To
The Editor,
Financial Times
Sir,
Thanks for your insightful editorial in today's FT on the procurement practices in the defence industry in UK. In the last paragraph you object to one of the major recommendation by Mr. Grey not being followed by the govt. i.e., outsourcing the buying because it will bring in the efficiency and improve the project management.
What is appalling is that even after burning the fingers after privatizing the major utilities in UK (via one of the highest rates for consumers in Europe is paid by UK consumers) including transportation - you still recommend the privatization option. When it comes to utilities and defence, it should be a part of the government because of its utility function which cannot be reconciled with just the profit motive of private industry especially when the regulators are not just toothless but who have no clue on how to regulate at all. We have seen the latest example of the disasters which it brings when a utility like bank is in private hands.
What you should be recommending is - why can't the project management skills be taught to the existing department? What is needed is some cultural change initiatives, investment in good/fresh leadership and training. Is that too much to ask for?
But the problem is any sensible debate is squashed in the name of 'free enterprise spirit' of the West Vs the old communist practices of the past USSR. Well the fact is in any society, the utilities have to be run as a co-operative movement for the good of all. The utilities includes not just the transport department but also the water/electricity suppliers, banks, defence etc.,
What is needed is not more of 'free enterprise' but more training/leadership/management practices. If the private industry can follow that why can't the co-operatives and the government departments?
That is the real point to ponder !!!
Regards,
Pradeep Kabra
---------------------------------------------------------
Affordable defence
Britain must heed the lessons from procurement inquest
Governments across the western world are under huge pressure to slash spending programmes as a result of the global financial crisis and its impact on national budgets. In many states, few areas of expenditure are being scrutinised as closely as defence. In the US, Bob Gates, the defence secretary, has already signalled that he wants to overhaul his department’s spending priorities, cutting back on programmes such as the F22 fighter jet deemed surplus to requirements. Now it is the turn of the UK to take a long hard look at the ministry of defence’s equipment budget, long seen as bloated and inefficient. Yesterday, the MoD published a report by Bernard Gray, a former departmental adviser, into its procurement record. His is a damning indictment. Mr Gray finds that annual expenditure on equipment – from aircraft carriers to fast jets – is well beyond what the MoD can possibly afford. Its project management record is also abysmal. The average equipment programme overruns by five years. The average increase in cost of those programmes – over initial budget – is £300m. All told, the MoD spends up to £2.2bn every year just on the cost of managing delays and overruns. The reasons for this sorry state of affairs are well analysed by Mr Gray. Britain’s service chiefs compete in a scramble for scarce resources, demanding ever-increasing amounts of kit. Once contracts are approved, ministers are too embarrassed to admit they can no longer afford – or even need – what they once approved. Mr Gray has come up with a list of reforms that the government will now rightly implement. There must be a Strategic Defence Review in the first year of every parliament. There must be 10-year budgets in keeping with the longterm nature of defence projects. There must be an annual audit to regularly ensure the equipment programme is still affordable. However, the government has made a serious mistake in ruling out one of Mr Gray’s core recommendations. He says Defence Equipment & Support, the organisation that buys and supports military equipment, should be outsourced to the private sector to improve project management and delivery. This would be a radical step with big security implications and needs thinking through. But Britain does not have the luxury of eliminating the idea now. A government that fails to undertake this initiative is not challenging vested interests in either the MoD or the defence industry.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Friday 16 October 2009
Thursday 24 September 2009
Re: Business Schools REFORM!!!
To
The Editor,
Economist
Dear Sir,
This article looks only at peripherals. But the issue of Business Schools REFORM deserves honest analysis, solutions and actions.
Even though it is debatable whether management can be taught, whether it is an art or a science, whether it is objective or subjective etc., but the root cause of the problem is as long as management is divorced from ownership, things cannot improve.
Why would a CEO who has no stake whatsoever in the business apart from few stock-options to his name bother about long-term sustainability of the business? His interest would be to keep the share-price moving North so that he can en-cash his options on time.
So how can ownership and management be tied together? 1) in a joint stock company with tradable shares or 2) in a family owned business listed on stock exchange without limiting the management to just family members
The solution is simple - remove the 'limited liability rule'. Business means risk. Only people who have a 'real stake' in business are capable and equipped to manage that risk better. You don't need CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) lessons from HBS (Harvard Business School) to teach that. It is common-sense.
I'm sure with unlimited liability Dick Fuld would have thought 100 times even before thinking about the word 'leverage'. But the fact is with no personal real stakes involved Lehman Brothers was leveraged 44 times its capital. (don't tell me he was holding majority of his wealth in Lehman Stocks. The fact is, even after Lehman went bust he had 'fleeced' enough money to last many life-times with no criminal liability attached) Similar stories of leverage ranging from 20-45 times the capital run for Goldman Sachs, UBS, RBS, HBOS, Northern Rock, BOA, Citi Bank etc. in the banking sector alone. We can narrate similar stories across the whole corporate business land-scape.
If business schools cannot teach the simple basics, then I don't think adding history lessons, CSR case-studies and other jargon-spewing stuff will add any value.
When liability is not limited and when it affects the management directly then peer-pressure, self-regulation, responsibility etc., are all automatically taken care of.
Sadly, the 'business education' (MBA) has transformed itself into 'education business'. The saying 'what you sow, is what you reap' has never been more true. By sowing the 'eduction business' seeds, we have reaped 'crooks' like Dick Fuld, Andy Hornby, John Thain, Adam Applegrath.....just to name a few from this round of disaster.
The fact is, it is not just business education problem, it is the problem of how business is structured in a market-place.
Regards,
Pradeep Kabra
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The pedagogy of the privileged
Sep 24th 2009
From The Economist print edition
Business schools have done too little to reform themselves in the light of the credit crunch.
THIS has been a year of sackcloth and ashes for the world’s business schools. Critics have accused them of churning out jargon-spewing economic vandals. Many professors have accepted at least some of the blame for the global catastrophe. Deans have drawn up blueprints for reform.
The result? Precious little. Business schools have introduced a few new courses. Students at Harvard Business School (HBS) have introduced a voluntary pledge “to serve the greater good” among other worthy goals, which about half of this year’s graduates embraced. But for the most part it is business schooling as usual. The giants of management education have laboured mightily to bring forth a molehill.
That is too bad. You do not have to accept the idea that the business schools were “agents of the apocalypse” to believe that they need to change their ways, at least a little, in the light of recent events. Most of the people at the heart of the crisis—from Dick Fuld at Lehman Brothers to John Thain at Merrill Lynch to Andy Hornby at HBOS—had MBAs after their name (Mr Hornby graduated top of his class at HBS). In recent years about 40% of the graduates of America’s best business schools ended up on Wall Street, where they assiduously applied the techniques that they had spent a small fortune learning. You cannot both claim that your mission is “to educate leaders who make a difference in the world”, as HBS does, and then wash your hands of your alumni when the difference they make is malign.
The real question is not whether business schools need to change, but how. One of the most common stances—often heard outside and sometimes within the schools themselves—is that management education needs to start again from scratch. On this view, these institutions are little more than con-tricks at the moment, built on the illusion that you can turn management into a science and dedicated to the unedifying goal of teaching greedy people how to satisfy their appetites.
That is not true. A study by two economists, Nick Bloom of Stanford and John Van Reenen of the London School of Economics, concluded that companies that use the most widely accepted management techniques, of the sort that are taught in business schools, outperform their peers in all the measures that matter, such as productivity, sales growth and return on capital. Many companies in the developing world, not least China, are desperate to hire more MBAs in order to improve their traditionally slapdash approach to management.
A second popular argument is that business schools need to put more emphasis on business ethics and corporate social responsibility (CSR). There is a great deal of talk about embracing “principles of responsible management”, such as “sustainability” and “inclusiveness”.
This makes some sense. A 2006 study of cheating among graduate students found that 56% of business students had cheated, compared with 47% in other disciplines. The authors attributed this to “perceived peer behaviour”. Presumably more talk of ethics might change those perceptions. But it would be a mistake to expect too much from CSR. Both business schools and businesses have been talking about it for years without turning business people into angels (one of the loudest advocates was Ken Lay, the chairman of Enron). Moreover, many admirers of CSR confuse the sort of creative destruction that makes us all richer, in the long run, with corporate skulduggery.
So what should business schools do to improve their performance? More history classes would help. Would-be business titans need to learn that economic history is punctuated with crises and disasters, that booms inevitably give way to busts, and that the business cycle, having survived many predictions of extinction, continues to prey on the modern economy. The 2008 debacle might have come as less of a surprise if all those MBAs had been taught that there have been at least 124 bank-centred crises around the world since 1970, most of which were preceded by booms in house prices and stockmarkets, large capital inflows and rising public debt.
History courses aside, business schools need to change their tone more than their syllabuses. In particular, they should foster the twin virtues of scepticism and cynicism. Graduates in recent years, for example, seem to have accepted far too readily the notion that clever financial engineering could somehow abolish risk and uncertainty, when it probably made things worse. It is worth noting that such scepticism is second nature to the giants of financial economics, as opposed to the more junior propellerheads. Andrew Lo, of MIT’s Sloan School of Management, was fond of pointing out that in the physical sciences three laws can explain 99% of behaviour, whereas in finance 99 laws can explain at best 3% of behaviour.
Boosters beware
The original sin of business schools is boosterism. Professors are always inclined to puff the businesses that provide them, at the very least, with their raw materials and, if they are lucky, with lucrative consultancy work. HBS has produced fawning studies of almost every recent corporate villain from Enron (which was stuffed full of HBS alumni) to the Royal Bank of Scotland. A taste for cheerleading has been reinforced by the rise of a multi-million-dollar management-theory industry. Professors with dollar signs in their eyes are always announcing the birth of the latest revolutionary management technique or the discovery of the hottest new “supercorp”.
Business schools need to make more room for people who are willing to bite the hands that feed them: to prick business bubbles, expose management fads and generally rough up the most feted managers. Kings once employed jesters to bring them down to earth. It’s time for business schools to do likewise.
The Editor,
Economist
Dear Sir,
This article looks only at peripherals. But the issue of Business Schools REFORM deserves honest analysis, solutions and actions.
Even though it is debatable whether management can be taught, whether it is an art or a science, whether it is objective or subjective etc., but the root cause of the problem is as long as management is divorced from ownership, things cannot improve.
Why would a CEO who has no stake whatsoever in the business apart from few stock-options to his name bother about long-term sustainability of the business? His interest would be to keep the share-price moving North so that he can en-cash his options on time.
So how can ownership and management be tied together? 1) in a joint stock company with tradable shares or 2) in a family owned business listed on stock exchange without limiting the management to just family members
The solution is simple - remove the 'limited liability rule'. Business means risk. Only people who have a 'real stake' in business are capable and equipped to manage that risk better. You don't need CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) lessons from HBS (Harvard Business School) to teach that. It is common-sense.
I'm sure with unlimited liability Dick Fuld would have thought 100 times even before thinking about the word 'leverage'. But the fact is with no personal real stakes involved Lehman Brothers was leveraged 44 times its capital. (don't tell me he was holding majority of his wealth in Lehman Stocks. The fact is, even after Lehman went bust he had 'fleeced' enough money to last many life-times with no criminal liability attached) Similar stories of leverage ranging from 20-45 times the capital run for Goldman Sachs, UBS, RBS, HBOS, Northern Rock, BOA, Citi Bank etc. in the banking sector alone. We can narrate similar stories across the whole corporate business land-scape.
If business schools cannot teach the simple basics, then I don't think adding history lessons, CSR case-studies and other jargon-spewing stuff will add any value.
When liability is not limited and when it affects the management directly then peer-pressure, self-regulation, responsibility etc., are all automatically taken care of.
Sadly, the 'business education' (MBA) has transformed itself into 'education business'. The saying 'what you sow, is what you reap' has never been more true. By sowing the 'eduction business' seeds, we have reaped 'crooks' like Dick Fuld, Andy Hornby, John Thain, Adam Applegrath.....just to name a few from this round of disaster.
The fact is, it is not just business education problem, it is the problem of how business is structured in a market-place.
Regards,
Pradeep Kabra
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The pedagogy of the privileged
Sep 24th 2009
From The Economist print edition
Business schools have done too little to reform themselves in the light of the credit crunch.
THIS has been a year of sackcloth and ashes for the world’s business schools. Critics have accused them of churning out jargon-spewing economic vandals. Many professors have accepted at least some of the blame for the global catastrophe. Deans have drawn up blueprints for reform.
The result? Precious little. Business schools have introduced a few new courses. Students at Harvard Business School (HBS) have introduced a voluntary pledge “to serve the greater good” among other worthy goals, which about half of this year’s graduates embraced. But for the most part it is business schooling as usual. The giants of management education have laboured mightily to bring forth a molehill.
That is too bad. You do not have to accept the idea that the business schools were “agents of the apocalypse” to believe that they need to change their ways, at least a little, in the light of recent events. Most of the people at the heart of the crisis—from Dick Fuld at Lehman Brothers to John Thain at Merrill Lynch to Andy Hornby at HBOS—had MBAs after their name (Mr Hornby graduated top of his class at HBS). In recent years about 40% of the graduates of America’s best business schools ended up on Wall Street, where they assiduously applied the techniques that they had spent a small fortune learning. You cannot both claim that your mission is “to educate leaders who make a difference in the world”, as HBS does, and then wash your hands of your alumni when the difference they make is malign.
The real question is not whether business schools need to change, but how. One of the most common stances—often heard outside and sometimes within the schools themselves—is that management education needs to start again from scratch. On this view, these institutions are little more than con-tricks at the moment, built on the illusion that you can turn management into a science and dedicated to the unedifying goal of teaching greedy people how to satisfy their appetites.
That is not true. A study by two economists, Nick Bloom of Stanford and John Van Reenen of the London School of Economics, concluded that companies that use the most widely accepted management techniques, of the sort that are taught in business schools, outperform their peers in all the measures that matter, such as productivity, sales growth and return on capital. Many companies in the developing world, not least China, are desperate to hire more MBAs in order to improve their traditionally slapdash approach to management.
A second popular argument is that business schools need to put more emphasis on business ethics and corporate social responsibility (CSR). There is a great deal of talk about embracing “principles of responsible management”, such as “sustainability” and “inclusiveness”.
This makes some sense. A 2006 study of cheating among graduate students found that 56% of business students had cheated, compared with 47% in other disciplines. The authors attributed this to “perceived peer behaviour”. Presumably more talk of ethics might change those perceptions. But it would be a mistake to expect too much from CSR. Both business schools and businesses have been talking about it for years without turning business people into angels (one of the loudest advocates was Ken Lay, the chairman of Enron). Moreover, many admirers of CSR confuse the sort of creative destruction that makes us all richer, in the long run, with corporate skulduggery.
So what should business schools do to improve their performance? More history classes would help. Would-be business titans need to learn that economic history is punctuated with crises and disasters, that booms inevitably give way to busts, and that the business cycle, having survived many predictions of extinction, continues to prey on the modern economy. The 2008 debacle might have come as less of a surprise if all those MBAs had been taught that there have been at least 124 bank-centred crises around the world since 1970, most of which were preceded by booms in house prices and stockmarkets, large capital inflows and rising public debt.
History courses aside, business schools need to change their tone more than their syllabuses. In particular, they should foster the twin virtues of scepticism and cynicism. Graduates in recent years, for example, seem to have accepted far too readily the notion that clever financial engineering could somehow abolish risk and uncertainty, when it probably made things worse. It is worth noting that such scepticism is second nature to the giants of financial economics, as opposed to the more junior propellerheads. Andrew Lo, of MIT’s Sloan School of Management, was fond of pointing out that in the physical sciences three laws can explain 99% of behaviour, whereas in finance 99 laws can explain at best 3% of behaviour.
Boosters beware
The original sin of business schools is boosterism. Professors are always inclined to puff the businesses that provide them, at the very least, with their raw materials and, if they are lucky, with lucrative consultancy work. HBS has produced fawning studies of almost every recent corporate villain from Enron (which was stuffed full of HBS alumni) to the Royal Bank of Scotland. A taste for cheerleading has been reinforced by the rise of a multi-million-dollar management-theory industry. Professors with dollar signs in their eyes are always announcing the birth of the latest revolutionary management technique or the discovery of the hottest new “supercorp”.
Business schools need to make more room for people who are willing to bite the hands that feed them: to prick business bubbles, expose management fads and generally rough up the most feted managers. Kings once employed jesters to bring them down to earth. It’s time for business schools to do likewise.
Friday 11 September 2009
Re: Turner is asking the right questions
Dear Mr. Wolf,
Thank you for the article and continuing the debate.
On the issue of Capital Reserves - You have argued back that it will not work because the mainstream banks will go off-shore via off-balance sheet vehicles or unregulated shadow banking.
Don't you think this leveraging process grew exponentially since 1999 when Bill Clinton repealed the The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. That act sustained the financial system in a reasonable form for almost 60 years. Of-course, the lobbyist of financial industry and the political donations lead to chipping it slowly for few years before the final nail was laid.
On the issue of Pay and Bonuses - Gillian Tett's article in today's FT "What bankers can learn from Chelsea football club" is more insightful. Also it suggests a solution.
So agreed that there cannot be a single comprehensive solution to a problem like this. But a combination of actions including Capital Reserve Ratio Guidelines, Industry wise guidelines on pay, guidelines on political contribution etc., will definitely bring better results.
Final 'food for thought': The US Economy grew from less than 6 trillion dollars to more than 13 trillion dollars in just 15 years. In the same period the size of Japanese economy (from a much lower base of US) grew by about 1/3 and I presume the same of Europe's main economies. I don't see any great relative innovation coming out of America. It is just financial engineering in the name of globalization.
Pradeep Kabra
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for these interesting comments. I largely agree.
I don't know whether the result would have been different if Glass-Steagal had remained in place. The distinction never existed in continental Europe. But it did not have the same kind of crisis. The big issue may rather be the domination of investment banking over commercial banking in the US and, to a lesser extent, UK.
Maybe, the approach you suggest to regulation would work. I don't know.
Finally, I think there has been a great deal of fundamental innovation in the US - it dominates IT and life sciences business innovation. It is not just finance.
Martin Wolf
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Turner is asking the right questions
Martin Wolf
I like and admire Lord Turner, chairman of the UK’s Financial Services Authority. He is more than an acute analyst. He is also brave. He showed that in his struggle with Gordon Brown, then chancellor of the exchequer, over plans for pension reform published in 2005. He is showing that again today in the lively debate he has initiated on the future of financial regulation.
