs may cause increasing socio-political crisis because the society is far more complex than we assumed and that will result in organized or unorganized resistance and that may even cause anti-neo liberal political forces. So, in order to avoid the polarization of the society, civil society should engage to create a consensus on developmental issues. More over, in order to understand the continuities and changes that are taking place in the developmental scenario it needs further study.    Â
Endnotes
Bijoiny Mohanthy and S.C Hazary(Ed), Political Economy of India Retrospect and Prospects (New Delhi: APH Publ).
 S.C Hazary, Political Economy of India Retrospect and Prospects, ( New Delhi: APH Publi,1997.)
Â
Sukhendu Mazumder, Politico-Economic Ideas of Mahatma Gandhi (New Delhi: Concept Publishing House, 2004.).
B.Mohanan,(Ed), Gandhis Legacy and New Human Civilisation, Gyam publishing house, New Delhi,1999.
Vineetha Sharma, âImplications Of A Special Economic Zone on Project Affected People a case study of Reliance Haryana SEZâ, Man & Development, Vol.39,Dec,2007.
Jermy Grasset and Frederic Landy, âSpecial Economic Zones in India Between International integration and Real Estate Speculationâ, Man &Development, Vol. 39,No.4, Dec, 2007.
India 2008, A Reference Annual, Publication Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting , Govt:of India, New Delhi,2008.
Partha Mukhopadhyay, âThe promised land of SEZsâ Seminar, Jan, 2008
.
Sheetal Sharma and Kishan Pratap, â The Prosperous Few and the Pauperized Many: A Perspective on Special Economic Zonesâ, Mainstream, February,23-March,1,2007.
Economic Justice and Democratization of Economy to create Ideal SocietyBy Prof Viswanathan, Director, International Socio-Economic Research Bureau(E Mail Id : economist@dataone.in)DECLARATION OF JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTSWe, the people of all the countries, in harmony with the sovereignty of the Universal Justice hold these truths to be self-evident that every creator has inalienable ‘Right to Ownership’ on his creations and the Natural laws empowers the creators that only he should use his creations exclusively for the welfare and uplift of the human society as a whole, in which he is an inseparable member.We declare with all judicial power derived from Natural laws that among all creations of man, his creation of capital alone has enormous ‘economic power’ capable of transforming all the socio-economic-political structures and reconstitute them to suit the aspirations of the owners of capital.We further declare in unequivocal terms since the capital is created by the collective labor of the people as a whole it should be directly owned by the people and then only the people would secure equal ‘Economic power’ and requisite ‘Fundamental Economic Rights’ with which they could establish an ‘Ideal Society’ in the way in which they desire.In accordance with ‘Economic Justice’ when the capital is directly owned by the people, we declare that the people would naturally secure what we consider the best among the ‘Fundamental Economic Rights’ like ‘Right to live’, ‘Right to work’, ‘Right to Economic Equality’, ‘Right to economic liberty’, ‘Right to Economic Security’, ‘Right to participate in the management’, ‘Right to capital creation’, ‘Right to live with fraternity’, and requisite ‘socio-economic-political rights to pursuit of decent happiness’We further proclaim when the people secure the above mentioned ‘fundamental rights’ they would succeed ultimately to establish an Ideal Society or Just Society for which they were tirelessly striving in transforming one form of society into another since the dawn of civilization, and to execute their noble concept of ‘One World, One Government, and One Humanity’ and in the end the people would be victorious in choosing what form of ‘Economic System’ that would be the best of all other systems for the establishment of an Ideal Society for which they would secure all requisite authorities of Natural laws that bestow on them.1. Emergence of Economic Systems:Different economic systems had emerged on the horizon of the history of mankind whenever different kinds of ‘Capital Ownership’ sprang up. Especially capitalism and socialism emerged after industrial revolution on the determinant factor of ‘capital ownership’. Generally in all economic systems ‘the ownership of capital’ forms the ‘basic structure’ of a society on which the fabrics of super structure of society are determined. The super structure usually exhibits the qualitative fabrics of society such as religion, culture, education, laws, customs and conventions etc. which are determined according to the aspirations of the owners of capital. In short the social elements are dependent factors of capital ownership.During the turbulent period of 1750s when Industrial Revolution burst upon the England and other European countries it introduced gigantic machines – a kind of capital – in the factory system of production of goods and services. It engulfed the mankind like huge deluge and tossed the world societies and changed each and every super structural elements of society in such a manner not to even to trace out their originality. We, the people, at that period were deeply perplexed and confused what to do as we were in the vicinity of utter economic ignorance.2. Two Economic Affidavits:During Industrial Revolution the economic environments in the factory system was not only in muddle but also demoralizing the societies. No one had any knowledge how the economy was operating and how should it be operated. Everyone was expecting for the worst to come. Whole Europe was plunged into utter ignorance. At that crucial period of time it was Adam Smith, the Father of Economics, published his famous book ‘An enquiry into the Nature and Cause of the Wealth of Nations’ in 1776.3. Economic Affidavit of Adam Smith: In his book Adam Smith spelt out an ‘Economic Affidavit’ solemnly and sincerely that if we, the people, entrusted our capital to a few capitalists in the name of ‘Capitalism’ (Individualism), they would not only change even the sand into gold but also drive the mankind to march towards an ‘Ideal Society’ by modernizing production potentialities with the help of scientific technologies and division of labor. Completely ignoring the working class who constitutes the society, Adam Smith concentered and focused his interest on a few capitalists and advocated that they without the interference of State would accumulate wealth of nations with the help of division of labor using modern machines and assured that the few independent capitalists would moreover create a favorable climate for the establishment of Ideal Society by increasing production many folds. Adam Smith completely neglected the equitable distribution of wealth to the mass working class. He linked the establishment of an ideal society with the mass production but not equitable distribution of wealth. Thus he misguided the whole world convincingly and decisively for a long period during which the working class was thrown into appalling poverty and horrible living hood.Ricardo and Malthus, drawing he thread of arguments from the wisdom of Adam Smith, eloquently presented their views in favor of a few capitalists and equally convinced the people to surrender their capital in the possession of capitalists who would solve all the socioeconomic problems of mankind. Thus when the people entrusted their capital in the hands of a few capitalists a ‘Capitalistic Mode of Production’ emerged with strong magnitudes in England and some other European countries. This capitalistic mode of production, shattering hitherto existing highly valuable cultures and customs of people, created a complex and conflicting, and highly