The Questions of a Born Loser

It’s not that I didn’t try, I did. But I could only secure 73.25 percent in my SLC exams, while my friends secured distinction. There were others too, who didn’t even get first division. Now today that I think of them, I can’t even imagine how they are managing their life.

I don’t know how I knew it. But I knew that I should not study Science. It would have been a real struggle for me. So, I didn’t. Instead I went for Commerce, as I was somewhat comfortable with my math and accounting. My guardians also told me that Commerce would be best for me. I did too at the moment. But nobody could guess then that I might not even pass in Commerce. You see I always took learning to mean getting more knowledge and understanding the concepts within. Back then I didn’t know, getting passed in a subject actually meant showing what you learnt during a whole year in just 3 hours.

I’m not complaining here. I know that in lack of a better system of examination, the current system is what we have, and we will have to make do with it.

Anyhow, I passed out my college. But I couldn’t pass my bachelor’s degree. There I failed. I did manage to pass all my practical papers but the theory papers were different story. I don’t know if I never learned anything, or just that I never got, what actually, if not what I read in my classes, to put in those theory subjects’ exams. I could never pass those theory subjects.

But fortunately I would say, due to my not so strong financial backgrounds, my routine was not only limited to the college hours. I had to make some money too.

I still remember the time when I had to search a job for the first time. I don’t know how other countries fair in this, but in my country, believe me, searching a job in the start of your career is like searching gems in a riverbank. But my sister helped me out there.

I got a job for $50 a month. No, I am not bluffing here. And this wasn’t so far back too, I guess this was during 2010/11, I don’t know. And I did the job. I am not bragging here, but my employer was very happy with me. I had to work with a software there, which I never used before. And in just over a week, I managed to understand the software more than my employer himself. And after that, he started to come to me if he had any doubt. He even gave me extra 50% bonus over my salary during the holiday seasons that just happened to occur at that exact time. So, in 2 months, I managed to earn 3 months’ salary. But at the lapse of 2 months, when I asked my employer to raise my salary a bit, he didn’t agree. Maybe he was not happy enough after all. The office was some 25 kilometers away from my residence, and to attend the office punctually, I had to leave directly from my morning classes without getting to return to home for lunch. So, the salary I was getting wasn’t enough to cover for the bus fare and lunch outside. I had to leave the job, and so I did.

By now, I had quite some reputation in my class, as a very bright student. But my brightness was limited. I was bright in only practical subjects. Math, Accounting and Logic were my best hits. The reputation came in handy, when a fellow student introduced me to his elder brother, who worked as a local tax consultant. He hired me with great promises. Allured by the promises I gave him my best efforts and worked as bookkeeper in his firm. From 9 to 6, I used to sit in front of a computer and work. To prove that I am worthy of the job, I even used to take some work home with me and work until I slept. But, in just one month I had to leave the job. Actually what happened was, it was the season for filing tax returns. And I volunteered to work hard during the heavy work load only to be told that they don’t have any more jobs for me to pay me. I didn’t even get paid what was promised. By now I had a pretty good idea of accounting and bookkeeping.

Similarly, I worked in some other places too, none of where I felt my hard work properly evaluated.

Making the long story short, I borrowed some money from my sister to go study Chartered Accountancy in India. As it happened I failed twice in the 2^nd intermediate level. So, now I had to be financially strong to support my education. So, I returned to Nepal to find the most worthy employer of my entire life.

This time, I got a very generous and understanding employer. He used to value my work rather than my punctuation and other irrelevant things. Just give me the work and take the money you deserve, he used to say. His was a bookkeeping and taxation consultancy firm with not much work load. So despite how much I liked it there, I had to look for somewhere else where there would be more work load, so that I could get paid more.

And with the hope of getting the right market and more work load, I came to Kathmandu, our capital city.

I guess you know the rest of the story (which is not a happily ever-after one).

You ask me why I told you all this? You will tell me that other people have more pressing issues than this, and I should be content with what I have. Then please read on.

You see I wasn’t explaining my sorrows to you, no. I was just asking a question. If you didn’t see any question marks in the lines above, you should probably try to improve your English. Because in each line and everything I’ve stated yet, lies a question.

Where did I miss? What did I do wrong?

In my classes I was focused on learning something, rather than passing out the exams. So, if our education system don’t recognize my skills, where is my fault in that? But alas, these are the questions that I will never get answered. The ones who are willing to answer these questions are not in the position to answer them, just like me. And the ones who are in the position to answer them are content with the system, so they are not willing to answer the questions. So, I know I will not get my questions answered. But even though I will not stop asking.

Who is going to pay for my bills for me, if not myself? Am I so unworthy for failing my exams, that now I will not even get to live a decent life? Is the society so humane, as it claims, when the more capable people believe that it is their right to live a more content life than the ones not so capable like them? Have our society moved even an inch from the time when the more powerful people used their arms to extort people weaker than themselves? If a first division student thinks that he should lead a more luxurious life than a second division student, then how can we look back in history and claim that we have become more civilized and humane than we were a thousand years ago?

