Distance learning in Economics provides students with advanced knowledge in key areas such as economic applications, information usage and strategic advantage. The students are enabled in specific career and professional goals and in the areas of strategy and analysis. Courses in economics that focus on the principles and techniques form the foundation for specializations in the area. The student may then acquire skills in setting and managing corporate strategy or study in depth the management of economic crimes. The program may be a certificate program, an undergraduate program, a post graduate program or a doctoral program!

Course Content

Economics is a vast subject and distance learning in economics offers a variety of basic and specialized courses for the novice and the expert in the field. The principles and techniques of economics are studied at varying levels of detail at the certificate, undergraduate, post graduate and doctoral levels. Management in commercial banks, corporations, international agencies, ministries of finance and so on require students who have a through understanding of the basic economic principles that govern markets and the basic quantitative techniques that are used to analyze them. Specializations are offered at the post graduate and doctoral levels and may be focused on environmental economics, agricultural economics, development finance or international business. The content of each of these courses will be determined by the focus area of the program.

Universities

The Bircham International University offers programs on Economic Analysis while the Universiti Sains Malaysia and Kakatiya University offers basic programs in Economics. The Akamai University offers graduate programs in Economic development that emphasize sustainable development, natural resources and environmental economics, anti poverty programs, productivity and growth economics and community action programs. The Katholieke Universiteit Leuven has a course in International Business Economics. The University of Southern Queensland has courses in Economic Studies. Closer to home, the Cardean University offers a graduate certificate program in Economics. Ellis College offers an MBA in strategy and economics. Utica College has an M.S. program in Economic Crime Management to offer. The London University, too has a number of courses at the graduate and postgraduate levels for distance learning in economics.

Registering for anyone of the courses would benefit you immensely if you are contemplating a career in economics. The online study of economics will also benefit individuals in other fields such as law or engineering. So explore your options and launch your career in this fertile field of work!

