Adam Smith, Private Enterprise, Free Markets, and Role of Government

Economists have difficulty reconciling  free markets and the role of Government. The ultra liberals want everything to be free markets and private enterprise-the leftists want all to be run by a social Government. I write this post to extend some of the ideas presented by Smith-to figure out clearly which domains should best fall in Government, and which ones should fall under free markets and private enterprise.

The rule-Government should dedicate itself to pain-relief type roles in Society. The other activities, which are to increase citizens' pleasure, should be left to private enterprise.

A Military (to protect citizens of country from other hostile countries) is best handled by an organized Government. Mercenaries don't make good soldiers-when the country starts to lose they will run away. National glory and public esteem exist for soldiers-that's why they lay their lives for protecting their countrymen. Absent these-no sane man would fight for it's country. A private enterprise military probably looks good in peace times, but any threat of a serious war, and these guys will disintegrate. Put another way, a private military will charge an exorbitant amount of money to provide security to a country.

Police force (internal to the country-to protect citizens hurting each other) is another example where the Government is best at doing the job. If private cops were hired for security, they would charge exorbitant amounts of money to give security.

Firefighters are also a State run enterprise. It is a glorious, respectable job. The death of a firefighter in action gets the same respect as the death of a soldier or policeman in action. If firefighting became a private, monetary gain enterprise, costs of getting someone to put out a fire would be astronomical.

All countries of the world have these departments- Military, Police and Firefighers under the Government, as you might expect.

Notice that these are pain-relieving in nature-citizens need to pay these institutions of military and police to keep away the pain of being attacked by a foreign nation or by a violent individual in their country.

Now consider extraction of aluminum, a home builder, a cell phone provider, or a furniture maker. Products of these companies bring pleasure to society (most of their production, not all) and these are best left to private enterprise. However, a Government must ensure enough competition, at least 5 actors in each industry, to make this work. If there are 3 actors or less, they will collude to raise prices, and you will give them a monopoly against their own citizens. Any country which has less than or equal to 3 cell phone providers has cell phone companies charging exorbitant amounts of money for something which is very useful, but very cheap to make (cell networks). Most of the capital of cell phone providers is spend in useless activities like marketing, image-protection, and even thwarting entry of new competitors. They do not go to improve the network or reduce cost of calls. Countries where you have more than 3 cell phone providers have some of the lowest cost of cell phone calls in the world (e.g. UK, India).

Pleasure providing activities do not need a Government to run them-and the capital for these must be left in the hands of private citizens and corporations.

Health Care is an activity, because it is by it's very nature pain-relieving, is best left in the hands of the Government. I am all for social medicine. All countries where public health care is low-e.g. USA, Chile, Canada, you have rich doctors, who become nothing more than merchants (that's their incentive). I don't like doctors who are very rich, just as I wouldn't like military people or policemen who are rich. I respect their profession, and large monetary compensation for them necessarily reduces my respect for them. Even a politician is like that-a rich politician deserves no respect from me, but one who lives reasonably but is more interested in doing good to society at a LOW PRICE is more likely to excite my respect. Doctors who are rich have already charged a HIGH PRICE for their service to me-I can't screw myself more by respecting them! I have given them my money, that's enough.

Instead of pain relieving, you can think of basic necessities. It is good if Government dedicates itself to providing basic necessities of society-and the others are best taken care of by a free market (always with enough competitors). Electric utilities are an example of an industry which is best kept in the hands of the Government, or needs to be heavily regulated if there are less than 3 competitors.

The most important thing I want to take you from this post is that Free Markets DO NOT WORK for pain relieving activities, even if there is free competition. You can have any many doctors and private hospitals as you want, but that will not be a good system. The doctors and hospitals have a huge incentive to lie, to make up stuff to charge their patients more...and that's why these activities are not handled well by private enterprises. Someone lying about their car or coffee is one thing-but when doctors start to lie, it is a sad society. This has happened in The USA, Canada and Chile, where you have loads of these doctors and clinics who do completely unnecessary procedures to people. The goal is mercenary. A public health system would be much better for healthcare. Even poor India and relatively poor Argentina have vastly better healthcare, with good moralistic doctors, than Chile, Canada or USA. The incentives for the profession have not been set right-a doctor should strive to be prestigious, a life saver-and not to make more money! Just as a policeman or a military guy-I don't want any of these guys to be rich. A society where they are rich is not a fun society for me. France is a great example of a country to emulate in health care-it is almost all public, there is absence of large private hospitals, and there are no rich doctors. I don't know much about Germany's Health Care, but probably is similar to France-have never met a rich German doctor.

