Campus graffiti @ North, DU

pictures speak a thousand words
from the knowledge tree- fly free birds
flock together in this social pool
speak the mind of a conscious soul.

 this where education is liberating… Delhi University (DU)

Theory behind Economic Crises

Economic Crises –(as understood by Sweezy and Anwar Sheikh)

Crises are extraordinarily complicated phenomena- shaped to a greater or lesser extent by a wide variety of economic forces. As per Marx crises could be explained only by production, competition and credit. however his work on the subject remained unfinished. Therefore much time and energy has been devoted to decode the theory behind crises.

Simple commodity production and crises.

Barter system was C-C i.e commodity for commodity.(as against C-M-C circuit for a developed commodity production system) purpose of money is to split the act of exchange into 2 parts- in time and in space. By allowing such flexibility to parties- producer and buyer we can say that use of money makes productivity possible.  Organization of production in this way carries the risk of a crisis. As a result of the crisis , coexistence of stocks of unsaleable commodities and unsatisfied wants emerges. Every producer has produced more than he can sell.vis a vis economic scarcity here for the first time we see a crisis of overproduction. Overproduction is a result of crisis and not the cause for the same. The idea is to explore why the produce was not bought. Possibility of external factors like wars, natural disasters etc. is ruled out since these occurrences lead to crisis of acute shortage rather than one of unsaleable surpluses.

Hoarding is a possible explanation- however this is a gradual process which can be offset by an adequate increase in the supply of money commodity otherwise can even lead the economy into a depression via effect on circulation and hence production.

We can conclude that under simple commodity production, barring external factors- wars and crop failures, crises are possible but rather unlikely. (since it is based on C-M-C i.e production is undertaken basically for consumption and because consumption is a continuous process there is little chance of the there being a crisis.)

Say’s Law which states that a sale is invariably followed by a purchase of equal amount – there can be no interruption of the circulation C-M-C , hence no crisis and no overproduction. Say’s law further establishes it into an impossibility- of crisis in a simple commodity mode of production. This law hoever barred the way to a theory of crises and led to fragmentary, unrelated contributions to the subject by economists. Marx for this reason devoted much attention to a detailed criticism of the law. He wanted to clear the way for a later analysis for the cause of crises in commodity mode of production by removing all doubts about the existence of crises and overproduction. He ridiculed Ricardo’s theory of impossibility of overproduction as “childish”.

Actually one does not have to buy just because one has sold. Sale and purchase are separated by time and space.  

The circulation form C-M-C which is characteristic of simple commodity production, turns into M-C-M’ under capitalism. This is the fundamental difference between the two. For the former, the purpose is the acquisition of use value and not the enhancement of exchange value. (that is why simple commodity production is production for consumption and it explains the unlikelihood of crisis and overproduction).

Under capitalism with M-C-M’ being the dominant form of circulation we see that the capitalist is money oriented with M and M’ both representing exchange value (no use value). Purpose of the entire procedure is to have a quantitative difference between the two i.e a positive (M’-M). therefore expansion of value becomes the subjective aim. Capitalism is production for profit and that is why capitalism is peculiarly susceptible to crises and overproduction. It can be said that C-M-C does not disappear with the coming of capitalism. Indeed for laborers etc. circulation continues to take this form (since his objective is to increase use value unlike the capitalists’ desire for appropriating more and more wealth). Therefore accumulation of the workers- savings banks, insurance etc. springs from the necessity to insure a smooth flow of use values to himself. This establishes that it is a falsity that in capitalism ever one is driven on by a desire to make profits. Also it is erroneous to suppose that everyone is interested in use values.

Relation b/w M-C-M’ and the crisis problem

The attention of the capitalist is focused on maximizing (M’-M)- not it’s absolute value but the value relative to magnitude of the original capital i.e (M’-M)/M. this fraction denotes the rate of profit. Therefore we say that the capitalist wants to maximize his rate of profit.

As far as the possibility of a crisis is concerned- the condition is same as that for simple commodity mode of production. Any interruption in the circulation process, any withholding of buying power from the mkt., can initiate a contraction in the circulation process which will give rise to overproduction and will soon be reflected in a curtailment of production itself.  The basic point of difference with the simple commodity mode of production is (M’-M)- which is responsible for contraction in capitalism.

