Un-Tibet

March 16, 2008 at 11:25 pm | Posted in annexation, British meddling, Burma, chimpanzee, CIA, civilian massacre, colonization, communism, Dalai Lama, democracy, dictator, discrimination, displaced persons, dissidence, dissidents, equality, ethnic cleansing, exile, forcible deportation, freedom of speech, global evils, government, human rights, Indian foreign policy, individual freedom, individual rights, intolerance, justice, liberty, man's inhumanity to man, Myanmar, peace, poverty, race, racial profiling, racism, self determination, Tibet | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , ,

three chimps see no

None in the International community of nations, seems to be ready to bell the Chinese cat on Tibet. The policy of silence is loudest in Tibet’s closest neighbour – India.

It seems a shame that commercial interests combined with India’s real fear of confrontation with China on the disputed area of the borders in Arunachal Pradesh state, should be sufficient to cow down such an erstwhile champion of human rights as India. Still, the sad truth is that though the Dalai Lama is our guest in exile, in toto, that too is just for publicity’s sake and has little other than symbolic value.

Reading through Tibet’s long and tortuous history, we must again conclude that the death blows to Tibetan independence were finally dealt by the British in the early years of the 20th century, closely followed by a botched CIA operation during the 1950s.Like any unfortunate country that is lacking great enticements (like oil or mineral wealth), no other nation is willing to stick their necks out against the Chinese behemoth for the sake of a few million poor and exploited Tibetans. Europe is happy to support the right of Kosovans to self determination but won’t even whimper at the fate of the poor Tibetans.As with Sudan and Burma, so it is too with Tibet – a mysterious cat has got every single nation’s tongue!
The Chinese have been much more concerned with the possible effects on their precious Olympics. I think they have misread the world’s commitment to anything other than money. Our modern world’s shame is highlighted by the fact that ‘amateur’ sport has been so successfully exploited to become the biggest money spinner of all time. Catch the nations of the world putting principles ahead of the chance to collectively make some really fast bucks! If only even one country would demand autonomy or at least basic human rights for Tibetans before agreeing to Olympic participation… fat chance!

Just for fun, compare the “Freinds of Tibet” facts and figures with the Chinese version of ‘the truth’ and tell me what you think… There certainly is bias showing in Western reporting on Tibet but the Chinese story is simply pathetic.

Advertisements

Greg Manikiw on the Yin and Yang of Economics

December 15, 2007 at 8:50 am | Posted in competition, corporations, economics, economy, escher, free market, government, income dostribution, individual freedom, individual rights, liberty, market, market forces, Michael Kruse, MNC. economics, monopoly, poverty, right and left, selfish, socialism, taxation, trickle down, wealth distribution, world GDP | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

How do the right and left differ?

ambidextrous-escher-quills-2.jpg

ambidextrous-quills.jpg

The conclusion of today’s ec 10 lecture:

In today’s lecture, I have discussed a number of reasons that right-leaning and left-leaning economists differ in their policy views, even though they share an intellectual framework for analysis. Here is a summary.

  • The right sees large deadweight losses associated with taxation and, therefore, is worried about the growth of government as a share in the economy. The left sees smaller elasticities of supply and demand and, therefore, is less worried about the distortionary effect of taxes.
  • The right sees externalities as an occasional market failure that calls for government intervention, but sees this as relatively rare exception to the general rule that markets lead to efficient allocations. The left sees externalities as more pervasive.
  • The right sees competition as a pervasive feature of the economy and market power
  • ambidextrous-brain.jpg
  • as typically limited both in magnitude and duration. The left sees large corporations with substantial degrees of monopoly power that need to be checked by active antitrust policy.
  • The right sees people as largely rational, doing the best the can given the constraints they face. The left sees people making systematic errors and believe that it is the government role’s to protect people from their own mistakes.

      ambidextrous-escher-peeled-faces.jpg

  • The right sees government as a terribly inefficient mechanism for allocating resources, subject to special-interest politics at best and rampant corruption at worst. The left sees government as the main institution that can counterbalance the effects of the all-too-powerful marketplace.

    There is one last issue that divides the right and the left—perhaps the most important one. That concerns the issue of income distribution. Is the market-based distribution of income fair or unfair, and if unfair, what should the government do about it? That is such a big topic that I will devote the entire next lecture to it.

    Greg Manikiw on himself: “… a professor of economics at Harvard University, where I teach introductory economics (ec 10) among other courses.”
    Thanks to Michael Kruse for posting this up on his own exciting blog: Kruse Kronicle and that’s also a link to his excellent new series on “Living Simply in Abundance”.

NeoCononialism

August 30, 2006 at 12:24 pm | Posted in asylum, blair, bush, colonisation, colonization, dissidents, forcible deportation, great britain, Guantanamo, justice, liberty, magna carta, neoconial, neocononialisation, thatcher | Leave a comment

The tables have been turned. For those, like myself, who are citizens of nations that survived our colonisation by GREAT Britain, it’s ironic to see the ridiculous and comical turnaround that has occurred over the last 5 years.

Can’t really blame Tony. He had inherited a castrated nation and desperately needed to be leashed to the neocon HE-men of America in order to distract his people from their own desperate straits.

Margaret Thatcher was the much loved and therefore much reelected Prime Minister who knocked the final few nails into the coffin of British world hegemony. She has never recovered and now has to kow-tow quite shamelessly to the likes of GWB.

A globalised economy, the almighty dollar, a resurgent Euro (ever wondered where the vaunted Sterling is hiding?) and the loss of Hongkong (not to mention the Falklands war) had left Britain tottering.

From all the former colonies around the world we watch with somewhat mixed emotions as the new handler slaps his dog into complete, obsequious, submission. A former colony has in turn colonised (or is it neocononised) the once proud owners of an empire on which “the sun never set”.

The Magna Carta (of 1215) says “No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.

But in today’s England, the neocononial tsunami that began with the secret “renderings” has washed away all traces of justice and liberty.

Those who came seeking asylum from the terror at their backs are falsely accused and imprisoned as suspected “terrorists”. When finally acquitted by the highest courts are nonetheless being forcibly deported to the control of Secret Police in countries that are known for their torturous and murderous treatment of dissidents.


And the tragicomedy continues to play out…

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.