In France, a person who is more sick pays less; the very sick and old people pay nothing. The co-pay goes down with the degree of illness. It is only humane that someone who is already very sick with a bad illness, e.g. Cancer, be charged LESS  than someone who comes about with a minor problem, that the State or Society as a whole bear a larger fraction of the cost for the former.  Terminally ill patients do not pay anything in France for health-scar.e Capitalism in medicine has it backwards-if you are really sick, you pay more. You can see the problem now-the system is illogical, the really sick and the dying are given a double whammy of paying more. Something similar happens in the US in another field-you get medical insurance if you have a job. If you don't have a job, you don't have medical insurance. It is exactly the ones who do not have a job who need more help-but the rules are designed to instead punish them even more. The rationale for this policy is that bums should not be supported by society, etc. Completely ignored is that fat that getting a job is not easy, and most people out of a job are not bums, are just temporarily out. The medical insurance tied to having a job is a really bizarre practice in that sense.

In some ways what I am saying is an extension of what Smith realized-that people dont want to pay anything for things they need, but will pay happily for things they want. He gave the example of water-everyone needs water, but noone wants to pay for it exorbitantly. The same goes with basic necessities-they should be as cheap as possible, if not free-because in the end the NET PRODUCTIVE OUTPUT of society, as measured by the consumable goods it produces, will go up. A society full of doctors and funeral services people is clearly a very poor and miserable society.

Same goes for Insurance providers. We do'nt want them to be rich-we want them to have their low profits and let them provide a service to society at the lowest cost possible (division of risk is their main job).

Productive labor is the labor which produces stuff (consumable goods) in society. The other part of society, military men, lawyers, doctors, police, etc. are non-productive, even though they are very useful. The help the productive part of society produce better, more efficiently, or produce more.

Pharmaceutical companies are a case in point. You would think that when you buy stock in Pfizer or Merck you are buying scientists and innovation-but a large part of these companies is distribution, marketing, and sales people. The common capitalistic argument that paying high price for your drugs (medicines) puts more money into the pockets of these companies and therefore encourages innovation is false-because most money is gone to increase sales forces, management teams, etc. Plus even if it would go 100% to scientists, it  would encourage fraud and fudging of data. Noone said that you get a better police force or military if you pay for it directly. Why are we saying it for doctors and big pharma?

Therefore, the original rule I said-that things which are pain relieving in society should come as cheap as possible, becomes even more plausible. Encouraging this automatically increases the overall production of society-the cheapness of pain relieving activities or necessities of life encourages the production of other (wanted but not needed) consumable goods. Let those be governed by the free markets, etc. but essential goods and services a society should try to produce at the lowest cost, and if that means they rest with the Government (like the police and military), so be it.

I want to stress that I don't want to see doctors who are poor-just like I don't want to see police, fire-fighters or military men who are poor. I want them to live well, earn their decent, stable earnings; but none of these categories of people I want to see being very rich. If money is their compensation, they are prone to lie to and abuse the other members of their society or country.
Sanjay

On Stress Induced Illnesses (there are none!)

It is common to hear that stress is causing us to lose sleep, get fat, have headaches, ulcers, cancer, etc. etc. etc. Modern life is more stressful and different than before (as I mentioned in a previous post. This fascination for today's life being faster, more hectic etc. is because you are alive in it! Reasons given are presence of cell phones, internet, cars, etc...in 1550 AD the reasons were different, but I am certain that people at that time thought that they also are moving very fast....everyone feels that the period they live in is somehow special) and stress, like global warming, is blamed for all kinds of physical and mental illnesses.

That's quite okay- I don't expect the common man to be very smart in their conversation, but what bothers me is when serious professionals in medicine start using stress as a cause of illnesses. Causality is a difficult thing to establish (which is the reason this blog is called "False Conclusions") and physicians and medical professionals should be smart enough NEVER to attribute any illness to stress. Because we don't even scientifically know how to  define stress. Definitions like I am stressed out because I just lost my job, just moved to a new city, divorced my wife, had a family member pass away, have an irritating neighbor, classmate etc. don't say anything. At any point in life, everyone has a number of things which are not perfect, and any and all can be, and are, attributed to causing stress. This tells us nothing.