demoralizing ‘Capitalistic Society’.The newly emerged ‘capitalistic Society’ forced the social elements such as law, art, culture, customs, religion, education and other economic and political rights and liberties to work for the benefit and security of a few capitalists because on their welfare the welfare of mass working class was depending on. The capitalistic mode of production converted the ‘Right to live’ of mass working class into a dependent factor of the security of the capitalist class who owned the capital and modern factories. This was because if a capitalist collapsed with his factory, the livelihood of the workers working in that factory would also collapse. So all the social elements ranging from culture to human liberty had to work for the security of a few capitalists. Thus the Ideal Society which the people dreamt for long span of time became a myth and mirage. In the capitalistic mode of production the Ideal Society was meant by ‘Capitalistic Society’ representing a few capitalists.4. Counter Economic Affidavit of Karl Marx: Having abundant flow of sympathy on the exploited mass working class and endless stream of hatred on the capitalists who caused for the appalling poverty of workers the mentally and morally agitated Karl Marx and Engels declared a ‘Counter Affidavit’ in 1848 in their ‘Communist Manifesto’ and Karl Marx alone in 1867 in his magnum opus the Das Capital. In their counter affidavit they advocated that if We, the people, forfeited our capital from the few capitalists with the help of Bolsheviks (communists) and entrusted the capital in the hands of the ‘State’ under the control of ‘Proletariat Dictatorship’, that the ‘State’ would lead us ‘Towards an Ideal Society’ and establish ‘One World’.* Believing their ‘Counter Affidavit’ word by word, in the October Revolution of 1917 we forfeited our capital from the few capitalists and handed over it to the trustworthy of the ‘State’. The State introduced a ‘Socialistic mode of production’ and on the basis of this, a fearful and subjugating ‘Socialistic Society’ emerged. The working class was engulfed with awe and fearsome and terribly perplexed on the outcome of the ‘Revolution’ and utterly disappointed for not even tracing any hope of achieving ‘Ideal Society’ which their Bolshevik masters promised during the ‘Revolution’.__________________________________________________________________ *In the words of Karl Marx : “ In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe in its banners : From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”– Marx(1875), pp 21-23Karl Marx and Engels were not alive at that time of October Revolution. They were great champions for working class and ‘buts’ about it. They worried wept for working class, they suffered for working class, they sacrificed everything for the working class, and above all they were exiled, especially Karl Marx, from country to country for the cause of working class, and they really wanted to see the working class of all the countries in an ‘Ideal Society’. But the ‘October Revolution’ in Russia proved that their ‘Theory and Practice’ did not coordinate with each other and did not function in harmony. There was something wrong in the ‘Theory and practice’ which resulted in utter collapse of Socialism at the end process. What was the fault that penetrated for its collapse?I have same streak of opinion in respect of Adam Smith and Malthus as well. I believe when they advocated that we, the people, should entrust our capital in the possession of few capitalists, they believed that the capitalists would not exploit the working class. But when their theories put into practice it was the selfish capitalists who manipulated their theories as convenient and convincing tools to exploit the mass working class. It was the capitalists who portrayed the theories in a darkest dark when they put them in practice because of their selfish motives. In other words there was unbridgeable disparity ( a deep wide chasm) between the theory and practice which the capitalists utilized it to fulfill their selfish motive of maximization of profit in exploiting the mass working class. What was the terrible fault that was penetrating here also? Though the original proponents of capitalistic and socialistic theories were not enemies of working class, the executors of these theories, the capitalists on one hand and the ‘State’ on the other hand misled the working class for their selfish motives. The primary fault was that we, the people, instead of retaining the capital with us, separating ourselves into two diametrically opposite poles, surrendered our capital to a few capitalists in West European and North American countries and to ‘State’ in Russia, China and other East European countries. The inherent contradictions that deeply and widely penetrated in the theories and practices of the two economic systems originated a fierce vicious spiral and exploded like a ‘Big Bang’ and scattered away violently but suddenly all the socio-economic problems throughout the world like inextinguishable fire balls. Instead of establishing an ‘Ideal Society’ these two systems, even after a prolonged period of experiments, have pushed the mankind at the verge of nuclear holocaust and wide spread day – to-day terrorism.5. Democrism – People’s Direct Ownership of Capital: As long as more than 200 years, Capitalism had left no avenues unexplored to establish an Ideal Society but disastrously collapsed during 1930s throughout the world due to the pressure of its own weight of self contradictions and brutal ambition of maximization of profit. On the same footing, Communism too after exerting all methods of cruel tortures (Stalin’s roughshod treatment of the kulaks) in the name of ‘Proletariat Dictatorship’ for nearly 75 destroyed itself in 1992 in its own breeding place. As both the systems are now struggling for their own survival, they have now decided to end the ‘cold war’ between them. Since the both the systems pushed us into great disappointments and they did not effective economic techniques to solve our economic problems in accordance with ‘Economic Justice’, we, the people, hereby declare to forfeit our own capital both from the capitalists and the ‘State’ and retain it under our direct ownership in peaceful manner or by force if necessity demands and create a ‘new economic system’ known as ‘Democrism’ on the basis of people’s Direct Ownership of Capital and we, further declare the Natural Laws have entrusted upon us all executive powers to do so as our birth right. On the People’s Direct Ownership of Capital a just economic system known as ‘Democrism’ will in the world and it will provide us ‘Democratic Mode of Production’ which is an inevitable must for the establishment of an ‘Ideal or Just Society’. I venture to say in short,“Capitalism is popular and popularly defective;Socialism is destructive and destructively popular; Democrism is justifiable and justifiably inevitable.”Whatever race we relate to, whatever language we speak to, whatever color we cover to, whatever religion we follow to, whatever nation we belong to, we are always being influenced by justice and by its emphatic authority of supremacy. The laws may be in transient from time to time, and vary from country to country, but the concept of justice remains illuminant everywhere. We want justice, only the justice and nothing but the justice. Throughout the long passage of history we have honored justice; we have kept in high esteem the men of justice right from king Solomon to Gandhiji . We have unshakable faith that justice is perpetual and ever pervading. We have always fought for justice and it has united us without any discrimination. In his book ‘Anatomy of Liberty’, William O. Douglas, the