Democracy or 'Sham'ocracy

How does the Democracy or shall we say 'Sham'ocracy works in most of the West (USA & UK primarily)

Well, this is how it works:

1. 40-60% of eligible voters vote to elect politicians
2. The politicians are financed by big corporates, businessmen and bankers on wall street
3. Whoever gets the biggest backing has the highest cash to splash
4. Whoever splashes more has the best chance of getting elected
5. Once elected, the politicians have to return the favours of their cash-sponsers
6. They do that in a very transparant and democratic way by killing the regulation and loosening the rules

So, what is the problem?

1. Well, the rich gets richer while the poor stays poorer
2. The poor are taxed to subsidise the rich
3. Equitable distribution of wealth is thrown out of window in the mirage of for example 'the great american dream'
4. Life's value is measured just in money's worth. Quality of Life can be thrown in the bin
5. Natural resources are exploited in the name of quarterly growth

So, what is the solution?

1. Banning all political donations in cash/kind
2. Having a democracy tax which funds the elections
3. Voting to be made 'compulsory' for all eligible people
4. Putting the best resources behind regulation
5. Equitable or near-equitable society should be the the central aim of the state
6. All the utilities should be state-owned but privatised only to run and manage efficiently
7. State should have permanent and thriving presence in Media (ex. BBC in UK)


Unless this happens, it is safe to say, we live in 'Sham'ocracy where the government is nothing but the mouth-piece of their paymasters (corporates, big businessmen and bankers)

That is why, it is no surprise when David Cameron visits US, top on his agenda is protecting BP. When Kraft was cutting jobs after taking over Cadbury in UK, the government said, we don't interfere in the private sector business!!!

That is why, it is no surprise when David Cameron visits India, he take a huge delegation of 400 people (almost all of them are big corporate guys, rich businessmen and banks).

That is why, it is no surprise when in India, the UK chancellor George Osborne spends most of his time in Mumbai, selling the financial services to the Indians. Forget the 'big-talk' on banking regulation at home.

So, you see, what we in West call Democracy is actually 'Sham'ocracy.

Regards,

Pradeep Kabra

Re: Watching Google

As published in Financial Times on 20-Jul-2010

Dear Sir,

In your editorial you mention that "Google is not obviously being evil but it is such a powerful technology company that it has the potential to go astray".

Well, but as Google argues - if they mis-use their trust of their customers, the competition is just a click away unlike how majority of people are all locked in Microsoft's inept operating systems.

Unfortunately, the job of most of the arm-chair observers is just to make these kind of comments. What Google has provided is the vision for so many services which were just unimaginable or available only to elite few.

Firstly, they have come up with Search which was ignored by all the big tech companies. (inspite of their so call huge R&D budgets!!!) Which itself has changed the way we live our lives. Which has taken away the stress from our lives by connecting us to what we seek.

The markets where they have entered late (like email), they have redefined the scope of the status-quo by making the product better. (The concept of Conversation in an email to minimum 1 GB storage!!!)

Finally, where they have purchased the companies to get an entry point (like Google Maps or Youtube), they have left the start-ups intact after providing all the resources to pursue their passion rather than killing them in the big beauracratic machine.

So, before worrying about whether Google is evil, you should be encouraging other companies to behave like Google. Think how our lives were before the Google Search, Google Maps, Gmail, Google Earth, Google Apps, Youtube, Google Books etc.,

Regards,

Pradeep Kabra

-----------------------------------

Watching Google - Editorial in Financial Times, 16Jul2010

Regulators need to keep an eye on a powerful company

Google is an innovative company that has produced many benefits for consumers with its free search technology. In turn, it has become a highly profitable enterprise with a strong market share.
It is thus very important to many companies – particularly small businesses – where they appear in Google’s search rankings. They have no way of knowing how Google’s technology works since the company wants to protect its competitive edge.
As a result, Google is coming under increased scrutiny from regulators, with the European Commission already making informal inquiries into the search market. As yet, there is no evidence of Google abusing its market power, but it could do so.
As reported in the Financial Times this week, Google is facing controversy in two areas. The first is “search neutrality”, the suggestion that regulators should oversee its algorithms or set clear rules to ensure that search engines are not systematically biased for editorial or commercial reasons.
This is an impractical and unnecessary idea. As Marissa Mayer, Google’s head of search, argued in the FT, it is better for different search engines to compete vigorously with each other to produce the best and most relevant results. Google may be highly successful in search, but competition is only a free click away.
The second area of concern is Google’s provision of vertical services linked to search – for example, its display of Google Maps when a user looks for an address, or Google comparison shopping data when someone searches for a camera. This affects rival providers in travel and e-commerce.
Barry Diller, chairman of Expedia and InterActiveCorp, protested this week about Google’s $700m acquisition of ITA Software, saying that it would give Google unfair leverage in displaying flight information. Mr Diller wants the deal to be scrutinised carefully by regulators and conditions imposed.
Google’s defence is that it is trying to supply the most useful possible information to users. But the potential for antitrust abuse through the tying of vertical services to search raises clear concerns. European and US regulators should use the ITA deal to examine the issue broadly.
It would be wrong for Google to be hamstrung by regulators simply because its services are superior to rivals, but it needs to be watched with care. Google is not obviously being evil but it is such a powerful technology company that it has the potential to go astray.

--------------------------