Focus

Milton Friedman wrote in the NYT Magazine of how businessmen who spoke of social responsibilities in a free market system reminded him of a Frenchman who discovered at the age of 70 that he could speak prose. He says that the social responsibility of business is to increase profits.

Fortunately, ambiguity is not reasonable when it comes to conducting business. There can only be a single purpose driving the increasingly capitalist-friendly world and being “in the black” is it. This not only increases the benefit for the owner but also increases the trickledown effect to the common man.

It is this very process of profit-seeking that has made the world more wealthy now than ever and accusing companies of being perfidious for being economically viable is simply not acceptable.

The fall of the great socialist regimes is just another reminder of Darwin’s adage “survival of the fittest”. These were regimes founded on the nineteenth century concepts of exploitation. So we should spare a thought for the economically backward. But the startling fact remains that the majority of the world is not. It’s a fanciful construct that leftists cling to seeing as how the reality is more optimistic.

Keeping the business of business as business does enough for society by generating growth and employment. So should this be enough or should the capitalists contribute more? If so, then where does the government fit in? Where do taxes go? Who implements social policy?

Governments need to do what they do best – represent the people. This includes all the strata from the princes to the paupers. Governments enforce laws, decide what good for society and ensure that businesses do not hide behind the facade of social consciousness while irreversibly harming society. They have to implement the policies through regulation and taxation, not the businesses. Friedman put it best when he said, “The business of the government is governance and the business of business will remain business”.

Corporate philanthropy also raises the issue of accountability – shareholders wealth being distributed by management. Do they follow their fiduciary duty or do they yield to the societal expectations? The short answer is an emphatic “Yes, follow your duty”. The long answer is much more complicated due to the nature of the question itself. Yes the company has a responsibility to society; just don’t do it with my money. The current financial scenario has made the question even more pertinent. Even traditionally philanthropic companies will have to review their policies and examine their fundamental strategies.

This snake and mongoose game between the businesses and the ethics brigade will continue till the fundamental difference between the business and individual is not understood. An individual can and should be socially responsible. Businesses however, should not. Their primary goal should and will always remain the pursuit of wealth creation. Businesses hold no duty towards society other than the welfare of its members, who are stakeholders in the business itself.

Governments should govern well. Businesses should run profitably.

Home

From Dream Theater's Metropolis II:

Shine- Lake of fire
Lines take me higher
My mind drips desire
Confined and overtired

Living this charade
Is getting me nowhere
I can't shake this charade
The city's cold blood calls me home
Home, It's what I long for
Back home, Where I belong

The city- It calls to me
Decadent scenes from my memory
Sorrow- Eternity
My demons are coming to drown me

Help- I'm falling, I'm crawling
I can't keep away from its clutch
Can't have it, this habit
It's calling me back to my home

25

Vat69+haywards5000+bowling-lowestscore

+roganghosh+seenakathi+naan

-SMlecture+music+frooti+pepsi

+maggi+asskicking+pepsi+dirtyclothes

+coldwind+shower+blackforrestcake

+soapsolution+shampoo+shower

+ciggies+hangover

=25

Letting it Slide......

2nd day after the Mumbai attacks. Life returns to normal. People go to work. Financial institutions open for business. No losing any time.

What the hell is happening here?

We have lost touch with our basic human instincts; second guessing every decision and being plain indifferent. It’s difficult to see beyond our own wants. We don’t have time for others.

“Opportunism” as mentioned by a professor at college recently. “Self-serving guile” he said. And rightly so. It has seeped deep into our heart and drives our every action. Why am I doing this? What should I be doing? Will it help me?

And it is this very indifference that is our weakness. We have taken to adopting all everything the west does. Now we have also taken what is heading them down the wrong highway at breakneck speed.

The difference? Their politicians and decision makers can be trusted to look out for the welfare of the citizens. Here we vote and then we slaughter.

Politicians – day after the attacks, talks of a change in leadership. A week later new leaders are appointed. Same promises. Same results?
“Opportunists”.

