One of the ways of looking at Indian history is as a struggle between the forces of corruption and the forces of cleanliness. The cleanliness of original religion in India was overtaken by the corruption of the priesthood, against which various people tried to rebel, but the Buddha and Mahavira eventually led a successful revolt. However, Buddhism and Jainism themselves developed not only priesthoods (completely against the spirit of the original teachings of the Buddha and of Mahavira) but even corrupt priesthoods, against which people rebelled, turning to the good news of Jesus the Lord in the first century AD. However, our elites responded to the combined challenge posed by the followers of the Buddha, Mahavir and Jesus, by turning against them all, abandoning the original and even the late religion described in the Vedas, and inventing idolatry, caste and all the other institutions included in the so-called "way of life" that went by the name of Hindu practices till, initially Islam, and later but much more significantly Protestant influence began to reform them from the eighteenth century. That is what has resulted in what is called by the Western label of "Hinduism" today - a label, by the way, that was accepted by us Indians only in the nineteenth century.
The resultant fate of India is that we have had religious systems that are themselves corrupt - much as, in the West, the church became corrupt , till it began to be cleaned up by the Protesters, resulting in the split between those who refused to be reformed (Roman Catholics), those who accepted a partial reformation (the mainstream reformation, such as the Lutherans and Presbyterians), and those who wanted to go for a thorough-going cleaning up (such as the Waldensians, Hussites, Amish, Quakers, Mennonites, Baptists, Charismatists or Pentecostals, and so on).
When religion is itself clean, it can be a force to help clean up society, however marginal religion may be in that society. But when religion itself is corrupt, a society has precious few resources with which to combat corruption. In India, we are reliant mainly on modernism and market forces to help clean up the corruption in the country.
The forces of modernism have followed Protestantism in trying to create new institutions, such as Public Interest Litigation and the Right to Information Act to help citizens challenge corruption. These are being used, with varying degrees of effectiveness.
Now the Anti-Corruption Bureau has added one more means of fighting corruption. Citizens are requested to inform the ACB if they know of any Government Officer (however senior or high-ranking) who has spent a large amount on foreign holidays, expensive education, jewellery, vehicles, or properties. It does not matter if the expense was incurred in their own name or in that of their family members. The information can be sent anonymously. This is the simplest and easiest way to curb corruption. The information needed is very brief as explained in http://www.acbmaharashtra.org/complaints_assests.asp
We can be religious or
Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Nanomaterials are unhealthy for humans, healthy for bacteria!
It is interesting to see that some of the latest research shows the interesting and contradictory fact that nano-materials are wonderful for bacteria but unhealthy for humans: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/03/26/tech-nanotubes.html
Why should nanomaterials be healthy for one life form but unhealthy for us? At present, this is unknown.
Evolutionists will be pleased to hear that bacteria will eventually evolve sufficiently to find out, and will then spread nanomaterials around so as to eliminate humans and take over the planet :) Sphere: Related Content
Why should nanomaterials be healthy for one life form but unhealthy for us? At present, this is unknown.
Evolutionists will be pleased to hear that bacteria will eventually evolve sufficiently to find out, and will then spread nanomaterials around so as to eliminate humans and take over the planet :) Sphere: Related Content
Monday, April 09, 2007
Jeff Sachs, poverty, philanthropy and culture change
For any of my readers who don't recollect this, Dr. Jeffrey Sachs is special adviser to the United Nations secretary-general.
He made an interesting series of statements to Financial Times (see the article titled "Philanthropy ‘can eclipse G8’ on poverty" by Leyla Boulton and James Lamont, published on April 8 2007, which you can reach by clicking on http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f498bf48-e5f2-11db-9fcf-000b5df10621.html).
Among other things, Sachs believes that wealthy philanthropists have the potential to do more than the Group of Eight leading nations (G8) to lift Africa out of poverty!
It is of course true that Dr Sachs was attempting to keep his chin up in view of flagging governmental initiatives in relation to the Millennium Development Goals: the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reported last week that aid from rich countries to Africa remained static last year even though G8 leaders promised in 2005 to spend $50bn more each year to 2010 on aid, with half the rise going to sub-Saharan Africa.
So Dr Sachs hopes that the financial clout of the likes of Microsoft’s Bill Gates and international investor Warren Buffett, who have pledged billions of dollars to global health and education, could help matters.
Well, how does one respond to Mr Sachs proposal that even people who are less wealthy should contribute to a new private sector foundation that could help speed the elimination of diseases and tackle specific challenges? “There are 950 billionaires whose wealth is estimated at $3.5 trillion [$3,500bn]. An annual 5 per cent ‘foundation’ payout would be $175bn per year – that would do it. Then we don’t need the G8 but 950 people on the Forbes list,” said Mr Sachs. “Maybe private philanthropists will champion solutions to individual problems rather than the G8,” he said.
This is a wonderful hope, but we know from experience and from history that the rich, with a few exceptions such as Buffett and Gates, generally contribute far less than ordinary people as a proportion of their income (at least in the West, regarding which we have as usual plenty of facts and figures available). Most of these billionnaires are in the West, though an increasing number live in countries that are doing well at present, such as China and India.
So, if Sachs is serious about a 5% contribution from billionaires, the easiest will be for the UN to charge a 5% "Billionnaire's tax". That will not only get the money in pretty quickly and efficiently, but also make Sachs and Ban top favourites with billionnaires! I am being ironic, of course.
No, contrary to what Dr Sachs claims, the fact is that even if all the billionnaires gave away 100% of their money, that still would not solve the problem. The total wealth of this group, $3.5 trillion, is less than what is flashed around the world in one day by the world's financial trading systems, so each day the world's financial system increases the divide between the rich and the poor because of the was it functions.
A change in the global system is therefore the first essential to reducing global poverty. Such changes include reforms in the stock exchange system, the creation of a dual-share system for corporations, moving to complementary currencies, and so on.
In Africa itself, the problem is not one of lack of money or resources. The problem with Africa is African culture which is built on tribalism, and which in practice has few moral constraints in relation to matters of sex, violence or money.
The result is widespread corruption and abuse of power. So, no matter how much money flows into the continent, most of it ends up in the private pockets of the elite and the powerful.
Rather than more aid, whether from philanthropists or from government, what is needed is efforts to change African culture, at least at the points of attitudes to and arrangements in relation to sex, violence and money.
Money and violence, yes, I hear you say; but why sex?
Because one of Africa's biggest economic issues is the impact of AIDS - which has spread in Africa principally though not exclusively because of the sexual mores of Africa.
If Africans would only reform themselves in relation to tribalism, violence and corruption, then this resource-rich continent could show other parts of the world the way to live, rather than being one of the poorest parts of the world, from times immemorial to the present.
That is the sad truth of the matter. Sphere: Related Content
He made an interesting series of statements to Financial Times (see the article titled "Philanthropy ‘can eclipse G8’ on poverty" by Leyla Boulton and James Lamont, published on April 8 2007, which you can reach by clicking on http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f498bf48-e5f2-11db-9fcf-000b5df10621.html).
Among other things, Sachs believes that wealthy philanthropists have the potential to do more than the Group of Eight leading nations (G8) to lift Africa out of poverty!
