मोदी सरकार के इस बजट से निराश हैं शामली के किसान, कहा- नहीं चाहिए कोई भीख
Saturday, February 2, 2019
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
Wednesday, January 16, 2019
Copied from Ephrem Gino
What would be your song ?
In Africa where the birth date of a child is counted not from when they were born, nor from when they are conceived but from the day that the child was a thought in its mother’s mind. And when a woman decides that she will have a child, she goes off and sits under a tree, by herself, and she listens until she can hear the song of the child that wants to come. And after she’s heard the song of this child, she comes back to the man who will be the child’s father, and teaches it to him. And then, when they make love to physically conceive the child, some of that time they sing the song of the child, as a way to invite it.
And then, when the mother is pregnant, the mother teaches that child’s song to the midwives and the old women of the village, so that when the child is born, the old women and the people around her sing the child’s song to welcome it. And then, as the child grows up, the other villagers are taught the child’s song. If the child falls, or hurts its knee, someone picks it up and sings its song to it. Or perhaps the child does something wonderful, or goes through the rites of puberty, then as a way of honoring this person, the people of the village sing his or her song.
In the African tribe there is one other occasion upon which the villagers sing to the child. If at any time during his or her life, the person commits a crime or aberrant social act, the individual is called to the center of the village and the people in the community form a circle around them. Then they sing their song to them.
The tribe recognizes that the correction for antisocial behavior is not punishment; it is love and the remembrance of identity. When you recognize your own song, you have no desire or need to do anything that would hurt another.
And it goes this way through their life. In marriage, the songs are sung, together. And finally, when this child is lying in bed, ready to die, all the villagers know his or her song, and they sing—for the last time—the song to that person.
You may not have grown up in an African tribe that sings your song to you at crucial life transitions, but life is always reminding you
Monday, January 14, 2019
Copied from another blog
When thinking about the astonishing improvement in living standards occurring over the last two centuries, one can’t help but wonder about the causes of such a radical transformation: what explains the unprecedented increase in income per capita that the world has experienced since 1800?
To answer this question, one needs to look back at where it all began: late eighteenth-century England. In effect, England pioneered a new way of doing things that marked a turning point in the history of humankind. But why did this dramatic change take place in England? Why in the late eighteenth century? And more importantly, what brought about that change?
To be honest, I had never reflected upon the ultimate causes of the Industrial Revolution, the onset of modern prosperity. As many others, I had taken for granted that, at some point and for diverse reasons, England embraced markets, an institutional framework protecting private property rights and contracts, and free trade, all of which resulted in modern economic growth.
Yet, as pointed out by economic historian Deirdre McCloskey in her book Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can’t Explain the Modern World, this account doesn’t explain by itself what she calls Great Fact: the unprecedented rise in standards of living that began in 1800. Bourgeois Dignity, which is the second volume of a trilogy trying to find an evidence-based (though not necessarily materialistic) answer to the above questions, critically examines and rejects each of the explanations that economic historians have explored to account for the emergence of the Industrial Revolution in eighteenth-century England. Let’s take a look at some of them.
The emergence of the Industrial Revolution has been explained by what McCloskey calls capital fundamentalism:the idea that capital accumulation was the main factor bringing about the Industrial Revolution as well as the source of the impressive economic growth that explains the modern world. Nobody denies that capital investments produce long-term prosperity by raising productivity and, thus, living standards. Yet it is insufficient to explain the non-linearities in economic growth: the process was not gradual, as it would be if explained by capital accumulation, but explosive as shown by the graph below.
It wasn’t an expansion of trade either, according to McCloskey. It seems obvious that free-market oriented trade policies favor economic prosperity: the more we trade with others, the better off we end up.
Yet McCloskey claims that foreign trade isn’t a crucial engine for growth. The embracement of free trade policies in the mid-nineteenth century by England was no doubt positive, but it cannot solely explain the fact that real income per capita in England has multiplied by sixteen since then.
How about institutions? Few would deny that inclusive political and economic institutions (using the terminology of Acemoglu and Robinson in their outstanding work Why Nations Fail) play a decisive a role in setting the right incentives and constraints that allow people to develop their full potential. Yet institutions are not enough to explain the Great Fact, argues McCloskey. Let’s take the case of property rights, one of the pillars of market societies.
If the emergence of the Industrial Revolution were somehow linked to property rights, why did the Great Fact begin to take shape precisely in England in the late eighteenth century? After all, as pointed out by McCloskey, “the institutions of property rights were established many centuries before industrialization, in China more even than in Europe (…) if property rights were the crucial novelty of 1689 [year of the Glorious Revolution] why not industrialization before and elsewhere, in place in which property rights were also enforced?”
