Many poverties
T N Ninan / New Delhi December 19, 2009, 0:06 IST
A contentious statement on Indian poverty, put out some years ago by Arjun Sengupta, said that 78 per cent of Indians lived on less than Rs 20 a day. That figure always looked problematic, but has become a favourite statistical weapon in the hands of the Left. So it is just as well that the Suresh Tendulkar report on poverty has effectively nailed that number. The Tendulkar report says that 25.7 per cent of urban residents are below the new definition of the poverty line, because they spend less than Rs 578.80 per month. That is Rs 19/day, close to the Sengupta benchmark. Given the urban-rural mix of 28:72, if the Sengupta claim of 78 per cent for the country as a whole (urban and rural) is correct, then 92 per cent of all rural residents would have to be consuming less than Rs 20/day.
Against this, the Tendulkar report says that 41.8 per cent of the rural population consumes less than Rs 447/month, or about Rs 15/day. If Dr Sengupta’s figure is correct, then another 50 per cent of the rural population consumes between Rs 15 and Rs 20 per day. The visual evidence and statistical probability tell us that this is improbable, if not impossible. But it is a safe bet that the Sengupta number will not die, because it is too convenient a figure for the poverty industry to give up.
There is also the important point that these numbers are based on National Sample Surveys, which (as Surjit Bhalla has argued) report consumption levels that are much lower than what National Accounts tell us. If this bias were to be corrected for, even Prof Tendulkar may have overestimated the poverty level, which he says envelops 37 per cent of the country as a whole.
The longer-term issue is whether we can arrive at better ways of looking at poverty — and there has to be more than one. India has traditionally looked at food intake as the single yardstick; the Tendulkar report now looks at affordability with regard to a bigger basket of goods, which is the right way to go-but it does not go far enough. India looks at consumption by an individual, whereas the consuming unit is really the family — and a two-person family will not spend twice the money that a single person does, nor will a four-person family spend twice as much as a two-person family. So, measuring individual-level consumption can be misleading. Some countries go further, looking at age groups and other demographic patterns, but at the moment it would be a huge advance for India if poverty estimates moved to the family as a unit.
Then there is the question of absolute and relative poverty. The US looks at both absolute poverty (actual income) and relative poverty (income level in relation to the median, meaning the 50th person in a ranking of 100 individuals). The European Union too looks at relative poverty — defined as being income that is 60 per cent lower than the median. Strictly speaking, this is a measure of inequality, but it is an important measure when assessing patterns of growth. India’s inequality level is usually said to be low, certainly much lower than China’s — but the comparison is incorrect because India looks at consumption equality while most countries look at income. As Pranab Bardhan demonstrated on this page on September 5 (“How unequal a country is India?”), if you look at income inequality in both countries, India is now significantly more unequal than China. And when it comes to other inequalities (land holding, education, and opportunity in general), India is considerably worse off. Ditto with inter-generational movement.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Sunday, December 13, 2009
article on india education!
this is the state of Indian education. yes, thankfully, I belong to 1% but the opportunity to teach and train is enormous! big deal, if I lose the job! I will make a job for myself!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center for the advanced study of India
Indian higher education
Suppose a job applicant came to you and said that he was a 2nd class English graduate of Agra University. What does that convey? Can this person, for instance, write a two-page essay in English that has a structure and an argument with few grammatical errors? If not, what exactly can the person do that he could not have if he had simply stopped studying after high school? What skills has he learnt in the three additional years of education?
The answers to these questions speak to one of the most crucial challenges facing Indian higher education: its quality. Whenever Indians think about quality in higher education they mentally jump to the IITs and IIMs, which have justifiably become international brand names. Yes, there are other names that also signal quality, be it the venerable IISc and ISI, the new National Law Schools, the dozen or so well-known medical schools and perhaps a score of what one might call liberal arts undergraduate colleges. There are some more enrolled in design, architecture and fine arts; add them all up, and its about 50-60,000 students out of a total of more than 12 million enrolled in higher education that we are talking about.
Let's double the number. That's still 1 per cent that attracts all the attention. Newspapers run breaking stories of who gets in and breathless stories of job placements and skyrocketing salaries. Intellectuals passionately argue the case for affirmative action in these institutions to advance social justice. And politicians of all hues lobby to get an IIT or an IIM located in their state.