This financial crisis was no minor blip, to be forgotten as quickly as possible. On the contrary, the UK (and other significant countries, not least the US) have just received a monstrously expensive warning. That is why Lord Turner’s willingness to raise unpalatable questions is both welcome and refreshing. His report for the FSA is among the best analyses of the crisis. Now, in a discussion for the British journal Prospect, he has taken the debate into even more controversial territory.
I will address five of the issues raised there: the case for moving the responsibilities of the FSA over banking into the Bank of England; the supposedly excessive size of the financial sector, particularly in the UK; the levels of capital required of banks, particularly on their trading activities; the possible role of taxes on financial transactions – the so-called “Tobin tax”; and, finally, the vexed question of bankers’ pay.
On the first, Lord Turner is right to argue that “the institutional architecture is the least important issue here”. The fundamental issue is not structure, but philosophy. The UK authorities adopted the same view as the US: market forces guaranteed both efficiency and stability. They were wrong. Now that the view has changed, the upheaval caused by transforming the regulatory structure is unnecessary. Worse, it might make things worse: giving any institution a monopolistic position would surely be a mistake.
Now turn to whether the financial sector is “too large”. John Gieve, former deputy governor of the Bank of England, argues that it is not “very helpful to try to define the right size for the financial sector”. I agree. But the sector enjoys subsidies from the state, via access to the lender-of-last-resort function of the central bank and explicit and implicit guarantees against insolvency. These need to be offset.
This leads us to the third point, the case for higher capital requirements. Here Lord Turner is a part of the choir: the Group of 20 finance ministers and central bank governors meeting in London last weekend also agreed to require banks “to hold more and better quality capital”.
Yet higher capital requirements are far from a panacea. One danger is that banks may take on even more risk, to sustain high returns on equity. Another is that banks would again find a way around higher capital requirements via off-balance sheet vehicles and exploitation of risky derivatives strategies. A third is that higher capital requirements would again trigger an explosive expansion of an unregulated shadow banking system. In short, higher capital requirements will only work if they come with a huge increase in regulatory will and effectiveness. I am not holding my breath.
That leads naturally to the “Tobin
tax”. Obviously, it would have to operate in all significant financial centres. So the chance of its happening is zero. As a way of shrinking the financial sector it also seems ill-designed. The argument for it would have to be, instead, that it would be desirable to reduce the liquidity of markets in this way.
Until recently, I would have viewed that as unacceptable. But I might now entertain the argument that willingness to invest in costly “due diligence” on what investors are buying may be undermined by the perceived ease of selling. For these reasons, market liquidity no longer seems an unambiguous good. Maybe shifting the structure of incentives towards “buying and holding” might be better.
Finally, how far are changes in the structure and levels of pay the answer? I agree with Lord Turner that “the honest truth is that bad remuneration policies, though relevant, were far less important in the unravelling of the crisis than hopelessly inadequate capital requirements against risky trading strategies”. The issue cannot be the level of bonuses, unless we want to decide the “just rewards” of everybody. Nor should it be the principle of bonuses, since a link between performance and reward is desirable. The issue should be the nature of incentives. Employees must not be rewarded for breaking the bank, particularly if it is then rescued by the taxpayers.
Lord Turner is making important contributions to a debate we must have. It is horrifying that this industry inflicted such damage. It is horrifying, too, that it is guaranteed by the taxpayer, even as it returns to business as usual.
But the more one analyses both the debate and what is happening, the more difficult it is to believe that a safer and more responsible industry is emerging. I love Lord Turner’s willingness to raise difficult questions. But I am not persuaded that he, or anybody else, offers convincing answers.
by martin.wolf@ft.com
Thank you for the article and continuing the debate.
On the issue of Capital Reserves - You have argued back that it will not work because the mainstream banks will go off-shore via off-balance sheet vehicles or unregulated shadow banking.
Don't you think this leveraging process grew exponentially since 1999 when Bill Clinton repealed the The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. That act sustained the financial system in a reasonable form for almost 60 years. Of-course, the lobbyist of financial industry and the political donations lead to chipping it slowly for few years before the final nail was laid.
On the issue of Pay and Bonuses - Gillian Tett's article in today's FT "What bankers can learn from Chelsea football club" is more insightful. Also it suggests a solution.
So agreed that there cannot be a single comprehensive solution to a problem like this. But a combination of actions including Capital Reserve Ratio Guidelines, Industry wise guidelines on pay, guidelines on political contribution etc., will definitely bring better results.
Final 'food for thought': The US Economy grew from less than 6 trillion dollars to more than 13 trillion dollars in just 15 years. In the same period the size of Japanese economy (from a much lower base of US) grew by about 1/3 and I presume the same of Europe's main economies. I don't see any great relative innovation coming out of America. It is just financial engineering in the name of globalization.
Pradeep Kabra
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for these interesting comments. I largely agree.
I don't know whether the result would have been different if Glass-Steagal had remained in place. The distinction never existed in continental Europe. But it did not have the same kind of crisis. The big issue may rather be the domination of investment banking over commercial banking in the US and, to a lesser extent, UK.
Maybe, the approach you suggest to regulation would work. I don't know.
Finally, I think there has been a great deal of fundamental innovation in the US - it dominates IT and life sciences business innovation. It is not just finance.
Martin Wolf
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Turner is asking the right questions
Martin Wolf
I like and admire Lord Turner, chairman of the UK’s Financial Services Authority. He is more than an acute analyst. He is also brave. He showed that in his struggle with Gordon Brown, then chancellor of the exchequer, over plans for pension reform published in 2005. He is showing that again today in the lively debate he has initiated on the future of financial regulation.
This financial crisis was no minor blip, to be forgotten as quickly as possible. On the contrary, the UK (and other significant countries, not least the US) have just received a monstrously expensive warning. That is why Lord Turner’s willingness to raise unpalatable questions is both welcome and refreshing. His report for the FSA is among the best analyses of the crisis. Now, in a discussion for the British journal Prospect, he has taken the debate into even more controversial territory.
I will address five of the issues raised there: the case for moving the responsibilities of the FSA over banking into the Bank of England; the supposedly excessive size of the financial sector, particularly in the UK; the levels of capital required of banks, particularly on their trading activities; the possible role of taxes on financial transactions – the so-called “Tobin tax”; and, finally, the vexed question of bankers’ pay.
On the first, Lord Turner is right to argue that “the institutional architecture is the least important issue here”. The fundamental issue is not structure, but philosophy. The UK authorities adopted the same view as the US: market forces guaranteed both efficiency and stability. They were wrong. Now that the view has changed, the upheaval caused by transforming the regulatory structure is unnecessary. Worse, it might make things worse: giving any institution a monopolistic position would surely be a mistake.
Now turn to whether the financial sector is “too large”. John Gieve, former deputy governor of the Bank of England, argues that it is not “very helpful to try to define the right size for the financial sector”. I agree. But the sector enjoys subsidies from the state, via access to the lender-of-last-resort function of the central bank and explicit and implicit guarantees against insolvency. These need to be offset.
This leads us to the third point, the case for higher capital requirements. Here Lord Turner is a part of the choir: the Group of 20 finance ministers and central bank governors meeting in London last weekend also agreed to require banks “to hold more and better quality capital”.
Yet higher capital requirements are far from a panacea. One danger is that banks may take on even more risk, to sustain high returns on equity. Another is that banks would again find a way around higher capital requirements via off-balance sheet vehicles and exploitation of risky derivatives strategies. A third is that higher capital requirements would again trigger an explosive expansion of an unregulated shadow banking system. In short, higher capital requirements will only work if they come with a huge increase in regulatory will and effectiveness. I am not holding my breath.
That leads naturally to the “Tobin
tax”. Obviously, it would have to operate in all significant financial centres. So the chance of its happening is zero. As a way of shrinking the financial sector it also seems ill-designed. The argument for it would have to be, instead, that it would be desirable to reduce the liquidity of markets in this way.
Until recently, I would have viewed that as unacceptable. But I might now entertain the argument that willingness to invest in costly “due diligence” on what investors are buying may be undermined by the perceived ease of selling. For these reasons, market liquidity no longer seems an unambiguous good. Maybe shifting the structure of incentives towards “buying and holding” might be better.
Finally, how far are changes in the structure and levels of pay the answer? I agree with Lord Turner that “the honest truth is that bad remuneration policies, though relevant, were far less important in the unravelling of the crisis than hopelessly inadequate capital requirements against risky trading strategies”. The issue cannot be the level of bonuses, unless we want to decide the “just rewards” of everybody. Nor should it be the principle of bonuses, since a link between performance and reward is desirable. The issue should be the nature of incentives. Employees must not be rewarded for breaking the bank, particularly if it is then rescued by the taxpayers.
Lord Turner is making important contributions to a debate we must have. It is horrifying that this industry inflicted such damage. It is horrifying, too, that it is guaranteed by the taxpayer, even as it returns to business as usual.
But the more one analyses both the debate and what is happening, the more difficult it is to believe that a safer and more responsible industry is emerging. I love Lord Turner’s willingness to raise difficult questions. But I am not persuaded that he, or anybody else, offers convincing answers.
by martin.wolf@ft.com
Tuesday 8 September 2009
Re: China, Bernanke, and the price of gold
This is consistent with our understanding that china is creating a good bank for its new investments (including gold, Euros, Yen, investments in metals, commodities, oil firms etc., ) and keeping all its old investment in bad bank. The new good bank will be well diversified firm which is not dependent on US Govt and complements its own needs as well.
The bad bank will have US Dollars, UK Sterling.
The question is how much hit does it have to take on Bad Bank. I'm sure it will be much more than standard 20-25% it used to write off from local creditors. It should be in the range of 50-75%. Quantitatively it will be far-far higher than the usual 40-80 billion US dollars. It has to be at-least half a trillion US dollars.
Well the intervention in the second world war was the price US paid to change the world order form UK Sterling/Gold to US Dollars. This at-least half a trillion dollars will be the price I believe China has to pay to change the world order from US Dollar to a multi-currency world of Dollar/Euro/Yuan/Yen.
The only question that remains to be answered now is how long will this take? 1 year, 5 years, 10 years???
Regards,
Pradeep
From, 2009/9/8 Amin Merchant
China, Bernanke, and the price of gold
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard Economics Last updated: September 7th, 2009
China has issued what amounts to the “Beijing Put” on gold. You can make a lot of money, but you really can’t lose.
I happened to see quite a bit of Cheng Siwei at the Ambrosetti Workshop, a gathering of politicians and global
strategists at Lake Como, including a dinner at Villa d’Este last night at which he listened very attentively as a
number of American guests tore President Obama’s economic and health policy to shreds.
Mr Cheng was until recently Vice-Chairman of the Communist Party’s Standing Committee, and is now a sort of
economic ambassador for China around the world — a charming man, by the way, who left Hong Kong for
mainland China in 1950 at the age of 16, as young idealist eager to serve the revolution. Sixty years later, he calls
himself simply “a survivior”.
What he said about US monetary policy and gold – this bit on the record – would appear to validate the long-held
belief of gold bugs that China has fundamentally lost confidence in the US dollar and is going to shift to a partial gold
standard through reserve accumulation.
He played down other metals such as copper, saying that they could not double as a proxy currency or store of wealth.
“Gold is definitely an alternative, but when we buy, the price goes up. We have to do it carefully so as not stimulate the
market,” he said.
In other words, China is buying the dips, and will continue to do so as a systematic policy. His comment captures exactly
what observation of gold price action suggests is happening. Every time it looks as if the bullion market is going to buckle,
some big force steps in from the unknown.
Investors long-suspected that it was China. We later discovered that Beijing had in fact doubled its gold reserves to 1054
tonnes. Fait accompli first. Announcement long after.
Standing back, you can see that the steady rise in gold over the last eight years to $994 an ounce last week – outperforming
US equities fourfold, even with reinvested dividends – has roughly tracked the emergence of China as a superpower in foreign reserve holdings (now $2 trillion).
As I have written in today’s paper, Mr Cheng (and Beijing) takes a dim view of Ben Bernanke’s monetary experiments at the Federal Reserve. “If they keep printing money to buy bonds it will lead to inflation, and after a year or two the dollar will fall
hard. Most of our foreign reserves are in US bonds and this is very difficult to change, so we will diversify incremental reserves into euros, yen, and other currencies,” he said.
This line of argument is by now well-known. Less understood is how much trouble the Fed’s QE policies are causing in China itself, where they have vicariously set off a speculative boom on the Shanghai exchange and in property. Mr Cheng said mid-level house prices are now ten times incomes.
“If we raise interest rates, we will be flooded with hot money. We have to wait for them. If they raise, we raise.”
“Credit in China is too loose. We have a bubble in the housing market and in stocks so we have to be very careful, because this could fall down.”
Of course, China cold end this problem by letting the yuan rise to its proper value, but China too is trapped. Wafer-thin profit margins on exports mean that vast chunks of Chinese industry would go bust if the yuan rose enough to close the trade surplus. China’s exports were down 23pc in July from a year before even at the current exchange rate, and exports make up 40pc of GDP. “We have lost 20m jobs in this crisis,” he said.
China’s mercantilist export strategy has led the country into a cul-de-sac. China must continue to run its trade surplus. It must accumulate hundreds of billions more in reserves. Ergo, it must buy a great deal more gold.
Where is the gold going to come from?
The bad bank will have US Dollars, UK Sterling.
The question is how much hit does it have to take on Bad Bank. I'm sure it will be much more than standard 20-25% it used to write off from local creditors. It should be in the range of 50-75%. Quantitatively it will be far-far higher than the usual 40-80 billion US dollars. It has to be at-least half a trillion US dollars.
Well the intervention in the second world war was the price US paid to change the world order form UK Sterling/Gold to US Dollars. This at-least half a trillion dollars will be the price I believe China has to pay to change the world order from US Dollar to a multi-currency world of Dollar/Euro/Yuan/Yen.
The only question that remains to be answered now is how long will this take? 1 year, 5 years, 10 years???
Regards,
Pradeep
From, 2009/9/8 Amin Merchant
China, Bernanke, and the price of gold
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard Economics Last updated: September 7th, 2009
China has issued what amounts to the “Beijing Put” on gold. You can make a lot of money, but you really can’t lose.
I happened to see quite a bit of Cheng Siwei at the Ambrosetti Workshop, a gathering of politicians and global
strategists at Lake Como, including a dinner at Villa d’Este last night at which he listened very attentively as a
number of American guests tore President Obama’s economic and health policy to shreds.
Mr Cheng was until recently Vice-Chairman of the Communist Party’s Standing Committee, and is now a sort of
economic ambassador for China around the world — a charming man, by the way, who left Hong Kong for
mainland China in 1950 at the age of 16, as young idealist eager to serve the revolution. Sixty years later, he calls
himself simply “a survivior”.
What he said about US monetary policy and gold – this bit on the record – would appear to validate the long-held
belief of gold bugs that China has fundamentally lost confidence in the US dollar and is going to shift to a partial gold
standard through reserve accumulation.
He played down other metals such as copper, saying that they could not double as a proxy currency or store of wealth.
“Gold is definitely an alternative, but when we buy, the price goes up. We have to do it carefully so as not stimulate the
market,” he said.
In other words, China is buying the dips, and will continue to do so as a systematic policy. His comment captures exactly
what observation of gold price action suggests is happening. Every time it looks as if the bullion market is going to buckle,
some big force steps in from the unknown.
Investors long-suspected that it was China. We later discovered that Beijing had in fact doubled its gold reserves to 1054
tonnes. Fait accompli first. Announcement long after.
Standing back, you can see that the steady rise in gold over the last eight years to $994 an ounce last week – outperforming
US equities fourfold, even with reinvested dividends – has roughly tracked the emergence of China as a superpower in foreign reserve holdings (now $2 trillion).
As I have written in today’s paper, Mr Cheng (and Beijing) takes a dim view of Ben Bernanke’s monetary experiments at the Federal Reserve. “If they keep printing money to buy bonds it will lead to inflation, and after a year or two the dollar will fall
hard. Most of our foreign reserves are in US bonds and this is very difficult to change, so we will diversify incremental reserves into euros, yen, and other currencies,” he said.
This line of argument is by now well-known. Less understood is how much trouble the Fed’s QE policies are causing in China itself, where they have vicariously set off a speculative boom on the Shanghai exchange and in property. Mr Cheng said mid-level house prices are now ten times incomes.
“If we raise interest rates, we will be flooded with hot money. We have to wait for them. If they raise, we raise.”
“Credit in China is too loose. We have a bubble in the housing market and in stocks so we have to be very careful, because this could fall down.”
Of course, China cold end this problem by letting the yuan rise to its proper value, but China too is trapped. Wafer-thin profit margins on exports mean that vast chunks of Chinese industry would go bust if the yuan rose enough to close the trade surplus. China’s exports were down 23pc in July from a year before even at the current exchange rate, and exports make up 40pc of GDP. “We have lost 20m jobs in this crisis,” he said.
China’s mercantilist export strategy has led the country into a cul-de-sac. China must continue to run its trade surplus. It must accumulate hundreds of billions more in reserves. Ergo, it must buy a great deal more gold.
Where is the gold going to come from?
Re: Future of Food - Facts about Food
Dear All,
If you have missed this on BBC 2, this is worth watching. (unfortunately, it is for UK users only) (If you are busy, download it on your iplayer - then it becomes available for the next 30 days)
Three eye-opening episodes on Food, Food, Food. The focus is on UK but the perspective is truly Global. It is really educational - just like spending 3 good hours in University from the comfort of your desk!!! Unfortunately, they don't teach these things at School/Uni.
Example: Question: Why is UK cancer prone? (they say 1 out of every 3 people in UK is cancer-prone)
Answer: Processed Food (primarily thanks to our American friends)
Many more fascinating and eye-opening facts.
Share it with you near and dear ones.
Thank you BBC and a big Thank You to George Alagiah for opening my eyes.
Regards,
Pradeep
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00m9xk9/Future_of_Food_Episode_1/
George Alagiah travels the world to reveal a growing global food crisis that could affect the planet in the years ahead. With food riots on three continents recently, and unprecedented competition for food due to population growth and changing diets, the series alerts viewers to a looming problem and looks for solutions.
George joins a Masai chief among the skeletons of hundreds of cattle he has lost to climate change, and the English farmer who tells him why food production in the UK is also hit. He spends a day eating with a family in Cuba to find out how a future oil shock could lead to dramatic adjustments to diets. He visits the breadbasket of India to meet the farmer who now struggles to irrigate his land as water tables drop, and finds out why obesity is spiralling out of control in Mexico.