McCloskey also examines other potential explanations and concludes the same: it was neither slave trade nor imperialism nor geographical factors nor improved transportation. N
When thinking about the astonishing improvement in living standards occurring over the last two centuries, one can’t help but wonder about the causes of such a radical transformation: what explains the unprecedented increase in income per capita that the world has experienced since 1800?
To answer this question, one needs to look back at where it all began: late eighteenth-century England. In effect, England pioneered a new way of doing things that marked a turning point in the history of humankind. But why did this dramatic change take place in England? Why in the late eighteenth century? And more importantly, what brought about that change?
To be honest, I had never reflected upon the ultimate causes of the Industrial Revolution, the onset of modern prosperity. As many others, I had taken for granted that, at some point and for diverse reasons, England embraced markets, an institutional framework protecting private property rights and contracts, and free trade, all of which resulted in modern economic growth.
Yet, as pointed out by economic historian Deirdre McCloskey in her book Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can’t Explain the Modern World, this account doesn’t explain by itself what she calls Great Fact: the unprecedented rise in standards of living that began in 1800. Bourgeois Dignity, which is the second volume of a trilogy trying to find an evidence-based (though not necessarily materialistic) answer to the above questions, critically examines and rejects each of the explanations that economic historians have explored to account for the emergence of the Industrial Revolution in eighteenth-century England. Let’s take a look at some of them.
The emergence of the Industrial Revolution has been explained by what McCloskey calls capital fundamentalism:the idea that capital accumulation was the main factor bringing about the Industrial Revolution as well as the source of the impressive economic growth that explains the modern world. Nobody denies that capital investments produce long-term prosperity by raising productivity and, thus, living standards. Yet it is insufficient to explain the non-linearities in economic growth: the process was not gradual, as it would be if explained by capital accumulation, but explosive as shown by the graph below.
It wasn’t an expansion of trade either, according to McCloskey. It seems obvious that free-market oriented trade policies favor economic prosperity: the more we trade with others, the better off we end up.
Yet McCloskey claims that foreign trade isn’t a crucial engine for growth. The embracement of free trade policies in the mid-nineteenth century by England was no doubt positive, but it cannot solely explain the fact that real income per capita in England has multiplied by sixteen since then.
How about institutions? Few would deny that inclusive political and economic institutions (using the terminology of Acemoglu and Robinson in their outstanding work Why Nations Fail) play a decisive a role in setting the right incentives and constraints that allow people to develop their full potential. Yet institutions are not enough to explain the Great Fact, argues McCloskey. Let’s take the case of property rights, one of the pillars of market societies.
If the emergence of the Industrial Revolution were somehow linked to property rights, why did the Great Fact begin to take shape precisely in England in the late eighteenth century? After all, as pointed out by McCloskey, “the institutions of property rights were established many centuries before industrialization, in China more even than in Europe (…) if property rights were the crucial novelty of 1689 [year of the Glorious Revolution] why not industrialization before and elsewhere, in place in which property rights were also enforced?”
McCloskey also examines other potential explanations and concludes the same: it was neither slave trade nor imperialism nor geographical factors nor improved transportation. N
--------------- *आवश्यक सूचना*---------------
**********************************
मृत्यु एवं जन्म प्रमाण पत्र के ऑनलाइन आवेदन करने हेतु प्रज्ञा केंद्र में हो रहे असुविधा के मद्देनजर *"सरकार आप के द्वार" के वैसे 14 वित्त आयोग के कंप्यूटर ऑपरेटर (जिनको Login id एवं password प्राप्त है )उनके माध्यम से अपलोड कराया जा सकता है।*
*सभी पंचायत सचिव ध्यान दें*
Monday, January 7, 2019
*बहरागोड़ा प्रखंड के साकऱा गांव में सैकड़ों लोगों ने थामा झामुमो का दामन, विधायक कुणाल षड़ंगी ने माला पहनाकर किया स्वागत*
बहरागोड़ा प्रखंड के साकऱा गांव में आज रिंकु मिश्र और दुलाल माली के नेतृत्व में सैकड़ों लोगों ने अन्य दलों को छोड़कर झामुमो का दामन थामा । झामुमो में शामिल होने वालो में पिंटु सिंह,सुरेन खामराई,भक्ति बेरा,कालीपद माली,शिवशंकर ज्योति,रवि खामराई आदि शामिल हैं । विधायक कुणाल सारंगी ने सभा को संबोधित करते हुए कहा कि झामुमो उनके साथ हमेशा खड़ा रहेगा,पार्टी में हर लोगो को उचित सम्मान मिलेगा । विधायक ने कहा कि 2019 में आने वाले चुनाव में भाजपा को सत्ता से उखाड़ फेंकने का संकल्प लें । भाजपा दोबारा सत्ता में आई तो झारखण्ड बर्बाद हो जाएगा । इस दौरान ग्रामीणो ने विधायक के समक्ष अपनी समस्याओं को रखा,विधायक ने समस्याओं का समाधान होने का आश्वासन दिया । मौके पर असित मिश्रा,निर्मल दुबे,आदित्य प्रधान,सुमन मंडल,मुरली पाल,कालीपद पाल,माखन पाल उपस्थित थे
Hunger he has only available Food is bread and vegetable , for wearing he has only available Clothing is trousers and shirt and for Dwelling he can only have a hut .
