"politically charged Nepali language in which you get to make all the right noises and mean absolutely nothing! "

This is the sign of times, evident in the cacophony generated by the media. We are now required to be hypocrites, expressing hollow platitudes, rather than do something real to make life better.

"Given our large and growing population base of unskilled youth, and given the visible disparity between Kathmandu and the rest of Nepal, business promotion bodies and business leaders should come out of their narrow confines, and start playing a more positively influential role rather than leaving it in the hands of narrow-minded politicians. After all, to paraphrase John F. Kennedy, if our society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."

I agree with the spirit of your conclusion but there is something wrong with it, maybe the way you have put it. I am not immediately certain but I have a feeling that this is because nobody seems to have a clear understanding of poverty, i.e. at a human/personal level. 

What I have written here is a bit disjointed and longish, sorry about that. I will improve on it some other time.

Poverty is not the same everywhere, all poor are not same. Poor are individuals as different as you and I, their needs are as different as yours and mine and, expectations are equally different. The poor you talk of, the ones below poverty line, need urgent intervention to improve their lot. They will not benefit from what you suggest.

The basics required urgently are - more efficient management of food supplies, easy transportation networks, maintenance of law and order, and an effective/accessible judiciary. None of this is for the private sector to provide.

Now, not being an academic or a journalist, the only thing I can hope for is that someone from these two fields would actually investigate the "true" nature of poverty, removed from the rhetoric of politics, and hypocrisy and laziness of the communists. 

It is in this particular field that business grants and encouragement from the private sector would be most useful. Because what is sorely needed is an "honest", "clear", and "factual" study of social contracts, social values and expectations that people have. The need is for all of this to be free of hypocritical terms, only then should someone design any solution for "this" society and "this country". This, by the way, is also what the "people" of Nepal truly want, once you take out the hypocrisy from a conversation.

Given the nature of Nepal's politics, don't expect anyone to deal with this effectively. 

I am sorry I don't have time right now to go into the details of that document you have posted here. Suffice to say that it would be worth every minute of my time to smash that document into pieces; I promise to do that on Thursday. 

What I have said about the Maoists are facts that you have been ignoring or sidestepping with mere insinuations.

Meanwhile, in response to your question about what is my model, I am not sure how many times I have to say this, but there is no single cure all for problems faced by any economy, much less of Nepal. Secondly, it is the framework that trumps the detail. I have laid out what I believe would be the appropriate framework earlier. When I have more time, I will do that again.

More about your comment, no we do not agree on the basics either. My basic argument is that the present level of poverty in Nepal is a result of a prolonged and unnecessary conflict, or at least that the level of poverty has been accentuated by it. 

If not for the conflict, a reflective and flexible state apparatus and a business community operating in less fearful environment would have adapted to changes far more easily in a changed regional economic landscape. So would the people of Nepal.

Further, I also stress, and have repeatedly said, that poor - despite suffering from a common consequence - have multiple reasons to be in that state. This requires careful understanding, removed from political rhetoric and communist skulduggery. Corruption had a role to play in it, I will try and address that as well.

Maoist proposal to ban strike was a useless charade when they, as opposition, would not stop it themselves – unless, of course, they spotted the surprise in their surprise party, or the white elephant in the room.

About the proposal to implement law and order etc, it is akin to a thief shouting theft, (I am not sure what the correct English saying is). Again I will include this in my response on Thursday. 

Meanwhile, a judiciary subordinate to legislature is not cleaner but far more corrupt; we have seen glimpses of that recently. Instead, an independent judiciary has proved to be far more effective in handing out justice. Reform is required, in everything - from time to time, but not of this nature.

Bureaucracy is a complex animal and much like in everything else I am no expert on it. Nevertheless, for the purpose of discussion I will try and respond later.  

You keep at your obstinate effort to lie in the hope that nobody would refute it because they would be tired. No the judiciary was not completely corrupt, and yes, everybody knows that. For something this silly, I don't have to "rush".  

Anyway, at purchasing power parity, if you wish to increase the per capita income from $1000 currently to $3000 in ten years, that would require an annualised growth rate of 11.6%. If you wish to take it up to 6000, that is a growth rate of 19.62%, p.a. This is possible, but not with the plan that you have because it is anything but simple and practicable.

Which also leads me to wonder if this actually is the Maoist manifesto or you are working as deep cover to thoroughly discredit them?

Most of the document is a mere amalgamation of slogans to combat false impressions. 

Slogans supersede actual action points, which whenever mentioned, are directed at imaginary problems anyway. However, it is understandable, because unless false impressions are made conventional wisdom, the revolution would be nothing but a criminal enterprise to grab power, which it actually is.

1.    End of feudal relationship � hocus pocus primus

Feudal relation � whichever way you define it � is not a hindrance in production, it is a consequence of the level of development. Industrial societies are not feudal because they need not be. End of a feudal pattern of production is possible by a turnaround in economic conditions, not the other way round.

It is your kind of voodoo economics which keeps most of the world poor. Meanwhile, the widespread prevalence of claptrapology masquerading as revolutionary speak incorrectly assumes that the rural relations in Nepal are classic feudal; they are not. 