I know a lot of you will just ignore my questions claiming that even asking such questions is lame. But I know these questions are very authentic, because I raised them myself. Some of you will even refrain from reading even first paragraph completely, claiming this article is boring. Well, I wasn’t trying to entertain you.

For those of you who actually read the whole thing, and also aren’t too narrow minded to see the alternative approach of morality that I’m showing you here, I want to ask you, which category do you fall in? The one willing to change but not capable of, or the one capable to change but not willing to. Or is there a third category too, where people both willing and capable of change fall under?

I envy the ones more able than me and pity the ones less able than myself, I guess that’s just human nature!

Is Term Limit the right answer? - by DHAKAL

Some countries have prime minister as their head of the government, whereas some other countries are run under the governance of the president. Whoever is the head of the government, generally a major power is assigned to that official by the constitution of the country. USA is governed by a President as the head and India by a prime minister. But whoever heads the government needs to be elected (or nominated in some cases) by a voting procedure. Generally, the requirement to win the office is more than two third or more than half in some cases like USA.

But today I’m not discussing how this election process works. Instead I want to speak about the constitutional limit on how many times a person can run for the head of the government. India doesn’t currently have any restrictions as to that matter. But US does. Yes there is a limit. Any one particular person can’t be elected as the president for more than two times, known as tenures, in USA. This restriction is mentioned in the Constitution itself. So what do you think is the purpose of this restriction? This tenure limit in USA started, I think from the time of Franklin Roosevelt since 1951. And the purpose was to eradicate the possibilities of monopoly.

You see, a head of the government tends to have a great power. And with that power he can increase his chances of winning the office again and again. The rise of Hitler has to be considered as an equivalent example. Just because, the Indian PMs and other similar heads of other countries could not continue to become head of the country despite the lack of any such restrictions doesn’t mean that such restrictions are unnecessary. It just means that nobody yet has come with the strategic capacity to use this loop to his advantage. But somebody might. And that day, the country might follow the path of Germany via dictatorship.

The not so powerful Asian country Nepal is in its verge on promulgating a new constitution. Many Nepalese people are even insisting on following the ways of US instead of their neighboring country India, and putting the term limit for their prime minister in their constitution. But the issue is not so simple. Being of Nepalese origin myself, I know the tendency of most Nepalese people to take significant decisions, despite the lack of proper understanding and analysis. The term limit on such above mentioned offices doesn’t only have advantages.

Nepal has just escaped from the grasp of monarchy. And in doing so, it has also escaped from the authority and care of a king. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing. I’m just saying that, before now people didn’t need to choose the supreme power of the country by themselves. But now, they do have to choose who is going to rule over them and how and they have to choose wisely. Nepal is yet to face many stages of development via government by public choice. And one of them is corruption too. So, how can we ensure that a prime minister is going to perform his job responsibly? And how can we ensure that somebody does his job responsibly? Simple, by acknowledging their effort and rewarding their hard work and integrity. This is not just a method to be used in politics. Every business and management student knows that reward for good work and punishment for bad work is the surest thing to ensure that somebody does his work responsibly.

So, how can Nepal reward any government head for his good work? At least by not limiting his tenure limit via constitution. This is of course not enough. But at least this way there will be something that the prime minister will be looking forward to in order to do his work more nicely, don’t you think? I’m not a political expert, but this is the matter of very common sense, isn’t it? If you promise somebody a possibility of reward, then at least they might perform better.

But that’s still not the solution that I suggest to be put in the constitution. I have a far better solution to this debate.

But let’s summarize our debate first. If we don’t restrict the tenure limit to any significant office of government, then there is a possibility that the office with a great power can use its power to ensure its continued term in the office and that will be equivalent to dictatorship. And if we restrict the tenure limit to those significant office, then while on the last tenure of their service, the particular officials will have nothing to look forward as reward for their better performance, so they might go careless, or worse they might use whatever time period they have left in the office to secure wealth for personal interests and this way invite corruption.

My suggestion would be that the constitution should include in it a clause, which requires a higher portion of supporting votes to win the office, for any particular candidate, for each successive tenure.

If the requirement of a candidate to win as prime minister of the country is say two third, i.e. 67%, for the first time, and suppose he won. Then in his second tenure he should be required to secure a higher percentage let’s say 70% to become the prime minister. And if he won even that tenure, then in his third tenure he should be required to secure higher portion of votes still, may be 75%! And this increment should go on like this until he could no longer secure the votes required to be secured by him at the time. But other candidates who are running for the first time should enjoy the privilege to get elected just by two third votes, as this is their first time, and they don’t have the power like the already elected prime minister.

This will achieve two things. First, for every successive tenure the prime minister will perceive a chance, no matter how small, to win again in the next election. So, he will try to retain his good image by doing better work still. Secondly, as the requirement of votes in his favor gets on increasing with each successive tenure, he doesn’t have complete power to manipulate the next elections. May be he wins two or three tenures, but then there will always be somebody who votes against him. And if he gets on winning and even happens to secure unanimous vote in the extreme? This is simply impractical, but even if we consider such a scenario, then I think that’s the best thing we can hope for. What in the world can be better for a country then the whole people of the country being united under one leader. That will surely be the exemplary state in the whole world.

This clause in the constitution can actually be the problem solver. But will it reach the ears of the politicians in charge of writing constitution? Answer to that question depends solely upon the efforts of the readers of this post to make this idea public, and also upon the open mindedness and readiness of the politicians to break down the traditional ways and accept new things in new ways.

You see, no society lack great ideas, but only those get to be known as founders of great ideas who express those ideas first and actually work upon them.
                                                                                                       -DHAKAL

Avoid paying alimony after divorce

Marriage is a bond of love and trust. But if the whole structure of marriage is supported just by the financial threats of alimony, the juice from the marriage will dry up. If people have to be afraid of their spouse and remain dominated for the rest of their lives just because they might be sued for alimony, then the very essence of marriage won’t be present in the institution of marriage. So, how to sort out this issue?

There is now a tradition somewhere of making an agreement before marriage that would help you decide terms in case of divorce. This type of agreement is called premarital contract or prenuptial agreement. This type of contract before marriage will decide everything from alimony to terms of divorce and the process to be followed for it. Asking your fiance for a prenuptial just before marriage may not be that romantic. But it will surely show your open mindedness and understanding.

Drafting such agreements doesn’t show you are in any way doubtful of the marriage, it just shows that you are prudent and far sighted. It will also remove any restrictions from the institution of marriage so the marriage will be bound only by love.

Want to help poor kids study?

Your small help can really be a big change

The old car or any vehicle, you are using no longer might help a child somewhere complete their study. Your big heart can change the world slightly. If you are from states like Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Austin, San Antonio or even any states in USA, you can tow away your old car for free. And more you’ll also get the Tax Deductions if you donated to an IRS Approved 501 (c) 3, non-profit charity company.

In your donation 100% of the net proceeds go to the kids. You don’t even have to worry about the Paperworks. Such companies have staffs who are knowledgeable and friendly donation specialists.

Think of it. It is the way you are going to be able to help small children with their study and you’ll also get the highest possible tax benefits. They take your cars, trucks, vans, boats, motorcycles, RVs, campers, jet skis, forklifts, trailers, and also other any type of vehicle whether they are running or not.

These donation process are also DMV notified, so your vehicle title will get removed out of your name. And the main thing is there will be no cost to you in these donations. That means the donation is fully free of cost to you.

Don’t wait and think, that way some child is going to have to leave his education. Help, them and feel good that you’ve helped to change the world. And of course don’t forget to do the paperwork to collect your tax deductions.

Why give your car away for free?

Why give your car away for free?

Got any old cars or other vehicles that you don’t want anymore? Or buying a new car and thinking of disposing the old one? Well you can always donate your old vehicles to the charitable organizations around your locality, and they will repair it and make use of it in various charitable purposes.

Why give your car for free?

Technically, if you’re a tax paying citizen, then you’re not giving away your car for free. Your donation would sum up to a legitimate donation that will get you tax deductions while paying your income tax. Yes if you were to sell your car then you will have to pay tax for that income you generated by selling your car. But if you were to donate the car, its value will be regarded as a loss to you in computing your tax income. So, it will decrease your tax liability. Of course you’re not getting the full worth of your car this way, but then you get to have the feeling that you’re doing something good for your community and the needy people all around the world, for very low cost in your part.

Whom to give your car?

There are many charitable organizations dealing in donated vehicles. It’s a very long list. You can search one nearest to you by using internet browsing. There are also some manufacturers who take your cars as donated and repair them, and then give them to the charitable organizations on your behalf by taking from such charitable organizations only the repairing cost on their part. The legal works and gestures for your tax purpose will be easy enough as the charitable organizations have hired experts solely for the purpose to guide you through this process.

How will your car be used?

Either your car will be sold and the proceeds from there be used for some charitable purposes or they can also use your cars after a bit repair for transporting foods and other materials and even volunteers to places of need. This way your car can go different places helping the needy people around the globe.

Why donate at all?

The donations, for some people, seem unnecessary, not because they don’t want to help others but because they think that they can do this on their own without interference from any charitable organizations. They think they can themselves help poor people by giving away food to those poor people near them, or clothes or even shelter for that matter. But when you see the big picture there are places where there are people in need but nobody like you near them who can help them. And trust me they are in far more need than the poor people that you see every day. These are the victims of war or any natural calamities.

The role of the charitable organizations become vital here. They collect all the helps that people like you can give and take that help to the people in real need. A single man like you or a few man like you may not be able to help you but the purpose of the charitable organization is to make hundreds and thousands of people like you help those needy people. Only this way the help matters.

What is the big game in the game of thrones?