It is of course true that Dr Sachs was attempting to keep his chin up in view of flagging governmental initiatives in relation to the Millennium Development Goals: the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reported last week that aid from rich countries to Africa remained static last year even though G8 leaders promised in 2005 to spend $50bn more each year to 2010 on aid, with half the rise going to sub-Saharan Africa.
So Dr Sachs hopes that the financial clout of the likes of Microsoft’s Bill Gates and international investor Warren Buffett, who have pledged billions of dollars to global health and education, could help matters.
Well, how does one respond to Mr Sachs proposal that even people who are less wealthy should contribute to a new private sector foundation that could help speed the elimination of diseases and tackle specific challenges? “There are 950 billionaires whose wealth is estimated at $3.5 trillion [$3,500bn]. An annual 5 per cent ‘foundation’ payout would be $175bn per year – that would do it. Then we don’t need the G8 but 950 people on the Forbes list,” said Mr Sachs. “Maybe private philanthropists will champion solutions to individual problems rather than the G8,” he said.
This is a wonderful hope, but we know from experience and from history that the rich, with a few exceptions such as Buffett and Gates, generally contribute far less than ordinary people as a proportion of their income (at least in the West, regarding which we have as usual plenty of facts and figures available). Most of these billionnaires are in the West, though an increasing number live in countries that are doing well at present, such as China and India.
So, if Sachs is serious about a 5% contribution from billionaires, the easiest will be for the UN to charge a 5% "Billionnaire's tax". That will not only get the money in pretty quickly and efficiently, but also make Sachs and Ban top favourites with billionnaires! I am being ironic, of course.
No, contrary to what Dr Sachs claims, the fact is that even if all the billionnaires gave away 100% of their money, that still would not solve the problem. The total wealth of this group, $3.5 trillion, is less than what is flashed around the world in one day by the world's financial trading systems, so each day the world's financial system increases the divide between the rich and the poor because of the was it functions.
A change in the global system is therefore the first essential to reducing global poverty. Such changes include reforms in the stock exchange system, the creation of a dual-share system for corporations, moving to complementary currencies, and so on.
In Africa itself, the problem is not one of lack of money or resources. The problem with Africa is African culture which is built on tribalism, and which in practice has few moral constraints in relation to matters of sex, violence or money.
The result is widespread corruption and abuse of power. So, no matter how much money flows into the continent, most of it ends up in the private pockets of the elite and the powerful.
Rather than more aid, whether from philanthropists or from government, what is needed is efforts to change African culture, at least at the points of attitudes to and arrangements in relation to sex, violence and money.
Money and violence, yes, I hear you say; but why sex?
Because one of Africa's biggest economic issues is the impact of AIDS - which has spread in Africa principally though not exclusively because of the sexual mores of Africa.
If Africans would only reform themselves in relation to tribalism, violence and corruption, then this resource-rich continent could show other parts of the world the way to live, rather than being one of the poorest parts of the world, from times immemorial to the present.
That is the sad truth of the matter. Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Errors, human and technical
According to a top executive speaking at an event in the last few days, 90% of the problems encountered in relation to IT systems are due to human error - not system error or external attacks.
In other words, humans may be able to produce near-perfect machines and technological systems, but it all still comes down to the quality of the human interaction with these miraculous machines.
Reminds me of the days when, during the 1965 war between India and Pakistan, Indians on WWII planes outperformed Pakistanis on the latest aircraft supplied by the USA - mainly F-86 Sabre jets if I recollect aright.
Thankfully, belligerence between India and Pakistan has now gone, and that war was apparently due to "strategic miscalculations" by both sides.
"Strategic miscalculation" is of course itself a human error. Unfortunately, "strategic miscalculation" is not confined to military matters. Sphere: Related Content
In other words, humans may be able to produce near-perfect machines and technological systems, but it all still comes down to the quality of the human interaction with these miraculous machines.
Reminds me of the days when, during the 1965 war between India and Pakistan, Indians on WWII planes outperformed Pakistanis on the latest aircraft supplied by the USA - mainly F-86 Sabre jets if I recollect aright.
Thankfully, belligerence between India and Pakistan has now gone, and that war was apparently due to "strategic miscalculations" by both sides.
"Strategic miscalculation" is of course itself a human error. Unfortunately, "strategic miscalculation" is not confined to military matters. Sphere: Related Content
Monday, March 12, 2007
Should the "burden" of Sarbanes-Oxley be eased for non-U.S. companies?
The blog I posted just a few minutes ago, responding to the report by Jeremy Grant in today's FT, according to which the US Chamber of Commerce (USCC) will today call for an end to quarterly earnings guidance from companies, makes one other proposal that is worth at least brief reflection.
This second proposal is that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) be allowed to ease the burden of Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) on foreign companies.
I have not read the actual call yet, since it has not yet been released by the USCC.
However, it seems to me a little strange if the USCC has really called for the "burden" of SOX to be eased for non-U.S. companies, but not for U.S. companies.
How does this contribute to a level playing field?
And how come the USCC wants a tougher regulatory regime for its own "home" members than it does for "foreign" companies?!
Something fishy here....
It may be worth recollecting that the rough hammer of SOX was introduced in the hot emotion of immediate response to Enron and other disasters. While it makes sense to re-think SOX in the cold light of day, that rethinking needs to be done in such a way as to produce:
(1) a regulatory that is light but effective (all the suggestions that I have seen at present are focused on being light, but rather less focused on being effective)
2) a level playing field for U.S. and non-U.S. companies.
When the USCC comes up with a sensible suggestion that meets these two criteria, I will be happy to support that. Sphere: Related Content
This second proposal is that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) be allowed to ease the burden of Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) on foreign companies.
I have not read the actual call yet, since it has not yet been released by the USCC.
However, it seems to me a little strange if the USCC has really called for the "burden" of SOX to be eased for non-U.S. companies, but not for U.S. companies.
How does this contribute to a level playing field?
And how come the USCC wants a tougher regulatory regime for its own "home" members than it does for "foreign" companies?!
Something fishy here....
It may be worth recollecting that the rough hammer of SOX was introduced in the hot emotion of immediate response to Enron and other disasters. While it makes sense to re-think SOX in the cold light of day, that rethinking needs to be done in such a way as to produce:
(1) a regulatory that is light but effective (all the suggestions that I have seen at present are focused on being light, but rather less focused on being effective)
2) a level playing field for U.S. and non-U.S. companies.
When the USCC comes up with a sensible suggestion that meets these two criteria, I will be happy to support that. Sphere: Related Content
Ending Quarterly Earnings Guidance?
According to a report today in the FT by Jeremy Grant ("US reform sought to aid capital markets"), the US Chamber of Commerce will call today for an end to quarterly earnings guidance from companies.
This is eminently sensible on classical grounds as well as more modern ones.
The classical grounds are there is no logic to "quarterly" guidance since a "quarter of a year" relates to no natural period of time. "Annual guidance" makes sense because it does relate to a significant natural division of time.
So why not "monthly guidance? Or "daily guidance"? Well, anything less than annual guidance encourages short-termism in a marketplace that is already short-term enough.