Two cases for consideration-

1)      (M’-M) disappears or becomes negative.- here the incentive for capitalist production is removed. Capitalists will withdraw their capital, circulation will contract and a crisis followed by overproduction will set in.

2)      (M’-M) falls- i.e there is a fall in the rate of profit. once it goes below the usual range, a curtailment of operations on the part of capitalists will set in. the reasons being-

1. Since capitalists are required to continually keep reinvesting,  the capitalists shift their capital out of an industry performing poorly into another one. However if the general scenario for all industries is bad then investment by capitalists will be postponed which will interrupt the circulation process. Result would be crisis and overproduction. Crisis is in fact part of the mechanism by which the rate of profit is restored either completely or partially to it’s previous level.
2. Capitalists when faced with abnormally low rate of profits, instead of holding on to their money capital would rather increase their personal consumption. The argument in this regard that the total dd for commodities would be unaffected and there would be no interruption of the circulation process is flawed however as pointed out by Marx. Since this reasoning does away with the most basic assumption of capitalism- capitalists’ never-ceasing urge to accumulate capital. 

 

Crisis is an interruption of the circulation process induced by a decline in the rate of profit below its usual level.  Modern Business-Cycle theory concludes that capitalist class comprises two sections-

a)      Entrepreneurs- org and direct the process of production.

b)      Money capitalists- ss the funds in the form of interest bearing loans, required by the former for their operations.

The entrepreneur finds it worthwhile to invest capital so long as the rate of profit which he receives is greater than the rate of interest which he is obliged to pay. As soon as the rate of profit falls below the rate of interest, the entrepreneur has no more motives to invest; circulation is interrupted, and a crisis ensues. The problem might seem to be high rates of interests but it must be acknowledged that capitalists prefer high rates (for loans to entrepreneurs) only because they have a higher preference for holding capital in money form. Moreover the capitalists are of the belief that lower rates of interest would be unlikely to last. They postpone lending activities until demand has picked up or till interest rates rise up again. If that doesn’t happen then the new lower rate of interest becomes the norm and capitalists resume their lending operations.

The refusal of money capitalists to lend to entrepreneurs at interest rates below what is regarded as normal is essentially the same as the refusal of capitalist entrepreneurs to invest when the rate of profit falls below the usual range. The capitalist class contracts its investment activities when the rate of return on capital sinks below a certain level. As per Marx this behavior springs from the most fundamental characteristics of capitalist production and not from the form in which the supply and use of capital funds is organized. i.e the modern business cycle theory suggests that even in the absence of institutional arrangements that give rise to a money mkt. and a rate of interest, capitalist production would still be subject to crises brought on by fluctuations in the rate of profit.

No amount of tampering with the monetary system can be expected to do away with capitalist crises. The main reason is the falling rates of profit and the reasons responsible for the same are-

1)      Crisis associated with the falling tendency of rate of profit- process of capital accumulation.

2)      Realization crises

The law of falling rate of profit expresses the results of Marx’s analysis of capitalist accumulation: periods of accelerated growth are necessarily followed by periods of decelerating growth.

Eg. The great depression of 1930s and acc to some Marxists the capitalist world once again hovers on the brink.

There is a difference b/w a generalized economic crises and shorter term cyclical fluctuations such a s business cycles or partial crises caused by crop failures, monetary disturbances etc. business cycles and partial crises are explained by more concrete factors.

The main driving force behind capitalist activity- the desire for profits, makes the individual capitalist battle on two fronts:

1)      In the labor process- against labor over the production of surplus value. Here Mechanization emerges as the dominant form to increase the production of surplus value.

2)      Circulation process- against other capitalists in the realization of surplus value in the form of profits. Here Reduction of unit production costs/ cost prices emerges as the principal weapon of competition. And this can be achieved by more advanced methods of production – larger, more capital intensive plants that lower unit production costs.