Justice to the United States Supreme Court, says this truth in every respect as follows: “The appetite for justice is indeed a cementing influence amon all races, whatever language they speak, whatever of their skin”-Douglas,William O. “Anatomy of Liberty” (p: xxiv) : (1965)The universal fact is that if there is justice there will be harmony and immortality. The scientific facts are immortal because they are based on experimental truths. On the other hand if the socio-economic-political principles want to be immortal they should based on justice, only the justice and nothing but justice and perhaps on natural justice. The capitalistic and socialistic principles lack application of justice and therefore they struggle vainly to solve our life problems and they are marching towards their last destiny – the inevitable grave yard. Keeping the above facts in mind I have with utmost care and concern formulated the economic principles on the natural justice in the name of ‘DEMOCRISM’ which will secure universal acceptability. The genesis of all natural justices is to uphold ‘People’s Direct Ownership of Capital’ for which we have to forfeit our capital from the few capitalists and the ‘State’. Why? “People’s Direct Ownership of Capital : Why do we want?” 1. Denying the natural justice of ‘Right to live’ by Capitalism and Socialism: (Capital promotes and intensifies war)We, the people of all the countries, unanimously hate intensely the wars which germinate in any form or for any cause. Naturally we are peace loving people. Despite our strong protests the wars have been fought all over the world and billions and billions of innocent people having no association with the war, have been brutally killed and massacred and the skeletons of these people have been heaped like mountains in graveyards. What cause underlies for these wars? The answer is simply one word – ‘the capital’. It is the ‘Ownership of Capital’ by a few capitalists or the ‘State’ that attributes for all kinds of war that negates one’s ‘Right to live’ in the name of patriotism in particular.Let us for time being set aside the wars fought before Industrial Revolution. The factory system facilitated for the production of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ that can be employed from the land, from the ocean and from the air. The whole world turned into open battle field for the nuclear bombs, ballistic missiles, supersonic jets, various kinds of military rockets and the military satellites orbiting the earth. Whatever might be the causes of First and Second World Wars, but their consequences were horrible that pushed the mankind to the very verge of its extinction from the earth planet. Why?Wars before and after Industrial Revolution: Before the industrialization the wars were fought on a particular battle fields and between two hostile warriors only. The range of destruction was very narrow and limited in coverage because the warriors used only spears and swords. The weapons were manufactured in cottage industries or by the warriors themselves. Natural boundaries like mountains, rivers, oceans and great deserts prevented the enemies to enter into a independent country.After industrial revolution, weapons of mass destruction were produced with the help of highly sophisticated technologies with help of huge capital in factories owned by a few capitalists and the ‘State’. The natural bounties disappeared and the whole world became open battle field. These weapons were maneuvered only by the highly skilled technocrats. The technocrats used these weapons on the common innocent people to terrorize the enemy-governments to surrender immediately. For example, in World War II USA used nuclear atom bombs to bombard on millions of Japanese civilians and terrorized the government to surrender without fighting in the battle field. Nowadays the battle fields are disappeared and the whole world has become open battle field in the face of mighty ballistic missiles and nuclear atom bombs. They can be produced only with the help of scientists and huge capital owned by the ‘State’ and a ‘few capitalists’. As long as the capital is owned by the ‘State’ and ‘few capitalists’ we cannot escape from nuclear holocaust. Originally Capital was created by the working class to assist them to increase their productivity of consumption goods. As soon as the capital went into the illegal ownership of ‘State’ and ‘Capitalists’ it was used for the production of mass destructive weapons. If we scrutinize the expenditure of the world governments we can detect that a large portion of government expenditure has been allocated for ‘military up gradation’ than for the ‘promotion of education’ and ‘elimination of poverty’. 2. ECONOMIC THEORY OF WAR :Firstly “if the accumulation of destructive capital increases the temptation for war will increase and vice versa”. The destructive capital means the capital that is used for the production of destructive weapons used by military forces. Secondly the difference in economic ideology of a country prompts it to increase its military power to show its ideological success over the other country and spread its ideology over other countries through war. For example USA and Russia used war as a weapon to spread their capitalistic and socialistic ideologies over other countries. The pages of recent past history will illustrate the fact and also the reason for accumulation of nuclear weapons and other variety of scientific weapons of mass destruction. Thirdly on the globalization of world economy the capitalist rich countries invest huge volume of their excessive capital in poor and developing countries. In order to protect their huge capital from nationalization by the beneficiary countries a mighty military force is required by the investing countries. For instance the American war and threatening of war over Arabian countries to protect her huge capital invested in exploration of petrol and fuel industries. Now American capitalists are investing billion and billions of dollar in I T industries of India and other developing countries. The American capitalists believe that they can protect their capital by their country’s military power. If any country try to nationalize these industries it will result in war. Fourthly the over production of industrial goods by rich countries force them to dump their over production in poor countries through their military power. Economic reason for two world wars : Virtually after Industrial Revolution in most of the European countries the capital was owned by a few individuals. Since the very aim of capitalism was ‘maximization of profit’ the workers were paid less and it resulted in deficiency of effective demand which caused for ‘over production’. These European countries occupied the poor countries by their military power and converted them as their ‘political colonies’ and with the concept of ‘Free Trade’, they dumped their over-production in the colonies and also exploited the wealth of the colonies. India was the notorious example for that. With the help of exploited wealth these ‘mother countries’ strengthened mainly their military power. The safety and security of the other ‘Dictatorial European countries’ which had ‘State or less individual Ownership of Capital’ were in jeopardy and unprotected in front of the mighty capitalist countries. On detection of the geographical track these countries found that there were no countries in the world to occupy them as their colonies for exploitation in order to increase their wealth and thereby their military power. These lately wakened dictatorial countries sniffed the fact that their ‘political and military supremacy’ would be pulled down rapidly on the downward track. In order to surpass the supremacy