Economic Justice and Democratization of Economy to create Ideal SocietyBy Prof Viswanathan, Director, International Socio-Economic Research Bureau(E Mail Id : economist@dataone.in)DECLARATION OF JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTSWe, the people of all the countries, in harmony with the sovereignty of the Universal Justice hold these truths to be self-evident that every creator has inalienable ‘Right to Ownership’ on his creations and the Natural laws empowers the creators that only he should use his creations exclusively for the welfare and uplift of the human society as a whole, in which he is an inseparable member.We declare with all judicial power derived from Natural laws that among all creations of man, his creation of capital alone has enormous ‘economic power’ capable of transforming all the socio-economic-political structures and reconstitute them to suit the aspirations of the owners of capital.We further declare in unequivocal terms since the capital is created by the collective labor of the people as a whole it should be directly owned by the people and then only the people would secure equal ‘Economic power’ and requisite ‘Fundamental Economic Rights’ with which they could establish an ‘Ideal Society’ in the way in which they desire.In accordance with ‘Economic Justice’ when the capital is directly owned by the people, we declare that the people would naturally secure what we consider the best among the ‘Fundamental Economic Rights’ like ‘Right to live’, ‘Right to work’, ‘Right to Economic Equality’, ‘Right to economic liberty’, ‘Right to Economic Security’, ‘Right to participate in the management’, ‘Right to capital creation’, ‘Right to live with fraternity’, and requisite ‘socio-economic-political rights to pursuit of decent happiness’We further proclaim when the people secure the above mentioned ‘fundamental rights’ they would succeed ultimately to establish an Ideal Society or Just Society for which they were tirelessly striving in transforming one form of society into another since the dawn of civilization, and to execute their noble concept of ‘One World, One Government, and One Humanity’ and in the end the people would be victorious in choosing what form of ‘Economic System’ that would be the best of all other systems for the establishment of an Ideal Society for which they would secure all requisite authorities of Natural laws that bestow on them.1. Emergence of Economic Systems:Different economic systems had emerged on the horizon of the history of mankind whenever different kinds of ‘Capital Ownership’ sprang up. Especially capitalism and socialism emerged after industrial revolution on the determinant factor of ‘capital ownership’. Generally in all economic systems ‘the ownership of capital’ forms the ‘basic structure’ of a society on which the fabrics of super structure of society are determined. The super structure usually exhibits the qualitative fabrics of society such as religion, culture, education, laws, customs and conventions etc. which are determined according to the aspirations of the owners of capital. In short the social elements are dependent factors of capital ownership.During the turbulent period of 1750s when Industrial Revolution burst upon the England and other European countries it introduced gigantic machines – a kind of capital – in the factory system of production of goods and services. It engulfed the mankind like huge deluge and tossed the world societies and changed each and every super structural elements of society in such a manner not to even to trace out their originality. We, the people, at that period were deeply perplexed and confused what to do as we were in the vicinity of utter economic ignorance.2. Two Economic Affidavits:During Industrial Revolution the economic environments in the factory system was not only in muddle but also demoralizing the societies. No one had any knowledge how the economy was operating and how should it be operated. Everyone was expecting for the worst to come. Whole Europe was plunged into utter ignorance. At that crucial period of time it was Adam Smith, the Father of Economics, published his famous book ‘An enquiry into the Nature and Cause of the Wealth of Nations’ in 1776.3. Economic Affidavit of Adam Smith: In his book Adam Smith spelt out an ‘Economic Affidavit’ solemnly and sincerely that if we, the people, entrusted our capital to a few capitalists in the name of ‘Capitalism’ (Individualism), they would not only change even the sand into gold but also drive the mankind to march towards an ‘Ideal Society’ by modernizing production potentialities with the help of scientific technologies and division of labor. Completely ignoring the working class who constitutes the society, Adam Smith concentered and focused his interest on a few capitalists and advocated that they without the interference of State would accumulate wealth of nations with the help of division of labor using modern machines and assured that the few independent capitalists would moreover create a favorable climate for the establishment of Ideal Society by increasing production many folds. Adam Smith completely neglected the equitable distribution of wealth to the mass working class. He linked the establishment of an ideal society with the mass production but not equitable distribution of wealth. Thus he misguided the whole world convincingly and decisively for a long period during which the working class was thrown into appalling poverty and horrible living hood.Ricardo and Malthus, drawing he thread of arguments from the wisdom of Adam Smith, eloquently presented their views in favor of a few capitalists and equally convinced the people to surrender their capital in the possession of capitalists who would solve all the socioeconomic problems of mankind. Thus when the people entrusted their capital in the hands of a few capitalists a ‘Capitalistic Mode of Production’ emerged with strong magnitudes in England and some other European countries. This capitalistic mode of production, shattering hitherto existing highly valuable cultures and customs of people, created a complex and conflicting, and highly demoralizing ‘Capitalistic Society’.The newly emerged ‘capitalistic Society’ forced the social elements such as law, art, culture, customs, religion, education and other economic and political rights and liberties to work for the benefit and security of a few capitalists because on their welfare the welfare of mass working class was depending on. The capitalistic mode of production converted the ‘Right to live’ of mass working class into a dependent factor of the security of the capitalist class who owned the capital and modern factories. This was because if a capitalist collapsed with his factory, the livelihood of the workers working in that factory would also collapse. So all the social elements ranging from culture to human liberty had to work for the security of a few capitalists. Thus the Ideal Society which the people dreamt for long span of time became a myth and mirage. In the capitalistic mode of production the Ideal Society was meant by ‘Capitalistic Society’ representing a few capitalists.4. Counter Economic Affidavit of Karl Marx: Having abundant flow of sympathy on the exploited mass working class and endless stream of hatred on the capitalists who caused for the appalling poverty of workers the mentally and morally agitated Karl Marx and Engels declared a ‘Counter Affidavit’ in 1848 in their ‘Communist Manifesto’ and Karl Marx alone in 1867 in his magnum opus the Das Capital. In their counter affidavit they advocated that if We, the people, forfeited our capital from the few capitalists with the help of Bolsheviks (communists) and entrusted the capital in the hands of the ‘State’ under the control of ‘Proletariat Dictatorship’, that the ‘State’ would lead us ‘Towards an Ideal Society’ and establish ‘One World’.* Believing their ‘Counter Affidavit’ word by word, in the October Revolution of 1917 we forfeited our capital from the few capitalists and handed over it to the trustworthy of the ‘State’. The State introduced a ‘Socialistic mode of production’ and on the basis of this, a fearful and subjugating ‘Socialistic Society’ emerged. The working class was engulfed with awe and fearsome and terribly perplexed on the outcome of the ‘Revolution’ and utterly disappointed for not even tracing any hope of achieving ‘Ideal Society’ which their Bolshevik masters promised during the ‘Revolution’.__________________________________________________________________ *In the words of Karl Marx : “ In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe in its banners : From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”– Marx(1875), pp 21-23Karl Marx and Engels were not alive at that time of October Revolution. They were great champions for working class and ‘buts’ about it. They worried wept for working class, they suffered for working class, they sacrificed everything for the working class, and above all they were exiled, especially Karl Marx, from country to country for the cause of working class, and they really wanted to see the working class of all the countries in an ‘Ideal Society’. But the ‘October Revolution’ in Russia proved that their ‘Theory and Practice’ did not coordinate with each other and did not function in harmony. There was something wrong in the ‘Theory and practice’ which resulted in utter collapse of Socialism at the end process. What was the fault that penetrated for its collapse?I have same streak of opinion in respect of Adam Smith and Malthus as well. I believe when they advocated that we, the people, should entrust our capital in the possession of few capitalists, they believed that the capitalists would not exploit the working class. But when their theories put into practice it was the selfish capitalists who manipulated their theories as convenient and convincing tools to exploit the mass working class. It was the capitalists who portrayed the theories in a darkest dark when they put them in practice because of their selfish motives. In other words there was unbridgeable disparity ( a deep wide chasm) between the theory and practice which the capitalists utilized it to fulfill their selfish motive of maximization of profit in exploiting the mass working class. What was the terrible fault that was penetrating here also? Though the original proponents of capitalistic and socialistic theories were not enemies of working class, the executors of these theories, the capitalists on one hand and the ‘State’ on the other hand misled the working class for their selfish motives. The primary fault was that we, the people, instead of retaining the capital with us, separating ourselves into two diametrically opposite poles, surrendered our capital to a few capitalists in West European and North American countries and to ‘State’ in Russia, China and other East European countries. The inherent contradictions that deeply and widely penetrated in the theories and practices of the two economic systems originated a fierce vicious spiral and exploded like a ‘Big Bang’ and scattered away violently but suddenly all the socio-economic problems throughout the world like inextinguishable fire balls. Instead of establishing an ‘Ideal Society’ these two systems, even after a prolonged period of experiments, have pushed the mankind at the verge of nuclear holocaust and wide spread day – to-day terrorism.5. Democrism – People’s Direct Ownership of Capital: As long as more than 200 years, Capitalism had left no avenues unexplored to establish an Ideal Society but disastrously collapsed during 1930s throughout the world due to the pressure of its own weight of self contradictions and brutal ambition of maximization of profit. On the same footing, Communism too after exerting all methods of cruel tortures (Stalin’s roughshod treatment of the kulaks) in the name of ‘Proletariat Dictatorship’ for nearly 75 destroyed itself in 1992 in its own breeding place. As both the systems are now struggling for their own survival, they have now decided to end the ‘cold war’ between them. Since the both the systems pushed us into great disappointments and they did not effective economic techniques to solve our economic problems in accordance with ‘Economic Justice’, we, the people, hereby declare to forfeit our own capital both from the capitalists and the ‘State’ and retain it under our direct ownership in peaceful manner or by force if necessity demands and create a ‘new economic system’ known as ‘Democrism’ on the basis of people’s Direct Ownership of Capital and we, further declare the Natural Laws have entrusted upon us all executive powers to do so as our birth right. On the People’s Direct Ownership of Capital a just economic system known as ‘Democrism’ will in the world and it will provide us ‘Democratic Mode of Production’ which is an inevitable must for the establishment of an ‘Ideal or Just Society’. I venture to say in short,“Capitalism is popular and popularly defective;Socialism is destructive and destructively popular; Democrism is justifiable and justifiably inevitable.”Whatever race we relate to, whatever language we speak to, whatever color we cover to, whatever religion we follow to, whatever nation we belong to, we are always being influenced by justice and by its emphatic authority of supremacy. The laws may be in transient from time to time, and vary from country to country, but the concept of justice remains illuminant everywhere. We want justice, only the justice and nothing but the justice. Throughout the long passage of history we have honored justice; we have kept in high esteem the men of justice right from king Solomon to Gandhiji . We have unshakable faith that justice is perpetual and ever pervading. We have always fought for justice and it has united us without any discrimination. In his book ‘Anatomy of Liberty’, William O. Douglas, the Justice to the United States Supreme Court, says this truth in every respect as follows: “The appetite for justice is indeed a cementing influence amon all races, whatever language they speak, whatever of their skin”-Douglas,William O. “Anatomy of Liberty” (p: xxiv) : (1965)The universal fact is that if there is justice there will be harmony and immortality. The scientific facts are immortal because they are based on experimental truths. On the other hand if the socio-economic-political principles want to be immortal they should based on justice, only the justice and nothing but justice and perhaps on natural justice. The capitalistic and socialistic principles lack application of justice and therefore they struggle vainly to solve our life problems and they are marching towards their last destiny – the inevitable grave yard. Keeping the above facts in mind I have with utmost care and concern formulated the economic principles on the natural justice in the name of ‘DEMOCRISM’ which will secure universal acceptability. The genesis of all natural justices is to uphold ‘People’s Direct Ownership of Capital’ for which we have to forfeit our capital from the few capitalists and the ‘State’. Why? “People’s Direct Ownership of Capital : Why do we want?” 1. Denying the natural justice of ‘Right to live’ by Capitalism and Socialism: (Capital promotes and intensifies war)We, the people of all the countries, unanimously hate intensely the wars which germinate in any form or for any cause. Naturally we are peace loving people. Despite our strong protests the wars have been fought all over the world and billions and billions of innocent people having no association with the war, have been brutally killed and massacred and the skeletons of these people have been heaped like mountains in graveyards. What cause underlies for these wars? The answer is simply one word – ‘the capital’. It is the ‘Ownership of Capital’ by a few capitalists or the ‘State’ that attributes for all kinds of war that negates one’s ‘Right to live’ in the name of patriotism in particular.Let us for time being set aside the wars fought before Industrial Revolution. The factory system facilitated for the production of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ that can be employed from the land, from the ocean and from the air. The whole world turned into open battle field for the nuclear bombs, ballistic missiles, supersonic jets, various kinds of military rockets and the military satellites orbiting the earth. Whatever might be the causes of First and Second World Wars, but their consequences were horrible that pushed the mankind to the very verge of its extinction from the earth planet. Why?Wars before and after Industrial Revolution: Before the industrialization the wars were fought on a particular battle fields and between two hostile warriors only. The range of destruction was very narrow and limited in coverage because the warriors used only spears and swords. The weapons were manufactured in cottage industries or by the warriors themselves. Natural boundaries like mountains, rivers, oceans and great deserts prevented the enemies to enter into a independent country.After industrial revolution, weapons of mass destruction were produced with the help of highly sophisticated technologies with help of huge capital in factories owned by a few capitalists and the ‘State’. The natural bounties disappeared and the whole world became open battle field. These weapons were maneuvered only by the highly skilled technocrats. The technocrats used these weapons on the common innocent people to terrorize the enemy-governments to surrender immediately. For example, in World War II USA used nuclear atom bombs to bombard on millions of Japanese civilians and terrorized the government to surrender without fighting in the battle field. Nowadays the battle fields are disappeared and the whole world has become open battle field in the face of mighty ballistic missiles and nuclear atom bombs. They can be produced only with the help of scientists and huge capital owned by the ‘State’ and a ‘few capitalists’. As long as the capital is owned by the ‘State’ and ‘few capitalists’ we cannot escape from nuclear holocaust. Originally Capital was created by the working class to assist them to increase their productivity of consumption goods. As soon as the capital went into the illegal ownership of ‘State’ and ‘Capitalists’ it was used for the production of mass destructive weapons. If we scrutinize the expenditure of the world governments we can detect that a large portion of government expenditure has been allocated for ‘military up gradation’ than for the ‘promotion of education’ and ‘elimination of poverty’. 2. ECONOMIC THEORY OF WAR :Firstly “if the accumulation of destructive capital increases the temptation for war will increase and vice versa”. The destructive capital means the capital that is used for the production of destructive weapons used by military forces. Secondly the difference in economic ideology of a country prompts it to increase its military power to show its ideological success over the other country and spread its ideology over other countries through war. For example USA and Russia used war as a weapon to spread their capitalistic and socialistic ideologies over other countries. The pages of recent past history will illustrate the fact and also the reason for accumulation of nuclear weapons and other variety of scientific weapons of mass destruction. Thirdly on the globalization of world economy the capitalist rich countries invest huge volume of their excessive capital in poor and developing countries. In order to protect their huge capital from nationalization by the beneficiary countries a mighty military force is required by the investing countries. For instance the American war and threatening of war over Arabian countries to protect her huge capital invested in exploration of petrol and fuel industries. Now American capitalists are investing billion and billions of dollar in I T industries of India and other developing countries. The American capitalists believe that they can protect their capital by their country’s military power. If any country try to nationalize these industries it will result in war. Fourthly the over production of industrial goods by rich countries force them to dump their over production in poor countries through their military power. Economic reason for two world wars : Virtually after Industrial Revolution in most of the European countries the capital was owned by a few individuals. Since the very aim of capitalism was ‘maximization of profit’ the workers were paid less and it resulted in deficiency of effective demand which caused for ‘over production’. These European countries occupied the poor countries by their military power and converted them as their ‘political colonies’ and with the concept of ‘Free Trade’, they dumped their over-production in the colonies and also exploited the wealth of the colonies. India was the notorious example for that. With the help of exploited wealth these ‘mother countries’ strengthened mainly their military power. The safety and security of the other ‘Dictatorial European countries’ which had ‘State or less individual Ownership of Capital’ were in jeopardy and unprotected in front of the mighty capitalist countries. On detection of the geographical track these countries found that there were no countries in the world to occupy them as their colonies for exploitation in order to increase their wealth and thereby their military power. These lately wakened dictatorial countries sniffed the fact that their ‘political and military supremacy’ would be pulled down rapidly on the downward track. In order to surpass the supremacy of the Capitalistic European Countries the ‘Dictatorial European Countries, found no other alternative except ‘war’ on the Capitalistic European Countries and on their colonies all over the world. The ‘lust for supremacy’ over the other countries forced them to wage two world wars. Napoleon and Hitler waged war against all of Europe because for the sake of supremacy.Ayn Rand emphatically points out the genesis for the two world wars in his book ‘Capitalism’ as follows:“……World War I was started by monarchist Germany and Czarist Russia,who dragged in their freer allies. World War II was started by alliance of‘Nazi’ Germany with the Soviet Russia and their attack on Polland” * – Rand Ayn :“Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal” (New American Library-1967) p:37 In this nuclear age we witness a political and economic turbulence all over the world for a mad race for military equilibrium and economic supremacy. Both the Capitalism and Socialism have no blue-print to terminate the opportunity for Third World War. The rich capitalist and socialist countries want to become richer and richer by pushing the vast majority of poor countries to become poorer and poorer as per World Economic Reports. At present the silent turbulence boiling in the poor countries will burst into a Third World War which will be fought between the rich northern countries and the poor southern countries of the world and result in nuclear holocaust. That is why the USA is very keen on preventing the proliferation of nuclear technology among the southern countries using its military might. The only way left for the mankind to stop the flow of ever threatening danger of nuclear war is the execution of economic equality by rich countries in extending their helping hand to poor countries to pull them up from poverty and to reduce the economic imbalance between rich and poor. The capitalist countries will not permit the economic equality within and without but fight for upholding their economic supremacy which will be the ultimate cause for the Third World War.We, the people, therefore, have no other alternative except to forfeit our capital from the capitalists and the ‘State’ and retain it under our ‘Direct Ownership’ to coordinate with the command of Natural Laws to save the mankind. 2.1. Consequences of World wars and destructive capital:The First World War was fought between 1914 and 1918. During the span of 4 years the war was fought violently 120 million seconds. Nearly 48 million people (including soldiers) were dead and wounded.* In other words in every 10 seconds 4 people were killed either dead or wounded.· Nehru, Jawaharlal : “Glimpses World History” : p.637In the Second World War When the war was virtually approaching its end, on 6th August, 1945 an Atom bomb by name ‘Little Boy’ – a new war machine that the mankind hitherto never experienced – was dropped on Hiroshima. With in 10 seconds one million innocent people were killed. The first world war took 10 seconds to kill 4 people but the second world war, at its end, took 10 seconds to kill one million innocent people. The annihilation depends on the density of population of a city on which an atom bomb drops on. The Super Powers like USA and Russia, have now heaped in their arsenal million times more powerful atom bombs than the one that was dropped on Hiroshima.No doubt the atom bombs that dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were invented by the nuclear scientists. The billion dollar question is whether the scientists produced them with their bare hands or in cottage industries or in sophisticated industries created by huge capital. No capitalist will ever afford such huge capital for the production of weapons of mass destruction because their aim is always ‘maximization of profit’. Only the State can siphon huge capital for the production of atomic bombs only with the help scientists to threaten the other countries and to enjoy the status of ‘super powers’.Though the atom bombs are the brain-children of atomic physicists the capital required to manufacture them is funded only by the governments secretly against the wishes of the people. As long as the capital is owned by the governments, irrespective of Socialist or Capitalist governments, they spend huge capital for the production of atom bombs in order to achieve military supremacy over other countries or to attain at least an equilibrium in military power. Extensively it is the hard-core radical politicians brain wash the people under the guise of ‘patriotism’, ‘National security’ and ‘National pride’ for the production of atom bombs and other ballistic weapons. Since most of the atomic scientists are the government scientists they have to produce atom bombs at the insistence of governments in the name of national security.“In 1943 the Manhatten Project Laboratory at Los Alamos, New Mexico, withJ.Robert Oppenheimer as its director, was assigned the task of developing anatom bomb. The first test at Alamogordo on July 16, 1945, was an outstandingsuccess (the desert sand was fused to glass for hundreds of yards around thethe site). In August two atom bombs were dropped on Japan”.“Hiroshima inaugurated not only a new age of science but a new kind of scientists-the government servants whose knowledge and talent are an important part of thenational arsenal. Furthermore, the scientists were now much more conscious of theirsocial position and responsibilities. This was true in all advanced industrial countries, put particularly in the United States and the Soviet Union. Presumably, Sovietscientists were satisfied to follow the dictates of government leaders, but after WorldWar II, Oppenheimer and other American scientists entered into a great debate over the human, political and social implications of atomic science and a profound searching of their own consciences. Oppenheimer resisted the building of the hydrogen bomb – a much more devastating weapon than the bombs used against Japan – in the early1950’s, and he made important enemies. When Oppenheimer’s security clearance waswithdrawn in 1954, a great outcry from his colleagues expressed more than personalindignation. The Frankenstein myth appeared to be true, and the monster had lockedthe scientist out of his own laboratory. Certain branches of scientific research are not only secret today, they are expensive secrets; the cyclotrons and reactors of the 1960’s are far beyond the means of any university or other institution without government support”.*( * – Cantor, Norman F. – “Western Civilization : Its Genesis and Destiny” III –1970; pp:528-529)I can arrive two conclusions from deducing the above historical facts:Firstly, we have to free the atomic scientists from the clutches of governments.Secondly, we have to forfeit our capital from the hands of governments and to keep it under our own control and possession.Unless we, the people, forfeit our own capital from the governments and restore ‘people’s direct ownership of capital’ we could not prevent the governments from the mad race for producing ‘weapons of mass destruction’ ranging from AK-47 to atom bombs (of 20,000 megaton attack)When we pay the tax-money to the governments, we intend tacitly that they would spend it to solve our poverty; but they do not do so. In a speech on April 16, 1953, President Eisenhower said :“Every gun is fired, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed … The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than thirty cities…… We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than eight thousand people…………This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron…….”Professor Dallas W. Smythe of Illinois said, “Billions for defense but not a cent for socialism. It is not socialism to have the government spend 50 billion dollars for weapons; it would be socialism if the government spent the same amount for education or for public works”.When we entrusted our capital to the capitalist as well as the socialist governments we constituted a tacit ‘Economic Contract’ with governments. The first and foremost element of the ‘Economic Contract’ was that the governments should utilize our capital to solve our basic economic problems such as poverty, unemployment, economic disparity etc. But the governments in violation of the Economic Contract have spent our capital to destroy our own survival by engaging in the production of weapons- mass-destruction. The governments with the help of scientists produce variety of ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs and test them day in day out to display their scientific genius and military power to other governments. The accumulation of such deadly weapons have now pushed the mankind to the very verge of nuclear holocaust. We, the people of all the countries, therefore, want to recover our capital from the governments and to keep it under our own control and ownership to preserve a perpetual world peace, our birth right.