A few years ago I went to a dentist because I was grinding my teeth while sleeping (bruxism). The doctor quizzed me about all the new stuff happening in my life (new city, new job, etc. etc.) and concluded that the bruxism was caused by stress. The remedy was right-an apparatus between my teeth while sleeping, muscle relaxants, and pain relievers, but the cause was not. Saying something like bruxism is caused by stress is saying nothing at all. The doctor's experience with this illness made her prescribe the right remedy-but she is not a very logical person, and the causal attribution is not correct.

Stress is imaginary, undefinable, and ascribing it to the cause of an illness is just a play of words in the end. One of the most absurd examples is when stress is the cause and the effect of a disorder or illness...e.g. loss of sleep. You often hear stress being caused by you not sleeping well at night these days, and the reverse-that you are not sleeping well these days because of stress in your life. You seem to go into a negative feedback loop of more stress-worse sleep-causing still more stress; not a good situation to be in....

Bruxism or ulcers in the stomach have unknown causes. Stress doesn't cause these conditions. If you believe like I do that human body, or any animal body, is an extremely robust system, then real causes are external or internal, and have certain characteristics.  External factors, if causing an illness, have to manifest themselves in a physical (e.g. radiation causing you damage to skin or eye), chemical (e.g. ingesting a poison, getting in contact with sulfuric acid) or biological form (e.g. bacteria, viruses). Internal factors in the organism can be a deterioration in the organism spontaneously or with age, genetics, etc. All psychology related stuff can be safely thrown out of the window for real causes of illnesses. The psychologist and psychiatrist can still prescribe the right remedy-but they have little clue about true causality.

Because all illnesses from external (outside the body) causes should be traceable to physical, chemical and biological reasons, it becomes easier to see that all cures for these illnesses must also have a direct physical, chemical or biological impact on the organism. The cause and the cure of an illness are very similar in this sense-you can think of the cure as another input into the organism-to get rid of a previously inquired illness. Therefore, I also don't believe in talking cures (freudian kind, you talking about your childhood problems etc.) or cures from prayer, meditation, etc. Unless of course some illness might be cured simply by resting the body, with you being on a comfortable sofa (while talking to a PhD psychologist) being the real cause why you feel better, or you taking a comfortable cross legged position and doing no hard work being the real cause of you feeling better (e.g. in meditation). I have not much respect for psychologists (having studied several years of psychology myself) or Meditation/Yoga therapists for their professional abilities-even though I may like them personally.

Stress together with it's cousin anxiety are often blamed for eating disorders, generally people getting fat. The people who sell treatments for getting slim often use stress and anxiety as an all-encompassing cause for obesity. Stress and anxiety cause people to eat more and get obese, they say-so the trick is to reduce stress in life. In the end it is a game of words with nothing being said-and the poor patient keeps seeing these quacks for their obesity problems. And stress is also the effect of getting overweight, i.e. you are more stressed out these days because you are eating more. The word games go on and on.

Another example is smoking and stress. Smokers say that stress causes them to smoke more, and also, when they smoke more, they get more stressed.  The absurdities with stress go on and on.

Even the venerable Mayo Clinic has a bunch of pages on stress induced illnesses:

Mayo1 

Mayo2

Mayo3

and many others.
      
I rest my case.

See this post for the myth of alternative medicine.

See another example in this post.

Sanjay

Beers, Wines, Spirits, Tea and Coffee, Perfumes

Beers, Wines, Spirits, Tea and Coffee are sold with massive marketing attached to them. The taste of all these products is mostly in your mind or imagination, the real taste difference between them (within the beers, within the wines, that is) is not that large. A related subject of dentists and consumer goods companies is covered in this post.

Consider wines. On the reds, you have wines defined by Grapes or regions-Cabernet, Malbec, Chianti, French wines, etc. If you have ever been to a winery-you can see the elaborate machinery and barrels used to make the wine. Do you honestly think that there's any trace left of the original grape in the wine after it having undergone such a massive processing? Maybe 1 in 1000 people can distinguish between a Cabernet and a Merlot, but most of the time, the deviation within the category, e.g Cabernet, will have a sufficient overlap with the deviation within the other category, say Merlot, to make any such distinction very doubtful. Whenever two distributions have large standard distributions, it is difficult to say with much confidence that the means are different, even if they are.

