Two Democracies Never Have A War?

The notorious North Korea and prosperous South Korea have come close to a war once again. This time, it is said that this attack is the strongest after their 1953 war..

Who is the culprit? That would be too broad a question to ask. In other words, who attacked first this time? If you are regular reader on geopolitical issues, it wouldn't take you much time to point out North Korea. Not because of notoriety, but it is the non democratic country between the two. If you observe of all world conflicts in the present as well as the past, one out of the two countries involved is a non-democratic country, owned by a ruler, monarch or a fascist. It is always this side that has got something to do with creating trouble.

To mention a few recent examples, Saddam Hussein when ruling Iraq created trouble for the entire region. Mahmoud Ahmedijenad is out there to create trouble for Saudi Arabia, Israel and US. Pervez Musharraf, in his time, created unnecessary tensions for India. In case of India china 1962 war, China was the authoritarian state.

So, it's time for North Korea to create trouble. It is an open fact their only motivation to live is for North Korean military and beating South Korea, as they got no other option.

Image from New York Times

The map above shows the island in red which was attacked (it is disputed), whereas the island with black plane, Inchon was the one where people fled.

"Never At War: Why Democracies Will Not Fight One Another" is an interesting book written by Spencer Weart explains marvelously why two liberal democracies never have war. Sure, there are exceptions as always. But then, th argument that one of the two countries is not indeed a democracy. That is specifically true in case of India Pakistan wars, where Pakistan did have a democratically elected person on power, but it was flawed. To be more clear on this, the way Democracy Index is calculated by Economist Intelligence Unit, there are many a 'hybrid regimes' where a namesake democracy exists but rule of law does not necessarily rule. Examples would be Russia, Pakistan, Turkey, Lebanon and Palestine where a democracy is on the cover, but ruler is different. The book gives excellent examples on wars fought in history, medieval era and modern era along with the voting rights of the people in these countries.

To get an alternative view, try reading the book, 'Democracies at War' which goes further one step and analyzes why democracies win 80% of the wars fought by them!

You might be interested in going for a Google search of why 'no two democracies ever had a war', I found the first page of ten results itself very interesting.

More interesting facts regarding this topic would be written in coming posts. So, keep visiting!  

Obama, You Could Have Done This on India Visit

The President, the Uncle Sam, on his recent India visit could have done something better than what blunder he has already committed.

Sure, the President of the world's superpower has provided excellent lip service and satiated the emotional Americans, he has talked everything good but when it comes to delivering, he has miserably failed.

Unemployment grew by 4 million after Obama took the office at White House, and the deals that he has signed in India would get him an estimated 54,000 jobs in US. Yes, let the problems increase and then solve it to prove your greatness, let us hope Obama doesn't fall in any trick like this, which is the diplomacy of worst kind and not workable in today's world where dissemination of information is faster than before.

Image from Hourly Updated World News

To read a little bit on India - US relations, an excellent article can be found at Asia Times.

US invested a lot in India in the last 50 years, that includes funds for setting up IITs and IIMs, where the cream of India studied on Indian Govt.'s subsidy and later on worked in US! It's a two way relationship for sure, when it comes to trade. But, this time, in US - India trade, India clearly seems rising and Obama wants more share of that, especially in defense deals. For that, Obama spent the longest visit in a foreign country since coming to Office, 4 days, in India, where expenses were $200 million per day!! All this, for giving lip service to India, and it is not perceived as something nice in India.

An important thing to note is the role reversal that India and US have had as compared to a few decades back. Then, in '60s, US was championing investments abroad and India was protective. Now, US is protective, does not want jobs to go out due to outsourcing and wants investments from abroad. Of course, US also wants to invests in India, as he appealed India to open up their multi-brand retail market to foreign players, defense deals, etc. For that, there is no need to spend more than $1 billion and travel to the country.

He could get all the business and trade deals by paying the Indian babus, i. e. the bureaucracy in India, or the top government servants!

After all, what's CIA for? But, Obama does not possess the intellect or the common sense. By indulging into sycophancy, Indians look down on him, and not look up.

It is dangerous to see an emotional person taking the White House where a rational, intellectual and a smart one should have been. It is important for the entire world, and also for India, that US remains in control of the world. Imagine, China going at the helm of world powers, that would be a disaster for sure as there isn't a single occasion where China has ever done anything benign.

And as for the UN Security Council seat for India, why doesn't he give it to India for once? The UNO is a dead organization but it will satisfy the ego of the young country India! After all, India is, for sure a benign and a democratic nation and wouldn't cause any harm to world politics after inclusion. Practically, it's going to make no difference but help earn a goodwill among India's youth and business deals, trade deals would all take place easily. But, Obama goofed up there as well and ensured some diplomatic ambiguous statements which did not clearly say India getting a seat among the veto powers of UN. That makes more Indians to listen and forget what he says!

Starting a Free Blog or Website?

Are you starting your own free blog (Wordpress, Blogger, etc.) or a website domain? There are certain things for you I wish to share.

I have always wondered what a job of a SEO is. I still wonder what it is. I have now understood it's an interesting task, tedious and takes a bit of your time. Sure, there are many SEO websites out there and many a books as well.

A recommended one is SEO Made Simple: Strategies For Dominating The World's Largest Search Engine

You can go on for reading a book, eBook, it is all your choice. But, as with this blog, Whatever Strikes!, I can share some of my experiences.

First, you need a smooth, fast and reliable internet connection which is not really a problem at most urban centers. And then, there are just so many things!