__________________________________________________________________________________”Little Boy” is the nick name given to the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. It was Monday morning. Little Boy was dropped from the Enola Gay, one of the B-29 bombers that flew over Hiroshima on that day. Little BoyAfter being released, it took about a minute for Little Boy to reach the point of explosion. Little Boy exploded at approximately 8:15 a.m. (Japan Standard Time) when it reached an altitude of 2,000 ft above the building that is today called the “A-Bomb Dome.” The July 24, 1995 issue of Newsweek writes: “A bright light filled the plane,” wrote Lt. Col. Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the Enola Gay, the B-29 that dropped the first atomic bomb. “We turned back to look at Hiroshima. The city was hidden by that awful cloud…boiling up, mushrooming.” For a moment, no one spoke. Then everyone was talking. “Look at that! Look at that! Look at that!” exclaimed the co-pilot, Robert Lewis, pounding on Tibbets’s shoulder. Lewis said he could taste atomic fission; it tasted like lead. Then he turned away to write in his journal. “My God,” he asked himself, “what have we done?” (special report, “Hiroshima: August 6, 1945″)note: Paul Tibbets was Colonel, not “Lt. Colonel,” when he was the pilot of the Enola Gay. The Little Boy generated an enormous amount of energy in terms of air pressure and heat. In addition, it generated a significant amount of radiation (Gamma ray and neutrons) that subsequently caused devastating human injuries. The people who saw the Little Boy often say “We saw another sun in the sky when it exploded.” The heat and the light generated by the Little Boy were far stronger than bombs which they had seen before. When the heat wave reached ground level it burnt all before it including people. The strong wind generated by the bomb destroyed most of the houses and buildings within a 1.5 miles radius. When the wind reached the mountains, it was reflected and again hit the people in the city center. The wind generated by Little Boy caused the most serious damage to the city and people. The radiation generated by the bomb caused long-term problems to those affected. Many people died within the first few months and many more in subsequent years because of radiation exposure. Some people had genetic problems which sometimes resulted in having malformed babies or being unable to have children. It is believed that more than 140,000 people died by the end of the year. They were citizens including students, soldiers and Koreans who worked in factories within the city. The total number of people who have died due to the bomb is estimated to be 200,000. The A-Bombs used over Japan; Little Boy (left) and Fat Man (right)Just three days after the bomb was dropped to Hiroshima, the second atomic bomb called “Fat Man” was dropped to Nagasaki. Though the amount of energy generated by the bomb dropped to Nagasaki was significantly larger than that of the Little Boy, the damage given to the city was slighter than that given to Hiroshima due to the geographic structure of the city. It is estimated that approximately 70,000 people died by the end of the year because of the bombing. We strongly believe that the world must learn about weapons of total destruction. We hope that the information presented here will help you understand the pain and devastation that nuclear weapons can cause. We don’t want you to just feel sorry for the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the war inflicted untold pain and suffering on many people in Asia and the Pacific. Rather we want you to work with us to ensure that all of us can live in a safe world. We hope this document helps you understand what it was, what it means and what we have to do.____________________________________________________________________2.2 The cause for dropping atom-bomb on Japan:There are two theories for dropping atom bomb on Japan. The first is to take retaliation on Japan for its attack on Pearl Harbor. The second is to prevent Socialist Russia to capture Japan. The first theory do not sound reasonable because : Hitler committed suicide on 30th April, 1945. Immediately on 7th May the Germans agreed to unconditional surrender. Moreover Mussolini and his mistress were killed on April by anti-Fascist Italian partisans. Japan’s position was now completely helpless, and the emperor supported a party in the Japanese government that wished to seek a negotiated peace. The second world war was more or less approaching to its end.The second theory sounds well because :On 16th July 1945 President Harry S. Truman – who had assumed office on Roosevelt’s death on 12th April, – was informed that an atom bomb had been successfully tested in New Mexico. The U.S. military found that no other weapon was so awful in destructive power as that of the atom bomb.At the same time the military forces of Socialist Russia were rapidly advancing towards Japan – the border country of Socialist Russia – to capture it.The Capitalist America was now in great distress that the Socialist Russia would not only capture Japan but also convert it a Socialist state. To uphold its supremacy America thought that it had no other choice except to execute two things: 1. to prevent immediately the invasion of Socialist Russia on Japan;2. Instead, it had to capture Japan without sacrificing any more lives of American soldiers in the invasion of Japan.In order to fulfill the above aims, the Capitalist America was left with only one option that was to use the awful new weapon – the atom bomb – on the civilians to force Japan to immediate surrender. Persuaded by the military strategy, Truman decided to use the bomb and it was dropped on the Japanese city Hiroshima on 6th August, 1945. About 80,000 civilians were killed immediately. Nearly 200,000 died later of radiation or were maimed for life.On the sudden turn of events, Soviet Russia sensed that Japan would go out its hand though it was within its reach. So two days later, on 8th August, Russia declared war on Japan and crossed the Manchurian frontier as the Japanese army remained committed to a fight to the finish. Since there was a race for supremacy between Socialist Russia and Capitalist America to capture Japan and moreover Russian army crossed the Manchurian frontier, the Capitalist America was forced to act swiftly. So, a second atom bomb – Fat Man – was dropped on Nagasaki on 9th August, 1945 by Capitalist America. Nearly 70,000 civilians died immediately. The following day the Japanese government offered to surrender. On 14th August the terms laid down at Potsdam were accepted and the Second World War was over.The truth is still solid and sound that the atom bombs were dropped on Japanese cities not because Japan would succeed in the second World War but because the governments of Capitalist America and Socialist Russia were arrogantly desirous to show their supremacy over the other as their economic systems were quite contradictory with each other. Both Capitalism and Communism wanted to prove that it was their system that ultimately led the Second World War towards victory. This ideological conflict between the America and Russia, at the end of the war, resulted in nuclear holocaust of Japan.There is no assurance to the people of all countries that another nuclear war will not burst out due to the ideological conflicts between the countries or to show their supremacy or for some other reasons the time will decide. Not only America and Russia but all the nuclear countries do not now wish either to destroy all their nuclear weapons or dismantle the industries which produce such weapons of mass destruction. Under these circumstances and ground realities how can we believe and console ourselves that yet another nuclear war will not threaten mankind and cause to vanish the very existence of mankind on the earth. So, we, the people of all the countries, declare to forfeit our capital from the few capitalists and the State and to keep it with ourselves. When we have ‘direct ownership of capital’ we will not allow our capital for the production of nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction.3. Economic Justice in jeopardy and in peril: When we handed over our capital to a few capitalists, we were under strong presumption, that they would in certain sense, solve at least our basic problems of poverty and unemployment. On the contrary, since the very basic aim of capitalists is ‘maximization of profit’ they execute all kinds of nefarious designs to exploit the laborers and treat them like other business commodities. So with the enrichment of new technologies the capitalists always intend to replace the workers or minimize the labor force by sophisticated machines. The capitalists never show any interest to promote the economic justice in solving the human problems like poverty, unemployment, economic inequality, unequal distribution of income and wealth etc.But now the capitalists in some way or other have promoted the welfare of society only by way of promoting their own self interest. In other words if and only if the capitalists are assured that their self interest would be promoted then alone they will allow the betterment of welfare of other members of society. The welfare of huge majority of society is always considered to be a ‘dependent factor of a few capitalists’ in the system of private ownership of capital. In other words the Welfare of Society (WoS) operates as ‘function of Interest of Capitalists (IoC)’. We can write it as WoS = f(IoC) ……………. 1The Interest of Capitalists, in turn, depends on their ‘Maximization of Profit (Max o P). So the equation becomes IoC = f(Max o P) ……………. 2The Maximization of Profit (Max o P) by the capitalists results in the ‘Exploitation of Working class’ (EoW). It may written asMax o P = f(EoW) ……………. 3The Exploitation of Working class (EoW) creates ‘Maldistribution of National Income’ (Md o NI). EoW = f(Md o NI) …………….. 4 The degree of maldistribution of national income exposes how the workers are exploited in a country. Generally speaking in most of the countries the top 10% of population enjoys 80% of the national wealth and only just 20% of national wealth is distributed to a vast majority of 90% of population. The maldistribution of national income has always kept the vast majority of people to suffer with low purchasing power and in due course it results in over production. Due to over production the producers are forced to reduce their volume of production and level of employment. On finding the disequilibrium that the goods are not consumed at the rate at which they are produced the producers are forced to close their industries. The very aim of capitalists, the maximization of profit, not only crushes them but also the whole society. Therefore, the private ownership of capital will be dangerous to the whole society and the national capital capital should be equally distributed among the people for the welfare of the mankind. So, Betrand Russel says: “Private ownership of land and capital is not defensible on the groundsof justice or on the grounds that is economical way of producing what the community needs” — Russel, Bertrand : “Political Ideals” (p ; 35) Equally the Marxian theory of “State Ownership of Capital” lacks perfection and threatens human rights. Marxian theory is formed on adamant and inflexible principle and it will not coordinate with the changing world conditions. It preaches a kind of ‘economic fundamentalism’ which wants the elements of society to remain in rigidity for ever. So Loucks rightly states:“Errors in the theoretical of Marxian thought are so serious and so basic that they cannot be corrected by interpreting or modernizing Marx not can they be considered superficial” Loucks : “Comparative Economic Systems” ( p : 166)4. Poverty in the midst of plenty:We, the people of all the countries, have accumulated capital more than enough and the goods that could be produced with the help of that capital is more than adequate to eradicate poverty in the world. The statistics of “World Development Report – 1991” substantiate that if we distribute the goods produced equally among the people of all the countries, each one would receive the goods approximately worth of Rs.300 per day, which is more than enough for one’s needs. But in contrary with this fact, two third of world population is now subjected to appalling poverty and suffering with hunger and various diseases for want of adequate notorious food.The poverty prevails not only between the countries but also within the countries irrespective of whether the country is developed or developing. As there is darkness below the burning candle so is the poverty even in the affluent society due to maldistribution of income and wealth. John Meynard Keynes criticizes the capitalistic system with this ever prevailing paradoxical element of “poverty in the midst of plenty”. Since the capitalism do not know how to distribute income and wealth equally among the people, the capitalists have no moral right or legal right to keep our capital with themselves. They have to honestly return us our capital and we know how to solve our problems under ‘people’s direct ownership of capital’.5.Absence of Right to Live:Throughout the length and breadth of the world we can notice the youth both in rural and urban areas bearing great agony in their eyes, having no value for their education are wandering desperately on the streets in seeking employment. The unemployment has pushed them to strip away their dignity, self respect and equal status among others not only in the society but also in their own family. Everywhere they are treated as insignificant trivial and above all less than a human being. In the economic systems, both in capitalism and socialism, they feel that they have deprived of the possession of ‘Right to Live’ at all.6. Origin of terrorism and economic crimes:It is partly true that unemployment generates economic insecurity among the youth. But by and large it victimizes the youth an easy prey to drug addiction, trafficking, terrorism, and other socio-economic evils.The universal accepted fact is that capitalism cannot solve unemployment. The function of capitalism is such that if we want to adhere with capitalism we have to live with unemployment at certain level. The advocates of capitalism have now proved that full-employment in capitalism is only a myth and mirage. Hence as long as capitalism is prevailing in the world, so long as the socio-economic evils will also be pervading in the world as its by products and they will be deteriorating all the well-nurtured cultural fabrics of society. If we want capitalism, we have to learn to live with terrorism and other socio-economic evils. 