Pity the remaining 99 per cent. How many newspaper stories have you read about just what jobs the graduates of the local college or agriculture university got? Or intellectuals getting as passionate for the social justice denied to the vast majority condemned to a mediocre education? Or politicians getting excited about the lack of a good agriculture university or nursing school in their state?
The 11th Plan has set ambitious goals for raising the quality of Indian higher education amongst which is the setting up of 14 "world-class" universities. It's a laudable goal, but what's puzzling is that somehow it is seen as something that needs to be done from scratch. In fact, in most of our major cities we have the nucleus of world-class universities. In Bangalore, suppose one had an umbrella that covered IIM-B along with National Law School, IISc and St John's Medical College. Right there India has a world-class university with excellent business, law, and medical schools and science and engineering. The same could be the case in Ahmedabad, if one combined, for example, IIM-A, with NID, PRL and SAC. In Delhi, if one could manage a creative merger of four-five of the best undergrad colleges with the Delhi School of Economics, ISI, IIT-Delhi, NPL, AIIMS and National Institute of Immunology, for sure the resulting institution would be on any top 500 list. In Hyderabad, there's CCMB, NMRL, IIIT, the new IIT and NALSAR Law College - again their combined strength would be formidable. Chennai, Kolkata and Mumbai also offer similar possibilities. That's seven possible world-class universities.
The essential requirements for quality higher education are basically three: concentration of talent, both students and faculty; financial resources that are substantial and stable; and governance, especially autonomy on teaching, research, admissions, hiring and pay. All great universities have these in abundant measure. India's best higher education institutions have them as well, with one major caveat: they are single-dimensional, rather than the multiple faculties that are the hallmark of a great university.
The proposal to create new "world-class" universities ignores a fundamental reality. The only way this can happen in the foreseeable future is if these institutions massively cannibalise faculty from India's existing high quality institutions. It was recently reported that a UGC study covering 14 central universities found that 42 per cent of posts at the level of professor, 29 per cent at the reader level and 34 per cent at the lecturer level are lying vacant. Further rapid expansion can only result in robbing Peter to pay Paul. And frankly any claims otherwise are simply farcical.
Combining existing institutions of excellence under a common umbrella may seem ludicrous - who ever thought of mergers and acquisitions in higher education? But the idea is less radical than it sounds. Great universities have strong federal structures that give their constituent colleges autonomy on most issues that matter. Yet the whole is more than the sum of its parts. If India spends Rs 500 crore to build common systems and infrastructure for each of the seven possibilities outlined above, there's a reasonable possibility that it could build seven world-class universities in a couple of decades. If, however, it persists with its existing blueprint, it has almost no chance and that too will come at the cost of existing institutions. And it still leaves the daunting challenge of how to improve the quality of the remaining 99 per cent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center for the advanced study of India
Indian higher education
Suppose a job applicant came to you and said that he was a 2nd class English graduate of Agra University. What does that convey? Can this person, for instance, write a two-page essay in English that has a structure and an argument with few grammatical errors? If not, what exactly can the person do that he could not have if he had simply stopped studying after high school? What skills has he learnt in the three additional years of education?
The answers to these questions speak to one of the most crucial challenges facing Indian higher education: its quality. Whenever Indians think about quality in higher education they mentally jump to the IITs and IIMs, which have justifiably become international brand names. Yes, there are other names that also signal quality, be it the venerable IISc and ISI, the new National Law Schools, the dozen or so well-known medical schools and perhaps a score of what one might call liberal arts undergraduate colleges. There are some more enrolled in design, architecture and fine arts; add them all up, and its about 50-60,000 students out of a total of more than 12 million enrolled in higher education that we are talking about.
Let's double the number. That's still 1 per cent that attracts all the attention. Newspapers run breaking stories of who gets in and breathless stories of job placements and skyrocketing salaries. Intellectuals passionately argue the case for affirmative action in these institutions to advance social justice. And politicians of all hues lobby to get an IIT or an IIM located in their state.
Pity the remaining 99 per cent. How many newspaper stories have you read about just what jobs the graduates of the local college or agriculture university got? Or intellectuals getting as passionate for the social justice denied to the vast majority condemned to a mediocre education? Or politicians getting excited about the lack of a good agriculture university or nursing school in their state?
