The Outsider Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 Now Amartya Sen b!tchslaps Modi - what does the pseudo secular, commie hack know anyway.
randomGuy Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfLgQGjn4U8]Narendra Modi Exposing Barkha Dutt,Arundhati Roy - YouTube[/ame] sexy
dial_100 Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 I don't say that X is better than Gujarat or vice-versa. The policies in Gujarat have not helped "inclusive growth" - check the report posted by Outsider. The fact that it has not helped in Maharastra, UP or Bihar is irrelevant. That said, I want BJP to be given a chance to serve (I hate the word rule because it is not rule it is "serve") the country given that certain conditions are met. I would like to see that post. I am sure it will be worthwhile. Can someone give me the post#? Why is this fact irrelevant in other states, if I may ask? Especially when all these states are compared in everyway possible with Gujarat. My point is that criticism for the heck of it gives impression that there is an agenda. Personally, I am not for or against BJP either. But I feel these should be given chance as others have messed it up all they could.
dial_100 Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 ^ Oh yea and as for terming it as a rule because that is what the impression left on me by the people who were at the helm of affairs for last 65 years. What do you think they served people or ruled the people. Why the idealism only when it is BJPs turn?
Crookbond Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 I would like to see that post. I am sure it will be worthwhile. Can someone give me the post#? Why is this fact irrelevant in other states, if I may ask? Especially when all these states are compared in everyway possible with Gujarat. My point is that criticism for the heck of it gives impression that there is an agenda. Personally, I am not for or against BJP either. But I feel these should be given chance as others have messed it up all they could. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=2546459&postcount=2180 For other states, my point is that we should criticize the other states as well and not praise both of them. The problem is when we are inconsistent - praise one, criticize others. Well, the reason why the "agenda" theories have come out is because of certain claims made by the government to spin out a nice story. For example, I posted the milk production claim - it would be fairly straight forward to write that Gujarat is a "leading producer of milk" rather than "largest producer of milk" which it is NOT. The same goes for the China GDP statement and there are likewise many others. This forces critics to believe that there MAY BE an agenda. Of course, no one can be sure but there is valid skepticism nonetheless.
Crookbond Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 ^ Oh yea and as for terming it as a rule because that is what the impression left on me by the people who were at the helm of affairs for last 65 years. What do you think they served people or ruled the people. Why the idealism only when it is BJPs turn? Even I would prefer BJP to be given a chance this term. As a citizen, it is strategically the most viable alternative to battle corruption which has been increasing like cancer. That said, I would however not prefer a communal PM at the helm. A lot is said of the rule of Congress etc. but it must be noted that when the BJP has been in power it has been very happy to take advantage of the very same rules it decries. This makes me think that all political class are made up of the same clay. Recent scams like Ajit Pawar - Gadkari in Maharashtra says the same too.
dial_100 Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 Even I would prefer BJP to be given a chance this term. As a citizen' date=' it is strategically the most viable alternative to battle corruption which has been increasing like cancer. That said, [b']I would however not prefer a communal PM at the helm. A lot is said of the rule of Congress etc. but it must be noted that when the BJP has been in power it has been very happy to take advantage of the very same rules it decries. This makes me think that all political class are made up of the same clay. Recent scams like Ajit Pawar - Gadkari in Maharashtra says the same too. DM, you and I are not fools who would ever believe here that anybody is doodh ka dhola. So if you are expecting me to defend someone because I am BJP supporter, Ex-RSS then I must tell that it is not right. I dont. As for your point on PM candidate, all I can say is that this is how our democracy works. I have already given my views on that. Its unfortunate that in the country of 120 Cr people, we do not have a person. We have been unlucky country in this regard for decades.
Crookbond Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 DM, you and I are not fools who would ever believe here that anybody is doodh ka dhola. So if you are expecting me to defend someone because I am BJP supporter, Ex-RSS then I must tell that it is not right. I dont. As for your point on PM candidate, all I can say is that this is how our democracy works. I have already given my views on that. Its unfortunate that in the country of 120 Cr people, we do not have a person. We have been unlucky country in this regard for decades. No dial_100, no expectations, no conspiracy theories. I was just putting up my thoughts. I absolutely respect your perspective. Personally, I am not any party supporter. I am more a legalist in that regard.
dial_100 Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=2546459&postcount=2180 For other states, my point is that we should criticize the other states as well and not praise both of them. The problem is when we are inconsistent - praise one, criticize others. Well, the reason why the "agenda" theories have come out is because of certain claims made by the government to spin out a nice story. For example, I posted the milk production claim - it would be fairly straight forward to write that Gujarat is a "leading producer of milk" rather than "largest producer of milk" which it is NOT. The same goes for the China GDP statement and there are likewise many others. This forces critics to believe that there MAY BE an agenda. Of course, no one can be sure but there is valid skepticism nonetheless. Agree. There is not whole lot to argue there. As for GDP, what I found out is that China spends nearly 20% of our GDP not their GDP. This guy doesnt read his speaches. It is quite possible that he didn't read/understand it properly. Its hard to say. I think in such cases, we should try to get the gist of the matter. It was totally ignored. Its unfortunate. But hey, this is what the politics is all about. If this is how the game is played.