It is even worse with national or geographical origin of wines. There is no such thing as French wine or Chilean wine. Grapes don't have nationalities, and with the wide variety of grape growing and the further processing which these grapes undergo in the wine-making process, you can be sure that there's not one single characteristic which can identify a wine as French or Chilean.

The Wine Spectator's commentary on being able to feel the soil, or other frutal characteristics in the wine (e.g. taste of blueberry, strawberry, pear) are also absurd. Same hold's for aged wines-a 1960 bottle Cabernet being different from today's Cabernet is largely because you see the bottles labeled that way.
Wine connoisseur is largely an imaginary profession or ability (there may be some exceptions).

On beers, let's consider a typical golden (blonde) beer. Heinekin, Brahma, Budweiser, Polar, Pilsner Urquell, Tiger, etc. are examples. Taken overall, with the thousands of beer makers in the world-you can see that these are random variations in the recipes. Most people will not be able to distinguish between the different golden beers if the can and bottle are changed, even if they believe that they are beer lovers and connoisseurs.

Spirits like Vodka and Whiskey are more interesting. The sheer variety of these things around the world, and that one of them is quite popular in one country but is a complete dud in another, is proof enough that there's nothing real there. One of the top selling Scotch Whiskeys  in Uruguay is almost unknown in bordering Argentina and Brazil! If you agree with me when I say that the Argentines and Uruguayans are very similar people genetically, this is probably a first mover-brand type advantage only.

Smirnoff vodka is acceptable in USA and Russia, but in Chile it is called cheap vodka. The high end vodkas are Absolut and Sky.

These are for pure spirits. Maybe there are some people who can distinguish between an Absolut and Smirnoff if they drink it without anything else, but once these spirits are mixed with fruit juices, or other mixers, you can be sure that all origin of these vodkas is completely lost in the taste or the orange juice or the Kahlua they have mixed it with! So next time you order a bloody mary or a gin-tonic, just ask them to put the cheapest vodka or gin in your drink, and you will be fine.

The vodka and spirit makes will tell you all about *quality* of making their product. There are some who believe that good quality vodka won't give you a hangover-but bad quality vodka will. Unless you know about the processes and the detailed chemistry of how vodka interacts with your brain to give you that headache the next morning, there is  no truth to that. Cheap and expensive vodka have both equal probabilities (unknown probabilities) of giving you a hangover the next day. So might as well buy the cheaper one-you will save some money.

Teas and Coffees are the same stuff-most of the taste you enjoy is imaginary. There is no such thing as brazilian coffee beans or Ethiopian Coffee beans or Kenyan Coffee beans. The very wide variations in growing conditions in these countries, and the wide variation in processing these beans, will eliminate any real difference by the time you have it in your favorite latte in Starbucks. Note that you may still be able to distinguish between your brazilian latte and your ethiopian latte for some time in a particular starbucks, but they have not much to do with ethiopia or brazil. In the long run though, you will probably not be able to tell any difference between these two favorite coffees of yours.

If you buy the cheapest beer, the cheapest wine, and the cheapest spirits and teas and coffees, you will be ok.

I don't mean to say that packaging or presentation of the products is not important. But realize that when you buy leaf tea and like it more than powdered tea in a tea bag, it is not because of the taste-it may be because of marketing of tea leaves, of you liking the way the tea leaves open up in your kettle, etc. You are confusing the way it is served, the packaging, the vista, the smell, etc. with the actual taste.

Same with wine. If you open a 1960 wine and seem to enjoy it more than the 2010 wine, that's okay; but realize that you are just enjoying the pain and expense of storing the bottle for 50 years more than the actual wine. If I switch the bottles and the wines, you won't be able to tell the difference.  Note that you will need to do a switch of many wines and years to do this test statistically, otherwise from chance alone (50%) you will be able to distinguish them correctly.

