Does India need to increase or decrease it's defense spending?

[dahiyarules]

I am starting this new thread to know what Jatlanders think about Military spending.

Please answer the poll and submit your views on this issue. Tell me why you think that we need to increase or decrease our Military budget.

I read a really wonderful article on this issue in an economic journal. I won't tell you anything about it at this moment. But, once I get a general sense about most of us think about this issue, I will post it here.

[devdahiya]

Sumit,Our Military spendings can be cut out if we can be guareteed a trouble free reigion.If there is a guarenteed peace for next 100 years on the borders and in the world then ofcourse there is no need for defense forces also but is it possible..? Till such time we have nasty neighbours and ever increasing arms pile ups around us,it will be dead foolish to even debate an issue of this nature.

[dahiyarules]

Sumit,Our Military spendings can be cut out if we can be guareteed a trouble free reigion.If there is a guarenteed peace for next 100 years on the borders and in the world then ofcourse there is no need for defense forces also but is it possible..? Till such time we have nasty neighbours and ever increasing arms pile ups around us,it will be dead foolish to even debate an issue of this nature.

I am sure leaders of China and Pakistan use your line of reasoning with their own people. Ofcourse, they do not tell their people that "India is a very friendly nation. So, we need to spend more on the military."

[devdahiya]

I am sure leaders of China and Pakistan use your line of reasoning with their own people. Ofcourse, they do not tell their people that "India is a very friendly nation. So, we need to spend more on the military."



It is a perception dear and can be twisted the way one wishes.

[dndeswal]

.
This is an interesting topic to discuss, unless Sumit has started this thread for his well-known “anti-Government” crusade. :)

Defence forces and defence spending in almost all countries are the liabilities of Governments !:)

Here, I am only quoting two web-links.

Annual report of India’s Ministry of Defence:

http://mod.nic.in/reports/MOD-English2006.pdf (http://mod.nic.in/reports/MOD-English2006.pdf)

Also see “List of countries by military expenditures” on the following web-page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)

By the way, the per capita defence expenditure of Pakistan is reported to be almost double compared to India.

Moreover, figures may lie – Governments normally do not publish correct data relating to their defence spendings.
.

[vijay]

Sumit Bhai,

India don't have the aggresive nature as China and Pakistan. So it's not that bad if we keep ourselves ready for any happenings.

I hope you remember about Nehru's comment's "Hindi Chini bhai bhai" and what happened after that ???

Power rules the world but not nice thoughts. :)

[rkumar]

I am sure leaders of China and Pakistan use your line of reasoning with their own people. Ofcourse, they do not tell their people that "India is a very friendly nation. So, we need to spend more on the military."

Can you name me friendly countries India has or ever had ? What the hell Japan had to do when they bombed pearl harbour? Pseudo economists think that every aspect of human life is nothing but simple economic activity. Hope you know why India lost 200 years of economic development ? Why did British took over Indian states one by one and colonised half of the world by military power? No nation can develop economically unless they have sound defence. Ofcourse one needs intelligent rulars also and defence alone can not solve all the ills of a nation. Like a balanced human body, nation also needs to be balanced with a right mix of everything. like weak animals are nothing but fodders of stronger ones, weak nations also serve the same purpose. India has to maintain a very strong defence, else we will be broken into pieces once again. Needless to mention we need strong economy also to support of defence budget.

RK^2

[devdahiya]

Can you name me friendly countries India has or ever had ? What the hell Japan had to do when they bombed pearl harbour? Pseudo economists think that every aspect of human life is nothing but simple economic activity. Hope you know why India lost 200 years of economic development ? Why did British took over Indian states one by one and colonised half of the world by military power? No nation can develop economically unless they have sound defence. Ofcourse one needs intelligent rulars also and defence alone can not solve all the ills of a nation. Like a balanced human body, nation also needs to be balanced with a right mix of everything. like weak animals are nothing but fodders of stronger ones, weak nations also serve the same purpose. India has to maintain a very strong defence, else we will be broken into pieces once again. Needless to mention we need strong economy also to support of defence budget.

RK^2



True word by word.

[brainspeak]

Can you name me friendly countries India has or ever had ? What the hell Japan had to do when they bombed pearl harbour? Pseudo economists think that every aspect of human life is nothing but simple economic activity. Hope you know why India lost 200 years of economic development ? Why did British took over Indian states one by one and colonised half of the world by military power? No nation can develop economically unless they have sound defence. Ofcourse one needs intelligent rulars also and defence alone can not solve all the ills of a nation. Like a balanced human body, nation also needs to be balanced with a right mix of everything. like weak animals are nothing but fodders of stronger ones, weak nations also serve the same purpose. India has to maintain a very strong defence, else we will be broken into pieces once again. Needless to mention we need strong economy also to support of defence budget.

RK^2

very well put..

[dahiyarules]

Can you name me friendly countries India has or ever had ? What the hell Japan had to do when they bombed pearl harbour? Pseudo economists think that every aspect of human life is nothing but simple economic activity. Hope you know why India lost 200 years of economic development ? Why did British took over Indian states one by one and colonised half of the world by military power? No nation can develop economically unless they have sound defence. Ofcourse one needs intelligent rulars also and defence alone can not solve all the ills of a nation. Like a balanced human body, nation also needs to be balanced with a right mix of everything. like weak animals are nothing but fodders of stronger ones, weak nations also serve the same purpose. India has to maintain a very strong defence, else we will be broken into pieces once again. Needless to mention we need strong economy also to support of defence budget.

RK^2

Because of socialist minded fascist people of your generation who ran India after our Independence, India lost 40 years.

The new generation has come to appreciate the power of free markets and capitalism. You can see the boom all around you. The world just cant seem to stop talking about India and China.

[dahiyarules]

Can you name me friendly countries India has or ever had ? What the hell Japan had to do when they bombed pearl harbour?

How many of you know that 5 months before Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt ordered the US Navy to bomb Axis naval fleets. Japan was provoked. Pearl Harbor gave Roosevelt to go to war in a time when a majority of Americans wanted to stay out of it.


Pseudo economists think that every aspect of human life is nothing but simple economic activity. Hope you know why India lost 200 years of economic development ? Why did British took over Indian states one by one and colonised half of the world by military power?

I will be posting the link to the research paper that I read in an Economic journal. Every nation in the history of Mankind, whether a Dictatorship, a Democratic Republic or a Monarchy has had an elite aristocratic class.

In a mercantilist society like the old Great Britain and the New America, the elite aristocracy runs an entire nation. They raise monstrously huge Armies that are funded by taxes pitched in by a hard working middle class. The Armies are also staffed by the children of the poor and the middle class, who are mere cannon fodder. The poor and the middle class are fooled into believing that it is patriotic to support the government's military adventures. Thus Great Britain's colonist wars were pulled off as successful scams for over 200 years. The same can be seen in terms of American military bases in over a 100 countries.

Once the colonization is over, the spoils of war are split among the governing elite aristocrats. Does Haliburton and numerous other oil companies ring a bell in your minds?

Now, do not say that India doesnt do any of this dirty business. But, if we increase our military spending we are definitely headed the same way Great Britain and America went.

How many of you think that America will be the world's superpower forever? I think it will cease to be the case the day Americans wake up and stop funding such foolish government endeavors or sending their children to be the cannon fodder.

By the way, I have a question for Chautala and CM Hooda? Why didn't they send their own children to serve in the military? Isnt it patriotic to serve the country? Why did they push their own children into Politics. CM Hooda went a step further by recalling his son from a decent private sector job in the US to make him the next MP of Rohtak.

Now, I know all the brown-noses and undercover subverts of both Political camps will throw dirt on me. Why not just stick to the real issues here.

No nation can develop economically unless they have sound defence. Ofcourse one needs intelligent rulars also and defence alone can not solve all the ills of a nation. Like a balanced human body, nation also needs to be balanced with a right mix of everything. like weak animals are nothing but fodders of stronger ones, weak nations also serve the same purpose. India has to maintain a very strong defence, else we will be broken into pieces once again.

I strongly believe that all nations altogether need to get rid of their military capabilities entirely. This includes India, Pakistan and ofcourse the "permanent 5 Gang" of the Security council.

Security from radical insurgents could be done privately. There are several companies in this business in Iraq. So far their record is much impressive than the US army. They have lost around 11 contractors in nearly 4 years. Not even one of the clients that they protect have been hurt. There is an immense market for private security, if the government gives up its monopoly in this domain. This market includes average ordinary citizens who are forced to rely on government alternatives because of the unfair monopoly that the government holds making it impossible for the markets to determine the fair price of private security.

Will the governments world over give up their standing Military capabilities? The answer is No. Because people like you will support this foolishness from cradle to grave and discredit people like me who want to propose alternatives; at any cost.

Can the governments world over be forced to give up their Military Capabilities? Yes. We must abstain from sending our children to the military. If the government imposes a draft. We must oppose the draft. We must try to find ways to hide our taxes so that we can run the government's treasury dry. We must not support the murder of another human being by another human being in uniform issued by the government and funded by our tax money.

Needless to mention we need strong economy also to support of defence budget.

RK^2


We need a strong economy to improve our standard of living. We have a lot of important issues at hand that we need to think about like: female foeticide, dowry, rape and molestation of our girls, ample resources for our farmers, an unregulated market for their produce that gives them the best incentive and idea to decide what they need to grow in their next crop, improve the standard of education for our children etc. etc.

The government has failed at all these aspects. Every politician runs on a platform to resolve these issues, but for the past 60 years has only made it worse. Female children are being murdered, brides are being immolated over dowry, girls are being raped, and government provided education has been where it was when the British left.

And you are talking about our next generation to become the government's cannon fodder. Those who are spared of this abuse, according to you should boost our economy so that we can improve the quality of our cannon fodder.

Some say that there is no market for national defense. Yes! I agree with it. The reason is that markets are the barometers of efficiency. Markets accept what creates utility and markets reject what retards efficiency.

That is the reasons markets would never support huge standing armies. But markets will definitely provide solutions for private security. They will ensure that your women are safe from predators. Your children get the best education to achieve their goals. Markets will ensure that our farmers get the requisite resources as and when they need them. Markets will ensure the best price for their produce, and thus increasing the prosperity of the region that feeds an entire nation. I am talking about the bread basket of India: Haryana and Punjab.

I read threads about people suggesting that the government needs to set up ministries for immigration to assist our youth escape to the developed, and fairly economically free west.

Why cant we replicate the west's formula for prosperity in our own country and thus retain our precious and promising youth that can do the same wonders to our country that it can do to the west.

