days all begin with sun-rise and sunset..they have the approximately the same time lenght..almost all creatures on earth perform their mundane chores, i wonder then what causes each day to be so different than the earlier.there are so many living creatures on the earth..multiply those creatures with their respective living age and multiply each ones' living age to 365...all these days: each and every day, each and every moment is so distinct..so varied..each minute proponent of time represents a different hue and a different shade of life..this 'life' is an composed of so many elements both internal and external. External elements represents the environment with agni, jal, vayu, prakash and internally there are so many rasas and emotions- anger, grief, dispair, happiness, joy, bliss, greed, satisfaction, frustration, agony..and then to operate all of them lies a life current which we call soul...
some times you sit back and wonder whether the atman was made to operate these factors or whether the karma of the atman intimidated the universe to accomplish these duties..stars, comets, sattlelites, meteroids- why do they exist?..and how come their nakshatras determine our future(to believe that they do or not is a personal opinion and it also depends upon the your own faith and your environmental circumstanes)..and in this entire cosmos- where are we? what is our significance..may be we are just a miniscule element of this cosmos..or may be the strenght of the entire cosmos lies in us but we like buffoons, our pseudo thoughts limits the zenith of the knowledge of our existence...
'existence'..this term is also so quirky.. how do you know whether you exist or not?one might say a death od a person is his absence or if the creature is not dead he is alive and so we prove existence..but the world of spirits?what about them? those instincts- what about them..one cannot prove their existence or their absence..
there are so many questions lying above us..so many of them below us..so many of them around us..and we are still ignorant and reticent..this contra attitude itself shows the depth of our true strenght of the spirit..
i havent done any thesis on physics, but i some how feel that there is a law behind this..the negativity of a person is also indicative of the positiveness a person can harness..and similarly, if a person is capable of doing immense good, he/she has the equal power of destruction..personas now depend upon the way they scale their attitude on the barometer of these extremes...sage valmiki before he wrote the great epic was a daku of a very ill repute..king ashoka captured an warred and enslaved a plethora of people, but it was the same man who after realizing his error bit his conscience and turned to principles of buddhism and closer to religion(in its real sense)..i have observed so many people with such same balance of powers..i think i can call it the 'equilibrium'(oh yes...this reminds me of market equilibrium and intersection of demand and supply forces)...so this an equilibrium of the two forces of positivity and negation..creation and destruction, war and peace...love and hatred..evil and goodness..all manifest in this equilibrium..But it must be noted here that great people(i dont mean celebrities here..but people who have strived hard for the welfare of other people, those who are legendary and almost hero worshipped) become great not by simply doing great things, but by commanding control over their other negative and destructive powers..by gaining a contol on their own senses..this makes their character deep, profound and the realm of life comes true in its own essence..it is such people who are close to getting nirvana or the bliss of enlightenment. to speak little but kind words that dont hurt any one..to be equally resilent in moments of highs and lows alike- this is a characteristic of a great and nobel human..i do not wish to sermonize anything..or give a lecture on moralism..but it is with some circumspection and introspection that i've come up with this conclusion..i will be oblidged if anybody who shares a different stage wishes to explore the medium of dialectics (the greek method of discussions over arguments..albeit theirs were political ones)..i think we all can benefit from this..
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
the imperfect perfect competitive market
Academically, we always begin to study market structures with the understanding of perfectly competitve market form propounded by E.H.Chamberlin. It is an extended version of pure competition (char 1,2,3).
Its characteristic features being:
1. Large number of buyers and sellers
2. Product Homogenity
3.Free entry and exit
4.Perfect mobility of factors of production
5. Perfect knowledge
6.No Transport cost
7.No Government Interferance
It is important to note that all the sellers sell their produce at uniform price under such market form.
Any layman without the slightest study of any market structure will say that such a model is a myth and can never exist. Sure!can never exist...but along with that i have severe doubt about intrinsic and assumed features itself. I doubt them to be controversial and contradictory to each other.
For eg. There are no transort costs incurred which states that the produce is made locally and ubiquitously. However, if i consider 'A' particular area (a village, a collection of villages) then there will not be large nmber of sellers and buyers because each seller will then sell a considerable and significant output and same for the buyer. To this one may say that, so what if no transportation costs are incurred..the entire production and consumption might be spread out..say a country, a large state..but then what about 'Perfect Knowledge'? This feature states that information is free and costless and that the consumers and producers know completely of the market structures. In this case, if the economic activities are spread out then perfect knowledge is not possible because there is always going to be ignorance in some part of the geographical area which producers might take to their benefit.
Perfect mobility implies that factors canbe transferred geographically and occupationally. That means, one can work in mining ore one day, be a teacher of language speaking shakespeare and milton on the other and and go to a battlefield on some another day. Perfect mobilty fails to consider sunk capital that is intrinsic to occupations specifically. For eg. a blast furnace cannot be used in a farm and a sycth and chisel will never work in a manufacturing factory.
