Day Traders Lounge.

[timepass]

one very interesting fact about the recent elections.

https://www.news18.com/news/politic...-the-cms-chair-in-madhya-pradesh-1972531.html

How NOTA Cost BJP 11 Seats, Power and the CM's Chair in Madhya Pradesh

The BJP failed to grab majority despite bagging .1% vote share more than the Congress which got 41% of the votes.


Vivek Trivedi | News18
Updated:December 13, 2018, 7:18 PM IST

Bhopal: The tantalisingly close call in Madhya Pradesh has baffled politicians and political observers alike.

The BJP failed to grab majority despite bagging .1% vote share more than the Congress which got 41% of the votes. The Congress, with help from BSP, SP and Independents, crossed the majority mark of 116, while the BJP managed 109 seats.

A closer look at the results reveals that None of the Above (NOTA) option may have dented BJP’s chances. In at least 11 seats where the Congress won, NOTA got more votes than the winning margin — Biaora, Damoh, Gunnor, Gwalior, Jabalpur, Jobat, Mandhata, Nepanagar, Rajnagar, Raipur and Suwasra. NOTA also polled more votes than the victory margin in Bina and Kolaras, where BJP candidates won. In seven of these 11 seats, the victory margin was less than 1,000 votes.


Outgoing chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan also expressed disappointment with the incredibly close results. Addressing reporters after submitting his resignation to the Governor, he said, “In 2008, we secured 38% votes and won 143 seats. But this time we ended up with 109 seats despite securing more than 40% votes.”

​

Apart from NOTA, the Mayawati factor and the Upper Caste anger, too, played spoilsport for the BJP. In some constituencies, Upper Caste leaders urged people to choose NOTA as they were upset with the BJP and Congress stand on SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The final nail in the coffin was the Samanya Alpsankhyak Pichhra Kalyan Samaj (SAPAKS), which ate into the votes of both the national parties.

The SAPAKS blow was felt most in Ambah seat where its third gender candidate Neha finished second, pushing the BJP to the third spot. The BSP cut votes in Gwalior and Vindhya regions.

The 11 seats where NOTA helped Congress trump BJP are spread across the state, including in Bundelkhand, Mahakaushal, Gwalior and Malwa regions, indicating that besides caste sentiments, voters were unhappy with candidate selection as well.

Take Kalavati Bhuria, the niece of Congress veteran Kantilal Bhuria who was given ticket from Jobat where the local Congress unit was not pleased with her nomination. In Damoh, the BJP nominated outgoing state finance minister Jayant Malaiya and an anguished veteran, Ramkrishna Kusmaria, entered the poll fray as an Independent. Kusmaria polled more than 1,000 votes. As a result, Congress candidate Rahul Lodhi won by a mere 798 votes.

NOTA got 1.5% of the total vote share. The Samajwadi Party got 1.01% while AAP got 0.7% votes.
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x--x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x---x---x-x-x-x--x-x-x-x-x


So, it looks like one more weapon of democracy is becoming mature.

 

[KAL.YUG]

How Britain stole $45 trillion from India
And lied about it.

There is a story that is commonly told in Britain that the colonisation of India - as horrible as it may have been - was not of any major economic benefit to Britain itself. If anything, the administration of India was a cost to Britain. So the fact that the empire was sustained for so long - the story goes - was a gesture of Britain's benevolence.

New research by the renowned economist Utsa Patnaik - just published by Columbia University Press - deals a crushing blow to this narrative. Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, Patnaik calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938.

It's a staggering sum. For perspective, $45 trillion is 17 times more than the total annual gross domestic product of the United Kingdom today.

How did this come about?

It happened through the trade system. Prior to the colonial period, Britain bought goods like textiles and rice from Indian producers and paid for them in the normal way - mostly with silver - as they did with any other country. But something changed in 1765, shortly after the East India Company took control of the subcontinent and established a monopoly over Indian trade.

Here's how it worked. The East India Company began collecting taxes in India, and then cleverly used a portion of those revenues (about a third) to fund the purchase of Indian goods for British use. In other words, instead of paying for Indian goods out of their own pocket, British traders acquired them for free, "buying" from peasants and weavers using money that had just been taken from them.

It was a scam - theft on a grand scale. Yet most Indians were unaware of what was going on because the agent who collected the taxes was not the same as the one who showed up to buy their goods. Had it been the same person, they surely would have smelled a rat.