I am not talking about a total blanket on immigration. Free markets will decide what place is better for a person. A person who can contribute the best as a farmer would be a farmer. A person who can contribute the best as a software engineer will be a software engineer. And so on.

In another thread I picked on Deepender Hooda for picking on a state iisue that was beyong his legislation. But, people picked on me for picking on Deepender. They justified his error. Why?

Why are we so subservient towards the most inefficient parasites of all human beings? Kalkhande Sir! its all your fault. And it is the fault of people of your generation who told the people of my generation to respect authority.

Truly said: Jiski Lathi Uski Bhains.

I dont believe in it. I think that it is the moral responsibility of every human being to defy authority. We must respect only what is in our best interest. And it is always in our best interest to have the right to decide how we spend our wealth in order to maximize our welfare. Government alternatives do not allow us this right. Private alternatives do.

I do not want an India with long range missiles topped with nuclear warheads that will kill someone just like me, 10000 miles away. Someone whose only ambition in life is to improve it. To care and provide for his or her loved ones. Trust me, this is what most people in Pakistan think every morning they wake up.

[dndeswal]

.

After reading the above post of Sumit, I remember a scene from film Fahrenheit 9/11 (http://www.fahrenheit911.com/) where a gentleman is asking the US Senators and Congressmen : “Sir, are you ready to get your son enrolled in US Army”? None of them replies!

The question of defence spending apart, how many of us want our sons or daughters to serve in Indian Army which is facing acute shortage of officers – a stark reality ! Apparently, all of us want to lead a luxurious life style. Joining the armed forces happens to be only the last option, unless it is made compulsory by law (many nations have this law) – a matter of compulsion, rather than choice.
.

[dahiyarules]

.

After reading the above post of Sumit, I remember a scene from film Fahrenheit 9/11 (http://www.fahrenheit911.com/) where a gentleman is asking the US Senators and Congressmen : “Sir, are you ready to get your son enrolled in US Army”? None of them replies!

The question of defence spending apart, how many of us want our sons or daughters to serve in Indian Army which is facing acute shortage of officers – a stark reality ! Apparently, all of us want to lead a luxurious life style. Joining the armed forces happens to be only the last option, unless it is made compulsory by law (many nations have this law) – a matter of compulsion, rather than choice.
.



There is no question about the lifestyle of a fauji officer. I will never question this one. A civilian can never match an officer's lifestyle. An officer lives like the British elites did in India. Unfortunately, it comes at a cost. A cost that is fulfilled by the tax payers.

I am really happy that more people are opting away from the military. But they have altogether different reasons compared to me. Whatever the reason, the end result is that people are doing what they feel they can do best. Free markets have opened up more opportunities to choose from, for our youth.

As far as forced military is drafting, that is a possibility. But, the military will have to walk over my grave to get me to fight for the government. If someday, my society in general is under threat, just like we were during the Mughal Raj, I will be the first one to volunteer to fight the oppressors.

[dahiyarules]

.

After reading the above post of Sumit, I remember a scene from film [FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana]Fahrenheit 9/11 (http://www.fahrenheit911.com/)[FONT=Verdana] where a gentleman is asking the US Senators and Congressmen : “Sir, are you ready to get your son enrolled in US Army”? None of them replies!



Politicians send their kids to private school. If they are slightly decent students, they might even lend in the US or UK for higher education, all expenses paid.

But at the end of the day these children join their family business of looting and plundering the nation. So, I do not see any difference between Laloo Yadav and Harvard educated Rahul Gandhi. They both are thugs in the same business, at the end of the day.

[rkumar]

How many of you know that 5 months before Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt ordered the US Navy to bomb Axis naval fleets. Japan was provoked. Pearl Harbor gave Roosevelt to go to war in a time when a majority of Americans wanted to stay out of it.




I will be posting the link to the research paper that I read in an Economic journal. Every nation in the history of Mankind, whether a Dictatorship, a Democratic Republic or a Monarchy has had an elite aristocratic class.

In a mercantilist society like the old Great Britain and the New America, the elite aristocracy runs an entire nation. They raise monstrously huge Armies that are funded by taxes pitched in by a hard working middle class. The Armies are also staffed by the children of the poor and the middle class, who are mere cannon fodder. The poor and the middle class are fooled into believing that it is patriotic to support the government's military adventures. Thus Great Britain's colonist wars were pulled off as successful scams for over 200 years. The same can be seen in terms of American military bases in over a 100 countries.

Once the colonization is over, the spoils of war are split among the governing elite aristocrats. Does Haliburton and numerous other oil companies ring a bell in your minds?

Now, do not say that India doesnt do any of this dirty business. But, if we increase our military spending we are definitely headed the same way Great Britain and America went.

How many of you think that America will be the world's superpower forever? I think it will cease to be the case the day Americans wake up and stop funding such foolish government endeavors or sending their children to be the cannon fodder.

By the way, I have a question for Chautala and CM Hooda? Why didn't they send their own children to serve in the military? Isnt it patriotic to serve the country? Why did they push their own children into Politics. CM Hooda went a step further by recalling his son from a decent private sector job in the US to make him the next MP of Rohtak.

Now, I know all the brown-noses and undercover subverts of both Political camps will throw dirt on me. Why not just stick to the real issues here.



I strongly believe that all nations altogether need to get rid of their military capabilities entirely. This includes India, Pakistan and ofcourse the "permanent 5 Gang" of the Security council.

Security from radical insurgents could be done privately. There are several companies in this business in Iraq. So far their record is much impressive than the US army. They have lost around 11 contractors in nearly 4 years. Not even one of the clients that they protect have been hurt. There is an immense market for private security, if the government gives up its monopoly in this domain. This market includes average ordinary citizens who are forced to rely on government alternatives because of the unfair monopoly that the government holds making it impossible for the markets to determine the fair price of private security.

Will the governments world over give up their standing Military capabilities? The answer is No. Because people like you will support this foolishness from cradle to grave and discredit people like me who want to propose alternatives; at any cost.

Can the governments world over be forced to give up their Military Capabilities? Yes. We must abstain from sending our children to the military. If the government imposes a draft. We must oppose the draft. We must try to find ways to hide our taxes so that we can run the government's treasury dry. We must not support the murder of another human being by another human being in uniform issued by the government and funded by our tax money.




We need a strong economy to improve our standard of living. We have a lot of important issues at hand that we need to think about like: female foeticide, dowry, rape and molestation of our girls, ample resources for our farmers, an unregulated market for their produce that gives them the best incentive and idea to decide what they need to grow in their next crop, improve the standard of education for our children etc. etc.

The government has failed at all these aspects. Every politician runs on a platform to resolve these issues, but for the past 60 years has only made it worse. Female children are being murdered, brides are being immolated over dowry, girls are being raped, and government provided education has been where it was when the British left.

And you are talking about our next generation to become the government's cannon fodder. Those who are spared of this abuse, according to you should boost our economy so that we can improve the quality of our cannon fodder.

Some say that there is no market for national defense. Yes! I agree with it. The reason is that markets are the barometers of efficiency. Markets accept what creates utility and markets reject what retards efficiency.

That is the reasons markets would never support huge standing armies. But markets will definitely provide solutions for private security. They will ensure that your women are safe from predators. Your children get the best education to achieve their goals. Markets will ensure that our farmers get the requisite resources as and when they need them. Markets will ensure the best price for their produce, and thus increasing the prosperity of the region that feeds an entire nation. I am talking about the bread basket of India: Haryana and Punjab.

I read threads about people suggesting that the government needs to set up ministries for immigration to assist our youth escape to the developed, and fairly economically free west.

Why cant we replicate the west's formula for prosperity in our own country and thus retain our precious and promising youth that can do the same wonders to our country that it can do to the west.

I am not talking about a total blanket on immigration. Free markets will decide what place is better for a person. A person who can contribute the best as a farmer would be a farmer. A person who can contribute the best as a software engineer will be a software engineer. And so on.

In another thread I picked on Deepender Hooda for picking on a state iisue that was beyong his legislation. But, people picked on me for picking on Deepender. They justified his error. Why?

Why are we so subservient towards the most inefficient parasites of all human beings? Kalkhande Sir! its all your fault. And it is the fault of people of your generation who told the people of my generation to respect authority.

Truly said: Jiski Lathi Uski Bhains.

I dont believe in it. I think that it is the moral responsibility of every human being to defy authority. We must respect only what is in our best interest. And it is always in our best interest to have the right to decide how we spend our wealth in order to maximize our welfare. Government alternatives do not allow us this right. Private alternatives do.

I do not want an India with long range missiles topped with nuclear warheads that will kill someone just like me, 10000 miles away. Someone whose only ambition in life is to improve it. To care and provide for his or her loved ones. Trust me, this is what most people in Pakistan think every morning they wake up.

Its easy to give high sounding moralistic lectures. I would advise that you take some serious lessons in history and see for yourself how imparactical your ideas are. Here are just two examples which will be sufficient to demolish your wishful thinking;

1. Tibet has always been a peceful country and had no army worth any name. Result is well known. Chinese came and took over the whole nation. Dalali Lama is cooling his heels ever since in Himachal Pradesh.

2. East India company raised private army to protect its business and result was the enslavement of whole India.

Business of national defence can never be handed over to some bunch of business people who use such armies to arm twist commen man to extract more and more profit.

RK^2

[ravinderdahiya]

Because of socialist minded fascist people of your generation who ran India after our Independence, India lost 40 years.

The new generation has come to appreciate the power of free markets and capitalism. You can see the boom all around you. The world just cant seem to stop talking about India and China.

Bhai saab, I am also a part of same new generation, which believes in the power of capatalism and Free markets.
and you are true that results are good but I am sure that we should appreciate our old folks for not opting for free markets from the very start because if it had happened earlier then this then there would have been no tatas, no ambanis, no infosys, no satyams n no wipros and many more because the bigger companies would had eaten the indian economy n would never had allowed Indian enterprenures to grow.

[dahiyarules]

Its easy to give high sounding moralistic lectures. I would advise that you take some serious lessons in history and see for yourself how imparactical your ideas are. Here are just two examples which will be sufficient to demolish your wishful thinking;

Unfortunately, you think that I am lecturing. I am just vigorously countering time-tested flawed reasoning.

1. Tibet has always been a peceful country and had no army worth any name. Result is well known. Chinese came and took over the whole nation. Dalali Lama is cooling his heels ever since in Himachal Pradesh.

An excellent example of the evil of huge standing Armies. This is just the reason no government in the world should have standing Armies.

