Seattle on Tablet

State of Economy and right to information

Almost everyone who reads news and occasionally scans the opinion pages of the newspapers has given some thought to the state of modern economy. The crisis that appeared in mid-2008 is an unprecedented failure of financial systems. Personally, having had a chance to work in a financial corporation during the time, I realized like many others, that a deeper introspection of the consumer driven economy would follow the crisis. Since then, those in the media have given us complete opposite outlooks on the crisis. Some have called this the end of the neo-classical economics while others don't think this is going to be more than a cyclical crisis. There has been for example, a lot of discussion about whether a consumption based economy is sustainable or not. There are those who have always thought that consuming at one end of the world and producing at the other end doesn't usually result in desirable uniform growth. An extreme case like that of the current crisis arose when the sellers of risk ended up forcing the production of risk. Fundamentally it is not much different from the colonists lashing the farmers in poor countries to support high production in the world, or merchants burning harvests while people starving at some other place in the world. Of course, that is the nature of our systems; and to some extent, humanity itself. To make it all fair we have rules and regulations. A game without rules, most of us would agree, can't be played for long. The good news is that rules aren't that many and are really simple to follow. But again, it is hard for businesses to follow rules that inhibit profit-making. After all the profit-maximization functions don't take parameters like happiness and pain as input. Hence despite all law and order, when the manager of a company takes charge he is more likely to see the revenues and sales than his moral responsibilities or goals of the society. There lies the fundamental inadequacy of the regulations and the pretentious self-criticism of the media. It would take a lot of effort and time to understand why honesty and integrity in our world are mere vanities of the poor and working class. What I've found rather amusing are the attacks on large corporate firms in the visual media - from Michael Clayton to Avatar. But sadly other than minor insults and complaints against "large" bonuses there hasn't really been much thinking or introspection on the matter. We still don't have an alternative to large corporates. To generate more jobs and revive the economy, we would still need the corporates, the CEOs and their compensations. It is just not possible to shun everything and start over, not for most of us except in an avatar-like fantasy. We neither have escapes from our basic tendencies of trying to be rich and powerful nor do we possess enough desire to start things over. For those reasons and many others, the current system isn't really going away. There are ways of slow evolution which the system might adopt, but neither our basic tendencies (of hunger, avarice and desire) nor the resulting economic system can be put on hold for even a little while. What would happen for example to our political goals in the global arena? Where would America be if its not the most powerful and the most benign country in the world?	A sudden reversal of our system is neither feasible nor desirable. We still would continue to be an industrial society. Mixing go-green, savings accounts and Buddhism is great on paper, but unless we embrace fundamental changes in our system, all of it would only amount to hypocrisy. The acceptable way of solving the current crisis or attempting to do so, in my opinion, is to establish transparency in our systems. The deeper thinking on goals of the individual and society would automatically follow. In our current system, it would be argued that freedom of the individual to get the information he wants is very limited. The laws of this country have put so many filters on the information through devices ranging from security concerns to corporate interests that the laws curtail the freedom of the individual. I emphasize on freedom on information not just because it is the fundamental right of an individual in the society, but also because it is a way to avoid and put a check on the kind of failures that a banking system or other systems (governments included) would run into. In a true capitalist system, transparency would provide the opportunity to monitor and control large financial systems. After working for financial companies for a significant part of my life, I do feel there is a sheer lack of transparency. The transparency is really hard to embrace, because the business model of the banks itself is based on opaqueness. The "proprietary models" and "sensitive data" are actually just shields to profits. If people do not demand the information that is used for determining policies applicable to themselves, there is no possible way for people to take control of what is desirable for them. Mere complaints through art and insincere political allegations to developing economies (like China) wouldn't really reverse the trend of increasing lack of control over corporates. It is not surprising that our political leaders, with so much control in their hands easily manufacture the political consent to go on war for purposes that have nothing to do with the wishes and interests of the people. The world certainly seems to be better than when in the Cold War era and so I think the policy response would be more than protectionism. Also Internet and Information can really provide a cheap way to access information, unlike ever before. What is still needed is a sincere effort in the direction instead of visceral allegations against unknown enemies.