The 11th Plan has set ambitious goals for raising the quality of Indian higher education amongst which is the setting up of 14 "world-class" universities. It's a laudable goal, but what's puzzling is that somehow it is seen as something that needs to be done from scratch. In fact, in most of our major cities we have the nucleus of world-class universities. In Bangalore, suppose one had an umbrella that covered IIM-B along with National Law School, IISc and St John's Medical College. Right there India has a world-class university with excellent business, law, and medical schools and science and engineering. The same could be the case in Ahmedabad, if one combined, for example, IIM-A, with NID, PRL and SAC. In Delhi, if one could manage a creative merger of four-five of the best undergrad colleges with the Delhi School of Economics, ISI, IIT-Delhi, NPL, AIIMS and National Institute of Immunology, for sure the resulting institution would be on any top 500 list. In Hyderabad, there's CCMB, NMRL, IIIT, the new IIT and NALSAR Law College - again their combined strength would be formidable. Chennai, Kolkata and Mumbai also offer similar possibilities. That's seven possible world-class universities.
The essential requirements for quality higher education are basically three: concentration of talent, both students and faculty; financial resources that are substantial and stable; and governance, especially autonomy on teaching, research, admissions, hiring and pay. All great universities have these in abundant measure. India's best higher education institutions have them as well, with one major caveat: they are single-dimensional, rather than the multiple faculties that are the hallmark of a great university.
The proposal to create new "world-class" universities ignores a fundamental reality. The only way this can happen in the foreseeable future is if these institutions massively cannibalise faculty from India's existing high quality institutions. It was recently reported that a UGC study covering 14 central universities found that 42 per cent of posts at the level of professor, 29 per cent at the reader level and 34 per cent at the lecturer level are lying vacant. Further rapid expansion can only result in robbing Peter to pay Paul. And frankly any claims otherwise are simply farcical.
Combining existing institutions of excellence under a common umbrella may seem ludicrous - who ever thought of mergers and acquisitions in higher education? But the idea is less radical than it sounds. Great universities have strong federal structures that give their constituent colleges autonomy on most issues that matter. Yet the whole is more than the sum of its parts. If India spends Rs 500 crore to build common systems and infrastructure for each of the seven possibilities outlined above, there's a reasonable possibility that it could build seven world-class universities in a couple of decades. If, however, it persists with its existing blueprint, it has almost no chance and that too will come at the cost of existing institutions. And it still leaves the daunting challenge of how to improve the quality of the remaining 99 per cent.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
the so called demographic dividend
an interesting viewpoint
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
S U B V E R S E
Plenty is not pretty
Rahul Singh
In his otherwise perceptive book, Imagining India, IT entrepreneur Nandan Nilekani has sadly got it completely wrong as far as our population problem is concerned.
He argues, “With growth, our human capital has emerged as a vibrant source of workers and consumers not just for India, but also for the global economy... Since independence, India struggled for decades with policies that tried to put the lid on its surging population. It is only recently that the country has been able to look its billion in the eye and consider its advantages.”
He refers to these advantages as India’s ‘demographic dividend’, a phrase made fashionable by two demographers, David Bloom and Jeffrey Williamson. They studied the economic success stories of some East Asian countries, in particular Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan. They found that one of the reasons for their success, which had hitherto been ignored, was, paradoxically, population growth. “Between 1950 and 2000, the chances that an infant would die in East Asia fell sharply from 181 per 1,000 births to just 34, and this caused fertility to fall from six children to two per woman,” they wrote.
But there was a lag between these two drops. Child deaths fell first, while fertility remained high. It took some time for people to realise that fewer babies were dying. Only then did people adjust to lower fertility. And the children who unexpectedly survived formed a “boom generation”, they further explained. This created a large number of young enterprising workers, i.e. the demographic dividend.
The East Asian example cannot be transposed on the Indian case to explain this country’s economic success in the last two decades, particularly in the IT area. The fact of the matter is that there are huge differences between the East Asian experience and India’s. In countries like Taiwan and South Korea — even Thailand and Indonesia to a lesser extent — two essential social parameters were put in place before population growth began to decline: literacy and health care. A great deal of investment was made in primary education and public health, leading to literacy rates of over 80 per cent and average life expectancy — which is the best indicator of good health care — of over 75 years.