7. Economic Equality is a Mirage :It is evident throughout the world, the economic inequality among the people not only within the country but also between the countries is going on widening with an accelerated momentum. In 1982 the per capita income of developed countries in average was 42 times more than that of developing countries like India and China, but the gap was still widening 56 times in 1989. As the gap is going on increasing the poor countries are becoming still poorer and rich countries are more richer. It is natural not only among the people but also among the countries to develop strong feeling of jealousy and hatred, and an impression of inferiority complex and a sentiment of economic slavery. In the complex and confused modern economic systems, the concept and reality of ‘economic equality’ is rushing over beyond the orbit of one’s reach. In this context, our strategic fiscal and monetary policies are reducing to be insignificant to face the challenges. Hence Jawaharlal Nehru rightly blames the capitalistic system of economy for the economic equality: “Normally speaking it may be said that the forces of a capitalist society, if left unchecked, tend to make the rich, the richer and the poor, the poorer, and thus increase the gap between them”- Nehru, Jawaharlal : “The Years of Power” (1960) p;294It would be faulty conclusion that the economic inequality is inseparable function of capitalism alone; even in communist countries we can notice wide economic disparities among the people. Prof.P.T.Baur states:“….. But there are evident wide differences in income in communist countries after decades of communist rule. And in Soviet Union (a country often thought to be dedicated to the removal of economic differences), the differences in income and living standards are quite as pronounced as in some market oriented societies and this after more than half a century of mass coercion”.*-* Baur, P.T. : “The Grail of Equality”The economic equality is one the three basic necessities of ‘Equality, Liberty and Fraternity’ for the establishment of an Ideal Society. But neither capitalism nor communism do not know any effective economic technique to ensure us ‘economic equality’. Hence I venture to say it is futile to allow our capital to remain in possession of some individual capitalists or the State.8. No Right to Work : Invariably the ‘Declaration of Independence’ of all the countries proclaim that man has ‘Right to Live’. On the introduction of ‘Division of Labor’ in the modern production system, no one can produce all the goods that require even to lead a very simple life, or a single whole commodity one needs. On the Division of Labor, everyone is trained to produce only a part of a commodity for which he can receive his wage and with which he has to buy the necessary goods in the market to lead his life. Since a man cannot produce whatever he wants to live, his ‘Right to Live’ solely depends upon his ‘Right to Work’. But no Constitution of any country is powerful enough to provide ‘Right to Work’ as one of the ‘Fundamental Rights’ because the economic systems that the countries pursue are basically defective and incompetent to face the economic challenges. In the absence of ‘Right to Work’ irrespective of what kind of economic system a country follows, the employers never consider man as a man and not even as a commodity. On the other hand they treat man as a ‘rental commodity’ that can be engaged by paying wages as ‘rent’. The defect of economic systems have reduced man and humiliated him as mean and ignoble thing. With full of depression in heart, P.A.Samuelson exhibits the real condition of man as follows:“Since slavery was abolished, human earning power is forbidden by lawto be capitalized. A man is not even free sell himself; he must rent himself at a wage” *-* Samuelson, P.A. : “Economics” (p : 52) 9.Absence of Stable Just Price :Universally in all economic systems – whether it is market oriented economy or State controlled economy – the prices in the market are behaving erratically and disorderly. Especially the prices of consumption goods of poor people are always enhancing. But the income of poor people is not increasing as much as the increment of price of their consumption goods. Consequently this economic phenomenon is horribly crushing the purchasing power of the poor. Hence the fact is universally accepted that ‘the poor people are born in poverty, live in poverty and die in poverty’ Whenever the governments declare that they have contained or reduced the rate of inflation it seems always to the benefit of the rich. The economic systems, existing now, do not know any economic techniques to sustain a just price level at stable for the welfare of the vast majority poor.10. Injustice to Working Class:In Jerusalem I heard the Israeli Supreme Court say : “It is better that ten guilty persons be acquitted than that one innocent person be convicted”.This legal justice should not be confined only to the courts of justice but it should be equally extended to govern both the economic justice and economic systems. The economic systems, on the contrary, conveniently permit the economic criminals to escape from punishment and in turn punish the innocent workers who perform their social duty.The utmost duty of a worker is to produce socially needed goods and services only; but it is not the duty of the worker to bear the responsibility whether the goods and services he produced are sold out. On the other hand it is the duty of the consumers to buy the goods and services that are produced for their consumption at a just price and at the rate at which the goods and services are produced for them.On the contrary, the consumers, as a whole, behave in the market, guided by their erratic psychological factors, create time lags in purchasing the goods that are produced for their consumption and sometimes neglect the goods to buy at all. These negative and duly non-responsive factors affect the economy severely and ultimately result in the stagnation of goods in the markets. Due to the stagnation of goods in the market an equal volume of goods stagnated are not produced in the subsequent round of production. On the reduction of production of goods the workers who have fulfilled ‘the production – duty’ of the economy, have to lose their employment. The unemployment of a worker not only affects his ‘Right to Live’ but also of the whole family that depends on him. The unemployment of a worker ruins the education of his children, their future ambition in life and their morality and social dignity and their future economic security.The present economic systems are not competent and efficient enough to secure and save the “Right to live” of the workers who have honestly accomplished their ‘production-duty’ of the economy.To strengthen my argument I like to quote the words of Prof. Mrs. Joan Robinson : “It is true, with adequate organization there need be no unemployment … There is always something useful that can be done even with a man’s bare hands”**– Prof. Mrs. Joan Robinson : “Economic Philosophy” (p : 114)Joan Robinson too finds fault on the economic systems for wide range of unemployment; in other words, the economic systems that we pursue now are the primary reasons for the failure to provide “Right to Live” to the workers throughout the world. In the present economic systems and economic conditions ‘employment’ and ‘Right to Live’ are synonymous or just the same.What is the basic cause, today, throughout the world, for billions of youth are crushed by the burden of unemployment? It is the cause : “Every person, only up to the standard of education and technical training that the society has offered to him, can produce socially needed goods with his bare hands or with the help of small and simple capital that he can afford by himself and thus create ‘self-employment’ opportunities and secure right to live by himself. The creation of self-employment creates an expectation in the mind of the of the worker that the society i.e. the consumers should behave with a sense of ‘economic responsibility’ by consuming the goods at the rate at which he produces, at a reasonable price to sustain the livelihood of the worker. But every self-employed youth knows that the ‘economic responsibility’ is absolutely lacking in the minds of consumers. What is deeply rooted in the minds of unemployed youth is ‘a fear about the future’ that the consumers or the society that he belongs to would not perpetually and automatically accept the goods at a reasonable price that he produces by ‘self-employment’. The ‘fear about the future’ in the minds of the youth who wants to venture in ‘self-employment’ is reasonably justifiable. Due to ‘fear on the future’ the unemployed youth are not venturing in self-employment competing with the highly sophisticated industries. It is then whose fault if the youth are unemployed? The present economic systems have no economic techniques or ‘action programs’ to evacuate the ‘fear of the future’ in the minds of the unemployed youth and to induce ‘economic responsibility’ in the minds of society to save the ‘self-employed’ youth from the competition of well-organized industries. I have to point out it is the fault of the economic systems for the cause of unemployment and moreover I wish to state that the capitalists and equally the governments should not lay blame on the ‘fate’ of the youth for their unemployment. On the other hand the capitalists and the governments are persistently blame the fate of the youth and try to escape from their ‘economic responsibility’. So we have no other alternative except to forfeit our capital from the them and retain it with ourselves as we know perfectly well how to solve our unemployment and other economic problems.11.Economic Gambles: The basic intention leading for the invention of money is it should be used as a ‘medium of exchange’ in buying and selling goods and services. On the contrary, our present economic systems have invariably paved way for the money not only to be used as a ‘medium of exchange’ but also at a large extent as a ‘Medium of Economic Gambles’ throwing away the honesty and morality of societies to the winds. The multi-millionaires, today, have idly and futilely invested billions and billions of money in the stock markets as a medium of gambles uprooting the very noble function of money. The electronic media and the news papers extensively propagating the stock market indices for the benefit of the rich gamblers, the economic criminals, who want to earn quick and easy money with out shedding even a drop of sweat. The present economic systems have accepted this kind of economic gambles without any shyness.In addition, in the cradles of civilization, especially in the places of sports and games like cricket stadium, Tennis courts, Football grounds, Boxing arenas billions and billions of money are set into circulation as a ‘medium of gambles’. With the help of the ‘capital-power’ the capitalists today have vigorously transformed the noble arts, skillful sports, beautiful games and wonderful cultures into easy-money-earning centers instead of promoting these symbols of civilization. The capitalists in the name of ‘promoters’ have developed strong hatred not only in the minds of ‘players’ but also in the minds of ‘audience’. This kind of economic gambles is now rapidly spreading like dangerous virus in all four corners of the world. For example, the ‘Statesman’ in its 10th October 1978 issue states as follows :“Britain is a gambling nation. Nearly 94 percent of population indulge in an occasional flutter on races, at the gambling tables, on foot-ball pools or on a variety of other sports. 39 percent of all Britons are habitual gamblers. In 1977 an estimated $ 800 million were stated on races and gamblers. In 1977 an estimated $ 800 million were stated on races and other sports”. Instead of producing socially needed goods and services and creating employment opportunities, the capitalists are utilizing ‘our capital’ for economic gambles extensively and demoralizing our long cherished cultures and civilizations throughout the world.The capitalists now adopt a new business strategy to exploit the consumers : ‘First kill the civilization and then sell the goods’. The capitalists know the consumers will become a easy prey for sexual exposition. So they in all their advertisements use ‘women in half naked beauty’ to enchant consumers to buy their commodities. We know the capitalists are misusing ‘our capital’ to ‘sexually assault’ the consumers to maximize their profit at the cost of cultural destruction and spreading demoralization. With deep mental agony I like to state that millions of young women have now turned as prostitutes as a source of employment and the International Labor Organization (ILO) now recommends to accept prostitution as ‘flesh industry’ which contributes reasonable amount of foreign exchange for many countries.12.Class distinction and failure of economic machinery :In lieu of promoting fraternity among the people the present economic systems create various class distinctions such as 1. proletariat and capitalist, 2. consumer and producer, 3. savers and investors. The class distinction between proletariat and capitalist is always underlying at the bottom of strikes, lock outs and innumerable industrial disputes. The class distinction between ‘consumers and producers’ is attributable for the failure of determination of ‘just price’ in the market and for uneven distribution of goods among the people. The class distinction between ‘savers and investors’ is harmfully preventing the requisite acquisition of investment to eradicate poverty and unemployment expeditiously in the world. The present economic systems are full of contradictions without which they can not function. Our capital in the possession of few capitalists and the State is the root cause for all class distinctions. Once the capital comes under the ‘direct ownership of people’ all the class distinctions will disappear13.Maximization of profit destroys morality of society:In the present economic systems the industries project their ‘volume of profit’ as the ‘balance of judgment’ of their determination of ‘industrial success’ The industry which earns more profit is considered to be more successful. The mental attitude forces the capitalists even to destroy the natural environment extensively in order to produce goods cheaply. With the sole aim of maximization of profit, the capitalists have no even an iota of concern over the future welfare