Now, for more advanced methods :

a)      the higher capitalization (capital advanced per unit o/p) implies higher unit non labor costs- ‘c’ (unit constant capital)

b)      higher productivity implies lower unit labor costs ‘v’ (unit variable capital)

on balance, the unit production cost must decline ( c+v) so that the latter effect must more than offset the former- fall in ‘v’> rise in ‘c’ . diminishing returns set in when limits of existing knowledge and technology are reached  and subsequent increases in investment per unit o/p will call forth ever smaller reductions in unit production costs.  This implies lower rate of profit hence a falling general rate of profit.

Various counteracting influences act to slow down and even temporarily reverse the falling rate of profit-

a)      higher intensity of exploitation

b)      lower wages

c)       cheaper constant capital

d)      growth of relatively low organic composition industries

e)      import of cheap wage goods or means of production

f)       Migration of capital to areas of cheap labor and natural resources.

A falling rate of profit leads to a generalized crisis through its effect on the mass of profit. In an economy with invested capital, any fall in the rate of profit reduces the mass of profit, accumulation on the other hand adds to the stock of capital so long as the new capital’s rate of profit is positive. The strength of the 2 effects determines the movement of the total mass of profit.

Necessity theories-

Marx’s theory of falling rate of profit is the principal necessity theory. He explains the occurrences of crises through internal factors based on the movement of potential rate of profit.

(it talks about the fall in rate of profit).

Capitalism comprises of two objectives-

1)      Profit increasing motive- can be achieved by increasing productivity of labor with wage cuts etc.

2)      Surplus value increase motive- can be achieved by reducing production cost.

The two can be achieved with fixed capital. But the use of the same lowers the rate of profit (as increased investment helps one- i.e. the large firm to reduce costs but for the system as a whole- average rate of profit falls- emerges as the dominant tendency).

Effect on investment- due to decline in rate of profit, ‘long wave’ in the mass of total potential profit- first accelerates then decelerates and stagnates. Investment fall implies productivity growth falls (real wages increase relative to productivity). Effects of crisis of profitability:- under consumption and wage squeeze.

System’s natural recovery- each general crisis precipitates wholesale destruction of weaker capitals and intensified attacks on labor (wage cuts etc.), which help restore accumulation by increasing centralization and concentration by increasing overall profitability.

 But in capitalist world, problems of stagnation and worldwide unemployment worsen over time. (due to the cycle- profit followed by lower long term rate of profit and growth). These problems arise from capitalist accumulation itself (not from insufficient competition/ excessive wages) and therefore cannot be ‘managed away by state intervention’.

Politics cannot and will not command the system unless it is willing to recognize that the capitalist solution to a crisis requires an attack on the working class and that the socialist in turn requires an attack on the system itself.

Possibility theory

Can be split into:-

1)      Under consumption theory

2)      Wage squeeze theory

Under consumption theory: (money value of product= wages+ profit) .since wages are less then value of the product, consumption for workers is never sufficient to buy back the product-leading to a demand gap. And greater the share of profits, greater the demand gap (since lower the wages). Gap is filled somewhat by capitalists’ consumption but bulk of their income is saved not consumed- i.e. ‘leakage’. If this saved income (leakage) is not used to fill the demand gap part of the product wouldn’t be sold, such that whole system contracts till profits fall so low that capitalists are forced to consume all their income. This implies no Investment and no growth. Therefore economy is predisposed toward stagnation.

how about filling the demand gap not by consumption but by investment? Yes that could happen with demand for plant and equipment and the greater this demand greater the production level and employment.

We see two contrary forces- Savings and Investment. The former leads to stagnation and the latter leads to expansion.

Possibilities for investment depend on-

1)      Foundation- for large scale commerce and trade. i.e. when hegemony of capitalist nation allows it political and economic  stability.

2)      Fuel for large scale Investment- i.e. when new products, new markets, new technologies- all coincide.

Both 1) and 2) determine growth.

Impact of monopoly power?

It restricts output, increases prices and redistributes income in their (monopolists’) favor at the expense of workers and small capitalists.

Therefore these large capitalists- get more and save more and restrict investment in their own industry to keep prices high. And profits imply demand gap increases (Investment opportunities fall) and stagnation is unavoidable.