Full article at:
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/britain-stole-45-trillion-india-181206124830851.html

 

[Newbie Day-Trader]

How Britain stole $45 trillion from India
And lied about it.

There is a story that is commonly told in Britain that the colonisation of India - as horrible as it may have been - was not of any major economic benefit to Britain itself. If anything, the administration of India was a cost to Britain. So the fact that the empire was sustained for so long - the story goes - was a gesture of Britain's benevolence.

New research by the renowned economist Utsa Patnaik - just published by Columbia University Press - deals a crushing blow to this narrative. Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, Patnaik calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938.

It's a staggering sum. For perspective, $45 trillion is 17 times more than the total annual gross domestic product of the United Kingdom today.

How did this come about?

It happened through the trade system. Prior to the colonial period, Britain bought goods like textiles and rice from Indian producers and paid for them in the normal way - mostly with silver - as they did with any other country. But something changed in 1765, shortly after the East India Company took control of the subcontinent and established a monopoly over Indian trade.

Here's how it worked. The East India Company began collecting taxes in India, and then cleverly used a portion of those revenues (about a third) to fund the purchase of Indian goods for British use. In other words, instead of paying for Indian goods out of their own pocket, British traders acquired them for free, "buying" from peasants and weavers using money that had just been taken from them.

It was a scam - theft on a grand scale. Yet most Indians were unaware of what was going on because the agent who collected the taxes was not the same as the one who showed up to buy their goods. Had it been the same person, they surely would have smelled a rat.


Full article at:
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/britain-stole-45-trillion-india-181206124830851.html

How's that different from Indian politicians who steal money from Indian taxpayers & use it to pay for their luxurious lifestyles? Ruling-class, irrespective of their origin, almost always fleeces the taxpayers.

 

[KAL.YUG]

How's that different from Indian politicians who steal money from Indian taxpayers & use it to pay for their luxurious lifestyles? Ruling-class, irrespective of their origin, almost always fleeces the taxpayers.

Well, there is a difference:
We chose our politicians, where as the British chose us.

 

[Newbie Day-Trader]

Well, there is a difference:
We chose our politicians, where as the British chose us.

But a lot of people don't even vote or vote for a party that doesn't win, so vast majority of the populace isn't even doing the choosing most of the time, & I think, over time, we might see that being reflected in an increasing % of the NOTA voters; not to mention, just because you voted doesn't mean that you agree with all of their policies or shady activities. Democracy merely offers an ILLUSION of choice but ultimately, it's only the ruling-class that "win" the most, not necessarily the people at large.
Moreover, if Britain hadn't ruled India, India would've had various local kings rule & fleece it, would that really have been that much better for the people at large? India might not even have been the "India" that we know today. Does the color/origin of one's torturer make the torture more desirable? I don't think so.

Found this nice quote somewhere recently :

Democracy is a "beautiful" thing: if you vote for the winning candidate, you have consented to everything the goverment does; if you vote for the losing candidate, you have also consented to the goverment's actions because you "agreed to play the game", so to speak; and if you don't vote at all, you still consented to the goverment because you had the option to vote, or just because "you should have voted for the opposition if you didn't like this person", or just because of the Social Contract. No matter what an individual does, he can never take away his "consent".

 

[timepass]

How Britain stole $45 trillion from India
And lied about it.

There is a story that is commonly told in Britain that the colonisation of India - as horrible as it may have been - was not of any major economic benefit to Britain itself. If anything, the administration of India was a cost to Britain. So the fact that the empire was sustained for so long - the story goes - was a gesture of Britain's benevolence.

New research by the renowned economist Utsa Patnaik - just published by Columbia University Press - deals a crushing blow to this narrative. Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, Patnaik calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938.

It's a staggering sum. For perspective, $45 trillion is 17 times more than the total annual gross domestic product of the United Kingdom today.

How did this come about?

It happened through the trade system. Prior to the colonial period, Britain bought goods like textiles and rice from Indian producers and paid for them in the normal way - mostly with silver - as they did with any other country. But something changed in 1765, shortly after the East India Company took control of the subcontinent and established a monopoly over Indian trade.

Here's how it worked. The East India Company began collecting taxes in India, and then cleverly used a portion of those revenues (about a third) to fund the purchase of Indian goods for British use. In other words, instead of paying for Indian goods out of their own pocket, British traders acquired them for free, "buying" from peasants and weavers using money that had just been taken from them.