(ArticlesBase SC #447002)

Director, International Socio-Economic Research Bureau, India

Jagdish Bhagwati discusses how the economical systems can be improved (06:10)

They’re popular with small business. But small businesses who want to grow may want to ask venture capitalists for their views. (02:05)

This video is the 1st in a 4-part series that presents the essentials of investment decision-making. This series shows how to evaluate investments, particularly those associated with projects. Part 1 covers the Time Value of Money, Cash Flows, and Incremental Analysis. (07:32)

This video is the 2nd in a 4-part series that presents the essentials of investment decision-making. This series shows how to evaluate investments, particularly those associated with projects. Part 2 covers the NPV (net present value) and IRR (internal rate of return). (09:58)

This video is the 3rd in a 4-part series that presents the essentials of investment decision-making. This series shows how to evaluate investments, particularly those associated with projects. Part 3 covers the BCR (benefit cost ratio), the MCR (maximum capital at risk), and payback. (09:38)

If this isn’t a crazy world that we live in what is it then? I know the Pope is under siege, but what’s this Cardinal Climax anyway?

Unfortunately in an act of sheer stupidity, the Republicans this time are to blame by stopping Unemployment extensions that were promised to millions and millions of workers. The results is families from Massachusetts to Florida and beyond will be left struggling to feed their children, pay the rent or mortgage and survive.

You can add value to the life of a deserted child living in abject poverty amidst hopelessness and devastating health disorder. The shine on your face worth more than a million pound sterling on the face of street African child.

It was, still is big news, Toyota has to recall 8.5 millions of cars due a problem in the braking system. This seems like big news today, but this happens all the time and the good news is that most manufacturers fix the problem, On the other hand, some of the issue are rather serious, like airbag issues, fuel tank issue.

Investors are choosing the Costa del Sol as an investment for a second home rather than the Valencian region.

Bridge Builder – Teodorico Haresco is a builder of futures

There are four regions in the United States and they include western, Midwest, north east and south. We first group the data given into these regions.

Capacity planning involves the process of evaluating not only a firm’s plant and equipment productive capacity but also the level of production optimization associated with the work force.

The Distributive Justice of capital is the basic Business ethic. The Business ethics covers all just economic activities like Just Price, Creation of Investment, Justice in workers management,The concept of ‘Each Industry for All and All Industries for Each” to estabish Indistrial Democracy, The just way of Price Determination, Wage Justice,Work Justice, Constitution of Natural Laws.

The Economic Justice requires that the national capital should be distributed equally among the people for not only smooth operation of economy but also elimination of poverty. Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx misguided the world in the name of Capitalsim and Communism. The Natural Law requires PEOPL’S DIRECT OWNERSHIP OF CAPITAL to eetablish an Ideal Society for which mankind has been struggling for thousands of year since genesis of civilization.