In India, on the other hand, there has been no such investment in primary education or public health, with the result that our literacy rate is only a little over 60 per cent and the average life expectancy is around 64. We have one of the highest maternal and infant mortality rates in the developing world, outside sub-Saharan Africa. India’s population increase has largely been among the poorer and least educated sections of its people. Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, UP and Rajasthan account for 40 per cent of the country’s population and 50 per cent of its population growth. They also happen to be our nation’s most backward states, with low literacy rates and poor health care.
And when you think of it, how come there has been no such demographic dividend in Pakistan, where the population growth rate has been even higher than in India? At the time of our independence, our population was 350 million. Today, it is almost 1.2 billion. Fortunately, food production has more than tripled in the same period thanks mainly to the Green Revolution; hence there have been no mass famines. Though fertility rates have admittedly come down from over six children per woman to around three, there are still about 18 million people added to our population every year. They have to be fed, educated and housed. This is an unsustainable burden on the Indian economy. It has led to massive environmental damage. Our exploding cities and a growing culture of violence can also be largely traced to our increasing numbers.
A major priority of whichever government comes to power must be to make greater efforts towards stabilising our population growth and promoting family planning. It would be a great pity if the next government thought otherwise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
S U B V E R S E
Plenty is not pretty
Rahul Singh
In his otherwise perceptive book, Imagining India, IT entrepreneur Nandan Nilekani has sadly got it completely wrong as far as our population problem is concerned.
He argues, “With growth, our human capital has emerged as a vibrant source of workers and consumers not just for India, but also for the global economy... Since independence, India struggled for decades with policies that tried to put the lid on its surging population. It is only recently that the country has been able to look its billion in the eye and consider its advantages.”
He refers to these advantages as India’s ‘demographic dividend’, a phrase made fashionable by two demographers, David Bloom and Jeffrey Williamson. They studied the economic success stories of some East Asian countries, in particular Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan. They found that one of the reasons for their success, which had hitherto been ignored, was, paradoxically, population growth. “Between 1950 and 2000, the chances that an infant would die in East Asia fell sharply from 181 per 1,000 births to just 34, and this caused fertility to fall from six children to two per woman,” they wrote.
But there was a lag between these two drops. Child deaths fell first, while fertility remained high. It took some time for people to realise that fewer babies were dying. Only then did people adjust to lower fertility. And the children who unexpectedly survived formed a “boom generation”, they further explained. This created a large number of young enterprising workers, i.e. the demographic dividend.
The East Asian example cannot be transposed on the Indian case to explain this country’s economic success in the last two decades, particularly in the IT area. The fact of the matter is that there are huge differences between the East Asian experience and India’s. In countries like Taiwan and South Korea — even Thailand and Indonesia to a lesser extent — two essential social parameters were put in place before population growth began to decline: literacy and health care. A great deal of investment was made in primary education and public health, leading to literacy rates of over 80 per cent and average life expectancy — which is the best indicator of good health care — of over 75 years.
In India, on the other hand, there has been no such investment in primary education or public health, with the result that our literacy rate is only a little over 60 per cent and the average life expectancy is around 64. We have one of the highest maternal and infant mortality rates in the developing world, outside sub-Saharan Africa. India’s population increase has largely been among the poorer and least educated sections of its people. Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, UP and Rajasthan account for 40 per cent of the country’s population and 50 per cent of its population growth. They also happen to be our nation’s most backward states, with low literacy rates and poor health care.
And when you think of it, how come there has been no such demographic dividend in Pakistan, where the population growth rate has been even higher than in India? At the time of our independence, our population was 350 million. Today, it is almost 1.2 billion. Fortunately, food production has more than tripled in the same period thanks mainly to the Green Revolution; hence there have been no mass famines. Though fertility rates have admittedly come down from over six children per woman to around three, there are still about 18 million people added to our population every year. They have to be fed, educated and housed. This is an unsustainable burden on the Indian economy. It has led to massive environmental damage. Our exploding cities and a growing culture of violence can also be largely traced to our increasing numbers.
A major priority of whichever government comes to power must be to make greater efforts towards stabilising our population growth and promoting family planning. It would be a great pity if the next government thought otherwise.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Maneka and Animals
A genius article on Varun Gandhi's speech and his mother, Maneka's handling of her progeny. What a shame, Maneka!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S U B V E R S E
You lucky dogs!