The modern grounds are that most traders already have enough information, even on a moment-by-moment basis to adjust their investment behaviour (rightly or wrongly), so quarterly guidance merely adds effort and expense for hard-worked Chief Executives and Investment Relations teams, and produces little or no benefit for companies in terms of Return on the Investment made. In other words, if all companies were prohibited from producing anything other than annual guidance, then money, time and effor could be put into more productive activities instead.
What has taken the US Chamber of Commerce so long to wake up to these elementary matters?
. Sphere: Related Content
This is eminently sensible on classical grounds as well as more modern ones.
The classical grounds are there is no logic to "quarterly" guidance since a "quarter of a year" relates to no natural period of time. "Annual guidance" makes sense because it does relate to a significant natural division of time.
So why not "monthly guidance? Or "daily guidance"? Well, anything less than annual guidance encourages short-termism in a marketplace that is already short-term enough.
The modern grounds are that most traders already have enough information, even on a moment-by-moment basis to adjust their investment behaviour (rightly or wrongly), so quarterly guidance merely adds effort and expense for hard-worked Chief Executives and Investment Relations teams, and produces little or no benefit for companies in terms of Return on the Investment made. In other words, if all companies were prohibited from producing anything other than annual guidance, then money, time and effor could be put into more productive activities instead.
What has taken the US Chamber of Commerce so long to wake up to these elementary matters?
. Sphere: Related Content
Friday, February 09, 2007
When were "untouchables" first allowed to enter Hindu temples?
A little bit of research reveals that it was on 17 July 1928, under the inspiration of Mahatma Gandhi and at the initiative of an Indian businessman, Jamnalal Bajaj, that Acharya Vinoba Bhave led a group of "untouchables" (also called "Harijans" by Mahatma Gandhi, and "Dalits" by themselves) - some 21 years after the temple was instituted.
However, I cannot find out how many of the temples in India now allow actually allow Dalits ("untouchables") entry. Any help appreciated. Sphere: Related Content
However, I cannot find out how many of the temples in India now allow actually allow Dalits ("untouchables") entry. Any help appreciated. Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, January 27, 2007
On Separatism in Europe
My friend Professor Miguel Mesquita da Cunha sent me the following reflection and I have asked permission to publish it here, particularly as his thoughts have significance for India:
"Sir,
Europe is at heart a community of values. A scrupulous respect of the norms of behaviour whose observance ensures the preservation of liberty and human dignity is a sine qua non for any country within, or aspiring to join, the EU.
Threats or the use of force against people or their property in order to elicit silence or acquiescence is the gist of dictatorship, in fundamental contradiction with all that Europe stands for – not the EU only, but indeed Europe as a civilisation.
Yet, such is the ordinary behaviour of thugs posing as patriots in the Basque country & (with slightly lesser intensity) in Corsica. In these regions, the mere fact of opining against hard core nationalism entails a real risk of being assassinated.
There may be historic circumstances when the use of violence to repel tyranny is legitimate. But when, like in Spain or France, the state guarantees the fundamental freedoms of thought, expression, communication, meeting & indeed of vote, when governments can be elected or dismissed through the ballot box, & laws enacted or repelled by elected assemblies, then there can be no justification for the use of violence. None whatsoever.
It is hardly for outsiders to determine whether the Basques, or the Corsicans, nor any others, should maintain current political arrangements or should seek another path.
But every European country & citizen has the right - indeed the duty - to condemn & combat the egregious violations of human rights routinely perpetrated by ETA or its Corsican counterparts against any of their fellow citizens who do not submit to their ideological diktat.
Such a duty of interference – whose opposite would be a ‘sin of indifference’ – was the root of the EU’s attitude in the Balkans. Are the Basques any less European, or any less worthy of respect, than the Bosnians? Or the Corsicans than the Croats? How come then that most of Europe’s political leadership display such callous neglect of crimes committed not on our doorsteps, but rather very much in our midst? EU institutions as well as national political leaders ought to speak up unambiguously in support of Spain & France as they fight to uphold the rule of law.
Fascism is highly contagious. Europe may have to pay a high price tomorrow for letting it spread today.
Miguel Mesquita da Cunha" Sphere: Related Content
"Sir,
Europe is at heart a community of values. A scrupulous respect of the norms of behaviour whose observance ensures the preservation of liberty and human dignity is a sine qua non for any country within, or aspiring to join, the EU.
Threats or the use of force against people or their property in order to elicit silence or acquiescence is the gist of dictatorship, in fundamental contradiction with all that Europe stands for – not the EU only, but indeed Europe as a civilisation.
Yet, such is the ordinary behaviour of thugs posing as patriots in the Basque country & (with slightly lesser intensity) in Corsica. In these regions, the mere fact of opining against hard core nationalism entails a real risk of being assassinated.
There may be historic circumstances when the use of violence to repel tyranny is legitimate. But when, like in Spain or France, the state guarantees the fundamental freedoms of thought, expression, communication, meeting & indeed of vote, when governments can be elected or dismissed through the ballot box, & laws enacted or repelled by elected assemblies, then there can be no justification for the use of violence. None whatsoever.
It is hardly for outsiders to determine whether the Basques, or the Corsicans, nor any others, should maintain current political arrangements or should seek another path.
But every European country & citizen has the right - indeed the duty - to condemn & combat the egregious violations of human rights routinely perpetrated by ETA or its Corsican counterparts against any of their fellow citizens who do not submit to their ideological diktat.
Such a duty of interference – whose opposite would be a ‘sin of indifference’ – was the root of the EU’s attitude in the Balkans. Are the Basques any less European, or any less worthy of respect, than the Bosnians? Or the Corsicans than the Croats? How come then that most of Europe’s political leadership display such callous neglect of crimes committed not on our doorsteps, but rather very much in our midst? EU institutions as well as national political leaders ought to speak up unambiguously in support of Spain & France as they fight to uphold the rule of law.
Fascism is highly contagious. Europe may have to pay a high price tomorrow for letting it spread today.
Miguel Mesquita da Cunha" Sphere: Related Content
Sunday, January 21, 2007
some confusion about awards
I am confused by the following two news reports:
1. The government of U.P. has decided to felicitate Kishore Sharan Shastri, with an award titled “Sadbhavana Puraskaar”
2. The Uttar Pradesh government has decided to confer the Guru Govind Singh National Unity Award for 2006-2007 to Yugal Kishore Sharan Shastri.
Two very similar names (perhaps the same individual?) but two very different awards!
So:
(a) can anyone shed light on whether one or both of the reports are true?
(b) are any of the works of the(se) writer(s) available in English or in Hindi on the Internet? Sphere: Related Content
1. The government of U.P. has decided to felicitate Kishore Sharan Shastri, with an award titled “Sadbhavana Puraskaar”
2. The Uttar Pradesh government has decided to confer the Guru Govind Singh National Unity Award for 2006-2007 to Yugal Kishore Sharan Shastri.
Two very similar names (perhaps the same individual?) but two very different awards!
So:
(a) can anyone shed light on whether one or both of the reports are true?
