what you like is not what you are good at

when you are young, most of the passion is all heart.
And ever muscle and bone in your body would be telling you that is what you have been cut out for....

with time you begin to realise that your are just not cut out for it.
you are not built for it, or you have an infirmity or deficiency to see that passion through...

realising and accepting that you are deficient in that passion is hard to accept....

I think what you love is not necessarily what you are going to be good at.....
And this is very difficult to accept.....

But once you begin to realise this aspect of life....that is when you begin to take matters of heart and passion with a pinch of salt....

The crux of this insight is that you may not be necessarily be good at what you love.

But if ever you find out what you are good at....and you will fall in love with it.
That, what you are good at will always be a cut above the rest.....
It will have its unique design that always renders your niche.....

most of us somehow get lost in the passion and love and heart.....that we fail to recognise if we are good at it.

the fair share

though we have motivation and passion for a good thing, these emotions alone do not get us the good thing.

this is generally how we look at in a professional set up, we always hope that our efforts and emotions will reward us in direct proportion in vying for a prospective business deal.

What we miss is that our emotion though aimed at acquiring that prospect in reality should be used as an aid, to know and recognise the prospect and its expectations.
In contrast we usually get blinded by emotion alone, we get misled into believing the prospect as a potential.

over a period of time, perhaps experience bestows the ability to identify the prospect from the potential.... knowing that we can close the deal on this one or just walk away.

We do feel steadfast with time....it is not always running after every rabbit that we can find......


Though the most we expect is to acquire the prospect I feel with time and experience I am more inclined to think that the least that we should expect is that life is fair and life offers its fair share to all with time.

We just give it our best shot and that is about as far we can go.....

smoker research

An average smoker tries to quit nine times, not even dieting has that high a failure rate.

what gets me thinking is that an average smoker tries harder to quit smoking perhaps more than anything else he would have ever tried so hard - not even dieting comes close.

which can lead on to infer that if we have a smoker who is trying to diet, and he was given one wish of success by his fairy godmother the smoker would choose to quit smoking than be a success at dieting.

I mean he rather be a couple of pounds heavier and not smoke....rather than be cool and smoke.
for me that is startling.....

Its startling because most smokers take up the habit to look cool.
mind you to look cool......

they take up the habit to look cool...
but when it comes to losing the habit, the smoker does not mind looking out of shape, perhaps less cool.....

criticism yields the truth

to know somebody's truthful opinion about a product or a place of work or anything that could be pertaining at that matter - it becomes important to phrase the question in the right manner rather it would be preferable to phrase the question negatively.

Instead of asking how do you like this product or what you want in this product - it would be more commensurate to ask what you 'dislike' in the product.

What you like makes you comfortable...and what you are comfortable with...you accept...you learn to bear with that comfort....but you would more than prefer not to have any discomfort ...and it is the discomfort that makes you think or render a solution or the truth about the predicament.

Simply because the pointers for improvement come from what one dislikes in that product....seldom if ever can an improvement be yielded from a positive feedback, I mean how can you improve upon a positive feedback. There isn't much to do for an already content consumer...if he is content he will come back....the key is to get the disgruntled consumer.....

It is the criticism that yields the truth - the substance to base an improvement upon.

much more than anything which is kind of ironic when you come to think of it......negativity yields an improvement .....while positivity.....yields acceptance to the status quo.

Now the question is what is the real deal about positive thinking.....and why do we have a host of books touting positivity......
when it is negativity that actually yields areas of improvement....

to be successful

the obvious things is most people want to successful.
the next obvious thing is to be successful you need to have a success.
the next to next obvious thing is that to have a success you need to have worked on a successful endeavour.

the darnedest thing, is how would you know if that endeavour would turn into a success!

another way of saying this in advertising parlance:

the only advertising that works is the one consumers have noticed and remembered.

the darnedest things again would be you don't know which one would be noticed and remembered.

insights and ideas

is an idea an insight or is an insight an idea.

more than anything an insight states a truth that alters the way we live or the way we see the world. We begin to see things in a whole new light.

I guess ideas on the other hand are generated more often, I can't think of an idea as life altering or world changing.....some do create a paradigm shift but then those would be insights....than ideas.....

A single insight can bring about a tidal wave of ideas that can bring that insight to life....

An insight would require a logical persuasion and an element of emotion.
If you can get the other guy to buy into your logic ...you crossed the bridge halfway...
The other half is getting the other person to think.....hey that's me you are talking about...hey that is so familiar.....hey that is my life or at least one that I wish for....hey I feel that emotion....crying, laughing, joy ....it just needs to be emotive, endearing and personal.

The question of implementing the insight is one...

The question of getting the insight is another....

the marketplace

the marketplace is a smorgasbord of opinions. The foundation of this smorgasbord are a paradox in themselves.

At one end we have the democratizing urge that all humans are equal, that you are no better than John Doe whom you meet, interact with, are neighbours with, play with et al.

At the other end, we have this competitive edge that marks us to think of us as different individuals, each with her/his own individuality, each created uniquely, each made for an activity, the activity itself having an hierarchy much in contrast to a democratic approach.

We are all out here trying to polish our selves a niche above the rest at the same time we also subscribe to a democratizing thought of existence. We are a paradox in ourselves. I mean if we are all equal why are we trying to be a cut above the rest.

We say we are all equal, we have equal opportunities, equal rights but we have to elect one leader, we have that one vote.

If we are all equal what would be the need to elect one above all to lord over us, and we do this wilfully ...mind you!

We think in paradoxes and we live in a paradox, and we are being educated in a paradox.....

the ambiguity of science

Science as we are taught in school is a matter of chance or rather probability.
For example, we can calculate the half life of an element, but what we do not know is which atom of the particular element would decay, we can only assign a probability to each atom of the decaying element.

Quantum theory as we know is a matter of chance, we do not know how each individual atom will behave, but we do know that as a whole we will see this result.

We know if we are studying at the half life of radium, we will find that half of the original quantity of radium will decay, but which atoms of radium in that quantity would decay we do not know; Quantum theory does not let us know which atom will decay, but it does state that we will find the original quantity reduced to half at radium half life period.
Quantum theory reasons this behaviour of the individual atoms of radium on chance.

The theory that states that quantum theory is deficient is Bells Theorem.

It would be interesting to note that Quantum theory is know as the most profound discovery of science.
What is even more interesting is Bells Theorem trumps Quantum theory, but not many seem to know about the theory.

Bells Theorem shows that if something is happening here, then it is because of something elsewhere. It states that things do not happen on pure chance but are related. Bells Theorem throws chance and probability out of the window.

Our existence and this universe is not a matter of chance.

What is even more interesting about Bells Theorem is not just that it proves that things are related, but it shows that the manner in which an particle A in region X is related to particle B in region Z, in a way that is beyond our comprehension as on date.

Or rather the mode of communication between particle A in region X and particle B in region Z (that leads us to believe that the particles are related) is faster than the speed of light and is one that we as on date cannot explain.

I mean we can explain how light reaches us or travels, or how sound travels, but we can't explain how the particle A and B in 2 regions of space far apart can be related and display a relation that takes place faster than the speed of light.

I guess Einstein was right, "God does not play dice".

the main course

If you ever happen to go to Korea, dining is one heck of an experience.
People only pay for the main course.

Appetisers, salads, refreshments, side dishes are all on the house.
You can have as much as you want, but you pay for only the main course.

the making of a tragedy

When I come across something that I know I can do with and I think that this is excellent if it can be so, and I'd be very lucky to get this. That is my choice.

But afterwards I still have to convince everything and everybody out there that I am right for this and this has to be so.

the ambiguity of light

provided all motion involved is uniform, we can translate motion perceived in one frame of reference to another frame of reference.

If we are on a platform, and we see a train move past us a 30 miles/hour. The train is a frame of reference moving uniformly to us on the platform. If there is man on the train walking in the train at 3 km/hr in the very same direction as the train is, then that man's speed in reference to the train is 3 miles/hour but in reference to us on the platform is 33km/hr. (Speed of train + speed of man).

The converse also holds true, where the man in the train if he walks at 3 miles/hour in the opposite direction as the motion of the train, then man's speed on the train
with reference to the person on the platform would be 27 miles/ hour.
(speed of train - speed of man)

In every day experience, this could be seen when we walk on an escalator as opposed to remaining still we reach the higher floor much faster.

Taking this one step ahead, lets say if I was driving a car at 50 miles/hour and you come by in a Ferrari at 75 miles/hour, with respect to me the Ferrari would be at 25miles/hour.

However, when we use a similar example with light, the laws of transformation do not hold ground. If the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second & if we are travelling in the same direction as light let say at 100,000 miles an hour, the light should be travelling faster at 286,000 miles/hour on account of the Newtonian Law of transformation that is compounded with our speed, but that is not so, light continues to travel at 186,000 miles/hour irrespective of our speed.

If we were travelling away form the source at 100,000 miles/ hour of light the relative speed does not decrease to 86,000 miles/hour , it still remain the same at 186,000 miles/hour.