Back in Britain, George investigates what is wrong with people's diets, and discovers that the UK imports an average of 3000 litres of water per capita every day. He talks to top nutritionist Susan Jebb, DEFRA minister Hilary Benn and Nobel laureate Rajendra Pachauri to uncover what the future holds for our food. (R)
2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00mffbk/Future_of_Food_Episode_2/
George Alagiah travels the world to reveal a growing global food crisis that could affect the planet in the years ahead. With food riots on three continents recently, and unprededented competition for food due to population growth and changing diets, the series alerts viewers to a looming problem and looks for solutions.
George heads out to India to discover how a changing diet in the developing world is putting pressure on the world's limited food resources. He finds out how using crops to produce fuel is impacting on food supplies across the continents. George then meets a farmer in Kent, who is struggling to sell his fruit at a profit, and a British farmer in Kenya who is shipping out tonnes of vegetables for our supermarket shelves. He also examines why so many people are still dying of hunger after decades of food aid.
Back in the UK, George challenges the decision-makers with the facts he has uncovered - from Oxfam head of research Duncan Green to Sainsbury's boss Justin King. He finds out why British beef may offer a model for future meat production and how our appetite for fish is stripping the world's seas bare.
3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00mk723/Future_of_Food_Episode_3/
In the past year, we have seen food riots on three continents, food inflation has rocketed and experts predict that by 2050, if things don't change, we will see mass starvation across the world. This film sees George Alagiah travel the world in search of solutions to the growing global food crisis.
From the two women working to make their Yorkshire market town self-sufficient to the academic who claims it could be better for the environment to ship in lamb from New Zealand, George Alagiah meets the people who believe they know how we should feed the world as demand doubles by the middle of the century.
He heads out to Havana to find out how they are growing half of their fruit and vegetables right in the heart of the city, investigates the 'land-grabs' trend - where rich countries lease or buy up the land used by poor farmers in Africa - and meets the Indian agriculturalists who have almost trebled their yields over the course of a decade.
George finds out how we in this country are using cutting-edge science to extend the seasons, recycle our food waste and even grow lettuce in fish tanks to guarantee the food on our plates.
He hears the arguments about genetically modified food and examines even more futuristic schemes to get the food on to our plates.
If you have missed this on BBC 2, this is worth watching. (unfortunately, it is for UK users only) (If you are busy, download it on your iplayer - then it becomes available for the next 30 days)
Three eye-opening episodes on Food, Food, Food. The focus is on UK but the perspective is truly Global. It is really educational - just like spending 3 good hours in University from the comfort of your desk!!! Unfortunately, they don't teach these things at School/Uni.
Example: Question: Why is UK cancer prone? (they say 1 out of every 3 people in UK is cancer-prone)
Answer: Processed Food (primarily thanks to our American friends)
Many more fascinating and eye-opening facts.
Share it with you near and dear ones.
Thank you BBC and a big Thank You to George Alagiah for opening my eyes.
Regards,
Pradeep
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00m9xk9/Future_of_Food_Episode_1/
George Alagiah travels the world to reveal a growing global food crisis that could affect the planet in the years ahead. With food riots on three continents recently, and unprecedented competition for food due to population growth and changing diets, the series alerts viewers to a looming problem and looks for solutions.
George joins a Masai chief among the skeletons of hundreds of cattle he has lost to climate change, and the English farmer who tells him why food production in the UK is also hit. He spends a day eating with a family in Cuba to find out how a future oil shock could lead to dramatic adjustments to diets. He visits the breadbasket of India to meet the farmer who now struggles to irrigate his land as water tables drop, and finds out why obesity is spiralling out of control in Mexico.
Back in Britain, George investigates what is wrong with people's diets, and discovers that the UK imports an average of 3000 litres of water per capita every day. He talks to top nutritionist Susan Jebb, DEFRA minister Hilary Benn and Nobel laureate Rajendra Pachauri to uncover what the future holds for our food. (R)
2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00mffbk/Future_of_Food_Episode_2/
George Alagiah travels the world to reveal a growing global food crisis that could affect the planet in the years ahead. With food riots on three continents recently, and unprededented competition for food due to population growth and changing diets, the series alerts viewers to a looming problem and looks for solutions.
George heads out to India to discover how a changing diet in the developing world is putting pressure on the world's limited food resources. He finds out how using crops to produce fuel is impacting on food supplies across the continents. George then meets a farmer in Kent, who is struggling to sell his fruit at a profit, and a British farmer in Kenya who is shipping out tonnes of vegetables for our supermarket shelves. He also examines why so many people are still dying of hunger after decades of food aid.
Back in the UK, George challenges the decision-makers with the facts he has uncovered - from Oxfam head of research Duncan Green to Sainsbury's boss Justin King. He finds out why British beef may offer a model for future meat production and how our appetite for fish is stripping the world's seas bare.
3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00mk723/Future_of_Food_Episode_3/
In the past year, we have seen food riots on three continents, food inflation has rocketed and experts predict that by 2050, if things don't change, we will see mass starvation across the world. This film sees George Alagiah travel the world in search of solutions to the growing global food crisis.
From the two women working to make their Yorkshire market town self-sufficient to the academic who claims it could be better for the environment to ship in lamb from New Zealand, George Alagiah meets the people who believe they know how we should feed the world as demand doubles by the middle of the century.
He heads out to Havana to find out how they are growing half of their fruit and vegetables right in the heart of the city, investigates the 'land-grabs' trend - where rich countries lease or buy up the land used by poor farmers in Africa - and meets the Indian agriculturalists who have almost trebled their yields over the course of a decade.
George finds out how we in this country are using cutting-edge science to extend the seasons, recycle our food waste and even grow lettuce in fish tanks to guarantee the food on our plates.
He hears the arguments about genetically modified food and examines even more futuristic schemes to get the food on to our plates.
Monday 7 September 2009
Re: How Tamiflu became a global blockbuster
This is a good article on smart marketing of rubbish products - all in the name of 'growth'. That is what American Consumerism is all about. Rather than spending resources on the 'real problems' - there are too many to list (few like Malaria, Alzheimers, HIV, Cancer Detection etc., can at-least be prioritized) - the resources are spent on 'growth products'
The best solution is to ban stock market listing for all the pharma firms. The growth then can be driven by small boutique firms which provides the innovation and capital can be provided by the governments depending on the priority for their people. For example, for Africans it will be Malaria and HIV. For Americans it can be Cancer Detection and other developed world diseases.
After all, as the current financial crisis shows, there are lots of things wrong with the present form of Capitalism!!! I think the world 'leaders' should be brave to try practical alternatives. But then how will they? When they themselves are bank-rolled and financed by the same crooks?
Pradeep Kabra
------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Tamiflu became a global blockbuster
By Andrew Jack
Published: September 7 2009 03:00 | Last updated: September 7 2009 03:00
When senior executives from Roche host a briefing for journalists today in Basel, their chosen topic will be unusual for a drug company that focuses on oncology and other hospital-prescribed niche medicines.
William Burns, head of pharmaceuticals, will instead discuss Tamiflu, the antiviral drug that has become an unexpected "blockbuster": with projected sales this year of SFr2bn ($1.9bn, €1.3bn, £1.1bn), it has become Roche's fourth-biggest selling product. For a drug that was almost stillborn when it was launched in 1999, it provides a case study in how to create a commercial success.
With seasonal flu long dismissed as a relatively minor threat, in spite of killing up to 500,000 people globally a year, Japan had been the only large country to widely adopt Tamiflu to treat it.
What changed for other governments was the growing fear of a pandemic. In 2003, the H5N1 bird flu virus, which killed millions of animals and dozens of people, raised concerns that there could be a repeat of the 1918 Spanish flu outbreak.
Politicians were under pressure to avoid repeating previous failures to prepare and respond to emergencies such as Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the 2003 heatwave in France that killed thousands, or the foot and mouth outbreaks in the UK.
Tamiflu became a key part of their response. First, it met a clinical need. While far from a cure, clinical studies show that it can reduce the severity and duration of infection, especially if taken within two days of the onset of symptoms.
Second, it offered an advantage over the alternatives. Flu strains including H5N1 are resistant to older antiviral drugs. Only one other drug exists in the same class: GlaxoSmithKline's Relenza, which was launched just ahead of Tamiflu. But Relenza has to be inhaled, making it more difficult for patients to take than Tamiflu, a capsule that is swallowed.
Third, Tamiflu filled a psychological gap. With no vaccine able to protect against flu until after the specific pandemic variant of the evolving virus emerged, stockpiling the drug allowed politicians and policymakers to show that they were doing something to prepare.
Moreover, its brand name - snappier than oseltamavir, its generic prescribing name, and more clearly linked to the name of the virus it was designed to treat than Relenza - helped raise its public profile. Searches on Google for Tamiflu even briefly surged ahead of those for Viagra in 2005 and again this year.
Fourth, by supporting and circulating studies that compared the widely varying levels of stockpiles purchased by different governments, Roche added pressure for the laggards to purchase more.
Fifth, the company has extended its franchise. It has supported sales to private doctors and to companies concerned that supplies through national health systems would not be sufficient to meet demand. It has funded research on whether the drug can be used in combination with others, in higher doses and over longer periods, to further boost efficacy - and sales.
Roche has sold bulk versions of the drug's ingredients to governments prolonging its shelf-life even beyond the seven years regulators have allowed. And it is now proposing ways for governments to send back older stock of the drug for reprocessing and reuse - at a price.
Finally, Roche has attempted to deflate criticism that while it makes profits from richer countries, poorer ones cannot afford the medicine. It has made donations to the World Health Organisation, and introduced discounts in the developing world.
Not everyone is impressed. Generic drug companies claim Roche's discounting has kept them out of the market. Some doctors are sceptical of Tamiflu's efficacy and concerned about side effects.
The expanding market has also spurred its rivals to accelerate research on at least two new experimental antiviral drugs, and GSK has made improvements to Relenza.
By the time of the next pandemic, Tamiflu's patent may have expired, its efficacy been reduced and it will face greater competition.
But fear, need and a clever marketing strategy have helped it far exceed Roche's expectations.
The best solution is to ban stock market listing for all the pharma firms. The growth then can be driven by small boutique firms which provides the innovation and capital can be provided by the governments depending on the priority for their people. For example, for Africans it will be Malaria and HIV. For Americans it can be Cancer Detection and other developed world diseases.
After all, as the current financial crisis shows, there are lots of things wrong with the present form of Capitalism!!! I think the world 'leaders' should be brave to try practical alternatives. But then how will they? When they themselves are bank-rolled and financed by the same crooks?
Pradeep Kabra
------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Tamiflu became a global blockbuster
By Andrew Jack
Published: September 7 2009 03:00 | Last updated: September 7 2009 03:00
When senior executives from Roche host a briefing for journalists today in Basel, their chosen topic will be unusual for a drug company that focuses on oncology and other hospital-prescribed niche medicines.
William Burns, head of pharmaceuticals, will instead discuss Tamiflu, the antiviral drug that has become an unexpected "blockbuster": with projected sales this year of SFr2bn ($1.9bn, €1.3bn, £1.1bn), it has become Roche's fourth-biggest selling product. For a drug that was almost stillborn when it was launched in 1999, it provides a case study in how to create a commercial success.
With seasonal flu long dismissed as a relatively minor threat, in spite of killing up to 500,000 people globally a year, Japan had been the only large country to widely adopt Tamiflu to treat it.
What changed for other governments was the growing fear of a pandemic. In 2003, the H5N1 bird flu virus, which killed millions of animals and dozens of people, raised concerns that there could be a repeat of the 1918 Spanish flu outbreak.
Politicians were under pressure to avoid repeating previous failures to prepare and respond to emergencies such as Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the 2003 heatwave in France that killed thousands, or the foot and mouth outbreaks in the UK.
Tamiflu became a key part of their response. First, it met a clinical need. While far from a cure, clinical studies show that it can reduce the severity and duration of infection, especially if taken within two days of the onset of symptoms.
Second, it offered an advantage over the alternatives. Flu strains including H5N1 are resistant to older antiviral drugs. Only one other drug exists in the same class: GlaxoSmithKline's Relenza, which was launched just ahead of Tamiflu. But Relenza has to be inhaled, making it more difficult for patients to take than Tamiflu, a capsule that is swallowed.
Third, Tamiflu filled a psychological gap. With no vaccine able to protect against flu until after the specific pandemic variant of the evolving virus emerged, stockpiling the drug allowed politicians and policymakers to show that they were doing something to prepare.
Moreover, its brand name - snappier than oseltamavir, its generic prescribing name, and more clearly linked to the name of the virus it was designed to treat than Relenza - helped raise its public profile. Searches on Google for Tamiflu even briefly surged ahead of those for Viagra in 2005 and again this year.
Fourth, by supporting and circulating studies that compared the widely varying levels of stockpiles purchased by different governments, Roche added pressure for the laggards to purchase more.
Fifth, the company has extended its franchise. It has supported sales to private doctors and to companies concerned that supplies through national health systems would not be sufficient to meet demand. It has funded research on whether the drug can be used in combination with others, in higher doses and over longer periods, to further boost efficacy - and sales.
Roche has sold bulk versions of the drug's ingredients to governments prolonging its shelf-life even beyond the seven years regulators have allowed. And it is now proposing ways for governments to send back older stock of the drug for reprocessing and reuse - at a price.
Finally, Roche has attempted to deflate criticism that while it makes profits from richer countries, poorer ones cannot afford the medicine. It has made donations to the World Health Organisation, and introduced discounts in the developing world.
Not everyone is impressed. Generic drug companies claim Roche's discounting has kept them out of the market. Some doctors are sceptical of Tamiflu's efficacy and concerned about side effects.
The expanding market has also spurred its rivals to accelerate research on at least two new experimental antiviral drugs, and GSK has made improvements to Relenza.
By the time of the next pandemic, Tamiflu's patent may have expired, its efficacy been reduced and it will face greater competition.
But fear, need and a clever marketing strategy have helped it far exceed Roche's expectations.
Friday 4 September 2009
Re: Japan’s continuity we can believe in
Dear Mr. Rachman,
Many thanks for the informative article on Japan and the merits of its systems.
The only exception I take to is when you say US public-sector debt could hit 80%. Officially it is less than 50% but that is excluding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (kindly refer today's analysis sheet in FT). That way US debt is already above 100% and can easily surpass Japan's if things don't improve soon (they look bleak anyway)
My suggestion is to use real figures rather than those dished out by govt. officials.
Infact you have mentioned that fact in the unemployment section of your article wherein you mentioned 'there is probably a lot of disguised unemployment'
Infact this gives you or your colleagues two topics for next few articles: a) disguised statistics b) disguised hype (remember, few months back, "China's stimulus will save the world" changed to "China's stimulus will save itself" few weeks ago )
Regards,
Pradeep Kabra
----------------------------------------------
Japan’s continuity we can believe in
By Gideon Rachman
Published: August 31 2009 19:32 | Last updated: August 31 2009 19:32
pinn
When the great recession began last year, the fate of Japan was often held up as an awful warning to the west. If the US and the European Union failed to adopt the right policies, it was said, they too might suffer a Japanese-style “lost decade”, followed by years of feeble growth.
Now that the Japanese have used Sunday’s election to elect the Democratic party – breaking with more than 50 years of rule by the Liberal Democratic party – a new western narrative is taking hold. This is a political revolution; it is Japan’s big chance to break with the years of stagnation.
But both these stories are wrong. The Democrats are unlikely to shake things up hugely. Nor should they. For the story of Japan over the past 20 years is by no means as dismal as much western commentary would have it.
It is true that, since its asset-price bubble burst in 1990, the country’s economy has grown slowly, the stock market has slumped and national debt has risen to awesome proportions. But, despite these trials, it has remained a sane, stable, prosperous and exciting country. Politically, culturally and even economically, it offers not so much a warning as an inspiring example of how to deal with a long period of adversity.
The fact that, throughout the years of relative stagnation, the Japanese kept electing the LDP puzzled many outsiders. A few even saw it as evidence that Japan is somehow less than democratic. But it was willing to try and change. The country gave a mandate to Junichiro Koizumi, the flamboyant LDP prime minister, who pushed Japan in a more free-market direction from 2001 to 2006. Now it has turned to Yukio Hatoyama and the Democrats, who are less enamoured of the American model.
However, Japan has always gone for change within well-defined limits. Europeans and Americans worry that a deep recession could stoke political extremism – not without reason, perhaps, given the hysterical tone of politics in the US and the increase in the vote for far-right and far-left parties in Europe. But during almost 20 years of tough times, the Japanese have never flirted with political extremism.
That could be because they have coped much better with economic difficulty than foreigners sometimes acknowledge. The Economist, for example, has occasionally lamented Japan’s “amazing ability to disappoint”. It is true that foreign investors will have found the country’s stock market a particularly disappointing venue in the past two decades; the Nikkei currently stands at a little over 10,500, compared with 39,000 at the peak of the bubble. The Japanese have also been chastised by outsiders for their reluctance to deal more ruthlessly with “zombie” companies, and for clinging to outmoded traditions such as “lifetime employment”.
But the efforts to cushion the worst social effects of an economic downturn have paid off. Last week there were shocked headlines proclaiming that the global recession had driven Japanese unemployment to a new high – 5.7 per cent. That still compares pretty favourably to 9.4 per cent in the US and the euro area. There is probably a lot of disguised unemployment behind the official number – but the same is true in the west.
The Japanese determination to preserve jobs made their labour market less “flexible” and the economy paid a price – but not an unbearable one. The days when academics wrote breathless predictions about “Japan as number one” are long gone. But after 20 years of alleged stagnation, it is still number two – the world’s second largest economy. Its biggest companies still make world-beating products. Toyota, for example, has led the world in developing hybrid cars, such as the Prius.
Tokyo certainly does not feel like the capital of a country in the grip of terminal depression. The city’s restaurants have accumulated more Michelin stars than are to be found in Paris. Tyler Brûlé, the Financial Times style guru, prowls the streets of the city, searching relentlessly for examples of cutting-edge design – a tribute to the country’s reputation for style. When Japan hosted the soccer World Cup in 2002, just after its “lost decade”, it presented a cheerful and welcoming face to the world that contrasted pleasantly with the spooky nationalism of its South Korean co-hosts. The Japanese can even play soccer. The national team went to Beijing for the final of the 2004 Asian cup, beat China – and got out of the country alive.
Of course, Japan has its problems. Its average age is rising steadily and its population is shrinking. One in five Japanese is over 65. The Democrats have promised to raise pensions and payments to parents – and to cut taxes. It is hard to see how the sums add up. While the US and the UK worry that their public-sector debts could hit 80 per cent of gross domestic product, Japan’s debt is heading for 200 per cent.
