- Monopoly and lack of competition are facts in some fields of life. Franchises paid huge franchisee fees just to ensure that players will be available to them. The stranglehold of BCCI on players ensured that wannabe owners of teams with international players had 2 options- play huge rent to BCCI or start a completely new league of their own without any links to BCCI and ICC. Even for a completely new league, it is difficult to get players. As the normal source of employment is close, and the sustainability of new venture is doubtful, players would want a huge risk premium in addition to their normal wages. ICL reportedly offered Warne a million plus dollar but even for a retired player, the premium was not enough. To recover the premiums, the number of playing days has to increasse greatly. This increases the overall riskiness of an inherently risky (due to its newness) venture and and adds up the operating expenses.
- Ignoring the interests of minority shareholders: In Indian capitalism, promoters own more than 50% of shares. If a company buys a team, the promoter would get publicity but all the shareholders would have to fit the bill. Given the media madness around IPL, the promoters like Mukesh Ambani were assured publicity. The billionaire promoters could easily trade some extra millions for fame. It was the minority shareholder whose money was invested in ventures of doubtful financial viability and who did not become any more famous in the bargain.
Friday, August 22, 2008
IPL and capitalism
IPL showcased two problems in capitalism.
Monarchy
Monarchy is perhaps the most enduring form of government. It is also perhaps the one with most variations. I tried to check the Chinese and Russian versions of monarchy. The views are simplifications.
China:
Russia:
Russia was the largest ( in area and population) of the 3 premier monarchies of Europe: Prussia (Germany), Austria, and Russia. It was also the least democratic and least developed. the country's official policy was: Christianity, Tradition, and Autocracy. Tradition means the way of forefathers. Now, Christianity did not develop in Russia. It came at a particular time in history. Hence, for some people at some time, it was not tradition. So mindless insistence on tradition, violated first tenet. It could be argued that Christianity was preached firstly and foremostly by God himself and hence, it was superior to tradition. Carrying this argument, any non-Christian tradition had to be discarded. Russian insistence on home-grown traditions did not gel with Jerusalem born Christianity. Orthodox Christianity no matter how much Russified it became, was born in Constanipole and ultimately based on teachings of a person from Jerusalem.
Autocracy, was another tradition. It was based on agnatic promigeniture. Now, according to Chritianity, this tradition would be valid, if Romanovs (ruling dynasty of Russia) could trace descent from first son of Adam. They didn't. Hence, the tradition of autocracy was un-Christian. Even if they did, they would have been rulers of whole world and not just Russia. They never claimed the same. More importantly, the Romanovs who insisted on "home-grown" traditions usually married German, not Russian brides.
The first king among Romanovs was elected by boyars (nobles). This was accepted history. Given, that all humans were descendants of Adam and Eve, there was no reason to give voting rights only to nobles. Besides, there was no reason why voting should be a one-off event. One could argue a person, should be chosen for life. If people have choosen wrong once, they may repeat it. Buit that does not restrict chosing new kings after death of old kings. Thus the concept of autocracy was also against Christianity.
Hence, the Russian empire was based only on might. Once, its might was exposed as hollow in the 1905 Russo-Japanese war, collapse was inevitable. And Orthodox Christianity also faced the consequences for assisting the monarchy in it's anti-Christianity position. The persecution of church at Soviet hands had some public support .
China:
- The Emperor was absolute ruler. However, the post of Emperor was depersonalized. The Emperor was termed "Son of Heaven". Emperors were selected by agnatic succession. Hence, the relationship was not used biologically but rather son was used in the sense of viceroy. Chinese emperor was not the soverign of a single state but also the head of all states of the world.
- A meritocratic bureaucracy, was the other pillar of China. However, bureaucracy, if left to itself, would turn into a clique where posts will not be decided on a meritocratic basis but on the basis of heredity and recommendation. the emperor would prevent a clique from arising, as it was in his interests that the country should be run by the best people.
- The Chinese had another concept 'Mandate of Heaven'. This was tied with emperor's position as viceroy of Heaven. If the emperor was perceived to be acting unrighteously, his Mandate was supposed to go away. This stabilized the system in several ways. If the emperor favored a clique and bypassed the meritocratic bureaucracy, the bureaucrats who occupied the top judicial, executive, and military posts could legally rise in rebellion and claim the emperor's mandate was gone. In ancient China, character, effort and intelligence all constituted merit. Wannabe bureaucrats were tested rigorously for character. Thus if the emperor's policies hurt the common man, the meritocratic bureaucrats could raise the banner of revolt. Hence, the concept of 'Mandate of heaven' protected the meritocratic bureaucracy from the autocratic emperors and ensured within limits the protection of people from rapacious emperors. The meritocratic bureaucracy, in which character was an inherent constituent of merit ensured that vast powers were used for public good.