To most of us, this contrariwise logic about the speed of light becomes difficult to grasp. And this reason is largely because we live our lives at speeds much slower than the speed of light. As such we get accustomed to such low speed where the laws of transformation hold good, or rather our senses get used to the limited environment we have.

If we would want to expand our understanding beyond the limitation of our environment it becomes necessary to rearrange our thoughts.

And this is what Einstein did, he was the first to see that it would require one to look at physics in a whole new light a whole new thought process. When he published his theory of Relativity in 1905, he was aware of the ambiguity of light and his thesis did show that light did behave in such a manner. The prevailing thought at that time was based on Newtonian Laws.

It would be important to note that Einstein did not get the Nobel Prize for the theory of Relativity, but the Nature of Light. He got the Nobel Prize to overcome the limitation of the environment, to rearrange his thoughts - he created that paradigm shift.

fate

There is no such thing as an independent observer who can stand on the sidelines watching nature run its course without actually influencing it or being influenced by it.

What this means is, that even if one does not act on a course of events but just watches it, that act of watching alone can change the course of events.

This maybe difficult to believe in the first instance, and this is largely on account of the fact that our brains have been wired to look at our environment with a Newton's concepts of physics.

We believe on account of Newtons law's that if we know the beginning of an event then we can predict its end; even if there is an external force acting on the event, then if we have sufficient data on that external force we can extrapolate how it could affect a system and thus determine its end.
The Newtonian concept of physics have led us to believe things are all determined from the onset. Our presence or absence cannot change or alter the course of events.
Everything is determined.

But if this is true, then our presence is not required as events continue to unfurl irrespective of our presence or cognition. So if we were not required then to what would events unfurl to, rather if events are independent of us then what use of the events.

However this being not the case, our presence should necessarily amount to something for what need of a creation if it has no part to play in the events that play.

Which bring us back to square one where our presence can affect the course of fate.
This immediately puts the onus on us where we need to know how our presence does affect our fate.

film ideas

When Hollywood has run out of ideas to make films, it starts rendering films from books or makes films of super heroes from comic books.

When the Indian film industry runs out of ideas what it does is get inspiration from Hollywood films.

If that isn't heading anywhere we have a slew of remakes....

So given this scenario 2 Indian film directors are speaking about their proposed film venture.

Director 1: I am looking at re-making "Aag Hi Aag".
Director 2: What would you want to re-make your own film.

Director 1: Who else would do it? A flop at that.

our ability to determine

Suppose that we put one gram of radium in a time vault & leave it there for 1600 years, when we return we will find that only half a gram of radium is left.

This phenomenon is termed by physicists as 'half life'. Radium atoms will naturally disintegrate such that only half of them would remain behind every 1600 years.
If we put that half gram back in the vault for another 1600 years, only 1/4 of the original would remain.

Every 1600 years half of the radium atoms would just disappear.
This is familiar to most of us, as this is what we have learned in high school.

We know this as a statistical fact, that every 1600 years, half of the original radium atoms would just disappear, but we don't know which half or which of the actual radium atoms would disappear.
We cannot pinpoint which would remain or which would disintegrate.
We can only state that half of them would disintegrate in 1600 years.

The curious thing is that if all radium of the original one gram atoms are similar what makes half of them to remain and the other half to disintegrate. As such they the radium atoms are all similar, which is why we can't determine which ones would remain and which would disintegrate.

The fact is that the study of quantum mechanics can only determine the end effect, but cannot determine which constituents would meet that end effect as explained in the example above. To that effect quantum mechanics provides us just statistical fact about the effect and not what actually caused the effect.

Ergo it ushers in the realm of probability. Since it is limited in determining which atom of radium in a gram would disintegrate, it states that every atom of radium in that 1 gram of radium has a 50% probability to disintegrate in 1600 years.

And so our knowledge about quantum mechanics - the most profound discovery in the 20th century is that it can gives us an ability to correlate observed phenomena with theory in aggregation but not in individual basis, as we don't know how each atom would act - that is to disintegrate or remain, but we do know as a whole 50% of the radium atoms would disintegrate.

the reserve

the federal reserve is not owned by the government of USA.
The federal reserve was enacted by an act of the Congress & reports to it, but is not owned by the government of USA.
It is an independent entity owned by members banks.
The member banks hold shares of the FED, making it an entity of the member bansk, as the FED themselves claim - no one in particular owns the FED.
The curious thing is are there any government banks in USA?.. as far as I know, they are all private. So if it is the private banks that are the member banks of the federal reserve & they hold control, the federal reserve would be pursuing private interests and not public.

the federal reserve states this tacitly as - "independent within the government"

The MOOT point is that the central bank of USA - the federal reserve is controlled by private bankers NOT by the government - which should immediately raise the question who interests does the FED serve.
Like any company or corporation, the firm serves the interests of the shareholders in this case the member banks which means private interests and not public interests.

In this light it makes sense why the fed is bailing out Fannie Mae and Feddie Mac, it is not public interests but private interests that are being insured.

Similarly across the continent; guess who owns the bank of England, ..yes private bankers again.
That makes 2 countries housing the financial capitals of the world - New York and London, both the venture of private banks.

This puts the private banker in a very powerful position, as the nations central banker, they have the right to print money too.

The connection between both these central bankers is that on account of the subprime crisis in US and UK, the respective central banks are being bailing out troubled banks. That puts land on which these bad mortguages stand written in favour of the central banker - directly or indirectly.

Could it be then that this sub prime crisis could have been actually manufactured, so as to lead to a subprime crisis leading to handing out property in the central bankers favour. The subprime that has affected UK and USA - could perhaps be the brain child of these very same private banks.

The 2 things you need in an economy: land and money, rest assured with these 2 you can own the world.

These member banks are trying to keep the wealth of the nations in just the hands of the few. That is in the hands of the private bankers themselves.
Being the richest banks is not enough, being the banks that control every industry on earth is what these private bankers are venturing to achieve...

In contrast the central bank of India is owned by the government.

irony

Two instances of news caught my attention.

The first being that we have been granted access by the NSG(Nuclear Material Supply Group) to fissile material. This material would be used to meet civilian energy needs vide nuclear power generation.

The irony is the the NSG was formed in 1974, when India detonated a nuclear device sounding off to the world that India is nuclear capable. To join the NSG you ought to be a signatory of the CTBT(comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) and NPT(Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty)

India is not a signatory to either treaties but has been granted access to Nuclear Fissile Material.

The irony is that the NSG, the clique formed to keep India at bay in 1974, is the very same clique we have been granted entry to.

The second instance of news is the Tata NANO project; work at the site has been stalled by the opposing party (TC - Tinamool Congress) of the state (West Bengal) on the pretext that the ruling party in the state (CPI-Communist party of India) had granted about 800 acres of land owned by farmers to the Tata to put up the NANO project much against farmer's wishes and rights.

The communist party (CPI) is known to have shut down a lot of private enterprises in that state with their strikes in private enterprises. The very same CPI had a change of heart and had invited private enterprises back into the state.

The irony here is a communist state government had invited a private capitalist company for investments in the state, but the private company (TATA) shelved their project in the state by the opposing party on account of strikes and blockades, methods used by the opposing party that were once used by the communists party of India driving away private enterprises from the state.

I guess politics is all about conveniences at the whim and whit of politicians.

internet service

my internet had chocked this afternoon; so I had got on the phone to place a complain. The personnel mentioned to me that I could now place my complains or request online too.

well buddy if I don't have the internet working, how do I place a complain on-line...

I hope it gets the genius at the internet company to rethink on service support.

instant gratification

I just realised our generation is about instant gratification.

From 30 minute pizzas, 5 minutes frappé,2 minute noodles and need I say instant answers when we call customer service with a query.

I mean our culture is tuning itself in this manner and it should not be any surprise that our brains are being wired on this level.

The crux is that this can be an absolute pitfall when it comes to business.
I mean if you let go of the leverage or rather show too much enthusiasm in a business bargain, there is every likelihood that you will be ripped off.
The only antidote is patience - don't show enthusiasm - and don't show you want to close the deal now.

But since I am a generation that has its wants met instantly, cultivating patience in the absence of the opportunity is a tough call.
I mean how do I do it, if I am being provided a service instantly what am I to say; Oh I need that burger not now but later!

Business is about patience, knowing when to wait and when to strike, knowing how long to wait before calling in the wager, you know how far to go and you know when the deal will come through.
This is fairly elementary when the guy opposite the table is a young fellow, I mean I know his/her weakness - well it is mine too.
But knowing that limitation is a real trump in situations.

The effort arises when there is an older gentleman across the table.

I am sure he thinks the way I think when I am with the younger guys.

yet to be said..

Nobody on his/her deathbed ever said, ‘I wish I’d spent more time at the office’.

nationalistic and patriotic

well a friend posed a puzzling rhetoric on the eve of Independence day.

He mentioned, we are not nationalists but we are patriotic.