Perfumes also belong in this category of largely imaginary pleasures. Perfumes and essences are mixes of good smelling floral/frutal extracts or their artificial counterparts, and when you buy Brand names there like Gucci, DKNY etc. you are paying for all the slick publicity and models these guys hire. You will pay US $50 for a perfume if it has a good label on it, but the same perfume in a noname brand will cost you $4. There are arguments like ph for perfumes, their quality, etc. which are mostly bogus. There is also no real distinction between male and female perfumes (yours truly uses female perfumes, they are cheaper and a there is a lot more variety!). Good quality brand name perfumes are sold as not bad for skin (the others apparently are) which is a phoney argument. But most of these things are quite the same as a $4 perfume-so you can go ahead and load up on cheap perfumes from grocery stores, pharmacies, etc. and don't spend so much money on brand name perfumes.

From a business standpoint, it is completely fine to sell these products with all the marketing etc (I have a tea business myself, see www.gourmetrosy.cl ) but all I am saying is that some pleasures are real, and some are imaginary (marketing, etc) and it is good to distinguish between the two, so you can save your money and buy real pleasures. Examples of real pleasures are flying in an airplane, a roller coaster ride, dinner in a good restaurant with excellent decor and service. These things take money and hard labor to produce, and the price of these is normally quite reasonable, for the amount of effort it takes to produce these experiences (an airplane, etc. or putting up a roller coaster ride, or establishing a nice restaurant are hard things to produce, unlike the products mentioned in the title of this post).

When you realize that a wine bottle and a tea or coffee are a whole lot of nothing which you are buying, the ceremonies of wine tasting and tea tasting look even more bizarre. You see some person who is swirling the wine in the glass a few minutes before tasting it..and telling the waiter it is an acceptable bottle for the occasion. Another lets the bottle aerate for 1 hour before drinking it. Still another wants to aerate it in a jar (aeration in wine bottle not good enough) for 3 hours before drinking it. The list of ridiculous ceremonies goes on and on when it comes to wine tasting, and it is then you realize how easy it is for us humans to fall for false logic, planted theories, religions, etc.

Sanjay

Dentists, Toothpastes and Consumer Goods Companies

Everytime I visit a Dentist he asks me if I want a Teeth Cleaning. I always deny it.
Teeth cleaning by a dentist can't be good for you. He tells us that it will remove bacteria, etc. in our mouth. What happens in 1 day, after I have eaten my lunch and dinner? Bacteria and microbes don't need much time to multiply and infest my mouth again? What about 7 days, when I have had 7 lunches and Dinners? I am back to square one in the bacteria/microbes in my mouth, my mouth's bacteria are the same as when I had not done the cleaning, plus I am down about US$50 or US$70 (typical cleaning costs in US, Canada and Chile), with no permanent advantage. In the cleaning, the dentists has taken away another layer or my teeth, a real loss.

The only reason to do teeth cleaning is for aesthetic purposes (teeth too yellow, black etc.) but never for good hygiene or good health of the Teeth. The teeth cleaning for bacteria doesn't have an effect for more than a few hours.

Which brings us to Colgate and Proctor and Gamble, the makers of toothpastes. These guys advertise about removal or bacteria, cavities, etc. by using their toothpaste for 5 minutes every morning. Or flourite use strengthening my teeth, or calcium enhanced toothpaste for making it last longer. Whatever.
The problem is, the next time i eat anything, all these wonderful effects of the toothpaste are gone. It is very hard for me to believe that a 5 minute treatment of my teeth with all these substances has any long term benefit. This is under the assumption that most toothpaste will be rinsed out with water after you are done; if  you were to hold the toothpaste in your mouth for 2 hours every day you will probably see some of the beneficial effects of these additives. Holding a toothpaste for 2 hours in your mouth has not been recommended by Colgate or P and G, to the best of my knowledge...

I do like using toothpaste, but that's for the instantaneous cleaning effects it offers, like a good shower with soap. But to make it sound like it's doing good for my teeth long term when it is enhanced by all these additives is blatant lying. The cleaning itself is good for me long term (every day I get rid of the food particles and bacteria, etc in my mouth) but a 5 minute treatment with Flourite, Calcium etc, is not going to help my teeth long term, is what I am saying.

The biggest proof that teeth cleaning like a dentist does or brushing your teeth is not a necessary thing to keep your teeth "healthy" comes from animals. So many mammals-elephants, tigers, cats, dogs, monkeys, etc etc. will last decades without any teeth cleaning from a dentist or without brushing their teeth-but will live just fine. Their teeth will keep providing the basic function of mastication without these procedures. If animals like these, whose jaws are very similar to humans, don't need any teeth cleaning or  brushing to live for decades-why would a human do?