2. East India company raised private army to protect its business and result was the enslavement of whole India.

Business of national defence can never be handed over to some bunch of business people who use such armies to arm twist commen man to extract more and more profit.

RK^2

East India Company was a mercantilist endevor fully supported and endorsed by the British crown.

Only a government-protected monopoly can arm twist into shelling out money.

In a free market, if there does exist a monopoly for natural reason, and it tries to arm twist people into shelling unnatural profits, it will create a space for more similar businesses to step in who will charge their customers fairly.

[dahiyarules]

I am sure that we should appreciate our old folks for not opting for free markets from the very start because if it had happened earlier then this then there would have been no tatas, no ambanis, no infosys, no satyams n no wipros and many more because the bigger companies would had eaten the indian economy n would never had allowed Indian enterprenures to grow.

Big busniesses like Tatas, Birlas and Ambanis have done a lot of good for our economy, but have also hurt us once in a while by buying out government officials to get monopoly in certain markets or got their hands on Public assets for under book value.

I remember that when TATA bought VSNL from the govt, VSNL's cash reserves alone were higher than what TATA paid for the entire package. It was also the second higher bidder. The highest bidder was left out for some reason.

Big Businesses will learn to be honest in the absence of governemnt's control over the economy, and wont be able eat out smaller businesses.

Always remember that markets punish bad behavior and reqard good behavior.

[ravinderdahiya]

Big Businesses will learn to be honest in the absence of governemnt's control over the economy, and wont be able eat out smaller businesses.

I am afraid but I am still skeptical about the bigger fish sparing the small one.
and I still feel that free markets and Reforms took place almost at the right time but would like to learn about your point of view as well.

Always remember that markets punish bad behavior and reqard good behavior.[/quote]

Point taken

[dahiyarules]

I am afraid but I am still skeptical about the bigger fish sparing the small one.
and I still feel that free markets and Reforms took place almost at the right time but would like to learn about your point of view as well.


[/COLOR]

The common misconception about free markets is that bigger fish always eats the smaller fish.

The truth is that the efficient fish always eats away the inefficient fish.

In other words, in a free market the player who provides the best value for money to a consumer beats the player who provides lesser value for money to consumers. Which, I guess most of us would be totally fine with.

This behavior is what we all know is the rational human behavior. I first learnt about it from my mother. She would go for groceries every thursday. She would buy a dozen bananas for the best price after going around the entire sabzi-mandi. Now this doesnt mean that other vendors selling bananas would go out of business because my mother bought them from agiven vendor. Other people may not buy their dozen banana's from mymother's vendor. They may buy from another vendor even though he may charge an extra 2 rupess. But, they are willing to pay an extra 2 rupees because they value that vendors banana's more than my mother's vendor's bananas. Maybe they pay extra money to this vendor because they want to save time and do not want to go around the entire sabzi-mandi like my mother.

But, if some vendor is being snobbish and wants to charge 100 rupees a dozen when other vendors are selling on an average of 25 rupees a dozen. some people may still buy the 100 rupee/dozen bananas because they might see something different with those bananas. But, rationally speaking the vendor with exorbitant prices would be punished by the consumers who would buy cheaper banana's. If some good Samaritan in the market feels sorry for the vendor going out of business because of his exorbitant prices, he or she may volunteer to help him by buying all his banana's. But, in the long run, market will definitely punish bad businesses, and thus help bring about efficiency in the market in terms of optimum price and supply.

I am not lecturing anyone here. I do not want people to go out of their homes with placards and demand more market freedom. I just want people to be free-market-minded when they make their daily choices. I want people to think rationally, and not how the government wants you to think. Trust me, this is all I do. And, I believe that I am making an impact because I reward people and businesses who think like me and I avoid doing business with people and businesses who do not think like me. Spread the word around. Thats the only way a change can be brought around.

[dahiyarules]

Here is the link to the Paper I was talking about.

It is written by Dr. Tom Woods, my ideological mentor and one of my favorite authors. He is the author of the NYTimes bestseller "Politically Incorrect Guide to American History." Dr. Woods is a senior fellow at Ludwig Von Mises institute in Auburn, Alabama. He is talking about Dr. Seymour Melman, the Late Industrial Engineering icon.

Dr. Woods talks about Dr. Melman's reseach into the wasteful spending by the American Military-Industrial complex.

http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/woods2.pdf

Caution: You need t have Adobe Acrobat on your computer in order to open the paper.

[rkumar]

Big Businesses will learn to be honest in the absence of governemnt's control over the economy, and wont be able eat out smaller businesses.

Always remember that markets punish bad behavior and reqard good behavior.

Don't know in which world you are living Sumit. Have you forgotten the recent episodes of Enron, Tyco and many others where their CEO syphoned all the money in a so called free economy with no government controls. Had government not intervened, these CEOs would have walked with all the loot and share holders would have been able to do anything. Having worked in almost all type of sectors I am the last to trust these big firms whose only moto is profit. You are talking of an ideal world which even Lord Krishna could not control... Forget about it all...greed of man will always force him to deprive others and armies will always be there. Those who don't have strong defence, will be eaten away like China did with Tibet..

RK^2

[dahiyarules]

Don't know in which world you are living Sumit. Have you forgotten the recent episodes of Enron, Tyco and many others where their CEO syphoned all the money in a so called free economy with no government controls. Had government not intervened, these CEOs would have walked with all the loot and share holders would have been able to do anything. Having worked in almost all type of sectors I am the last to trust these big firms whose only moto is profit. You are talking of an ideal world which even Lord Krishna could not control... Forget about it all...greed of man will always force him to deprive others and armies will always be there. Those who don't have strong defence, will be eaten away like China did with Tibet..

RK^2

Enron and Tyco are the perfect examples that socialist fascists always give to mislead people. Enron and Tyco spent millions of dollars lobbying politicians in Washington. Infact, George Bush Sr. was even present at the funeral of the now dead former CEO of Enron Kenneth Lay.

What really makes you think that these corporations operated in a free market environment? If so, then why were they lobbying politicians in Washington?

I am not talking of a defenseless india surviving side by side with a maniacal China. I am talking about striving for a world without standing armies. Its just an idea, which will become a reality only if more and more people accept it.

[deepakchoudhry]

Hi Sumit,

What is the gurantee that so called Markets won't exploit the society for their own profits.

You are assuming that everyone will follow what you propose and we will all live happily ever after.

No 2 individuals in the world thinks alike and in some cases one might like to dominate another by force or by another means....what do you propose to do then.

Here is another thought....Vedic System classfied society according to nature or gunas of Human beings which was more appropriate and had more freedom of choice.

Intellectuals , Warriors or ruling class, Mercantile and Farmers and Serving Class. And simply by doing our Dharmic Duties everything fell in place and balance was acheived in the society. There was Peace for 1000's of years but due to degrade in human values, society went on a downward slippery slope.

I think giving any society a common blanket of any concept is no different than living in a for eg a communist or Islamist state.

One type of "ism" cannot dominate other sections or parts of the society, there needs to be a balance.

Deepak

[dahiyarules]

Hi Sumit,

What is the gurantee that so called Markets won't exploit the society for their own profits.

You are assuming that everyone will follow what you propose and we will all live happily ever after.

No 2 individuals in the world thinks alike and in some cases one might like to dominate another by force or by another means....what do you propose to do then.

Here is another thought....Vedic System classfied society according to nature or gunas of Human beings which was more appropriate and had more freedom of choice.

Intellectuals , Warriors or ruling class, Mercantile and Farmers and Serving Class. And simply by doing our Dharmic Duties everything fell in place and balance was acheived in the society. There was Peace for 1000's of years but due to degrade in human values, society went on a downward slippery slope.

I think giving any society a common blanket of any concept is no different than living in a for eg a communist or Islamist state.

One type of "ism" cannot dominate other sections or parts of the society, there needs to be a balance.

Deepak

You knw something sir, you do not know whats exploitation?

Exploitation is when people do not have a choice. They are forced to avail a given person's goods and services.

Markets avoid exploitation because bad behavior by a seller creates opportunity for other sellers to move in and provide good services.

I think that the vedic system was designed by the theologists to dominate our society and exploit the masses. I do not believe in god so I do not need brahmins. But, I am a human and need food and other services. So, I had rather have the vaishyas and the sudras than have more Brahmins. The whole concept of a vedic society was highly flawed. I am glad its gone. Each person must have the opportunity to give his or her best to the society irrespective of his or her background. Vedic system clearly avoids it.

By the way, if you are such a firm believer in the vedic system, then why are you a doctor. According to your own beliefs you should be in the fields right now, working on your crops.

[rameshlakra]

Dear Sumit,
I must appreciate your good but unrealistic lateral thinking that this world should be free of armies. Unfortuanely the human or for that matter any creature is not made that way. Its a chain where there are preys and predators. To cut the long story short its the way we have evolved and it can not be undone at this stage, may be when the sun vanishes in millions of year time and we have the a brand new life, may be then. Till then we have to have armies ,which are, stronger, leaner, up-to-date and best and there are NO two ways about it.

The armed forces needs more budget to modernise themselves. And for the sake of information the substantila part of the budget is spend on Pensions and Pay( which pathy as compared to executives and kind of the nature of work involved)
To sum it up the situation is demanding more pay packets(part of budget) and Modernisation of the current equipments.
Look at the military diplomacy and good will we have earned by helping countries During Tsunami and Lebanon evacution. We do get recognised by our reach and show of strength.

[ravinderdahiya]

I think that the vedic system was designed by the theologists to dominate our society and exploit the masses. I do not believe in god so I do not need brahmins. But, I am a human and need food and other services. So, I had rather have the vaishyas and the sudras than have more Brahmins. The whole concept of a vedic society was highly flawed. I am glad its gone. Each person must have the opportunity to give his or her best to the society irrespective of his or her background. Vedic system clearly avoids it.

By the way, if you are such a firm believer in the vedic system, then why are you a doctor. According to your own beliefs you should be in the fields right now, working on your crops.[/quote]

Bhai sahab,
after going through your post I feel that there is something really wrong with your thinking about Vedic system, Vedic system never said that "son of a farmer can only be a farmer" it says that "son of a farmer can be a doctor if he does his karma accordingly"
I would not like to suggest but i feel you need to revisit the whole concept of Vedic system.

[dahiyarules]

I
Bhai sahab,
after going through your post I feel that there is something really wrong with your thinking about Vedic system, Vedic system never said that "son of a farmer can only be a farmer" it says that "son of a farmer can be a doctor if he does his karma accordingly"
I would not like to suggest but i feel you need to revisit the whole concept of Vedic system.

