INDIA IPPON DESU
Sunday, June 27, 2021
Friday, June 25, 2021
India and the Taliban - Thaw on the Western Front
By Shekhar Gupta , The Editor - Print.in
Thank you, Mehbooba Mufti, for the cue for this week’s National Interest. As the key Jammu & Kashmir alliance, PAGD, announced its acceptance of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s invitation for the all-party meeting in New Delhi, she said that India should also talk to Pakistan to find a final solution to the Kashmir issue. And then asked, somewhat rhetorically, “if India is talking to the Taliban, what’s wrong with talking to Pakistan?” Good question. But why should India be talking to the Taliban in the first place?
There is no love lost there. India will never forget or forgive the humiliation to which the Taliban subjected it in the IC-814 hijack. Nor would the Taliban care much for India, given its umbilical connection with Pakistan and India’s support to the elected governments in Kabul. What changed now? This was the spark that made us look west instead of the east, where we’ve been focused for more than a year now, thanks (but no thanks) to the Chinese, the Quad, Indo-Pacific, and so on.
The strategic outlook has shifted for India from the east to the west for now. And for the US, this landmass to the west of India has just emerged as a most strategically important region. India is talking to the Taliban because the Taliban are winning. In their earlier manifestation as the Mujahideen, conservative Afghans, mostly rural and illiterate, had defeated the Soviet Union at the peak of its power. They did it with massive assistance from the US, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China, and more. Now, as the Taliban, the same lot has defeated the sole superpower in the world. They’ve done so with only Pakistan’s help. The reason is the Americans, from one administration to another, did not know what their objectives were. Was it to destroy al Qaeda? By the time they did that, large sections of al Qaeda had morphed into ISIS. When they finally killed Osama bin Laden, he was just an ineffectual and lonely wreck of a former terror titan. Even his al Qaeda lieutenants were not bothering to respond to his letters. One of them founded the ISIS unit in Baghdad.
When is it that the US could declare victory and return? If the objective was to finish Afghanistan as a sanctuary of terror, it was never going to happen unless similar results were also achieved in Pakistan. In the vast zones bordering Afghanistan, and also in the minds that rule the GHQ in Rawalpindi. Book after book showed the world how the ISI and Pakistan Army double-crossed the Americans. They couldn’t get the success they were getting against al Qaeda without Pakistan’s help. Therefore, they didn’t have the leverage to insist the Pakistanis cut their ties with the Taliban. The Taliban didn’t care about casualties and destruction and most sanctuaries deep inside Pakistan were out of bounds for American drones.
That’s why the Americans have now retreated from their longest war in defeat. The only way they can make it look better, or “less worse as Americanism goes, is by demonstrating that they leave Afghanistan reasonably stable, and that the Taliban can be taken on their word that they won’t allow any terror networks to come up again. The last thing the Americans now need is for India to start “playing” in Afghanistan or for it to become the battleground for India-Pakistan rivalry again. That’s why it is good for them too that India and Taliban are talking.
India is acknowledging that reality. It can’t covet the US as the pivotal Quad ally in the east and work at counter-purposes with it in the west. That is why India’s connecting with the Taliban. It follows that India and Pakistan have to stabilise their relationship, too. If they are actively at odds with each other along the LoC, their differences will spill over into Afghanistan too. And then, with the Taliban in power, who knows, the ISI might be tempted to use them to unleash towards India. Further, neither India nor the US wants the new turn in Afghanistan to become Pakistan’s victory. This should put in context the big surprise of the India-Pakistan ceasefire as well. It had obviously been in the works, with the help and urging of the US, although you can’t call that third-party intervention. Friends always reason with each other.
This new engagement in Kashmir is the logical next step. Both sides, the Modi-Shah government and the Kashmiri leaders, have dismounted the tigers they were riding. For New Delhi, the “anti-national Gupkar Gang” is now fellow patriots who can be accommodated. A big, orchestrated and forcible demographic change in the Kashmir Valley is neither plausible nor possible. Both sides have gotten off their maximalist positions. The Gupkar Alliance no longer insists on return to the preAugust 5 status with Article 370, and the Centre has given up the quest for dumping the “discredited old dynasties” and hopefully handing J&K back as a full state only when the new leadership being built by it is strong enough.
This is a good opening for Pakistan as well. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) threat has act, even the meeting this Friday decided to continue keeping Pakistan on the grey list. Between this and American pressure, it’s no longer feasible for it to carry out any spectacular terror attacks in India beyond Kashmir. And if it is Kashmir, it gets an immediate response on the LoC. That’s a losing cause. India faces a stark reality in the Valley as well. Contrary to the expectation that with Central rule terrorism will vanish, it has actually become stronger as resentment has grown.
I read last week fine journalist-writer Rahul Pandita’s book The Lover Boy of Bahawalpur. Besides startling insights into how the Pulwama case was cracked, the standout point is that almost the entire lot of “foot-soldiers” in Jaish-e-Mohammed, the most Pakistani of all groups, is local Kashmiri youth. Only a leader or two are sent from Pakistan. The status quo, therefore, is becoming counter-productive. Looking further west, there is change in Iran too. Ebrahim Raisi is an acknowledged conservative, hardliner, and likely heir apparent to Khamenei. But the Biden administration would hope he will have the political capital to restore the nuclear deal.
