Where Liberalism and Libertarianism Intersect

Posted by Ahmad Baeg Chughtai on December 5, 2011
Posted in: Social. Tagged: , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment

In order to evolve to a liberal, you have to become a libertarian first. From my point of view, being a liberal means admitting that one owes a moral duty to improve society. That is why I believe it is my personal responsibility to serve society through social work – I have proudly served my community as an AmeriCorps member, as a special education teacher for the emotionally disturbed and hope to become a public interest lawyer one day soon. But I had to become a libertarian first, to make these choices.

That is, becoming a libertarian requires one to throw off the shackles of their upbringing, undergo a kind of philosophical enlightenment in which one rationally critiques their values, their role in society, their world view and hopefully end up with a philosophically grounded sense of self. Liberalism on the other hand, is about using your will to do the right thing. But what is the right thing to do?

As Immanuel Kant put it1 , the only thing that is “good” without qualification is a good will. Only those actions that are the exclusive product of a good will are moral actions. This is where libertarianism and liberalism intersect; actions taken under duress, through coercion, or those based on selfish interest cannot qualify as moral actions. Therefore the idea of a moral duty to improve society cannot be imposed, but has to come from within – as a product of the libertarian self-critique. Libertarianism then, is the process through which we shed our philosophical stagnation, realize that we are bound by rules only in so far as society collectively agrees to be bound.

Yet liberalism does not automatically arise from liberty. That is, once one is “free”, one can decide what to do with that freedom. The Joker, in the Dark Knight2, was an example of a man free from all the rules of society because he chose not to be bound. He chose to use his freedom to wreak havoc on society. He chose chaos. Guy Fawkes3 is another pop cultural example – the maximum libertarian. Together, these two embody the extremes of anarchy and liberty – with little to tell them apart.

However, the intellectual state of liberty does not necessarily lead to chaos either. Liberty gives you unlimited choices and it is at this stage that one can choose to be moral instead of amoral or immoral. That is, one can use their good will to choose to do moral actions. We do not all have to become Ron Pauls or other jokers -  we can choose to give ourselves a personal moral duty. That is Kant’s good will in its purest form. In other words, freedom doesn’t give rise to a liberal outlook on life, but it allows you to will it in to existence.

But it seems to me that the choice to impose a moral duty on oneself is almost purposefully left out of our modern American narrative. For example, libertarians such as Ron Paul and his clone son Rand Paul want to take us only to the intellectual state of liberty and leave us there. They do not explain the choices we have after that, or which values to guide us in making a moral choice and they especially avoid talking about the need to choose to do the right thing.

This is why large corporations like Koch Industries4 simply adore modern American libertarianism – if the public is left in a moral limbo,then  their company can pollute the environment while achieving greater insulation from a moral (and legal) backlash from the people.

Moreover, modern libertarianism is not merely amoral – it actually advocates vice. Ayn Rand did argue, after all, that selfishness is a virtue5. Milton Friedman spun that6 to make it palatable to our conscience by stating that exclusively promoting one’s self-interest was better for society. But a brief look at the past few decades shows the contrary; disparity between the poor, middle and upper classes has only grown. Maybe he meant “better for upper society”.

The point though, is that our world does not need to have such disparity. The first step is to view extreme disparity as a problem and then to make a personal promise to oneself to fix that. Charity has a connotation of volunteerism – but it is voluntary only in so far as no one forces it upon you. But making the choice to give charity or to do social work is a moral duty. So, as the holiday season approaches, take it upon yourself to count your blessings as compared to those who are not as fortunate… and let empathy be your guide, not selfishness.

1. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#GooWilMorWorDut
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Knight_%28film%29
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes
4. http://projects.publicintegrity.org/oil/report.aspx?aid=347
5. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_nonfiction_the_virtue_of_selfishness
6. http://libertarianquotes.net/F/Milton-Friedman.html

The nexus between conspiracy theories in Pakistan, U.S. foreign policy and human psychology

Posted by Ahmad Baeg Chughtai on May 23, 2011
Posted in: Social. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment

Pakistani Glenn Beck, Zaid Hamid, made a passionate appeal in a TV interview that he is not a conspiracy theorist. I highly recommend watching it – he uses the narrative of multiple political movements across the world, expertly weaving them into a mosaic that he asserts is evidence of a super-conspiracy against the Islāmic Republic of Pakistan.