of the Capitalistic European Countries the ‘Dictatorial European Countries, found no other alternative except ‘war’ on the Capitalistic European Countries and on their colonies all over the world. The ‘lust for supremacy’ over the other countries forced them to wage two world wars. Napoleon and Hitler waged war against all of Europe because for the sake of supremacy.Ayn Rand emphatically points out the genesis for the two world wars in his book ‘Capitalism’ as follows:“……World War I was started by monarchist Germany and Czarist Russia,who dragged in their freer allies. World War II was started by alliance of‘Nazi’ Germany with the Soviet Russia and their attack on Polland” * – Rand Ayn :“Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal” (New American Library-1967) p:37 In this nuclear age we witness a political and economic turbulence all over the world for a mad race for military equilibrium and economic supremacy. Both the Capitalism and Socialism have no blue-print to terminate the opportunity for Third World War. The rich capitalist and socialist countries want to become richer and richer by pushing the vast majority of poor countries to become poorer and poorer as per World Economic Reports. At present the silent turbulence boiling in the poor countries will burst into a Third World War which will be fought between the rich northern countries and the poor southern countries of the world and result in nuclear holocaust. That is why the USA is very keen on preventing the proliferation of nuclear technology among the southern countries using its military might. The only way left for the mankind to stop the flow of ever threatening danger of nuclear war is the execution of economic equality by rich countries in extending their helping hand to poor countries to pull them up from poverty and to reduce the economic imbalance between rich and poor. The capitalist countries will not permit the economic equality within and without but fight for upholding their economic supremacy which will be the ultimate cause for the Third World War.We, the people, therefore, have no other alternative except to forfeit our capital from the capitalists and the ‘State’ and retain it under our ‘Direct Ownership’ to coordinate with the command of Natural Laws to save the mankind. 2.1. Consequences of World wars and destructive capital:The First World War was fought between 1914 and 1918. During the span of 4 years the war was fought violently 120 million seconds. Nearly 48 million people (including soldiers) were dead and wounded.* In other words in every 10 seconds 4 people were killed either dead or wounded.· Nehru, Jawaharlal : “Glimpses World History” : p.637In the Second World War When the war was virtually approaching its end, on 6th August, 1945 an Atom bomb by name ‘Little Boy’ – a new war machine that the mankind hitherto never experienced – was dropped on Hiroshima. With in 10 seconds one million innocent people were killed. The first world war took 10 seconds to kill 4 people but the second world war, at its end, took 10 seconds to kill one million innocent people. The annihilation depends on the density of population of a city on which an atom bomb drops on. The Super Powers like USA and Russia, have now heaped in their arsenal million times more powerful atom bombs than the one that was dropped on Hiroshima.No doubt the atom bombs that dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were invented by the nuclear scientists. The billion dollar question is whether the scientists produced them with their bare hands or in cottage industries or in sophisticated industries created by huge capital. No capitalist will ever afford such huge capital for the production of weapons of mass destruction because their aim is always ‘maximization of profit’. Only the State can siphon huge capital for the production of atomic bombs only with the help scientists to threaten the other countries and to enjoy the status of ‘super powers’.Though the atom bombs are the brain-children of atomic physicists the capital required to manufacture them is funded only by the governments secretly against the wishes of the people. As long as the capital is owned by the governments, irrespective of Socialist or Capitalist governments, they spend huge capital for the production of atom bombs in order to achieve military supremacy over other countries or to attain at least an equilibrium in military power. Extensively it is the hard-core radical politicians brain wash the people under the guise of ‘patriotism’, ‘National security’ and ‘National pride’ for the production of atom bombs and other ballistic weapons. Since most of the atomic scientists are the government scientists they have to produce atom bombs at the insistence of governments in the name of national security.“In 1943 the Manhatten Project Laboratory at Los Alamos, New Mexico, withJ.Robert Oppenheimer as its director, was assigned the task of developing anatom bomb. The first test at Alamogordo on July 16, 1945, was an outstandingsuccess (the desert sand was fused to glass for hundreds of yards around thethe site). In August two atom bombs were dropped on Japan”.“Hiroshima inaugurated not only a new age of science but a new kind of scientists-the government servants whose knowledge and talent are an important part of thenational arsenal. Furthermore, the scientists were now much more conscious of theirsocial position and responsibilities. This was true in all advanced industrial countries, put particularly in the United States and the Soviet Union. Presumably, Sovietscientists were satisfied to follow the dictates of government leaders, but after WorldWar II, Oppenheimer and other American scientists entered into a great debate over the human, political and social implications of atomic science and a profound searching of their own consciences. Oppenheimer resisted the building of the hydrogen bomb – a much more devastating weapon than the bombs used against Japan – in the early1950’s, and he made important enemies. When Oppenheimer’s security clearance waswithdrawn in 1954, a great outcry from his colleagues expressed more than personalindignation. The Frankenstein myth appeared to be true, and the monster had lockedthe scientist out of his own laboratory. Certain branches of scientific research are not only secret today, they are expensive secrets; the cyclotrons and reactors of the 1960’s are far beyond the means of any university or other institution without government support”.*( * – Cantor, Norman F. – “Western Civilization : Its Genesis and Destiny” III –1970; pp:528-529)I can arrive two conclusions from deducing the above historical facts:Firstly, we have to free the atomic scientists from the clutches of governments.Secondly, we have to forfeit our capital from the hands of governments and to keep it under our own control and possession.Unless we, the people, forfeit our own capital from the governments and restore ‘people’s direct ownership of capital’ we could not prevent the governments from the mad race for producing ‘weapons of mass destruction’ ranging from AK-47 to atom bombs (of 20,000 megaton attack)When we pay the tax-money to the governments, we intend tacitly that they would spend it to solve our poverty; but they do not do so. In a speech on April 16, 1953, President Eisenhower said :“Every gun is fired, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed … The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than thirty cities…… We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than eight thousand people…………This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron…….”Professor Dallas W. Smythe of Illinois said, “Billions for defense but not a cent for socialism. It is not socialism to have the