Sweezy says- monopoly capitalism- post war witnessed secular boom and absence of stagnation is explained by (countervailing factores)-

a)      Post war US hegemony

b)      New products and technology

c)       Military expenditures

To overcome stagnation-

Keynesian Economics- the State (through its own spending or through its stimulation of pvt. Spending) can achieve socially desired o/p and employment level. Therefore the state shall determine, finally, laws of motion of capitalist economy.

Under Consumptionists- agree on the view given above. But they say it isn’t currently practical since the world is characterized by Monopoly not Competition. And monopoly increases capitalism’s tendency toward stagnation and the state counters it by stimulating Aggregate Demand. (but monopolists respond by increasing prices and not by increasing o/p or employment). Result is- stagflation (of stalemate b/w state power and monopoly power) and if state retreats- it results in recession/ depression.

Therefore, Crisis is essentially a political event, due to unwillingness of the state to tackle monopolies.

Keynesian theory claims that the state has the economic capability to manage the capitalist sytem and both- crisis and the recovery from it. These are political questions towards which this capability is applied.

Therefore monopolies can be controlled via-

1)      Price controls

2)      Regulation

3)       Forceful economic planning

These will break the back of inflation. Along with these measures- increased social welfare expenditure and increased wages. These benefit the working class and the capitalist system as a whole.

Wage Squeeze Theory

Link general crisis to a sustained fall in the rate of profit- i.e. when wages increase, working hours fall – there is a decline in the rate of surplus value. Marx says that this leads to decline in rate of profit. Technological change increases rate of profit (in absence of changes in real wages). Increase in rate of profit leads to Investment boom. Profit to wage ratio increases and monopoly power increase exacerbate the demand gap. This displays tendency of stagnation. He state can offset this.

Wage squeeze theory looks for increasing real wages more than increasing the productivity as evidence that it is labor- behind crisis. Proponents of this theory are- Roemer, Bowles, Armstrong and Glyn.

Kalecki gives the argument – state intervention turns an under consumption theory into a wage squeeze.

The state can engineer a recovery from (workers’ excessive wage increase induced crisis) if both workers and capitalists make sufficient concessions and display moderation. Here also the State is endowed with the power (which is characteristic of possibility theory).

The bottom line of the two theories is that- Politics can command capitalism.

 

 

 

Poverty- the social evil

“Poverty is the greatest of evils and worst of crimes.”

George Bernard Shaw

Poverty means the absence of resources for an individual that are otherwise enjoyed by others, it is the inability to realize ones full potential in society and the inability to confirm to standards of the society one inhabits. Also, by the pioneering work of Amartya Sen- povery is the concept of an absence of ‘capabilities’. Where poverty is to be seen as more than the mere inequality of incomes.

Poverty can be classified as income poverty, health poverty and relative poverty. a distinction between the variants is of importance in the formulation of policy measures to cope with the same problem.

Income poverty is the problem of inadequate income to provide for ones basic necessities- like food, clothing and housing.

Health poverty arises due to an unhealthy state of  the body on account of having not sufficient access to health care that renders one vulnerable to diseases.

Measures to tackle the same have lead to the eradication of certain epidemics like small pox from the world and to a great extent- polio rates have been brought down in India.

Relative poverty is a rather revolutionary concept that people miss out on in discussions about the plague of poverty. we define the same as the inability of an individual to live up to the norms of his society in any form – be it denied access to education or political participation. It could also be a denial of one’s full role in his society. When a person is unable to confirm to his societal norms and customs- such a person is ‘poor’. The above explanation can be understood in this context- take the case of a relatively rich country like the Unites States-  a country where most of the populace can cater for the basic necessities in life. However, a US citizen not owning a four wheeler must appear to be ‘poor’ in his society.

Policies must take cognizance of this differentiation and must thereby be carefully formulated so that tackling one issue does not aggravate the other. Eg- an effective policy measure to tackle a health hazard might incur a tax on the citizens. Though the policy would check health poverty however it would do so at the expense of aggravating income poverty.