This sounds even more messed up. Even though you are wrong, let me assume for a moment that you are right. You dont need Karma to become a doctor. You need a high IQ and hard work to become a doctor.

Under a vedic system, the son of a farmer did not need to be a farmer. But, a son of a farmer could pick up other occupations within the Sudra caste. For example, he could be a merchant or a trader.

But, this was very inefficient division of labor. There were some undeserving dumb people who got the shortcut to the top of the society by being born into aristocracy. And, all they did was drink and womanize all their lives at the cost of the lower castes. While, there were some very intelligent people who were born into lower who never got an opportunity because of caste barriers.

It could have been the other way round too.

[dahiyarules]

Dear Sumit,
I must appreciate your good but unrealistic lateral thinking that this world should be free of armies. Unfortuanely the human or for that matter any creature is not made that way. Its a chain where there are preys and predators. To cut the long story short its the way we have evolved and it can not be undone at this stage, may be when the sun vanishes in millions of year time and we have the a brand new life, may be then. Till then we have to have armies ,which are, stronger, leaner, up-to-date and best and there are NO two ways about it.

The armed forces needs more budget to modernise themselves. And for the sake of information the substantila part of the budget is spend on Pensions and Pay( which pathy as compared to executives and kind of the nature of work involved)
To sum it up the situation is demanding more pay packets(part of budget) and Modernisation of the current equipments.
Look at the military diplomacy and good will we have earned by helping countries During Tsunami and Lebanon evacution. We do get recognised by our reach and show of strength.

For some reason, people are missing the point. I guess that no one even bothered to read the paper that I linked.

The point is that we need to remove government's monopoly over national defense because there is a lot of wastage in the process. We have arsenals that can destroy the world several times over. And all this is waste of our resources.

If we had a privatized defense system, we can ensure that such wastage doesnt happen. Besides, I see that there is a strong demand for a good national defense. So, what makes you think that any society would lose its defense if governments get rid of their monopoly over this sector.

A lot of propaganda has been pumped into your brains. In the name of national defense and patriotism the government is running the scarce resources of our society, dry. This foolishness needs to stop.

Anyone ever heard of the "coolaid people. " Google it. You guys re the coolaid people. Especially the older ones. You guys just trust everything about democracy, government, and whatever the government has to say, blindly. It is not the sign of a healthy society.

[ravinderdahiya]

This sounds even more messed up. Even though you are wrong, let me assume for a moment that you are right. You dont need Karma to become a doctor. You need a high IQ and hard work to become a doctor.

yes, IQ is a deciding factor but what matters in Medical entrance exams is hard work(karma), guidance and persistance any many other factors and Vedic system never says that IQ has no importance

Under a vedic system, the son of a farmer did not need to be a farmer. But, a son of a farmer could pick up other occupations within the Sudra caste. For example, he could be a merchant or a trader.

But, this was very inefficient division of labor. There were some undeserving dumb people who got the shortcut to the top of the society by being born into aristocracy. And, all they did was drink and womanize all their lives at the cost of the lower castes. While, there were some very intelligent people who were born into lower who never got an opportunity because of caste barriers.

It could have been the other way round too.

The two statements in Lime seem to be contradictory of each other.
and something about the topic, The situation wherein, no nation needs armies seems very hypothetical to me.
You may call it right or wromg but I feel that if there is a need then we should not hesitate from increasing our defense budgets

[dahiyarules]

The two statements in Lime seem to be contradictory of each other.
and something about the topic, The situation wherein, no nation needs armies seems very hypothetical to me.
You may call it right or wromg but I feel that if there is a need then we should not hesitate from increasing our defense budgets

Ok agreed! point taken.

Then I think that such inflated defense budgets must be funded only by those who support them. Others should have the option to save their taxes.

I dont care if you sell your land and home and buy a Mig 29 fighter for our Air Force.

But, I do not want to contribute another penny to the government's nuclear program that is all about total madness.

[yudhvirmor]

[quote=dahiyarules;126369]For some reason, people are missing the point. I guess that no one even bothered to read the paper that I linked.

Hi Sumit,

I dont understand what you want to transform..

1. You want this world to be army free>> Result will be civil war and millions of countries. I wont be surprised to find the country name Sumit Dahiya in some part of this world.

2. You want free markets and big fishes.. Result will be monopoly and they wont let anybody survive. Think about only relinace gas pumps in india...

You have every right to think different but there must be some rationale thinking or some live examples to support your vibrant ideas.

Cheers
Yudhvir Mor

[rameshlakra]

Well Sumit ji,
U r reply is based on assumptions that i am trusting whatever is being fed to me be by media etc. To clear the air at the cost of bragging, let me tell u that i have known the system inside out. There is no wastage (if u can elaborate this point to me to reply specifically).

I think u are confusing the whole issue by shifting the goal post.

Regards


For some reason, people are missing the point. I guess that no one even bothered to read the paper that I linked.

The point is that we need to remove government's monopoly over national defense because there is a lot of wastage in the process. We have arsenals that can destroy the world several times over. And all this is waste of our resources.

If we had a privatized defense system, we can ensure that such wastage doesnt happen. Besides, I see that there is a strong demand for a good national defense. So, what makes you think that any society would lose its defense if governments get rid of their monopoly over this sector.

A lot of propaganda has been pumped into your brains. In the name of national defense and patriotism the government is running the scarce resources of our society, dry. This foolishness needs to stop.

Anyone ever heard of the "coolaid people. " Google it. You guys re the coolaid people. Especially the older ones. You guys just trust everything about democracy, government, and whatever the government has to say, blindly. It is not the sign of a healthy society.

[devdahiya]

BHAI GHAR MEI ANNAJJ HO CHAHE NA HO...DARWAJJE ARR KHHIDDKI TEI SAB NEI CHEHIYEIN.ECONOMY ALONE CAN'T MAKE A NATION STRONG,ELSE US could manage without the forces and fighting power.

[rohittewatia]

kashmir koh solve karlo to defence expenditure to apane aap hi ghaat jayega. Per voh hoh naheen sakta....kamse pachaas saal taak.

Sumit ki baat to samaajh maain aatih hai, however ground realities are different.

The scenario in Asia is not the same as europe, where countries do not threaten each other.

[dahiyarules]

I am not commenting on this one any more because people are just repeating the same arguments that I have responded to over and over again in this thread.

I really do not think that we can be headed towards a brgiht and peaceful future with a belligerent, pro-military mentality.

Just think twice what you are handing over to your kids before you leave. They will be fighting the conflicts started by us.

It does not mean that India needs to demilitarize voluntarily. But we could start an initiative to disarm regionally along with the other players.

I am afraid that it will never happen with the kind of mentality that people on both sides display.

The other sides attitude must not give us the excuse to be as stupid as them.

[raj_rathee]

I am afraid that it will never happen with the kind of mentality that people on both sides display.


Hallelujah! I think you are finally beginning to get it, Sumit! Bravo!
Ajee koi mithai le kar aaao. Apna Sumit ghar lot aaya hai.

Sumit, you can never seem to convince a bunch of your own people
here on Jatland with your ideas (or at least Libertarian ideas) and
you think you can convince nations to give up armies! It can never be
done...unless every human being gets a lobotomy and then gets
implanted with a "Libertarian chip". And that ain't happening, is it?

Sumit, please don't mind my saying so (and I am confident you
won't), but reading your posts it often feels like you've
just run out of your Economics 101 class after having heard
about "Free Markets/Efficient Markets", screaming "Hallelujah!
Hallelujah! I have seen the light!". You got so excited that you forgot
to listen in to the professor's "But,..." caveats. And this was just Econ 101.

And then there is the Practicality 101 (and 201, 301, 401, 501, 601)
that you'll need to take as well before you graduate. :D

If the "Duniya" ran on academic priciciples and "feel good" theories,
you wouldn't find professors in Universities. They'd be somewhere else.

[pnauhwar21]

Its literally not practical to cut down the current defense setup of India in view of the neighbours like Pakistan and China who have stabbed us at back many times.

But there are some regions like Siachen which are exhorbitantly costly and serving no practical purpose except having a show of power and little upper hand tactically. More soldiers have died due to frostbites and extreme weather there than the cross-firing. The governments really need to have a dialogue and understand the futility of fighting such a costly battle which really serves no purpose to people of either side. There was an agreement in the past but it was pushed back after Kargill. Again its really tough to have faith in a country like Pakistan but if the people of both countries really understand that money being spent uselessly in such battles can be used for far better purposes, it might happen in future generations if not sooner.

Sumit's main point is right that the war serve no purpose but his talk of private armies is really flawed in principle. Similarly, we cannot cut down on nuclear devices or army/air force when other countries in the world are piling them up. If a step has to be taken to demilitarize, it has to be done collectively by all countries starting with 5 permanent member of UN. If I were the Prime Minister of country, I would have definitely called out to all countries for destroying all nuclear warheads and stop wasting the money of people.

Lastly, we would still need military to protect the motherland coz every human in the world is not good and someone, someday would try to attack your home and you would need someone to protect it. Afterall, even Gods have an army. Total demilitarization can only happen if there is an utopian world where noone harms anyone, nobody loots, nobody murders, nobody rapes and everybody is happy, have enough food to live and a shelter above the head. I really wish that to happen, but when 10 people can't agree on a cricket match :) how do you expect the whole world to understand all this..

[rraajjeevv]

Sumit,
You wrote on the first page -
'Because of socialist minded fascist people of your generation who ran India after our Independence, India lost 40 years.'
I feel the choices India had to face at the time of independence was more complex than what you are saying. One can argue that had India aligned with the West then, we may have been one of the poodles of the West in which case dictators would have ruled India. The situation would have been worse.
But I fully agree that India should have shed its socialist/Nehruvian approach long before 1990. But then USSR broke up only in late 1980s, else things would have been different.

You are talking about the middle class having to pay taxes to spend on defence. How many people in India pay tax? It is the miniscule minority the salaried class that does not have any choice. And the other issue is of corruption in every part of life.

If we can reduce/control corruption, i am sure there will not be any need to reduce defence expenditure. According to conservative estimates, unregulated economy of India can add about 40% to the Indian GDP. Considering that the Indian defence expenditure is ~3% of its GDP, 40% is a hell lot of money.

You wrote on another topic -'If you go to Pakistani forums like www.paklinks.com, you will realize that what brings together the people of Pakistani people is a commong desire to destroy India. '
http://www.jatland.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8984&page=3

My view is that Indian should spent just enough to enable the country strong enough to defend itself. I do not feel that with such neighbours we can ever be safe.
BTW if you are paying your taxes in USA, so why do not you try and get USA to reduce its defence expenditure. I am sure if the most powerful country sets an example, others can surely replicate that approach.