At borders

At borders today, a book called "Death of Conservatism" caught my attention and due to tiny size of the book, I ended up reading it all up at the table itself ( it was under the "thought-provoking" category). I don't like to be a promoter for any book-store, but I do think that I am more likely to find my book at borders than at Barnes and Nobles. That they have better coffee (Dean&Deluca) than the latter (Starbucks) strengthens this prejudice further. About half-way through reading the book, I realized that the author is one of the editors of New York Review of Books, a fact that was affirmed by the well-researched essays of the book. The writings of McCarthy, Burnham, Schlesinger and Disraeli were recollected in the book and were used to evaluate the movement conservatism. New York Review of books is very left leaning, and sometimes it even bothers me by its extreme support for Obama. But that apart, the writings from the journal or such books, form a very informative read. This book, for example pointed out the contradictions and shallowness of last few years of conservatism - its blind support to failed policies.

One interesting perspective the book presented, and the one that I am increasingly inclined to believe in is that the current conservatism is incapable of being constructive. What it represents today through the likes of Limbaugh and Palin is the destruction of institutions that we have in the society. The way this movement proceeded in the past few years or claims to proceed further, is by vandalizing our democratic establishments and destroying our values that they themselves claim to defend. As the book pointed, a new era always marks the end of a previous one. The end of conservatism and the new "Hope" could be another chapter in American history, a history that is full of self re-invention and re-evaluation. http://www.amazon.com/Death-Conservatism-Sam-Tanenhaus/dp/1400068843

World was never flat

I get somewhat amused every time I hear people talking about world becoming flatter and people shunning the boundaries that separate them. The more I think about that, the more dubious the evidences appear. The world certainly seems to be better than at the Cold War. During those times, our media was so biased that we would hear extreme opposite coverage of the same incidents when reported by West and East blocks. The Gulf war or even the post-911 war-mongering was probably not nearly as bad as how things were during Cold war. The sentiments against each other were so deep that the most intellectual pursuits failed to overcome them. On one hand, the Eastern block had scientists commanded by the dictator of proletariat while on the other scientific communities were shying away giving Nobel prizes to intellectuals from the East. At one point, the peace Nobel prizes seemed to be a prerogative of previous US Cold War is over, but the institutional propaganda and our conscious ignorance are still a part of our lives. My last few observations have been the about the way East is covered in the West (I am clearly more likely to observe them than most of others). The fact that we get filtered information about the world in US is very well established. One thought that I wanted elaborate was how media has successfully been able to engineer into most of our minds that India is a rising power, and that to a large extent, outsourcing is responsible for it. presidents. Both of these claims are inaccurate. That India is rising as a competitor to West, is itself a myth. A country with such extreme poverty and malnutrition clearly doesn’t have enough resources and institutions to sustain its own people. Poverty is not an unfortunate side-effect of growth in India. Poverty in India is incomparably widespread and a part of life. The little progress and growth that account for 8% GDP growth rate, is largely due to foreign investments in India and is limited into Western establishments localized into metropolitan areas.

But that is not to suggest that India by itself is incapable of doing much. Of course, the investments in India are not out of charity. They are market holdings in an economy capable of clear growth. But that is not what we learn from our media.We are made to believe that most of India is coming out of poverty because of American intervention - a combination of foreign aid and monetary investment. India's growth is indeed tied to the growth of US, but the relationship is not out of charity or a cold-war era agreement. It is largely due to the way world is changing. The impact of the kind of fear built against imaginary monsters like India and China are long lasting and extremely susceptible to political manipulation. One example is how Americans are made to fear about Iran’s possession of nuclear power; the American media chose not to mention the pact between India and America, which was not liked by the most of European countries as it gave undue advantage to India despite it’s refusal to sign the test-ban treaty. People are made to fear the outsourcing (something that apparently jeopardizes American interests but is widely accepted in the corporate world) and the nuclear proliferation (in India’s case it was favored by the corporate America) at the same time, yet it is institutions in the US itself that are are responsible for these developments in the East. Media doesn't offer any transparency in those matters. It offers us contradictory yet comfortable truths that we want to believe in.

baghmati

My memories of baghmati river are that of fearful and hefty seasonal river as seen from a bridge in Bihar. In that trip to far east of india, bihar seemed a place deep into wilderness. Like in that scene of the movie Gandhi, I saw people taking their train rides on the top of the train. The pricing of tickets, the slip of schedules of those trains were too distant ideas for the people who rode those trains. Baghmati was an image of that fearful wilderness.

