I am analyzing some important facts in this clause. More or less the world politics. Is it bad, good, hate or mutual solution? Since I desire to argue my theory. How can I defend my realistic approach? My contention here is similar to the statement above. It will only hold if serious negotiations are taken in commission. To address the world issues and resolutions are found for everyone. It will definitely be a win-win situation. This is the principal reason I like to build up my own hypothesis. As well, my principle to advocate my own politics.
As we experience the whole world have been victimized by poverty and lack of true leadership. I can merely think how the economy and stability can be ensured. If that situation is going forward. The waves of poverty must be constituted. If we require to build financial economics. The world needs unshakable economic stability, and political security. Benefits of politics must endure to the masses. Passive resistance and economic power can't be laid off if it's great and persistent enough. My priority is a different mode of resolving the issues. I consider politics is must be equity and justice for everyone. Particularly for those most in need. In good order now it's everywhere I want to be. The issues disputed may differ, but the common theme is economic policy, poverty is lacking and must be rectified.
I am begging to rethink that at present. I guess some countries don't care and flaunt law and that's why there's a world trouble. But I anticipate only one solution to solving major problems around the world. I can see politics must do fairness for the people. My query here, why still all kinds of rightist, leftist, reformist, economist have not effectively become part of the answer?. My article is also focusing here, politics must be part of the reaction. As I need the right laws and a system of government. It is true, the most of the government represents the deep and large business. And they ignore the needs of the citizenry, including ignorant for small countries. I am also analyzing here, politics vs. democracy and socialist economy. There's no grounds why they can't be one in the same. In a perfect world they would be readily usable. As I remember, democracy comes from the Greek and means rule by the people. Or in the West by the representatives the person's election. Democracy or socialism both is a political, governmental system. Even so, I want to compare them politically. Theory is an arrangement of the economic system. Even sadder, socialism in Nepal is unable to establish a radical alteration in their systems of production and distribution. Their systems failed to execute the desired economic progress.
I am speaking about both those big and small two countries on the globe. And then, I like to implement my thoughts, though different in certain ways. I have young ideas for blending colors. I represented what economics stand for. If the political policy successfully turned the situation for the better perspective, I imagine that is the system the world needed. The fact that central-planning transformation to those poor communities. And if politics can put their economies on the right path will be in itself a great achievement of politics. Even so, if I can develop such achievement. Trust me the political arrangement will keep the countries going and bring them the ultimate economic prosperity. If the politics will live to achieve efficiency, and fail to achieve fairness. Politics failure will run to its apparent end, also lead to its destruction.
Even so, a modern policy I am trying to develop will trained to think like a wealth of people's life. It will be a concept of the new democracy. It will get out of a wider working person.
My theory is invariably the same. I want politics must consist of the nations of economic prosperity. There are circumstances so offensive to the bet of some political ideology of a summary. In that respect are other so-called leaders who will like to compel these aggrieved politics to remain no matter what their grievances to satisfy their own stakes. If the aggrieved leaders are not allowed to run on, the result is war, desolation, poverty and disease.
The combination of political and economic prosperity is the ideal result. I can accept that a practical political thought will be modernized.
It can be determined that society can be made from alternate society. And which society can replaced by economic society? Of course, if this analysis has already been found, then I have relieved a lot of lives. However, there is another quite different issue. There are significant questions about whether this should be a good direction to be moving the society and the nation. Besides the education community is really effective for political awareness. Nevertheless, my intention is to fermented politics with all the people. That means grass-level people can also be perverted into the process. This process cuts down or does away with poverty. The order needs for breaking down the violence and poverty. I want our eco-social life has to grow steadily.