Law enforcers – to busy to bother about national security. Encounter specialists?
“Opportunists”.

The Fourth Estate – TRP’s, screen time and punch-lines. Giving the people what they want or what they think we want? Doesn’t matter.
“Opportunists”.

Us.
What have we done so far? Talk about it? Debate? Grieve? Shed a tear? Feel outraged?
The BSE got back to business even as the attacks were still on.
“Opportunists”.

We have let it slide.

STOP.

People are dying and we want to trade stocks and get on with it?

What the fuck is wrong with us?

We want to show the world a strong face?

Would you show a strong face when someone kills your family? Or do you go after the sons of bitches that did it and make them pay?

Chris rock once talked about Rudi Giuliani and the 9/11 attacks. “Before 9/11, Giuliani was the terrorist....” he said. I partly agree with him. The cover up and the subsequent string of lies and deceit that followed the attacks were as evil as the attacks themselves. But at least he was there when NY needed him.

Where were Deshmukh and his stooges or even Shivraj Patil and his for that matter?

What we need is someone like Giuliani. Described by Rock as a Pitbull - Someone who may eat your kids in times of peace but at least he’ll go after the burglar as well.

So why hasn’t the Indian government done anything as yet? Politics, bureaucracy, incompetence, ignorance.....take your pick.

I know I don’t have a right to criticize anyone as I haven’t even cast a vote. (I intend to in the coming elections).

But enough is enough. Let’s just DO. No talk. No think.

Just DO.

(I apologise for the obscenities, crass language and irrational idologies, but it is needed here).

Bretton Woods and the Birth of "Irrational Exuberance"

“Money, get away.
Get a good job with good pay
and you’re okay.
Money, it’s a gas.
Grab that cash with both hands
and make a stash.
New car, caviar, four star daydream,
Think I’ll buy me a football team.”

Pink Floyd had it on the spot when they wrote one of the songs with probably the most complex time signatures for any modern rock harmony. It’s funny that the essence of this song has captured the crux of the current state of the US economy.

It signifies the “irrational exuberance” of the largest capitalist power in the world economy. From building trillion dollar military weapons to spending billions of dollars on block-busters, they seem to be invincible.

But scratch the surface and you’ll realize the reality: $1 trillion subprime debt. $9 trillion national debt. $2.4 trillion held by private investors. $600 billion held by Japan. $500 billion held by China.

James Fallow sums it up:

“every person in the United States has over the past 10 years or so borrowed about $4,000 from someone in the People’s Republic of China”

They were overconfident, reckless and arrogant.

The US catches a cold and the world sneezes.

Looking closer to home, we can probably make a safe bet on India. But what is currently happening here is also uncertain. We have our Prime Minister and Finance Minister who are both notable economists and yet unable to face the current crisis.

This brings us to the fundamental problems of the world economy.

Keynes in 1941, at Bretton Woods, suggested the forming of an organization that would act as a monitoring and regulating agency for the world economy:

The International Clearing Union.

The idea behind this institution was that the member countries would be able to contribute towards the institution which would then allocate the funds between wealthy and poor nations. At the end of the financial year, all countries would aim to balance their accounts, i.e. countries with deficit would have to make payments and countries with surplus would have to draw out their funds, leaving the countries on an equal footing. Both the excess and shortfall of funds would be charged interest. So the net result was social welfare.

This was vehemently opposed by the US which went on to propose and succeeded in establishing the two most famous organizations in our times: the IMF and the World Bank.

Thus in hindsight Keynes was arguably right. The US now finds itself hiving off the scraps of other nations and heading towards deep recession. With credit friendly citizens and rash decision making, even Friedrich von Hayek would not approve of.

Keynes was a blatant socialist and thus the US now is falling back towards the foundations of the Keynesian philosophy and reinforcing the theory by the fed bailing out the chapter 11 companies.

Don’t get me wrong; I love the idea of free markets and the proposition that the markets take care of themselves. But the changing global scenario suggests otherwise.