Poverty is a pressing issue not only within countries but for the world as well. Therefore it comes as no surprise that the 1^st MDG (Millennium Development Goal) of the United Nations is eradication of poverty and hunger “to reduce by half the proportion of people whose income is less than 1 $ a day”.

The reason we concern ourselves with this issue and the means and ways to measure and tackle it is on grounds of the most basic of human rights- ‘the right to live’ – with dignity, respect and have hopes and aspirations which poverty destroys. However counteracting this plague begins with an appropriate definition of poverty and a precise measure that goes beyond the traditional ‘poverty lines’ and views it rather as a multidimensional concept encompassing the health and relative poverty concepts.

A case in point is the Planning Commission’s announced poverty line benchmark at 34 Rs/day has been widely criticized as being too unreasonably low. However a multidimensional perspective calls for action beyond a mere benchmark numerical figure. Such policies provide the Government ‘bang for the buck’ as they merely represent a head count of the poor – the lower the value each year the higher the claims of the Government of having reduced poverty. However such measures of head count ignore the ‘intensity’ of poverty and therefore can be said to be fundamentally flawed. Measures like the head count (HC) and the head count ratio (HCR) are archaic. These need to be replaced by other sophisticated measures like the income gap ratio IGR, poverty gap ratio (PGR) etc. which check this political issue of ‘bang for the buck’ policies. Another argument against the  HC and HCR etc. is the ‘Micawber Problem’ – where “income twenty shillings, expanses 19 shillings and 6 pence result happiness. Income- 20 shillings, expenses 2 shillings and 6 pence, result- misery”. A tiny difference making such a huge difference is irrational and most Government policies who wish to be seen as reducing poverty incur measures to lift the just-near-poverty-line individuals at the expense of those far below the poverty line thereby rendering them worse off.

Therefore we say that poverty lines are as much political as scientific constructs. And the measure of poverty is a multidimensional concept analogous to the multidimensionality of ‘growth’ which is seen not only in GDP terms but also in HDI terms.

 

 

 

Tanesha Chaudhary

 

References-

Angus Deaton, “Measuring Poverty”

Amartya Sen, “Poverty as Capability Deprivation”

Debraj Ray, ‘ Poverty Measures and correlates’.

US Espionage Impact on India

An American national’s ominous revelations have shaken the faith of the world in the United States. This comprised the expose of the espionage empire cum racket operating unabashedly in the US hinterland- proving for the rest of the world nothing short of denigration at the hands of the so called ‘liberal’ super power.

This man who has been conferred ‘whistleblower’ status – is on the run from his country seeking protection from his homeland. The land which is desperate for his custody- whose naked truth he laid bare. The man called Edward Snowden- interestingly shares his first name with the male lead from the fantasy teenage novel- Twilight. While the latter hailed from a surreal world, the former has exposed the reality of the real world which he wants to escape. “I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded”.

He might have helped the rest of the world pull the veil off US’ ‘activities’ .but it was ironical how long he was stranded before at last some country responded to his pleas for asylum refuge. It leaves open a question of the stand, if any that the rest of the world is willing to take. The revelation of espionage into our countries’ high and mighty leaders and our very Prime Minister being in the ambit of the targets of the same at International Conferences like the latest G20 summit at Russia – has left them ‘victims of destructive surveillance’. To boot, the fact is that our leaders are unscathed enough so as to bury the hatchet with a mere “unacceptable” adjective!

Not just our country representatives but our own populace is under the scanner of the NSA (National Security Agency- the main accused US body). The degree of surveillance of India is 5^th highest- ahead of China and Russia! What gives fuel to the explanation is perhaps our 2^nd highest population of 1.2 billion and consequently a large proportion of internet penetration but to what extent is the ‘watch’ justified at all! Because if security is the motive then surely the set up could even be shared with countries where possible threats are detected. The failure to detect the planning of terror acts like the Hyderabad blasts- be it US’ inability to inform or the domestic Govt. to act- both have the benefit of doubt. What I as a citizen know is that the blasts happened and killed innocents. No systems set up had the capacity to stop it.