Some of its efforts to deal with an ageing society are positively unnerving. The country has led the world in developing robots as companions for the elderly. These include a “snuggling Ifbot” that, according to press reports, “lives in an astronaut suit, chats about the weather, sings and plays games”.
It is best not to laugh. As the US and Europe struggle to come to terms with the aftermath of a bubble economy, rising public debt and the retirement of the baby-boom generation, they should look to Japan with respect. It may be the future.
gideon.rachman@ft.com
Many thanks for the informative article on Japan and the merits of its systems.
The only exception I take to is when you say US public-sector debt could hit 80%. Officially it is less than 50% but that is excluding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (kindly refer today's analysis sheet in FT). That way US debt is already above 100% and can easily surpass Japan's if things don't improve soon (they look bleak anyway)
My suggestion is to use real figures rather than those dished out by govt. officials.
Infact you have mentioned that fact in the unemployment section of your article wherein you mentioned 'there is probably a lot of disguised unemployment'
Infact this gives you or your colleagues two topics for next few articles: a) disguised statistics b) disguised hype (remember, few months back, "China's stimulus will save the world" changed to "China's stimulus will save itself" few weeks ago )
Regards,
Pradeep Kabra
----------------------------------------------
Japan’s continuity we can believe in
By Gideon Rachman
Published: August 31 2009 19:32 | Last updated: August 31 2009 19:32
pinn
When the great recession began last year, the fate of Japan was often held up as an awful warning to the west. If the US and the European Union failed to adopt the right policies, it was said, they too might suffer a Japanese-style “lost decade”, followed by years of feeble growth.
Now that the Japanese have used Sunday’s election to elect the Democratic party – breaking with more than 50 years of rule by the Liberal Democratic party – a new western narrative is taking hold. This is a political revolution; it is Japan’s big chance to break with the years of stagnation.
But both these stories are wrong. The Democrats are unlikely to shake things up hugely. Nor should they. For the story of Japan over the past 20 years is by no means as dismal as much western commentary would have it.
It is true that, since its asset-price bubble burst in 1990, the country’s economy has grown slowly, the stock market has slumped and national debt has risen to awesome proportions. But, despite these trials, it has remained a sane, stable, prosperous and exciting country. Politically, culturally and even economically, it offers not so much a warning as an inspiring example of how to deal with a long period of adversity.
The fact that, throughout the years of relative stagnation, the Japanese kept electing the LDP puzzled many outsiders. A few even saw it as evidence that Japan is somehow less than democratic. But it was willing to try and change. The country gave a mandate to Junichiro Koizumi, the flamboyant LDP prime minister, who pushed Japan in a more free-market direction from 2001 to 2006. Now it has turned to Yukio Hatoyama and the Democrats, who are less enamoured of the American model.
However, Japan has always gone for change within well-defined limits. Europeans and Americans worry that a deep recession could stoke political extremism – not without reason, perhaps, given the hysterical tone of politics in the US and the increase in the vote for far-right and far-left parties in Europe. But during almost 20 years of tough times, the Japanese have never flirted with political extremism.
That could be because they have coped much better with economic difficulty than foreigners sometimes acknowledge. The Economist, for example, has occasionally lamented Japan’s “amazing ability to disappoint”. It is true that foreign investors will have found the country’s stock market a particularly disappointing venue in the past two decades; the Nikkei currently stands at a little over 10,500, compared with 39,000 at the peak of the bubble. The Japanese have also been chastised by outsiders for their reluctance to deal more ruthlessly with “zombie” companies, and for clinging to outmoded traditions such as “lifetime employment”.
But the efforts to cushion the worst social effects of an economic downturn have paid off. Last week there were shocked headlines proclaiming that the global recession had driven Japanese unemployment to a new high – 5.7 per cent. That still compares pretty favourably to 9.4 per cent in the US and the euro area. There is probably a lot of disguised unemployment behind the official number – but the same is true in the west.
The Japanese determination to preserve jobs made their labour market less “flexible” and the economy paid a price – but not an unbearable one. The days when academics wrote breathless predictions about “Japan as number one” are long gone. But after 20 years of alleged stagnation, it is still number two – the world’s second largest economy. Its biggest companies still make world-beating products. Toyota, for example, has led the world in developing hybrid cars, such as the Prius.
Tokyo certainly does not feel like the capital of a country in the grip of terminal depression. The city’s restaurants have accumulated more Michelin stars than are to be found in Paris. Tyler Brûlé, the Financial Times style guru, prowls the streets of the city, searching relentlessly for examples of cutting-edge design – a tribute to the country’s reputation for style. When Japan hosted the soccer World Cup in 2002, just after its “lost decade”, it presented a cheerful and welcoming face to the world that contrasted pleasantly with the spooky nationalism of its South Korean co-hosts. The Japanese can even play soccer. The national team went to Beijing for the final of the 2004 Asian cup, beat China – and got out of the country alive.
Of course, Japan has its problems. Its average age is rising steadily and its population is shrinking. One in five Japanese is over 65. The Democrats have promised to raise pensions and payments to parents – and to cut taxes. It is hard to see how the sums add up. While the US and the UK worry that their public-sector debts could hit 80 per cent of gross domestic product, Japan’s debt is heading for 200 per cent.
Some of its efforts to deal with an ageing society are positively unnerving. The country has led the world in developing robots as companions for the elderly. These include a “snuggling Ifbot” that, according to press reports, “lives in an astronaut suit, chats about the weather, sings and plays games”.
It is best not to laugh. As the US and Europe struggle to come to terms with the aftermath of a bubble economy, rising public debt and the retirement of the baby-boom generation, they should look to Japan with respect. It may be the future.
gideon.rachman@ft.com
Wednesday 5 August 2009
Re: Global warming and the poor
Dear Mr. Stephens,
Thanks for your article on this topic in today's Wall Street Journal.
I totally agree with your last paragraph.
But your penultimate paragraph is misleading. You say that 'a freer china is a cleaner china'
If that was the case then why India with 1/3 GDP of China is more polluted per capita wise than China itself. Or why India is more polluted than China at this stage of it's development.
The thing is freedom has nothing to do with it. India is the 'model democracy' in the world. What matters is a) Growth and b) Regulation. Democracy and state control has nothing to do with it.
Infact 'State Control' can at-least be a boon to implement the policies if the Chinese govt. decides so. It will, once it reaches the threshhold point in growth i.e., when it achieves the target of taking the rest of 36% of its population (appx. 480 million people) out of the poverty zone.
The problem is the tendency of most of the Western press to link anything in China with Human Rights and Democracy. I don't think they can solve the problems. If you don't believe me, go and visit India and check it out yourself. When I say visit, it doesn't mean staying in a 5 start hotel in Mumbai or Delhi!!!
Regards,
Pradeep Kabra
London, UK
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Article rank
* 5 Aug 2009
* The Wall Street Journal Europe
Global Warming and the Poor
A funny thing happened on the way to saving the world’s poor from the ravages of global warming. The poor told the warming alarmists to get lost.
This spring, the Geneva-based Global Humanitarian Forum, led by former U.N. General Secretary Kofi Annan, issued a report warning that “mass starvation, mass migration, and mass sickness” would ensue if the world did not agree to “the most ambitious international agreement ever negotiated” on global warming at a forthcoming conference in Copenhagen.
According to Mr. Annan’s report, climate change-induced disasters now account for 315,000 deaths each year and $125 billion in damages, numbers set to rise to 500,000 deaths and $340 billion in damages by 2030. The numbers are hotly contested by University of Colorado disaster-trends expert Roger Pielke Jr., who calls them a “poster child for how to lie with statistics.”
But never mind about that. The more interesting kiss-off took place in New Delhi late last month, when Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh told visiting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that there was no way India would sign on to any global scheme to cap carbon emissions.
“There is simply no case for the pressure that we, who have among the lowest emissions per capita, face to actually reduce emissions,” Mr. Ramesh told Mrs. Clinton. “And as if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours.” The Chinese—the world’s largest emitter of CO2—have told the Obama administration essentially the same thing.
Roughly 75% of Indians—some 800 million people—live on $2 a day or less, adjusted for purchasing power parity. In China, it’s about 36%, or about 480 million. That means the two governments alone are responsible for one in every two people living at that income level.
If climate change is the threat Mr. Annan claims it is, India and China ought to be eagerly beating the path to Copenhagen. So why aren’t they?
To listen to the climate alarmists, it’s all America’s fault. “What the Chinese are chiefly guilty of is emulating the American economic model,” wrote environmental writer Jacques Leslie last year in the Christian Science Monitor. “The United States passed up the opportunity it had at the beginning of China’s economic transformation to guide it toward sustainability, and the loss is already incalculable.” Facts tell a different story. When Deng Xiaoping began introducing elements of a market economy in 1980, Chinese life expectancy at birth was 65.3 years. Today it is about 73 years. The numbers are probably a bit inflated, as most numbers are in the People’s Republic, but the trend line is undeniable. In India, life expectancy rose from 52.5 years in 1980 to about 67 years today. If this is the consequence of following the “American economic model” then poor countries need more of it.
But what about all the pollution in India and particularly China? In Mr. Leslie’s telling, CO2 emissions are part-and-parcel with common pollutants such as particulate matter, toxic waste, and everything else typically associated with a degraded environment. They’re not. The U.S. and China produce equivalent quantities of carbon dioxide. But try naming a U.S. city whose air quality is even remotely as bad as Beijing’s, or an American river as polluted as the Han: You can’t. America, the richer and more industrialized country, is also by far the cleaner one.
People who live in Third-World countries—like Mexico, where I grew up—tend to understand this, even if First-World environmentalists do not. People who live in oppressive Third World countries, like China, also understand that it isn’t just greater wealth that leads to a better environment, but greater freedom, too.
To return to Mr. Leslie, his complaint with China is that it has become too much of a consumer society, again in the American mold. Again he is ridiculous: China has one of the world’s highest personal savings rates—50% versus the U.S.’s 2.7%. The real source of China’s pollution problem is a state-led industrial policy geared toward production, and stateowned enterprises (especially in “dirty” sectors like coal and steel) that strive to meet production quotas, and state-appointed managers who don’t mind cutting corners in matters of safety or environmental responsibility, and typically have the political clout to insulate themselves from any public fallout.
In other words, China’s pollution problems are not a function of laissez-faire policies and rampant consumerism, but of the regime’s excessive lingering control of the economy. A freer China means a cleaner China.
There’s a lesson in this for those who believe that the world’s environmental problems call for a new era of dirigisme. And there ought to be a lesson for those who claim to understand the problems of the poor better than the poor themselves. If global warming really is the catastrophe the alarmists claim, the least they can do for its victims is not to patronize them while impoverishing them in the bargain.
Write to bstephens@wsj.com
Thanks for your article on this topic in today's Wall Street Journal.
I totally agree with your last paragraph.
But your penultimate paragraph is misleading. You say that 'a freer china is a cleaner china'
If that was the case then why India with 1/3 GDP of China is more polluted per capita wise than China itself. Or why India is more polluted than China at this stage of it's development.
The thing is freedom has nothing to do with it. India is the 'model democracy' in the world. What matters is a) Growth and b) Regulation. Democracy and state control has nothing to do with it.
Infact 'State Control' can at-least be a boon to implement the policies if the Chinese govt. decides so. It will, once it reaches the threshhold point in growth i.e., when it achieves the target of taking the rest of 36% of its population (appx. 480 million people) out of the poverty zone.
The problem is the tendency of most of the Western press to link anything in China with Human Rights and Democracy. I don't think they can solve the problems. If you don't believe me, go and visit India and check it out yourself. When I say visit, it doesn't mean staying in a 5 start hotel in Mumbai or Delhi!!!
Regards,
Pradeep Kabra
London, UK
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Article rank
* 5 Aug 2009
* The Wall Street Journal Europe
Global Warming and the Poor
A funny thing happened on the way to saving the world’s poor from the ravages of global warming. The poor told the warming alarmists to get lost.
This spring, the Geneva-based Global Humanitarian Forum, led by former U.N. General Secretary Kofi Annan, issued a report warning that “mass starvation, mass migration, and mass sickness” would ensue if the world did not agree to “the most ambitious international agreement ever negotiated” on global warming at a forthcoming conference in Copenhagen.
According to Mr. Annan’s report, climate change-induced disasters now account for 315,000 deaths each year and $125 billion in damages, numbers set to rise to 500,000 deaths and $340 billion in damages by 2030. The numbers are hotly contested by University of Colorado disaster-trends expert Roger Pielke Jr., who calls them a “poster child for how to lie with statistics.”
But never mind about that. The more interesting kiss-off took place in New Delhi late last month, when Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh told visiting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that there was no way India would sign on to any global scheme to cap carbon emissions.
“There is simply no case for the pressure that we, who have among the lowest emissions per capita, face to actually reduce emissions,” Mr. Ramesh told Mrs. Clinton. “And as if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours.” The Chinese—the world’s largest emitter of CO2—have told the Obama administration essentially the same thing.
Roughly 75% of Indians—some 800 million people—live on $2 a day or less, adjusted for purchasing power parity. In China, it’s about 36%, or about 480 million. That means the two governments alone are responsible for one in every two people living at that income level.
If climate change is the threat Mr. Annan claims it is, India and China ought to be eagerly beating the path to Copenhagen. So why aren’t they?
To listen to the climate alarmists, it’s all America’s fault. “What the Chinese are chiefly guilty of is emulating the American economic model,” wrote environmental writer Jacques Leslie last year in the Christian Science Monitor. “The United States passed up the opportunity it had at the beginning of China’s economic transformation to guide it toward sustainability, and the loss is already incalculable.” Facts tell a different story. When Deng Xiaoping began introducing elements of a market economy in 1980, Chinese life expectancy at birth was 65.3 years. Today it is about 73 years. The numbers are probably a bit inflated, as most numbers are in the People’s Republic, but the trend line is undeniable. In India, life expectancy rose from 52.5 years in 1980 to about 67 years today. If this is the consequence of following the “American economic model” then poor countries need more of it.
But what about all the pollution in India and particularly China? In Mr. Leslie’s telling, CO2 emissions are part-and-parcel with common pollutants such as particulate matter, toxic waste, and everything else typically associated with a degraded environment. They’re not. The U.S. and China produce equivalent quantities of carbon dioxide. But try naming a U.S. city whose air quality is even remotely as bad as Beijing’s, or an American river as polluted as the Han: You can’t. America, the richer and more industrialized country, is also by far the cleaner one.
People who live in Third-World countries—like Mexico, where I grew up—tend to understand this, even if First-World environmentalists do not. People who live in oppressive Third World countries, like China, also understand that it isn’t just greater wealth that leads to a better environment, but greater freedom, too.
To return to Mr. Leslie, his complaint with China is that it has become too much of a consumer society, again in the American mold. Again he is ridiculous: China has one of the world’s highest personal savings rates—50% versus the U.S.’s 2.7%. The real source of China’s pollution problem is a state-led industrial policy geared toward production, and stateowned enterprises (especially in “dirty” sectors like coal and steel) that strive to meet production quotas, and state-appointed managers who don’t mind cutting corners in matters of safety or environmental responsibility, and typically have the political clout to insulate themselves from any public fallout.
In other words, China’s pollution problems are not a function of laissez-faire policies and rampant consumerism, but of the regime’s excessive lingering control of the economy. A freer China means a cleaner China.
There’s a lesson in this for those who believe that the world’s environmental problems call for a new era of dirigisme. And there ought to be a lesson for those who claim to understand the problems of the poor better than the poor themselves. If global warming really is the catastrophe the alarmists claim, the least they can do for its victims is not to patronize them while impoverishing them in the bargain.
Write to bstephens@wsj.com
Sunday 26 July 2009
The TOUGHEST Job in the World!!!
Only one word. Fantastic. Crazy. Confusing. Intimidating. Unworthy. Difficult. Hard. Punishing. Tons of Patience needed. Why do it?
I can understand parents slogging it off for their own kids. But what about teachers? Why especially in this modern sueing society. Luckily, the 'slut' word didn't hit hard on the teacher from the French society, law or even his peers. But what if he was in a school in USA or Britain? His career would have been finished. No wonder it is so difficult to find good teachers. They are the unloved, unsung heroes for the country and the world.
I loved the teaching methods. The natural progression. The lack of imposing by the Director. The state of teaching from argument about introducing oneself by putting ones name card on one's desk to Reading an essay to writing one's self-portrait to the exasperation expressed by one of the teacher at the thankless job of teaching to the teacher-parents meet to disciplinary committee to finally what one learned in the year. What a journey. Just like life so full of roughness and potholes but I suppose it is worth in the end.
Full marks to François Bégaudeau for not interfering in the narration of Entre les murs
(The Class). He not just avoided the temptation to dramatize but also to edit. By keeping the narrative rough, he did his job well.
So, if somebody says there are no challenges left in the world, he/she is deluding oneself. There is always a challenge and TEACHING is one. The only others which can claim to come close to it is GARDENING/COOKING/CURING ILLNESS. But in the latter, you are not dealing with Kids who are asking questions like Are You Gay? Not running a country or company, not earning money, not handling nagging wife/mistress.
The only other film, which can come closer to this on the topic of education is Nicolas Philibert's Être et avoir(To Be And To Have).
Pradeep Kabra
I can understand parents slogging it off for their own kids. But what about teachers? Why especially in this modern sueing society. Luckily, the 'slut' word didn't hit hard on the teacher from the French society, law or even his peers. But what if he was in a school in USA or Britain? His career would have been finished. No wonder it is so difficult to find good teachers. They are the unloved, unsung heroes for the country and the world.
I loved the teaching methods. The natural progression. The lack of imposing by the Director. The state of teaching from argument about introducing oneself by putting ones name card on one's desk to Reading an essay to writing one's self-portrait to the exasperation expressed by one of the teacher at the thankless job of teaching to the teacher-parents meet to disciplinary committee to finally what one learned in the year. What a journey. Just like life so full of roughness and potholes but I suppose it is worth in the end.
Full marks to François Bégaudeau for not interfering in the narration of Entre les murs
(The Class). He not just avoided the temptation to dramatize but also to edit. By keeping the narrative rough, he did his job well.
So, if somebody says there are no challenges left in the world, he/she is deluding oneself. There is always a challenge and TEACHING is one. The only others which can claim to come close to it is GARDENING/COOKING/CURING ILLNESS. But in the latter, you are not dealing with Kids who are asking questions like Are You Gay? Not running a country or company, not earning money, not handling nagging wife/mistress.
The only other film, which can come closer to this on the topic of education is Nicolas Philibert's Être et avoir(To Be And To Have).