(b) are any of the works of the(se) writer(s) available in English or in Hindi on the Internet? Sphere: Related Content
Friday, January 19, 2007
Will Barrack Obama reform America?
I've been reading quite a bit about Obama in the last few months.
The best piece I've read on whether Obama will succeed in genuinely reforming America is by James W. Skillen, the President of the Center for Public Justice in DC.
Skillen is an elegant and insightful writer - and he has the rare gift (for an American) of being self-critical. Here is a sample of his writing:
"Americans can more easily say what they don't want than what they want. And when they express their desires, it is usually in the contradictory language of asking government to elevate the nation and solve big problems but without raising taxes or burdening them with too much red tape."
For Skillen's full piece, titled "Obama for President?" and posted on January 19, 2007, go to:
http://www.cpjustice.org/capitalcom Sphere: Related Content
The best piece I've read on whether Obama will succeed in genuinely reforming America is by James W. Skillen, the President of the Center for Public Justice in DC.
Skillen is an elegant and insightful writer - and he has the rare gift (for an American) of being self-critical. Here is a sample of his writing:
"Americans can more easily say what they don't want than what they want. And when they express their desires, it is usually in the contradictory language of asking government to elevate the nation and solve big problems but without raising taxes or burdening them with too much red tape."
For Skillen's full piece, titled "Obama for President?" and posted on January 19, 2007, go to:
http://www.cpjustice.org/capitalcom Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Response to my "Speaking of Faith" broadcast
Among the hundreds of responses I've had to this broadcast, is the following substantial one from someone who only identifies her/himself as "Free Polazzo":
Hi,
I appreciated your presentation on "Speaking of Faith". It is important to raise the questions you did, even if we don't know what the answers are. After all, that's what makes it a fun topic.
You mentioned on the show and Christie recapped the fact that "fixed prices" were introduced by Jewish and Christian businesspeople. As a Jew I learned that we needed to treat other Jews fairly. As a Quaker I learned that we needed to treat other people fairly, no matter what (if any) faith/culture they belonged to.
I have learned that it was The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) who began the fixed price in the West as a way to practice our Testimony on Equality and our Testimony on Truth. They/we believe in one standard of truth in all cases, so that when you ask for a price you get the same price no matter who you are. Even a child could be sent to the store without fear that they would be ripped off. (I guess the practice does save time, too, like you said).
Quaker Entrepreneurial Activity
Early Quakers were mainly from the yeoman and artisan classes: there were very few from the landed gentry or labouring class. Many were traders and craftspeople. They were well educated and literate. Because of official persecution, they were prohibited from working in the government, attending the universities, and entering trades in a corporate city. A number had their tools, such as looms and agricultural equipment, deliberately broken. Many became traders. They usually sold goods for a fixed price, rather than bargaining, as was the custom, and developed a reputation for honesty. "Their produce was sound, their prices fair, their services honest, their word good and their agreements honourable" (Walvin p210).
See: http://www.casi.org.nz/quakersinbusiness.html
So, consumers found out that they could send their children to stores owned by Quakers and that they would be treated fairly. This helped Quakers to thrive and encouraged others to adopt their practice.
Thank you for working to bring to consciousness the issue of people working without considering the ethical issues of their actions. As an accountant, I can attest to the fact that much of the "profit" we measure does not ever consider the long term health of the society or even of those working for the company that is earning the profits.
There are Quakers who have organized to consider the questions you ask. For example:
http://www.quakerbusiness.org/resources.htm
Remember that what made the "West" successful was not what happened in the last 50 years, but what happened 300 years and more ago. We are just reaping what we sowed. Something that we will be doing in the future but without the same great results we know have.
A more recent analysis of why some countries did well for their populations and others have not, was done by a Quaker Historian/Economist, Jack Powelson. It is a wonderful treatise on the basic issue of our times. How to be "successful" and also "ethical", although that was not his stated goal in writing the book:
See his book on line at: http://tqe.quaker.org/wealth-and-poverty/
Enoyed your blog. Looking forward to more.
Regards,
Free Polazzo
Douglasville, GA, USA Sphere: Related Content
Hi,
I appreciated your presentation on "Speaking of Faith". It is important to raise the questions you did, even if we don't know what the answers are. After all, that's what makes it a fun topic.
You mentioned on the show and Christie recapped the fact that "fixed prices" were introduced by Jewish and Christian businesspeople. As a Jew I learned that we needed to treat other Jews fairly. As a Quaker I learned that we needed to treat other people fairly, no matter what (if any) faith/culture they belonged to.
I have learned that it was The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) who began the fixed price in the West as a way to practice our Testimony on Equality and our Testimony on Truth. They/we believe in one standard of truth in all cases, so that when you ask for a price you get the same price no matter who you are. Even a child could be sent to the store without fear that they would be ripped off. (I guess the practice does save time, too, like you said).
Quaker Entrepreneurial Activity
Early Quakers were mainly from the yeoman and artisan classes: there were very few from the landed gentry or labouring class. Many were traders and craftspeople. They were well educated and literate. Because of official persecution, they were prohibited from working in the government, attending the universities, and entering trades in a corporate city. A number had their tools, such as looms and agricultural equipment, deliberately broken. Many became traders. They usually sold goods for a fixed price, rather than bargaining, as was the custom, and developed a reputation for honesty. "Their produce was sound, their prices fair, their services honest, their word good and their agreements honourable" (Walvin p210).
See: http://www.casi.org.nz/quakersinbusiness.html
So, consumers found out that they could send their children to stores owned by Quakers and that they would be treated fairly. This helped Quakers to thrive and encouraged others to adopt their practice.
Thank you for working to bring to consciousness the issue of people working without considering the ethical issues of their actions. As an accountant, I can attest to the fact that much of the "profit" we measure does not ever consider the long term health of the society or even of those working for the company that is earning the profits.
There are Quakers who have organized to consider the questions you ask. For example:
http://www.quakerbusiness.org/resources.htm
Remember that what made the "West" successful was not what happened in the last 50 years, but what happened 300 years and more ago. We are just reaping what we sowed. Something that we will be doing in the future but without the same great results we know have.
A more recent analysis of why some countries did well for their populations and others have not, was done by a Quaker Historian/Economist, Jack Powelson. It is a wonderful treatise on the basic issue of our times. How to be "successful" and also "ethical", although that was not his stated goal in writing the book:
See his book on line at: http://tqe.quaker.org/wealth-and-poverty/
Enoyed your blog. Looking forward to more.
Regards,
Free Polazzo
Douglasville, GA, USA Sphere: Related Content
Response to my "Speaking of Faith" broadcast
Among the hundreds of responses I've had to this broadcast, is the following substantial one from someone who only identifies her/himself as "Free Polazzo":
Hi,
I appreciated your presentation on "Speaking of Faith". It is important to raise the questions you did, even if we don't know what the answers are. After all, that's what makes it a fun topic.
You mentioned on the show and Christie recapped the fact that "fixed prices" were introduced by Jewish and Christian businesspeople. As a Jew I learned that we needed to treat other Jews fairly. As a Quaker I learned that we needed to treat other people fairly, no matter what (if any) faith/culture they belonged to.