Democrism,by its Dual Monetary System solves all human problems from poverty to Nuclear war. It advocaltes the national capital should be owned directly by the people to establish the economic rule of the people, by the people and for the people.
Direct Ownership of capital will establish “all Industries for Each and Each Industry for all”
Theis Concept will create Industrial Democracy and Workers Managemnet in evey industry.Workers will get dual income:Dividend for capital and wage forlabor

                                                       CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Economists through out the world are searching for what really are the major determinants of growth of an economy and different policies have been used in pursuit of the answers. The world as large has gone through a lot of economic problems, such as depressions of 1930s, 1970s and 1980s. The 1930 depression led to employing of the Keynesian policies of strict government intervention. However, the 1970s depression made policy makers lose faith in Keynesian economics. Nevertheless, most Third World countries continued with their central planning type of economic policies. There was strong disenchantment with this type of policies, which led growing number of economists and influential international development organisations to begin, in recent years, to advocate the increased use of the market mechanism that is to liberalise the markets, as the key instrument of promoting greater efficiency. In this regard economic liberalisation implies minimisation of government intervention in allocating economic resources and letting the market forces play the cardinal role, doing away with all forms of government distortions in running the economy. The market forces should play a leading role in financial, trade, labour, commodity markets and other sectors, increasing reliance in market forces is normally accompanied by stabilisation programs, (Krueger 1978,1985).

        There has been an increasing call for the private sector to take up the challenges of national development. According to Robert Barro (1996), most empirical facts point to primacy of government choices; countries that have pursued broadly free market policies, in particular trade liberalisation and maintenance of secure property rights, have experienced higher growth, than those which pursue central planning type of policies. For this reason, there have been calls for the privatisation programs.

  On the other hand Rodrik, (1992) argues that trade reforms is frequently met with scepticism on the part of the private sector and may lack support, the country implementing them suffers from terms of trade deterioration which may result into reduction of capital inflow and increase capital flights. He goes on to say that this is coupled with inflation and low zero growth. Krueger (1978) points out that to avoid this, appropriate macroeconomic policies need to accompany the increase in price of foreign exchange (devaluation), or else domestic inflation would soar and affect the intended benefits of liberalisation. That is why stabilisation programs, such as reduction in government expenditures, accompany liberalisation by cutting on government consumption, which is often negatively related to the growth of an economy.

         However Wha Lee (1993)’s findings in the case of Korea are very interesting, Korea gave subsidies to some firms manufacturing exports, managed to grow faster. He argues that the theoretical predictions about the link between growth and open trade may be ambiguous and misleading. According to critics, tariffs can either enhance or decrease growth rates, depending on which sector is protected. This is the argument of infant industry. Krueger (1985) notes that LDCs have been protecting infant industries for decades, but they have still remained infants; this is an indication that there is something wrong with the economics of protectionism. Nevertheless Wha Lee (1993) notes that since the current theory of liberalisation is inconclusive, as is the empirical evidence, the link between trade policy and dynamic efficiency is vague, depending on the industry considered.

Kirkpatrick (1995) argues that the orthodox arguments concerning the role of trade policy as the determinant of industrial performance are seen in the major role of creating price incentives. This is because liberalisation and a neutral incentives structure between import substituting and export activities is expected to yield both static and dynamic effects, static in form of technical efficiency and dynamic in the form of switching process. However, many models, both for planning and explaining the development process, according to Krueger (1978), have made a foreign exchange central to determination of the growth rates. This focus is on the role of foreign exchange (forex) in complementing domestic savings needed to support domestic investment. The effect on economic growth will be via an increased volume of exports and reduced imports due to liberalisation and devaluation respectively. It is argued that if trading partners removed tariffs, we expect the market to expand which will ultimately lead to growth of exports. Exports are also viewed as a stimulus to greater capacity utilisation, greater horizontal specialisation, increased familiarity with absorption of new technologies transmitted through trade, greater learning by doing, as a result of the increased market size and output levels and stimulation effects of having to achieve international price and quality. Expanded market economies of scale enable a producer to cast or spread a “net” widely on various consumers who may be helpful by sending back comments on how to improve the quality of the products. Since tariffs tend to be reactionary, if a country adopt liberalisation policies, its trading partners will also do away with tariffs the moment one country scraps trade restrictions, so the market size will expand.

           However, Trade liberalisation alone is not an answer. For this to be successful, there is a need to liberalise the financial sector, so that exporters can have ready capital for re-investment; nuisance taxes have to go, so that most of the foreign exchange earnings are retained by the exporters. This creates incentives to them. Macroeconomic stabilisation also has to be enforced so that inflation will not impede planning, and if this creates confidence in investors, exports should increase.

 Pro-liberalisation economists have argued that more open economies are more efficient in absorbing exogenously generated innovations, since, without barriers, not only will this increase the volumes of essential imports, but it will also facilitate the entry of new technology which developing countries are able to absorb and assimilate easily in order to expand their manufacturing base. Edwards (1992), finds strong evidence supporting the hypothesis that, with other things being equal, more liberal economies tend to grow faster than those which are not. He calls this learning by doing type of process, “technical progress ” where more contact with new commodities and technology enhances efficiency, which result in higher production. He argues that if the rate of technical progress is positively affected by the gap between the stock of the world and domestic knowledge with respect to the foreign source of technological improvement, then the country’s ability to appropriate world technical innovations depends positively on the degree of economic trade liberalisation. Therefore more open economies have an advantage of absorbing new ideas from the rest of the world. He finds that countries with more open and less distortive trade policies have tended to grow faster than those with more restrictive commercial policies. His results are in conformity with the catch up theory effect. Wha Lee (1992), points out that international trade is perceived as a vehicle through which foreign inputs are provided to domestic production. According to him trade distortions caused by tariffs and exchange rate controls decrease the long run growth rates more significantly in a country that needs to import more.

            Therefore, it can be summarised that liberalisation enhances international trade which provides comparative advantage and also provides an additional source of competition to domestic firms. Subsidies to ailing industries, no matter how much they may alleviate economic distress in the short run, represent an effort to decelerate growth, reduce incentives for mobility and lock in resources in the inefficient industries that should contract in the process of economic growth.

 However, there is a problem of measuring the benefits of trade liberalisation, which even Kirkpatrick (1995) acknowledged. Kirkpatrick admits that measuring of trade liberalisation benefits is a difficult and frustrating task. It involves two considerable methodological problems; it is important to assess the extent to which the World Bank’s conditions have been adopted. This is because most of the liberalisation policies of LDCs are not unilaterally adopted, but imposed, and therefore may lack consistency. The other problem is the assessment of the reforms that were implemented. It is complicated by problems of separating causality from association. According to him, it is difficulty to establish counter factual, and separating out the effect of multiple influences on economic performance.

             Larry Sjaastad (1982) noted that the economic liberalisation that swept Southern cone during the 1970s and 1980s was a clear reaction to the failures of preceding economics of protectionism. Uruguay and Argentina, once prosperous nations had fallen on hard times by the mid 1970s. Real per capita income in Uruguay had been declining at a rate of 1 percent in 20 years. Chile, though never a prosperous country, was crippled with a continuos fiscal deficit and an inflation of 1000 percent. Their economies were characterised by inefficient state enterprises, which despite massive tariff protection, regularly required subsidies to sustain their operating loses. Price controls, tariffs, subsidies and export taxes severely distorted relative prices with much of the private enterprises devoted to production of luxury goods. Regulatory bodies administered import duties and quotas, interest rates, credit allocation and wages. The monetary and financial sectors were dominated by the state banks with special rediscount privileges at the central bank. Their economies were in a bad state. Therefore all these countries introduced liberalisation programmes in the1980s, but their results were disastrous. The Southern cone experiences, according to Sjaastad (1982) are widely interpreted as evidence of the failure of economic liberalisation.

Zambia like Argentina, Uruguay and Chile had almost the same type of economic policies, with nationalised economy before the liberalisation program which swept the country in 1991. Its economy was characterised by inefficient state enterprises with massive tariff protection in order to enhance import substitution industries. Price controls, nuisance custom duties, subsidies on production and consumption, export taxes, foreign exchange controls. Private enterprises had to declare all their export earnings to the central bank, as it was illegal to hold forex. Zambia, before privatisation and liberalisation, had regulatory bodies to administer import quotas, interest rates, credit allocation and wages. All the macroeconomic factors were determined by political decree. The monetary and financial arenas were dominated by the state banks, with special rediscount privileges to the Bank of Zambia. According to the advocates of the liberal markets, poor rates of growth, massive inflation and balance of payment problems experienced by LDCs, and Zambia in particular, during the 1970s and 1980s were because of the rising burden of public spending through parastatal companies, excessive price distortion and inward looking trade policies which are the order of the day in the planned economy.