So he says that these are not conspiracy theories, but facts. And he’s probably very persuasive to a lot Pakistanis. In fact, he may even convince Noam Chomsky some domestic critics of U.S. foreign policy. Tongue-in-cheek jabs notwithstanding, how is one to differentiate between legitimate criticism of our policy, such as Chomsky’s, from falsehoods uttered to further a political cause? Or more importantly, why are people like Zaid Hamid and Glenn Beck so easily able to capture the hearts and minds of the masses?

For that, we need to understand our own psychology. Here’s a quick run down; the fundamental goal of our biology is to pass on our genes, which in turn entails survival and reproduction. In order to meet those goals, evolution produced our brain, which generates theories that “explain” sensory data. This allows us to exert control over the external world, or at the very least, gives us the illusion of control1.

Example; If I wait for a few more hours, the rain will stop and I can go out for a walk. By having this belief I can plan on how to spend my time and hence contribute to my general survival. But to have that belief, my brain needs to “see” a predictable pattern in how the world works. On the other hand, the ability, function or process that allows us to see these patterns, is also responsible for when we see them in clouds – our mind processes the random features of the cloud and interprets it as a familiar image. Similarly on a conscious level, the mind interprets random or unconnected events in the world as causally related, thus creating a conspiracy theory2.

This means that the patterns, or theories that our mind produces can help or hinder us. Eg; theory of gravity or the theory of a lucky rabbit’s foot. In other words, developing theories by “connecting the dots” is not necessarily bad for us. The problem lies in our inability to differentiate useful theories from poor ones – which we can mitigate by keeping an eye on the line that divides them; empirical verification. For example, science tests its hypotheses by making predictions and then testing these predictions through empirical observation. If an inconsistency is found, then the hypotheses are revised, modified or news one are made and again tested. Therefore scientific theories are vulnerable to rational objection, or, they are rationally constructed.

In contrast, conspiracy theories reject or dismiss data inconsistent with either their premise and/or with their prediction. That is, conspiracy theories are generally resilient despite facing contradictory information. Since conspiracy theories are strongly resistant to such rational objection, one can say that they are the product of irrational factors, such as emotional or psychological issues. Eg., feeling that one is not in control of events around them.

A study conducted at the University of Texas and Northwestern University showed a positive correlation between the feeling that events were out of one’s control and belief in theories that causally connect unrelated events3. That is, people who felt that they had little or no meaningful control over events around them, were more likely to accept conspiracy theories and even superstitious beliefs4.

Specifically, in one experiment they had the “subjects recall an experience when they either lacked control or had control. Then they read scenarios describing potentially meaningful coincidences—in one, a man stomps his feet three times before a meeting and subsequently has his proposal approved. The people who recalled powerlessness saw stronger connections between behaviors and outcomes in the scenarios, and also said they were more likely to try similar stunts in the future.”5

In another experiment, the subjects were told two stories; “three local construction companies raise their prices after their owners all spend the same weekend at one bed and breakfast”. In the other, “the protagonist was denied a promotion right after his boss and a   exchanged a flurry of emails.” Subjects that had previously experienced a lack of control were more likely to believe conspiracies in both stories than the control group6.

However, belief that one is in control of events can also be powerfully beneficial; an anecdotal account mentions a party of troops that were lost in the Alps. When they found a map in their belongings, they felt rejuvenated and made it back to camp. It was later discovered that the map was of a different mountain range, which demonstrates that even errneously believing that you have some control does not mean failure is inevitable7. This is why even some rational people have irrational beliefs.

So, people are more likely to jump to irrational conclusions when they feel helpless. If we apply this rule to the Muslim world, we can see why conspiracy theories thrive; the people are not empowered to affect their political system. In fact, the Middle East has more autocracies than any other part of the world8. Pakistan, though a democracy in name, is asphyxiating under a hybrid of civilian-military rule, high crime, terrorism and extreme corruption9.