The Outsider Posted July 23, 2013 Posted July 23, 2013 NhgBUgfrw0c For those who are short on time on the pseudo secular commie, an abridged version: EKm0v454Vm4
surajmal Posted July 23, 2013 Posted July 23, 2013 What a shameless fool. Specializes in Welfare Economics (WTF does that mean anyway?) and is married to a Rothschild.
surajmal Posted July 23, 2013 Posted July 23, 2013 "The Nobel Prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess." - Hayek
The Outsider Posted July 23, 2013 Posted July 23, 2013 Nobel Laureates Shameless Fools of Economics: The Prize in Economic Sciences 2011 Thomas J. Sargent and Christopher A. Sims "for their empirical research on cause and effect in the macroeconomy" The Prize in Economic Sciences 2010 Peter A. Diamond, Dale T. Mortensen and Christopher A. Pissarides "for their analysis of markets with search frictions" The Prize in Economic Sciences 2009 Elinor Ostrom "for her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons" The Prize in Economic Sciences 2009 Oliver E. Williamson "for his analysis of economic governance, especially the boundaries of the firm" The Prize in Economic Sciences 2008 Paul Krugman "for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity" The Prize in Economic Sciences 2007 Leonid Hurwicz, Eric S. Maskin and Roger B. Myerson "for having laid the foundations of mechanism design theory" The Prize in Economic Sciences 2006 Edmund S. Phelps "for his analysis of intertemporal tradeoffs in macroeconomic policy" The Prize in Economic Sciences 2005 Robert J. Aumann and Thomas C. Schelling "for having enhanced our understanding of conflict and cooperation through game-theory analysis" The Prize in Economic Sciences 2004 Finn E. Kydland and Edward C. Prescott "for their contributions to dynamic macroeconomics: the time consistency of economic policy and the driving forces behind business cycles" The Prize in Economic Sciences 2003 Robert F. Engle III "for methods of analyzing economic time series with time-varying volatility (ARCH)" The Prize in Economic Sciences 2003 Clive W.J. Granger "for methods of analyzing economic time series with common trends (cointegration)" The Prize in Economic Sciences 2002 Daniel Kahneman "for having integrated insights from psychological research into economic science, especially concerning human judgment and decision-making under uncertainty" The Prize in Economic Sciences 2002 Vernon L. Smith "for having established laboratory experiments as a tool in empirical economic analysis, especially in the study of alternative market mechanisms" The Prize in Economic Sciences 2001 George A. Akerlof, A. Michael Spence and Joseph E. Stiglitz "for their analyses of markets with asymmetric information" The Prize in Economic Sciences 2000 James J. Heckman "for his development of theory and methods for analyzing selective samples" The Prize in Economic Sciences 2000 Daniel L. McFadden "for his development of theory and methods for analyzing discrete choice" The Prize in Economic Sciences 1999 Robert A. Mundell "for his analysis of monetary and fiscal policy under different exchange rate regimes and his analysis of optimum currency areas" The Prize in Economic Sciences 1998 Amartya Sen "for his contributions to welfare economics" The Prize in Economic Sciences 1997 Robert C. Merton and Myron S. Scholes "for a new method to determine the value of derivatives" The Prize in Economic Sciences 1996 James A. Mirrlees and William Vickrey "for their fundamental contributions to the economic theory of incentives under asymmetric information" The Prize in Economic Sciences 1995 Robert E. Lucas Jr. "for having developed and applied the hypothesis of rational expectations, and thereby having transformed macroeconomic analysis and deepened our understanding of economic policy" The Prize in Economic Sciences 1994 John C. Harsanyi, John F. Nash Jr. and Reinhard Selten "for their pioneering analysis of equilibria in the theory of non-cooperative games" The Prize in Economic Sciences 1993 Robert W. Fogel and Douglass C. North "for having renewed research in economic history by applying economic theory and quantitative methods in order to explain economic and institutional change" The Prize in Economic Sciences 1992 Gary S. Becker "for having extended the domain of microeconomic analysis to a wide range of human behaviour and interaction, including nonmarket behaviour" The Prize in Economic Sciences 1991 Ronald H. Coase "for his discovery and clarification of the significance of transaction costs and property rights for the institutional structure and functioning of the economy" The Prize in Economic Sciences 1990 Harry M. Markowitz, Merton H. Miller and William F. Sharpe "for their pioneering work in the theory of financial economics" The Prize in Economic Sciences 1989 Trygve Haavelmo "for his clarification of the probability theory foundations of econometrics and his analyses of simultaneous economic structures" The Prize in Economic Sciences 1988 Maurice Allais "for his pioneering contributions to the theory of markets and efficient utilization of resources" The Prize in Economic Sciences 1987 Robert M. Solow "for his contributions to the theory of economic growth" The Prize in Economic Sciences 1986 James M. Buchanan Jr. "for his development of the contractual and constitutional bases for the theory of economic and political decision-making" The Prize in Economic Sciences 1985 Franco Modigliani "for his pioneering analyses of saving and of financial markets" The Prize in Economic Sciences 1984 Richard Stone "for having made fundamental contributions to the development of systems of national accounts and hence greatly improved the basis for empirical economic analysis" The Prize in Economic Sciences 1983 Gerard Debreu "for having incorporated new analytical methods into economic theory and for his rigorous reformulation of the theory of general equilibrium" The Prize in Economic Sciences 1982 George J. Stigler "for his seminal studies of industrial structures, functioning of markets and causes and effects of public regulation" The Prize in Economic Sciences 1981 James Tobin "for his analysis of financial markets and their relations to expenditure decisions, employment, production and prices" The Prize in Economic Sciences 1980 Lawrence R. Klein "for the creation of econometric models and the application to the analysis of economic fluctuations and economic policies" The Prize in Economic Sciences 1979 Theodore W. Schultz and Sir Arthur Lewis "for their pioneering research into economic development research with particular consideration of the problems of developing countries" The Prize in Economic Sciences 1978 Herbert A. Simon "for his pioneering research into the decision-making process within economic organizations" The Prize in Economic Sciences 1977 Bertil Ohlin and James E. Meade "for their pathbreaking contribution to the theory of international trade and international capital movements" The Prize in Economic Sciences 1976 Milton Friedman "for his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy" The Prize in Economic Sciences 1975 Leonid Vitaliyevich Kantorovich and Tjalling C. Koopmans "for their contributions to the theory of optimum allocation of resources" The Prize in Economic Sciences 1974 Gunnar Myrdal and Friedrich August von Hayek "for their pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and for their penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena" The Prize in Economic Sciences 1973 Wassily Leontief "for the development of the input-output method and for its application to important economic problems" The Prize in Economic Sciences 1972 John R. Hicks and Kenneth J. Arrow "for their pioneering contributions to general economic equilibrium theory and welfare theory" The Prize in Economic Sciences 1971 Simon Kuznets "for his empirically founded interpretation of economic growth which has led to new and deepened insight into the economic and social structure and process of development" The Prize in Economic Sciences 1970 Paul A. Samuelson "for the scientific work through which he has developed static and dynamic economic theory and actively contributed to raising the level of analysis in economic science" The Prize in Economic Sciences 1969 Ragnar Frisch and Jan Tinbergen "for having developed and applied dynamic models for the analysis of economic processes"
surajmal Posted July 23, 2013 Posted July 23, 2013 Irrelevant. But funny to see you getting in a knot over my remark. Try harder boy!
The Outsider Posted July 23, 2013 Posted July 23, 2013 Irrelevant. But funny to see you getting in a knot over my remark. Try harder boy! I will, Sir. Please give me some pointers.
surajmal Posted July 23, 2013 Posted July 23, 2013 I will' date=' Sir. Please give me some pointers. [/quote'] No soup for you!
The Outsider Posted July 23, 2013 Posted July 23, 2013 No soup for you! Please, Sir. Please, Sir. I am hungry, I want my soup. :((
ravishingravi Posted July 23, 2013 Posted July 23, 2013 "The Nobel Prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess." - Hayek Hayek is definitely one of my heroes.
Sachin=GOD Posted July 23, 2013 Posted July 23, 2013 Amartya Sen doesn't want Modi to be the PM so he is a "shameless fool" - statements like these are what makes people say that Modi's fan(atics) will be his biggest liability in days/months to come.
Recommended Posts