government spend 50 billion dollars for weapons; it would be socialism if the government spent the same amount for education or for public works”.When we entrusted our capital to the capitalist as well as the socialist governments we constituted a tacit ‘Economic Contract’ with governments. The first and foremost element of the ‘Economic Contract’ was that the governments should utilize our capital to solve our basic economic problems such as poverty, unemployment, economic disparity etc. But the governments in violation of the Economic Contract have spent our capital to destroy our own survival by engaging in the production of weapons- mass-destruction. The governments with the help of scientists produce variety of ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs and test them day in day out to display their scientific genius and military power to other governments. The accumulation of such deadly weapons have now pushed the mankind to the very verge of nuclear holocaust. We, the people of all the countries, therefore, want to recover our capital from the governments and to keep it under our own control and ownership to preserve a perpetual world peace, our birth right.__________________________________________________________________________________”Little Boy” is the nick name given to the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. It was Monday morning. Little Boy was dropped from the Enola Gay, one of the B-29 bombers that flew over Hiroshima on that day. Little BoyAfter being released, it took about a minute for Little Boy to reach the point of explosion. Little Boy exploded at approximately 8:15 a.m. (Japan Standard Time) when it reached an altitude of 2,000 ft above the building that is today called the “A-Bomb Dome.” The July 24, 1995 issue of Newsweek writes: “A bright light filled the plane,” wrote Lt. Col. Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the Enola Gay, the B-29 that dropped the first atomic bomb. “We turned back to look at Hiroshima. The city was hidden by that awful cloud…boiling up, mushrooming.” For a moment, no one spoke. Then everyone was talking. “Look at that! Look at that! Look at that!” exclaimed the co-pilot, Robert Lewis, pounding on Tibbets’s shoulder. Lewis said he could taste atomic fission; it tasted like lead. Then he turned away to write in his journal. “My God,” he asked himself, “what have we done?” (special report, “Hiroshima: August 6, 1945″)note: Paul Tibbets was Colonel, not “Lt. Colonel,” when he was the pilot of the Enola Gay. The Little Boy generated an enormous amount of energy in terms of air pressure and heat. In addition, it generated a significant amount of radiation (Gamma ray and neutrons) that subsequently caused devastating human injuries. The people who saw the Little Boy often say “We saw another sun in the sky when it exploded.” The heat and the light generated by the Little Boy were far stronger than bombs which they had seen before. When the heat wave reached ground level it burnt all before it including people. The strong wind generated by the bomb destroyed most of the houses and buildings within a 1.5 miles radius. When the wind reached the mountains, it was reflected and again hit the people in the city center. The wind generated by Little Boy caused the most serious damage to the city and people. The radiation generated by the bomb caused long-term problems to those affected. Many people died within the first few months and many more in subsequent years because of radiation exposure. Some people had genetic problems which sometimes resulted in having malformed babies or being unable to have children. It is believed that more than 140,000 people died by the end of the year. They were citizens including students, soldiers and Koreans who worked in factories within the city. The total number of people who have died due to the bomb is estimated to be 200,000. The A-Bombs used over Japan; Little Boy (left) and Fat Man (right)Just three days after the bomb was dropped to Hiroshima, the second atomic bomb called “Fat Man” was dropped to Nagasaki. Though the amount of energy generated by the bomb dropped to Nagasaki was significantly larger than that of the Little Boy, the damage given to the city was slighter than that given to Hiroshima due to the geographic structure of the city. It is estimated that approximately 70,000 people died by the end of the year because of the bombing. We strongly believe that the world must learn about weapons of total destruction. We hope that the information presented here will help you understand the pain and devastation that nuclear weapons can cause. We don’t want you to just feel sorry for the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the war inflicted untold pain and suffering on many people in Asia and the Pacific. Rather we want you to work with us to ensure that all of us can live in a safe world. We hope this document helps you understand what it was, what it means and what we have to do.____________________________________________________________________2.2 The cause for dropping atom-bomb on Japan:There are two theories for dropping atom bomb on Japan. The first is to take retaliation on Japan for its attack on Pearl Harbor. The second is to prevent Socialist Russia to capture Japan. The first theory do not sound reasonable because : Hitler committed suicide on 30th April, 1945. Immediately on 7th May the Germans agreed to unconditional surrender. Moreover Mussolini and his mistress were killed on April by anti-Fascist Italian partisans. Japan’s position was now completely helpless, and the emperor supported a party in the Japanese government that wished to seek a negotiated peace. The second world war was more or less approaching to its end.The second theory sounds well because :On 16th July 1945 President Harry S. Truman – who had assumed office on Roosevelt’s death on 12th April, – was informed that an atom bomb had been successfully tested in New Mexico. The U.S. military found that no other weapon was so awful in destructive power as that of the atom bomb.At the same time the military forces of Socialist Russia were rapidly advancing towards Japan – the border country of Socialist Russia – to capture it.The Capitalist America was now in great distress that the Socialist Russia would not only capture Japan but also convert it a Socialist state. To uphold its supremacy America thought that it had no other choice except to execute two things: 1. to prevent immediately the invasion of Socialist Russia on Japan;2. Instead, it had to capture Japan without sacrificing any more lives of American soldiers in the invasion of Japan.In order to fulfill the above aims, the Capitalist America was left with only one option that was to use the awful new weapon – the atom bomb – on the civilians to force Japan to immediate surrender. Persuaded by the military strategy, Truman decided to use the bomb and it was dropped on the Japanese city Hiroshima on 6th August, 1945. About 80,000 civilians were killed immediately. Nearly 200,000 died later of radiation or were maimed for life.On the sudden turn of events, Soviet Russia sensed that Japan would go out its hand though it was within its reach. So two days later, on 8th August, Russia declared war on Japan and crossed the Manchurian frontier as the Japanese army remained committed to a fight to the finish. Since there was a race for supremacy between Socialist Russia and Capitalist America to capture Japan and moreover Russian army crossed the Manchurian frontier, the Capitalist America was forced to act swiftly. So, a second atom bomb – Fat Man – was dropped on Nagasaki on 9th August, 1945 by Capitalist America. Nearly 70,000 civilians died immediately. The following day the Japanese