All said and done- the US’ authorities have earned flak not only from the world over but also their own citizens. Each finding it based on unjustified grounds- an encroachment of privacy. In International diplomatic meetings- espionage amounts to illegal and fraud. Since it leads to manipulations.

US authorities have been on damage control- tooth and nail. The defense they offer is the larger purpose of checking national security threats. And that in the larger scheme of things- such surveillances are only a small price to pay for the long term benefits.

US have been particularly cautious since the unfortunate terror attacks of 9/11- and why not! The 21^st century does pose vicissitudes of challenges for the world to protect itself from potent adversities that take the technical route to dispense its malice. But its striking how all the accusations against Saudi Arabia and the likes of their supposed unauthoritarianism destroying the internet freedom stands unfounded. All these claims have done is provided a cover for the US undercover operations.

The world has lost a great deal of faith in US.

India- road ahead is pretty complicated at face value- the question is whether to be or not to be. From the Government’s point of view- it’s a profanity that national classified data and documents- even PM’s accounts lie within US sites like Gmail and Hotmail. This very data lies at the disposal of US – within their legal outreach. ‘Recipe for disaster’ as pointed by a few –reasons laid bare by Mr. Snowden. I refuse to believe that none of our leaders were competent enough to hitherto think that a mere password would keep secure our national classified accounts.

As for an individual- I wonder if the fact of the matter would deter me from using my facebook account any less than I did before. The same applies to the online community. So Mark Zuckerberg and Google may breathe easy. After all as the ‘Big Brother’ says- law abiding citizens have “nothing to fear”.

FDI Debate in India

The proposal for the introduction of FDI in the Indian economy has been viewed with mixed perspectives of skepticism and welcome alike. what ground must one assume was a question that often interested me- being an economics student in my college days. therefore i set out on an investigation with academic direction from the renowned Indian economist- Rakesh Mohan’s article on the FDI scenario in India (published once in the Economic and Political Weekly ) . Sir my opinions must reflect your work on the subject.

 Foreign Direct Investment in India- Experiences and Lessons Learnt

‘Experience suggests that FDI liberal countries with technological imports are not necessarily the examples of successful industrialization’

-Bruton (’89)

Foreign Direct Investment is defined as the international capital flows in which a firm in 1 country creates or expands a subsidiary in another country. It is a transfer of resources and acquisition of control. FDI and MNCs can be viewed as engines of international factor movements that facilitate technology transfers and are established in the first place to realize gains from trade. The reason for operations of a firm outside its home land is because of the existence of a foreign market with much lesser cost of production, transportation etc. that lead to higher profits. This leads to a mutually beneficial condition for both the countries involved.

The attitude of Indian Economy changed drastically post the reforms of 1991. The liberalized attitude of our economy gave way to a massive change in perspective towards FDI, MNCs, imports etc. as modes of growth. To the extent that the present proposal for 51% FDI in retail and FDI in aviation as a proposed policy measure is being viewed by the Government as a ‘reform’ to overcome the ‘policy paralysis’ the Govt. Finds itself in. undoubtedly the proposal has raised many a voices against it by the opposition and the intellectuals alike.

The reason for the proposal can be understood from the ‘look east policy’. Wherein the global geopolitics can be seen pivoting to east asia. This comes in the backdrop of China’s phenomenal rise and increasing assertiveness in the region. Given the dynamism of the east asian ‘miracle’ economies which left them unscathed from the global Financial Crisis of 2008, the region has attracted the attention of the world as a source of trade and investment. With India being a significant player in the region.

Many a growth models developed in the country have had idiosyncracies with the Chinese model. the route adopted by the latter was that of allowing Foreign Investment to utilize its cheap labor and therefore export its labor intensive manufactures, complemented by heavy investment in infrastructure. China has liberally allowed FDI eg. It allowed the setting up of IBM. It utilized such collaborations to later set up industries of its own. The model seems foolproof given that the country has the largest population in the world and the success of its strategy stands for the world to take notice of the country.