[dahiyarules]

Hallelujah! I think you are finally beginning to get it, Sumit! Bravo!
Ajee koi mithai le kar aaao. Apna Sumit ghar lot aaya hai.

Sumit, you can never seem to convince a bunch of your own people
here on Jatland with your ideas (or at least Libertarian ideas) and
you think you can convince nations to give up armies! It can never be
done...unless every human being gets a lobotomy and then gets
implanted with a "Libertarian chip". And that ain't happening, is it?

Sumit, please don't mind my saying so (and I am confident you
won't), but reading your posts it often feels like you've
just run out of your Economics 101 class after having heard
about "Free Markets/Efficient Markets", screaming "Hallelujah!
Hallelujah! I have seen the light!". You got so excited that you forgot
to listen in to the professor's "But,..." caveats. And this was just Econ 101.

And then there is the Practicality 101 (and 201, 301, 401, 501, 601)
that you'll need to take as well before you graduate. :D

If the "Duniya" ran on academic priciciples and "feel good" theories,
you wouldn't find professors in Universities. They'd be somewhere else.

I guess I have read a little more Economics than most over here can comprehend. It is my bread and butter.

My whole idea of "freedom to choose" has the least to do with Economics and more to do with "basic human rights to decide whats in our best interest." And, I did not learn this in any of my Economics classes. I learnt it as a part of the process of information exchange with other learned scholars and philosophers.

I am not trying to shove my ideas down others throat or anything. It is sad to know that instead of challenging my ideas, people are questioning my credibility.

The only reason I take time off to scribble on forums like these is to spread the word around. I do not get pleasure out of being a pain in peoples' rear.

I have come to a conclusion that nothing can be done for a society that is so closed for new ideas. I think Indians deserve to be rammed in their rear day in and day out by our ruling elite.

Those who do not have the courage to claim their liberty do not deserve to have any.

Maybe people will reconsider their position on Economic affairs of our society when we face a global Economic melt down. Something that is imminent and is around the corner. My savings are zero. Those who have nothing, got nothing to loose. But others who have been slogging day and night to save, working 10000 miles away from home, and have just insulated themselves from the idea of what the Governments have done to our futures will remember my words.

Very honestly, people will still not learn there lessons. Some tyrannical demagogue will set up a new system of government once the current one melts down. And people will again bend over for him to do what leaders like to do the most. And the circle will go on. I am not surprised that Indians have been enslaved by someone since the beginning of time. We have this mentality of being subservient towards our masters. The defense of government spending really does not surprise me.

Thanks for giving a read.

[deepakchoudhry]

You knw something sir, you do not know whats exploitation?

Exploitation is when people do not have a choice. They are forced to avail a given person's goods and services.

Markets avoid exploitation because bad behavior by a seller creates opportunity for other sellers to move in and provide good services.

I think that the vedic system was designed by the theologists to dominate our society and exploit the masses. I do not believe in god so I do not need brahmins. But, I am a human and need food and other services. So, I had rather have the vaishyas and the sudras than have more Brahmins. The whole concept of a vedic society was highly flawed. I am glad its gone. Each person must have the opportunity to give his or her best to the society irrespective of his or her background. Vedic system clearly avoids it.

By the way, if you are such a firm believer in the vedic system, then why are you a doctor. According to your own beliefs you should be in the fields right now, working on your crops.

We need armies for defence not for offence.

Human mind is not ready for the evolution you talk about. First we have to prepare human minds which will embrace humanity and common human values.

And once human mind has evolved then whatever humans do, it will be beneficial.

Artificial system will never work !!

If you believe in Science then Vedic Knowledge is a complete science, It teaches values and laws in harmony with natural laws.

[deepakchoudhry]

I guess I have read a little more Economics than most over here can comprehend. It is my bread and butter.

Thanks for giving a read.

Economics role in society is like blood in the body. It cannot be ignored.

But focussing just on Economics will not sort the problems of corruption, exploitation and degradation of Human values. One only has to look at the rich societies to understand this.

What we need a holistic approach to life and Economics can play a big a role in it.

So be prepared ...:)

[devdahiya]

Sumit bhai i know that you can not agree to any thing we say and that is possible in this world as we can afford to do that in any given situation.But i can agree with you in totality if that convinces you about what you have in your mind...[the pre-concieved] about this topic.I agree that no nation should have defence forces,no police,no roads,no canal system,no administrative set ups and no Government machinary because they all are financial liabilities on every nation.We should only have money and money making machines,inorder to have a set up where there is no expenditures but only money and money every where.Hope all powerful nations can heed this proposal.

[rraajjeevv]

Sumit Dahiya wrote -
'-----
The only reason I take time off to scribble on forums like these is to spread the word around.
-----'
It is nice to know that you go to great lengths to spread your point of view. But whatever you try to say has to be logical and reasonable.
Otherwise i can argue that since people die in road accidents let us ban cars and all vehicles on the road. People can walk and cycle around, which not only will contribute to the better well being of the people but also reduce pollution.
For your information, in UK everyday 10 people die due to road accidents, which is about 3600 a year. if we try to extrapolate the figure for India based on the same assumptions (i.e. 3500 for a population of 60 million), the figure for India will be about 60000.
This is a conservative figure and in India's case it will surely be more than that. Shall we then ban all vehicles?

[raj_rathee]

The only reason I take time off to scribble on forums like these is to spread the word around. I do not get pleasure out of being a pain in peoples' rear.

I have come to a conclusion that nothing can be done for a society that is so closed for new ideas. I think Indians deserve to be rammed in their rear day in and day out by our ruling elite.


Sumit, keep plugging away man!

Perhaps, some other forum or venue may be more receptive to what
you say. Clearly, Jatlanders are frustrating you with their inability
to comprehend. It is always a challenge to get people to see one's point
of view. A more sympathetic audience might also engage with
you in more meaningful debate and help you further refine your ideas.

Personally I find what you say very "cult"ish and rather naive. Also
you very quickly resort to high pitched retorts rather than backing
your arguments with persuasive explainations. But I guess
you'll get some of that practice during the course of your PhD.

I think people should go for the ideas they believe in. And you should too.
But if you fail to convince others of them, treat it as your failing, not theirs.
Taking yet another look to see if you can find better ways to get
across your ideas will only be helpful in finding the audience you seek.

[shobhitdeshwal]

I guess I have read a little more Economics than most over here can comprehend. It is my bread and butter.

Well Sumit,

This is a self explanatory statement about what do you want to hear from people here.... That since you have read more economics, so all of us shall give in to your words..... The point of discussion does not arise then!!!

I wonder did you really want a discussion on the issue??



The only reason I take time off to scribble on forums like these is to spread the word around. I do not get pleasure out of being a pain in peoples' rear.

You again.. I guess have take an assumption that you are a pain in people's REAR!! No.. i don;t think so.. you have invoked a very good thought process!!


I have come to a conclusion that nothing can be done for a society that is so closed for new ideas. I think Indians deserve to be rammed in their rear day in and day out by our ruling elite.

Again a disheartning statement from a man of knowledge!! The word is being spread.... Rome was not built in a day dude!! Halt!!


Very honestly, people will still not learn there lessons. Some tyrannical demagogue will set up a new system of government once the current one melts down. And people will again bend over for him to do what leaders like to do the most. And the circle will go on. I am not surprised that Indians have been enslaved by someone since the beginning of time. We have this mentality of being subservient towards our masters. The defense of government spending really does not surprise me.

I too am not in the favour of defence spendings!! My reply to the discussion follows:-

INDIA'S defence budgets have ranged between 14 to 15 per cent of the Central Government Expenditure (CGE) and 2.2 to 3 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the last decade. In rupee terms, the budget estimates have risen from Rs. 35,620 crore in 1997-98 to Rs. 65,000 crore in 2002-03, an increase of 82.5 per cent in five years. In dollar terms, the increase has been over 60 per cent. Accounting for inflation, the increase in real terms has been over 7 per cent annually. Indian defence budgets do not include funding for pensions and para-military forces and expenditure on nuclear and space research. With these, the total spending would be 21 per cent of the CGE for 2002-03.

India is indeed spending a large chunk of the national pie on defence, and yet military analysts year after year complain of inadequacy of allotted funds to meet defence requirements. The dissatisfaction with defence allotments needs to be addressed. Are we getting the security we require? A co-relation between defence spending and the country’s defence requirements needs to be established to answer that question.

In 1996, Mr Jaswant Singh, India’s Finance Minister, in his book, “National Security: An Outline of Our Concerns”, wrote, “India’s defence expenditure has a fixity; it has an unvarying spending pattern.” After studying the defence expenditure trends for the period 1985-95, he made projections for 1995 to 2000 and concluded: “These monies are likely to be channelised into mission capabilities which are traditionally favoured, like armour and mechanisation by the Army, the blue water surface flotillas by the Navy and the strike aircraft fleet by the Air Force.” That remains the dominant motif even today.

India’s and Pakistan’s nuclear tests of 1998 altered the subcontinent’s strategic paradigm and the tactical basis of war for good. In 1999, the two fought a limited bloody conflict over Kargil in J&K. Sensing the transformed nature of war, in 2000, Mr Jasjit Singh in his book, “India’s Defence Spending — Assessing Future Needs”, wrote, “The significant point to note is that in the past, wars of the subcontinent were limited (in time, space, goals, etc) by choice. But nuclearisation has made wars limited as an imperative.” Still, we continue to arm for conventional warfare.

Bharat Karnad, while making out a case for a 400-plus thermonuclear warheads force for India, in his essay, “India’s Force Planning Imperative: The Thermonuclear Option (2002)”, acerbically comments that the cost for these at Rs. 89,920 crore over three decades should be viewed juxtaposed against Rs. 900,000 crore the country is likely to spend as per its traditional military expenditure pattern in just 20 years (2000-20), “on its armoured and mechanised forces to fight outmoded wars that are unlikely to be replayed.” Have the military registered the change?

Operation Parakram — the mobilisation and forward deployment of the Indian defence forces after 13/12 and return back a year later without engaging in combat — has brought home a lesson. If it were not a case of political or military nerves, it certainly wasn’t American pressure alone that prevented a conventional war. It has been commented that the services gained valuable experience in mobilisation, but surely that was not the aim of the exercise.