I have learned that it was The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) who began the fixed price in the West as a way to practice our Testimony on Equality and our Testimony on Truth. They/we believe in one standard of truth in all cases, so that when you ask for a price you get the same price no matter who you are. Even a child could be sent to the store without fear that they would be ripped off. (I guess the practice does save time, too, like you said).
Quaker Entrepreneurial Activity
Early Quakers were mainly from the yeoman and artisan classes: there were very few from the landed gentry or labouring class. Many were traders and craftspeople. They were well educated and literate. Because of official persecution, they were prohibited from working in the government, attending the universities, and entering trades in a corporate city. A number had their tools, such as looms and agricultural equipment, deliberately broken. Many became traders. They usually sold goods for a fixed price, rather than bargaining, as was the custom, and developed a reputation for honesty. "Their produce was sound, their prices fair, their services honest, their word good and their agreements honourable" (Walvin p210).
See: http://www.casi.org.nz/quakersinbusiness.html
So, consumers found out that they could send their children to stores owned by Quakers and that they would be treated fairly. This helped Quakers to thrive and encouraged others to adopt their practice.
Thank you for working to bring to consciousness the issue of people working without considering the ethical issues of their actions. As an accountant, I can attest to the fact that much of the "profit" we measure does not ever consider the long term health of the society or even of those working for the company that is earning the profits.
There are Quakers who have organized to consider the questions you ask. For example:
http://www.quakerbusiness.org/resources.htm
Remember that what made the "West" successful was not what happened in the last 50 years, but what happened 300 years and more ago. We are just reaping what we sowed. Something that we will be doing in the future but without the same great results we know have.
A more recent analysis of why some countries did well for their populations and others have not, was done by a Quaker Historian/Economist, Jack Powelson. It is a wonderful treatise on the basic issue of our times. How to be "successful" and also "ethical", although that was not his stated goal in writing the book:
See his book on line at: http://tqe.quaker.org/wealth-and-poverty/
Enoyed your blog. Looking forward to more.
Regards,
Free Polazzo
Douglasville, GA, USA Sphere: Related Content
Hi,
I appreciated your presentation on "Speaking of Faith". It is important to raise the questions you did, even if we don't know what the answers are. After all, that's what makes it a fun topic.
You mentioned on the show and Christie recapped the fact that "fixed prices" were introduced by Jewish and Christian businesspeople. As a Jew I learned that we needed to treat other Jews fairly. As a Quaker I learned that we needed to treat other people fairly, no matter what (if any) faith/culture they belonged to.
I have learned that it was The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) who began the fixed price in the West as a way to practice our Testimony on Equality and our Testimony on Truth. They/we believe in one standard of truth in all cases, so that when you ask for a price you get the same price no matter who you are. Even a child could be sent to the store without fear that they would be ripped off. (I guess the practice does save time, too, like you said).
Quaker Entrepreneurial Activity
Early Quakers were mainly from the yeoman and artisan classes: there were very few from the landed gentry or labouring class. Many were traders and craftspeople. They were well educated and literate. Because of official persecution, they were prohibited from working in the government, attending the universities, and entering trades in a corporate city. A number had their tools, such as looms and agricultural equipment, deliberately broken. Many became traders. They usually sold goods for a fixed price, rather than bargaining, as was the custom, and developed a reputation for honesty. "Their produce was sound, their prices fair, their services honest, their word good and their agreements honourable" (Walvin p210).
See: http://www.casi.org.nz/quakersinbusiness.html
So, consumers found out that they could send their children to stores owned by Quakers and that they would be treated fairly. This helped Quakers to thrive and encouraged others to adopt their practice.
Thank you for working to bring to consciousness the issue of people working without considering the ethical issues of their actions. As an accountant, I can attest to the fact that much of the "profit" we measure does not ever consider the long term health of the society or even of those working for the company that is earning the profits.
There are Quakers who have organized to consider the questions you ask. For example:
http://www.quakerbusiness.org/resources.htm
Remember that what made the "West" successful was not what happened in the last 50 years, but what happened 300 years and more ago. We are just reaping what we sowed. Something that we will be doing in the future but without the same great results we know have.
A more recent analysis of why some countries did well for their populations and others have not, was done by a Quaker Historian/Economist, Jack Powelson. It is a wonderful treatise on the basic issue of our times. How to be "successful" and also "ethical", although that was not his stated goal in writing the book:
See his book on line at: http://tqe.quaker.org/wealth-and-poverty/
Enoyed your blog. Looking forward to more.
Regards,
Free Polazzo
Douglasville, GA, USA Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
The Unreality of Economics
Most academic writing by economists strikes me as further and further away from the realities of life.
I wonder if one reason why our discipline's understanding of real-world economics is so poor is that we are still stuck at looking at "national economics". Even our so-called "macroeconomics" stops at the national dimension.
Our ruling paradigms are "country competitiveness" and other such non-realities
In the real world, however, there are awkward facts such as the following:
- "national" currencies may be largely held by countries other than those which originated them
- "national debt" may not be to the nation, principally
- companies are registered for legal reasons in Country "A" but have as employees, and are owned by (and therefore distribute their profits to), people from many countries - in many cases, the *majority* of owners and employees may not be from the country in which the company is registered
- similarly, people within Country "A" are usually employees of companies "belonging" to many other countries
- investors from Country "A" rarely have all their investments in that country; indeed, the richer they are, the more likely they are to have their investments in several countries
- Central Banks are constantly making "their own" judgements regarding interest rates and money supply, but these judgements tend to be in the "light" of the judgements that other such entities are making
- the perceptions and actions of currency traders in "other" countries can raise or depress the exchange value of "the" currency more than the judgemetns and actions of the Central Bank in question, or indeed more than the judgements and actions of all the most important Central Banks in the world.
I will find it helpful to have my attention drawn to what body of our literature takes as its *starting* point the fact that global economics and global business is all there is, now - though these are of course complicated by inconvenient legal realities such as "countries". Sphere: Related Content
I wonder if one reason why our discipline's understanding of real-world economics is so poor is that we are still stuck at looking at "national economics". Even our so-called "macroeconomics" stops at the national dimension.
Our ruling paradigms are "country competitiveness" and other such non-realities
In the real world, however, there are awkward facts such as the following:
- "national" currencies may be largely held by countries other than those which originated them
- "national debt" may not be to the nation, principally
- companies are registered for legal reasons in Country "A" but have as employees, and are owned by (and therefore distribute their profits to), people from many countries - in many cases, the *majority* of owners and employees may not be from the country in which the company is registered
- similarly, people within Country "A" are usually employees of companies "belonging" to many other countries
- investors from Country "A" rarely have all their investments in that country; indeed, the richer they are, the more likely they are to have their investments in several countries
- Central Banks are constantly making "their own" judgements regarding interest rates and money supply, but these judgements tend to be in the "light" of the judgements that other such entities are making
- the perceptions and actions of currency traders in "other" countries can raise or depress the exchange value of "the" currency more than the judgemetns and actions of the Central Bank in question, or indeed more than the judgements and actions of all the most important Central Banks in the world.