This test of comparing medical procedures to how the procedures will work with closely related animals is one of the big ones to figure out if the medical procedure a doctor or dentist is doing on you is good science or bad science. If the science is real-the same procedures in larger mammals should be recommended and we should see the same benefits in them. Another test is global-the procedures should not very much from country to country. If they do-then it is most likely bad science. A heart surgery or diabetic treatment is same everywhere in the world, not so for teeth cleaning or antibiotic use or nutrition. Scientific medical procedures are robust and should not vary much depending on which country you live in.

Same goes for Shampoo. They add vitamins, eggs, almond oil, aloe vera...you can name anything under the sun and there's a shampoo out there in the world with that added to make strengthen your hair, make it look shinier, etc. The sheer variety of things which are good for my hair makes me be certain that they are mostly useless.

Shampoos will clean your hair, but just like what I mentioned for toothpaste, long term the additives in them will have no benefits for your hair. You can buy the shampoo for it's smell, texture, etc. but don't fall for all the smart looking marketing on the additives. The same argument holds for soaps benefiting your skin long term, etc.

In general, the more slick the marketing, the less likely that the science behind the product has any substance to it.
***
More on dentists, odontologists, etc.  I have a very low respect for this profession. 95% of the procedures they do are useless and many of these are actually harmful to you. They bring out their funky instruments, in the end to destroy your teeth and gums-and people are stupidly impressed by their technology. They are pseudo-medics.

Children and young adults should almost never have to go to a dentist. As I have shown you above-teeth cleaning is useful only until the next meal, so no need to go for "regular" teeth cleaning. Infections can be taken out by antibiotics. Pain relief sometimes may be necessary-can be local pain relief of standard pain killers like ibuprofen and paracetamol. Anyone who is having root canals and crowns done if they are a child or a young adult has been duped by these professionals and their half-baked knowledge. "Preventive" wisdom tooth removal should be completely avoided. Let the tooth come out and then see what happens-if it hurts too much have the dentist take it out.

For older people, let's say people beyond 50 years of age, dentist visits becomes necessary. Why? Aging causes teeth to become loose. These teeth need to be taken out, they are useless for the basic function which teeth provide-mastication of food. A tooth which is very loose becomes a nuisance-and it is only then you need to take it out. It will come out by itself if you masticate on something hard-but to prevent this unpleasant experience, you might as well go to a dentist and get ONLY THE LOOSE TOOTH taken out. The same thing is for wisdom teeth.

Root canal procedures should be the last resort for infections which cannot be taken out by antibiotics and where it is clear evidence (from an image) that the infection is very deep rooted, or there is an abscess in the pulp. Root canal is a surgery-it should not be taken lightly. A cut finger which is infected is not removed-but it is shocking to find how many people get a root canal surgery because of some stupid dentist recommending it as necessary. Obviously there is money to be made for the dentist-and that's why the are recommending it. A run away infection in your mouth is as likely as a run away infection in your finger-i.e. both are very unlikely, and 99% of root canals are unnecessary. A big dosage of antibiotics will take care of large infections in the the mouth.

Wisdom teeth should be removed only when they come out and are causing a lot of pain. Otherwise, if they do come out painlessly, there is no need to remove them.

There are sometimes other teeth under the gums, etc. which have not come out-your dentist will try to tell you that they will cause problems later on and "preventive" surgery can be done to remove them. Ignore him. When the problem happens (and many times these teeth will never come out at all in your lifetime) go to him and get them removed, and only the one which is coming out and causing you pain.

Absolutely avoid dental checkups which they recommend you do regularly. They are useless. Just like a car mechanic, who is bound to do "preventative" maintenance on a car every time you take your car to him, dentists are designed to see problems. But a car mechanics knowledge of cars is 100 times better than a dentist's knowledge of your teeth and mouth, and that's where the problem is.

More on dentists and antibiotic use here in this post (all cavities and caries are curable by Antibiotics).

More on consumer goods...

Post on 'The myth of alternative medicine'

Sanjay

Posts

I keep updating  and editing the previous posts-in that sense the Date of the blog post really doesn't mean much. In the future I might just remove the date altogether, to make this blog look more like a book (the blog posts are really chapters of my ebook).

Sanjay