In the transformed paradigm what India will have to contend with is not a high-intensity conventional war but a covert or a limited low-to-medium-intensity war. There are several high-tech and astronomically costly weapon systems on order. Recently a deal has been inked with Russia to receive Admiral Gorshkov, a mothballed old aircraft carrier for free, the caveat being that India will have to pay an estimated $ 800 million (Rs. 3840 crore) for the refit of this old war horse and another $ 1 billion (Rs. 4800 crores) for MiG-29 K aircraft that it will carry. China does not have even one aircraft carrier in its naval fleet. 310 T-90 tanks are in the pipeline at a cost of some $ 450 million (Rs. 2160 crore).

There is another shibboleth that needs to be dealt with. In the military mind, modernisation is synonymous with mechanisation. Some years back the Army had imposed a unilateral cut of 50,000 in its manpower to generate funds for modernisation (sic). This cut was given a quiet burial after the 1999 Kargil war. The defence forces being deeply traditional are unlikely to yield ground on their demands for conventional war in the short term. Perhaps, the feeling is that a nuclear deterrent unless backed by a conventional deterrent will not yield results.

Modernisation is needed urgently but of a different kind taking the altered conditions into account. The defence forces will have to be convinced of the change in the nature of conflict resolution on the subcontinent, but that may take time. In the meanwhile, the Integrated Defence Staff (IDS) should be of assistance in carrying out a holistic across-the-services cost to benefit analysis and help in selective redeployment of funds for limited war. The Strategic Forces Command will have to be made operational at the earliest. Some creative budgeting is called for to achieve it.

There are two important aspects to defence expenditure - first, to plan and apportion expenditure judiciously and, second, to manage that expenditure adroitly. During the past few years there has been a lot of the criticism of the surrender of funds. The defence establishment was not able to absorb Rs. 4126 crore in 2000-01 and Rs. 5000 crore in 2001-02 because of antiquated and complicated procedures in the Ministry of Defence. It is important to utilise all the allotments but even more important is to prioritise the expenditure correctly keeping the changed strategic and tactical environment in view. To use an old management adage, emphasis must shift from “doing things right” to “doing the right things”. Otherwise we may not get adequate security for all the expenditure we make.

Coming back to the issue of defence allocations, the point of economic affordability is very relevant, though it can be argued that for military expenditure to be justified, there is no necessity to demonstrate that it has a positive impact on the economy. Further, security is a prime “public good” and “is an essential first charge on the nation’s resources”. At the same time, such arguments fly in the face of ground realities. It is grinding poverty, low literacy levels, poor health care standards, absence of worthwhile infrastructure, etc, that need heavy investment and tend to relegate the priority for defence requirements. Unfortunately very little of the funds deployed for development reach the target end. The filtration system of the Indian state absorbs a greater percentage of the developmental funds on the way to the target.

The long-term fiscal policy (LTFP) of the Government of India had set a target for defence as a percentage of the GDP for 1985-1990 from 3.5 to 3.8 per cent. The Standing Committee for Defence (1996-97) had recommended a fixed percentage of say, 4 per cent. It is evident that subsequently these figures were considered unaffordable and scaled down to an average of 2.3 per cent of the GDP for the period 1988-2001. The national security tripod of economic strength, internal stability and military capability are interdependent economic strength remaining the pivot. The affordability and adequacy gap has been the “central dilemma” of defence planners in this country. It has frequently led to low funding, resulting in starving defence and debilitating its military capabilities.

Finally, as a rule of thumb for sustainable defence expenditure, (given a stable base of say 3 per cent of the GDP) the rate of growth of the GDP must not fall below that of the defence expenditure. Hopefully, as the Indian economy picks up enough momentum, it should be able “to haul along” the military sector more rapidly. As defence allocations improve, modernisation, force restructuring and manpower adjustment will follow.


Cheers!!

Shobhit Deshwal.

[rraajjeevv]

Shobit Deswal wrote -
'My reply to the discussion follows:-'
Your reply is a complete cut and paste job from here
Defence expenditure versus military effectiveness (http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030214/edit.htm#5)
Kiran Krishan
INDIA'S defence budgets have ranged between 14 to 15 per cent of the Central Government Expenditure (CGE) and 2.2 to 3 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the last decade.
------------------

That article uses very old figures as it was written in feb 2003. Things have moved on.

[shobhitdeshwal]

Well yes... The facts and figures are from the same article... And I did not say this is what i generated.. one has to pick the economic indicators from some where or the other...

I have solidarity with the views!!

Cheers!!

Shobhit Deshwal.

Shobit Deswal wrote -
'My reply to the discussion follows:-'
Your reply is a complete cut and paste job from here
Defence expenditure versus military effectiveness (http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030214/edit.htm#5)
Kiran Krishan
INDIA'S defence budgets have ranged between 14 to 15 per cent of the Central Government Expenditure (CGE) and 2.2 to 3 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the last decade.
------------------

That article uses very old figures as it was written in feb 2003. Things have moved on.

[rraajjeevv]

Agreed.
But you could have higlighted the relevant sections instead of pasting the complete article without any reference.
Even I agree that India should cut its defence expenditure, but only when it is fully capable of defending itself against any external aggression. i do not want India to meddle in other countries affairs, but i also do not want other countries to meddle in India's internal affairs.
For that there is a long way to go.

Well yes... The facts and figures are from the same article... And I did not say this is what i generated.. one has to pick the economic indicators from some where or the other...

I have solidarity with the views!!

Cheers!!

Shobhit Deshwal.

[dahiyarules]

Sumit bhai i know that you can not agree to any thing we say and that is possible in this world as we can afford to do that in any given situation.But i can agree with you in totality if that convinces you about what you have in your mind...[the pre-concieved] about this topic.I agree that no nation should have defence forces,no police,no roads,no canal system,no administrative set ups and no Government machinary because they all are financial liabilities on every nation.We should only have money and money making machines,inorder to have a set up where there is no expenditures but only money and money every where.Hope all powerful nations can heed this proposal.

That was a total molestation of the whole idea. Ofcourse, we need security, canalas, roads etc. But, these services must be privately provided, and those who use them must pay their fair share.

You wont pay for the bus ticket for 10 other people in the bus. So why should you be forced to pay for 10 other people in other ways by the means of taxation?

No more redistribution of wealth. This will give everyone a fair opportunity to create their own wealth.

The wealthy cannot be wealthy if they do not have people of a certain economic stature in the society to do business with.

Do not forget that the wealth of a society is not determined by the gold or cash people hold. The wealth of a society is determined by its capacity to produce and consume a given level of goods and services.

That is why GDP is used as a true measure of a country's wealth. Even though the concept of GDP is slightly flawed, it gives fair estimate of the buying capacity of a society.

[pnauhwar21]

That was a total molestation of the whole idea. Ofcourse, we need security, canalas, roads etc. But, these services must be privately provided, and those who use them must pay their fair share.


Sumit,

Lets come down to the practicality of implementation of your ideas. You have talked about privatising everything from education, road building, military, etc. with no government at all. So, lets take military first..

How exactly will a privatised military work in your world? Will people have a choice to pay tax to support that military? What if out of total 1 billion people, only 2 lakh people want an army or actually pay for it if they have a choice. How will you support that army?

Lets say roads are built by private companies only if people pay. Thats obvious coz there would be no government so nothing can be forced upon people even if its for their own good. What if in my locality, only half of the people agree to pay for a new road, will the road be built by other half's money? Also, there will never be a road in the villages coz villagers will never be able to pay for a road to the private companies who will only work for their profits. So, how will the development happen in rural areas in your everything private society.

If you start informing about the ways of implementation of your idea, you will be able to convince people better rather than just simply boasting about the goodness of these revolutionary ideas. Hope you will take out time to share your thoughts on practical implementation now.

[dahiyarules]

Sumit,

Lets come down to the practicality of implementation of your ideas. You have talked about privatising everything from education, road building, military, etc. with no government at all. So, lets take military first..

How exactly will a privatised military work in your world? Will people have a choice to pay tax to support that military? What if out of total 1 billion people, only 2 lakh people want an army or actually pay for it if they have a choice. How will you support that army?

As far as military is concerned, I want the world to move towards the direction of total demilitarization. No country shall have a weapons development program. Weapons companies like Boeing and Northrop-Grumman will be closed down because there wont be a market for the products.

But, lets talk reality. You know and I know that it is never going to happen. Some rogue regime like North Korea is not going to stick to such regulations.

Right now, defense from big weapons (Atomic Bombs and ICBMs) is a monopoly held by the government. If you go through the link for the paper that I attached, you will see that there is so much wastage of funds even by private contractors like Boeing, because they do not operate in a free market scenario. They get any amount of money from the government as long as they deliver what the government wants.

If this monopoly is broken and private players are allowed to enter this market, trust me it is a huge market that many companies would be willing to invest in. But, presently private investment in national defense is not allowed by the government.

Private companies would do business more efficiently and will provide better services due to competition. We could have contracts like say for example for 5 years a company provides defense from Nuclear weapons. Just like people have insurance policies, they could have such services. In case the private defense company is unable to secure us from a nuclear attach, they will have to pay damages as mentioned in the contract. If you die in the attack, then the proceeds go to the person mentioned in your policy.

Just like insurance companies do not cover those who dont buy their policies, such companies wont be responsible for those hurt by such hostilities who did not pay for their services. So, such services could work just like insurance policies.

Would these services work? Heck yea they will! If the government wrapsup the military, whose going to protect me? There will be a demand for security. And that is the beauty of free-markets. Where there is demand, there is an opportunity. I will sign up for the best defense agency that my money can buy.

This whole concept is very fluid as of now. But, it could come to shape if the government let it be implemented. Dont forget the invisible hand concept by Adam Smith. The invisible hand is behind all the developed fairly capitalistic economies of the world.

If the invisible hand worked everywhere else at promoting the economic welfare of the people, why do you think it wont work with National Defense?

Now dont say that such Private Agencies would attack us and colonize us. Well, do not forget why colonialism failed. Colonists like Great Britain realized that they could benefit even more by having a free market system than by stealing the physical wealth of other countries. Trust me, if Britain had the will, we would still have a Union Jack on the Red Fort.

Such defense agencies face competition from other defense agencies. If one of the screws up, they will be out of business in no time and replaced by a more sincere and honest service provider.

Lets say roads are built by private companies only if people pay. Thats obvious coz there would be no government so nothing can be forced upon people even if its for their own good. What if in my locality, only half of the people agree to pay for a new road, will the road be built by other half's money? Also, there will never be a road in the villages coz villagers will never be able to pay for a road to the private companies who will only work for their profits. So, how will the development happen in rural areas in your everything private society.