In that same trip, we had met an old couple, who were traveling for free in the first class compartment. The old man had a privilege, of having been a freedom fighter against the British. Later in my life, I would recall how strange it sounded to have fought against the british to be rewarded with what british had left. It sounded preposterous for once, but if you traveled with that old man, who seemed unmoved with the scorching heat or the wilderness and chaos that bothered me, you would realize how modest was a free ticket as a reward to his spirits.

His wife told me that baghmati changes its course every year and causes a lot of havoc that way. It could more formally be considered as a seasonal flood. But the woman talked about baghmati with a sense of comfort and acceptance of the floods. She might not have known science but she knew that if flooding stops the regular alluvialization of the lands would stop and we would all starve anyways. It was that acceptance of natural calamities that still amazes me.

It is unique and somewhat distinctive of the Eastern culture. This photograph just seemed to have put all of that in perspective.

hv world affairs council

I was listening to Haviland smith earlier today. By the time his talk was over, I had started building hopes for a better foreign policy. The talk didn't demonstrate his great oratory abilities nor did it have any rhetoric or ideology that he was vouching for. Haviland's was merely an introspection into the foreign policy of US in the past 8 years. He was neither like those liberals who think we should do nothing but charity in rest of the world, nor like the republicans he constantly called horribly incorrect. At one time he called the Islamic society as repressive and inherently different from the Western democracies. He was thinking of a solution along those lines.

He said something that I had been dying to listen to from someone more mature than me -that language is important. He condemned the use of words like war-against-terror or rogue-nations. Avoiding such jingoism in language would only help a foreign policy. He questioned the assertion, both of media and administration that Muslims essentially hate the West. He actually said that Arabs have hardly ever expressed much hatred for America ; them being the core of Islamic world.

money in new york

Despite having had a small town, third-world background I think I have unconsciously so, got acclimatized to the city-life. Slowly I see that it is more than just acclimatization that has happened over this decade that I spent in the city. I see things differently now, very different from how I would have when I first moved here. A thing about the big city that bothered me a great deal when I was a kid was the comfort with which city folks set money to be the most important goal in their lives, or judge everything on grounds of money. I used to think that dreaming of big money is really a lot about being superficial. Looking back I think it could have been because of having been brought up in a culture where I was not encouraged to aspire. I was made to choose one amongst the few jobs that were offered to me. Success was achieved by adaptability, not through working to make one's dreams come true. I still feel sometimes that I wasn't encouraged enough to be doing what I absolutely loved to do. Through years of subjugation and colonial exploitation, it was actually discouraged in my circles if someone broke free of norms and started anything with a fresh perspective. When I came to the city, I couldn't help but notice that people were not doing anything halfheartedly. If you were into something then it is so because you absolutely love it or at least convinced yourself that you do. Nobody chases money as such. Everyone is doing what they absolutely love to do. Money is only a measure of how good oneself is. It was surprising to see that dreaming to make money in the city is not at all about being superficial. It was actually quite the opposite.

It was difficult for me to choose what I wanted to do. At the point where I was I felt that I hadn't have enough opportunities or didn't feel confidence about myself to take charge of things - mostly because of personality and partly because of the background. Those two factors might not have been completely unrelated. But with time, I had chosen a way and was willing to make sacrifices for choosing what I loved to do. I remember having loved analysis a lot. When I talked about things they were abstract things - things that most people were not ready to grasp. People didn't like that. I still loved it. A human being rooted in his history and ready to understand his aspirations. I felt a sense of bliss in being that way. I swayed from being a conservative to being a liberal and sometimes a moderate, but all this while I think I maintained a sense of honest curiosity, something that I was made to develop by training in science. An education in science does give you quite a bit of money, but not a whole lot. No matter how good you are at something you have to be entrepreneurial after one point. I don't seem to have the opportunity, but if I am positive, I might grab an opportunity if I see one. But being extremely analytical makes you a cynic and somewhat of a pessimist, mostly because you can't connect with many people. I love this energy and vigor of the city, but because of my very nature I can't lie to people that I don't like making so much money. That usually hinders the process of adaptation to the city life and I think that is where I am at this point.