In a sense that is true...
We couldn't quiet explain it, but we suppossed that citizens from 4 other countries that could be called nationalists and patriots.

USA, China, Australia and Japan.

For us folks we are pretty much proud to be Indian but then that is as far as we are ready to go.

tipping....

one of the things one notices in the west is tipping.

As far as I could gather, every service from taxi rides to tourist rides had a ingratia tip involved. determined by doubling the tax amount (if any) rendered on a service.

Not that I disagree with tipping...it has its place and need...
its just that in the east a tip is not expected.
The philosophy in the East is that one is just rendering his/her 'duty' and that is what is least expected of him/her.
So the question of an added emolument is not expected following the discharge of any service.

In contrast in the west the concept is that a tip is mandatory & expected which leads one to gather that any service rendered is done as a favour and not of a sense of duty - ergo the tip.

But then maybe its a another way of empathizing that a livelihood is tough in the west and so patrons make that up by tipping.

hey, maybe its a little bit of both....

which brings me to a tipping episode at the barber.
a haircut in the US would be at US$ 12, tip would be another US$ 2 or so.
but my cousin believes in giving more, he tips about US$ 5, if he buys some hair care product or cream the tip would increase as he would tip based on the entire bill.
I happen to ask him on his generosity.

he mentioned that a good tip generally results in a good haircut.
I don't know about that, most of the folks I met in the US did not have a hair cut but a crew cut - one where the hair is close cropped to the scalp - I wonder which barber would go wrong or mess up on such a hair cut for that matter crew cut.

Anyway the fundamental tenet here is when the barber does a good job is when you would be encouraged to pay a tip, if he does a bad job forget tipping him; I ain't going back to him.
That is the fundamental tenet of business, a good product or good service generates revenues or for that matter a tip: and not the other way around where a good tip generates a good service or product.

as a matter of note, my cousin is in Finance in an Ivy league Business school.
maybe business fundamentals have changed....maybe that is how business is done....I could be dated as I am from the old school of thought.....

commonplace

It's a common that we care about the last word, not the first.

In contrast it is common that we are predisposed with first impressions than later ones quiet possibly because of our predilection to what we can find out in a few minutes than what we care to know about what the person has been for quiet sometime.

relationship between memory and knowledge

When knowledge comes, memory comes too, little by little … Knowledge and memory are one and the same thing.
-Gustav Meyrink

Most of us often lament that our memory is failing us, maybe it is knowledge that is failing us; maybe what we need to do is commit and supplement knowledge and the memory aids the retention.
And when we fail to retain the memory it could be our lack in ability to add to that knowledge that dissipates the memory.

Birthdays

Birthdays....dislike the attention and the fuss.

independence

How independent am I?
or rather rephrasing to a rhetoric:
You can be boss only up to a point!

Beyond that point it is about you needing others and others needing you.

Well, it's good to know the baloney ends somewhere...

useless management advice

1. Look at the familiar in novel ways.
I mean if it is familiar I doubt I would notice it.
If I don't see the familiar the question of looking at it in novel ways does not quiet arise.

2. Look for patterns.
Patterns of what: distinctions or similarities.
Once we do, then what? make a pickle, I guess.
What do we do with the patterns?

3. Look for unmet needs?
Hey buddy if I could, they would not be unmet anymore.
They would be needs that I can meet, so the question is how do I look for needs that I have not met and how do I meet them if I don't know them.

4. Listen to unheard voices.
Here we go again, how can you listen to what you cannot hear.
Please elaborate how I can heed to what I cannot hear?

...the humbug just does not end...

hostage to naivety

technology will offer novel reasons to be surprised.
disputes and ideology will threaten our security.
disasters will create hardship and heartache.

This world will continue to serve us the unexpected.
that is just the way it is!

these pressures can hold us hostage, but stating this is the first step away from naivety.

motivation & responsibility

If we were asked to predict the probability of picking a number out of a box we feel much reassured if we do the picking rather than relying on some one else's pick.
The odds are the same however when we do the picking we feel we have some control over the event.
It is this sense of control that gets us to do the picking ourselves or rather the motivation arises from the fact that we have some sense of control over events.

The inference is that the ability to pick that right number is the same as everyone else, we are not any one special that nullifies the laws of probability.

But it is the sense of control that motivates us to make an action or decision.
And it is this motivation that also makes us responsible for an action or decision.
I mean rationally if I am motivated to make a choice then I need to be responsible to do what's required to make the choice work

where to spend!

Dr. Marc Faber concluded his monthly bulletin (June 2008) with the following:

"The federal government is sending each of us a $600 rebate. If we spend that money at Wal-Mart, the money goes to China. If we spend it on gasoline it goes to the Arabs. If we buy a computer it will go to India. If we purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala. If we purchase a good car it will go to Germany. If we purchase useless crap it will go to Taiwan and none of it will help the American economy. The only way to keep that money here at home is to spend it on prostitutes and beer, since these are the only products still produced in US. I've been doing my part."

whom to ask

the best place to research about a company would be to ask people who are scrutinizing the company or better still people who are skeptical about the company's performance and disposition.

The latter does not mean people who mean ill about the company but people who are looking at signs to take contrarian views about the company. They are not crowd followers but would take bets contra wise to common thinking.

The last place to ask information about the company would be the company itself or people who have a vested interest in its disposition. The people who have a vested interest in the company would seldom see the company objectively but usually in the light of their interests held in the company.

But what do you know, watch any of the financial channels, the host would bring in the CEO or Director of a company and ask him/her about that company. What would one expect, the Director/CEO providing us with an objective view about the company?

butter that is not butter...

For the first time came across a product that is branded by a generic name, but the product does not represent the generic.

The company (Unilever) brands a product that looks like butter but technically it is not butter. Its margarine.
Technically butter is a derivative of milk.
And technically this product is made from Canola and soybean oil.

The actual brand is:
"I can't believe it is not Butter"

Yes that is the brand.
I think that would make up the longest brand in the history of marketing.
I also think it is a generic than a brand.
Inducing people to think this is butter where it is not - though they clearly mention it is not butter.
Also, no where on its package does it state the product is margarine.

And the incredulity is Unilever is pretty successful with this product.

the God experience

Came across a profound rhetoric by Daniel Gilbert

If belief in God is compelled by experience, then what kind of an experience compels the belief?

on assessing politicians

Politicians, by and large, get where they are mainly by looking and sounding good; this may or may not go along with any actual understanding of governing or government.
But they sure know how to be governor.

food fast

As you tend to go down the tube, you generally eat less and would prefer to eat healthy. Have got a palette for 2 preparations that go well on aspects of nutrition, filling and fat free and yes not to forget taste buds.

1. Oatmeal

2. Cereals

Both with milk.
For variety one could add bananas or apples, and the stuff is just great.
I mean if you are on the go, this is a good breakfast or snack.

revenues and cost of earnings

In an interview potential employers generally mentions a gross remuneration packet for its potential employees.

These statements usually are gross amounts.
That is a sum total including taxes, insurance, social security, etc.
The employee would never see a good 30%-45% of that income, but he will be fed that amount. In case of doctors I hear its worse here in the US, a good 60% of the gross earnings would be just liability insurance coverage, then taxes but they will also be fed a gross amount - a large portion of which does not constitute to an expendable income.

If you ask the owner of a business enterprise how much he earns he would not be quoting the revenue of his company. He would rather give you a net figure. A figure that is net of costs and expenses, he would rather look at the the figure that he/she has in his pocked to expend than what his company revenues are.

When the owner tries to sell his business products, the sale price is usually a net figure, a cost of goods with profits but not including taxes, insurance and transportation.

Why would an owner a of business look at his own earnings in net terms, his business products in net terms in contrast to his employees in gross terms?

Gross earnings of an employee are a cost to the owner or an employer.
The entire income statement of an employee is an expense statement for the employer, it matters little to an employer that an employee does not see 30%-40% of that money as the owner of a business has to continue to shell out that additional 30%-40% as a part of the expense for his employees.

Net prices of a business product are a cost to the owner, the rest of the cost that is taxes, insurance and transportation are a cost that the owner passes on to the customer. The owner does not bear that cost, we as customers do.

What in effect an owner communicates is, the cost of his earnings on a per employee basis (remuneration of an employee) or an a per product basis(cost of a product).

For an owner the presence of assets such as office, goods, vehicles, etc in a business are cost of earnings. While for the lay man they are assets. They are costs that he bears at the reduction of earnings.

Its about managing how much to give away of earnings such that the give away creates value greater than earnings in hand. The more the owner expends the lower earnings he has. Which in effect means the cost of earnings are higher than what one is actually earning. Also know as profligate expense!
Fancy set ups are a cost, and communicate a higher costs which is being passed onto the customer where ever possible.
But if the owner manages the expenses right, these expenses can create value for the business thereby increasing his earnings.
Which is the second part of earnings - cash flow - how to manage cash flows.