This has been the only question I have been asking myself from quite some time. I see people obsessed with Jon Snow's parentage, Daenerys Targaryen's return to Westeros, or else Tyrion’s chances of riding a dragon. Whereas the main character obviously lies north of the Wall, the crippled Bran, the broken (pun intended). And around that main character revolves the main question that needs to be discussed far more often than the parentage of Jon or the return of Dany to Westeros. Of course fans should have been the intentions of white walkers. Why they are coming and what will stop them. Yes, yes you’ll say of course the Valyrian blades I the hands of Westerosi warriors will stop them. But can they? Really?

I’m sure that Bran has to play a far more essential role than any other characters in the coming war of seasons, or gods as you might like to call it. The crippled needed to go over to the other side of the wall. And for him an escort team of two had arrived at the instructions of the three eyed raven. Nobody else (except for Stannis maybe) have got so much interest from any gods yet. And for those of you who think Brynden Rivers, the three eyed crow as some evil, black hearted deceptive guy, I can assure you that he is one of the most honorable man living in that world. Not honorable like Ned, who was so strictly attached to his ethical standards that he could not commit some not so honorable things even if that meant greater good. No, Ned did not quite understand that honor was to save the vulnerable and poor. No, he didn’t even think about risking his innocent daughters before protesting against Lannisters. Seriously if I were him I would have shut up for the realm and my daughters.

Brynden Rivers is different. For those of you who have already read ‘The Tales of Dunk and Egg,’ you know what I mean by different. In that book he was shown only at last for a brief part. But even I that short time you can know that the man is the purest one. And he is not afraid to taint his honor to do real good. Even in ‘A World of Ice and Fire,’ he is said to have killed a guest under sworn protection to end the long rivalry between black dragons and the red dragons, thus protecting the realm and its people from any future wars. For that same reason, later on, king Aegon, the Egg sent him to the walls. And even there he proved his worth and became the lord commander. How can someone be evil he spent half his life in the roots of a tree for some purpose. Such a purpose could never be unethical.

And the crippled boy whom Brynden Rivers sent for, imagine how valuable he has to be. Brynden is clearly worried about the coming war. And he also don’t think the warriors of the kingdom could save themselves and others from the soon ensuing war. And surely enough the CG’ied villains from the land of always winter (or much farther) are coming to kill or be killed.

At this point two things are clear. One the war seems inevitable. Another the living warriors could not by themselves win over dead warriors without some serious help from the supernatural. And even if we assume that Bran going fight among the livings against the dead, we know that he can control some animals and see in the past, future and everywhere else that there is to see, how exactly is he going to claim the victory that Martin will surely not deprive us of. Bran can’t possibly possess a lot of animals at once to fight against the dead. So, there remains only two things that Bran can do, and mind it what Bran is going to do is most essential in the coming war. Either seeing in the past or in the future Bran can somehow know more about the White Walkers, and inform Jon or somebody else about the strengths and ‘weaknesses’ of White Walkers. That task doesn’t seem to actually require Bran right. Anybody from the children of the forest can tell the night’s watch about Brynden’s findings, and they will of course believe the legendary children of the forest.

Or may be Bran is not just needed to gain and then provide to others the knowledge about Others. Maybe Bran has to do something that the children of the forest themselves couldn’t do, and Brynden couldn’t do it due to his frailty of age. Of course he will ride a dragon. There is no other answer to why he is so much essential for the coming War of Gods.

This my views only summarizes how Bran is going to play the biggest role of them all. Yet I also couldn’t still of any reasons why the Others are coming for this war. They surely don’t have a passion for war just to roam around in the territory of their ancient enemies with swords in their hands for fun. They have some purpose for coming here and they mean business. I won’t be surprised if they are back for revenge. But where were they this long? Hiding or preparing and gathering strength?

And don’t think Martin has yet issued any hints to that question. We will have to wait for other books to be published to know more about the nature and intentions of the White Walkers and an overview of the big game in the story.

Are we ready for the self-driving cars?

The technology around the world is evolving fast. And with the change, the science is producing many wonders for human convenience. Even the cars are now being made to drive by themselves. No human driver needed. And with it, the manufacturers claim, the potential of accidents due to human errors will also be diminished.

But the inevitable issue of the AI related technology also arises with the new invention. The issue of ethical dilemma. The long run debate of by what principal should we actually program the AI ethics. You might not actually know this but ethics is not so simple a matter. In many cases it’s actually very intense to point out what course of action would actually be right or better than all others. This confusion arises due to many existing principles for defining ethics. The Utilitarian approach among others is very widely accepted which stats that the best course of action is the one in which greater good is insured. But there are other approaches too. The Deontological approach states that the most ethical action is the one that best protects the rights of those affected in the situation. There are also other approaches, a combination of which can only decide for the true ethical action. But as I have already said that these approaches differ in their base, so the attitudes of people also differ in the concept of ethics itself.

So, the manufacturers of the modern technology are always in dilemma in one decision or other. Currently the debate is over how best the self-driving cars can be programmed so their action in each situation could be ensured to be ethical. But upon the survey that these manufacturers conducted to know the public view about the issue, their findings indicate towards a new emerging technological paradox.

