------------------------------------------------------------------------ **** http://www.GOANET.org **** ------------------------------------------------------------------------
This month's Goanet operations sponsored by Mrs. Daisy Faleiro If you would like to sponsor Goanet's operations contact: Herman Carneiro - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --- allwyntc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > However, I think the idea of socialism seemed to > many, at that time, to be an attractive alternative > to capitalism... > > I'm not convinced India would have done much better > with a different economic model. What, let the > global corporate giants come and continue the > pillage of the country? I think India needed to be > able to play in the international arena with a strong > hand, and while economically it was weak, it was > self-sufficient in several areas before we came out > to play. > Mario responds: > Allwyn, Socialism is a siren song that has failed miserably wherever it has been tried, created massive economic waste and poverty and disruptions in resource allocation and has therefore been rejected by almost all its major proponents like India, Russia and China. > There is a good reason for this. Simply put, a group of ruling elites and the small army of bureaucratic controls that results from socialism, cannot manage an entire economy efficiently and decide what is good for everyone else. > The massive brain drain from all socialist countries reflects the failure of socialism, and all the migrations are towards countries that are towards the capitalistic end of the economic spectrum, the US being the large economy closest to capitalism which is the strongest magnet for immigrants. > The US is an excellent example of a country that started from scratch with mostly immigrants fleeing religious discrimination. It has never been reluctant to allow people and economic assets from any and everwhere to be freely used within its economy, with a minimum of governmental controls, imposed mainly for political reasons. This allows individuals, all following what they see as their best interests, to decide what they want and need, and the businesses respond to satisfy those wants and needs. Its a win-win situation for everyone, and competition keeps everyone on their toes. We are beginning to see the effects in India, ever since Manmohan Singh was able to influence economic affairs, which was euphemistically called economic "liberalization", but not prior to that. > The concept of global giants pillaging a country is a myth. Global giants like Enron and several others do not even exist any more. Other global giants like Ford and GM and Daimler-Chrysler are struggling to survive. In the US over 80% of the jobs are created by small and medium sized bussinesses, not the corporate giants. Yet, the US is the most vibrant and consistent economy among all the westernized industrial countries, with low inflation, low taxes, low interest rates and low unemployment rates, and high private ownership of cars and homes and amenities. Low income Americans enjoy a standard of living better than most middle income Europeans. > Regarding India playing a strong hand in the international arena, how does being economically weak achieve this? It has far more influence now than the wasted Nehru years. Back then it was all talk and pious posturing, no action. This continues today, especially among the elite who write for the major Indian newspapers and posture at social gatherings. What has India done for any oppressed country, from Rwanda to Darfur to Palestine to Iraq, India is nowhere to be found. > In fact, I blame India and other countries like it for the mess in Iraq. They sat on the sidelines and watched impotently from 1991 on, when Saddam was violating 17 UN Security Council resolutions to disclose an accounting of his WMDs, and massacring hundreds of thousands of his own citizens in order to preserve his power. Even when Saddam was given an ultimatum in UN 1441, and the coalition was massed on its borders, India and these countries were unable to convince him to tell the UN inspectors a) whether he had destroyed his WMDs and b) proof that he had done so. Now, they implausibly expect us to believe that Saddam did not have any WMDs but was willing to give up his cushy dictatorship just because he did not want to tell the UN this and provide proof - after previously raping, torturing and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis in order to stay in power. > What kind of a cynical and callous democracy is India and the others that they sit and watch and do not use their supposed influence to help another country become free and democratic, after the US spilled it own blood to give the Iraqis an opportunity they never had before? The UN confirmed that 12 million Iraqis voted in each of three elections, even at the risk of death, showing their strong desire for freedom and democracy - out of a total population of 25 million. Yet their freedom is being delayed by a few thousand extremist Shia and Sunni, instigated by Al Qaeda, Syria and Iran - while India and its friends sit and do nothing. Shameful, as history will record. > In fact, I saw a study about a year ago that India was the original target of Islamic terorism and has lost over 60,000 innocent civilians and had vast sections of Kashmir ethnically cleansed by the jihadis. Yet, what are Indians most proud of? Not that they have done to save innocent Indians, but that the survivors return to normal within 24 hours. Total and cynical and callous indifference to those who die and their freinds and families. Too bad for them. thank God we escaped. Until the next attack. Now, the jihadis are targeting innocent Muslims in Malegaon and Panipat. > Sorry for getting carried away. > Regards, Mario >