I will find it helpful to have my attention drawn to what body of our literature takes as its *starting* point the fact that global economics and global business is all there is, now - though these are of course complicated by inconvenient legal realities such as "countries". Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, December 09, 2006
How stupid is the market becoming? - 2
Earlier this year, I blogged on the above subject in relation to the company, BrainStore, arguing that BrainStore's marketing was ridiculous.
The CEO, Markus Mettler, upset with my Blog (specially as I am a small shareholder), wrote to me (partly) as follows:
"Prabhu: did you realize, that the flower mailing not only contained a vacumized tulip but also contained a DVD with a 30 (!) minute TV report (3 SAT, Nano special) on BrainStore with a case study? I'll gladly send you a copy if you should not have seen it yet.
"Prabhu: did you feel the power of the message "It's possible" in the silk print we sent at Christmas in 2004? It's a message against all the "It won't work, it's to expensive, we have tried it before, never will this fly" etc (that stops innovation and creativity). The "It's possible" message has been in Newspapers (all over)
"Prabhu: did you see the symbolism in the broom? Make room for new ideas. Get rid of the dust blocking your innovation. With a twinkle in our eyes...
("So) we are not at all out for effects. We're not impressed be "Sauglattismus" - a beautiful Swiss German word. We are very focused on common sense, (since) common sense (is) in fact (what) drives us. The search for the essence, the simple, the surprising and yes, the polarizing".
(please note that the bits in brackets are my attempts to make the English smooth or comprehensive when I shorten the CEO's letter to me)
Dear Markus: I must be much less imaginative than I thought! Mea culpa... Sphere: Related Content
The CEO, Markus Mettler, upset with my Blog (specially as I am a small shareholder), wrote to me (partly) as follows:
"Prabhu: did you realize, that the flower mailing not only contained a vacumized tulip but also contained a DVD with a 30 (!) minute TV report (3 SAT, Nano special) on BrainStore with a case study? I'll gladly send you a copy if you should not have seen it yet.
"Prabhu: did you feel the power of the message "It's possible" in the silk print we sent at Christmas in 2004? It's a message against all the "It won't work, it's to expensive, we have tried it before, never will this fly" etc (that stops innovation and creativity). The "It's possible" message has been in Newspapers (all over)
"Prabhu: did you see the symbolism in the broom? Make room for new ideas. Get rid of the dust blocking your innovation. With a twinkle in our eyes...
("So) we are not at all out for effects. We're not impressed be "Sauglattismus" - a beautiful Swiss German word. We are very focused on common sense, (since) common sense (is) in fact (what) drives us. The search for the essence, the simple, the surprising and yes, the polarizing".
(please note that the bits in brackets are my attempts to make the English smooth or comprehensive when I shorten the CEO's letter to me)
Dear Markus: I must be much less imaginative than I thought! Mea culpa... Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, December 07, 2006
The Economist magazine on Milton Friedman
You may have noticed The Economist's Obit on Milton Friedman, which was "Milton Freed Man".
The following would have been my letter to the Editor, if I had got around to it in time:
SIRS - Your unthinkingly fulsome praise of Milton Friedman is inappropriate, even for an obituary.
Friedman did not "free man". Rather, he freed the rich to become even richer - at the cost of the US as a nation, at the cost of increasing the gap between the rich and the poor, and at the cost of worsening the environment:
* The aggressive ascendancy of Friedmanism and its allies has resulted in the growing gap between the rich and the poor that has been highlighted more than once by The Economist itself.
* The influence of Friedmanism and its allies has resulted in the trade and other imbalances that now imperil the United States as a country (though no one there seems willing to face that fact).
* Much more dangerously, Friedmanism and its allies are worsening the climate chaos that bedevils the future of the whole of humanity.
Will Keynesianism be able to rescue us from those triple dangers? Perhaps from the first danger, though I have my doubts about that possibility.
In any case, the second and third dangers cannot be overcome except by new global agreements and legislation – which Friedman so chafed against, even at the national level.
Prabhu Guptara
Weinfelden, Switzerland Sphere: Related Content
The following would have been my letter to the Editor, if I had got around to it in time:
SIRS - Your unthinkingly fulsome praise of Milton Friedman is inappropriate, even for an obituary.
Friedman did not "free man". Rather, he freed the rich to become even richer - at the cost of the US as a nation, at the cost of increasing the gap between the rich and the poor, and at the cost of worsening the environment:
* The aggressive ascendancy of Friedmanism and its allies has resulted in the growing gap between the rich and the poor that has been highlighted more than once by The Economist itself.
* The influence of Friedmanism and its allies has resulted in the trade and other imbalances that now imperil the United States as a country (though no one there seems willing to face that fact).
* Much more dangerously, Friedmanism and its allies are worsening the climate chaos that bedevils the future of the whole of humanity.
Will Keynesianism be able to rescue us from those triple dangers? Perhaps from the first danger, though I have my doubts about that possibility.
In any case, the second and third dangers cannot be overcome except by new global agreements and legislation – which Friedman so chafed against, even at the national level.
Prabhu Guptara
Weinfelden, Switzerland Sphere: Related Content
"Tackling Poverty: The Roles of Business, Government, and NGOs"
For my article, "Tackling Poverty: The Roles of Business, Government, and NGOs", please go to:
http://www.ethix.org/article.php3?id=346 Sphere: Related Content
http://www.ethix.org/article.php3?id=346 Sphere: Related Content
Prizes and such matters
"Crispin" from www.mysmallboat.info writes to me as follows:
"I have been thinking about "prizes" recently and their ability to stimulate advances or maybe even to work for good. I was wondering what would be the most beneficial outcomes that could be advanced by creation of a small number of prizes? Any thoughts? It would make an interesting post."
I couldn't find an e-mail ID for you or any Feedback form on your website,Crispin, otherwise I would have sent this to you. But then others would not have the pleasure(?) of seeing my response to you...!
Anyway, prizes: certainly, they provide recognition, and that is good. One probably needs to distinguish between the satisfaction and encouragement that prizes provide to a recipient, and the public encouragement of the relevant activity.
The former happens in any case (I think and hope!). The latter is a more complicated matter, because it is linked with the question of publicity.
Having served on a jury or two, I am very aware of all the hard work that goes into selecting a prize winner - sometimes, collectively, the jury will have put in as much effort as the prize-winner! Not to mention the work put in by the organisers or the work put in by the individual(s) who earned the money that funds the prize.
However, all that effort (i.e. doing the work that is being recognised in the first place, as well as the work done by others) amounts to little more than individual satisfaction if there is no resulting publicity. And that is an enormous issue today.
If you endow the largest prize in any field, you are more or less guaranteed to get some publicity.
Small prizes can and do win publicity, but you have to be that much more inventive and creative if you want to get the attention of the media. You may want to look carefully at what the Booker Man Prize for Literature, or what the Nobel Prize Committee does, if you want some pointers regarding how best to win publicity. Yes, that does take a lot of money, but not only money....
So go ahead and endow a number of small prizes, Crispin. They will spread the cheer and satisfaction around to the winners in any case. If you want additionally to encourage the related activity as a whole, on the other hand, go either for a single large prize or make sure that you put enough time money aside for the specific purpose of organising the effort of getting media attention - which is not as simple a matter as merely buying advertising.