Now let’s understand some crucial points in the programming of the cars. If the car happen to come upon a situation where either only the occupants of the car or only the people on the road could be saved, which action should the car take? The Utilitarian approach suggests that the number of occupants in real danger should be compared with the number of people on the road in real danger and the car should try to ensure the safety of maximum lives as best it could. But some ethical philosophers suggest that unlike the people on the road, the occupants actually agreed for the ride. The occupants, by occupying the self-driving cars actually agreed to a tacit contract that they are ready to bear any risks associated with the running of such cars in the road.

But however the logic is twisted, no one would actually agree to ride such cars which are programmed to their occupants in time of crises. So, the people in the survey, despite agreeing that the cars should save the people on the roads, no one agreed t actually ride such cars themselves. And therein lies the paradox.

The only road out of this paradox, I think is to make people understand how little there is any such chances of crises. The passengers are even today bearing such risks while travelling by airs or even the roadways. But the fact remains that in no way should a car try to save its occupants at ‘all’ costs. Some of such costs might actually turn out to be quite expensive for the people walking by the road sides who didn’t even benefit from this technological progress in the first place.

The Big Question of the Saga ASOIAF

The book series A Song of Ice and Fire is the most popular fictional book series right now. People around the world are obsessed with the plotlines and theories that are not yet revealed. The most intriguing question I think is who the hell is Azor Ahai. And the answer to that question, as per fan theories revolve around Jon Snow (may be Jon Targaryen) and Daenerys Targaryen.

Both the candidates are equally viable with supporting proofs in both sides. But what if neither of them are actually the prince that was promised. What if the intriguing writer Martin is just misguiding his fans intentionally? That would be so much cooler. Personally, I have made a very great image of Martin’s ability and I expect much greater expose in the end story than the parentage of Jon Snow, which is not so genuinely hidden in the first place.

After all if you are a perceptive reader, you can find out that something is amiss from the very first book. The way Jon is cast as an innocent victim from the very beginning surely makes him a real deal whose character is yet to be built. And even Ned time and again goes into his trance of Lyanna’s memory in odd timings. The way he remembers the promise that he made to his sister signifies that he lived his life for the promise and the way Lyanna was desperate to get the promise from her brother, she was asking for a big deal from him. And what would be bigger than the noble Ned destroying his credibility by acknowledging Jon Snow as his bastard son.

So, there isn’t any doubt to whether Jon Snow is a Targaryen. The important questions are others like is he Azor Ahai, the prince that was promised? He surely seem to fulfill the prophecies like taking birth amidst salt and smoke and such. But the prophecies are a treacherous thing. You can twist the words as you like to make it mean what you would like it to mean.

Dany on the other hand seems more legitimate for the prophecy with her dragons and all. But this is Martin’s work we are discussing. And if the rebirth of the dragons and her birth amidst smoke and salt are the proofs for her to be the Azor Ahai then it seems that the biggest suspense of the saga is revealed in the first book itself, which is so unlike Martin. So I’m quite sure that the prophecy doesn’t point towards Dany. About Jon, I think the current findings indicate enough that he may be the answer to the big question. But who knows, except for maybe Martin himself. And whatever he might have said in his interviews, I’m not quite sure (figuratively) that even Martin knows the answer yet.

Will Superdelegates Permit Bernie to run for presidential candidacy?

The two democrats of the US politics Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and the Secretary Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton can’t both run against the republican candidate. One of them has to step down. And currently neither of them seem exactly okay to step down for another. But even so, the party will have to ultimately pick one. Secretary Clinton has always seemed to be some steps forward in this race. The Senator Bernie’s popularity, even if it came a bit late can’t be exactly ignored. That’s where the role of superdelegates is crucial.

Democratic Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Shultz says that superdelegates are in place to protect party leaders from running against grassroots activists. So, the main question will be who among them is gaining more popularity from the real voters of the country. Even when any public official debates held between the two seem to increase the weight of Bernie over Clinton, the Superdelegates are still doubtful that Senator Bernie Sanders could actually win the election against republican candidate and became the President Bernie Sanders.

The foreign origin of Bernie Sanders and his outright expression of views in some critical discussions seem to be the main reason why the superdelegates are still doubtful. Yes you can see the passion for Bernie among the Bernie supporters, but still the passion is not going to win him the victory. It’s the number that matters. And the superdelegates in the Democratic Party feel that Hillary’s supporters even if not passionate about her seem to be more in number.

So, without the permission of the superdelegates Bernie can’t even be the presidential candidate for the coming election. But will Bernie be able to actually be able turn around the course and make the superdelegates believe that he has actually more possibility to win this victory than Hillary.

So let’s cross our fingers and hope for the best. You know what’s best!

Is America ready for a socialist economy?

The recent past of US election campaigns has seen some significant ups and downs, where the traditional thinking and the people’s mindset is concerned. The current president Barrack Obama is a live example of such revolutions. Finally the citizens of United States were able to put aside their traditional mindset and choose a president representing all the people of America. The black president was able to show the people that they are able to change now and move towards the new era.

