India recently cut its key interest rate to offset a slowdown due to a global recession. The Reserve Bank of India (Indian Fed) announced that it didn't see any signs of a quick turnaround. This seems to make the over 20% rise in the BSE Sensex, from 9000 to 11000, over the last few weeks seem a little premature.
Meanwhile, while Krishna Byre Gowda seems like a case for a genuine Obama-like figure in India, Mayawati is also laying claim to the fame. I read recently that she says her status as a lower caste person rising to the top makes her the Obama of India. Here's the Times of India drawing a similar comparison. Clearly being like Obama is a badge that everyone is going to claim, but this seems a little far fetched.
Finally, I was in a discussion recently about the excessive nature of US debt. As of 2008, US public debt was ~US$ 10.7 trillion, i.e. 74.6% of GDP. India's public debt is 78% of its GDP. Japan's public debt is now 170.4% of its GDP.
What does this mean for the US?
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Namma Obama
The 2009 Lok Sabha elections are still a few weeks away. But our Nethas have already broken old records for how low they are willing to stoop to win votes. Between Varun Gandhi's hate speech & the hate contest that followed, and SP's manifesto effectively calling for a ban on English language and Computers, the prospects for Indian politics is rather bleak.
But before all hope is given up, I wanted to introduce an emerging politician that is attempting to prove that there is still HOPE! The politician I'm talking about is Krishna Byre Gowda. There have been blogs out there calling him "Namma Obama" (Our Obama in Kannada). You can find out more about him at krishnabyregowda.in or from just searching on his name and reading blogs. Here's a good one http://krishnabyregowda.blogspot.com/2009/04/krishnas-obama-of-bungaluru.html
For a refreshing change, Krishna is actually a clean politician with a vision (How sad. His wife actually works for a living). In any case, I bring this up because a common discussion topic among the desi diaspora is how corrupt Indian politicians are. But what we too often forget is that it is next to impossible to emerge in Indian politics without money to campaign. Take Krisha for example. He has to reach out to a vote bank of ~2 million people in about a month. His main rival Ananth Kumar was a cabinet minister in Vajpayee's government and has very deep pockets (you know what I mean). So, short of a miracle, it is hard for anybody with limited access to capital to give him a serious run for his money (pun intended).
I'm curious to know if any of you (particularly those that contribute to above mentioned discussions) has thoughts on how clean politicians can break this barrier. Maybe Internet marketing will solve this problem for future politicians--at least in places like Bangalore (Bihar can wait for another 100 years). It seems to have already come to Krishna Byre Gowda's rescue in a big way. He should be glad he's contesting from the IT hub of Asia, and has a techie as his wife to manage his online campaign. Maybe this will go down in Indian history as the first time Internet was effectively used for election campaigning by a major candidate. I doubt Mulayam Singh has the vision. Otherwise, I would have wondered if this had anything to do with his dislike for computer education.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
American exceptionalism ...
Is the US the most powerful nation in the world because the US is in some ways special? Clearly, the US must have done some thing right. However, does this make the US exceptional, i.e. culturally or otherwise superior to everyone else?
The idea of American Exceptionalism isn't new as the Wikipedia entry makes clear. In fact, it is almost as old as the US. And, the US isn't even the first country to think of exceptionalism. The German's had a similar idea which ultimately led to the second world war. The Romans did too. As did the Greeks. In fact, the world 'barbarian' as used by the Greeks was meant to imply you couldn't speak proper Greek (equivalent to the Hindi "bur bur" or babble, so barbarians are babblers). The British, to paraphrase George Mikes, didn't actually say they were exceptional. They just fought such dangerous ideas in others while never actually saying who they thought was exceptional. :)
The Romans, in particular, grew powerful by conferring Roman citizenship on the power wielders, scientists, artists, etc. of the people they conquered (sound familiar). If it does, it isn't surprising. It isn't an accident that the National Monuments in DC look Roman or that Roman architecture inspired so much of the Third Reich architecture and motifs.
Does a belief in US exceptionalism matter?
One of the most interesting comments about the holocaust I had ever heard was from a history professor patiently trying to explain how otherwise good people could have let such crimes occur. His point was that if you dehumanize someone or something, you are no longer project your own emotions on them, and so, no longer feel their pain. So, your normal moral compass does not operate. The first step in dehumanization is to believe you are different, or worse, better.