Do you think there is a demand for good roads? I gues the answer is yes. So why wont people pay for better roads.

And, why wont a person pay for the road in his or her locality that he or she needs to use?

When you go to a grocery store and you want a loaf of bread. The only way you can have it is if you pay for it. Lets assume that you wont steal it. If you dont pay for it, you cant have it. What will you do? I guess you will pay for it, or you will sleep hungry for that night.

So why wont people pay for roads? Under the current system, a lot of people are not paying for the bread and having it too. Dont you think it is unfair?

We need a system where people pay for the goods and services and get a certain expected level of quality in exchange. A system where there is a recourse in case we do not get what we pay for.

There is a toll-road between Noida and Delhi (where I am from). You have to pay 10 rupees (thats what it was 5 yrs ago, dont know what it is now) to use it one way. Man, that is the best road you would ever get to use in Delhi. And guess what, people pay for it.

Initially people were cautious and would say: whose going to pay 10 bucks when they can taken an extra 15 minutes and use one of the two other alternative ways to get from Noida to Delhi. But they were all proven wrong.

From what I know, it is a highly successful venture. The invisible hand was at work again.

If people would pay the toll for the Noida-Delhi road, even when there are other free alternatives, why do you think people wont pay for such services elsewhere.

Especially, if there a road outside my house that I need to pay for to get to work, I will pay for it. And if there is a pot hole, I can stop paying for the road until they fix it. It could all be in a contract that specifies a certain quality of roads, otherwise the clients would be exempt from paying until the problems are fixed.

Once my land line was dead for three days. I called my telephone company and they fixed it. Guess what. I got a credit for the three days that I did not get the service even without me asking for it. Would MTNL give you credit for absence of service, when phones are dead for days at a length?

Ofcourse, there will be roads in villages. Dont people in villages need roads? Wherever there will be a demand for roads, there will be roads. They wont build a road to Mt. Everest, because there is no demand for it.

But, there was demand for space tourism. So, Sir Virgin Atlantic will be starting space flights in 2008. That is the power of free markets.

You have to think of the whole concept of free markets with an open mind. Just think of it this way. Free markets give the power to the consumer who can choose the best service for their money. And if the provider fails to meet the expectations, it will be punished by free markets by shifting its business to other providers who will provide better services for the money.

The government does not want you to imagine the possibilities of free markets. Because, if it looses its monopoly on services like roads and defense, then it will loose control. People do not join the government to serve the country. They join the government to gain power and control. Whether it is an IAS officer of an elected MP. It is all about power and control.

Free markets will take this power and control from corrupt despotic leaders and put it in your hands.

[rraajjeevv]

Sumit Dahiya wrote -
Right now, defense from big weapons (Atomic Bombs and ICBMs) is a monopoly held by the government.
That is because it requires a lot of investment in developing technologies that have not been proven. The higher the investment the lesser the number of companies who have the resources to invest in such ventures.
It is easy for mass produced items like bread, tv, etc where you can produce the same item anywhere once you have an assembly line in place. So whether you live in Kenya or USA, you will be able to invest in an assembly line. But where a product is developed/manufactured using project based approach , there are lot of complexities, e.g. you need to invest in equipments which most of the time will be sitting idle.

You are trying to implement economic theory in the product development process. There are a number of approaches to product development, it is not a one size fits all approach.

Free markets will take this power and control from corrupt despotic leaders and put it in your hands.
Okay I have a question for you. Do you agree to free market on the movement of people?
If yes then why not make the whole world a single country? We can then dismantle all the armed forces.

[dahiyarules]

Sumit Dahiya wrote -
Right now, defense from big weapons (Atomic Bombs and ICBMs) is a monopoly held by the government.
That is because it requires a lot of investment in developing technologies that have not been proven. The higher the investment the lesser the number of companies who have the resources to invest in such ventures.
It is easy for mass produced items like bread, tv, etc where you can produce the same item anywhere once you have an assembly line in place. So whether you live in Kenya or USA, you will be able to invest in an assembly line. But where a product is developed/manufactured using project based approach , there are lot of complexities, e.g. you need to invest in equipments which most of the time will be sitting idle.

You are trying to implement economic theory in the product development process. There are a number of approaches to product development, it is not a one size fits all approach.


You are wrong. The nuclear technology is held by several privately owned companies in the US, Canada, Europe and Australia.

What do you think this whole India-US nuclear deal is all about? It is about the sharing of Nuclear Fuel technology between private US corporations and similar entities in India for the purpose of production of energy.

But, the Nuclear technology can be applied for peaceful purposes only. These companies definitely know how to make nuclear bombs. They know nearly 95 percent of the process. But, they dont make nuclear bombs because the government will never allow them to do so. And even if they make Nuclear Bomsb secretly, it is next to impossible to sell the technology to rogue elements. Such transactions are too difficult to cover up.

you must not forget that the best space-launching services are privately owned. The best place to launch rockets into space is in French Guayana in South America because it is the closest to earths orbit for most of the year. The launch facilities there are mostly privately owned.

Another French-US private venture invested billions of dollars in developing a floating platform in the Pacific ocean to counter French Guayana's natural advatages. So, far it has been a highly successful ventures. These companies have a near 100 percent success rate of putting sattelites in space.

You cannot estimate the power of the invisible hand. If there is a demand, there is an opportunity. And, if there is no government control or monopoly, the invisible hand will definitely exploit the opportunity with utmost efficiency.

Free markets will take this power and control from corrupt despotic leaders and put it in your hands.
Okay I have a question for you. Do you agree to free market on the movement of people?
If yes then why not make the whole world a single country? We can then dismantle all the armed forces.

I definitely beleive in a border-less world. Initially people might move in droves to developed countries. But, there will be a balance later on as free markets create opportunity in other parts of the world. Eventually migration patterns will morph the opportunities that come up around the globe.

[pnauhwar21]

Sumit,

Can you confirm as per your theory Governments will be totally vanished or they will be still there. When you talk about privatisation, there are 2 things - privatising electricity, ammunition development, road networks, etc which is already happening and there are no issues there. Everybody agrees that Private companies function far better than the Government run organizations atleast in India.

But you have been saying that there should not be any government at all..Only private businesses which are approached by People as and when they need them. If this is what you believe in, let me pose you questions on your post.

You said that privatised armies will work just like insurance companies. To quote you 'In case the private defense company is unable to secure us from a nuclear attach, they will have to pay damages as mentioned in the contract. If you die in the attack, then the proceeds go to the person mentioned in your policy.' - Dear, this is called Insurance only and not a contract of a privatised army..this is in place even today. Who will pay the private cos. to fight with Pakistanis in Kashmir, who will pay them to fight on China border? I have nothing to do in Kashmir or North eastern states so I donot need to pay, right?

See your theory will work only if there are no governments at all in the whole world, there are no boundaries to fight for..people just do their work and approach other people as per the need and skillsets..You just can't talk about working of private companies when Countries are still there..border disputes are still there and all..

You gave an ex. of Noida Toll Bridge ..that contract was given by govt to a private company..whoever wants to use the toll bridge pays for it as you need to pay for any additional benefit..but that model can't be put in place for each road laying project in your locality. If there is no government at all, on what basis a private company will lay a road..if there is no govt to give a contract, how will 10 different companies make a claim for the project..do you think all people in a locality will keep on contacting the private cos. for creating roads? If a road has to be created near Noida Stadium, who will approach the private cos..? those who regularly use the stadium or what? Lets be really practical Sumit..

[rraajjeevv]

Sumit Dahiya wrote -
You are wrong. The nuclear technology is held by several privately owned companies in the US, Canada, Europe and Australia.
So what the hell was the Manhattan project?
The original investment was made by the government, once the technology stabilised private companies stepped in.

you must not forget that the best space-launching services are privately owned.
Here again the original investment and the hard work was done by the governments. The whole US and USSR rivalry gave a push to the development process.

For example, Indian satellite launches are cheaper than anywhere in the world. ISRO is a government owned organisation, only now has the government created a partially private entity called 'Antrix'.

You are not looking at the whole picture. In all the high end technology stuff, it is the government who spends money first. Once a concepts is proven to work, only then the private companies step in. A private company can copy the successful design and keep on improving on the original concept. They know that the concept is successful. private entities are after profits, they do not care about anything else. Of course you can argue things get balanced in the end, but what is the use of that when you have consumed all the resources.

i am not sure how much you know about product development process , but a common thum brule is that about 90% of the new products fail.

if you believe in borderless world then strive for that. Once there are not any borders, there would not be any wars. If there are not any wars there would not be a need for military.

Borderless world will also help free market. Free movement will lead to lower prices.

[rraajjeevv]

Sumit Dahiya wrote -
Another French-US private venture invested billions of dollars in developing a floating platform in ...

You are factually incorrect, it is not a private entity as you call it.
The original investment ws made by the French government.

Check your facts before writing anything.

From wikipedia
Centre Spatial Guyanais (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_Spatial_Guyanais)
The Centre Spatial Guyanais (English: Guiana Space Centre) is a French/European spaceport near Kourou in French Guiana.

The European Space Agency, the French space agency CNES as well as the commercial Arianespace company launch their satellites from Kourou.

--------------
The spaceport was selected in 1964 to become the spaceport of France. When the European Space Agency (ESA) was founded in 1975, France offered to share Kourou with ESA.
-----------------
Fire safety is ensured by a detachment of the Paris Fire Brigade. Safety around the base is ensured by French Gendarmerie forces, assisted by the French Foreign Legion and other military forces.

European Space Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Space_Agency)
The European Space Agency (ESA), established in 1975, is an inter-governmental organization dedicated to the exploration of space, currently with 17 member states. Its headquarters are in Paris, France. ESA has a staff (excluding sub-contractors and national space agencies) of about 1,900 with an annual budget of about €3 billion in 2006.
-----------
ESA's spaceport is the Centre Spatial Guyanais (Guyana Space Centre) in Kourou, French Guiana
----------


When you know that ESA is going to launch satellites from your spaceport any sane person can spend billions of dollars in the venture. And that is because the person knows that the spaceport is going to have a monopoly on launches from Europe.

[dahiyarules]

Sumit Dahiya wrote -
Another French-US private venture invested billions of dollars in developing a floating platform in ...

You are factually incorrect, it is not a private entity as you call it.
The original investment ws made by the French government.

Check your facts before writing anything.

From wikipedia
Centre Spatial Guyanais (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_Spatial_Guyanais)
The Centre Spatial Guyanais (English: Guiana Space Centre) is a French/European spaceport near Kourou in French Guiana.