But it yet remains to be seen that whether the American people are ready for the socialism that have so long been a taboo concept in the politics of the country. The word is not completely unheard of in the history of the country’s politics. But first time, I think have come a senator who is running for the presidential position and at the same time not afraid to call himself a socialist. Even if the Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders hasn’t clarified the extent to which he would favor socialism over capitalism, he has at least spoken the unspeakable S-word.

Previously wise man like Einstein also pointed out the inefficiency of capitalism but such wise people were busy telling their wise tales and achieving scientific achievements. But our senator might be the first influential person who is going on preaching about Socialism. Maybe it’s time to at least understand what socialism actually is and ponder over our options.

The other democrat candidate Secretary Hillary Clinton still couldn’t favor middle class people over elites of United States. Maybe she is afraid about the elites getting angry and leaving the country. And with them will go a huge tax revenue for the government. She was even so far ready to use the tax money to bail out the famous Wall Street crisis. As it has been public now to this point that she voted in favor of the bail out, but Bernie was not so agreeable to use the tax money of the middle class family to give any kind of relief to the elites of the Wall Street.

Even if Bernie couldn’t change the economy of the country and establish the welfare state immediately, he is surely going to introduce the concept of society and community welfare more than the greed for the tax money in his new plans and policies, if he is indeed elected for the position. Having an origin from the Asian side I know quite well how the Indian current Prime Minister Modi won his elections almost unexpectedly. During the election campaigns he was seen as a positive change in the politics of India, but even so many people were not ready to accept that the country might be ready for such a big change in its politics.

This creepy man is going to change the country and the globe.

We also saw the same case scenario in our own country, during president Obama’s electoral campaign. He was too an unexpected change in the history of our country’s politics. Are we again going to see such a dramatic victory for our Socialist senator Bernie Sanders? Well fingers are crossed. Till now Secretary Clinton is leading the campaign with a wide gap, but who knows. May be with the changing attitude of the country’s media and all the followers that seem to sprout suddenly from nowhere, may be Bernie can after all run for the presidential candidate as a democrat. And from there the distance to the Oval office of White House is not so far.

Interest policies to face inflation

Some wise economists derived that inflation occurs due to the excess of money flow in the market and similarly when the money flow is low deflation occurs. I actually read this in one of the many courses that I took. Well I took many courses but did not pass many because I writing pace is very slow. In the time specified for writing a 100 marks theory paper, I could only write 50 marks tops. I was saying that money flow in the market is described as the factor of inflation and deflation. But let’s take this theory to a practical circumstance and analyze it.

If in a country people have no cash, bank balance or any assurance from the third party that they will clear up their debt, will they get stuffs for free around that country? Well this may sound stupid, but here I’m actually following our theory that inflation or deflation, i.e. - the purchasing power of money is dependent upon the total flow of money in the market. So, if the market has say zero money flow, does that mean that the purchasing power of money would extremely high to the point of infinity and almost no money could buy enough stuff?

Still don’t get the stupidity of the theory? Let me put it in a simple way. Flow of money means all the medium of purchase, namely cash, bank balance and also credit. Technically cash and bank balance is created via credit. Your government or your apex bank, may it be named national, central or reserve bank gives assurance for the cash or bank balance you’re using. Ever read the legal notice in your currency bill? Previously it used to say that the United States will on demand return the worth of your currency bill in gold. Now it just states that the bill is a legal tender for debts and receivables. In banking terms this is called a promissory note that is issued by the government promising to pay the specified sum whenever you demand it. So, every currency bill or coins you are using, from now on bear in mind that you are using the assurance of your government. If your government’s credibility were to go down you will only have a piece of paper that wouldn’t be worth anything.

So, economists are trying to make us believe that US government were to increase the flow of money by giving more such assurances, then the purchasing power of the money will go on declining meaning the products in your supermarket will be expensive. Don’t just think that you have understood it all. The government issuing more money in the market means that people who want that money will have to pay for it as interest. There would always be a cost to that money/assurance that you are using whether you are paying it or somebody else. Now you know it all that you need to know. Now tell me, if the government decreases the interest rate on that assurance/money, and so causing more people to take that as debt and ultimately increasing the flow of money in the market higher, will the products in your supermarket goes expensive? I don’t think so.

Whatever the economy be, the price of a product is dependent upon some factors, none of which in any way relates to the increased flow of money in the market or the decreased interest rate for that money. We have to see it clearly that the money we are speaking about is not a product in itself, but just a means to exchange products. Yes the increase in means to purchase a product might affect the psychology of the customer. But it is not the customer who increases the price, but the seller who does so in essence. And the seller have distinct factors to cause him to increase the price of a product, the availability of means with his customer is not one of them.

Alternately, if we assume that the person taking the debt from the government in a decreased interest cost is seller, then it is crystal clear that the increase in the flow of money is going to diminish his financial costs of operations and so his products might actually be even cheaper. Why don’t economists think in this line?