In the Indian scenario, it can be said that the country has come a long way in its tolerance towards FDI –seeing it beyond a mere means of acquiring technological imports. The setting up of Japanese car manufacturer Maruti (1982) and later Pepsi show a gradual relaxation since the 80s. bulk of our FDI though intended for Infrastructure has actually been realized in consumer durables, automobiles, telecom and software. (bangalore is identified as the silicon valley of India). The approach for India needs to be a social cost benefit approach and not the quantum of inflow per se. i.e. how effectively it uses the external openness to augment the domestic capability and access foreign markets for its labor intensive manufactures.

An assessment of performance of FDI so far, would entail- impact on infrastructure Investment, foreign exchange inflow, competition levels, bargaining power, loss of brand names. Etc. with all the above parameters having failed FDI. And only the impact on domestic markets showing FDI in a positive light and the performance in regard of tech. spillovers and foreign exchange earnings being mixed.

A case in point is that of ‘brand name’- eg. Coca Cola’s acquisition of all the indigenous soft drink brands thereby ‘killing’ them out of the market except Thumbs Up which continues to sell 4 times more than Pepsi. The lesson learnt is to promote indigenous brands with potential to compete in world market.

Our foreign investment policy has been accused of lacking clear focus. Unlike China, foreign investors do not come to use the cheap labor available here, our export infrastructure is lacking. More than large investment what is needed is an inducement to international marketers to set up retail chains in the country and we must learn from these facilities to tap the potential of our domestic manufactures –‘learning by doing’.

FDI liberal countries must be cautious in their approach, refraining from ‘becoming outposts of foreign firms servicing regional markets’ or ‘partners in international division of labor with limited mastery over production technology and generation of domestic brand names’. (Bruton)

dream philosophy

 

When science meets fiction; the monotony of real life permits the fantasy of the subconscious thought ride pillion. It invigorates- giving new purpose for a living. Unraveling newer prospects, new aspirations- to work towards and achieve. The taste of glory upon realizing one’s dreams is the sweetest. That is what keeps the wheel in my mind rolling.

Dreams are the building blocks to a blissful time- that first takes shape in the depth of one’s being. They are stage one to being something. They are the force that makes believers achievers. One has to believe. Trust the power within oneself- the unshakable faith, the unprecedented will and the resistless perseverance are all hallmarks of success.

What defines accomplishment is not the others’ perception of it. But, the realization of one’s desires. After all, that is when one feels the joy of satisfaction.

To have a dream is to live a life of positive expectations. There’s forever something to look forward to. When you hope for the best and work towards your goals. These dreams are the guiding lights akin to a shooting star’s trail- bright, luminous and starkly defined.

Having dreams however must be complemented with the attitude of a go-getter. A lot of times this may incur sacrifice of one’s routine. For, one might be required to step beyond the comfort zone to go that extra mile. ‘Seeing’ to ‘being’ comes at a cost. That of stealing a few moments from the unproductive present –so as to transport it into a valuable future.

Unless and until the will of motivation is strong enough for one to let go of the luxuries of leisure for a fruitful tomorrow, it is hard to make the successful transition from ‘dreamer’ to ‘achiever’. This also explains the stereotype against the former- that renders one to the status of an unrealistic.

Dream! Dream you must. But then inculcate the sacrificial spirit and the much required patience that comes along with it. Be dedicated. In the run up to the chase it does not matter whether you succeeded or not – the cosmos are an intriguing entity after all. But what is of significance is whether you put up your best foot forward or rather- whether you braved the challenge in the first place or not. Having done so will make you content giving pride of fulfillment.

Pursuit of dreams is a journey and true to one- there might be ups and downs. But ultimately it is a road worth traversing for the lessons it teaches- about life moreover revealing one’s true destined pathway. Amongst such enlightenments- success often becomes secondary. One who realizes that never loses faith in his dreams. He dreams on and keeps chasing them. After all that is what life is all about, ‘wheel in the sky keeps on turning’.

If I fail I shall move on but never lose heart aware of the courage I displayed for pursuing my calling. This is how I live a ‘full’ life- without compromises without regrets.

Dreams give me purpose in life. Dreams give me wings. They motivate me to gather all my inner resolve to excel in my own benchmark. They bring out the best in me. When I set newer higher standards and break my own record; when I raise my own bar at every junction- that is what I call Success.