BTW, in my view, the USA should get the prize for creating the largest number of prizes (they seem to have prizes for everything). The UK, Northern Europe and Canada come more or less equal second. The non-Reformed parts of the world remain pretty poor in the number of prizes they offer. Sphere: Related Content
"I have been thinking about "prizes" recently and their ability to stimulate advances or maybe even to work for good. I was wondering what would be the most beneficial outcomes that could be advanced by creation of a small number of prizes? Any thoughts? It would make an interesting post."
I couldn't find an e-mail ID for you or any Feedback form on your website,Crispin, otherwise I would have sent this to you. But then others would not have the pleasure(?) of seeing my response to you...!
Anyway, prizes: certainly, they provide recognition, and that is good. One probably needs to distinguish between the satisfaction and encouragement that prizes provide to a recipient, and the public encouragement of the relevant activity.
The former happens in any case (I think and hope!). The latter is a more complicated matter, because it is linked with the question of publicity.
Having served on a jury or two, I am very aware of all the hard work that goes into selecting a prize winner - sometimes, collectively, the jury will have put in as much effort as the prize-winner! Not to mention the work put in by the organisers or the work put in by the individual(s) who earned the money that funds the prize.
However, all that effort (i.e. doing the work that is being recognised in the first place, as well as the work done by others) amounts to little more than individual satisfaction if there is no resulting publicity. And that is an enormous issue today.
If you endow the largest prize in any field, you are more or less guaranteed to get some publicity.
Small prizes can and do win publicity, but you have to be that much more inventive and creative if you want to get the attention of the media. You may want to look carefully at what the Booker Man Prize for Literature, or what the Nobel Prize Committee does, if you want some pointers regarding how best to win publicity. Yes, that does take a lot of money, but not only money....
So go ahead and endow a number of small prizes, Crispin. They will spread the cheer and satisfaction around to the winners in any case. If you want additionally to encourage the related activity as a whole, on the other hand, go either for a single large prize or make sure that you put enough time money aside for the specific purpose of organising the effort of getting media attention - which is not as simple a matter as merely buying advertising.
BTW, in my view, the USA should get the prize for creating the largest number of prizes (they seem to have prizes for everything). The UK, Northern Europe and Canada come more or less equal second. The non-Reformed parts of the world remain pretty poor in the number of prizes they offer. Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Old Age or "Mature Age" or "Ripe Age" or...
At a conference last week, a fellow-participant struggled when he wanted to say the almost instinctive phrase "yound and old".
What he struggled about was the word "old".
He did not want to offend the "oldies" present, so hesitatingly tried "mature", then "ripe"...
I was the second oldest person in the room, so I quickly reassured him that, in every traditional culture, old age was respected not scorned, and that I, at least, had not succumbed to the modern illusion that one can be young forever.
The lie-merchants include many marketing experts, scientists and technologists, who are in the business of selling us the make-believe that we can be young forever.
There is a time to be we are born, and a time to be young, a time to be a professional, and a time to be a coach, a time to die and a time to grow old.
This life is only a moment. The life that comes after this, is for eternity.
I have no qualms about old age or about death, since Jesus the Lord offers each person the life by which one can grow old gracefully, and by which death becomes the door to enter happiness eternally.
Happy is the individual who knows how to grow old gracefully, and happy is the individual who has come to understand how to die in the knowledge that death is going to open the door to a life of eternal happiness rather than eternal regret. Sphere: Related Content
What he struggled about was the word "old".
He did not want to offend the "oldies" present, so hesitatingly tried "mature", then "ripe"...
I was the second oldest person in the room, so I quickly reassured him that, in every traditional culture, old age was respected not scorned, and that I, at least, had not succumbed to the modern illusion that one can be young forever.
The lie-merchants include many marketing experts, scientists and technologists, who are in the business of selling us the make-believe that we can be young forever.
There is a time to be we are born, and a time to be young, a time to be a professional, and a time to be a coach, a time to die and a time to grow old.
This life is only a moment. The life that comes after this, is for eternity.
I have no qualms about old age or about death, since Jesus the Lord offers each person the life by which one can grow old gracefully, and by which death becomes the door to enter happiness eternally.
Happy is the individual who knows how to grow old gracefully, and happy is the individual who has come to understand how to die in the knowledge that death is going to open the door to a life of eternal happiness rather than eternal regret. Sphere: Related Content
Monday, December 04, 2006
On "Calaspia", or Kids and Career Choices
When my twin boys' first novel, "Conspiracy of Calaspia", was published one day before their 18th birthday last week, it was a bit like history.
The twins have been working away on their novel (the first of a series of seven novels they've planned, actually) from the age of eleven.
The younger twin, Jyoti, particularly impressed me with his desire to write because he would rather write than sleep, or eat, or play football. He always worked with the older twin, Suresh, because they did everything together - though Suresh has always had other interests too.
When Jyoti decided that he wanted to quit school to become a full-time writer, I was in a quandary because he was only 14.
On one hand, I have always loved literature (and writing). "Always"? Well, not quite. To be precise, from the age of about 14. Later in life, for a time, I even tried to switch careers and become a full-time writer.
On the other hand, I therefore know how tough it is to make a living as a writer. As a father, ought I not to discourage a young boy from making a mistake which he might regret later as the realities of life hit him? Ought I not to even disallow him to be a writer? At the very least, should I not be cautious and suggest that he at least finishes a first university degree - if necessary in literature - before committing himself to any career?
In the end, the family tradition won out. First, at least from my grandfather's time, the tradition has been to encourage individual interests: when my father wanted to depart from our traditional caste-related focus on business, my grandfather paid for him to go to Oxford to study in order to become a professor (he became one of the first Indian graduates in English from Oxford, in 1933). When my father died, with the result that we had almost nothing and my mother had to work day and night in order to bring us up, even then my mother always encouraged me to follow my own interests, however "uneconomic" and "non-career related" they seemed. The great bane of life today is that kids are bored. People don't know what to do with their lives. So if a child has an interest in anything, however "stupid", we should feed that interest, not squash it. Second, our family have been businessfolk for at least the last two thousand years. We ought to know how to calculate risks and when to take risks. In my view, the world has changed fundamentally in the decades since my own teenage years. Today, in any reasonably developed part of the world, you can make a sort of living working at almost any profession, however lowly. However, you can also "make it big" in any profession, if you are the best in the world, or among the best in the world, in that profession. The historic Hindu and Roman Catholic and Tribal-world distinction between "noble" and "ignoble" professions has been broken by the Protestant Revolution. We are all Protestants now when it comes to our daily lives, whether or not we believe in the essential beliefs of Protestantism or are even aware of them: Luther's attitude (or the Bible's attitude) has come to prevail, and every profession is now regarded as more or less equally worthwhile. Though it may still be difficult to be the world champion at road sweeping, you can make as many millions from being a world-class car driver, singer or cook as you can from being the world's top economist, doctor or engineer (these last three being the favoured professions in my teenage years, and most Indian parents still "push" their offspring towards such professions). In other words, the risks are much lower that children will make a disaster of their career if they follow their passions, than if they follow the herd and somehow struggle with their boredom more or less passably.