       Zambia today, according to the World Bank Report (December, 1997), has the most liberal and least nationalised economy in Africa. In 1991, more than 80 percent of the economy measured as a percentage of GDP was state owned. Now, as at 1997, more than 80 percent of the economy is in private hands. The one party state, which ruled Zambia since independence in 1964 from the British, chose the path of nationalisation and centralisation. According to the World Bank report (Dec., 1997), this was ruinous. The government and international organisations such as the World Bank and IMF believe that macroeconomic stability and growth are being achieved after years of inflation and decades of stagnation. According to them, the foundation for higher growth have been laid by liberalising the markets, broad tax and tariff reforms, financial sector reforms and by privatising the state enterprises. The key element in the government’s programme has been the reduction of inflation, which has fallen from 200 percent in 1990 to 20 percent in 1997. This helped the GDP to grow by 6.4 percent in 1996/7 period.

         This dissertation investigates whether there are genuine reasons behind economic liberalisation and related austerity measures, using Zambia as the case study, by describing and comparing its economic performance before and after liberalisation. We then use panel data and cross-section regression analysis on selected African countries to see if the econometric analysis results support the calls for liberalisation measures.  The dissertation is organised as follows Chapter 1 has provided introduction and theoretical background to economic liberalisation. In chapter 2, Zambia’s detailed account of its pre-liberalisation economic policies is presented. Chapter 3 looks at post-liberalisation economic policies of the country. Chapter 4 presents econometric analysis and empirical results, and Chapter 5 concludes the findings.  It should be borne in mind that this study is not about the direct measurement of the effects of liberalisation policies on economic performance. This is due to the problems cited by Kirkpatrick (1995) and the unavailability of many of the data required for undertaking a more detailed study of the country.

                                   CHAPTER 2

THE PRE-LIBERALISATION ECONOMIC POLICIES OF ZAMBIA

          Zambia’s economic history traces back to the colonial era. Zambia a former British colony was known as Northern Rhodesia. The British’s main emphasis was the mining of copper, which they exported as a raw material. Zambia obtained independence on 24 October 1964 with an economy characterised by an industrial enclave based on copper mining using British and USA capital (Hawkins, 1991). During this time there was little or no significant investment apart from the mining sector, and before independence most of the copper profits were expatriated and very little was re-invested. However, in the first years of independence 1964-69 the economy unfolded and great progress was recorded (Turok, 1979). The country had a GDP per capita that was amongst the highest in Africa; according to Turok, 1979, it was just below that of South Africa. Copper prices were high and the industry was profitable, so every indication was towards rapid growth and development. The economy was more of a capitalist than a state led.

2.1-Post-Independence Economic Reforms

          Few years after independence in 1968 and 1969, President Kaunda, with the then ruling United Nation Independence Party (UNIP), initiated reforms. According to him, this was to lead state control of the whole economy to enhance growth and equal distribution of income. It was also aimed at empowering the indigenous people to control and decide the destiny of their country’s economy. This was characterised by developmentalist philosophy (command economy) and recognition of political realities (Turok, 1979).

          The 1968 and 1969 Mulungushi and Matero economic reforms were meant to repossess the foreign economic and business interests, which now became under the state control. The UNIP government also introduced indigenous import substitutions in the industrial sector, this was aimed at reduction in the dependence on foreign manufactured goods. Although a small indigenous and foreign private sector was left, a large public sector was created and maintained by copper revenue and protected and supported by government controlled markets. As a result of the state controlled type of the economy, which emphasised the creation of industrial capacity, commercial agriculture perished and the private sector was crowded out.

          According to Turok(1979), it is commonly accepted that the weaknesses of the economy, which levelled off in 1972 and then began declining, cannot be solely blamed on the falling copper prices, though this might have been one of the contributing factors. This is because, even by 1974 before the collapse of copper prices, foreign exchange had started posing a serious constraint on economic development. A major explanation lies in the economic policies of the day. Despite its inheritance of highly concentrated and buoyant foreign owned mining enclave, the Zambian government was determined to use the state for development. The state sector share of manufacturing output was growing almost every year. Four years after Mulungushi reforms in 1968, in which the government announced its acquisition of major companies it was 53 percent of total manufacturing output and this was concentrated on essential consumer goods required by Zambia. However, despite its size and scope, the state sector which included parastatals had not established an integrated economy with forward and backward linkages, parastatals, though they were import substitution industries (ISI) deeply depended on essential inputs from abroad. The government intervened extensively and imposed a number of restrictions on the private sector, while parastatals’ decisions were made by political leaders and ministers who sat on their boards. The parastatals were to be organised on lines of the country’s philosophy of ‘Humanism’, which was coined by the President as an African socialism. There was intervention in pricing policy, which seemed to be concerned more with social welfare than with pursuing economic development goals.

In 1970, barely two years after the Mulungushi and Matero reforms capital expenditure was only growing at a marginal increase, while consumption expenditure soared. Table 2.1 shows the higher government consumption and lower gross domestic consumption from 1964-90. Due to little emphasis which was made on capital expenditure, in 1973, value added in manufacturing recorded only a marginal increase from 106 Million Kwacha to only 107.5 Million Kwacha in 1976, compared to 480 Million Kwacha in 1965 a year after independence (GRZ Economic Report, 1977). Value added by manufacturing in 1978 real terms was 15 percent lower than 1974. Hence by the mid 1970s, the bells of economic doom were loud enough in politicians’ ears, but pretended to be deaf. They instead nurtured and guarded the inefficient parastatals and the command economy. To make the situation worse, some more parastatals were created and added to the list of inefficiency. After 1970, a substantial part of Zambia’s economy was dominated by parastatal organisation, about 60 percent of the economy in terms of GDP was now in parastatal hands. Most larger companies which had been run and owned by foreigners came under government control through Industrial Development Corporation (INDECO), an agency of a government holding company.

These newly nationalised companies were especially active in such industries as food processing, textiles, auto assembly and mining. Through large- scale capitalisation, using copper revenue, these parastatals became the pillar of the Zambian formal sector. They employed 1/3 of the workforce and maintained their employment levels even during the recession, for political reasons. For instance during recession, the number of employees in private manufacturing fell from 27,370 to 23,390 in 1977, about 14.5 percent reductions, while in the parastatals they remained constant over the same period (Turok, 1979). In these parastatal bodies there were rampant and continuing reports of corruption, inefficiency and mismanagement, but government decided to give it a deaf ear. The Kayope Commission (1976), revealed catastrophic failures in major parastatals and widespread misappropriation of funds, but still the government shelved the report, and continued to give subsidies and protection to these inefficient parastatals.  Real Gross domestic fixed investment declined as there was no significant capital formation. The emphasis was put on government consumption while the economy continued   to decline. This can be seen in the decrease in capital expenditure which fell in 1979 to its lowest since independence in 1964 as Table 2.1 shows. This shows that INDECO, on which the government relied as agency of intervention was performing poorly.

 At independence, Zambia’s economy had poor foundation, domestic production supplied less than one third of the local market for manufactured goods, while total manufacturing goods accounted for only 6 percent, the same setting continued even 10 years after independence, domestic economy was not integrated lacking forward and backward linkages. In trying to enhance domestic integration the government after its 1968 Mulungushi and 1969 Matero economic reforms bought out the private share holders in INDECO which was established in 1965, but reinforced after these reforms, and obtained a larger share of profits from copper by means of higher taxation, which was then used for public investment.

TABLE 2.1: GOVERNMENT CONSUMPTION IN COMPARISON TO GROSS DOMESTIC FIXED INVESTMENT 1964-90 (IN KWACHA MILLION)

   Year              Government consumption                     Gross domestic fixed 

                                                                                             investment

1964

309.2

76.2

1965

383.4

120.4

1966

435.8

175.8

1967

558

225.8

1968

594

264.7

1969

589.4

253.6

1970

717.5

279.8

1971

801.9

264.7

1972

857.3

381.1

1973

900.7

426

1974

1083.1

560

1975

1241.8

510

1976

1337

483

1977

1547.8

437

1978

1789.3

450

1979

2045.6

65.8

1980

2473.5

566