But of course with denial the dominant form of commie communication - that is not yet debated clearly. I would still expect that you would enlighten me on exactly how feudalism dominates in Nepal�s agricultural economy and why. It would be interesting to see how a party of warlords which extorts wealth by threatening violence treats this subject.

The problem with agriculture in Nepal is multi-faceted; tenancy exists because owners have moved out of villages, and also because of land fragmentation etc. The rent, wages and prices are economic problems which need to be dealt with by economic incentives and disincentives.  

Hope, that the problems resulting from small land holdings and subsistence farming would be solved by co-operative movement is na�ve. Merely stating a plan does not make it real unless you have the right mechanism to make it function. Co-operative movements have failed too often in too many societies, in too many countries to raise optimism in them aiding a swift turnaround for the rural economy.

2.    Economic Growth along with employment

I have no idea what they are talking about here. Employment is a result of economic activity, economic activity cannot be started for employment. In an economy where human resource is poorly trained development is constrained till that situation turns around.  It is also within this context that the insurgency cost this nation dearly. Several thousand who would otherwise have acceptable levels of education, are not educated enough because of this madness. 

3.    Public-private partnership

Simply because you have the right term does not mean you have the right solution. Nobody needs to be encouraged to invest, people invest because of a reasonable expectation that they would benefit from such an investment. The job of the government is to ensure that the regulatory environment is robust enough for individuals to confidently make such investment, and the right to property is ensured. 

Attracting investment is not a problem; the problem is establishing the right regulatory framework. Based on crime, the Maoist party cannot bring in such changes.

I will discuss other points some other time but the basis of that discussion would be the same. So I will stop on this CMP issue for now.

Meanwhile, I promised I would also discuss bureaucracy and corruption. First, let me assure you that corruption would increase during Maoist rule. Corruption was extremely blatant during the conflict period, because conflict does that to all societies. As the central government increases its effort to combat terrorism under the false assumption that it is caused by poverty, the terrorists siphon off that money, and bureaucrats submit false reports etc to pocket that money. There were several examples of that happening in Nepal and in other countries suffering from terror.

Another factor which aids corruption is the tendency to allocate money towards �development� (in the hope that it will miraculously change the economy of the target region) in areas which do not have payment systems which can absorb that outlay. More often than not this results in siphoning off of funds by petty government agents, and their local partners.

To make bureaucracy effective one needs to ensure a strong feedback mechanism. This cannot be �people oriented�, instead this mammoth organization needs to be trimmed and designed to make it result oriented. Most failures emanate from processes, not people.

#13, you are right. #15, thanks for saving my time.

#18, Arthur, if you don't know what to say it's better to say nothing.

"Here for example are the Maoists concrete proposals concerning just one of those three topics, transportation networks:"

"5. Physical Infrastructure and Urbanization The slogan 'Modern physical infrastructure - a basis for a new Nepal' shall be the catchphrase of economic development."

There is a difference between action and a wish list what you have pasted here is a wish list. This is an example of what I said in #17 "slogans supersede actual action points, which whenever mentioned, are directed at imaginary problems anyway."

"In reply you say nothing concrete about transportation networks whatever. Likewise they have concrete proposals about management of food supplies and you say nothing concrete at all about food supplies."

If you expect me to write a manifesto that is not going to happen, your copy paste work is proof that Maoist have no plan of action, but a bunch of "catchphrases" on the basis of which they murdered.

"Instead of any concrete alternative proposals on any one of the issues you correctly singled out as important you do the usual general ideological "smashing the document into pieces" by just shouting against it."

 Read comment #17 again

 "In particular you shout against the very idea that there are feudal production relations in agriculture."

 You can call my comment shouting or whatever you please, but I asked this in reference to point 1 of that manifesto – "I would still expect that you would enlighten me on exactly how feudalism dominates in Nepal's agricultural economy and why. It would be interesting to see how a party of warlords which extorts wealth by threatening violence treats this subject."

"But your inability to focus on concrete analysis to actually resolve any concrete problem is itself a product of a semi-feudal mindset."

Answer the question above and, read my analysis in #17 again.

"Your whole way of looking at the world is oriented around preserving the collection of rent. "

Read comment #17 again

"You are simply incapable of considering such matters as how to develop transportation networks, but can only mimic the words."

Read comment #17 again

"I doubt that this will prove an effective counter to actual concrete proposals for developing transportation, food supplies etc etc."

Read comment #17 again. The action points are as follows - 

-       [Bureaucracy] …..needs to be trimmed and designed to make it result oriented. Most failures emanate from processes, not people. Call to action, build a system where performance of bureaucrats can be evaluated based on evidence because they are the ones ensuring the delivery of services.

-       Another factor which aids corruption is the tendency to allocate money towards "development" (in the hope that it will miraculously change the economy of the target region) in areas which do not have payment systems which can absorb that outlay. Call to action – when designing outlays, collect the right kind of data so that you can ensure that the funding would be utilized to develop system which would boost the local economy.

     Other points are

-            Establishing the right regulatory framework. 

-            [Design] simple and practicable solutions, not slogans.

-          The rent, wages and prices [in the rural as well as urban areas] are economic problems which need to be dealt with by economic incentives and disincentives.

-           Merely stating a plan does not make it real unless you have the right mechanism to make it function. Therefore, develop the correct mechanism within  which each solution would function.

A    Again read #17, #8, and several other comments for information and solutions.