Hence the average Pakistani is likely to feel helpless and open to conspiracy theories. This allows charismatic personalities like Zaid Hamid to persuade otherwise rational and intelligent people of a fantastical global conspiracy against their nation, home, lifestyle and/or religion. Such conspiracies assign an out-group agency to their ills and suffering, creating a comfortable belief that the believers do have control over their environment, but-for the game of intrigue played by “those” countries.

Even Glenn Beck has not found similar success in the United States. For example, he has been unable to convince nearly 50% of the country on any issue, the way Pakistanis believe 9/11 was an “inside job”10. The difference is in the fact that a robust democratic system backed by a strong and independent judiciary empowers the people to effect political change, making them feel that they have some control over their lives and what happens around them11.

Which is why the Muslim world needs a prescription of democratic reform, not a foreign policy that supports autocracies or anti-democratic institutions such as the Pakistan military. Democracy will not eradicate all conspiratorial thinking, as evidenced by the fact that Glenn Beck has supporters, but perhaps the problem would be epidemic if the “believers” did not get to have their say in how things ought to be.

1  Matthew Hutson, Of Jock Straps and Conspiracy Theories.
2  id.
3  Tom Rees, What connects superstition, conspiracy theories, and seeing things that aren’t there?
4  id.
5  Matthew Hutson, Of Jock Straps and Conspiracy Theories.
6  id.
7  id.
8  Combined Average Ratings of Independent Countries by Freedom House.
9  Corruption Perception Index 2010 by Transparency International
10  World Public Opinion. Feb. 25, 2009. pp.  26
11  Whether that is also illusory is an important question to ask yourself.

Abbottabad, Pakonspirastan

Posted by Ahmad Baeg Chughtai on May 13, 2011
Posted in: Social. Tagged: , , , , , , . 1 comment

Osama Bin Laden chose a good place to die — a place where truth and history are constructed with imagination and passion nearly always defeats the facts. – The Fictions We Create  1 by Professor Rafia Zakaria

The professor is correct, but I would add that as a Pakistani-American, I’m familiar with conspiracy theories in both countries, and though their American counterparts are resilient, Pakistan’s outstrip them in pervasiveness. For example, I can tell you from my personal experience that belief in conspiracy theories is literally everywhere in the country’s social strata, including highly educated, urban circles. Official polls also indicate a widespread belief that Al Qaeda was not responsible for 9/11 across Pakistani society  2. Watch a video of average Pakistanis in denial:

And then there is Zaid Hamid, a self declared “security expert” who ridiculously describes himself as “a black belt second dan of ShZaid Hamid Pictureotokan martial art” and is willing to converse with you “in your choice of five languages that he speaks” 3. He has been described as Pakistan’s Glenn Beck 4,or more humorously as a Che Guevara-meets-Saladin 5. Take a look.

He has claimed that the Mumbai attacks on November 26th, 2008 were carried out by Indians themselves 6. But even more ludicrous is his claim that they were modeled after the American government’s self-perpetuated 9/11 attacks. Thank you Loose Change 7. There are a few YouTube clips where he uses Noam Chomsky’s editorials to rail against CIA’s “covert war” against Islam and Pakistan 8. (Be warned; they are not in English), thus creating an unnatural nexus of information-flow from the American Left to the Pakistani Right.

Unsurprisingly, bin Laden’s death is also denied in Pakistani right wing circles. For example, Deputy Editor of Dawn, Shyema Sajjad posted  “The Great Deceit” on their blog, which by the way, is Pakistan’s most widely read newspaper  9. Her denial was formulaic, in that she unwittingly followed Wired Magazine’s satirical script for creating conspiracy theories! First the script:

Are you kidding me? [ event ] was a total sham! Think about it! Everyone knows that [ appeal to precedent ]. And have you noticed that [ ruling elite ] has started to act very strangely? They obviously don’t want this story getting out. I mean, what would happen if people began asking [ disturbing question ]? Well, they may be able to fool the sheep, but the members of [ dedicated group of truth-seekers ] aren’t swallowing their story. Look, don’t take it from me; [ expert endorsement ] is convinced as well. But we have to act fast, because [ suggestion of imminent threat ]. I just wanted you to be aware of this, in case I disappear.