A straw in the wind was that Jyoti published an article in the Wall Street Journal at the age of fourteen, becoming the youngest known writer to have done so, and I must say that influenced my judgment.
Then, in one of our discussions, Jyoti came with the clincher. He pointed out that if I was willing to support him through, say, ten years of being bored and having to struggle at things in which he was not interested before he could start trying to make a living by his writing, did it not make more sense for me to support him through ten years of an apprenticeship at something to which he is totally committed?
All that sounds terrible "rational" and "ordinary". I was constantly praying that God would guide him and guide my wife and myself as we discussed these matters, so that we would know from God in our hearts the right decision. After all, we are not accidents in a universe that came into being by chance. We are the results of God's deliberate creation and each of us has a specific purpose for which we are born. At least, that is what Jesus taught.
Finally, I agreed that if Jyoti proved that his dedication to writing could create the motivation to study on his own to finish his "O" Levels successfully, then he could really stop going to school and become a full-time writer.
Jyoti did buckle down to studying on his own (not without struggles), eventually doing creditably at his "O" Levels. So he took to full-time writing.
Two years later, the result is "Conspiracy of Calaspia", the first of the Insanity Series. It is thoroughly enjoyable reading. I think they handle the genre of fantasy surprisingly well. Their writing style and their sensitivity to words is better than that of many other published writers who are very much older as well as "established". And the twins have a philosophical point of view which should make the series increasingly interesting for those who have the interest to follow it. Sphere: Related Content
The twins have been working away on their novel (the first of a series of seven novels they've planned, actually) from the age of eleven.
The younger twin, Jyoti, particularly impressed me with his desire to write because he would rather write than sleep, or eat, or play football. He always worked with the older twin, Suresh, because they did everything together - though Suresh has always had other interests too.
When Jyoti decided that he wanted to quit school to become a full-time writer, I was in a quandary because he was only 14.
On one hand, I have always loved literature (and writing). "Always"? Well, not quite. To be precise, from the age of about 14. Later in life, for a time, I even tried to switch careers and become a full-time writer.
On the other hand, I therefore know how tough it is to make a living as a writer. As a father, ought I not to discourage a young boy from making a mistake which he might regret later as the realities of life hit him? Ought I not to even disallow him to be a writer? At the very least, should I not be cautious and suggest that he at least finishes a first university degree - if necessary in literature - before committing himself to any career?
In the end, the family tradition won out. First, at least from my grandfather's time, the tradition has been to encourage individual interests: when my father wanted to depart from our traditional caste-related focus on business, my grandfather paid for him to go to Oxford to study in order to become a professor (he became one of the first Indian graduates in English from Oxford, in 1933). When my father died, with the result that we had almost nothing and my mother had to work day and night in order to bring us up, even then my mother always encouraged me to follow my own interests, however "uneconomic" and "non-career related" they seemed. The great bane of life today is that kids are bored. People don't know what to do with their lives. So if a child has an interest in anything, however "stupid", we should feed that interest, not squash it. Second, our family have been businessfolk for at least the last two thousand years. We ought to know how to calculate risks and when to take risks. In my view, the world has changed fundamentally in the decades since my own teenage years. Today, in any reasonably developed part of the world, you can make a sort of living working at almost any profession, however lowly. However, you can also "make it big" in any profession, if you are the best in the world, or among the best in the world, in that profession. The historic Hindu and Roman Catholic and Tribal-world distinction between "noble" and "ignoble" professions has been broken by the Protestant Revolution. We are all Protestants now when it comes to our daily lives, whether or not we believe in the essential beliefs of Protestantism or are even aware of them: Luther's attitude (or the Bible's attitude) has come to prevail, and every profession is now regarded as more or less equally worthwhile. Though it may still be difficult to be the world champion at road sweeping, you can make as many millions from being a world-class car driver, singer or cook as you can from being the world's top economist, doctor or engineer (these last three being the favoured professions in my teenage years, and most Indian parents still "push" their offspring towards such professions). In other words, the risks are much lower that children will make a disaster of their career if they follow their passions, than if they follow the herd and somehow struggle with their boredom more or less passably.
A straw in the wind was that Jyoti published an article in the Wall Street Journal at the age of fourteen, becoming the youngest known writer to have done so, and I must say that influenced my judgment.
Then, in one of our discussions, Jyoti came with the clincher. He pointed out that if I was willing to support him through, say, ten years of being bored and having to struggle at things in which he was not interested before he could start trying to make a living by his writing, did it not make more sense for me to support him through ten years of an apprenticeship at something to which he is totally committed?
All that sounds terrible "rational" and "ordinary". I was constantly praying that God would guide him and guide my wife and myself as we discussed these matters, so that we would know from God in our hearts the right decision. After all, we are not accidents in a universe that came into being by chance. We are the results of God's deliberate creation and each of us has a specific purpose for which we are born. At least, that is what Jesus taught.
Finally, I agreed that if Jyoti proved that his dedication to writing could create the motivation to study on his own to finish his "O" Levels successfully, then he could really stop going to school and become a full-time writer.
Jyoti did buckle down to studying on his own (not without struggles), eventually doing creditably at his "O" Levels. So he took to full-time writing.
Two years later, the result is "Conspiracy of Calaspia", the first of the Insanity Series. It is thoroughly enjoyable reading. I think they handle the genre of fantasy surprisingly well. Their writing style and their sensitivity to words is better than that of many other published writers who are very much older as well as "established". And the twins have a philosophical point of view which should make the series increasingly interesting for those who have the interest to follow it. Sphere: Related Content
Friday, November 24, 2006
"Click fraud” poses a threat to the boom in internet advertising
That's the sub-title of a particularly superficial article in The Economist this week (usually, the articles there are very good, and The Economist is one of the few unbiased publications left in the world); the article's main title is "Truth in advertising" and it is available at: http://www.economist.com./opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8319505&CFID=101347023&CFTOKEN=b1a06a-5e5a492a-61f9-4c69-b63d-2ddd0a45f223
So why do I scoff at this particular piece?
Becaues the real threat to Internet advertising is not "click fraud" at all.
It is rather that no one I know responds to Internet advertising, except to click it off.
The case for Internet advertising therefore seems to me to be based on an illusion.
That bubble will burst as soon as decision-makers realise the basic facts of the case.
Regretfully, decision-makers (like some of those who write for The Economist) don't seem to know the Internet or Internet users at all well.
Has there been any research will quantifies response rates on the Internet at any level OTHER than "clicks"? Does "clicking the ad off" count as a "click"? Sphere: Related Content
So why do I scoff at this particular piece?
Becaues the real threat to Internet advertising is not "click fraud" at all.
It is rather that no one I know responds to Internet advertising, except to click it off.
The case for Internet advertising therefore seems to me to be based on an illusion.
That bubble will burst as soon as decision-makers realise the basic facts of the case.
Regretfully, decision-makers (like some of those who write for The Economist) don't seem to know the Internet or Internet users at all well.
Has there been any research will quantifies response rates on the Internet at any level OTHER than "clicks"? Does "clicking the ad off" count as a "click"? Sphere: Related Content
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)