Pradeep Kabra
Monday 22 June 2009
Worthy Winners - Both 20-20 Format & Pakistan
Blame the format? Maybe. Just that as Jonathan Agnew of BBC says, you can't comeback in this format. That is the only draw-back. Also as he says, this can be a cash cow managing the other two formats especially the Test Cricket. All 3 formats can survive in his view. I totally agree. They should - why not.
Test Cricket tests the resilience and patience. It gives you the opportunity to save the test if you can't win it. The only sport in the world which respects a 'draw'. It tests you session by session. It is like a patient game of chess.
On the other hand, the One Day Game makes you play to win. Nothing else. You can come back from setbacks and because of the One Day Game, Test Cricket became more exciting. 350+ scores in a day became the norm. Aussies led the way in the nineties after Allan Border's team won the '96 Reliance Cup in India. But to organize a world cup or any major tournament, it takes at-least 3-4 weeks of everyone's time.
Can one globalize the game of cricket with this format alone? I'm not sure. When you are competing with games like Tennis and Football, 2-3 hours maximum is what a busy person can afford in this stressful world. At-least in Test Cricket, one can choose and follow sessions live and then follow the score. But in One Day Game you can't do that.
Here comes the wonderful innovation of 20-20 cricket. It is not just great entertainment but also good value for money and time. One can globalize the game of cricket based on this format. Kids can be lured and initiated easily.
Of-course, 20-20 is not just smashing the ball. It tests one's skill and temperament. You need to be at the top of your game throughout to win. You need to take your chances and be creative and proactive. Adaptability is the key.
This was demonstrated by Pakistan team in general, Younis Khan's captaincy and Shahid Afridi's all round performance in particular. Well deserved win for Pakistan. Congratulations Pakistan Team for winning the 20-20 World Cup 2009.
Finally as Mr. Agnew says, if handled sensibly, this format can be a cash cow to bankroll not just the other formats but also to invest in the future of the game in general. The biggest boon is for a low investment everyone including the paying and watching public, the players, the sponsors and advertisers and the administrators gets high returns. Now everyone can play cricket. Welcome to the 21st century of cricket. Innovation and Tradition at its best. Who said, only Wimbledon can achieve that?
Pradeep Kabra
Test Cricket tests the resilience and patience. It gives you the opportunity to save the test if you can't win it. The only sport in the world which respects a 'draw'. It tests you session by session. It is like a patient game of chess.
On the other hand, the One Day Game makes you play to win. Nothing else. You can come back from setbacks and because of the One Day Game, Test Cricket became more exciting. 350+ scores in a day became the norm. Aussies led the way in the nineties after Allan Border's team won the '96 Reliance Cup in India. But to organize a world cup or any major tournament, it takes at-least 3-4 weeks of everyone's time.
Can one globalize the game of cricket with this format alone? I'm not sure. When you are competing with games like Tennis and Football, 2-3 hours maximum is what a busy person can afford in this stressful world. At-least in Test Cricket, one can choose and follow sessions live and then follow the score. But in One Day Game you can't do that.
Here comes the wonderful innovation of 20-20 cricket. It is not just great entertainment but also good value for money and time. One can globalize the game of cricket based on this format. Kids can be lured and initiated easily.
Of-course, 20-20 is not just smashing the ball. It tests one's skill and temperament. You need to be at the top of your game throughout to win. You need to take your chances and be creative and proactive. Adaptability is the key.
This was demonstrated by Pakistan team in general, Younis Khan's captaincy and Shahid Afridi's all round performance in particular. Well deserved win for Pakistan. Congratulations Pakistan Team for winning the 20-20 World Cup 2009.
Finally as Mr. Agnew says, if handled sensibly, this format can be a cash cow to bankroll not just the other formats but also to invest in the future of the game in general. The biggest boon is for a low investment everyone including the paying and watching public, the players, the sponsors and advertisers and the administrators gets high returns. Now everyone can play cricket. Welcome to the 21st century of cricket. Innovation and Tradition at its best. Who said, only Wimbledon can achieve that?
Pradeep Kabra
Thursday 18 June 2009
Re: Back on the Road???
This is a fantastic analysis of automotive sector in today's Financial Times.
Some facts:
1. The credit crunch hit carmaking first and hardest of any non-financial sector, sending sales down by one-quarter in Europe by the end of last year. In the US, sales fell from a pre-crisis annual rate of 16m to just 10m – so low that China came close to overtaking it as the world’s largest car market.
2. automakers have benefited from well in excess of $100bn of direct bail-out funds or indirect state aid, such as scrappage schemes, since global sales collapsed last October – in nominal terms, the biggest ever shortterm intervention in manufacturing. All this money has preserved jobs in carmaking, still the linchpin of many industrial economies. But the money has also prevented a necessary shakeout in an industry that has long had too many producers
3. Consultants at PwC estimate the industry has the capacity to build 86m units this year, almost a record – and 31m more than the 55m vehicles it will sell.
4. The shape of the industry looks all but the same, except that governments have tipped lots of money in and prevented Darwinian selection,” says Max Warburton, analyst at Sanford Bernstein. “It has been a good reminder of what this industry is: a government-supported job creation scheme.”
5. The scrapping incentives could have other unintended consequences, analysts warn. US Congress this week is set to approve a voucher worth up to $4,500 for trade-ins of older cars for new ones, making the world’s largest car market the latest to adopt a “cashfor-clunkers” scheme. Yet industry analysts warn that by artificially pulling forward consumers’ replacement of their cars, the incentives could lead merely to a market “hangover” in 2010.
6. Under pressure from his autos task force, which sent it back to revise its restructuring plan twice, GM has accelerated the downsizing of its operations. It is shelving four brands, closing 14 plants by 2012 and shedding about 50,000 staff this year.
7. In the fast lane - VW, Ford, Fiat, Hyundai
In the slow lane - Toyota (surprise-surprise), Tata Motors, Daimler, Renault
My view:
* What is clear is that after Banks/Finance, Automotive is the second largest recipient of govt. dole.
* No other company/industry in the world can survive with excess capacity of 56% especially in a capital intensive industry like automotive without consolidating or restructuring.
* The fact is, easy money led to easy credit which made everyone believe that they can keep living the lie for eternity.
* Since almost all the auto manufacturers think downsizing is giving away the initiative - it has become a game of who blinks first. For example, elite companies like BMW/Daimler still think they can keep on selling more than a million units per year.
* Even a great company like Toyota fell for the mirage of growth by building more than 10 new plants in the south USA.
* So what is the future? As this analysis explains lucidly, one cannot defy gravity for long.
With environmental pressure mounting, oil becoming dearer and pricey, public infrastructure creaking even in the developed world, the OVER-CAPACITY of the auto-sector has to be tackled. That's the only way ahead. Govt. dole can only slow that process - but as GM's bankruptcy/restructuring shows - for HOW LONG???
Regards,
Pradeep
Back on the road?
Cars Massive injections of public money have saved much of the industry from immediate collapse. But long-standing problems remain – and will still have to be addressed, writes John Reed
Figueruelas has stirred back to life. The General Motors factory in northern Spain is turning out nearly as many cars as it did before the global automotive industry hit the skids last year. The Opel Corsa super-mini it produces is in big demand because of state-funded scrapping incentives encouraging drivers to trade in cars in Germany, France, Italy and – as of last month – the UK. The low price means this car and rival small models such as the Fiat Panda and Renault Clio are selling briskly among the motorists of modest means who tend to drive cars elderly enough to qualify for the schemes. Since Berlin introduced its €2,500 per car bonus in January, monthly output has nearly tripled at Figueruelas, from 12,000 to 35,000. Opel’s own future looks much safer now, too, than at the turn of the year, with more than a bit of help from the German government. Last month, as Detroit carmaker GM prepared to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the US, Angela Merkel’s government – worried about the collapse of a big German employer in an election year – stepped in with €1.5bn of bridge loans to rescue Opel. For anyone who has been following the industry’s near collapse in recent months, its comeback from its annus horribilis seems downright surreal. The credit crunch hit carmaking first and hardest of any non-financial sector, sending sales down by one-quarter in Europe by the end of last year. In the US, sales fell from a pre-crisis annual rate of 16m to just 10m – so low that China came close to overtaking it as the world’s largest car market. In December, as plants began to close for long holiday shutdowns, Sergio Marchionne, Fiat chief executive, predicted a shake-out that would, within two years, leave just seven mass-market carmakers standing. By February, Dieter Zetsche, Daimler’s boss, was predicting a “Darwinian year”. But instead of natural selection, something else happened: governments around the world, from Canada and Brazil to Russia and South Korea, stepped in with prodigious amounts of cash to keep car plants open and assembly lines running. All told, automakers have benefited from well in excess of $100bn of direct bail-out funds or indirect state aid, such as scrappage schemes, since global sales collapsed last October – in nominal terms, the biggest ever shortterm intervention in manufacturing. All this money has preserved jobs in carmaking, still the linchpin of many industrial economies. But the money has also prevented a necessary shakeout in an industry that has long had too many producers. Consultants at PwC estimate the industry has the capacity to build 86m units this year, almost a record – and 31m more than the 55m vehicles it will sell. “What appeared to be a unique opportunity to address the industry’s biggest issue – excess capacity – has been missed,” says Michael Tyndall, an analyst with Nomura. In Europe not a single plant has closed permanently since the industry slump began. GM and Chrysler, two of the most vulnerable carmakers when the crisis hit, filed for bankruptcy – but were guaranteed survival thanks to about $60bn from US President Barack Obama’s administration. BMW and Daimler are among carmakers discussing pooling costs in areas such as procurement, research and development, but there has been just one real merger – the partnership between Fiat and Chrysler, sealed this month. But Mr Marchionne was thwarted in his proposal to merge the two carmakers with Opel, Saab and GM Latin America to create a company as big as Volkswagen. “The shape of the industry looks all but the same, except that governments have tipped lots of money in and prevented Darwinian selection,” says Max Warburton, analyst at Sanford Bernstein. “It has been a good reminder of what this industry is: a government-supported job creation scheme.” Long-term observers of the industry point out that it has never operated on the pure free-market principles. Governments have always intervened in hard times. The status of many carmakers as national champions is bolstered by dynastic family owners at about half the big producers, who often rank continuity and control above shareholder value. Both they and governments form a big obstacle to consolidation. In this crisis, as in past ones, automakers made and won arguments that they deserved special treatment as some of their countries’ biggest employers and exporters. As credit markets closed and carmakers went begging to Washington and Brussels for emergency aid late last year, they reminded policymakers that the industry has one of the biggest “multiplier” effects: for every job created or lost, about six to eight downstream positions at suppliers come or go too. In France, Nicolas Sarkozy’s government explicitly asked Peugeot and Renault to preserve jobs and keep plants open as the price of the €6bn bail-out agreed in February. Both are losing money and some industry participants think the archrivals should merge. But Mr Sarkozy exacted a commitment that they would “do everything to avoid compulsory redundancies”. Germany’s government has also made job preservation its priority in GM’s ongoing talks on selling a controlling stake in Opel to the consortium led by Canada’s Magna International. Many analysts liked Fiat’s merger plan. But Mr Marchionne may have played his politics wrong by being too forthright about job losses – 8,000-9,000, and the possible closing of an engine plant in Kaiserslautern, south-west Germany. In the end, unions and premiers of the states where Opel has plants opposed Fiat, as did most members of Ms Merkel’s cabinet. GM, which despite its imminent move into US and German receivership was given a deciding role in the deal, also picked Magna, in part because it did not want to sell Fiat its Latin American operations. “Because of government intervention, we’re not going to see the same level of rationalisation that pure market forces could have driven,” says Paul McCarthy, head of PwC’s automotive strategy practice. “In the long run, we will pay for that.” he Obama administration has, by contrast, strived to exact painful restructuring as the cost of its unprecedented bail-out for Detroit. Under pressure from his autos task force, which sent it back to revise its restructuring plan twice, GM has accelerated the downsizing of its operations. It is shelving four brands, closing 14 plants by 2012 and shedding about 50,000 staff this year. The task force also played a big role in forging the alliance between Chrysler and Fiat. America’s tolerance for job losses and car plant closures has always been higher than Europe’s. Even before the current crisis GM, Ford and Chrysler were cutting tens of thousands of positions. Outlining his government’s decision to push GM into bankruptcy last month, Mr Obama said he “doesn’t want to own GM” and promised to keep the state out of day-to-day management, although the US government will own 60 per cent and Canada 12 per cent when the company emerges from bankruptcy. But administration critics are already warning of the inexorable rise of “Government Motors”. They claim Washington will find irresistible the urge to meddle in decisions on plants and models, at a potentially steep cost to the industry’s efficiency. In one move seen by cynics as a sign of things to come, GM this month agreed to delay shutting a parts distribution centre in Massachusetts for at least 14 months after Fritz Henderson, chief executive, met Barney Frank, the Democratic congressman from that state, who chairs the powerful House of Representatives financial services committee. “If this isn’t world-class politicking-turned-meddling, what is?” wrote Daniel Howes, a Detroit News columnist. More recently, GM began talks with the government and three US states on a new plant to build small cars after word emerged that the company planned to build them cheaply in China, creating uproar in the United Auto Workers union, which will own 17.5 per cent of a post-bankruptcy GM. America’s intervention in the car industry could have other costs too, critics warn. Many say Mr Obama’s strong-arming of Chrysler’s recalcitrant secured creditors – whom he denounced as “speculators” in April – was a blow to creditors’ rights and, with it, to the rule of law in the market economy. Ford’s willingness to survive without federal aid, although good for its image in the short term, could have costs in the longer term if GM and Chrysler emerge as stronger competitors with Washington’s help. John Fleming, head of Ford’s large European business, last month complained that bail-outs for Opel, Peugeot and Renault were tilting the playing field in favour of its competitors. As loans such as those made by the French government raise tensions within the European Union, he called on Brussels to be tougher about policing its own rules on state aid. The scrapping incentives could have other unintended consequences, analysts warn. US Congress this week is set to approve a voucher worth up to $4,500 for trade-ins of older cars for new ones, making the world’s largest car market the latest to adopt a “cashfor-clunkers” scheme. Yet industry analysts warn that by artificially pulling forward consumers’ replacement of their cars, the incentives could lead merely to a market “hangover” in 2010. Already, some including Toyota are calling for the measures to be extended into next year. “Because of government intervention softening the blow, we will have to go through restructuring over a longer period of time,” says PwC’s Mr McCarthy. “What might have happened in two years will happen in 10. We won’t be fixed a year from now.”
Picasa Web Albums - Blogger Images - Blogger Images
Picasa Web Albums - Blogger Images - Blogger Images
Picasa Web Albums - Blogger Images - Blogger Images
Some facts:
1. The credit crunch hit carmaking first and hardest of any non-financial sector, sending sales down by one-quarter in Europe by the end of last year. In the US, sales fell from a pre-crisis annual rate of 16m to just 10m – so low that China came close to overtaking it as the world’s largest car market.
2. automakers have benefited from well in excess of $100bn of direct bail-out funds or indirect state aid, such as scrappage schemes, since global sales collapsed last October – in nominal terms, the biggest ever shortterm intervention in manufacturing. All this money has preserved jobs in carmaking, still the linchpin of many industrial economies. But the money has also prevented a necessary shakeout in an industry that has long had too many producers
3. Consultants at PwC estimate the industry has the capacity to build 86m units this year, almost a record – and 31m more than the 55m vehicles it will sell.
4. The shape of the industry looks all but the same, except that governments have tipped lots of money in and prevented Darwinian selection,” says Max Warburton, analyst at Sanford Bernstein. “It has been a good reminder of what this industry is: a government-supported job creation scheme.”
5. The scrapping incentives could have other unintended consequences, analysts warn. US Congress this week is set to approve a voucher worth up to $4,500 for trade-ins of older cars for new ones, making the world’s largest car market the latest to adopt a “cashfor-clunkers” scheme. Yet industry analysts warn that by artificially pulling forward consumers’ replacement of their cars, the incentives could lead merely to a market “hangover” in 2010.
6. Under pressure from his autos task force, which sent it back to revise its restructuring plan twice, GM has accelerated the downsizing of its operations. It is shelving four brands, closing 14 plants by 2012 and shedding about 50,000 staff this year.
7. In the fast lane - VW, Ford, Fiat, Hyundai
In the slow lane - Toyota (surprise-surprise), Tata Motors, Daimler, Renault
My view:
* What is clear is that after Banks/Finance, Automotive is the second largest recipient of govt. dole.
* No other company/industry in the world can survive with excess capacity of 56% especially in a capital intensive industry like automotive without consolidating or restructuring.
* The fact is, easy money led to easy credit which made everyone believe that they can keep living the lie for eternity.
* Since almost all the auto manufacturers think downsizing is giving away the initiative - it has become a game of who blinks first. For example, elite companies like BMW/Daimler still think they can keep on selling more than a million units per year.
* Even a great company like Toyota fell for the mirage of growth by building more than 10 new plants in the south USA.
* So what is the future? As this analysis explains lucidly, one cannot defy gravity for long.
With environmental pressure mounting, oil becoming dearer and pricey, public infrastructure creaking even in the developed world, the OVER-CAPACITY of the auto-sector has to be tackled. That's the only way ahead. Govt. dole can only slow that process - but as GM's bankruptcy/restructuring shows - for HOW LONG???
Regards,
Pradeep
Back on the road?