government offered to surrender. On 14th August the terms laid down at Potsdam were accepted and the Second World War was over.The truth is still solid and sound that the atom bombs were dropped on Japanese cities not because Japan would succeed in the second World War but because the governments of Capitalist America and Socialist Russia were arrogantly desirous to show their supremacy over the other as their economic systems were quite contradictory with each other. Both Capitalism and Communism wanted to prove that it was their system that ultimately led the Second World War towards victory. This ideological conflict between the America and Russia, at the end of the war, resulted in nuclear holocaust of Japan.There is no assurance to the people of all countries that another nuclear war will not burst out due to the ideological conflicts between the countries or to show their supremacy or for some other reasons the time will decide. Not only America and Russia but all the nuclear countries do not now wish either to destroy all their nuclear weapons or dismantle the industries which produce such weapons of mass destruction. Under these circumstances and ground realities how can we believe and console ourselves that yet another nuclear war will not threaten mankind and cause to vanish the very existence of mankind on the earth. So, we, the people of all the countries, declare to forfeit our capital from the few capitalists and the State and to keep it with ourselves. When we have ‘direct ownership of capital’ we will not allow our capital for the production of nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction.3. Economic Justice in jeopardy and in peril: When we handed over our capital to a few capitalists, we were under strong presumption, that they would in certain sense, solve at least our basic problems of poverty and unemployment. On the contrary, since the very basic aim of capitalists is ‘maximization of profit’ they execute all kinds of nefarious designs to exploit the laborers and treat them like other business commodities. So with the enrichment of new technologies the capitalists always intend to replace the workers or minimize the labor force by sophisticated machines. The capitalists never show any interest to promote the economic justice in solving the human problems like poverty, unemployment, economic inequality, unequal distribution of income and wealth etc.But now the capitalists in some way or other have promoted the welfare of society only by way of promoting their own self interest. In other words if and only if the capitalists are assured that their self interest would be promoted then alone they will allow the betterment of welfare of other members of society. The welfare of huge majority of society is always considered to be a ‘dependent factor of a few capitalists’ in the system of private ownership of capital. In other words the Welfare of Society (WoS) operates as ‘function of Interest of Capitalists (IoC)’. We can write it as WoS = f(IoC) ……………. 1The Interest of Capitalists, in turn, depends on their ‘Maximization of Profit (Max o P). So the equation becomes IoC = f(Max o P) ……………. 2The Maximization of Profit (Max o P) by the capitalists results in the ‘Exploitation of Working class’ (EoW). It may written asMax o P = f(EoW) ……………. 3The Exploitation of Working class (EoW) creates ‘Maldistribution of National Income’ (Md o NI). EoW = f(Md o NI) …………….. 4 The degree of maldistribution of national income exposes how the workers are exploited in a country. Generally speaking in most of the countries the top 10% of population enjoys 80% of the national wealth and only just 20% of national wealth is distributed to a vast majority of 90% of population. The maldistribution of national income has always kept the vast majority of people to suffer with low purchasing power and in due course it results in over production. Due to over production the producers are forced to reduce their volume of production and level of employment. On finding the disequilibrium that the goods are not consumed at the rate at which they are produced the producers are forced to close their industries. The very aim of capitalists, the maximization of profit, not only crushes them but also the whole society. Therefore, the private ownership of capital will be dangerous to the whole society and the national capital capital should be equally distributed among the people for the welfare of the mankind. So, Betrand Russel says: “Private ownership of land and capital is not defensible on the groundsof justice or on the grounds that is economical way of producing what the community needs” — Russel, Bertrand : “Political Ideals” (p ; 35) Equally the Marxian theory of “State Ownership of Capital” lacks perfection and threatens human rights. Marxian theory is formed on adamant and inflexible principle and it will not coordinate with the changing world conditions. It preaches a kind of ‘economic fundamentalism’ which wants the elements of society to remain in rigidity for ever. So Loucks rightly states:“Errors in the theoretical of Marxian thought are so serious and so basic that they cannot be corrected by interpreting or modernizing Marx not can they be considered superficial” Loucks : “Comparative Economic Systems” ( p : 166)4. Poverty in the midst of plenty:We, the people of all the countries, have accumulated capital more than enough and the goods that could be produced with the help of that capital is more than adequate to eradicate poverty in the world. The statistics of “World Development Report – 1991” substantiate that if we distribute the goods produced equally among the people of all the countries, each one would receive the goods approximately worth of Rs.300 per day, which is more than enough for one’s needs. But in contrary with this fact, two third of world population is now subjected to appalling poverty and suffering with hunger and various diseases for want of adequate notorious food.The poverty prevails not only between the countries but also within the countries irrespective of whether the country is developed or developing. As there is darkness below the burning candle so is the poverty even in the affluent society due to maldistribution of income and wealth. John Meynard Keynes criticizes the capitalistic system with this ever prevailing paradoxical element of “poverty in the midst of plenty”. Since the capitalism do not know how to distribute income and wealth equally among the people, the capitalists have no moral right or legal right to keep our capital with themselves. They have to honestly return us our capital and we know how to solve our problems under ‘people’s direct ownership of capital’.5.Absence of Right to Live:Throughout the length and breadth of the world we can notice the youth both in rural and urban areas bearing great agony in their eyes, having no value for their education are wandering desperately on the streets in seeking employment. The unemployment has pushed them to strip away their dignity, self respect and equal status among others not only in the society but also in their own family. Everywhere they are treated as insignificant trivial and above all less than a human being. In the economic systems, both in capitalism and socialism, they feel that they have deprived of the possession of ‘Right to Live’ at all.6. Origin of terrorism and economic crimes:It is partly true that unemployment generates economic insecurity among the youth. But by and large it victimizes the youth an easy prey to drug addiction, trafficking, terrorism, and other socio-economic evils.The universal accepted fact is that capitalism cannot solve unemployment. The function of capitalism is such that if we want to adhere with capitalism we have to live with unemployment at certain level. The advocates of capitalism have now proved that full-employment in capitalism is only a myth and mirage. Hence as long as capitalism is prevailing in the world, so long as the socio-economic evils will also be pervading in the world as its by products and they will be deteriorating all the well-nurtured cultural fabrics of society. If we want capitalism, we have to learn to live with terrorism and other socio-economic evils. 