So the first aspect is looking at cost of earnings and the second part is managing cash flows. The first is perspective the second is empirical experience.

default rules

How come in the world of choices we usually end up with the default choice or the one we don't want to make?

frankly I don't know; but I hear a lot about make your destiny and make your choice, the truth could be that seldom if ever do we have it our way for the most part we usually are resigned to the default choice: it usually is last available choice or we are coerced into that last choice.

Funny why we call it choice if it is the last choice, funnier still that we call it choice if we are coerced into it.

perhaps we still called it 'a choice', as the response to that last default choice can be: a 'yes' or a 'no'.
Which is technically still a 'choice'!

And I guess we already know, that 'yes or no' can make a world of a difference in our lives...

confident to a fault

A research surveyed 7,000 CFOs over a six-year span, asking them to predict a range of 1-year and 10-year returns of the S&P 500 index and divulge how certain they felt about their predictions. Although most of the CFOs felt very sure of themselves when selecting, they were correct just 38% percent of the time.

Wanting to be right or thinking to be right or for that matter hoping to be right does not translate to 'being right'.

Despite the dangers of overconfidence, many people contend that it's better to have too much confidence than too little. Well simply because confidence displays a positive attitude, though the positive attitude has no play or driver on reality. Reality is distinct from ones attitude, it is like hoping the wind will blow the way one thinks, this is seldom if never the case.

John Maynard Keynes made a profound observation on confidence when he wrote, "Individual initiative will only be adequate when reasonable calculation is supplemented and supported by animal spirits."

What Keynes meant by animal spirits is that the individuals who do create economic prosperity have to embrace a "naive optimism" and must put aside the thought of ultimate loss, just as healthy men put aside the thought of death.
Well I reckon he is stating you need to be a calculative risk taker, but then all confident or over confident folks think of themselves as calculated risk takers.
The under-confident ones don't take risks even if they can calculate, so that leaves then out!

I guess we are back to square one we still can't distinguish between a confident and over confident dolt. Another point is with a 38% chance at being correct, our thinking of being right is lower than the probability of being right.
Probability alone should have rendered a 50% success rate, but in this case confidence alone lowers success rate by 12%, which is pretty significant.

I guess we are better off just taking chances then...

choices

Napoleon famously remarked, "There are only two alternatives in this world: to command or to obey."

I guess he left the 3rd choice out, probably on purpose.
"To not Obey".

A single option will gives us 2 choices.
As in "to do or not to do".
Of Shakespeare infamous rhetoric "to be or not to be".

2 options will render us 3 choices, as in the case enumerated above about Napoleon.

greater options probably does give us greater choices but also greater confusion.

The key is that there is not such thing as a default option.

What can I say, life isn't confusing enough, that we have to recognize the subtlety of choice.

explaining the business

one of the challenges of being an entrepreneur is explaining what an entrepreneur does?

Most people think it is about how much a entrepreneur makes - financially - rather that is the 'how much' and not the 'what he does'?

For most people being an entrepreneur is about being in business, but what is business, rather what makes the business tick, why choose a particular business, where to set up a business and when to set up a business?

For others it has something to do with investing, financial management, manufacturing, and labor. But these are again just drivers of a business but not the essence of business.

However, business is about the study of how to get the most out of life — the choices we make, given that we can't have everything we want. It is the study of infinite wants and finite means, the ability to bridge the two and own a market niche.

For the layman this is something that he is not able to identify with much less understand, so he equates a business to revenues. However what he needs to look at is the ability that can generate revenues not just for today but for the future.

And since business is about choices, about the finite means to achieve the infinite want, it is about what it costs to achieve the infinite with the finite - the opportunity costs.

It is not just about the opportunity cost but also the ability to choose an investment despite the opportunity cost such that the returns from the investment far outweigh the opportunity cost it bore initially.

On a simpler note it is why we get ourselves educated so we can get better jobs. While we are educating ourselves we are losing out on an income (opportunity cost) but our education (investment) we hope will get us a better return than without an education.

The other attribute about being an entrepreneur is about specializing in an activity.
By specializing in a very small set of skills, selling those skills in the marketplace and relying on the skills of others who have specialized in activities we don't do or cannot do. (Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations)

We try as far as possible to specialize only in that activity where players are fewer so we can get a greater reward whereas we leave out or outsource those activities that does not render a greater reward to us by being self sufficient.

We specialize because the costs of self-sufficiency or rather the costs of doing everything is high, so we specialize only in those activities where we can generate a greater reward - as we have finite means.

We are all given just so much time here, getting the most out of life means using that precious time wisely. Using that time wisely means using and understanding opportunity cost and that ability to choose one opportunity over the other.

Why do business' exist

Business' come in to existence on the solid base that the entrepreneur of the business has found out a novel method to reduce costs compared to competition.

Besides the not so common aspect of technological advantage or marvel that brings a firm into a market, business' usually come into existence or exist on the ability to organize markets and labour more efficiently.

representation of interests

Democracy allows us to get our interest expressed and represented.
However between the expression to representation there is a slip between the expression of an interest to its representation in reality.

In a democracy we have politicians represent our interests.
That is the claim, however when we think about how does a politician or a political party try and represent the interests of an entire group of people. Unless of course the group has a common interest, but given our culture backgrounds, our social status, our economic disposition we could have a variegated interest to express and to represent.
How does the politician or a political party represent this diverse interest of its patrons, I am pretty sure there is to be some differences within the same electorate.

Inevitably, our interests and desires clash and politicians are forced to choose between the general interest and the special interest. Most often it is the general interest wins. However while campaigning politicians use special interests to come to power, however once in power they realize that special interest could have an adverse impact on some sections of their electorate.

So politicians are more willing to go with general interests that please the public.

the flip side is they still maintain a self interest and pursue policies that aid their self interest while in contrast only purport an electorate's general interest.

what gets us about higher prices

I think we all realize that oil prices would head up in time.
I mean with demand outstripping supply and new demand coming in from China & India it is inevitable that energy costs would rise.

But the surprise is not that energy costs have risen, it is startling that they have risen so quickly and by so much.

Its is the pace of price rise that has got us baffled rather than the fact that energy costs have risen. It was inevitable that prices rise just as prices rise for just about everything else, and energy is another commodity that would be affected by the obvious.

Akin to the stock markets, when certain stock prices rise or dip faster than usual, there is always some rigging or horse trading involved.
And this is because the price rise can baffle most of us, but there are still a few smart ones around who know why prices rise (fall) and it would be good to consider what they are doing in times such as these.

The question is finding these smart alecs who are privy to this information.

the price control

What really can be controlled in today's economy.

There is regulation and management, and how much of what is really taking place out there, no one knows, I doubt the regulators and managers know in effect how much of what they see is actually the effects of regulation or management.

Maybe the effects are just incidental.
Maybe we need to refocus from effects to stimulus, we should look at managing stimuli, but then how much of what stimulus affects to render and effect. I mean in todays world everything has a bearing on everything else.
And even nothing can actually have a bearing on something.

So where is the control?
Maybe it is an illusion?

Look at oil, look at inflation...which affects every consumer in the world today.
How much of inflation can be managed or targeted, I mean we all know oil prices affect prices of almost everything today but we are yet to come up with an alternate or effective management to keep prices in range or bearable.

I guess the only thing I have control over is what time I sleep and what time I wake up. Then again do I really?

oil

Oil could get to be at $200 a barrel: that is the warning from Goldman Sachs.

Well the issues here are much larger than demand and supply of a finite source.

The point to be asked is if Oil is a finite source, why is its control in the hands of a few. Rather if everybody here on earth requires oil why is it that in time with the depletion of the source fewer countries would be in a position to access oil.

Also with a few suppliers, surplus generated from a finite source are filling coffers of the few, how have these suppliers accounted for the fact that the resource is depleting.
They probably have, but then they are not going to let us know on alternates till the present oil source has depleted.

We are being conned by the few to pay higher prices.
But then that is business.

Business and capitalism is not about equitable distribution, business profits are on account of disparate distribution. The disparity that exists in the ability of a few to buy and the many who can't is what skews economies to get richer.

Rich economies get richer and can afford the higher oil prices. Simply because they got to an ability to afford this price increases quicker. Oil production should be equitably distributed to all for a level playing field, also on account of the fact that a finite resource is the resource of all and not the resource of the few to do what they will.

I also feel, if oil would have been in the hands of many, alternate materials or technologies that can substitute oil would have been available faster.
Just like software, level playing the field fosters greater innovations and lower costs directly or indirectly.

The actual price of oil should be much higher.
But since production is limited to a few, oil prices are reflecting supply and demand functions. In effect what it should also account for is the cost of utilizing a finite resource.

Such a cost is indeed high in the absence of an alternate technology or material.

But then the converse is that the lower price would mean there is an alternate technology, but we will be conned till oil sources last.

curb your enthusiasm

Sometimes in life we feel strongly about a few things.
Often termed as the object of my affection.

The downside is that the reciprocation is inversely proportional to the affection effused. The greater the affection effused yields the lowest of reciprocation and adversely thus greater the adverse effect.

And frankly I don't know why!
Maybe some things are meant to affect us greater than others.