Cars Massive injections of public money have saved much of the industry from immediate collapse. But long-standing problems remain – and will still have to be addressed, writes John Reed
Figueruelas has stirred back to life. The General Motors factory in northern Spain is turning out nearly as many cars as it did before the global automotive industry hit the skids last year. The Opel Corsa super-mini it produces is in big demand because of state-funded scrapping incentives encouraging drivers to trade in cars in Germany, France, Italy and – as of last month – the UK. The low price means this car and rival small models such as the Fiat Panda and Renault Clio are selling briskly among the motorists of modest means who tend to drive cars elderly enough to qualify for the schemes. Since Berlin introduced its €2,500 per car bonus in January, monthly output has nearly tripled at Figueruelas, from 12,000 to 35,000. Opel’s own future looks much safer now, too, than at the turn of the year, with more than a bit of help from the German government. Last month, as Detroit carmaker GM prepared to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the US, Angela Merkel’s government – worried about the collapse of a big German employer in an election year – stepped in with €1.5bn of bridge loans to rescue Opel. For anyone who has been following the industry’s near collapse in recent months, its comeback from its annus horribilis seems downright surreal. The credit crunch hit carmaking first and hardest of any non-financial sector, sending sales down by one-quarter in Europe by the end of last year. In the US, sales fell from a pre-crisis annual rate of 16m to just 10m – so low that China came close to overtaking it as the world’s largest car market. In December, as plants began to close for long holiday shutdowns, Sergio Marchionne, Fiat chief executive, predicted a shake-out that would, within two years, leave just seven mass-market carmakers standing. By February, Dieter Zetsche, Daimler’s boss, was predicting a “Darwinian year”. But instead of natural selection, something else happened: governments around the world, from Canada and Brazil to Russia and South Korea, stepped in with prodigious amounts of cash to keep car plants open and assembly lines running. All told, automakers have benefited from well in excess of $100bn of direct bail-out funds or indirect state aid, such as scrappage schemes, since global sales collapsed last October – in nominal terms, the biggest ever shortterm intervention in manufacturing. All this money has preserved jobs in carmaking, still the linchpin of many industrial economies. But the money has also prevented a necessary shakeout in an industry that has long had too many producers. Consultants at PwC estimate the industry has the capacity to build 86m units this year, almost a record – and 31m more than the 55m vehicles it will sell. “What appeared to be a unique opportunity to address the industry’s biggest issue – excess capacity – has been missed,” says Michael Tyndall, an analyst with Nomura. In Europe not a single plant has closed permanently since the industry slump began. GM and Chrysler, two of the most vulnerable carmakers when the crisis hit, filed for bankruptcy – but were guaranteed survival thanks to about $60bn from US President Barack Obama’s administration. BMW and Daimler are among carmakers discussing pooling costs in areas such as procurement, research and development, but there has been just one real merger – the partnership between Fiat and Chrysler, sealed this month. But Mr Marchionne was thwarted in his proposal to merge the two carmakers with Opel, Saab and GM Latin America to create a company as big as Volkswagen. “The shape of the industry looks all but the same, except that governments have tipped lots of money in and prevented Darwinian selection,” says Max Warburton, analyst at Sanford Bernstein. “It has been a good reminder of what this industry is: a government-supported job creation scheme.” Long-term observers of the industry point out that it has never operated on the pure free-market principles. Governments have always intervened in hard times. The status of many carmakers as national champions is bolstered by dynastic family owners at about half the big producers, who often rank continuity and control above shareholder value. Both they and governments form a big obstacle to consolidation. In this crisis, as in past ones, automakers made and won arguments that they deserved special treatment as some of their countries’ biggest employers and exporters. As credit markets closed and carmakers went begging to Washington and Brussels for emergency aid late last year, they reminded policymakers that the industry has one of the biggest “multiplier” effects: for every job created or lost, about six to eight downstream positions at suppliers come or go too. In France, Nicolas Sarkozy’s government explicitly asked Peugeot and Renault to preserve jobs and keep plants open as the price of the €6bn bail-out agreed in February. Both are losing money and some industry participants think the archrivals should merge. But Mr Sarkozy exacted a commitment that they would “do everything to avoid compulsory redundancies”. Germany’s government has also made job preservation its priority in GM’s ongoing talks on selling a controlling stake in Opel to the consortium led by Canada’s Magna International. Many analysts liked Fiat’s merger plan. But Mr Marchionne may have played his politics wrong by being too forthright about job losses – 8,000-9,000, and the possible closing of an engine plant in Kaiserslautern, south-west Germany. In the end, unions and premiers of the states where Opel has plants opposed Fiat, as did most members of Ms Merkel’s cabinet. GM, which despite its imminent move into US and German receivership was given a deciding role in the deal, also picked Magna, in part because it did not want to sell Fiat its Latin American operations. “Because of government intervention, we’re not going to see the same level of rationalisation that pure market forces could have driven,” says Paul McCarthy, head of PwC’s automotive strategy practice. “In the long run, we will pay for that.” he Obama administration has, by contrast, strived to exact painful restructuring as the cost of its unprecedented bail-out for Detroit. Under pressure from his autos task force, which sent it back to revise its restructuring plan twice, GM has accelerated the downsizing of its operations. It is shelving four brands, closing 14 plants by 2012 and shedding about 50,000 staff this year. The task force also played a big role in forging the alliance between Chrysler and Fiat. America’s tolerance for job losses and car plant closures has always been higher than Europe’s. Even before the current crisis GM, Ford and Chrysler were cutting tens of thousands of positions. Outlining his government’s decision to push GM into bankruptcy last month, Mr Obama said he “doesn’t want to own GM” and promised to keep the state out of day-to-day management, although the US government will own 60 per cent and Canada 12 per cent when the company emerges from bankruptcy. But administration critics are already warning of the inexorable rise of “Government Motors”. They claim Washington will find irresistible the urge to meddle in decisions on plants and models, at a potentially steep cost to the industry’s efficiency. In one move seen by cynics as a sign of things to come, GM this month agreed to delay shutting a parts distribution centre in Massachusetts for at least 14 months after Fritz Henderson, chief executive, met Barney Frank, the Democratic congressman from that state, who chairs the powerful House of Representatives financial services committee. “If this isn’t world-class politicking-turned-meddling, what is?” wrote Daniel Howes, a Detroit News columnist. More recently, GM began talks with the government and three US states on a new plant to build small cars after word emerged that the company planned to build them cheaply in China, creating uproar in the United Auto Workers union, which will own 17.5 per cent of a post-bankruptcy GM. America’s intervention in the car industry could have other costs too, critics warn. Many say Mr Obama’s strong-arming of Chrysler’s recalcitrant secured creditors – whom he denounced as “speculators” in April – was a blow to creditors’ rights and, with it, to the rule of law in the market economy. Ford’s willingness to survive without federal aid, although good for its image in the short term, could have costs in the longer term if GM and Chrysler emerge as stronger competitors with Washington’s help. John Fleming, head of Ford’s large European business, last month complained that bail-outs for Opel, Peugeot and Renault were tilting the playing field in favour of its competitors. As loans such as those made by the French government raise tensions within the European Union, he called on Brussels to be tougher about policing its own rules on state aid. The scrapping incentives could have other unintended consequences, analysts warn. US Congress this week is set to approve a voucher worth up to $4,500 for trade-ins of older cars for new ones, making the world’s largest car market the latest to adopt a “cashfor-clunkers” scheme. Yet industry analysts warn that by artificially pulling forward consumers’ replacement of their cars, the incentives could lead merely to a market “hangover” in 2010. Already, some including Toyota are calling for the measures to be extended into next year. “Because of government intervention softening the blow, we will have to go through restructuring over a longer period of time,” says PwC’s Mr McCarthy. “What might have happened in two years will happen in 10. We won’t be fixed a year from now.”
Picasa Web Albums - Blogger Images - Blogger Images
Picasa Web Albums - Blogger Images - Blogger Images
Picasa Web Albums - Blogger Images - Blogger Images
Sunday 31 May 2009
10 Things You Need to Know About Losing Weight
Hi All,
I saw this wonderful program on BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ksh7c/10_Things_You_Need_to_Know_About_Losing_Weight/
(unfortunately available only to UK users)
The best part of it is - it clears lots of myths and demonstrates the effectiveness of these simple steps with scientific evidence. The facts about Visceral Fat, Importance of Proteins, Myth of Skipping Meals, Effective Power of Common Sense, Effect of Dairy Products etc., is amazing.
First some facts - Visceral Fat (hidden fat) leads to Type II Diabetes, Can create heart disease and cancer.
Ghrelin harmone asks brain to get food esp. high calorie food to compensate.
Out body burns fat by daily activities like breathing, heart-pumping, brain ticking over etc.,
An average person should have appx. 2,000 calories/day
Some food calorie facts - Black Coffee - 10, Cappucino - 110; Toast - 125, Pastry - 270; Grilled Chicken with Salad Lunch - 250, Same with Mozerella and creamy dressing - 450; 2 Apples - 120, Bar of Chocolate - 300; Pizza with thin crust - 850, Pizza with Deep Pan Pepporeni - 1400; Bloody Mary - 125, Pina Calodan - 280;
Examples of Proteins - Lean Meat, Eggs, Beans, Fish etc.,
Examples of Carbohydrates - Pasta, Bread, Potatoes etc.,
Examples of Fats - Fried Foods, Butter etc.,
10 Tips:
1. Don't Skip Meals - Because our brain has a really primitive response to this, making us crave high-calorie, high-fat foods to compensate, and will-power may not be enough to fight it.
2. Use Smaller Plates - You'll use less food on your plate and could end up eating up to 22% less food over-all just by changing the plate size form 12 inches to 10 inches.
3. Count Your Calories - If you know which calorie laden foods to avoid, you'll be able to eat well without putting on weight.
4. Don't Blame Your Metabolism - The fact is you have simply eaten more food than your body needs and it's stored the excess of fat
5. Protein Staves Off Hunger Pangs - Protein will keep your feeling fuller for longer because protein control hunger pangs by releasing PYY Harmone which sends signal to our brain that it is full
6. Soup Keeps You Feeling Fuller For Longer - Soup is one fo the best kept secrets of dieting
7. The Wider The Choice, The More You Eat - Variety triggers our instincts to try everything and that can lead to over eating.
8. Low Fat Dairy Products (like Skimmed Milk, Low Fat Yoghurt, Cheese, Cottage Cheese and Creme Fraiche) Helps You Excrete More Fat - That is because it absorbs the fat from your stomach and goes down the drain.
9. Exercise Goes On Burning Fat, Even When You Sleep - Not only do you burn fat while you exercise, but the astonishing thing is we keep on burning fat for around 24 hours longer even when we're asleep. That is because our body fuels are made of Carbohydrates and Fats in that order. When we exercise we use up the Carbohydrates. So for the rest of the day and night, our daily activities dip in to the reserves of fat to get going.
10. Keep Moving And Lose Weight - Small changes in our daily routine (like taking stairs, walking to super-market, walking from tube-station rather than somebody picking you up etc.,) can significantly increase the number of calories we burn. JUST KEEP ACTIVE.
I saw this wonderful program on BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ksh7c/10_Things_You_Need_to_Know_About_Losing_Weight/
(unfortunately available only to UK users)
The best part of it is - it clears lots of myths and demonstrates the effectiveness of these simple steps with scientific evidence. The facts about Visceral Fat, Importance of Proteins, Myth of Skipping Meals, Effective Power of Common Sense, Effect of Dairy Products etc., is amazing.
First some facts - Visceral Fat (hidden fat) leads to Type II Diabetes, Can create heart disease and cancer.
Ghrelin harmone asks brain to get food esp. high calorie food to compensate.
Out body burns fat by daily activities like breathing, heart-pumping, brain ticking over etc.,
An average person should have appx. 2,000 calories/day
Some food calorie facts - Black Coffee - 10, Cappucino - 110; Toast - 125, Pastry - 270; Grilled Chicken with Salad Lunch - 250, Same with Mozerella and creamy dressing - 450; 2 Apples - 120, Bar of Chocolate - 300; Pizza with thin crust - 850, Pizza with Deep Pan Pepporeni - 1400; Bloody Mary - 125, Pina Calodan - 280;
Examples of Proteins - Lean Meat, Eggs, Beans, Fish etc.,
Examples of Carbohydrates - Pasta, Bread, Potatoes etc.,
Examples of Fats - Fried Foods, Butter etc.,
10 Tips:
1. Don't Skip Meals - Because our brain has a really primitive response to this, making us crave high-calorie, high-fat foods to compensate, and will-power may not be enough to fight it.
2. Use Smaller Plates - You'll use less food on your plate and could end up eating up to 22% less food over-all just by changing the plate size form 12 inches to 10 inches.
3. Count Your Calories - If you know which calorie laden foods to avoid, you'll be able to eat well without putting on weight.
4. Don't Blame Your Metabolism - The fact is you have simply eaten more food than your body needs and it's stored the excess of fat
5. Protein Staves Off Hunger Pangs - Protein will keep your feeling fuller for longer because protein control hunger pangs by releasing PYY Harmone which sends signal to our brain that it is full
6. Soup Keeps You Feeling Fuller For Longer - Soup is one fo the best kept secrets of dieting
7. The Wider The Choice, The More You Eat - Variety triggers our instincts to try everything and that can lead to over eating.
8. Low Fat Dairy Products (like Skimmed Milk, Low Fat Yoghurt, Cheese, Cottage Cheese and Creme Fraiche) Helps You Excrete More Fat - That is because it absorbs the fat from your stomach and goes down the drain.
9. Exercise Goes On Burning Fat, Even When You Sleep - Not only do you burn fat while you exercise, but the astonishing thing is we keep on burning fat for around 24 hours longer even when we're asleep. That is because our body fuels are made of Carbohydrates and Fats in that order. When we exercise we use up the Carbohydrates. So for the rest of the day and night, our daily activities dip in to the reserves of fat to get going.
10. Keep Moving And Lose Weight - Small changes in our daily routine (like taking stairs, walking to super-market, walking from tube-station rather than somebody picking you up etc.,) can significantly increase the number of calories we burn. JUST KEEP ACTIVE.
Saturday 30 May 2009
Re: Barcelona's Iniesta shows why technique trumps tenacity
"Spain are now unbeaten in 31 games. They had an undefeated run of 25 games before falling to Makelele’s France at the World Cup of 2006. They have been the best national team on earth for five years now." - Simon Kuper
With this kind of under-stated record, I think they should play the world cup 2010 without Spain. The winner should play Spain directly in the finals to lose!!!
As a United fan it is heart-breaking but as a football fan it is a joy and honor to see these great players (Xavi, Iniesta and co.) in action. It's just magic!!!
Pradeep
Barcelona's Iniesta shows why technique trumps tenacity
By Simon Kuper
Published: May 30 2009 03:00 | Last updated: May 30 2009 03:00
It rarely happens, but sometimes a footballer stops to savour the moment. On Wednesday night Andres Iniesta was 25 years old, in Rome, at his peak, and part of a Barcelona team that was passing rings around Manchester United. This was as good as it gets. So for a second during yet another attack he just rolled the ball around under his foot, as if tickling its belly. In Rome, Iniesta showed his sport the way forward.
Iniesta, his teammate Xavi and Barcelona's coach Josep Guardiola possibly don't share much DNA, but in football terms they are brothers. The first brother, Guardiola, emerged 20 years ago as the definitive Barca playmaker: effectively the side's quarterback, who launched almost every attack with a perfect pass. The second brother, little Xavi, was better. Finally, almost a decade ago, a tiny white-faced teenager showed up at Barca's training. Guardiola studied Iniesta for a bit, turned to Xavi, and said: "You've seen that? You'll push me towards the exit, but that guy will send us both into retirement."
It took a while. In 2006, when Barcelona last won the Champions League, Iniesta appeared only as a substitute. But inside the club, everyone knew he was coming. Last year I asked Barcelona's then coach Frank Rijkaard to name the player with the perfect personality for top-class football. Rijkaard hummed and hawed, but finally, in triumph, shouted out the right answer: "Andres - Andres Iniesta! He's always there in training, always tries, and is just a wonderful footballer."
Iniesta's magical year began in Vienna last June. In the final of Euro 2008, his Spanish team passed rings around Germany. Vienna prefigured Rome. Both times, Iniesta, Xavi and their buddies seemed to be playing piggy-in-the-middle against Europe's second-best team. Germany and United chased ball in the heat. It wasn't fair.
Barcelona have to play like that. "Without the ball we are a horrible team," says Guardiola. "So we need the ball." Barca are too little - perhaps the shortest great team since the 1950s - to win the ball by tackling. The unofficial minimum height for top-class football is about 5'8", and Xavi, Iniesta and Lionel Messi are below it. The minimum for central defenders is about 6'0", and Carles Puyol is below that. So Barca defend either by closing off space through perfect positioning, or by keeping the ball. Johan Cruijff, Dutch father of the Barcelona style, teaches: "If we have the ball, they can't score."
Modern football is supposed to be manlier. Managers talk about "heart", "grit" and "bottle" and kilometres covered. What Iniesta showed in Rome is that these are secondary virtues. Football is a dance in space. When everyone is charging around closing the gaps, you need the technique of Iniesta to find tiny openings. In Rome, he barely mislaid a pass. Sometimes he'd float past United players, his yellow boots barely marking the grass. Occasionally he hit little lobs, a sign that he knew this was his night.
We know how good United are. That's the measure of how good Barca were in Rome. In games at this level, some very respected players get found out. It happened to United's Ji-Sung Park and Michael Carrick, but also to Wayne Rooney. Excellent with his right foot, he is helpless with his left. Barcelona covered his one foot.
When it was over, Barca's players celebrated with their fans behind the goal; but as we looked from players to fans and back again, it was impossible to say which was which. Iniesta is a Barca fan. On Wednesday he was one of seven starting players raised in Barcelona's academy, the Masía.
Had he popped into the VIP buffet elsewhere in the Stadio Olimpico, he'd have seen a portent. Eusebio, Portugal's star of the 1960s, was hanging around alone in a blazer. Every few seconds, someone would come up to hug him, or just express awe, and Eusebio would smile. He must do this 100 times a week. A year ago, you couldn't have imagined Iniesta in old age receiving such honours. You can now. In Rome Rooney called him "the best player in the world at the moment". Iniesta's next target: the world cup 2010.
simonkuper-ft@hotmail.com
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
With this kind of under-stated record, I think they should play the world cup 2010 without Spain. The winner should play Spain directly in the finals to lose!!!
As a United fan it is heart-breaking but as a football fan it is a joy and honor to see these great players (Xavi, Iniesta and co.) in action. It's just magic!!!
Pradeep
Barcelona's Iniesta shows why technique trumps tenacity
By Simon Kuper
Published: May 30 2009 03:00 | Last updated: May 30 2009 03:00
It rarely happens, but sometimes a footballer stops to savour the moment. On Wednesday night Andres Iniesta was 25 years old, in Rome, at his peak, and part of a Barcelona team that was passing rings around Manchester United. This was as good as it gets. So for a second during yet another attack he just rolled the ball around under his foot, as if tickling its belly. In Rome, Iniesta showed his sport the way forward.
Iniesta, his teammate Xavi and Barcelona's coach Josep Guardiola possibly don't share much DNA, but in football terms they are brothers. The first brother, Guardiola, emerged 20 years ago as the definitive Barca playmaker: effectively the side's quarterback, who launched almost every attack with a perfect pass. The second brother, little Xavi, was better. Finally, almost a decade ago, a tiny white-faced teenager showed up at Barca's training. Guardiola studied Iniesta for a bit, turned to Xavi, and said: "You've seen that? You'll push me towards the exit, but that guy will send us both into retirement."