The main factors that I mentioned above as actually responsible for the increase in price of a product is two sided that I’ve mentioned a lot previously, and I’m going to describe it again here.

In one side, the inflation is triggered. Inflation is triggered due to some reasons, none of which are economic. The main among them I think is the monopolistic nature of a product. When an individual is selling some unique stuff that couldn’t be replaced by another product, like petrol, and if it such happens that only he is selling that stuff, then sooner or later he is going to realize that he can charge higher for the product with decreasing the volume of his sales. And so he could increase his total revenue than he will do it. You might say that even petrol like products don’t have a unique seller, so inflation could not be triggered this way. But that’s why, my friends they are forming cartels of common industry so that they could control the price of their product. And even governments don’t object as long as they are getting higher and higher taxes as their share in crime.

On the other side, or maybe we should say another level, when a product becomes unreasonably expensive, then the consumer of that product or the producer of any other product who uses that initial product in his production process could not find it in his budget to afford for that expensive product. So, the primary consumers will react. They will increase the price of whatever they are selling (product or service). They will have to do so even if they face the disadvantage of competition because otherwise they are surely at loss. And even the primary consumers will be able to bear the burden of that highly expensive product by making their own product more expensive. This cycle goes on. This shift in the market price is inflation. It goes on until the cycle reaches to such a consumer who could not actually adjust themselves with the shift in the market price. Why you ask? Because they are the one with the product/service of poor bargaining power and they become the one who has to bear the whole weight of the inflation. Our labor force is the example of such poor bargaining power who always suffer whenever a cartel of industry is formed to control the price of the product that industry is producing.

So, I want to tell the economists lets speak the truth and don’t fear to teach the real economics. Because then somebody may actually invent a system that is far more better than our current system of market.

We are here to criticize. We are Gentle Critics.

Ever Expanding Insurance Industries

There are risks in every facet of life. People fear death, accidents and almost any other change. But the deaths and accidents, besides the obvious losses, also bears a financial crisis to the family and dependents which is just the added grief over the event. Relatives don’t only have to bear the grief of loss of affection they also have to face the financial instability subsequent to such events. The insurance have come into market as a financial product that helps you cope with such financial crisis. Insurance doesn’t only help in case of loss of your close relations but it also helps you in your business by securing you to some extent from any financial crisis that you might face due to some unseen future happenstances.

Insurance have always been an auxiliary industry for any other industries of commerce. Since the evolution of insurance as a financial product in market, it has provided relief to too many aggrieved families as well as helped establish many big businesses in its initial stage by giving a security against the potential harms and crises. But not unlike many other market changes, insurance also could not free itself from the shadow of crime that seems to be ever increasing its shape along with the expansion of insurance industry.

The cases of burning property and buildings to benefit from insurance claims are always well rumored. Homicides are also known to emerge due to the attractive benefits of insurance policies. The greatest among the rumors must be the one that claims the terrorist attack of 9/11 to be inside job done by the owners of the building to benefit from the insurance claim on the building. Silverstein, the then owner got $4.55 billion from the insurers after all. But even though one need to know that insurance companies never pay anybody more than the actual loss incurred. So, whatever was paid to Silverstein should have to be less than or equal to the actual loss. So the theory of the event being an inside job is just that, a theory.

But even so one cannot deny that in many cases owners have known to overvalue and then insure their property and later on demolish the property in cover of some accidents or otherwise, so that they could get a handsome reward. And many rumors claim that there have been such cases. So, this makes us think that may be insurance companies are becoming poorer by bearing the burden of such fake losses. But no. Only AXA Group engaging in insurance business reported a total revenue of € 99 billion just for fiscal year. Another company named Zurich Insurance Group reported a total of $ 60.568 billion also just in 2015. There also exist many other giant companies in the industry that have accumulated so much wealth that the remaining industries are almost financially handicapped. You see, despite any frauds and conspiracies the insurance industries are going on expanding undisturbed. They collect insurance premiums from so many customers that they need not bother over few casualties whose burden they might have to bear. Only AXA Group as mentioned above has over 102 million customers in 56 countries with the employees’ count of only 157,000.

We want Einstein for our president

I don’t think there are anybody today who don’t know Einstein. Everybody knows him for his intellectual superiority, and his wisdom was well established. He was one of those people who never showed any inclination towards traditional bias and prejudice. He always saw the facts in front of him in their true light. Even though people around the world today praise him for his intellect and wisdom, very few people actually know why he is actually considered so superior than others. Of course he made some mistakes in his scientific deductions, but that in no way establishes that he doesn’t deserves the praise that he got. But the fact remains that even people who consider him wise can’t actually embrace his way of thinking. If I were to ask anybody today about Einstein they readily accept that he was the wisest man to roam the earth (with very few exceptions). But if I told the same person some very basic beliefs and claims of Einstein he would not even believe me.