At the risk of sounding cliched, let me end with Pink Floyd again:

“Money, it’s a crime.
Share it fairly but don’t take a slice of my pie.
Money, so they say
Is the root of all evil today.
But if you ask for a raise
it’s no surprise that they’re
Giving none away.”

Chaos Theory

The magical figure.
The mythical quantum.
What happened to the mighty?
Into the abyss.
Where have the Knights gone?
Sanity forsaken?
Why suppress the crippled?
Why bleed the feeble?
Why still ponder?
The redeemers?
Where’s the hope?
Where are the dreamers?
Where are the achievers?
How are the tears shed?
How the despondent are engaged?
Where is the collectivism?
Where is discipline?
Where is the reason required?
Faith leaves the faithful.
Hope leaves the hopeful.
Logic abandons the reasoning.
Desperation urges the meek.
Shameless aggression impending.
Weak underpinnings .
Utopia?
Triumphant fabric of insatiability.
Doubt.
Sliver of neglect.
Indifference.
Pain.
Linked destinys.
Naked Capitalism?
Effluent Socialism?
Sagacity dumbfounded?
Brazen desolation?
Linking of fates.
Unfailing truth.
Ashes to ashes dust to dust.
Clean slate.
Redefined passion.
Fundamental Chaos.
Indispensable Order.
Evident Caution.
Inevitable Complacence.

“Greed.”

Scars Unseen

“Children of god” is such a clichéd term that it has lost its significance. It no longer stands for even a sliver of what it used to. It may be one of the few terms in English that can be translated into any other language and still hold its value.

Before you think that I have lost my sanity, let me tell you where this is coming from.

Sat through two lectures of Society and Business Management and conducted one session as a group assignment. The research involved made me realize that what we believe is no longer what we practice. We found some startling facts about the real India and what really goes on inside people’s head.

We conducted numerous interviews. Everyone from “chhotu” to “Mr. Joe Regular”.

The First.
We met a small girl who was a snake charmer. The question –
Why she did what she did?
The reply?
“Because I believe this is what god wants me to do”

This is possible the most outlandish reasoning I have heard in my life. Granted that she was an innocent, but nonetheless this is what people are telling their kids these days.

The Second.
This was a “chai-wala”. Looked no more than 12, but had an electrifying smile and may just make you believe that he’s an actual adult.
Same question.
“Dad told me to.”
Next - What does dad do?
“He’s a farmer in UP.”

This is the perennial vicious cycle. Dad worked as a child. Makes son work as a child. Grandson ends up working as a child. It is just too difficult to find the breaking link.

The Third.
This girl was managing the shop while her mother was at home. She doesn’t have a father. She goes to school in the morning, comes back to work at the shop and studies in the evening. She had wisdom beyond her years – something you wish you could sometime see in some college grads.

So that’s what has been bothering me all week. How can any parent allow their kid to work?
But more importantly, how can we just standby and do nothing?

I have no foundation to even attempt to understand the logic behind this. But I know that it is wrong. Every person of sound mind should be against this. It should be so preposterous that it stimulates us to action.

But that’s where the problem lies. ACTION.

We asked a person buying fire crackers on diwali what he thought about the child labour involved in manufacturing those crackers. He simply replied that it was the government s job to stop the law-breakers, not his. He further explained away his situation by saying that he was restricting himself to a minimum of crackers for this diwali.

Can we actually get any more insensitive?

One of my classmates has taken an initiative to teach poor kids here at the college. We were sceptical and found all the right reasons for him to be wrong. We came up with all excuses such as - “attention grabber”, “marks-oriented”, “will-never-go-through-with-it guy”.

But this is what I realised. I have no right to criticize him. Why?

Because I have not spent five minutes even thinking about those kids and their situation.

Does that mean that I’m an awful person? No. It simply means I don’t give a damn.

We have become so involved in our own lives we find it difficult to empathize with anyone. We distance ourselves from any crisis that doesn’t concern us.

So is that what we are? Self-centred, narcissistic, indifferent, arrogant?

I honestly hope not. Someone please prove me wrong.