B V Rao
Many of us who have known Maneka Gandhi as a champion of animal rights are distressed how her venom-spewing son Varun seems to have unhinged her. It is tough to comprehend why Maneka, who taught us all to love every kutta and billi, did not knock her son on his head and subject him to a long lecture on human rights on the lines of the animal rights lectures she has been giving us.
No, it’s not Maneka’s fault that her son thinks that those who do not worship his god have no right to life and liberty. But if she lets him believe that he has said or done nothing criminal, or that she will protect him no matter what, then she loses all moral authority to preach to us. The very power of the principle which earns our leaders the right to lead us, gives us the right to hold them down to that principle.
What is an animal rights activist worth if she cannot extend the same principle to her fellow human beings? The way she has sprung to her son’s defence, without even attempting to comfort those whom he tried to terrorise, will make me laugh in her face if she ever dares preach to me about anyone’s rights at all.
Many public personalities who live for some worthy cause or the other fall by the wayside when they are subjected to the progeny test i.e., the test that they are put to by their progeny. Take Sunil Dutt for example. When Sanjay Dutt — the dud who wanted to be a stud — got on the wrong side of the law, Sunil Dutt’s son-stroke symptoms were severe. He failed the test by light years.
So, Maneka, it might seem, is just the latest celeb who failed the progeny test. But, wait. Maybe she didn’t fail at all. Maybe, the problem is that we have failed Maneka. Maybe she thinks the defence of Varun is just an extension of her animal rights work.
It is possible that, working with those poor beasts for ages, she can now identify the beast in men too and has just extended her line of work: Animal health, animal shelters, animal rescue, animal slaughter, animal instincts etc, you see. Or it could be this: Maneka will defend your rights only under two conditions: One, you are an animal. Two, you are her son.
Yes, if you are her “bachcha” (yes, that’s what she calls her almost-30-year-old bigot), then Maneka will scream about “democracy” and “illegal detention”. I wish she had found out how many mothers’ stomachs churned when Varun threatened their children. Yet, forget about reprimanding her son or admitting to his folly, she will holler shamelessly about a Muslim cop beating up her son’s riotous band of supporters.
If you and your son have got an election to win, Maneka, win it by all means, by any means. But know that there are others too who want to win by the same means. So, get off the moral high horse. Let’s not hear you talk about rights anymore. And on the way down, do us a favour. Keep Mother Teresa out of this.
Postscript: Maneka gave a book to Varun for bedtime reading. What could it be? Can’t be the Gita. Heeding recommended reading from the other Gandhis is blasphemy. And anyway, doesn’t he know the Gita? Is it not the Gita that said it’s the duty of every kshatriya to rule? And isn’t Varun a political kshatriya? A born-torule Gandhi?
No, it can’t be the Gita. The boy knows it like the back of his hand. So here’s my guess: Maneka has given him a handbook on how to unwind after such delicate, nation-saving surgical interventions as severing of limbs and forced nasbandi.
Post-postscript: It’s possible that the animal world is agitated with the discovery that their benefactor’s heart beats harder for those who are Hindus. But animals of the world, relax. Maneka still loves you. She will still fight for your rights. Because she still has no way of finding out which god you worship. You lucky dogs!
The writer is a Delhi-based journalist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S U B V E R S E
You lucky dogs!
B V Rao
Many of us who have known Maneka Gandhi as a champion of animal rights are distressed how her venom-spewing son Varun seems to have unhinged her. It is tough to comprehend why Maneka, who taught us all to love every kutta and billi, did not knock her son on his head and subject him to a long lecture on human rights on the lines of the animal rights lectures she has been giving us.
No, it’s not Maneka’s fault that her son thinks that those who do not worship his god have no right to life and liberty. But if she lets him believe that he has said or done nothing criminal, or that she will protect him no matter what, then she loses all moral authority to preach to us. The very power of the principle which earns our leaders the right to lead us, gives us the right to hold them down to that principle.
What is an animal rights activist worth if she cannot extend the same principle to her fellow human beings? The way she has sprung to her son’s defence, without even attempting to comfort those whom he tried to terrorise, will make me laugh in her face if she ever dares preach to me about anyone’s rights at all.