I experienced the downside of a belief in US exceptionalism in a weird way. In 2002, I was in a conversation with a finance professor from a US University about how the US might have drawn lessons from the UK Cadbury Committee's Code of Best Practice in 1992 that may have prevented debacles like Enron. That, in fact, most of the Sarbanes Oxley Act drew on lessons that had been learned many times in many countries, and that the US might have been able to anticipate these issues, if they had assumed that the US is just as prone to these human tendencies as any other country. The professor, despite the evidence, wasn't willing to acknowledge that such lessons can be drawn. He went onto assert that, for instance, the US financial system was so sound and so much superior that debacles like the Japanese asset bubble and subsequent banking collapse could never happen here. :)
The idea of US exceptionalism has cropped its head up in recent times in rather more disturbing ways. It has been alleged that the neoconservatives were driven by the idea of American Exceptionalism, i.e. that the US is somehow special. Unfortunately, this quickly devolved into the belief that rules don't apply to the US. Neoconservatives used this theory to argue for the setting aside of foreign treaties, redefine torture, describe as "collateral damage" the deaths of hundreds of thousands in Iraq, and castigate as unpatriotic anyone who questioned the US.
It became an issue in the 2008 Presidential elections, where, Obama's lack of deference to the theory led to questions about his patriotism as articles like this remind us. Those who were driven to make these arguments seem to conflate exceptionalism with irreproachability.
So, perhaps, it wasn't surprising that Obama was confronted with a question on this very question on his European tour. Here is Obama's answer:
As answers go, this was perhaps one of the more eloquent. Without actually saying so, Obama drew a distinction of being proud of the very laudable and commendable things about the US, and drawing any conclusions about the US' inherent moral superiority or manifest destiny. Good stuff!
The idea of American Exceptionalism isn't new as the Wikipedia entry makes clear. In fact, it is almost as old as the US. And, the US isn't even the first country to think of exceptionalism. The German's had a similar idea which ultimately led to the second world war. The Romans did too. As did the Greeks. In fact, the world 'barbarian' as used by the Greeks was meant to imply you couldn't speak proper Greek (equivalent to the Hindi "bur bur" or babble, so barbarians are babblers). The British, to paraphrase George Mikes, didn't actually say they were exceptional. They just fought such dangerous ideas in others while never actually saying who they thought was exceptional. :)
The Romans, in particular, grew powerful by conferring Roman citizenship on the power wielders, scientists, artists, etc. of the people they conquered (sound familiar). If it does, it isn't surprising. It isn't an accident that the National Monuments in DC look Roman or that Roman architecture inspired so much of the Third Reich architecture and motifs.
Does a belief in US exceptionalism matter?
One of the most interesting comments about the holocaust I had ever heard was from a history professor patiently trying to explain how otherwise good people could have let such crimes occur. His point was that if you dehumanize someone or something, you are no longer project your own emotions on them, and so, no longer feel their pain. So, your normal moral compass does not operate. The first step in dehumanization is to believe you are different, or worse, better.
I experienced the downside of a belief in US exceptionalism in a weird way. In 2002, I was in a conversation with a finance professor from a US University about how the US might have drawn lessons from the UK Cadbury Committee's Code of Best Practice in 1992 that may have prevented debacles like Enron. That, in fact, most of the Sarbanes Oxley Act drew on lessons that had been learned many times in many countries, and that the US might have been able to anticipate these issues, if they had assumed that the US is just as prone to these human tendencies as any other country. The professor, despite the evidence, wasn't willing to acknowledge that such lessons can be drawn. He went onto assert that, for instance, the US financial system was so sound and so much superior that debacles like the Japanese asset bubble and subsequent banking collapse could never happen here. :)
The idea of US exceptionalism has cropped its head up in recent times in rather more disturbing ways. It has been alleged that the neoconservatives were driven by the idea of American Exceptionalism, i.e. that the US is somehow special. Unfortunately, this quickly devolved into the belief that rules don't apply to the US. Neoconservatives used this theory to argue for the setting aside of foreign treaties, redefine torture, describe as "collateral damage" the deaths of hundreds of thousands in Iraq, and castigate as unpatriotic anyone who questioned the US.
It became an issue in the 2008 Presidential elections, where, Obama's lack of deference to the theory led to questions about his patriotism as articles like this remind us. Those who were driven to make these arguments seem to conflate exceptionalism with irreproachability.
