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'.