- The Mandate had another great use. If a person, disposed the present emperor, than the Mandate validated his rule in the eyes of people and bureaucracy. This allowed 'great man' in the mold of Napoleon, a chance to display their great talents while leaving the bureaucratic apparatus unimpaired.
Russia:
Russia was the largest ( in area and population) of the 3 premier monarchies of Europe: Prussia (Germany), Austria, and Russia. It was also the least democratic and least developed. the country's official policy was: Christianity, Tradition, and Autocracy. Tradition means the way of forefathers. Now, Christianity did not develop in Russia. It came at a particular time in history. Hence, for some people at some time, it was not tradition. So mindless insistence on tradition, violated first tenet. It could be argued that Christianity was preached firstly and foremostly by God himself and hence, it was superior to tradition. Carrying this argument, any non-Christian tradition had to be discarded. Russian insistence on home-grown traditions did not gel with Jerusalem born Christianity. Orthodox Christianity no matter how much Russified it became, was born in Constanipole and ultimately based on teachings of a person from Jerusalem.
Autocracy, was another tradition. It was based on agnatic promigeniture. Now, according to Chritianity, this tradition would be valid, if Romanovs (ruling dynasty of Russia) could trace descent from first son of Adam. They didn't. Hence, the tradition of autocracy was un-Christian. Even if they did, they would have been rulers of whole world and not just Russia. They never claimed the same. More importantly, the Romanovs who insisted on "home-grown" traditions usually married German, not Russian brides.
The first king among Romanovs was elected by boyars (nobles). This was accepted history. Given, that all humans were descendants of Adam and Eve, there was no reason to give voting rights only to nobles. Besides, there was no reason why voting should be a one-off event. One could argue a person, should be chosen for life. If people have choosen wrong once, they may repeat it. Buit that does not restrict chosing new kings after death of old kings. Thus the concept of autocracy was also against Christianity.
Hence, the Russian empire was based only on might. Once, its might was exposed as hollow in the 1905 Russo-Japanese war, collapse was inevitable. And Orthodox Christianity also faced the consequences for assisting the monarchy in it's anti-Christianity position. The persecution of church at Soviet hands had some public support .
Saturday, August 16, 2008
World War One and USA
Why USA joined WW1. Well the official answer is:
"When a German U-boat sank the British liner Lusitania in 1915, with 128 Americans aboard, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson vowed, "America was too proud to fight" and demanded an end to attacks on passenger ships. Germany complied. Wilson unsuccessfully tried to mediate a settlement. He repeatedly warned the U.S. would not tolerate unrestricted submarine warfare, in violation of international law and U.S. ideas of human rights. "
"After submarines sank seven U.S. merchant ships and the publication of the Zimmerman telegram, Wilson called for war on Germany, which the U.S. Congress declared on 6 April 1917."
Source- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war_1
So, USA joined the war to protect it's citizens from Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare.
Why did Germany start unrestricted submarine warfare?
To cut down the import of food and other essentials to UK. UK was doing the same to Germany. IK had the world's largest surface fleet and could prevent cargo ships from entering Germany. The blockade of Germany was giving rise to famine-like situation. The only way for Germany to break the blockade was to force UK into a similar or worse scarcity and only unrestricted submarine warfare could do that, as enough material was reaching through neutral vessels.
This does not negate USA's position. USA had to protect it's citizens carry out their legal transactions. But this piece of news changes the contours:
"He had previously claimed neutrality, while calling for the arming of U.S. merchant ships delivering munitions to combatant Britain and quietly supporting the British blockading of German ports and mining of international waters, preventing the shipment of food from America and elsewhere to combatant Germany."
Source- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war_1
So, Woolson strengthened UK's war-efforts, undermined Germany's war-efforts and when Germany retaliated in its dire crisis, he declared war on Germany. This deliberate provoking must have some purpose.