Compare it with this paragraph from her article (my edits in bold):

Did they for a second stop and ask for proof? No why would they, [ event ] Obama saved the day (and his votes) – that’s all that mattered. [ dedicated group of truth-seekers ] I wish us Pakistanis had that kind of blind trust on our leaders’ statements. [ appeal to precedent ] I mean think back to Hakimullah Mehsud – Interior Minister Rehman Malik killed him a couple of times and once even created his twin in Afghanistan… so I guess it’s only natural for us not to believe anything coming out of our [ ruling elite ] leadership (the fact that they didn’t say anything at all yesterday, is a different story). [ disturbing question ] But wait, why don’t think the Americans think Iraq for a second. WMD anyone? And even Afghanistan? A decade there and still the most wanted man was found in Pakistan’s backyard. Oops? Doesn’t the US public want to question anything? Or was “DNA confirms Osama dead” enough? He was the most wanted man in the world, responsible for the death of thousands! And what did the US forces do? Secretly kill him and dump him in the sea. [Are you kidding me?] Seriously? [ suggestion of imminent threat ] As Obama was promising brighter days ahead, no one seemed to be concerned with ‘what next’, because we all do know that this ‘war’ is far being over.

Ludicrous writers like her continue sharing their opinions and despite the embarrassing obliviousness to the pitfalls of their own thinking, are able to convert ordinary Pakistanis in to Pakonspirastanis, which further widens the gulf between Pakistan’s narrative and the world’s reality.

1    The Fictions We Create by Prof. Rafia Zakaria.
2    World Public Opinion. Feb. 25, 2009. pp.  26
3    http://www.brasstacks.ca/?page_id=1134
4    Educated and radical: Why Pakistan produces Faisal Shahzads by Issam Ahmed.
5    Glory, Piety and Politics by Nadeem F. Paracha
6    http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-12-02/india/27897147_1_killings-pak-tv-hain
7    Loose Change 911
8    https://pakistanrevolution.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/iqbal-ka-pakistan-zaid-hamid-and-ali-azmat-part-11-must-watch/
9    The Great Deceit by Shyema Sajjad

Rethinking our Economic narrative

Posted by Ali Z on May 11, 2011
Posted in: Economics, Social. Leave a Comment

“How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his

nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary

to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it.” – Adam Smith.

Throughout human history, economics has developed as an academic and practical subject that quantifies abstract concepts such as the quality of life and living standard. The original intent has always been directly related to the question “how well are we living today?”. Over the course of academic and social evolution, the theory of economics has become too far displaced from this central premise. Its extreme focus on quantitative analysis has made us lose track of its purpose and has infected our narrative of the human condition.

In other words, a financial/business focus has hijacked the way we think and talk about government policies, proposals and initiatives. Instead of considering economic proposals and initiatives on the basis of their social impact, our default measure for evaluation has become their market impact. Our politicians, our regulators who are the guardians of our society have been captured by the influence and power wielded by big business and its proponents. This threatens not only our social progress but also our democratic system.

What is needed is not radical utopian re-thinking. Solutions based on such ideologies structured to an ideal world have been conceived, tested and failed. We have witnessed the effects of decisions made based on ideologies that call for either maximum individual freedom or maximum state control. Let us make our decisions on a per initiative basis, recognizing that the way forward is a complex balancing act between these two extreme poles.

Public policy decisions need to be framed in terms of their social impact rather than simple economic calculus.

  • We need to ask what it is that we find so abhorrent about the majority of wealth and power being in the hands of a select few, even if this might be an economically optimal outcome.
  • We need to address economic concerns with a narrative that captures the subtleties and nuances of our lives.
  • We need to appeal to people’s sense of equality, fairness and justice when making the case to preserve social services and support systems even if they might not be economically efficient.

According to Amartya Sen, even Adam Smith “was deeply concerned about poverty, illiteracy and deprivation which might remain despite a very well functioning market economy. He was a defender of the role of the State in doing things that the market failed to do such as universal education and poverty relief.”

In fact, Sen neatly sums up what we need to change about our economic narrative; “we don’t want to kill the market economy but simply recognize the role of the State in ensuring its success. Let us recognize that the standard of living has increased not only because of GDP growth but also because of universal healthcare and public education. The role of market economy does not contradict the role of the State.”