7. Economic Equality is a Mirage :It is evident throughout the world, the economic inequality among the people not only within the country but also between the countries is going on widening with an accelerated momentum. In 1982 the per capita income of developed countries in average was 42 times more than that of developing countries like India and China, but the gap was still widening 56 times in 1989. As the gap is going on increasing the poor countries are becoming still poorer and rich countries are more richer. It is natural not only among the people but also among the countries to develop strong feeling of jealousy and hatred, and an impression of inferiority complex and a sentiment of economic slavery. In the complex and confused modern economic systems, the concept and reality of ‘economic equality’ is rushing over beyond the orbit of one’s reach. In this context, our strategic fiscal and monetary policies are reducing to be insignificant to face the challenges. Hence Jawaharlal Nehru rightly blames the capitalistic system of economy for the economic equality: “Normally speaking it may be said that the forces of a capitalist society, if left unchecked, tend to make the rich, the richer and the poor, the poorer, and thus increase the gap between them”- Nehru, Jawaharlal : “The Years of Power” (1960) p;294It would be faulty conclusion that the economic inequality is inseparable function of capitalism alone; even in communist countries we can notice wide economic disparities among the people. Prof.P.T.Baur states:“….. But there are evident wide differences in income in communist countries after decades of communist rule. And in Soviet Union (a country often thought to be dedicated to the removal of economic differences), the differences in income and living standards are quite as pronounced as in some market oriented societies and this after more than half a century of mass coercion”.*-* Baur, P.T. : “The Grail of Equality”The economic equality is one the three basic necessities of ‘Equality, Liberty and Fraternity’ for the establishment of an Ideal Society. But neither capitalism nor communism do not know any effective economic technique to ensure us ‘economic equality’. Hence I venture to say it is futile to allow our capital to remain in possession of some individual capitalists or the State.8. No Right to Work : Invariably the ‘Declaration of Independence’ of all the countries proclaim that man has ‘Right to Live’. On the introduction of ‘Division of Labor’ in the modern production system, no one can produce all the goods that require even to lead a very simple life, or a single whole commodity one needs. On the Division of Labor, everyone is trained to produce only a part of a commodity for which he can receive his wage and with which he has to buy the necessary goods in the market to lead his life. Since a man cannot produce whatever he wants to live, his ‘Right to Live’ solely depends upon his ‘Right to Work’. But no Constitution of any country is powerful enough to provide ‘Right to Work’ as one of the ‘Fundamental Rights’ because the economic systems that the countries pursue are basically defective and incompetent to face the economic challenges. In the absence of ‘Right to Work’ irrespective of what kind of economic system a country follows, the employers never consider man as a man and not even as a commodity. On the other hand they treat man as a ‘rental commodity’ that can be engaged by paying wages as ‘rent’. The defect of economic systems have reduced man and humiliated him as mean and ignoble thing. With full of depression in heart, P.A.Samuelson exhibits the real condition of man as follows:“Since slavery was abolished, human earning power is forbidden by lawto be capitalized. A man is not even free sell himself; he must rent himself at a wage” *-* Samuelson, P.A. : “Economics” (p : 52) 9.Absence of Stable Just Price :Universally in all economic systems – whether it is market oriented economy or State controlled economy – the prices in the market are behaving erratically and disorderly. Especially the prices of consumption goods of poor people are always enhancing. But the income of poor people is not increasing as much as the increment of price of their consumption goods. Consequently this economic phenomenon is horribly crushing the purchasing power of the poor. Hence the fact is universally accepted that ‘the poor people are born in poverty, live in poverty and die in poverty’ Whenever the governments declare that they have contained or reduced the rate of inflation it seems always to the benefit of the rich. The economic systems, existing now, do not know any economic techniques to sustain a just price level at stable for the welfare of the vast majority poor.10. Injustice to Working Class:In Jerusalem I heard the Israeli Supreme Court say : “It is better that ten guilty persons be acquitted than that one innocent person be convicted”.This legal justice should not be confined only to the courts of justice but it should be equally extended to govern both the economic justice and economic systems. The economic systems, on the contrary, conveniently permit the economic criminals to escape from punishment and in turn punish the innocent workers who perform their social duty.The utmost duty of a worker is to produce socially needed goods and services only; but it is not the duty of the worker to bear the responsibility whether the goods and services he produced are sold out. On the other hand it is the duty of the consumers to buy the goods and services that are produced for their consumption at a just price and at the rate at which the goods and services are produced for them.On the contrary, the consumers, as a whole, behave in the market, guided by their erratic psychological factors, create time lags in purchasing the goods that are produced for their consumption and sometimes neglect the goods to buy at all. These negative and duly non-responsive factors affect the economy severely and ultimately result in the stagnation of goods in the markets. Due to the stagnation of goods in the market an equal volume of goods stagnated are not produced in the subsequent round of production. On the reduction of production of goods the workers who have fulfilled ‘the production – duty’ of the economy, have to lose their employment. The unemployment of a worker not only affects his ‘Right to Live’ but also of the whole family that depends on him. The unemployment of a worker ruins the education of his children, their future ambition in life and their morality and social dignity and their future economic security.The present economic systems are not competent and efficient enough to secure and save the “Right to live” of the workers who have honestly accomplished their ‘production-duty’ of the economy.To strengthen my argument I like to quote the words of Prof. Mrs. Joan Robinson : “It is true, with adequate organization there need be no unemployment … There is always something useful that can be done even with a man’s bare hands”**– Prof. Mrs. Joan Robinson : “Economic Philosophy” (p : 114)Joan Robinson too finds fault on the economic systems for wide range of unemployment; in other words, the economic systems that we pursue now are the primary reasons for the failure to provide “Right