Basically in world A man has only three basic needs satiation of hunger , wearing of clothe and to dwell . Wherein world B man has various items of Food , Clothing and house .
Now a man starts expending his 100 rs in both the world separately.
He has to spend 50 rs in Food 30 rs in Clothing and 20 rs in Dwelling as minimum requirement .
Now in world A he expends 50 rs in bread and vegetable for his Food requirement and he gets 50 unit satisfaction , he expends 30.rs in trousers and shirt and he gets 30 unit satisfaction for his Clothing requirement . He spends 20 rs in hut and he gets 20 unit satisfaction for his Dwelling requirement this expenditure gives him total satisfaction 50 +30+20= 100 unit satisfaction .
Now in world B if he starts expending his 100 ₹ and he goes to buy Food he has multiple items to fulfill his desire . He sees bread and vegetable , chicken and bread , mutton and bread with different prices with minimum price of bread and vegetable at 50 ₹ . He buys bread and butter and gets 50 unit of satisfaction but at the same time he experiences X unit dissatisfaction as he could not buy other available Food items such as bread with chicken or bread with mutton so his total satisfaction is
50- X unit dissatisfaction .
so he experiences less satisfaction .
In the same manner he experiences less satisfaction in buying trousers and shirt in world B as he feels dissatisfaction for not buying jeans and shirt or other available more expensive Clothing . Let's assume that he experiences Y unit of dissatisfaction . So for need of Clothing his total satisfaction in world B is
30- Y unit of dissatisfaction.
In the same manner after expenditure in Dwelling he gets 20 unit of satisfaction and Z unit of dissatisfaction and bring for him total satisfaction
20- Z unit dissatisfaction .
We can see after expending same amount of 100 ₹ a person gets higher satisfaction in world A with limited desire than world B with unlimited desires .
It proves famos Indian ideom " संतोष में हीं परम सुख है " right
It also proves Buddhism - "मध्यम प्रतिपदा" ( middle way) as the rightest way of living for maximum satisfaction
IN WOTHER WORDS A PERSON WITH LIMITED DESIRES IS MORE SATISFIED THAN A PERSON WITH UNLIMITED DESIRES
COPIED FROM ASHA KUMARI
Saturday, January 5, 2019
झारखण्ड में निर्गत होने वाली ऑनलाइन जन्म मृत्यु प्रमाण पत्रों का पोर्टल बन्द हो जाने एवं ऑनलाइन प्रमाण पत्रों की तय सीमा में निर्गत न होने से आम जनता बेहाल है वर्तमान पासपोर्ट वीसा विद्यालयों में भर्ती हेतु जन्म प्रमाण पत्र,एवं पारिवारिक सदस्यता पेंशन,बीमा इत्यादि रोजमर्रे की कामो में मृत्यु प्रमाण पत्र अनिवार्य है अपितु सरकार द्वारा आज तक तय सीमा में इन प्रमाण पत्रों को निर्गत करने की कोई ठोश पॉलिसी तैयार न होने से जनता त्रस्त है जिसके विरोध में आज शाम बहरागोड़ा बाजार परिषर में झामुमो युवा मोर्चा प्रखण्ड अध्यक्ष राहुल बाजपई के नेतृत्व में रघुवर सरकार के इन नीतियों के खिलाफ आक्रोश रैली सह पुतला दहन कार्यक्रम आयोजित हुआ झामुमो ने जन्म मृत्यु प्रमाण पत्रों की अविलम्ब निर्गत सह ऑनलाइन के नाम पर जनता को परेशान करना बंद करो भाजपा सरकार हाय हाय के नारे लगाए।मौके पर केंद्रीय सदस्य आदित्य प्रधान,मटिहाना मुखिया बुधराम मुर्मू,उपमुखिया देव् कुमार पैड़ा राजलाबान्ध उपमुखिया जगदीश राय,पाटपुर वार्ड सदस्य बिशु ओझा,बुद्धदेव साव,भोला पैड़ा,बप्पा राऊत, युवा नेता गोकुल सीट,डोमा नायक,छोटन राऊत समेत कई झामुमो नेता कार्यकर्ता उपस्थित थे।
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)