Maybe those things nudge us 'to become' rather than 'to have'.

people

People will do things just because they are people.
Economics does assume that people will be rational, well for that matter I presume ever so often just that - that people are rational, but people sometime just do things that seem to contort logic.

Probably because there is more emotion in there than anything else.

And that is the blind spot that sometimes makes us do things.
Not in any way bad or evil, but just because the logic of the situation does not stare us in the face.

And though we do things fallaciously we never expect others to be just like us.
We generally expect them to behave rationally.

And that is what makes people difficult to understand.
We expect people to behave accordingly based on the imperatives of intellectual logic.

Ah, c'est la vie.

bail out

As it is becoming clear, banks are being bailed out by governments.

And governments bail out banks simply because banks use the money of its citizens.
A bank just does not have enough of its own funds, but is more of wheeler-dealer, now this operation is called treasury; the bank actually plays with its deposits and credits.
As credits of the bank are nothing but the deposits of the people in effect the money of the people. The bank is the dealer(as in wheeler-dealer), now called intermediary.
And there will come a time when a thief shall be called a borrower.

coming back..., governments are set up to protect and safeguards its citizens/ people, so if these citizens are harmed in any manner economical or physical, the governments can be sure that in the next election these citizens will keep them out.

So the governments interest is the citizens interest and this is served by bank bailouts.

The key point is the bankers are the ones getting the free lunch.
The bankers manage business and they do fine and if they do mismanage business they are still fine.

I am sure somebody pays.
Someone is being short-changed.

A moot point is, why was there no Enron or Tyco bail out, but there is a bank bail out by the government.

peanuts

peanuts, that what you get when you travel by air in the US.
Maybe what the folks here need is some education in Indian hospitality.

We have a number of airlines now doing the same in India too, a pointer if you give peanuts you will get peanuts. How much does food really cost for an airline?
I doubt it would be more than 10 dollars here in the US and in India not more than 3 dollars.

Maybe it is the serving cost, well maybe it is, then we need to do away with the flight attendants, and not the food.
Or rather the only duty of a flight attendant is service, if you take away the service what need is there of the server.

SSSS

If you ever take an e-ticket in the US, and happen to be stuck with an SSSS imprint on it.

Beware, it means added security clearance needed.

On one of these trips, I ended up with an SSSS tag on my eticket.
And why, well because the airline felt that I need to have added security clearance before I got checked in.
And how did the airline come to this decision, actually I don't know, all I forwarded was my credit card at the electronic machine.

Maybe it reckoned my Credit Card was Indian, which would have been out of the norm compared to the several other swipes it had taken of other credit cards and felt I needed added security clearance.

My point, don't make a machine do a humans job.
I am just wondering how does a computer differentiate a patron from a security risk, it however does identify a shift from the norm but it is still incapable of calling a shift from the norm a security risk.

sockets and switches

I just happen to notice, electrical sockets in USA do not come with switches. However back in India, every electrical socket come with a switch to allow current to flow from the socket.

Maybe we Indian like to be better safe than mistaken.

squaring our accounts with the west

There has been foreign exchange inflows into the country since sometime now.
Though these exchange inflows are in part dollar earnings and foreign remittances into India there have also been a interest in terms of investments by foreign MNC's in India. Foreign MNC's looking at investing in India bring in foreign capital.

The recent acquisition of Tata - Land Rover and Jaguar is but a change of interest from exports to imports. Which is in effect taking foreign exchange to those countries for the acquisitions.

Exports bring in foreign remittances, while acquisitions take back the foreign exchange to these foreign countries.

We seem to just balancing our book of accounts in the longterm.
Exports does finally lead to imports, in the sense that dollars earned in early stages are finally used to acquire foreign companies themselves in the later stages of the developing economy.

Exports began for us around 1991, in 2008 I think we are looking at Indian acquisitions. 18 years to balance our books.

I guess the furore we hear about call center jobs going to India, will I reckon lead to Indian call centers acquiring foreign firms. I reckon it may not take 18 years to balance that account probably lesser, about 9 years.

Would be interesting to know how long this phenomenon takes, but equally interesting is just as westerns are now making space for Indian and Chinese companies on the world map, whom would the Chinese and Indian vacate space for.

Come to think of it, all empires come to an end.
Rome came to an end with the fall of Constantinople, a time span of close to 700 years. In the 21st century this span has drastically fallen. Maybe to around 50 to 100 years.

prime minister hopeful

the leader of the opposition party and prime ministerial hopeful has released his memoir titled 'My Country, My Life'. Why would a prime minister hopeful do that, I mean in the sense memoirs are after a life of accomplishment and here Mr L K Advani is still a prime ministerial 'hopeful'.

He has been a Home Minister when his party the BJP did come to power in 1997, if I can give him that leverage of accomplishment or perhaps it is the sign of times, Mr Advani is 80, maybe he is not as daring or raring to go. Age does catch up on you, you know or maybe he has resigned to fate on the cognition that he is not going to get a chance at the PM' seat in this life time.

Anyway at his book reading in the city he had the opportunity to read a couple of lines from his book. And he turns to a chapter and paragraph and reads out a passage from his book but is actually a quote from another author; which is kind of novel or esoteric, an author reading out a paragraph from his book but quotes a passage from another author's work, at his own book reading.

Maybe Mr. Advani has seen the writing on the wall, he probably will remain a PM hopeful, that is fate and the book reading would have been just the sign of despair of that fate.

counteraction

came across some insightful reading penned in 1943 during World War II, by Mr Edward Riley, GM Overseas Operations Group at General Motors.

"the most effective means of counteracting the spread of Russian philosophy is to prevent or relieve the conditions favorable to its development and to demonstrate that the system of life which represents the American and British point of view can offer as much or more to the mass of people."

which makes for some interesting implications:
1. the system of belief that we have today is that purported by US and European MNC's designed to sell their products and make profits.
rather our system of belief is one that has been enacted to render a profit to another, it was not necessarily a victory of US and British system of thought over that of Russian. it was just that of economic interest.

The noted economist, E F Schumacher makes a very strong case against this MNC culture in his book Small is Beautiful.

2.the Russian political philosophy was one that was so internally focussed that its system was often referred to as the 'Iron Curtain'. This was a grave ill for its system as such, if information can't flow out from Russia to the outside world, information from the outside still manges to filter in, which builds a sense of loss for the insulated subjects itself.
This 'iron curtain' must have been the death knell of Russian system of life, which implies a way or system of life can be embraced in mass only by allowing it to run a free course enabling a free exchange of ideas and culture.

3. In todays era, a certain section of Islamic fundamentalists and clergy believe in such similar insulation to guard their way and system of belief much like the Russians believed, needless to say they will share the same fate as the Russian system of thought has.

Capital

Ford in 1903 had priced his Model A at USD 750. The capital he employed to make this came to about USD 30,000.

From 1903 to 1919, the Model A Ford was the largest selling car in the US.
Single colour, no new styles or changes for a period of 16 years.

In Galbraith's New Industrial Estate, he makes a very important report about the Ford Motor Company.
In 1903, the company was in a position to solicit a paid capital of USD 30,000, 125 people, and in 4 months they were able to come up with the Model A Ford.

In 1963, FMC to develop the Ford Mustang, had spent USD 59 million, taken 3 and a half years and had on its rooster 250,000 employees.

The moot point that Galbraith makes is, FMC took much less capital to get into business but required a much higher capital and technology to stay in business.

he makes 5 points which is an eyeopener for any entrepreneur.
1. The beginning of the work to the market in 1903 took just 4 months. In 1963, a mere change in model took 40 months.

2. a vast increase in capital, which warrants study if the product demanded it or just the ego to stay in business or just the cost to erect barriers of entry for competition. Anyway, the customer was much happy to bear these costs.
the investment per unit of output in 1903 was infinitesimal vis a vis the investment per unit output in 1963.

3. An increase in inflexibility. only elementary machines were used initially, no special machineries. Any change in 1903 could have been accommodated in a few hours.
If they tried to change even one screw in 1963, it would take many months.

4. Specialized manpower. Necessitating specialized planning in the future to the utmost detail. Increasing complexities in the business and production.

5. A tall organizational structure from a relatively flat structure, each employee would be on a very specific task or role.(Adam Smith - Division of labour)
Employees cannot do any task in the organization but a specific one in the complicated whole .

Stock Valuation

I think it is fairly evident by now that valuations are determined largely if not only by credit inflows. I mean exiguous inflows and stocks turn bearish.

Excessive inflows and stocks are bullish.

Given credit woes in US and Europe there has been an efflux of funds back to their origin. Which also gets one to ask, "what didn't they see it coming."
Or did they just wake up one morning and say oh my, we don't have a credit balance.

I don't know what happened to the census that stocks are valued as per future earnings, looks like future earnings for most blue chip companies went for a toss. Did they just evaporate?
So now our punters tells us that stocks valuations are still good in the long term as evidently they have just fallen through for now.

