Skip to main content

Ensuring quality or limiting chances to improve

Decision making often gets surrounded by gloomy arguments of past and future. Mostly none can focus at present. We collect data that support the probable outcome from past and envision outcome. Among probable outcomes, most beneficial outcome through most feasible route gets followed. However, those who can't move on always get drawn by past. Their inability to move forward cripple them. Often regulators could get this biased perspective. Since they are concerned about loss on failure of the decision rather on gain upon success. While, those on execution role get hyper excited towards gain of success. They envision all flower but in the future. 

Any good that is necessary for human progress or necessary for survival should be under the regulation of the government. Government whether through ensuring distribution of these good by producing itself or organizing system for private players to produce and distribute always ensure that the beneficiaries should get it at highest quality at lowest possible cost. If private players can't ensure it, government should take those task by itself. However, government is run by risk averse regulators, competition may not be their interest thereby limiting best outcome. However, if only one or few private players are willing to do so, government should not let it to be in private production and distribution. Government is lesser greedy system than private players but also inefficient one. By profit motives private players get efficient, when the profit is at stake of competition they are the best producer while in collusion they are the worst punishment for society at large.

When there are number of private players who want to produce and sell goods, government's job should be that of regulators to ensure ethical practices and fulfillment of their commitments. This way best product can be produced and distributed. However, when private players demand limiting competition claiming quality, may be it is not that feasible argument. Private players who are also in the game of production are biased decision makers with self interest at front. May be using all government muscle to oust the competitor from the game is the modern sin. This inertia won't let any society to move on from the past. Competition is the solution to move forward. With appropriate government regulation via supervision alone, private players will improve thing (when they are not colluding). However, to use government to ensure monopoly in the name of quality is kind of stale food in new packaging. 

Any kind of artificial limiting is death, human aspiration is to grow and to move towards light and life. 

Monopolistic tendency to raise price by limiting competition and sell the worst product naming it is the only available hence best product is old aged disease. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sustainable development of Life

 XYZ whatever be the technicalities of a life process, the origin is, as I am convinced at this point of time, nothing but wish of Nature or who create the nature. The sole purpose of life is to consume itself. Consume is really the worst word in this context. Let me say to observe the beauty of itself by itself. Hence, we are designed in such a way with such and such purposes by the ultimate guiding truth which is ever full of knowledge of all kind. It can do anything (proof: various form of lives), it is evolved or it is ordained by truth can be a debate. Base of life is nature or life (especially human) struggle with nature to evolve itself. First one provide possibilities of re-creation of more sophisticated or more adaptable life suitable to the nature at that point of time, second is more egoist approach to life and claim nature as nothing but inert objects which are subject to enjoyment or preservation for enjoyment in future (as now discussed in the name of sustainable deve...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ethics : Dharma of Individual (Yoga Sutra)

 Ethics as virtue-  it is collection of desirable action for sustaining society. [dying for group's belief ] Ethics as utility- it is collection of desirable action for sustaining society and more rudely exchanged in name of utility, often society can buy desirable action for society and tag it with ethics. [dying in poverty is ethical but to save life by robbery is not] Ethics of universal rationality- whatever action that can be universalized is ethical and others are not. collectively it again universalize social needs over individual {I am deficient here....} Ethics of social contract- here even an attempt to hide the social behavior and labeling it as ethics has been withdrawn [collective interest labeled as ethics] In my limited understanding these alternatives, individuality is easily coerced by society. But these definitions are not capable to define anything at all. Many things now called Ethics are borrowed from religion. Mainly non-violence and etc. can be traced di...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dharma Ra Nyaya-1

 In no way I am writing with any certainty about these words or realities or whatever phenomena they are. But with quite a discussion with a learned friend of mine, clarity of thoughts seems to built within. However, from very surface reading and my own biases, Dharma and Nyaya have been same thing for me. Naya here is not a branch of philosophy rather justice in its strict sense.  What is Nyaya? In its day-to-day life, a decision by court of justice is itself justice. One can try to cry over and over yet in short run whatever a reason of court is will be justice. However, in truth, justice is related with what a pure human consciousness guide the human being as a justice is justice. Qualifying consciousness with purity may be a false attempt to define something undefined. Here, purity of reason can do good work. With hope , purity of reason coincide with one true reason by all human being. With a good wish, many have found to place great trust in universal reason or something...
Post a Comment
Read more