Market Capture: The Fixation with GDP

Posted by Ali Z on June 23, 2010
Posted in: Economics, Market Capture, Social. Tagged: , , , , , . Leave a Comment

There is perhaps no other metric which captures our collective attention as much as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)[1]. It is also perhaps the most important, widely misunderstood statistic of our time. It’s importance stems from the prominence given to it as a measure of economic and social progress by politicians, economists, businessmen and journalists. Yet it only gives us part of the whole picture. Any public policy devised on the assumption that maximizing GDP is always good for society will ignore the trade offs implicit in its maximization. As a result, social goals and the environment are frequently sacrificed at the altar of growth without fully accounting for the value of these non-market elements.

GDP measures the market value of goods and services produced within the borders of a country in one year. In the language of economics, GDP growth is used as a proxy for the change in the standards of living with the assumption that higher GDP growth is always correlated with social progress.  GDP was never designed to be the measure of, or to correlate with standards of living or social progress. It was always meant to be a measurement tool for a limited set of economic activity.  As Dr. Simon Kuznets, one of the principal developers of the US National Account Systems and the GDP said in an address to the US congress in 1934[2]:

“Economic welfare cannot be adequately measured unless the personal distribution is known. And no income measurement undertakes to measure the reverse side of income, that is, the intensity and unpleasantness of effort going into the earning of income.  The welfare of a nation can, therefore, scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income.”

GDP and the NAS exclude fairly basic elements of our economic system that exist outside the realm of markets: our social system and our ecosystem. A study conducted by Constanza d’Arge et al. in 1997[3] found that the world’s ecosystem and natural capital provides a value of between US$16-54 trillion per year, with an average of US$33 trillion per year, a figure significantly larger than the total global GDP of US$18 trillion at the time. The elements the GDP does not capture,are  therefore neither trivial or immaterial but are a fundamental part of  our economic system. This is why the level and ubiquity of disregard for these elements in our economic and public policy decision making is so shocking.

Standard Economics assumes that economic growth, defined as growth in GDP or GDP per capita,  is a suitable proxy for improvement in human welfare. Therefore in order to improve human welfare we must maximize GDP growth. This assumption has two serious flaws: 1) That economic growth always leads to improved human welfare and 2) That GDP growth is a completely suitable proxy for economic growth.

The idea that economic growth leads to more happiness, a key component of human welfare,  was challenged by economist Richard Easterlin in his seminal paper in 1974 titled “Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot? Some Empirical Evidence.” Easterlin found that while within a country higher individual income is correlated with higher reported happiness, and countries with higher GDP are happier than countries with lower GDP, higher reported happiness does not rise with higher income over time after the basic needs of individuals are met. This is known as the “Easterlin Paradox”. Later he expanded his research to 17 developed countries covering a period of 20 years and again found no significant relationship between the rate of growth in GDP per capita and the rate of improvement in reported happiness.[4] Easterlins paper has been followed by a significant body of research over the 30-plus since it was published. Other researchers have suggested that after a certain threshold of income, fulfilling the basic needs of the individual, an increase in happiness due to increased income is offset by other factors decrease happiness such as less leisure time, environmental degradation and the effects/cognizance of growing inequality. The Easterlin paradox and similar research has been the subject of considerable criticism. Research by Wolfers and Stevenson (2008) suggests that a relationship between happiness and income does exist. The relationship though is non-linear and diminishes as income increases but never reaches a saturation point. Relying on survey data about happiness is distorted by the framing effect i.e. how the questions are posed. Another criticism is that happiness measures by their design do not account for measures that highlight the mitigation or postponement of events of extreme unhappiness or tragedy such as increased life expectancy or a decreased suicide rate.  Whatever the merits of these criticisms, the undeniable fact is that the assumption that economic growth leads to more happiness is a controversial premise. The majority of academic research has found no relationship, or at best, a weak relationship between economic growth and happiness after accounting for the basic needs of individuals. Yet, the assumption that economic growth always leads to improved human welfare is rarely questioned in mainstream financial/economic journalism or conventional economics.