Alright, assume that such markets are or might be merely for agricultural commodities. In that case too product homogenity can never be attained. A corn from one field will be variant in its significant feature from another.
Feature 7 mentions no governmental interference. But since time immemorial, a government be it a monarchy (most of ancient princely states), a democracy (in Greece and Rome) taxes have always been imposed. This itself is a major governmental interferance. Even a 'Police State' will have to collect taxes for its maintainence of treasury and to safeguard the kingdom. Also, if there is no regulatory body like governement (if we assume very naively that no govts would then be present), how is the price uniformity validated? To this one could say that since a seller sells a very miniscule amount of output, if he increases the price, he fears losing his consumers to another firm; but what if he reduces price?- here the question arises: an efficient firm whose cost conditions are low compared to those in the markets might strategically lower the price to entrench market space and try to increase his sales. I studied that when prices are reduced by firms their total revenue is on a decline in P.C. market structure but my question is cant it be a strategy?
With respect to Free entry and Exit, how come existing firms tolerate new entries in market (in super normal profit status) to share their economic and hard earned profits? Would they not stategize to keep them at bay wanting to enjoy a greater share of the market and make hay while the sun shines?
..some grave doubts and grim curiosities!
Its characteristic features being:
1. Large number of buyers and sellers
2. Product Homogenity
3.Free entry and exit
4.Perfect mobility of factors of production
5. Perfect knowledge
6.No Transport cost
7.No Government Interferance
It is important to note that all the sellers sell their produce at uniform price under such market form.
Any layman without the slightest study of any market structure will say that such a model is a myth and can never exist. Sure!can never exist...but along with that i have severe doubt about intrinsic and assumed features itself. I doubt them to be controversial and contradictory to each other.
For eg. There are no transort costs incurred which states that the produce is made locally and ubiquitously. However, if i consider 'A' particular area (a village, a collection of villages) then there will not be large nmber of sellers and buyers because each seller will then sell a considerable and significant output and same for the buyer. To this one may say that, so what if no transportation costs are incurred..the entire production and consumption might be spread out..say a country, a large state..but then what about 'Perfect Knowledge'? This feature states that information is free and costless and that the consumers and producers know completely of the market structures. In this case, if the economic activities are spread out then perfect knowledge is not possible because there is always going to be ignorance in some part of the geographical area which producers might take to their benefit.
Perfect mobility implies that factors canbe transferred geographically and occupationally. That means, one can work in mining ore one day, be a teacher of language speaking shakespeare and milton on the other and and go to a battlefield on some another day. Perfect mobilty fails to consider sunk capital that is intrinsic to occupations specifically. For eg. a blast furnace cannot be used in a farm and a sycth and chisel will never work in a manufacturing factory.
Alright, assume that such markets are or might be merely for agricultural commodities. In that case too product homogenity can never be attained. A corn from one field will be variant in its significant feature from another.
Feature 7 mentions no governmental interference. But since time immemorial, a government be it a monarchy (most of ancient princely states), a democracy (in Greece and Rome) taxes have always been imposed. This itself is a major governmental interferance. Even a 'Police State' will have to collect taxes for its maintainence of treasury and to safeguard the kingdom. Also, if there is no regulatory body like governement (if we assume very naively that no govts would then be present), how is the price uniformity validated? To this one could say that since a seller sells a very miniscule amount of output, if he increases the price, he fears losing his consumers to another firm; but what if he reduces price?- here the question arises: an efficient firm whose cost conditions are low compared to those in the markets might strategically lower the price to entrench market space and try to increase his sales. I studied that when prices are reduced by firms their total revenue is on a decline in P.C. market structure but my question is cant it be a strategy?
With respect to Free entry and Exit, how come existing firms tolerate new entries in market (in super normal profit status) to share their economic and hard earned profits? Would they not stategize to keep them at bay wanting to enjoy a greater share of the market and make hay while the sun shines?
..some grave doubts and grim curiosities!
Monday, March 9, 2009
...so subtly
That was not a lie
That was not a joke,
That was not a sigh,
That was an envelope…
Times said things unsaid,
They spoke of what you thought,
Because what you spoke
Was not what you said.
There was a difference-
Of…
Unknown things,
Understanding,
Recognizing
And days went scrutinizing…
And time itself was metamorphosing.
Loose ends just remained.
They had their glimpses
In half met eyes,
In broken smiles,
In incomplete handshakes,
And sometimes in smooth frictions
And fractious slips…
That was not a lie;
Not a joke,
Not a sigh,
But… an envelope…
That was not a joke,
That was not a sigh,
That was an envelope…
Times said things unsaid,
They spoke of what you thought,
Because what you spoke
Was not what you said.
There was a difference-
Of…
Unknown things,
Understanding,
Recognizing
And days went scrutinizing…
And time itself was metamorphosing.
Loose ends just remained.
They had their glimpses
In half met eyes,
In broken smiles,
In incomplete handshakes,
And sometimes in smooth frictions
And fractious slips…
That was not a lie;
Not a joke,
Not a sigh,
But… an envelope…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