So, perhaps, it wasn't surprising that Obama was confronted with a question on this very question on his European tour. Here is Obama's answer:
As answers go, this was perhaps one of the more eloquent. Without actually saying so, Obama drew a distinction of being proud of the very laudable and commendable things about the US, and drawing any conclusions about the US' inherent moral superiority or manifest destiny. Good stuff!
Friday, April 10, 2009
On healthcare
How horrendously socialistic is Obama's Healthcare proposal? Well here is the current policy:
This is an old analysis of the healthcare plan comparing McCain's and Hillary's plans with Obama's. The reason I added this is that in many ways, his plan has changed.
Is Obama's plan nationalized healthcare? Not really. Most of the government spending comes from a bunch of tax credits and assistance that shifts part of the responsibility for healthcare onto tax payers.
Is it anti-business? Somewhat. There are several provisions that could be viewed as draconian. He requires all large employers to provide employees healthcare. So, companies that don't currently provide healthcare or short shrift employees, may find their costs rising. He wants insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions - which could cause healthcare costs to go up, or the profitability of many plans to go down. He makes it easier to import drugs. So, companies that charge less for drugs overseas, and more in the US, may suddenly find their ability to differentially price may recede - which is bad for the companies that profit from this.
Interestingly, he does not introduce price controls. The basic plan is designed to introduce more competition and provide some government assistance to get poor people onto some sort of healthcare plan. This is not nationalized healthcare a.k.a. UK, but government subsidized health insurance.
Of course, the plan is only a set of principles, and the real issues will surface only when Congress gets too it. However, prima facie, the only socialist aspect about the plan is its intent - i.e. that government has a responsibility to ensure that everyone has access to affordable healthcare. Once you accept that, the plan is about as non socialist as you can get in meeting the twin objectives of ensuring everyone has access to affordable healthcare and ensuring government has a limited role in people's healthcare.
Make Health Insurance Work for People and Businesses -- Not Just Insurance and Drug Companies.
- Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums.
- Create a new Small Business Health Tax Credit to help small businesses provide affordable health insurance to their employees.
- Lower costs for businesses by covering a portion of the catastrophic health costs they pay in return for lower premiums for employees.
- Prevent insurers from overcharging doctors for their malpractice insurance and invest in proven strategies to reduce preventable medical errors.
- Make employer contributions more fair by requiring large employers that do not offer coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of their employees' health care.
- Establish a National Health Insurance Exchange with a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage.
- Ensure everyone who needs it will receive a tax credit for their premiums.
Reduce Costs and Save a Typical American Family up to $2,500 as reforms phase in:
- Lower drug costs by allowing the importation of safe medicines from other developed countries, increasing the use of generic drugs in public programs, and taking on drug companies that block cheaper generic medicines from the market.
- Require hospitals to collect and report health care cost and quality data.
- Reduce the costs of catastrophic illnesses for employers and their employees.
- Reform the insurance market to increase competition by taking on anticompetitive activity that drives up prices without improving quality of care.
This is an old analysis of the healthcare plan comparing McCain's and Hillary's plans with Obama's. The reason I added this is that in many ways, his plan has changed.
Is Obama's plan nationalized healthcare? Not really. Most of the government spending comes from a bunch of tax credits and assistance that shifts part of the responsibility for healthcare onto tax payers.
Is it anti-business? Somewhat. There are several provisions that could be viewed as draconian. He requires all large employers to provide employees healthcare. So, companies that don't currently provide healthcare or short shrift employees, may find their costs rising. He wants insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions - which could cause healthcare costs to go up, or the profitability of many plans to go down. He makes it easier to import drugs. So, companies that charge less for drugs overseas, and more in the US, may suddenly find their ability to differentially price may recede - which is bad for the companies that profit from this.
Interestingly, he does not introduce price controls. The basic plan is designed to introduce more competition and provide some government assistance to get poor people onto some sort of healthcare plan. This is not nationalized healthcare a.k.a. UK, but government subsidized health insurance.
Of course, the plan is only a set of principles, and the real issues will surface only when Congress gets too it. However, prima facie, the only socialist aspect about the plan is its intent - i.e. that government has a responsibility to ensure that everyone has access to affordable healthcare. Once you accept that, the plan is about as non socialist as you can get in meeting the twin objectives of ensuring everyone has access to affordable healthcare and ensuring government has a limited role in people's healthcare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)