I feel that the USA's mostly English-origin elite felt threatened by the large numbers of German immigrants in the last two decades of 19th century. Today, people of German origin account for 17% of USA's population (largest ethnic group) and their per capita income is higher than USA's average. Most immigration from Germany occurred in the end of 19th century. Germans had a reputation for industriousness. The sudden expansion in German population, coupled with tales of German industriousness would have created deep fears in the Anglican elite's psyche. They might have feared that in combination with disadvantage groups (Irish and Afro-Americans), the Germans might sweep them out of power. And hence, the elite counteracted by attacking and demonizing Germany. This would other people in USA, suspicious of people of Germanic origin and the American Germans themselves would try to integrate into the societal norms sanctioned by the elite, to nullify suspicions and suspicion-related oppression based on their relationships with the enemy. Thus the English-origin elite could continue its political and cultural dominance
"When a German U-boat sank the British liner Lusitania in 1915, with 128 Americans aboard, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson vowed, "America was too proud to fight" and demanded an end to attacks on passenger ships. Germany complied. Wilson unsuccessfully tried to mediate a settlement. He repeatedly warned the U.S. would not tolerate unrestricted submarine warfare, in violation of international law and U.S. ideas of human rights. "
"After submarines sank seven U.S. merchant ships and the publication of the Zimmerman telegram, Wilson called for war on Germany, which the U.S. Congress declared on 6 April 1917."
Source- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war_1
So, USA joined the war to protect it's citizens from Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare.
Why did Germany start unrestricted submarine warfare?
To cut down the import of food and other essentials to UK. UK was doing the same to Germany. IK had the world's largest surface fleet and could prevent cargo ships from entering Germany. The blockade of Germany was giving rise to famine-like situation. The only way for Germany to break the blockade was to force UK into a similar or worse scarcity and only unrestricted submarine warfare could do that, as enough material was reaching through neutral vessels.
This does not negate USA's position. USA had to protect it's citizens carry out their legal transactions. But this piece of news changes the contours:
"He had previously claimed neutrality, while calling for the arming of U.S. merchant ships delivering munitions to combatant Britain and quietly supporting the British blockading of German ports and mining of international waters, preventing the shipment of food from America and elsewhere to combatant Germany."
Source- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war_1
So, Woolson strengthened UK's war-efforts, undermined Germany's war-efforts and when Germany retaliated in its dire crisis, he declared war on Germany. This deliberate provoking must have some purpose.
I feel that the USA's mostly English-origin elite felt threatened by the large numbers of German immigrants in the last two decades of 19th century. Today, people of German origin account for 17% of USA's population (largest ethnic group) and their per capita income is higher than USA's average. Most immigration from Germany occurred in the end of 19th century. Germans had a reputation for industriousness. The sudden expansion in German population, coupled with tales of German industriousness would have created deep fears in the Anglican elite's psyche. They might have feared that in combination with disadvantage groups (Irish and Afro-Americans), the Germans might sweep them out of power. And hence, the elite counteracted by attacking and demonizing Germany. This would other people in USA, suspicious of people of Germanic origin and the American Germans themselves would try to integrate into the societal norms sanctioned by the elite, to nullify suspicions and suspicion-related oppression based on their relationships with the enemy. Thus the English-origin elite could continue its political and cultural dominance
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Belief
I read in wikipedia's article on belief that belief is usually spontaneous and involuntary. From personal experience, I couldn't disagree more.I believe wikipedia tries to equate belief with unjustified opinions. But what constitutes justified? What is justified for one, may be unjustified for another. Given that justified opinion, is a belief assuming beliefs to be unjustified opinions, is circular. Hence, I consider X holds Y as a belief, if X affirms the same. If X holds Y as truth, than we cannot say X holds Y as a belief, it is an instinctive affirmation of Y. By consciously affirming that Y is his/her belief, X says that he/she considers not Y to be a possibility and has knowingly chosen Y and not Y. Hence, belief requires free-will (choosing Y over not Y, in absence of any necessary reasons to do so) .
Monday, August 11, 2008
Belief in God
Many people profess belief in God. I do not think one can believe in God. Let us see what belief is.Belief about something requires 2 things- awareness about that thing and choosing that thing even when we know that the negation of that thing is not necessarily false. Now, finite man cannot be aware of the possibility of the infinite nature of God, cannot even raise questions about the existence/non-existence of an infinite Being i.e God without the explicit will of God. Secondly, God cannot be the object, He is the Subject. Man cannot categorize God as actual, probable, possible or fictional. It can be said that man's categorization of God is not an action performed upon God. God and opinion about God are different. But this view does not take into account, the omnipotence of God. If opinions about God can exist independently of God, than conscious beings who can hold such opinions must also exist independently of God as opinions need conscious beings. This is not possible. Hence, any opinion about God bears the explicit consent of God. Thus faith in God is possible only due to the grace of God. Ishvaranka upare aastha, Ishvara Krupa dwara hi sambhava.
.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)