Many public personalities who live for some worthy cause or the other fall by the wayside when they are subjected to the progeny test i.e., the test that they are put to by their progeny. Take Sunil Dutt for example. When Sanjay Dutt — the dud who wanted to be a stud — got on the wrong side of the law, Sunil Dutt’s son-stroke symptoms were severe. He failed the test by light years.
So, Maneka, it might seem, is just the latest celeb who failed the progeny test. But, wait. Maybe she didn’t fail at all. Maybe, the problem is that we have failed Maneka. Maybe she thinks the defence of Varun is just an extension of her animal rights work.
It is possible that, working with those poor beasts for ages, she can now identify the beast in men too and has just extended her line of work: Animal health, animal shelters, animal rescue, animal slaughter, animal instincts etc, you see. Or it could be this: Maneka will defend your rights only under two conditions: One, you are an animal. Two, you are her son.
Yes, if you are her “bachcha” (yes, that’s what she calls her almost-30-year-old bigot), then Maneka will scream about “democracy” and “illegal detention”. I wish she had found out how many mothers’ stomachs churned when Varun threatened their children. Yet, forget about reprimanding her son or admitting to his folly, she will holler shamelessly about a Muslim cop beating up her son’s riotous band of supporters.
If you and your son have got an election to win, Maneka, win it by all means, by any means. But know that there are others too who want to win by the same means. So, get off the moral high horse. Let’s not hear you talk about rights anymore. And on the way down, do us a favour. Keep Mother Teresa out of this.
Postscript: Maneka gave a book to Varun for bedtime reading. What could it be? Can’t be the Gita. Heeding recommended reading from the other Gandhis is blasphemy. And anyway, doesn’t he know the Gita? Is it not the Gita that said it’s the duty of every kshatriya to rule? And isn’t Varun a political kshatriya? A born-torule Gandhi?
No, it can’t be the Gita. The boy knows it like the back of his hand. So here’s my guess: Maneka has given him a handbook on how to unwind after such delicate, nation-saving surgical interventions as severing of limbs and forced nasbandi.
Post-postscript: It’s possible that the animal world is agitated with the discovery that their benefactor’s heart beats harder for those who are Hindus. But animals of the world, relax. Maneka still loves you. She will still fight for your rights. Because she still has no way of finding out which god you worship. You lucky dogs!
The writer is a Delhi-based journalist.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
The Profilgacy of US dollar
excellent article explaining how US is using or rather mis-using dollar being the world's reserve currency and living off people's money
Jug Suraiya
Like Banquo’s ghost at the banquet, several unresolved questions haunted the G-20 summit in London which pledged to pump $1.1 trillion into the critically ailing global economy. Protectionism, particularly on the part of the developed countries against the developing world, was one of these question marks. Another was that of establishing equitable norms of transparency and accountability in banking practices. But perhaps the most significant question — made all the more significant in that it wasn’t even raised — concerned the US dollar: Is it time for the world to say goodbye to the American greenback,
which increasingly better answers to the description of greenbroke?
The G-20 meet has been called Bretton Woods II, in reference to the Bretton Woods conference of 1944 which, attended by 730 delegates from 44 countries, laid down ground rules for managing the world’s monetary system. The International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (now part of the World Bank) were set up then. Each of the signatory countries was obliged to ensure the stability of its country against gold, with the IMF stepping in if necessary to correct temporary glitches.
This gold standard came to an end in 1971 when the US unilaterally terminated dollar-gold convertibility. After considerable upheaval, the US dollar emerged as the ‘reserve currency’ of the world. This was the beginning of the dangerous myth of the Almighty Dollar, arbiter of the world’s fortunes, both the medium and the barometer of international trade and commerce. From oil to gold, coffee to coal, the global price of all commodities is quoted in dollars, making it the most sought after currency in the world.
Like a profligate living on increasing amounts of borrowed money, America learned to live off the fat of many lands, all of which sought its dollars in exchange for goods and services. Though living in deepening debt, the US could never run out of cash: all that its Federal Reserve Bank had to do was, in effect, print more dollars in the form of treasury bonds greedily bought up by foreign investors. The US got richer and richer, on other people’s money.