One wonders how true is the India growth story about order books in the domestic market being full and can keep the economy on growth. Well if so, what happened to domestic funds to prop up these languishing levels in the stock market.

Maybe no one knows what is the truth, everyone is just guesstimating.
Everyone is waiting for some one to move and that someone is waiting for everyone to move, in chess its called 'stalemate'.

what to do? & how to do?

For most of us who would want to equate 'scientific thought' in the way we live our lives. The distinction is brought about asking what does scientific thought accomplish.
Science is the method or process or hypothesis that answers our question 'how'?
How does that arise, how does this event take place, how is this possible, etc
Science is more about how you came to be or how your environment came to be.

It still is vacant about the 'what' or 'why'.
That 'what/why' is what most us would want to figure out in life but somewhere between asking the query and accepting the answer we forget that we have just part of the answer.

What do we live for?
Why do we live?
What is our purpose in life?
What can make life happy for us and the people around us?

Science would pretty much puts the answer squarely as: you are just a collation of atoms and a chance event or a evolution of the monkey. With an answer like that, it pretty much erases the question itself, that is it nullifies the what and why question?

The why and what can be answered only if we understand that we are placed in an order. We see that everywhere, there is an order, it is not chaos around us, even science accepts that life as itself is in order, if it was chaos, our existence would have just vapourized. But things are, we don't just cease to be, and the there is a definite hierarchy of laws and just as there is this hierarchy to order there is an order in our lives and existence.

There is a sequence to the motions of time, and if a sequence then pretty much we are placed to play a part in the sequence. We then have a purpose in the sequence and every part has a significance and purpose in the play, the moot point is once we begin to realize that there is purpose and seek it, we find the script of life opening up for us.

But being ignorant about this script would keep our purpose and sequence in the events of life shut and we would disperse the atoms that we think we are at the end of our life span. Being Unacceptable to this order and sequence in life does not make the order cease to exist, it does we just are oblivious to the part we have to play in it.

the crux being that the answer lies in the 'what of life' and not in the 'how of life'!

taxes - encouraging to be dishonest & migration

The man who has found a loophole in the law, one through which he can drive his gold platted Rolls, will certainly keep the secret to himself.

What should be a true tax rate, rather a rate that seems to be acceptable not only to the taxer but also to the taxed. Well for one, most people would like to live with no tax; governments would not take too kindly to that note.

So we refer to experience and that seems to imply that the magical figure is 10%. At 10% most of us would rather get along with life; rather when the effort to evade is greater than the effort to pay, then we will pay. This should be the nominal tax rate and this would translate to roughly about a months pay form the taxed to the state exchequer, I think it is fair, I mean if an employer is ready to provide a months paid leave, I am sure an employee can provide for the state exchequer vide a months paid leave. (easy come, easy go)

Significantly, 11 months of work for oneself and one for the state exchequer is not a bad deal.

So the question is with a tax rate of 30%-35%, does the exchequer really believe that
people would pay their taxes. Actually roughly translated that is three and a half months of work going to the state exchequer and quiet naturally that is met by general evasion.
You don't need to be Einstein to figure out that increasing taxes further from this rate would not yield any additional taxes to the exchequer what it would yield is increased evasion.

So why not reduce tax rates, well as of now there is no precedent that tells any bureaucrat that a reduction will yield an increase in tax collections, logically a decrease in tax rates would yield a lower revenue but we already know that the converse works.

Another aspect is the high tax rates make it comfortable for a bribe.
Yes, my life is easier and richer still(by evading taxes) and the tax-mans life is comfortable by cadging a bribe. So the high tax rates will stay, for how can we stifle the income of the tax man.

So the question is should we increase bureaucracy and thus generate more income for our state officials but reduce income for the state exchequer or should we reduce taxes which empirically will get more people to pay taxes and not evade taxes but reduce income for our state officials.

I think the answer is empirical, not logical.
Systems get more bureaucratic so that means state officials continue to make money and we still live but with a tad dishonesty. If systems do get less bureaucratic, then that state is actually asking you to be honest at the cost of its state officials who is poorer now, but you are living a hassle free and honest life.

Could that be?, I think not.
our systems makes us dishonest, which will one way or the other has become a part of the culture as it is a part of the land we live in.
So what do people do in such a scenario, well the same that people did a thousand years ago, they migrate to other lands.

schools of thought

1. The contemporary school of thought that has been gaining popularity is that of scientific and that such knowledge can only come from positive affirmation of theories through strict scientific method. Hence no knowledge is genuine unless it is based on generally observable facts. It is very acutely concerned with 'know-how' it does not account or explain for purpose and meaning as in why are things the way they are.
Well they are because they are and you can see them.
If you can't see it, they don't exist.

2. The general idea of relativism, that is there are no absolutes. The truth is dependent on you and your environment. So the truth is related to the existing culture environment or majority or generally accepted ideas. There are no standards here, no norms, everything is relative. The idea is that truth has many forms and this is one such form, or rather an amalgamation of co-existence.
The entire theory is flippant, in free flowing form, no strict codes and statutes, the outgrowth of this is the live and let live idea on life.

3. The essence of human life viz; culture, society, language, religion, philosophy, etc are nothing but necessary implements to support the life of mankind where he is in the annals of time. This is just a super structure erected to promote ones interest and convenience such that the believers would form a common point and create support structure to carry on their interest through priests and oracles in a way each supporting the other.

4. In contrast one might think, that these manifestations are nothing but ideas and notions of the subconscious mind mainly explained by Freudian theories of unfulfilled incest wishes during childhood and adolescence.

5. The last and oldest thought is that of creation. The fact of creation and thus a purpose and that we people are travelers on earth to tend and keep what the Good Lord has provided. The end of life being of restoration and the journey of now being of fulfilling our destiny. A one to one relationship between God and man, and the man to men relationship based on the one to one.

Needles to say, the last system of though is increasingly ignored and we tend to qualify our life with the other four.
The distinction in these schools of thought is that, the first #4 schools of thought are a general reaction in the subjects environment that shapes the subjects thought. The #5 school of thought is one where the subject chooses his/her thoughts and aligns it to his/her individual purpose to be fulfilled in conjunction to the environment.

The first #4 schools of thought allows one to infer that we are a product/end of the environment.
The last #5 schools of thought allows one to infer that we are a constituent that will yield an end.

labour & leisure

Came across a really interesting concept in recent reading.

From the point of view of an entrepreneur labour is an item of cost, to be kept at the minimum if it cannot be eliminated by mechanization.

From the point of view of an employee, labour is a dis-utility, to work is to make a sacrifice of one's leisure and comfort and wages are a kind of compensation for the sacrifice.

Thus an entrepreneur would want a product without employees while an employee would want an income without an employment.

It would be interesting to note that capitalist countries will follow on the former whereas socialist countries will follow on the latter.

Or for that matter when we try to get any paper moving in a government office, no work will ever get done, the paper will remain on someones desk or forever keep moving from desk to desk with no destination. As governement employees think of work as a dis-utility. So they say, the government pays us not to work, you can pay us to get your work. (implying to grease their palms). That is socialism.

For the entrepreneur its all about the incentive or rather the output to derive an incentive which is in essence capitalism.

A moot point is that the worker when jobless will yearn for any job, at that point he does not look at work as a dis-utility of his leisure time, but will rather look at the incentive that arises with work.

Directions

If you are from the city, getting from one place to another is not an ordeal, I mean it can be tailored like a menu card. General directions are in terms of left, right, straight ahead or head back.
Which is pretty straightforward, I mean first right then second left, straight ahead and left and left again. Absolutely no problem, I mean no road signs or whatever its all charted in your head.

If you even stop to ask directions in a smaller town, asking directions will first require you to have a compass. As town folk think in terms of North, South, East and West. This becomes a tad confusing when getting from one place to another.

If ever you do stop and ask directions to a place, you get a reply like "Head east".
No left, right or whatever, just head east and the road ahead of you would be dead straight. So how do you head east. Frankly I don't know.

What I do is first I ask where is East, then I ask for directions.
Which gets me a quizzical look to begin with the expression "Where is this queer from?".

Anyway not that this helps, but then it is worth the try!

economics

economics is the theory of market dynamics involved in buying and selling goods and services. It presupposes that the goods are already in the market it does not call into question what resources were used and how these resources were employed in bringing the goods and services to the market.

Who produced it and how it was produced is not of concern to economics.
Economics is about the market dynamics involved between willing buyers and willing sellers.

If the goods and services are in the market then there is an economics to it, if absent from the market, then that goods or service does not exist which is absurd but economic has severe limitations which are not often stated.

Which get us to a moot point that economics is about 'profit' or rather the economic incentive to trade. in the absence of this economic incentive there is no economics involved. The economic trade arises by the fact that the goods or services are in a market of willing buyers and sellers, which means someone is making money and so the goods are in the market and ergo it is about the 'profit'.

Which is what capitalism is all about.
Capitalism is about free trade about free supply and free demand not calling into question how a supply has been made or where it has come from.

Capitalism is based on such economic theory which does not value how the goods were made or where they were made from. Which implies that capitalism has a tacit criteria of non-responsibility.

For capitalism to work, the country has to be a democratic institution.
Or rather capitalist countries are those that have democratic political institutions.

A derivative of the non-responsible economic theory that has brewed capitalism has provided for a democratic freedom of right which we enjoy today.

Could I say then, that such freedom has a tendency to be non-responsible in many ways as our non-responsible capitalistic society which is based on a non-responsible economic theory.

Maybe there is a cost and value on things beyond our general perception from the way we act towards others to the way we do business with others and a sum value has not yet been put to it. Maybe such a sum value cannot be calculated, I mean how do we calculate the value of the air we breathe(as on date it is free), and how can we penalize when industries pollute the very air we breathe (we don't as on date).
I mean for sure, economics ignore such value and does not or rather cannot consider such a value on account of its limitations.
Maybe if we can figure out the individual drivers that make up this sum value for us humans to live we can very clearly state the right and wrong in our manner of living (moral as well as professional).

I think this would involves not just of professional trade but also of human inter-relations, subjects of homosexuals, fornications, abortions and in the purview of business of manufacturing, trading, constructions, power generations, etc.

As everything has a cost as long as we live in this world, if not a cost to us a cost to the next generation or to the immediate populace itself. We don't wash our clothes and drink water of the same bucket. Which implies that there are somethings we can do and some we cannot or rather shouldn't though we have the potential to do so, as it bears a cost to someone if not us.

Which means the rules of life are in black and white, though we choose to ignore it or are unaware of these rules. If not us, society bears that cost.

Or we can say, in the end it does not matter, we are all dead which surprisingly is the way we have chosen.

capital equipment

Came across an interesting concept on plant and machinery.

Plant and machinery should be easily accessible and cheap enough such that their costs must stand in some definable relationship to the levels of incomes in the society they are to be used.

We happen to be looking for some polymer processing machines.

The costs for such a machine:

1. In Western Europe: USD 200,000
2. In Taiwan: USD 100,000
3. In India: USD 50,000
4. In China: USD 25,000

This is on the assumption that the plastic processing technology is easy available & accessible in these markets.

I would have hoped Europe to be the cheapest, as they were the pioneers in plastics technology. However they are the most expensive. Makes one wonder whether they realized that as the technology became accessible the prices would fall.

And as we see, Taiwan was the first to embrace the opening up plastics technology.
And their prices are half that of Europe's. However, in light of this Europe has still not reduced its prices!

The other surprise was the difference in prices in China and India, I would have put both these countries on an equal footing for capital equipment, but there is a price difference maybe we Indians are having the same problem as the Europeans.

But, I can't quiet figure out what?

With the opening of technology in a domain, the field is actually being leveled as more manufacturers will begin to produce with access in technology, prices will drop and volumes will increase as the products get available to a mass of people.
So why are the Europeans and Indians charging a premium?

Is it information arbitrage or is it quality?

Actually quality is the shade every businessman tries to pull, I mean with an open access in technology, what quality are these guys talking about. I don't hear the pharmaceutical companies talking about quality when patents are lifted and production is thrown open for wider access. Actually pharmaceutical prices are as good as the newly entering competitions.

So then what is Mercedes or BMW selling, part of it is con part of it is snob value and some part is perhaps quality. Nothing more!

good to lose everyonce in a while

In business wining every time can be dangerous.
Every once in a while when we lose, there is a recheck on ground realities.

Have customers choices changed, is there a supplemental source of supply for the product at lower prices, technological advantage, etc. It becomes so important to keep checking on oneself over and over again.

In business however success usually makes us blind in some areas or the other. I think not for any fault of ours, but the fact being that we can't have our eyes everywhere or we can't be specialists in every facet of business. Every once in a while when we lose for not being as adept as competition in a facet of business the situation makes us rethink the aspect of business we are betting on.

It also gets us to realize that we are fallible and there are and always will be businesses & people that can one up on us. This thought on the probability of failure should get us to lift our head up from the pile of work and look around.
Most folks think business is about wining a race, actually it isn't it, every once in a while failure visits us and asks us to remove our blinkers and look around.

Infact I think the small failures are better than one big failure over a prolonged period of time. The reason being over a prolonged period of time, we get accustomed to our environment such that change becomes difficult to accept and re-jig.

the maximiser

Ever so often in business, I come across vendors who will look at maximizing their profits on every transaction. The thinking goes that if I can cadge off an additional 10% from the client on every transaction, I would be making more money.

The basic assumption underlying this theory is that the client will continue to make the same number of transactions for the vendor to make the notional greater money. Inadvertently the client just reduces the number of transactions.

This leaves the vendor with lesser revenues & even lesser profits in total.

On the other hand, there are vendors who would standardize production at a given standard rate. I personally feel these vendors are worth partnering, they understand that profits will be marginal when economies of scale are demanded.
The profits arise from larger raw material buying power, increase inventory turnover, lowering invariable costs per unit with economies of scale.

Another facet of this vendor is he can successfully differentiate between the volume buyer and the base buyer, base prices for base quantities which would compete vis a vis any other vendor and marginal pricing for economics of scale.

I think this is the heart of the business. He differentiates the 2 buyers and thinks long term on how to get his costs down. The vendor makes best of what a particular kind of buyer is willing to pay, as well as gets his costs down with economies of scale. In doing so he is actually cadging off the smaller buyer but does this over the long term rather than early on.

The distance between continents is the mind

I would have thought that the US and Europe have a lot in common.

But given the run up of election in the US and the recently elected Premier of France tells us that the two sects of people once one now are very different in their thinking.

Americans prefer to elect stable Family Men as President. It has been so till now.
The French wouldn't care two hoots about such things as they don't believe in such frailties.

Quite frankly I think times today are about 'can you deliver the goods'.
You could be anybody or anything, you just need to deliver.

In a poll, 34% of the French believe there is a god in contrast 33% are either atheists or agnostics. In contrast in the US only 14% of the populace identified themselves as atheists or agnostics.

I think the root of holding onto ones family essentially is a religious belief.
But the absence of such a belief perhaps proves that the Americans and French are different in their orientation in electing a President of the State.

Quiet frankly the social background of a nations Premier does in a way reflect to a large extent of what the majority populace believe for themselves. Maybe these are sign of the times.

R U A sexist or racist?

Well the US elections will clearly let us know whether we choose to be racist or sexist. Even though it may not really be about racism and sexism, I mean it is about who makes the better candidate.

In a twist of fate we have a first with Hilary and Obama.
We could have the first Woman President of the US or the first African American President of the US.

Which could let us know, what does the average American man want to bear with.
A woman as Boss or an African American as Boss. Which may not necessarily mean that the average American individual is a racist or a sexist, but it could mean so.?

The balance hangs in the hands of the American woman.
Would they vote for Hilary a fellow mate or an African American Man.

I think the American man has made his mind up, I mean you take a look at Bill, and he has definitely had it, Bills eyes say a lot and I think they say, "you think I have had it bad, wait till Hilary becomes President".
For most American men folk this is a scary thought.
Believe me, I am Indian and it is a scary thought.

Which gets us to, Hilary. Actually she would make a great US President in my opinion, I think she knew about Bill all along - maybe Bill has been a philanderer all his life and she lived with it for the simples reason that she knows how to look at the longterm and sacrifice the short term. More than that she has an intuitive ability to know who can deliver, I mean look at Bill, assuming that philandering is not a one off event, I mean you've got to set your mind on doing what you shouldn't be doing, but knowing this and still sticking by Bill. And Bill does make President.
She is in the classic parlance a strategic thinker - a chess player. She is the one who knows how to deliver to the US public.

But to get her through, I think the American woman is the deciding factor.
Would they be in a position to look beyond Bill and see her as the empowered woman.
She certainly qualifies for that position - A corporate woman in a man's world (it still is by the way).

Or is the American woman a romantic/idealist, who think in terms of a stable family & stable man which will get Obama through and he sure plays that 'family' card well.

Here in India most woman are romantics/idealists, and I have nothing against the women and their choices, but believe me they think Shah Rukh Khan is a great actor.
He stutters, bumbles and overplays the character role in most of his films and he plays the same character over and over again for every film, it take a great effort and patience to watch him act and worse still you can see he is putting a lot of effort into it ergo it looks like an act. I mean in acting, not that I know a lot about cinema, either you are a natural or you're not, Shah Rukh is not, but the women simply adore him.

As he epitomizes what a man to be - a stable husband & a stable family man. This is what Hilary does not have and Obama does. Obama if I may take the liberty has just that going for him. Read about the 'Warren Harding' error in Gladwell's Blink. Warren Harding is ranked at the bottom in Historical ranking of US Presidents. I think the US public would make the same error again.

By the way, in a sorry twist of fate, I think Obama is like Shah Rukh Khan, he is an overplay. It all novel now, but after 6 months, you will just switch off.

quantifiers

Came across a sign-age stating: "God is one".
The proposer being one of the many god men.
However what is dropped is the quantifier "All".
'All' considered to be an indefinite pronoun generally when the sum quantity of the subject under consideration is unknown.

'All' can take singular as well as plural depending on the subject.

For starters the statement implies a multiplicity of gods, which makes us wonder the state of mind of the proponent.

'God' is in the singular, the plural but obviously would be 'gods'.
So why state the obvious.
example: An apple is one apple. Stating the obvious.

For the simplest reason of all, if I get your belief then I get you and if I get you then I get what you have.

Which is the oldest rule in the book of con.
Get the people to believe in you, You can get them to believe in you, if you believe what they believe.
In other words these are days and times of convenience, if it is convenient to state God is one, say so, which implies that there are many Gods, but then he/they is/are one. Clearly something is amiss somewhere.

Which gets us to what grammar has to say about indefinite pronouns:
"On the surface, indefinite pronouns seem simple and harmless, but they often cause confusion for writers."

Similarly, the propose is making a harmless statement so to say, but then he is creating confusion too.

Which is so very apt to convenient times as ours.
Hopefully, once we know what they are pulling over our eyes we'll usually make the correct choice.
That is, 'hopefully'.

fashion & boundaries

Saw a biker with a bandanna emblazoned with a NAZI Swastika.
There was a sense of parody in it, an Indian with a Nazi swastika.

But then that is fashion or should I say freedom; the liberty to express with no boundaries. And if there are boundaries, who decides these boundaries or are there certain boundaries here in India and these boundaries are flippant or fitful in another country.

Perhaps in India we can get away with a lot of things or rather some people some time can get away with most things.

Another example is Raj Thackeray who feels that North Indians should leave Bombay.
40 years ago, it was his uncle, Bal Thackeray who felt the same way but against Gujarathis and South Indians.

Well, 40 years ago the law should have done something, but it didn't.
So it set a precedent of not to act. Now its Raj and he has no indictments against him for spreading animosity & communal hatred.

Well, Raj was charged by a fellow politician - Amar Singh. It took Amar Singh 3 hours to file a FIR against Raj Thackeray. As the cops in Bombay asked him to file the FIR in Marathi. It took Raj 4 hours to get a bail.

All in all, nothing actually happened.

Let's rewind, if we had the opportunity to stop Hitler from making his remarks and gain political mileage, would we? Well he sent 6 million Jews to the death. And his speeches and discourses had enough material and evidence to give any reasonable bloke a clear idea that this guy is going to act out all that he is saying and what do we know, Hitler did!

So what are the boundaries, who sets them and when are these boundaries clear enough to take action.
Who decides these boundaries, is it the majority.
So far it has been held sway by a coerced (under necessity) opinion.
The rest have to live with that opinion.

Society does pay the price in the end, there are no free lunches here.

Is God a sexist?

Bible critiques have often shown that God is a sexist.
They often quote passages from the new testament to make this point.

To be fair, the passages that are often quoted stating the status of women are the sum basis of the prevailing perceptions at that time about women. This is not God's take about women.

The quoted passages need to be taken with the same erudition as when Paul talks about slaves; he is not asserting that slaves is a biblical principle but rather if the existing culture was such of slave and master he was remarking on the rules of engagement in such a case.

What then should be the official stance or is there no safe stance that can be conceded. I think if we look for what God himself quotes, we would appreciate the essence of the God:

"God is not a respecter of persons."
This quote and its essential form has been repeated 8 time in the entire Bible.

Reckon that the essence of what is being said is God does not hold a prejudice on the basis of sex, social standing, caste or are any such strata. God treats everybody the same and looks at everybody in similar light, God does not play favourites.

On alms

Mirza Abdur Rahim Khan-e-Khanan, Minister & Governor at Mughal King Akbar's Darbar.

Rahim when giving alms to the poor never looked at his beneficiary but averted his gaze downwards. Goswami Tulsidas, a sanskrit scholar and poet sent Rahim a couplet:

"Sir, why do you bestow gifts like this, where have you learned such ways?
Your hands are raised as high as your eyes drop low"

Rahim understood that Tulsidas was inviting him to say a few words:

"The Giver is someone else, bestowing day and night.
The world gives me credit: so my eyes are cast down"

---
Later in life Mirza Rahim relinquished his position in the Mughal Durbar, renounced his worldly goods and set off as a mendicant.

dal-roti

Zahir-ud-din Muhammad Babar, founder of the Mughal dynasty in India.

His account when he first ate dal-roti in India.

"Ghalla ba ghalla mi khurdam!"
- from his autobiographical Babarnama


"I ate grain with grain!"

the leap

"My victory has proved that athletes with yellow skin can run as fast as those with black and white skin. This is a miracle but I believe a lot more miracles will take place in China (2008)"

- Liu Xiang, the 110meter hurdler on equaling the world record time of 12.91s at Athens 2004

Liu Xiang implies two aspects in her statement.

#1. She has probably been a victim of racial prejudice and she has been able to prove her critiques wrong.

#2. She has given an impetus to fellow athletes in China who probably but erroneously believed the racial stereotyping ergo her claim that 'there will be many more miracles taking place in China 2008' - 4 years after Athens.

reservations to 'act white'

Acting white is an epithet applied to blacks, and also within ethnic groups referring to a perceived betraying of one's culture by incorporating the social expectations of mainstream society.

Some research has shown that employers don’t value qualifications or experience of minority groups, which in turn means that the victims rationally invest less in education and work experience, which in turn feeds a statistical discrimination.
This discrimination can have bearing on the minority groups history and geography which could polarize future generation of minority aspirants from not trying at all.

This turns into a self induced spiral, wherein jobs would not be offered because the minority group is uneducated while the minority group claims that jobs weren't being offered inspite of their qualification & education, ergo why should minorities invest in education.

India has a similar problem of ethnic minorities but the ironic fact is that a solution meant to provide an opportunity has actually done more damage.

Reservations emerged as it seemed to be the only manner to address the social divide keeping the caste minority out of the economic prosperity that non-ethnic minorities are a part of. These reservations were brought in account of the encumbrance of geography, cultural & heredity factors and critical thinking posed on the caste minority.

These reservations have led the caste minority to avail admissions into college/schools and professional jobs in the market place.
Upto 50% reservations are held back for the caste minority in graduate and post graduate colleges. Government services and employments hold similar reservations.

However, the real reason why the chances of a minority were lower in an economic market place even with a comparative or better educational background was on account of the employer being ethnically critical. This was the problem that should have been addressed.

In the Indian context to overcome the handicap of screening a critical employer on a caste or ethnic stereotype, reservations was introduced. However reservations does not filter the performing and non-performing ethnic incumbent.

Though reservations have helped the performing minority incumbent into colleges and universities, it has also allowed non-performing minority incumbents into the same college. With 50% reservations probably just half of it would be substantiated by performance, the remaining would have to be filled by the non-performing ethnic minorities.
In effect, non performance has been rewarded.

For the incumbent who does not posses an educational or professional qualification as its presence or absence did not aid his chances in the economic market place will continue to foster this ideal in the presence of reservations. Reservations should have provided a level playing field for the ethnic incumbent however it has provided him reason to stay the way he is which could be under qualified or non professional.
There isn't an economic reason for him to invest in an education or qualification especially when a job falls into his lap without the investment.

In effect this is another self inducing spiral that been created with reservations.

Reservations has further led the non performing minority groups to turn political.
The minority groups have a vested interest to continue with reservations and hold such reservations by joining the political brigade. Since the minorities have a vested interest to continue with reservations, they also hold a sizeable vote bank in politics. Being a sizeable vote bank, they often enjoy political handouts in kind. An area with such a vote bank will show a marked tendency towards violence between competing political factions and decreased economic activity as economic activities cannot continue in disruptive areas where the populace prefers to stay unemployed or resort to violence or remain uneducated and unprofessional.

Tim Harford, in his book - The Logic of Life illustrates a parallel example, where minorities will overcome majorities simply because the cost per capita for a majority is far less than the cost per capita for the minority.
Imagine 'no reservations', this will cause the minority dearly, so they will fight this tooth and nail. On the other hand the presence of reservations will cost a couple of people from the majority; maybe a manufacturing business in the area, maybe students entering college this year, etc.

The problem that needed to be addressed was the employer who was ethnically critical, but we have created a new problem as well as subverted minorities from 'acting white'; thanks to with reservations.

I thought reservations should have encouraged the minorities from acting white, but empirical experience shows us it won't and it doesn't.

the end with whatever means

Just came across a recent graffiti by a political party of Uttar Pardesh.

The graffiti went something like:

"Our ultimate aim is to stake claim on the Prime Minister-ship of India."

Makes you wonder with a claim like that, the means to achieve the PM' position is not important, just the end.
Our present PM is an alumnus from Cambridge and Oxford, he is not politician himself, he is more of an economist & he does have the credentials to take an onerous task of PM.

Am of the opinion that one should be political without letting the other fellow know that you are political. Politics fail when they come to the fore, politics is best when subtle and implicit.