It was a scam - theft on a grand scale. Yet most Indians were unaware of what was going on because the agent who collected the taxes was not the same as the one who showed up to buy their goods. Had it been the same person, they surely would have smelled a rat.


Full article at:
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/britain-stole-45-trillion-india-181206124830851.html

Yeah, the British were certainly very clever in money matters. It took Japan a long time to realize how they were being fleeced in currency exchange. There was some agreement in the 18th century, according to which if you exchanged Yen for Pound and back, you lost about 2%.

 

[KAL.YUG]

But a lot of people don't even vote or vote for a party that doesn't win, so vast majority of the populace isn't even doing the choosing most of the time, & I think, over time, we might see that being reflected in an increasing % of the NOTA voters; not to mention, just because you voted doesn't mean that you agree with all of their policies or shady activities. Democracy merely offers an ILLUSION of choice but ultimately, it's only the ruling-class that "win" the most, not necessarily the people at large.
Moreover, if Britain hadn't ruled India, India would've had various local kings rule & fleece it, would that really have been that much better for the people at large? India might not even have been the "India" that we know today. Does the color/origin of one's torturer make the torture more desirable? I don't think so.

Found this nice quote somewhere recently :

India exists because of British !!! .... well the fact is British came to India because India exists...
united > divided > ..... and again United not because of British but because every body here can relate to the same Indian culture.

I am in search of a Utopian Society once I find it I will let you know... we will move there together.

Until then we will follow the law of the land.



K

 

[Newbie Day-Trader]

India exists because of British !!! .... well the fact is British came to India because India exists...
united > divided > ..... and again United not because of British but because every body here can relate to the same Indian culture.

I am in search of a Utopian Society once I find it I will let you know... we will move there together.

Until then we will follow the law of the land.



K

Just because things will never be perfect is no reason to not criticize the flaws of the present system or have a desire to seek a better system; after all, I'm sure some of the Indians felt the same way about following the Law of the Land rather than overthrowing the British Rule; so, our freedom-fighters might have been the "unreasonable men" described in the following quote

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

 

[KAL.YUG]

Just because things will never be perfect is no reason to not criticize the flaws of the present system or have a desire to seek a better system; after all, I'm sure some of the Indians felt the same way about following the Law of the Land rather than overthrowing the British Rule; so, our freedom-fighters might have been the "unreasonable men" described in the following quote

I believe, eventually, all systems will end at the same point one day.

Unreasonable would be to stop excessive capitalism i.e spending unnecessarily on every thing and anything - more then our need
The more the world competes for GDP numbers the more closer we move to destruction (of our Eco system).

I don't want to the world to become Unreasonable and start spending less because......
I have investments in the stock market. And I also enjoy trading.

 

[timepass]

Motorcycle fans will celebrate this news, as will the shareholders of M&M :

https://www.livemint.com/Auto/EDTpv...hips-in-Pune-first-in-India-after-reentr.html

Jawa opens dealerships in Pune, first in India after re-entry

The two outlets are the first among over 100 Jawa Motorcycles dealerships that will be set up in the country

Last Published: Sat, Dec 15 2018. 07 21 PM IST
PTI

Mumbai: Czech motorcycle brand Jawa, which re-entered the Indian market last month with the introduction of three models, on Saturday announced the launch of its first two dealerships in the country in Pune. With the two dealerships— at Chinchwad and Baner in Pune — becoming fully operational, customers can book and test-ride Jawa and Jawa Forty Two motorcycles, Classic Legends said in a statement.

The two dealerships were the first among over 100 Jawa Motorcycles dealerships that will be set up in the country, it added.

Mahindra and Mahindra, subsidiary Classic Legends Pvt Ltd on November 15 relaunched its Jawa line-up — 293-cc Jawa Two, Jawa and Jawa Perak motorcycles — in the domestic market. Besides the Mahindra group, which owns 60% stake in Classic Legends, Rustomjee group and Phi Capital Management also hold stakes in the joint venture.

In 2016, the Mahindra group struck a deal with the Czechoslovakia-based motorcycle company, which allowed Classic Legends to launch and market bikes under the Jawa brand in the country and east Asian markets.

The bikes are being produced at Mahindra’s manufacturing facility at Pithampur near Indore in Madhya Pradesh.

https://www.livemint.com/Auto/EDTpv...hips-in-Pune-first-in-India-after-reentr.html