It took a while. In 2006, when Barcelona last won the Champions League, Iniesta appeared only as a substitute. But inside the club, everyone knew he was coming. Last year I asked Barcelona's then coach Frank Rijkaard to name the player with the perfect personality for top-class football. Rijkaard hummed and hawed, but finally, in triumph, shouted out the right answer: "Andres - Andres Iniesta! He's always there in training, always tries, and is just a wonderful footballer."
Iniesta's magical year began in Vienna last June. In the final of Euro 2008, his Spanish team passed rings around Germany. Vienna prefigured Rome. Both times, Iniesta, Xavi and their buddies seemed to be playing piggy-in-the-middle against Europe's second-best team. Germany and United chased ball in the heat. It wasn't fair.
Barcelona have to play like that. "Without the ball we are a horrible team," says Guardiola. "So we need the ball." Barca are too little - perhaps the shortest great team since the 1950s - to win the ball by tackling. The unofficial minimum height for top-class football is about 5'8", and Xavi, Iniesta and Lionel Messi are below it. The minimum for central defenders is about 6'0", and Carles Puyol is below that. So Barca defend either by closing off space through perfect positioning, or by keeping the ball. Johan Cruijff, Dutch father of the Barcelona style, teaches: "If we have the ball, they can't score."
Modern football is supposed to be manlier. Managers talk about "heart", "grit" and "bottle" and kilometres covered. What Iniesta showed in Rome is that these are secondary virtues. Football is a dance in space. When everyone is charging around closing the gaps, you need the technique of Iniesta to find tiny openings. In Rome, he barely mislaid a pass. Sometimes he'd float past United players, his yellow boots barely marking the grass. Occasionally he hit little lobs, a sign that he knew this was his night.
We know how good United are. That's the measure of how good Barca were in Rome. In games at this level, some very respected players get found out. It happened to United's Ji-Sung Park and Michael Carrick, but also to Wayne Rooney. Excellent with his right foot, he is helpless with his left. Barcelona covered his one foot.
When it was over, Barca's players celebrated with their fans behind the goal; but as we looked from players to fans and back again, it was impossible to say which was which. Iniesta is a Barca fan. On Wednesday he was one of seven starting players raised in Barcelona's academy, the Masía.
Had he popped into the VIP buffet elsewhere in the Stadio Olimpico, he'd have seen a portent. Eusebio, Portugal's star of the 1960s, was hanging around alone in a blazer. Every few seconds, someone would come up to hug him, or just express awe, and Eusebio would smile. He must do this 100 times a week. A year ago, you couldn't have imagined Iniesta in old age receiving such honours. You can now. In Rome Rooney called him "the best player in the world at the moment". Iniesta's next target: the world cup 2010.
simonkuper-ft@hotmail.com
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Thursday 28 May 2009
End of DREAM???
I know United lost but still it was a great spectacle and honor to watch Iniesta, Xavi, Messi and co. Complete football played with impeccable belief.
I know nobody, not even the hard-core fans of United, not even Sir Alex Ferguson grudge the honor and victory to Barcelona but still I would have been happy if United played the United way and the defence was successful on the night.
Nevertheless, I'm happy that Barcelona did not humiliated United. I'm truly happy with 2-0 rather than 6-1 or 6-2 which was a possibility on a night when Barcelona controlled the game, the ball and the result for 80/90 minutes.
End of DREAM???....so what! beginning of a new journey again!!!
Hail United!
I know nobody, not even the hard-core fans of United, not even Sir Alex Ferguson grudge the honor and victory to Barcelona but still I would have been happy if United played the United way and the defence was successful on the night.
Nevertheless, I'm happy that Barcelona did not humiliated United. I'm truly happy with 2-0 rather than 6-1 or 6-2 which was a possibility on a night when Barcelona controlled the game, the ball and the result for 80/90 minutes.
End of DREAM???....so what! beginning of a new journey again!!!
Hail United!
Tuesday 19 May 2009
Re: Indian democracy has an ugly side
Dear Mr. Rachman,
Thanks for the article in today's FT. Your facts are almost right but analysis is wrong on "It is certainly true that the political future of China looks more uncertain and alarming than that of India". It is not just that I dis-agree with that, it is plainly wrong.
The reason is political future of any country or community is dependent on the inherent strengths that includes a) infrastructure and resources b) rule of law c) institutions and democracy - in that order.
For instance, a country which does not have infrastructure and resources will have no political future at all. Why do you think 34% of internal India is under the control of Naxals?
For instance, a country which doesn't implement the rule of law if you don't have money, contacts or connections will have no political future at all. Why do you think 128 of the 543 MP's are criminals in the official sense. But the rest will not do anything, unless you pay or you have 'connections'
China is far ahead in infrastructure and rule of law than India. Would naxals or terrorist groups dare to challenge the govt. of China?
Can you kindly answer to this - a govt. (India's congress govt.) which cannot protect it's own people from naxals or terrorists and cannot maintain the basic rule of law, how can it give any political future to the country or have any political future at all?
Infact, forget the rule of law or protection from terrorists, in the next 5-10 years, if things don't improve on basic infrastructure, most of the population will struggle to get basic drinking water. What political future will that lead to?
The matter of fact is, the concept of democracy in ideal western sense works when some conditions are met viz., a) basic infrastructure b) rule of law c) educated population. In the absence of these, the only way forward is the Chinese way. That should be used as a model template across the poor world. And that is a fact whether one likes it or not.
Finally, a small bridge in any town or city of India will take atleast 5 years to build. In the same period, the Chinese will lay more than 800,000 kms of motorways.
Similarly, a single power plant (remember Enron in Maharashtra in 90's) takes atleast 10 years to build and operate. The Chinese add more than UK's capacity every year.
I hope you don't mis-understand my comments. But as you rightly say, Indian democracy has jot just an ugly side but it is running out of time to survive.
This is not a pessimistic view but it is a ugly fact which needs to be accepted and acted upon.
Regards,
Pradeep Kabra
Indian democracy has an ugly side
Published: May 18 2009 19:30 | Last updated: May 18 2009 19:30
Pinn llustration
“A billion people, in a functioning democracy. Ain’t that something.” George W. Bush’s awestruck musings on the wonders of Indian democracy will be echoed all around the world this week.
Despite a sharp economic slowdown and a series of destabilising terrorist attacks, India’s 420m voters have just calmly voted the Congress party back into government, with a much increased majority.
In western capitals, admiration for the maturity of Indian democracy will be mixed with relief. There were fears that a government led by the rightwing BJP would take a more confrontational line with Pakistan – widening the conflict in south Asia in new and dangerous ways. Investors also seem to be impressed. The stock market shot up 17 per cent in the wake of Congress’s victory.
Political scientists have spent years demonstrating that democracy rarely survives in poor countries. India is a triumphant exception to this rule. Despite the fact that a quarter of its population live below the poverty line, the country has been a functioning democracy for almost the entire period since independence in 1947.
Indian democracy is indeed a wonder to behold. But this fact can lead to some unwarranted starry-eyed conclusions about the country. At this moment of euphoria, four common notions about Indian democracy deserve to be doused with a little scepticism.
First, it should be remembered that the country’s democracy is not always a beautiful sight. Manmohan Singh, the 76-year-old prime minister who has just won re-election, is a charmingly intellectual and courtly figure. But while Mr Singh is an impeccable frontman, the country’s politics has a much sleazier and more disreputable side.
In most countries when politicians are slammed as “criminals” this is simply vulgar abuse. In India, it is often the literal truth. The British public, currently hyperventilating about expenses fiddles in the UK parliament, might be interested to know that 128 of the 543 members of the last Indian parliament had faced criminal charges or investigations, including 83 cases of murder. In a poor society, gangsters can and do use muscle and money to force their way into parliament.
Second, just because India is a democracy, it does not follow that it will automatically side with fellow-democracies around the world. Mr Bush’s interest in Indian democracy was more than purely intellectual. The former president made a conscious decision to form a strategic alliance with India – and to cut the country a special deal over nuclear weapons – because he felt that democracies should be natural allies.
The Americans are carefully building a new special relationship with democratic India, partly to counterbalance authoritarian China. It is certainly true that relations between the US and India have been getting steadily warmer, driven by commerce, Indian immigration to America, the English language and – to a degree – common values.
But India is a major power with its own interests and its own distinct take on the world. It will not automatically fall into line with western policy, whether on sanctions against Iran or a world trade deal. And if realpolitik dictates, India is perfectly capable of cosying up to a dictatorship, such as the Burmese military junta.
The sleazy side of Indian democracy has led to a third common notion – popular in the authoritarian parts of Asia: the idea that democracy imposes a sort of tax on India. For many years, it was held that India suffered from a “Hindu rate of growth” because of its inefficient government. Growth in recent years, which has increased to an average of 9 per cent, should have put paid to that idea. But it is still true that, for all the virtues of its political system, Indian governance has failed hundreds of millions of people. Rates of poverty and illiteracy are much higher in democratic India than in authoritarian China.
Euphoria about modern India has led to a fourth mistaken idea: the notion that democracy has given the country a deep and unshakable stability. It is certainly true that the political future of China looks more uncertain and alarming than that of India, Asia’s other great subcontinental nation. But India still faces serious threats to its internal stability. The Indian Premier League is a new cricket tournament that has demonstrated the country’s growing wealth and cultural power by drawing in the best players from all over the world. However, the threat of terrorism is now so severe that this month’s tournament had to be relocated to South Africa. The country’s parliament and most prestigious hotels have come under attack in recent years.
While terrorism can be blamed on outsiders, India is also facing a serious internal insurrection. The notion of Maoist guerrillas roaming the countryside sounds like it belongs to another age – and is certainly at odds with the image of a modern India of commuter airlines and high technology. But over the past five years the Naxal insurgency has grown in strength – attacks on trains, mines and industrial sites are on the rise.
It is indeed marvellous that a country that is so large and so relatively poor can manage a peaceful, democratic transition. The new Indian government should also be able to use its stronger majority to renew the process of economic reform. But there are still some unappealing realities just behind the beautiful facade of Indian democracy.
gideon.rachman@ft.com
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Thanks for the article in today's FT. Your facts are almost right but analysis is wrong on "It is certainly true that the political future of China looks more uncertain and alarming than that of India". It is not just that I dis-agree with that, it is plainly wrong.
The reason is political future of any country or community is dependent on the inherent strengths that includes a) infrastructure and resources b) rule of law c) institutions and democracy - in that order.
For instance, a country which does not have infrastructure and resources will have no political future at all. Why do you think 34% of internal India is under the control of Naxals?
For instance, a country which doesn't implement the rule of law if you don't have money, contacts or connections will have no political future at all. Why do you think 128 of the 543 MP's are criminals in the official sense. But the rest will not do anything, unless you pay or you have 'connections'
China is far ahead in infrastructure and rule of law than India. Would naxals or terrorist groups dare to challenge the govt. of China?
Can you kindly answer to this - a govt. (India's congress govt.) which cannot protect it's own people from naxals or terrorists and cannot maintain the basic rule of law, how can it give any political future to the country or have any political future at all?
Infact, forget the rule of law or protection from terrorists, in the next 5-10 years, if things don't improve on basic infrastructure, most of the population will struggle to get basic drinking water. What political future will that lead to?
The matter of fact is, the concept of democracy in ideal western sense works when some conditions are met viz., a) basic infrastructure b) rule of law c) educated population. In the absence of these, the only way forward is the Chinese way. That should be used as a model template across the poor world. And that is a fact whether one likes it or not.
Finally, a small bridge in any town or city of India will take atleast 5 years to build. In the same period, the Chinese will lay more than 800,000 kms of motorways.
Similarly, a single power plant (remember Enron in Maharashtra in 90's) takes atleast 10 years to build and operate. The Chinese add more than UK's capacity every year.
I hope you don't mis-understand my comments. But as you rightly say, Indian democracy has jot just an ugly side but it is running out of time to survive.
This is not a pessimistic view but it is a ugly fact which needs to be accepted and acted upon.
Regards,
Pradeep Kabra
Indian democracy has an ugly side
Published: May 18 2009 19:30 | Last updated: May 18 2009 19:30
Pinn llustration
“A billion people, in a functioning democracy. Ain’t that something.” George W. Bush’s awestruck musings on the wonders of Indian democracy will be echoed all around the world this week.
Despite a sharp economic slowdown and a series of destabilising terrorist attacks, India’s 420m voters have just calmly voted the Congress party back into government, with a much increased majority.
In western capitals, admiration for the maturity of Indian democracy will be mixed with relief. There were fears that a government led by the rightwing BJP would take a more confrontational line with Pakistan – widening the conflict in south Asia in new and dangerous ways. Investors also seem to be impressed. The stock market shot up 17 per cent in the wake of Congress’s victory.
Political scientists have spent years demonstrating that democracy rarely survives in poor countries. India is a triumphant exception to this rule. Despite the fact that a quarter of its population live below the poverty line, the country has been a functioning democracy for almost the entire period since independence in 1947.
Indian democracy is indeed a wonder to behold. But this fact can lead to some unwarranted starry-eyed conclusions about the country. At this moment of euphoria, four common notions about Indian democracy deserve to be doused with a little scepticism.
First, it should be remembered that the country’s democracy is not always a beautiful sight. Manmohan Singh, the 76-year-old prime minister who has just won re-election, is a charmingly intellectual and courtly figure. But while Mr Singh is an impeccable frontman, the country’s politics has a much sleazier and more disreputable side.
In most countries when politicians are slammed as “criminals” this is simply vulgar abuse. In India, it is often the literal truth. The British public, currently hyperventilating about expenses fiddles in the UK parliament, might be interested to know that 128 of the 543 members of the last Indian parliament had faced criminal charges or investigations, including 83 cases of murder. In a poor society, gangsters can and do use muscle and money to force their way into parliament.
Second, just because India is a democracy, it does not follow that it will automatically side with fellow-democracies around the world. Mr Bush’s interest in Indian democracy was more than purely intellectual. The former president made a conscious decision to form a strategic alliance with India – and to cut the country a special deal over nuclear weapons – because he felt that democracies should be natural allies.
The Americans are carefully building a new special relationship with democratic India, partly to counterbalance authoritarian China. It is certainly true that relations between the US and India have been getting steadily warmer, driven by commerce, Indian immigration to America, the English language and – to a degree – common values.
But India is a major power with its own interests and its own distinct take on the world. It will not automatically fall into line with western policy, whether on sanctions against Iran or a world trade deal. And if realpolitik dictates, India is perfectly capable of cosying up to a dictatorship, such as the Burmese military junta.
The sleazy side of Indian democracy has led to a third common notion – popular in the authoritarian parts of Asia: the idea that democracy imposes a sort of tax on India. For many years, it was held that India suffered from a “Hindu rate of growth” because of its inefficient government. Growth in recent years, which has increased to an average of 9 per cent, should have put paid to that idea. But it is still true that, for all the virtues of its political system, Indian governance has failed hundreds of millions of people. Rates of poverty and illiteracy are much higher in democratic India than in authoritarian China.
Euphoria about modern India has led to a fourth mistaken idea: the notion that democracy has given the country a deep and unshakable stability. It is certainly true that the political future of China looks more uncertain and alarming than that of India, Asia’s other great subcontinental nation. But India still faces serious threats to its internal stability. The Indian Premier League is a new cricket tournament that has demonstrated the country’s growing wealth and cultural power by drawing in the best players from all over the world. However, the threat of terrorism is now so severe that this month’s tournament had to be relocated to South Africa. The country’s parliament and most prestigious hotels have come under attack in recent years.
While terrorism can be blamed on outsiders, India is also facing a serious internal insurrection. The notion of Maoist guerrillas roaming the countryside sounds like it belongs to another age – and is certainly at odds with the image of a modern India of commuter airlines and high technology. But over the past five years the Naxal insurgency has grown in strength – attacks on trains, mines and industrial sites are on the rise.
It is indeed marvellous that a country that is so large and so relatively poor can manage a peaceful, democratic transition. The new Indian government should also be able to use its stronger majority to renew the process of economic reform. But there are still some unappealing realities just behind the beautiful facade of Indian democracy.
gideon.rachman@ft.com
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Friday 15 May 2009
The Big 'iffffffffffffffffffffffffff'
I think what Mr. Colao is forgetting is a) he is late to the party b) he forgot to bring the wine c) now in haste he is entering the wrong party.
What it means is in the world of digg and widgets, why would somebody pay for content unless it is from WSJ or Economist or FT or some specialized info. And why would not these mentioned sources sell their content directly via a widget?
So, the 'if' you mentioned is actually 'ifffffffffffffffffffffffffffff'
Pradeep Kabra
Re: Face value - Call the carabiniere
May 14th 2009
From The Economist print edition
Vittorio Colao has an ambitious plan to boost Vodafone’s fortunes—and rescue the media industry
STRAIGHT is not always the best way up. Vittorio Colao, now the boss of Vodafone, is a prime example. In 2004 he left the world’s largest mobile operator by revenues to run a company in an entirely different business: RCS MediaGroup, an Italian media conglomerate. He returned to Vodafone only two years later after a row with RCS’s main shareholders, having gained some valuable insights. One is that telecoms and media firms are culturally very different—knocking on the head the idea that Vodafone ought to become a content provider. In addition the newspaper business showed him that rivals can share important infrastructure, such as distribution. “After all, they compete on their editorial quality,” says Mr Colao, “not in driving trucks around.”
That may help explain the thinking behind the ambitious project Vodafone announced on May 12th. It is a bold attempt to rally some of the industry’s biggest operators to build a joint global platform through which software companies and content providers can sell things to mobile subscribers. If it is a success— admittedly, a big if—it will help address two of the criticisms levelled at Vodafone: that it is too big for its own good, and that mobile operators are destined to end up as “dumb pipes”, mere utilities that transport data to and from handsets.
When Mr Colao was appointed as Vodafone’s boss a year ago, he was not expected to come up with grand plans. Vodafone was no longer the global collection of wireless baronies that Sir Christopher Gent, the firm’s swashbuckling boss, had put together in the 1990s through a series of daring acquisitions. But Sir Christopher’s more down-to-earth successor, Arun Sarin, did not quite manage to make the pieces fit together. Vodafone’s subsidiaries have yet to gain much from their parent’s huge size, says Robin Bienenstock, an analyst at Bernstein Research. Mr Colao seemed to be just the man to fix this. In the 1990s while working at McKinsey, a consultancy, this reserve officer in the Italian Carabinieri and graduate of Harvard Business School had helped set up Omnitel Pronto, an Italian mobile operator, and later became its boss. In 2000 it became part of Vodafone and is still one of its most profitable units, thanks in part to his early work.
