Most people judge policy with intentions rather than outcomes.

So Samurdhi (the Sri Lankan hand-out scheme) is good because it's designed to give money to the poor, never mind the fact that the beneficiaries are partisans of the ruling party and it doesn't have the faintest of hope of eradicating poverty, fertilizer subsidies are considered good because it's stated aim to help the farmer, never mind the fact that most never actually receive the subsidies and distorts the market signals which clearly urge them to go into a more profitable venture. The list goes on.

Steven Levitt and Dubner, the Authors of the infamous Freakonomics, examines the law of Unintended consequences in the New York Times Magazine. a preview note from the Freakonomics blog is here.

Tyler' Cowen's "Markets in everything" posts are now compiled into its own website. An awesome read.

All politicians in India have to be socialists. I don't mean it in a cynical kind of way, they actually have to. The Indian constitution gives you all the democracy you want, as long as you pledge allegiance to socialism.

It's a fascinating little story, something I've been following ever since I've known about it about an year ago, now the matter has been finally brought to the Indian Supreme court's attention. Barun Mitra relates the story. Ajay Shah has more.

I wonder what the situation is in Sri Lanka, it could be the case that's actually similar. The preamble to the Sri Lankan constitution too mentions a Socialism as something which constitutes the country, although I don't know whether the Sri Lankan political parties need to take an oath in it's name.

I sort of like the guy. I've read his biography, and I think I can see where he's coming from. I mean so what' if he's a dictator, that's better than a dictator pretending to be a democrat (thats democrat as in democracy not democract as in party).

Supporters of President Musharraf say that he has brought the country rapid economic growth (this much is true), relative political stability (prior to recent incidents) and in some even argue a some form of democracy. As a Pakistani friend of mine once told me "we want development, not democracy".

My friend is not alone, In fact I think most people wouldn't outrightly reject the idea of a dictatorship. If somebody has a political agenda which he/she thinks would benefit everyone, and that someone can find a dictator to follow that course, then theoretically this should be a good thing. Of course some of us are more idealistic and thinks it would not be proper force someone what we think is "right". But for most people this would be a desirable outcome, and President Musharraf (and i know this personally) has his share of genuine supporters. However, What makes dictatorships a bad system is the fact that it's success depends good persons and this is where Musharraf has faltered in recent times, he's not been able to be good enough even for his adherent supporters.

This was triggered off by a rather funny post from on Musharraf at the Acron.

That's the car, not the iPod. For the uninitiated, the Indian motor company Tata recently unveiled the "Nano" the world's cheapest car priced at a low-low figure of Rs.100,000 (INR). (That works out to about $2,500 and Rs.275,000 LKR).

This is great news of course both for Tata and the hundreds of thousands of Indians who would now be able to afford an automobile. I don't find the car overly 'saxy' as some Indians do, but it looks all right and I'm sure there are many people who'd like to have one.

The enthusiasm for the Nano is not shared by the elitist greens however, for the adherents of the Church-of-Gore it's some sort of a carbon-crime machine. never mind the fact that that the Nano surpasses not only Indian regulatory standards but also the strict European emission standards.

Personally I don't know if I'd want the Nano for myself, but it could be an awesome little Taxi Car. small size, fuel efficiency with the possibility 4 or 5 passengers should be perfect for running a little taxi business. I can totally see that happening.

The question is how much would it cost to import one? It's a question I asked from a few vehicle importers, they don't really know yet. The Sri Lankan import duties on vehicles are insane ranging up to 300% of the initial value. The importers think it might go into about at least Rs.500,000 with the relative low taxes for allowed for Indian vehicles.

There goes cheap-taxis I can't believe the tolerance level of Sri Lankans when it comes to import duties, what's the logic anyway? the government is protecting the Micro guy? I'd think cheaper vehicles for the countries citizens might have been more important than the Micro-Car's bank balance, apparently not.

It's some how justifiable that Sri Lankans pay multiple times as taxes for the same vehicle as the Americans do. Insane is an understatement.