to Live” to the workers throughout the world. In the present economic systems and economic conditions ‘employment’ and ‘Right to Live’ are synonymous or just the same.What is the basic cause, today, throughout the world, for billions of youth are crushed by the burden of unemployment? It is the cause : “Every person, only up to the standard of education and technical training that the society has offered to him, can produce socially needed goods with his bare hands or with the help of small and simple capital that he can afford by himself and thus create ‘self-employment’ opportunities and secure right to live by himself. The creation of self-employment creates an expectation in the mind of the of the worker that the society i.e. the consumers should behave with a sense of ‘economic responsibility’ by consuming the goods at the rate at which he produces, at a reasonable price to sustain the livelihood of the worker. But every self-employed youth knows that the ‘economic responsibility’ is absolutely lacking in the minds of consumers. What is deeply rooted in the minds of unemployed youth is ‘a fear about the future’ that the consumers or the society that he belongs to would not perpetually and automatically accept the goods at a reasonable price that he produces by ‘self-employment’. The ‘fear about the future’ in the minds of the youth who wants to venture in ‘self-employment’ is reasonably justifiable. Due to ‘fear on the future’ the unemployed youth are not venturing in self-employment competing with the highly sophisticated industries. It is then whose fault if the youth are unemployed? The present economic systems have no economic techniques or ‘action programs’ to evacuate the ‘fear of the future’ in the minds of the unemployed youth and to induce ‘economic responsibility’ in the minds of society to save the ‘self-employed’ youth from the competition of well-organized industries. I have to point out it is the fault of the economic systems for the cause of unemployment and moreover I wish to state that the capitalists and equally the governments should not lay blame on the ‘fate’ of the youth for their unemployment. On the other hand the capitalists and the governments are persistently blame the fate of the youth and try to escape from their ‘economic responsibility’. So we have no other alternative except to forfeit our capital from the them and retain it with ourselves as we know perfectly well how to solve our unemployment and other economic problems.11.Economic Gambles: The basic intention leading for the invention of money is it should be used as a ‘medium of exchange’ in buying and selling goods and services. On the contrary, our present economic systems have invariably paved way for the money not only to be used as a ‘medium of exchange’ but also at a large extent as a ‘Medium of Economic Gambles’ throwing away the honesty and morality of societies to the winds. The multi-millionaires, today, have idly and futilely invested billions and billions of money in the stock markets as a medium of gambles uprooting the very noble function of money. The electronic media and the news papers extensively propagating the stock market indices for the benefit of the rich gamblers, the economic criminals, who want to earn quick and easy money with out shedding even a drop of sweat. The present economic systems have accepted this kind of economic gambles without any shyness.In addition, in the cradles of civilization, especially in the places of sports and games like cricket stadium, Tennis courts, Football grounds, Boxing arenas billions and billions of money are set into circulation as a ‘medium of gambles’. With the help of the ‘capital-power’ the capitalists today have vigorously transformed the noble arts, skillful sports, beautiful games and wonderful cultures into easy-money-earning centers instead of promoting these symbols of civilization. The capitalists in the name of ‘promoters’ have developed strong hatred not only in the minds of ‘players’ but also in the minds of ‘audience’. This kind of economic gambles is now rapidly spreading like dangerous virus in all four corners of the world. For example, the ‘Statesman’ in its 10th October 1978 issue states as follows :“Britain is a gambling nation. Nearly 94 percent of population indulge in an occasional flutter on races, at the gambling tables, on foot-ball pools or on a variety of other sports. 39 percent of all Britons are habitual gamblers. In 1977 an estimated $ 800 million were stated on races and gamblers. In 1977 an estimated $ 800 million were stated on races and other sports”. Instead of producing socially needed goods and services and creating employment opportunities, the capitalists are utilizing ‘our capital’ for economic gambles extensively and demoralizing our long cherished cultures and civilizations throughout the world.The capitalists now adopt a new business strategy to exploit the consumers : ‘First kill the civilization and then sell the goods’. The capitalists know the consumers will become a easy prey for sexual exposition. So they in all their advertisements use ‘women in half naked beauty’ to enchant consumers to buy their commodities. We know the capitalists are misusing ‘our capital’ to ‘sexually assault’ the consumers to maximize their profit at the cost of cultural destruction and spreading demoralization. With deep mental agony I like to state that millions of young women have now turned as prostitutes as a source of employment and the International Labor Organization (ILO) now recommends to accept prostitution as ‘flesh industry’ which contributes reasonable amount of foreign exchange for many countries.12.Class distinction and failure of economic machinery :In lieu of promoting fraternity among the people the present economic systems create various class distinctions such as 1. proletariat and capitalist, 2. consumer and producer, 3. savers and investors. The class distinction between proletariat and capitalist is always underlying at the bottom of strikes, lock outs and innumerable industrial disputes. The class distinction between ‘consumers and producers’ is attributable for the failure of determination of ‘just price’ in the market and for uneven distribution of goods among the people. The class distinction between ‘savers and investors’ is harmfully preventing the requisite acquisition of investment to eradicate poverty and unemployment expeditiously in the world. The present economic systems are full of contradictions without which they can not function. Our capital in the possession of few capitalists and the State is the root cause for all class distinctions. Once the capital comes under the ‘direct ownership of people’ all the class distinctions will disappear13.Maximization of profit destroys morality of society:In the present economic systems the industries project their ‘volume of profit’ as the ‘balance of judgment’ of their determination of ‘industrial success’ The industry which earns more profit is considered to be more successful. The mental attitude forces the capitalists even to destroy the natural environment extensively in order to produce goods cheaply. With the sole aim of maximization of profit, the capitalists have no even an iota of concern over the future welfare
What small business is doing well in this economy?
Most of them and the family owned ones, are way down, many in the red and many folded. What small businesses are still in the black. My background is engineering but I do NOT have a PE cert and don’t plan to.
If you know a business that is doing well, please list it. Thanks.
Professor Shiller provides a description of the course, Financial Markets, including administrative details and the topics to be discussed in each lecture. He briefly …