Just cutting costs and improving efficiency, however, is not enough in today’s mobile-phone industry (though Vodafone’s annual results on May 19th are expected to show that Mr Colao is rather good at it). The market for its main product, mobile telephony, is rapidly maturing in many rich countries. This prompted Mr Sarin to take control of several operators in developing countries that still boast rapid growth. Beyond that, operators have set out in search of new frontiers. One is mobile-data services, a market that is finally taking off after years of hype.
The problem for Vodafone and other operators is that they are trying to catch up. They have long offered such services, but steered users towards “walled gardens” of pre-approved content from which they could take a cut. This stifled the market and left an opening for other firms to create mobile-data platforms of their own. Apple led the way with its elegant iPhone and its “App Store” that gives users easy access to thousands of applications, and lets software developers charge for them. This inspired similar app-store platforms from other technology giants, including Google, Nokia, Microsoft and RIM, the maker of the BlackBerry.
Yet it is this variety that will allow Vodafone back into the game, argues Mr Colao. To make his point he enthusiastically presents visitors to his office at the firm’s headquarters in Newbury, an hour’s drive west of London, with two charts. The first, titled “Today: Complexity”, shows many boxes linked by arrows. A software firm must write several versions of its applications for different platforms, for example, and the owner of a particular handset is usually restricted to a particular platform. Mr Colao’s other chart, titled “Tomorrow: One relationship”, is centred on a big, red box labelled “Vodafone Services”. This is an über-platform that would allow programmers to write an application which could then run on other platforms, and would also provide essential sub-services, such as determining a user’s location and, most importantly, charging for downloads. Mr Colao promises not to be “too greedy”: Vodafone intends to pass on 70% of revenues to developers, the same share as Apple does.
One platform to rule them all
The idea of enabling a single piece of software to run on lots of devices has been tried before, but has never really succeeded. Software firms may feel more at home working with partners in the computer industry: mobile operators are widely seen as lumbering giants, if not greedy predators. And consumers may prefer handset, platform and software to come in a tightly integrated package, as with the iPhone. Most importantly, rival platform-owners are unlikely to co-operate, and might even scupper the project by introducing deliberate incompatibilities.
Still, Vodafone has one thing in its favour: size. It has more than 290m subscribers worldwide, all of whom are potential customers for software firms and content providers. And Mr Colao’s scheme is also backed by China Mobile, the world’s largest operator by subscriber numbers; Softbank, a Japanese conglomerate; and America’s Verizon Wireless, in which Vodafone has a 45% stake. If they realise their plans to launch their own app stores based on the new platform, the potential market will be more than 1 billion subscribers and span the entire globe.
Success is by no means guaranteed, but Mr Colao is not known for giving up easily. Indeed, it was his single-mindedness that got him into trouble at RCS. And if his plan takes off, he says, it could help save media, which he says is still his “second love”. Vodafone’s scheme would give publishers a way to charge small sums, or micropayments, for content—and put right “the big mistake they have made on the internet: giving their content away for free.” Will the industry, and consumers, play along?
What it means is in the world of digg and widgets, why would somebody pay for content unless it is from WSJ or Economist or FT or some specialized info. And why would not these mentioned sources sell their content directly via a widget?
So, the 'if' you mentioned is actually 'ifffffffffffffffffffffffffffff'
Pradeep Kabra
Re: Face value - Call the carabiniere
May 14th 2009
From The Economist print edition
Vittorio Colao has an ambitious plan to boost Vodafone’s fortunes—and rescue the media industry
STRAIGHT is not always the best way up. Vittorio Colao, now the boss of Vodafone, is a prime example. In 2004 he left the world’s largest mobile operator by revenues to run a company in an entirely different business: RCS MediaGroup, an Italian media conglomerate. He returned to Vodafone only two years later after a row with RCS’s main shareholders, having gained some valuable insights. One is that telecoms and media firms are culturally very different—knocking on the head the idea that Vodafone ought to become a content provider. In addition the newspaper business showed him that rivals can share important infrastructure, such as distribution. “After all, they compete on their editorial quality,” says Mr Colao, “not in driving trucks around.”
That may help explain the thinking behind the ambitious project Vodafone announced on May 12th. It is a bold attempt to rally some of the industry’s biggest operators to build a joint global platform through which software companies and content providers can sell things to mobile subscribers. If it is a success— admittedly, a big if—it will help address two of the criticisms levelled at Vodafone: that it is too big for its own good, and that mobile operators are destined to end up as “dumb pipes”, mere utilities that transport data to and from handsets.
When Mr Colao was appointed as Vodafone’s boss a year ago, he was not expected to come up with grand plans. Vodafone was no longer the global collection of wireless baronies that Sir Christopher Gent, the firm’s swashbuckling boss, had put together in the 1990s through a series of daring acquisitions. But Sir Christopher’s more down-to-earth successor, Arun Sarin, did not quite manage to make the pieces fit together. Vodafone’s subsidiaries have yet to gain much from their parent’s huge size, says Robin Bienenstock, an analyst at Bernstein Research. Mr Colao seemed to be just the man to fix this. In the 1990s while working at McKinsey, a consultancy, this reserve officer in the Italian Carabinieri and graduate of Harvard Business School had helped set up Omnitel Pronto, an Italian mobile operator, and later became its boss. In 2000 it became part of Vodafone and is still one of its most profitable units, thanks in part to his early work.
Just cutting costs and improving efficiency, however, is not enough in today’s mobile-phone industry (though Vodafone’s annual results on May 19th are expected to show that Mr Colao is rather good at it). The market for its main product, mobile telephony, is rapidly maturing in many rich countries. This prompted Mr Sarin to take control of several operators in developing countries that still boast rapid growth. Beyond that, operators have set out in search of new frontiers. One is mobile-data services, a market that is finally taking off after years of hype.
The problem for Vodafone and other operators is that they are trying to catch up. They have long offered such services, but steered users towards “walled gardens” of pre-approved content from which they could take a cut. This stifled the market and left an opening for other firms to create mobile-data platforms of their own. Apple led the way with its elegant iPhone and its “App Store” that gives users easy access to thousands of applications, and lets software developers charge for them. This inspired similar app-store platforms from other technology giants, including Google, Nokia, Microsoft and RIM, the maker of the BlackBerry.
Yet it is this variety that will allow Vodafone back into the game, argues Mr Colao. To make his point he enthusiastically presents visitors to his office at the firm’s headquarters in Newbury, an hour’s drive west of London, with two charts. The first, titled “Today: Complexity”, shows many boxes linked by arrows. A software firm must write several versions of its applications for different platforms, for example, and the owner of a particular handset is usually restricted to a particular platform. Mr Colao’s other chart, titled “Tomorrow: One relationship”, is centred on a big, red box labelled “Vodafone Services”. This is an über-platform that would allow programmers to write an application which could then run on other platforms, and would also provide essential sub-services, such as determining a user’s location and, most importantly, charging for downloads. Mr Colao promises not to be “too greedy”: Vodafone intends to pass on 70% of revenues to developers, the same share as Apple does.
One platform to rule them all
The idea of enabling a single piece of software to run on lots of devices has been tried before, but has never really succeeded. Software firms may feel more at home working with partners in the computer industry: mobile operators are widely seen as lumbering giants, if not greedy predators. And consumers may prefer handset, platform and software to come in a tightly integrated package, as with the iPhone. Most importantly, rival platform-owners are unlikely to co-operate, and might even scupper the project by introducing deliberate incompatibilities.
Still, Vodafone has one thing in its favour: size. It has more than 290m subscribers worldwide, all of whom are potential customers for software firms and content providers. And Mr Colao’s scheme is also backed by China Mobile, the world’s largest operator by subscriber numbers; Softbank, a Japanese conglomerate; and America’s Verizon Wireless, in which Vodafone has a 45% stake. If they realise their plans to launch their own app stores based on the new platform, the potential market will be more than 1 billion subscribers and span the entire globe.
Success is by no means guaranteed, but Mr Colao is not known for giving up easily. Indeed, it was his single-mindedness that got him into trouble at RCS. And if his plan takes off, he says, it could help save media, which he says is still his “second love”. Vodafone’s scheme would give publishers a way to charge small sums, or micropayments, for content—and put right “the big mistake they have made on the internet: giving their content away for free.” Will the industry, and consumers, play along?
Tuesday 14 April 2009
Re: Lift the veil on our war aims
Dear Gideon,
Thanks for the article in today's FT. I find some naivety in your article though:
1. As marked as bold - If Pakistani govt was in control of Swat valley, things wouldn't have come to this stage. The fact that bombers can bomb at will even in Lahore & Islamabad shows that Pakistan is no different from Afganisthan where the govt. rules only Kabul. So assuming that 'power of persuasion' of US & UK can change things is being naive.
2. Even after 7 years of fighting, the West is not clear about its basic goals in Afganisthan shows what happens when 'ideology' is imposed or when it is used as a smoke-screen. The fact is 'democracy' is non-sense in a tribal society like Afganisthan and the purpose of Americans attacking Afganisthan was to take revenge on Al-Qaeda & Bin Laden and not the welfare of Afgans or bringing the sun-shine democracy. Since they couldn't nab Bin Laden, they are still there. Had he been caught, by now Americans would have long exited.
Regards,
Pradeep Kabra
Re: Lift the veil on our war aims
Published in Financial Times: April 13 2009 19:58 | Last updated: April 13 2009 19:58
The Darul Aman palace is a huge neo-classical pile with hundreds of rooms, set against the backdrop of the snowy mountains that surround Kabul. From a distance, it is an imposing sight. Unfortunately, as I discovered when I visited a few weeks ago, it is also a ruin. The palace was all but destroyed in the Afghan civil war of the 1990s.
Darul Aman was built in the 1920s by Amanullah Khan, a reformist king who also promoted women’s rights and discouraged the wearing of the burqa. Ninety years later, the king is long dead, his palace is a wreck and the burqa is ubiquitous in Kabul.
I thought of King Amanullah’s reforms this week, as debate flared over a law recently passed by the Afghan parliament. The statute, which applies to the country’s Shia minority, would require women to get their husband’s permission to leave the home and make it illegal for them to refuse to have sex with their husbands.
News of the law was a severe embarrassment for the Nato alliance, just as it was announcing a new strategy to prop up the Afghan government and fight off the Taliban. One of Nato’s most popular arguments for the war has long been that the Taliban are medieval, women-hating savages. Western officials stress the number of girls who have been able to go back to school since the fall of the Taliban seven years ago. Laura Bush, the former first lady of the US, once argued that “the fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women”.
The new Afghan law is now said to be “under review” by President Hamid Karzai – while the perils faced by women’s rights activists were underlined this weekend by the murder of Sitara Achakzai in Kandahar. Similar problems are surfacing in Pakistan, now that the government has conceded control of the Swat valley – just two hours from the capital, Islamabad – to Taliban-style militants.
Since then, a horrifying video has circulated of a young girl being flogged by bearded mullahs for some alleged act of immodesty. Last week Pakistan’s human-rights commission reported that the Swat militants have destroyed 131 girls’ schools since they took power earlier this year.
Both the Pakistan and the Afghan governments are key allies of the west in the conflict formerly known as the “war on terror”. But is it also our business to prevent Afghans and Pakistanis waging a “war on women”?
Western leaders seem confused. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the outgoing Nato secretary-general, condemned the new law and said of the Afghan war: “We are there to defend universal values.” President Barack Obama took a slightly different line. He called the new law “abhorrent”. But he also said that people should remember that American troops are in Afghanistan to fight for US national security and that “we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda”.
So which is to be – universal values or national security? The easy way out of the argument is to say that there is no conflict between these aims. The Taliban and al-Qaeda oppress women and threaten the west. By defeating them, you advance western security and women’s rights.
In the case of Pakistan, this is probably true. The decision to concede the Swat valley to the Pakistani Taliban is a security disaster. It has given Islamist militants and foreign terrorists new resources and safe havens. This is dangerous for both Pakistan and the west.
So the sooner the Pakistani government can re-assert control over the area, the better. The US and the UK should use all their powers of persuasion – including financial and military aid – to persuade the Pakistanis to be less supine in Swat.
The case of Afghanistan is trickier. Nato is openly looking for an exit strategy for western troops. This could well involve dealing with those elements of the Taliban that are not committed to a global jihad – and so making some accommodation with their ferociously reactionary social values. Sadly, these do have roots in Afghan society. Things would be much easier if western views of women’s rights were indeed “universal values” – but they are not, at least not among Pashtun tribesmen. It is significant that Mr Karzai is thought initially to have approved of this new law as an electioneering gambit, ahead of the presidential poll in August.
After seven years of fighting, the US and European public now deserve some clarity about our war aims in Afghanistan. We are not fighting for women’s rights. We are fighting to prevent the country ever again becoming a base for attacks on the west.
This does not mean that the protection of women should be a matter of indifference for the US and for the European governments that have sent troops to Afghanistan. By invading the country, we took some responsibility for the government that is left behind. So while the west still funds and protects the Karzai administration, we should lean on the Afghan government not to accept outrageously misogynistic laws.
But we should also be realistic about what Nato can achieve. The very phrase “exit strategy” acknowledges that we are on our way out. Once western troops have left, it is the balance of forces within Afghan society that will decide whether girls’ schools remain open and women can walk the streets in freedom.
There are modernisers and brave individuals within Afghan society who will fight for women’s rights, long after Nato has left. But, as the fate of King Amanullah’s reforms suggests, there can be no guarantee that the modernisers will win.
Post and read comments on Gideon Rachman’s blog
gideon.rachman@ft.com
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Thanks for the article in today's FT. I find some naivety in your article though:
1. As marked as bold - If Pakistani govt was in control of Swat valley, things wouldn't have come to this stage. The fact that bombers can bomb at will even in Lahore & Islamabad shows that Pakistan is no different from Afganisthan where the govt. rules only Kabul. So assuming that 'power of persuasion' of US & UK can change things is being naive.
2. Even after 7 years of fighting, the West is not clear about its basic goals in Afganisthan shows what happens when 'ideology' is imposed or when it is used as a smoke-screen. The fact is 'democracy' is non-sense in a tribal society like Afganisthan and the purpose of Americans attacking Afganisthan was to take revenge on Al-Qaeda & Bin Laden and not the welfare of Afgans or bringing the sun-shine democracy. Since they couldn't nab Bin Laden, they are still there. Had he been caught, by now Americans would have long exited.
Regards,
Pradeep Kabra
Re: Lift the veil on our war aims
Published in Financial Times: April 13 2009 19:58 | Last updated: April 13 2009 19:58
The Darul Aman palace is a huge neo-classical pile with hundreds of rooms, set against the backdrop of the snowy mountains that surround Kabul. From a distance, it is an imposing sight. Unfortunately, as I discovered when I visited a few weeks ago, it is also a ruin. The palace was all but destroyed in the Afghan civil war of the 1990s.
Darul Aman was built in the 1920s by Amanullah Khan, a reformist king who also promoted women’s rights and discouraged the wearing of the burqa. Ninety years later, the king is long dead, his palace is a wreck and the burqa is ubiquitous in Kabul.
I thought of King Amanullah’s reforms this week, as debate flared over a law recently passed by the Afghan parliament. The statute, which applies to the country’s Shia minority, would require women to get their husband’s permission to leave the home and make it illegal for them to refuse to have sex with their husbands.
News of the law was a severe embarrassment for the Nato alliance, just as it was announcing a new strategy to prop up the Afghan government and fight off the Taliban. One of Nato’s most popular arguments for the war has long been that the Taliban are medieval, women-hating savages. Western officials stress the number of girls who have been able to go back to school since the fall of the Taliban seven years ago. Laura Bush, the former first lady of the US, once argued that “the fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women”.
The new Afghan law is now said to be “under review” by President Hamid Karzai – while the perils faced by women’s rights activists were underlined this weekend by the murder of Sitara Achakzai in Kandahar. Similar problems are surfacing in Pakistan, now that the government has conceded control of the Swat valley – just two hours from the capital, Islamabad – to Taliban-style militants.
Since then, a horrifying video has circulated of a young girl being flogged by bearded mullahs for some alleged act of immodesty. Last week Pakistan’s human-rights commission reported that the Swat militants have destroyed 131 girls’ schools since they took power earlier this year.
Both the Pakistan and the Afghan governments are key allies of the west in the conflict formerly known as the “war on terror”. But is it also our business to prevent Afghans and Pakistanis waging a “war on women”?
Western leaders seem confused. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the outgoing Nato secretary-general, condemned the new law and said of the Afghan war: “We are there to defend universal values.” President Barack Obama took a slightly different line. He called the new law “abhorrent”. But he also said that people should remember that American troops are in Afghanistan to fight for US national security and that “we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda”.
So which is to be – universal values or national security? The easy way out of the argument is to say that there is no conflict between these aims. The Taliban and al-Qaeda oppress women and threaten the west. By defeating them, you advance western security and women’s rights.
In the case of Pakistan, this is probably true. The decision to concede the Swat valley to the Pakistani Taliban is a security disaster. It has given Islamist militants and foreign terrorists new resources and safe havens. This is dangerous for both Pakistan and the west.
So the sooner the Pakistani government can re-assert control over the area, the better. The US and the UK should use all their powers of persuasion – including financial and military aid – to persuade the Pakistanis to be less supine in Swat.
The case of Afghanistan is trickier. Nato is openly looking for an exit strategy for western troops. This could well involve dealing with those elements of the Taliban that are not committed to a global jihad – and so making some accommodation with their ferociously reactionary social values. Sadly, these do have roots in Afghan society. Things would be much easier if western views of women’s rights were indeed “universal values” – but they are not, at least not among Pashtun tribesmen. It is significant that Mr Karzai is thought initially to have approved of this new law as an electioneering gambit, ahead of the presidential poll in August.
After seven years of fighting, the US and European public now deserve some clarity about our war aims in Afghanistan. We are not fighting for women’s rights. We are fighting to prevent the country ever again becoming a base for attacks on the west.
This does not mean that the protection of women should be a matter of indifference for the US and for the European governments that have sent troops to Afghanistan. By invading the country, we took some responsibility for the government that is left behind. So while the west still funds and protects the Karzai administration, we should lean on the Afghan government not to accept outrageously misogynistic laws.
But we should also be realistic about what Nato can achieve. The very phrase “exit strategy” acknowledges that we are on our way out. Once western troops have left, it is the balance of forces within Afghan society that will decide whether girls’ schools remain open and women can walk the streets in freedom.
There are modernisers and brave individuals within Afghan society who will fight for women’s rights, long after Nato has left. But, as the fate of King Amanullah’s reforms suggests, there can be no guarantee that the modernisers will win.
Post and read comments on Gideon Rachman’s blog
gideon.rachman@ft.com
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)