The European Space Agency, the French space agency CNES as well as the commercial Arianespace company launch their satellites from Kourou.

--------------
The spaceport was selected in 1964 to become the spaceport of France. When the European Space Agency (ESA) was founded in 1975, France offered to share Kourou with ESA.
-----------------
Fire safety is ensured by a detachment of the Paris Fire Brigade. Safety around the base is ensured by French Gendarmerie forces, assisted by the French Foreign Legion and other military forces.

European Space Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Space_Agency)
The European Space Agency (ESA), established in 1975, is an inter-governmental organization dedicated to the exploration of space, currently with 17 member states. Its headquarters are in Paris, France. ESA has a staff (excluding sub-contractors and national space agencies) of about 1,900 with an annual budget of about €3 billion in 2006.
-----------
ESA's spaceport is the Centre Spatial Guyanais (Guyana Space Centre) in Kourou, French Guiana
----------


When you know that ESA is going to launch satellites from your spaceport any sane person can spend billions of dollars in the venture. And that is because the person knows that the spaceport is going to have a monopoly on launches from Europe.

Well, you are reading between my words. Ofcourse the ESA has big operations in French Guyana. But, I am talking about numerous other private entities that operate from French Guayana.

Space launch's is what that place specialises in.

Well, that wasnt the point of the discussion.

The point was that if there is an opportunity, it can be exploited efficiently by a private enterprise.

And you admit that people would be willing to throw in the cash to get such projects rolling.

Space exploaration isnt just all about NASA, ESA etc. It is being looked from a comerical perspective by god knows how many entreprenuers.

[rraajjeevv]

Sumit Dahiya wrote -
you are reading between my words.
Incorrect. You are not trying to understand what i am saying.

My argument relates mainly to areas such Nuclear Power, Defence, Space Technology etc where the investements can be humongous and the returns unpredictable. In such areas governments/philanthropists have to intervene. Here the returns may be visible only after 20-30 years of work, in which case it is not in the interests of private entities to invest in such ventures. of course the governments can assign part of the aowrk to be carried out by private companies (again if the project is of national interest, you have very few candidates to choose from), which is what happens quite often. But once a concept has proven to work even partially, one can then approach the private companies to mass produce the items.

What i am trying to say is that your theory of Free market and Free Enterprise works best when a prototype of a product has been produced. you can then easily plan for the future by forecasting demand for the product.

Space launch's is what that place specialises in.

Well, that wasnt the point of the discussion.

The point was that if there is an opportunity, it can be exploited efficiently by a private enterprise.

And you admit that people would be willing to throw in the cash to get such projects rolling.

Space exploaration isnt just all about NASA, ESA etc. It is being looked from a comerical perspective by god knows how many entreprenuers.

You are only partially correct on what you have written above. the private enterprises and sub contractors have come in only after the hard work done by the governments. In the case of French Guayana most of the initial spadework was done by the French and then other European countries stepped in. With monopoly on European satellite launches and with the main facility already in place , it was easy to persuade private companies to invest.

If one proposes certain theories, the theories should be backed up by reasonable arguments. You are trying to fit in a single concept of free market and invisible hand in every area of human activity, which I feel will not work always.

Heck I might come up with arguments and theories that Aishwarya Rai should marry me and no one else in the world. but I know (and Aishwarya knows) that it would not happen.

[dahiyarules]

My argument relates mainly to areas such Nuclear Power, Defense, Space Technology etc where the investments can be humongous and the returns unpredictable. In such areas governments/philanthropists have to intervene. Here the returns may be visible only after 20-30 years of work, in which case it is not in the interests of private entities to invest in such ventures. of course the governments can assign part of the aowrk to be carried out by private companies (again if the project is of national interest, you have very few candidates to choose from), which is what happens quite often. But once a concept has proven to work even partially, one can then approach the private companies to mass produce the items.

What i am trying to say is that your theory of Free market and Free Enterprise works best when a prototype of a product has been produced. you can then easily plan for the future by forecasting demand for the product.

We can play this game of "you are wrong" endlessly because you will just keep repeating the same points again and again.

There are several private initiatives, right as I am writing this, which require billions in investment, and need 20-30 years on an average to bring the final product to the market. And, even then there is no guarantee of success.

I can give you an endless list of examples. But, I will stick to the example of pharmaceuticals. The average time for a drug to be developed and brought to the market is over 20 years.

If you ever took a class in supply chain management, you will learn that the average time to bring a product or service to market could be over 5 years.

The market capitalization of the Fortune 500 companies alone is above the entire economies of the third world countries put together.

In the US, the entire US military is supplied by private manufactures and suppliers. Even though there is a lot of wastage by these manufacturers, they have produced the best defense systems man has ever imagined.

The Nuclear Power sector in the US is entirely supplied by private providers like GE.

Do not tell me that the private enterprises do not have the time and patience to invest in products and services.

What is the point of investing in something that guarantees negative returns? If there is a potential investment that comes with a guarantee that the returns will be zero, a private enterprise will never go ahead with it, because it has an obligation towards its investors. While, a government will not think twice of taking up such initiatives because they do not have an obligation towards th tax payers. When was the last time, the govenment got our permission for spending our money?



You are only partially correct on what you have written above. the private enterprises and sub contractors have come in only after the hard work done by the governments. In the case of French Guayana most of the initial spadework was done by the French and then other European countries stepped in. With monopoly on European satellite launches and with the main facility already in place , it was easy to persuade private companies to invest.
.
Look Buddy! you are under a very big misconception that governments convince private enterprises to invest.

The only thing that convinces a private enterprise to invest is potential profits. Of course, governments try to sweeten the deal. There are even a lot of behind the door dirty transactions that we don't know of. But, I do not support such kind of capitalism. It is what I call crony-capitalism.

Heck I might come up with arguments and theories that Aishwarya Rai should marry me and no one else in the world. but I know (and Aishwarya knows) that it would not happen.

:) Why are you so inconfident about Aishwarya. Heck! shes just one woman out of a few billion. And she realizes the fact. But, people like you put her on the clouds.

I think this discussion is loosing focus. You can email me at sd02@fsu.edu

Trust me you are not proving any intellect by repeating the same things over and over again. Now its getting lugubrious and redundant.

[ramksehrawat]

We can discuss this topic as free Indians only till we are spending on the defence of our country. The day we stop spending on defence, we will be discussing "how to defend" or in the worse scenario "how to liberate our country".

[dahiyarules]

We can discuss this topic as free Indians only till we are spending on the defence of our country. The day we stop spending on defence, we will be discussing "how to defend" or in the worse scenario "how to liberate our country".

This is exactly the kind of fear mongering that I am concerned about.

All I am suggesting is that we need to consider private alternatives for our defense. This will bring in the efficiencies fo the markets to the process.

We do not need to do the entire shift over night. We could go a step at a time.
If it helps us, good. If it doesnt, then we can move back a step.

[pnauhwar21]

Sumit, I am still awaiting your response to post #55..I am really interested to know how your idea will be implemented when there are no governments at all..

[rraajjeevv]

I know what I am talking about because I am involved very closely in the high tech engineering industry.
We can play this game of "you are wrong" endlessly because you will just keep repeating the same points again and again.

There are several private initiatives, right as I am writing this, which require billions in investment, and need 20-30 years on an average to bring the final product to the market. And, even then there is no guarantee of success.

You are repeating the same points again.


I can give you an endless list of examples. But, I will stick to the example of pharmaceuticals. The average time for a drug to be developed and brought to the market is over 20 years.

Our discussion was around nuclear and space technology. you have now changed topic and jumped to pharmacauticals


If you ever took a class in supply chain management, you will learn that the average time to bring a product or service to market could be over 5 years.

if you had ever taken a class in product design and development you would have understood by now what i am trying to convey. product development essentially starts with market survey (may not be needed in some cases), concept, design, prototype, manufacture, sale, maintenance and recycling.

Supply chain management mainly comes into picture once your design has been finalised. Of course you do start scouting for suppliers when you are designing a product. Again there can be two different effects of supply chain management, when you are sourcing components and when you are sellign your products.

It may take ages for a product to be brought into the market, it all depends on the complexity and technological advances.
Since we are talkign about nuclear power, do you know what the ITER initiative is? The aim of this initiative is to develop a nuclear plant around a fusion power reactor. This is entirely funded by governments. the reason, what i have already told you before. It is an unproven technololgy. Read about it here http://www.iter.org/ and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER if you want to know the work involved in developing a high end technology.


In the US, the entire US military is supplied by private manufactures and suppliers. Even though there is a lot of wastage by these manufacturers, they have produced the best defense systems man has ever imagined.

The Nuclear Power sector in the US is entirely supplied by private providers like GE.

Do not tell me that the private enterprises do not have the time and patience to invest in products and services.

If you have not understood what i am trying to convey i will repeat again. When a technology is in its infant stage, in majority of the cases the involvement of private sector is miniscule. As the technology evolves and a conpet is known to work, private companies move. This is when, the prices start coming down.



What is the point of investing in something that guarantees negative returns? If there is a potential investment that comes with a guarantee that the returns will be zero, a private enterprise will never go ahead with it, because it has an obligation towards its investors. While, a government will not think twice of taking up such initiatives because they do not have an obligation towards th tax payers. When was the last time, the govenment got our permission for spending our money?

DO some reading on the ITER initiative. Mind you it might now work again. For the last 30 years they have been saying that it will be up and running within the next 20 years time. These are the aeras where government's involvement can give a headway to emerging and unproven technology.




.
Look Buddy! you are under a very big misconception that governments convince private enterprises to invest.

Dude I am not your buddy.


:) Why are you so inconfident about Aishwarya. Heck! shes just one woman out of a few billion. And she realizes the fact. But, people like you put her on the clouds.

You did not understand what I was trying to convey.

I think this discussion is loosing focus. You can email me at sd02@fsu.edu


Let us discuss everything in an open forum.

Trust me you are not proving any intellect by repeating the same things over and over again. Now its getting lugubrious and redundant.
What you said applies to you.

I have never defined anything in black and white. What I am saying is that i agree free market and private enterprise are good, but there are areas where you need to explore and implement alternative approaches.

This discussion now reminds me of the monty python dead parrot sketch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSC6RayVSqI

You are not budging from the stand you have taken.

[ramksehrawat]

This is exactly the kind of fear mongering that I am concerned about.

All I am suggesting is that we need to consider private alternatives for our defense. This will bring in the efficiencies fo the markets to the process.

We do not need to do the entire shift over night. We could go a step at a time.
If it helps us, good. If it doesnt, then we can move back a step.

Dear Sumit,

Privatisation of