A few of the tools are provided by Google itself, which are free for use for Blogger users (free blog owners as well as domain owners). You just got to go Google Webmaster Central or Google Webmaster Tools, as I find they are called by both names. Other website owners options like Analytics (for advanced statistics), Adsense (for revenue generation) are merged with it. To be publicly searchable, your blog/site has to be indexed in at least one search engine, preferably Google. Google Webmaster Tools does the work for you! I do not need to ascertain how important this step really is. Also, you can target your traffic to a particular country through the settings at Google Webmaster, do you wish.




The next step is to open a FeedBurner account. Thankfully, it is now acquired by Google. The options like email subscription (found towards the top right of this page), bookmarking (towards the bottom of this post) along iwth many other interesting and useful ones are provided for free.

For bookmarking, AddToAny.com would be a one-stop-shop that would provide all the solutions.

Now, comes the important part of traffic and traffic ranking. Alexa is still the most famous name in this regards, but it has the hassle of 'Claiming Your Site'. Go on Alexa.com and claim it for yourself. Other ones like Quantcast and StatBrain do it all automatically.

If you are writing on a particular topic, say photography, finance, economy, politics, etc., it is all the more easy for you to list your site under a category in a directory. Sadly, that is one problem with my site as I write anything that strikes! The first directory to claim is DMOZ, the world's largest human edited project, but claiming your site on Google Webmaster claims for DMOZ automatically. Eaton Web, Globe of Blogs are other ways to go for publicizing your blog and do not forget the big daddy of all, Technorati!

My Technorati code (as they call is claim token) came out to be G2TAKXDFPJFY. Why am I entering this? Well, I am supposed to enter it as part of verification which I thought of doing along with this post. There are others like Popdex and Blogdex, do not underestimate them.

Finally, use tools like StatCounter and Clustrmaps if you please. After having a big number of visitors, that makes a good impression. Clustrmaps shows how geographically spread your visitors and can have an appeal for visitors across the globe. Not worth missing for sure.

And the last thing to do, go on something like MyWebsiteRanking.com and check some details regarding your own site. Initially, you should be ready to take some emotional beatings as you might even start from a PageRank of -2 and other demotivating facts. Well, there is always a beginning for everything.

And indeed, you own a blog or a site, or open up one in future, do link me or check in here often!

What is Economics?

A wonderful question indeed!

What is economics? I do not think there is one definition. People from different professions with different viewpoints would have their own definition on this, each not being wrong. We will look at what our reputed sources say followed by own definitions.

Wikipedia gives the source of its definition at Online Etymology Dictionary. It defines it as

1530s, "household management," from L. oeconomia, from Gk. oikonomia "household management, thrift," from oikonomos "manager, steward," from oikos "house" (cognate with L. vicus "district," vicinus "near;" O.E. wic "dwelling, village;" see villa) + nomos "managing," from nemein "manage" (see numismatics). The sense of "wealth and resources of a country" (short for political economy) is from 1650s.

To put in simple words, the above definition means "managing a household". Another definition of economics albeit with a different usage reported at same source is

as a term in advertising, at first meant simply "cheaper" (1821), then "bigger and thus cheaper per unit or amount" (1950).

 Answers.com defines it as:

The social science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services and with the theory and management of economies or economic systems.

Another one that is worth noting from ingrimayne.com is:

One of the earliest and most famous definitions of economics was that of Thomas Carlyle, who in the early 19th century termed it the "dismal science."

At the turn of the century, Alfred Marshall's Principles of Economics was the most influential textbook in economics. Marshall defined economics as

a study of mankind in the ordinary business of life; it examines that part of individual and social action which is most closely connected with the attainment and with the use of the material requisites of wellbeing. Thus it is on one side a study of wealth; and on the other, and more important side, a part of the study of man.

I have had enough of them. Let me put forth my views!

Image Credit: ScienceAmigo.Com

As I opened my textbook on economics written by Harvard Economics Professor Gregory Mankiw, I found another one. Well, you may check Gregory Mankiw's blog on interesting economic reads and I highly recommend his book if you want in an easy to understand language. Economics is no doubt all about supply and demand. The definition given there was

Economics is the art of managing unlimited demand (human wants) with limited supply (resources).

Sure, that one did make sense and was an interesting one. Then our professor of economics, Prof. Azhar Khan, who teaches at Gokhale Institute of Political Economy, Symbiosis Institute of Business Management and Symbiosis Institute of International Business (all located in Pune) came with a definition of his own and was by far one of the best teachers I have ever had. It was

Economics is the sum effect of social structure, historical accidents and prevailing social attitudes.

In the first lecture, his elaboration was convincing. India's social structure of castiesm which ensured a few perennially rich and few perennially poor, separation of Pakistan which was a lucky historical accident, and the prevailing social attitudes where youth philosophy comes in the picture would all determine India's economy.

In my Std. IX, I remember Economics as a subject coupled together with Geography (Oh, see the effect, I still write subject names in capitals) in one textbook. It was in the syllabus of Maharashtra Board in India. It had a very simple definition that I found appealing.

Economics is the study of sources of income.

That's it! That's how economic problems and financial problems differ. If you are jobless, it is an economic problem as there is no source of income, if you have money in bank but cannot withdraw it out due to bank holidays, it is a financial problem. Sure, that was at school level but it help explained a lot. Sectors of the economy like services, agriculture, manufacturing, trade, etc were a part of economics whereas jargons on stock market, money markets, bonds, equity, derivatives, etc. were a part of finance. The lesser said on accountancy or book keeping, the better!