How To Deal With ISIS? An Extremist Approach Bringing Analogy From Newton’s First Law

In this ever changing world, proliferation is the core motivation for any organization. This is quite true with even humans, we educate ourselves every day through experience. Sometimes we need some form of guidance and incentives to have focus for anything interesting to build interest, and of course there are many ways to get there. Indeed there are many universities to enhance focus and get helped by tutor to get an example set of how should we focus. University is the best place to think, open horizons, build confidence and understand what works for you and what wouldn’t? Now how to keep ourselves motivated to keep building interest of the things we have incentives attached to it. People wouldn’t spend on education unless they’ve found education is or will work for them. Once you’ve got a way to succeed and you should’ve experienced a positive outcome of your efforts. This entire world works on this motivation including machine learning, artificial learning, humans, animals, nature and everything.

Synthesizing the above theory could attempt to explain terrorism has a negative effect and why education has a positive effect. The current problems with ISIS can be related with this when comes to analyze the thought process of the people joining it. You can put anything and try to correlate your motivation and the retrospective success in form of incentives to go beyond. I would argue that it’s the failure that motivates you to go for that extra effort to make that happen but it is the motivation in the past in small forms that you can achieve it or it’s a believe that you have built within yourself to achieve. So, for me it is highly correlated to the things that you have achieved in the past, and we shouldn’t credit failures for this. It is not failure that makes you believe to achieve something but it is the past incentives or in contemporary form.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

The Koran specifies crucifixion as one of the only punishments permitted for enemies of Islam. The tax on Christians finds clear endorsement in the Surah Al-Tawba, the Koran’s ninth chapter, which instructs Muslims to fight Christians and
Jews “until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” The Prophet, whom all Muslims consider exemplary, imposed these rules and owned slaves.

Bringing the analogy using Newton’s first law, “good” will remain “good” unless “bad” interrupts it and changes its property. This “bad” will grow ‘bad” unless a strong will for “good” act upon it. I have very limited information of ISIS’s influence on people of Syria and Iraq. Considering this analogy of Newton’s first law that I have tried to derive, ISIS will continue to grow unless a “good” interrupts it. And what should be this “good”? What can and should happen to turn the things around. The answer now lies on nature and universe? Maybe a natural calamities can be helpful going against ISIS growth but that is quite uncertain. There is a need for analysis of the areas from where they operate and climatic conditions etc so that the outer world can isolate them from basic needs so that they understand what is “good” and what is “bad”. Food supplies, water supplies, medicines, cure for any epidemics if possible would help them defining the “good’. Nearly all the Islamic State’s decisions adhere to what it calls, on its billboards, license plates, and coins, “the Prophetic methodology.”Ideological tools may convince some potential converts that the group’s message is false, and military tools can limit its horrors. But for an organization as impervious to persuasion as the Islamic State, few measures short of these will matter, and the war may be a long one, even if it doesn’t last until the end of time (Graeme Wood, 2015).


What had Keynesian that we argue?

Greece situation is politically overwhelming for not only Europe but for the entire world. I remember reading a lot on Euro crisis, Drachma, QE, Greek issue, neo-classical economy, fiscal policy, Keynesian economy, Milton Friedman, Philips curve etc..during my MBA @ University Of Glasgow.

Greece has around $600M due next week to pay as a result of debt, but speculation is that they might default. However, their prime minister Alexis Tsipras denied any such speculation and assured that they have money to repay the debt this time. Many are saying that Greece is playing chicken game, they started to borrow first, they defaulted first, they are responsible, but they cannot be punished by offsetting them from Euro zone for Geo-political reason. They had enough defaults and help through austerities. It is also to be considered that Greece currently contributes <1% in world’s economy.

Greece is suffering highest unemployment at the moment, going to neo-classical economical theory that suggests reduce wages can help minimizing unemployment, I am sure Greece would’ve administrated this positively.

The classical solution to tackle unemployment, in whatever form they conceived it, is totally inadequate and unsatisfactory. They have relied entirely on a cut in the rate of interest and wage rates. These are self-defeating polices. Any cut in wage rates will result in widening the gap of unemployment instead of correcting it in modern times. This is because of the fact that any attempt to cut wage rates at the bottom of the depression period will cause a considerable portion of the aggregate or effective demand to reduce further causing a more severe unemployment situation. This can be illustrated with the help of a simple example:

Let’s assume that a small fruit seller sells 20kg of fruit at a market price of $10 on a daily basis. Thus his daily turnover is $200 (20 ´ 10) of which the only cost of production is in the form of wage rate. If he employs 10 laborers at a daily rate of $15, then the total wage payment is $150 (10 ´ 15). The fruit seller therefore earns a daily profit of $50 (200 – 150). If for some reason the demand for fruit that he sells reduces, then he will have to reduce the price say from $10 to $8. In this new situation his total daily turnover goes down to $160 and at the old cost of production, his profit margin declines to $10 (160-150). The fruit seller is not satisfied with this. Therefore he may reduce the number of his workers from 10 to 8 and bring down the cost of production from $150 to $120 (8 ´ 15). The two workers are then rendered unemployed. If the unemployed laborers insist on their re-employment, the producer will lay down the condition that wage rate of all the workers will be reduced from $15 to $11. If the workers accept this then the total wage bill will be $110 (10 ´ 11) which restores the seller’s profit of $50 (160 – 110) as before. It appears that even with reduced demand and fall in the price of fruit, unemployment of workers has been avoided with the help of a cut in the wage rate. But this in only a momentary and superficial solution. The workers’ total income has now reduced from $150 to $110 as a result of which they can spend less and reduce demand for every other commodity that they consume. Therefore initially the problem of depressed demand and unemployment which was faced by a single seller will eventually become a general and wider problem faced by all other dealers. Instead of curbing it, the wage cut solution will therefore increase the problem of unemployment. Though this example is oversimplified and hypothetical yet it helps to bring out gist of the Keynes’ Criticism of Classical theory.

Keynesian theory opposes this reduce wages, and suggests that it has adverse effect on economy reducing MPS (marginal propensity to save) and MPC (marginal propensity to consume). It will in-turn decreases multiplier factor that Keynes described in his book The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money that was published in 1936. Keynes emphasized on Fiscal policy and tax reduction during recession. He also emphasized on investments in industries to produce more to meet demands, or to spend more to innovate and create demand, supporting as long as there is an active demand unemployment can be controlled.

Milton Friedman Argued Keynesian theory that why would industries would enhance investments if there is no profit. Why to enhance Fiscal policy, and government expenditure in recession?

The Good Society by Galbraith covers a concise description of the process of stabilization of the flow of aggregate demand which is the vital factor in the Keynesian economy.

Aggregate demand has three decisive components: consumer expenditure, expenditure for private investment and expenditure from the fiscal operations of the state – from government spending that exceeds or falls short of tax receipts. If the flow of purchasing power – of aggregate demand – is insufficient to sustain a high level of economic activity and growth, it is commonly believed that certain readily available and greatly benign measures will restore consumer and business confidence. There are three substantive lines of corrective action that will increase the flow of aggregate demand as required. First, taxes can be lowered, thus releasing to the consuming public more revenue to be expended on private consumption. Second, interest rates can be reduced by central bank action, thus encouraging business and consumer borrowing and investment or expenditure, which add to the flow of aggregate demand.

Third, the government can contribute directly to the flow of demand by new expenditure in excess of tax receipts – by a deliberately accepted or deliberately increased deficit. By one or a combination of these steps aggregate demand can, or so it held or hoped, be kept at a level that will cause business and the government to reach out for all available workers.There is, unfortunately, a wide difference in the effectiveness of these several public actions. There is also the problem of inflation. Action on interest rates, commonly referred to as monetary policy, has the highest establishment approval as an effective measure against stagnation and unemployment; it must, accordingly by the first for consideration. The serious flaw in monetary policy is that it may have little or no effect on the flow of aggregate demand. When times are poor and unemployment is high, lower interest rates do not reliably inspire consumer expenditure; depressive attitudes, including those which are the product of unemployment or uncertain employment, are in control. Tax reduction is also celebrated as a way to sustain aggregate demand during recession. Here again the hope is at odds with the reality; there is no certainty that the funds released by tax reduction will be invested or spent for the most good. As a way to stimulate demand in times of negative growth or stagnation, there remains only direct and active intervention by the state to create employment. In an ideal world this last would not be necessary. In the real world of recurrent and prolonged stagnation there can be no effective alternative. To intervene, the government must borrow and accept the reality of a larger deficit in the public accounts. Improvements to the public infrastructure – roads, schools, airports, housing – that are effected by the work of those newly employed also add to public wealth and income. Public borrowing can, over time, be a fiscally conservative act. When the economy recovers and public revenues rise, there must then be the discipline that brings simulative expenditure to an end. In brief, Keynesian doctrine suggests that the government should, in times of serious unemployment, run deficits to support the flow of aggregate demand7 and a wise government could stabilize the economy close to full employment and avoid fluctuations.


Rest later….Structuring needed

%d bloggers like this: