Barack Obama got sworn in, and after his inauguration speech, where he talked about the resolve to take on the financial crisis, but warned that there are challenges ahead, the Wall Street sank. How much of it is Barack Obama, and how much of it is due to the continuing bad news coming from banks, it is difficult to tell. But it seems it is mostly banks, as they continue to pour bad news, despite clear evidence that they are now hoarding cash, clawing back on loans and obviously passing on their troubles to the broader economy. The British government, over last couple of days, took some extraordinary steps to give the banks confidence about lending money, basically by insuring their loans. Despite this, question marks are being raised about the financial health of Britain's largest banks, Barclay's for one. Across the pond, it is Citi, yes the world's largest financial institution supposedly, which is in trouble. It is interesting to learn that in Citi, it is only its brokerage arm, Smith Barney, that makes the money; all other consumer businesses of Citi group do not make any money at all. And, Citi is planning to sell Smith Barney. So, it is Deja Vu once again, to quote CNBC commentators. It feels like that week in September when Lehman Brothers went into bankruptcy and AIG came out with its troubles. Just that, this time, it is going to be bigger, and the policy options are mostly exhausted.
Let's talk about it - policy options. It is extraordinary to see what the governments are doing across the world. If we wind back 12 months, the first set of responses were based on interest rates, where the monetary authorities were trying to make money cheaply available to keep the economy going. This was getting sticky, with rising inflation and a negative real interest rate, but everyone kept going. However, around mid year, Banks started failing and the phenomena of reckless lending came to light. By then, interest cuts were no longer the option - it was already cut too low - and the word 'Bail Out' came to the fore. So, governments bailed out the financial institutions and thought everything will be back to normal. It did not, as banks started repairing their balance sheets first - what else do you expect of a profit making entity - and we moved from bail out to 'stimulus', injecting money to the wider economy through loan guarantees to banks and even the extraordinary steps like allowing the central bank to lend to businesses. It looked like we are going on reverse gear on economic theory - we reached from Milton Friedman to Keynes in a few short months.
If one has to read anything in the current situation, the crisis is not going to get over any time soon. I, like many others, expected this to be a short recession, almost an unfinished one, blown away by combined policy actions by the middle of 2010. But, it does seem now, the interventions so far has done nothing - and this is the extra-ordinary thing about collective psychology - and as the banks act rationally in line with their economic interests, we have no way out of this crisis any time soon.
Without the real life pain, I obviously worry about the business I run, it would be an interesting game of strategy. The governments are running out of ideas fast. They are facing a crisis of an extraordinary proportion, and increasingly it is looking like that the whole capitalist system is in a sort of crisis. I say this because, as it stands, if everyone, bankers, entrepreneurs and government officials keep behaving the correct rational way, this crisis will deepen; so, we are possibly standing at a point of inflection in our history.
What could be done now? Everyone knows that we are seeking a Direct-to-Consumer strategy. How to reach money to the consumers so that demands can revive, businesses can start producing and banks see the rationale in lending money yet again. However, in our cascaded society, we have few options for such a stimulus. In fact, the deeper issue is about equality, sub-prime is not the problem but the solution rather. We have been hoarding money in the hands of a few for far too long: such a crisis was expected.
God has this habit of acting Robin Hood. It seems that whenever the balance of the economy is lost, he flattens it out yet again. It happens through disruptive technologies and innovations, but this time it is going to be a cruel correction of economic forces.
There is pain ahead, as Barack Obama also said. The question is: Whether we shall keep our faith and emerge, as good men and women, on the other side of the tunnel. Or, shall we lose ourselves in the process. Suddenly, failure does not look that bad at all. At times like this, I guess the trick is to focus on what we have, rather than what we don't; keep ourselves flexible, and feel the great freedom such crisis provides, one to do anything and be anyone, yet again.
I am, however, stuck to my old life, though I am trying best to escape. I am working on agreements and numbers, knowing fully well that this is about building a hut on the sea-shore amidst a tsunami. But then, habits die hard - our business culture is used to certain things, without which it does not look like work. So, I shall play the game as long as I have to, though I am desperate to send an IM to Noah to keep a seat.
Popular posts from this blog
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper et al , 1991). Arunthanes et al (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something). The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive s
Buzzwords have disadvantages. Right now, experiential learning is one, and that means we put the label on everything and it stops to mean anything. Also, this means reasonable conversation about experiential learning becomes difficult - at times such as this, either you preach experiential learning or you are traditional, antiquarian and hopelessly out of touch. But, overlooking the limitations of experiential learning can cause big problems. Experiential Learning does many things - putting practice at the heart of learning is an important paradigm shift - but not everything, and it is important to be aware what it does not do. Usually, we equate the terms Project-based Learning (the method) with Experiential Learning (the idea) and Learning from Experience (the ideal), treating them as one and the same and using the terms interchangeably. Any talk about distinctive meaning of these terms is usually seen as pedantic, but really represent very different ideas about education.
Today, Helen Goddard, 26, a highly popular music teacher of a City School for Girls, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Her crime was to carry out a year long lesbian affair with one of her pupils, who appeared in the court and admitted that the affair was consensual and it was she who pressured Helen into the affair. For Helen, a bright musician and a devout Chistian, this is an extraordinary lapse of judgement. Also, she was teaching in the £13,000 private girls only school in London. She was surely aware what the consequences of her action will be. The fact that she still could not stop herself tells us that lovers do not always act rationally, something we always knew. There is more in this affair than personal tragedies. For a start, this has all the dramatic elements: a bright, beautiful teacher more in Julia Roberts mould [as in Mona Lisa Smile], a stiff upper lip school [not unlike Wellesley] and a story like Notes On A Scandal with an added twist. Indeed, Helen
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago. Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so. Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself. Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was,
Introduction Erna Petri née Kürbs, a farmer’s daughter from Herressen in Thuringia, arrived in Ukraine with her three year old son to join her husband Horst in June 1942. Horst, an SS leader inspired by Nazi ideologue Dr Richard Walter Darré, settled in the plantation of Grzenda, just outside today’s Lviv, to become a German Gentleman-Farmer. Erna saw Horst beating and abusing the workers in the plantation within two days of arriving there, which was, as Horst explained, necessary for establishing authority. Erna joined in enthusiastically, settling into a combination of roles of ‘plantation mistress, prairie Madonna in apron-covered dress lording over slave labourers, infant-carrying, gun-wielding Hausfrau.’  However, there were clear rules in the plantation, and Erna was very much expected to play the woman’s role of being a Cake-and-Coffee hostess. When four Jews were caught in the estate while trying to escape from a transport to a death camp, Horst told Erna and her female
Introduction: Hastings in the history of Indian Education Whether or not one includes Warren Hastings in the history of Education in India is a matter of perspective. If writing the history of education means writing the history of schools, the impact of Hastings' administration would be quite limited. If anything, the rapid implosion of local rulers in Eastern, Southern and Northern India during Hastings' tenure had meant a bleak period for the indigenous education system, as patronage and funds would have dwindled away for many of them. The Company administration really concerned itself with the schooling of the natives only after 1813, as Nurullah and Naik rightly pointed out ( see my earlier post ) and one can legitimately start the story at this point. However, if history of Education in India is to encompass the transformation of Indian Scholarship, on which foundation the new, colonial, system of Education would be built, the story must start with Warren Hast
There is no other city like Kolkata for me: It is Home. The only city where I don't have to find a reason to go to, or to love. It is one city hardwired into my identity, and despite being away for a decade, that refuses to go away. People stay away from their homeland for a variety of reasons. But, as I have come to feel, no one can be completely happy to be away. One may find fame or fortune, love and learning, in another land, but they always live an incomplete life. They bring home broken bits of their homeland into their awkward daily existence, a cushion somewhere, a broken conversation in mother tongue some other time, always rediscovering the land they left behind for that brief moment of wanting to be themselves. The cruelest punishment, therefore, for a man who lives abroad is when his love for his land is denied. It is indeed often denied, because the pursuit of work, knowledge or love seemed to have gotten priority over the attraction of the land. This is particularly
I wrote a note on Kolkata, the city I come from and would always belong to, in July 2010. Since then, the post attracted many visitors and comments, mostly critical, as most people, including those from Kolkata, couldn't see any future for the city. My current effort, some 18 months down the line, is also prompted by a recent article in The Economist, The City That Got Left Behind , which echo the pessimism somewhat. I, at least emotionally, disagree to all the pessimism: After all Kolkata is home and I live in the hope of an eventual return. Indeed, some change has happened since I wrote my earlier post: The geriatric Leftist government that ruled the state for more than 30 years was summarily dispatched, and was replaced by a lumpen-capitalist populist government. Kolkata looked without a future with the clueless leftists at the helm; it now looks without hope. However, apart from bad governance, there is no reason why Kolkata had to be poor and hopeless. It sits right
The ‘Why’ Question? Adolf Hitler was appointed the German Chancellor by President Von Hindenburg on 30th January 1933. This was an extraordinary turn of events. Previously, President Von Hindenburg consistently refused to appoint Hitler the Chancellor, despite the impressive electoral performance of NSDAP in July 1932, Hitler’s uncompromising demand of the Chancellor’s post and a repeat election in November 1932 which failed to break the deadlock. Explaining his refusal, Hindenburg wrote in a letter on 24th November, “a presidential cabinet led by you would develop necessarily into a party dictatorship with all its consequences for an extraordinary accentuation of the conflicts in the German people.” The question ‘why’ Hitler was appointed Chancellor, despite the President being acutely aware of what might follow, is therefore a significant one. The NSDAP had election successes throughout 1932, and was already the biggest single party in the Reichstag and various Landtags acros
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.