Though the euro has emerged as an international alternative to the dollar (a conspiracy theory suggested that one of the reasons the US attacked Iraq was because Saddam Hussein was planning to sell his country’s oil for euros instead of dollars) an estimated two-thirds of the world’s foreign exchange reserves
crisis which sparked the global meltdown showed the dangers of global overdependence on the prodigal dollar. But though both China and Russia had, prior to the G-20 meet, suggested a search for a replacement for the dollar as an international medium of exchange (one of the proposals being that the are held in dollars. China alone has almost $2 trillion in its national coffers.
The US subprime
Special Drawing Rights of the IMF be made into a ‘supercurrency’) the issue seems to have been sidelined at the conference. Earlier, ‘supercurrencies’ like the universal Terra or the Dey (dollar, euro, yen), created and supported by a supranational banking authority, have been proposed but have found few, if any, takers.
However, with Obama pouring over $1 trillion into buttressing the crumbling US economy and buying up the ‘toxic assets’ that have poisoned its banks and financial institutions perhaps it’s high time seriously to think of developing a substitute for a currency which, more and more, is beginning to resemble Monopoly money. Running out of cash? Not to worry; we’ll just print some more. And some sucker, somewhere, will buy it off us. Perhaps it’s time for the suckers of the world to unite and wake up.
Jug Suraiya
Like Banquo’s ghost at the banquet, several unresolved questions haunted the G-20 summit in London which pledged to pump $1.1 trillion into the critically ailing global economy. Protectionism, particularly on the part of the developed countries against the developing world, was one of these question marks. Another was that of establishing equitable norms of transparency and accountability in banking practices. But perhaps the most significant question — made all the more significant in that it wasn’t even raised — concerned the US dollar: Is it time for the world to say goodbye to the American greenback,
which increasingly better answers to the description of greenbroke?
The G-20 meet has been called Bretton Woods II, in reference to the Bretton Woods conference of 1944 which, attended by 730 delegates from 44 countries, laid down ground rules for managing the world’s monetary system. The International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (now part of the World Bank) were set up then. Each of the signatory countries was obliged to ensure the stability of its country against gold, with the IMF stepping in if necessary to correct temporary glitches.
This gold standard came to an end in 1971 when the US unilaterally terminated dollar-gold convertibility. After considerable upheaval, the US dollar emerged as the ‘reserve currency’ of the world. This was the beginning of the dangerous myth of the Almighty Dollar, arbiter of the world’s fortunes, both the medium and the barometer of international trade and commerce. From oil to gold, coffee to coal, the global price of all commodities is quoted in dollars, making it the most sought after currency in the world.
Like a profligate living on increasing amounts of borrowed money, America learned to live off the fat of many lands, all of which sought its dollars in exchange for goods and services. Though living in deepening debt, the US could never run out of cash: all that its Federal Reserve Bank had to do was, in effect, print more dollars in the form of treasury bonds greedily bought up by foreign investors. The US got richer and richer, on other people’s money.
Though the euro has emerged as an international alternative to the dollar (a conspiracy theory suggested that one of the reasons the US attacked Iraq was because Saddam Hussein was planning to sell his country’s oil for euros instead of dollars) an estimated two-thirds of the world’s foreign exchange reserves
crisis which sparked the global meltdown showed the dangers of global overdependence on the prodigal dollar. But though both China and Russia had, prior to the G-20 meet, suggested a search for a replacement for the dollar as an international medium of exchange (one of the proposals being that the are held in dollars. China alone has almost $2 trillion in its national coffers.
The US subprime
Special Drawing Rights of the IMF be made into a ‘supercurrency’) the issue seems to have been sidelined at the conference. Earlier, ‘supercurrencies’ like the universal Terra or the Dey (dollar, euro, yen), created and supported by a supranational banking authority, have been proposed but have found few, if any, takers.
However, with Obama pouring over $1 trillion into buttressing the crumbling US economy and buying up the ‘toxic assets’ that have poisoned its banks and financial institutions perhaps it’s high time seriously to think of developing a substitute for a currency which, more and more, is beginning to resemble Monopoly money. Running out of cash? Not to worry; we’ll just print some more. And some sucker, somewhere, will buy it off us. Perhaps it’s time for the suckers of the world to unite and wake up.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
a brilliant article on career counselors
Career counsellors should find a new job
By Lucy Kellaway
When I was 16, a careers adviser came to my school. She made me do various tests and then told me to avoid any job that involved words. I would be better off, she said, doing something technical; however, if I fancied a bookish career, then I might be able to make it as a librarian.