The very first among these beliefs were his religious ones. Many people, at first observation saw Einstein as an atheist. But others, mainly religiously involved people claim that he changed his religious beliefs in his later years. Neither is the fact however. As I have read some of his very early and also his later works, I couldn’t find any significant difference in his religious beliefs. Only less wise people today couldn’t understand what he actually wanted to say, because of his complicated choice of words. Einstein never refuted a supreme power, or the concept of god. He just refused to believe the image of god that the people around him had drawn up. He neither supported the belief that there must be a god of any form whatsoever. In that way he may better be called an agnostic than atheist or theist. He accepted that he could not know, due to the limitations of his intellectual capacity, whether there is a god or not, which many among us fail to accept. In this way he was neither bound by the traditional misconception nor was he so proud to claim that he knew everything there is to know about the mysteries of nature. Or, we can say that he was true servant of the Truth.

Another thing that would surprise you is the fact that Albert Einstein was never against socialism. In fact he strongly warned the rulers of the world against capitalism saying that the free competition in capitalism leads to the waste of labor and resources. On other hands he also strongly focused on the point that a planned economy, as seen today is also not a socialism. In such planned economy also, there remains a central power that leads to the enslavement and exploitation of the involved individual labors. Bernie Sanders, as of today is my preferential candidate, just because he was not afraid to assert capitalism for what it is. Bernie is also not afraid to hint that he might favor socialism if he is elected as US president. What remains to be seen is can he actually distinguish between socialism and the planned economy, and move one step further toward the perfection.

The most surprising fact however is that Albert Einstein, the proclaimed wise man was strongly against Patriotism. Basically Einstein was such a figure that if he would have said that I am not human than I would have believed in him. Because, neither would he have denied me the truth intentionally, he worshiped truth, nor would he have said so without strong understanding of why I’m not a human, which would of course have been out of my own understanding. But either way he would not have lied to me. He saw patriotism for what it is. He thought patriotism in its extreme was corrupting the young minds with ridiculous sense of competition. Instead, he supported global correspondence with all his heart. I would of course like to know what Bernie Sanders’s views are in this matter. Of course being a presidential candidate he cannot outright declare that he is against patriotism. But will he motivate his fellow countrymen by the speeches of patriotism and nationalism or will he find bigger words like humanity and global correspondence. People say that great minds think alike. If Bernie is in essence the servant of Truth like Einstein then we might be seeing a new era of global correspondence and global peace. Yes, I don’t think that there is any reason why he won’t be our next president. I am voting for him and so are many other people like me, who want to achieve the unachievable perfection.

Lost ethics

Most governments around the world encourage their citizens for entrepreneurships. Governments have always been trying to promote big businesses, and that is rational too by their point of stand. What do you think is the impact of entrepreneurship in an economy? If you asked this question to an economist you would get the answer that entrepreneurship being an accumulation of production and supply, tends to increase the economies of scale. In simple words this means that when you’re producing in large quantities, due to the unchanging nature of the fixed costs involved in the production process, the cost per unit of production will decrease, and so the marginal profit is increased.

If you asked this same question to a government official, he might tell you that it increases the employment opportunities for the poor and increase the economic strength of the country by increasing the productivity. And by the way entrepreneurs tend to pay a lot more taxes than individuals, so the government will have more money to pay for the development expenses.

Entrepreneur themselves will focus on the point that they are serving the community by producing a new product that was not yet available or otherwise available at a higher price and they are selling it cheaper.

All the arguments are true, or at least from the perspective of the ones who are arguing. I however want to represent in my argument the ones who are neither educated enough to give their arguments, nor will be heard even if they had something to say.

An Indian philosopher and politician Mahatma Gandhi focused in his speeches over the essence of ethics in business and entrepreneurship. He also showed the examples of ideal rulers of ancient (most likely mythical) India. The ethical attitude that whatever an organization has earned is derived from the community. The organization uses the resources of the community (natural, human or financial) and from them it derives its profit and accumulates the wealth. So, everything an organization has, the organization owns it to the community. So, the organization needs to pay back its debt to the community in cash or kind. This ethical standard is also well known in wests.

But, that’s it the standard is only well known, and not applied anywhere. Some, companies do promote the public welfare in its environments. But they never possess an intention to actually promote the well-being of their surroundings. Generally such acts of welfare are intended to serve as goodwill for the organization. They only seek good public image while contributing thus. So, we can establish that such acts are nothing but a hoax.

I agree with the economist in his view that the entrepreneurship will increase the economies of scale.But won’t it also create a product with a strong bargaining power. If the entrepreneurship was not so formed, the workers involved would have been the competitors of each other and so the competition to sell their service or product might surely have decreased the price of that particular product.

The government official in favor of entrepreneurship is also not wrong. But what of the people who wanted to use their local resources and do something on their own. The newly established organization in their community sentenced them for a life time of salary based labour, where any personal progress is completely out of question. And to the entrepreneurs I just want to say that remember that you’re using the natural resources that was not your own to make a profit that you’ll not distribute. The water resources, and other resources, that you’re using basically belongs to the community. You’ve no right to make a product out of them and then sell it to their original owners, the community where the resources basically belonged.