Economist Herman Daly explains the problem with conflating economic growth with GDP growth, “The term ‘economic growth’ has two distinct meanings. Sometimes it refers to the growth of that thing we call the economy (the physical subsystem of our world made up of the stocks of population and wealth; and the flows of production and consumption). When the economy gets physically bigger we call that ‘economic growth’. This is normal English usage. But the term has a second, very different meaning – if the growth of something or some activity causes benefits to increase faster than costs, we also call that ‘economic growth’ – that is to say, growth that is economic in the sense that it yields a net benefit or a profit. That too is accepted English usage. Now, does ‘economic growth’ in the first sense imply ‘economic growth’ in the second sense? No, absolutely not! Economic growth in the first sense (an economy that gets physically bigger) is logically quite consistent with uneconomic growth in the second sense, namely growth that increases costs faster than benefits, thereby making us poorer. Nevertheless, we assume that a bigger economy must always make us richer. This is pure confusion.”

If we use the GDP for its usually assumed function in popular discourse as a measure of economic progress and the health of the economy, it has several important limitations:

  • Non-Market transactions, goods and services are predictably excluded from the GDP. This includes volunteer/unpaid work such as open source software or work done by women in households across the globe and the underground economy. Certain non-market government produced goods or services in areas such as defense, healthcare, and education are generally imputed and added to the GDP metric.
  • GDP does not capture income inequality. This is a limitation of its use in assessing the health of an economy.
  • Externalities are not reflected in the GDP. Externalities are costs which are incurred during the production/consumption of a good that are not reflected in the price of that good .The effect or costs of externalities are borne neither by the producer or consumer but by a third party or the overall society. Pollution, not accounted for in the price of a product, is an example of an externality.
  • GDP does not account for subsistence production. Now in developed economies this may be a non-issue but in developing economies such as India this is very important. For example India has a population of above 85 million[5] tribal people known as the Adivasi. A considerable number of them are situated in areas of the country which are heavily forested, contain rivers and are rich in minerals. Now while mining from these areas or inundating huge swathes of land to construct dams will show up as GDP growth the fact that these people have been displaced, unable to properly subsists for themselves and have not been adequately compensated will not be captured by the GDP metric.

The single-minded pursuit of economic growth without fully understanding what ‘economic growth’ is has skewed political objectives to a point where decisions are being made based on faulty premises. The idea isn’t that GDP isn’t an important statistic (if interpreted correctly) but that solely focusing on growth and increasing productivity without accounting for the social and environmental effects of doing so can, and does, lead to a situations where higher GDP growth causes social regression.  We need to become aware of, and use, a much broader set of measures to assess the health of our economic system which account for the social and environmental impacts of economic and public policy decision making. This should be done  while keeping in mind the limitations of the measures used. Some of the measures that are used for non market factors, such as happiness, may be subjective or somewhat imprecise but the factors they aim to track are far too important to be left unaccounted for.

The ascension in the importance of the GDP is an indicator of how far we as a society and our politicians have been captured by the market. The fixation on GDP for the business community is understandable, the bigger the economy, the greater the profits. There are studies that show a statistically significant relationship between stock returns and GDP growth rate. The level of fixation on it in public policy or by our society, however, is not understandable. Greater GDP growth does not necessarily mean improved well-being, happiness, the achievement of our social goals or even economic growth. It is imperative that this distinction is understood in popular discourse. Only then will the majority be more willing to not abdicate the responsibility for the attainment of important social goals to the invisible hand.

Notes:

[1] GDP and its predecessor GNP will be used interchangeably in this article. GDP measures the market value of goods produced within the borders of the country while GNP measures the market value of goods produced by the citizens or enterprises owned by the citizens of the country wherever they may be produced.

[2] Simon Kuznets, 1934, “National Income, 1929-1932, pg 6-7″. Available: http://library.bea.gov/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/SOD&CISOPTR=888

[3] Constanza, d’Arge et al. 1997, “The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital “Available: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v387/n6630/abs/387253a0.html

[4] Vox EU: “Happiness and the Easterlin Paradox” http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3439

[5] Ministry of Tribal Affairs Govt of India (2010), “ Annual Report  2009-10 . Pg 22”. Available: http://tribal.gov.in/writereaddata/mainlinkFile/File1220.pdf