This didn’t appeal to me – all the less so as my dad was a librarian – and so, with a 16-year-old’s contempt, I dismissed her, her pathetic tests and her even more pathetic recommendations. What a shower, I thought.
Alain de Botton has recently had a similar experience and reached a similar conclusion. When researching his new book, The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work, the populist philosopher took himself off to be assessed by a career counsellor, who told him that he would be okay at most middle-ranking managerial jobs, and then suggested medical diagnostics – or leisure.
De Botton thought the whole thing pretty pathetic too. Indeed, he was not only dismissive of this advice and adviser – whose office apparently smelt of cabbage – but has condemned the entire industry on the strength of it. He argues that, given that we spend most of our lives working, it is extraordinary so little effort goes into making sure round pegs are in round holes.
Now that I’m no longer 16, I feel much more philosophical about it than this philosopher. It isn’t the fault of counsellors that the advice is almost always miles off the mark. It is because the whole idea of career advice is hopeless. Even the best tests in the world would not help as there is no formula for matching round pegs to round holes. Finding the right job is as subjective as finding the right spouse. Whether or not our job suits us depends not on our aptitudes – most people with a reasonable education are capable of doing most white-collar jobs – but more on whether or not we fit in, which is something we can’t know until we try.
‘Whether or not our job suits us depends not on our aptitudes but more on whether or not we fit in’
Not only is career advice hopeless at telling us what is the right career but it can’t even tell us what is the wrong one. My counsellor urged me to avoid words on the perfectly sensible grounds that my reading speed was painfully slow, my spelling terrible and I confused “there” and “their”. However, not being obviously good at something doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t make a career of it. You just need to want to succeed at it enough.
De Botton claims that, in the absence of better advice, most adults end up stuck in jobs chosen by their 16-year-old selves. This is nonsense. Most people who don’t like their jobs don’t stick in them for a lifetime – they try something else. The process is like dating. You go out with someone and, if it doesn’t work, you dump them and move on.
By Lucy Kellaway
When I was 16, a careers adviser came to my school. She made me do various tests and then told me to avoid any job that involved words. I would be better off, she said, doing something technical; however, if I fancied a bookish career, then I might be able to make it as a librarian.
This didn’t appeal to me – all the less so as my dad was a librarian – and so, with a 16-year-old’s contempt, I dismissed her, her pathetic tests and her even more pathetic recommendations. What a shower, I thought.
Alain de Botton has recently had a similar experience and reached a similar conclusion. When researching his new book, The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work, the populist philosopher took himself off to be assessed by a career counsellor, who told him that he would be okay at most middle-ranking managerial jobs, and then suggested medical diagnostics – or leisure.
De Botton thought the whole thing pretty pathetic too. Indeed, he was not only dismissive of this advice and adviser – whose office apparently smelt of cabbage – but has condemned the entire industry on the strength of it. He argues that, given that we spend most of our lives working, it is extraordinary so little effort goes into making sure round pegs are in round holes.
Now that I’m no longer 16, I feel much more philosophical about it than this philosopher. It isn’t the fault of counsellors that the advice is almost always miles off the mark. It is because the whole idea of career advice is hopeless. Even the best tests in the world would not help as there is no formula for matching round pegs to round holes. Finding the right job is as subjective as finding the right spouse. Whether or not our job suits us depends not on our aptitudes – most people with a reasonable education are capable of doing most white-collar jobs – but more on whether or not we fit in, which is something we can’t know until we try.
‘Whether or not our job suits us depends not on our aptitudes but more on whether or not we fit in’
Not only is career advice hopeless at telling us what is the right career but it can’t even tell us what is the wrong one. My counsellor urged me to avoid words on the perfectly sensible grounds that my reading speed was painfully slow, my spelling terrible and I confused “there” and “their”. However, not being obviously good at something doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t make a career of it. You just need to want to succeed at it enough.
De Botton claims that, in the absence of better advice, most adults end up stuck in jobs chosen by their 16-year-old selves. This is nonsense. Most people who don’t like their jobs don’t stick in them for a lifetime – they try something else. The process is like dating. You go out with someone and, if it doesn’t work, you dump them and move on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