If so, the Iran markets and oil supplies will open up. It will be good for everybody in the region. From Kashmir in India, across the Central Asian highlands into Iran, it is the same land-mass, with deep and wide demographic, ethnic and religious links. This is how and why the picture is changing. No big nation wants to be in a two-front situation. Joe Biden set up his summit with Vladimir Putin first because he realised that the US could not be at odds with both Russia and China at the same time. The commentary I read says he gave Mr Putin what he wanted: Respect as the leader of another superpower. He hopes that will keep him from getting hyphenated with China.
Similarly, for Mr Modi, the active two-front situation after Galwan is unsustainable and dangerous. That’s why the thaw with Pakistan became a strategic imperative. We can round off this argument by returning to answer Mehbooba’s question that sparked it: “India is talking to Mehbooba because it is talking to the Taliban.” And, India is talking to Pakistan too. Just not about what she might want on the agenda.
Thank you, Mehbooba Mufti, for the cue for this week’s National Interest. As the key Jammu & Kashmir alliance, PAGD, announced its acceptance of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s invitation for the all-party meeting in New Delhi, she said that India should also talk to Pakistan to find a final solution to the Kashmir issue. And then asked, somewhat rhetorically, “if India is talking to the Taliban, what’s wrong with talking to Pakistan?” Good question. But why should India be talking to the Taliban in the first place?
There is no love lost there. India will never forget or forgive the humiliation to which the Taliban subjected it in the IC-814 hijack. Nor would the Taliban care much for India, given its umbilical connection with Pakistan and India’s support to the elected governments in Kabul. What changed now? This was the spark that made us look west instead of the east, where we’ve been focused for more than a year now, thanks (but no thanks) to the Chinese, the Quad, Indo-Pacific, and so on.
The strategic outlook has shifted for India from the east to the west for now. And for the US, this landmass to the west of India has just emerged as a most strategically important region. India is talking to the Taliban because the Taliban are winning. In their earlier manifestation as the Mujahideen, conservative Afghans, mostly rural and illiterate, had defeated the Soviet Union at the peak of its power. They did it with massive assistance from the US, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China, and more. Now, as the Taliban, the same lot has defeated the sole superpower in the world. They’ve done so with only Pakistan’s help. The reason is the Americans, from one administration to another, did not know what their objectives were. Was it to destroy al Qaeda? By the time they did that, large sections of al Qaeda had morphed into ISIS. When they finally killed Osama bin Laden, he was just an ineffectual and lonely wreck of a former terror titan. Even his al Qaeda lieutenants were not bothering to respond to his letters. One of them founded the ISIS unit in Baghdad.
When is it that the US could declare victory and return? If the objective was to finish Afghanistan as a sanctuary of terror, it was never going to happen unless similar results were also achieved in Pakistan. In the vast zones bordering Afghanistan, and also in the minds that rule the GHQ in Rawalpindi. Book after book showed the world how the ISI and Pakistan Army double-crossed the Americans. They couldn’t get the success they were getting against al Qaeda without Pakistan’s help. Therefore, they didn’t have the leverage to insist the Pakistanis cut their ties with the Taliban. The Taliban didn’t care about casualties and destruction and most sanctuaries deep inside Pakistan were out of bounds for American drones.
That’s why the Americans have now retreated from their longest war in defeat. The only way they can make it look better, or “less worse as Americanism goes, is by demonstrating that they leave Afghanistan reasonably stable, and that the Taliban can be taken on their word that they won’t allow any terror networks to come up again. The last thing the Americans now need is for India to start “playing” in Afghanistan or for it to become the battleground for India-Pakistan rivalry again. That’s why it is good for them too that India and Taliban are talking.
India is acknowledging that reality. It can’t covet the US as the pivotal Quad ally in the east and work at counter-purposes with it in the west. That is why India’s connecting with the Taliban. It follows that India and Pakistan have to stabilise their relationship, too. If they are actively at odds with each other along the LoC, their differences will spill over into Afghanistan too. And then, with the Taliban in power, who knows, the ISI might be tempted to use them to unleash towards India. Further, neither India nor the US wants the new turn in Afghanistan to become Pakistan’s victory. This should put in context the big surprise of the India-Pakistan ceasefire as well. It had obviously been in the works, with the help and urging of the US, although you can’t call that third-party intervention. Friends always reason with each other.
This new engagement in Kashmir is the logical next step. Both sides, the Modi-Shah government and the Kashmiri leaders, have dismounted the tigers they were riding. For New Delhi, the “anti-national Gupkar Gang” is now fellow patriots who can be accommodated. A big, orchestrated and forcible demographic change in the Kashmir Valley is neither plausible nor possible. Both sides have gotten off their maximalist positions. The Gupkar Alliance no longer insists on return to the preAugust 5 status with Article 370, and the Centre has given up the quest for dumping the “discredited old dynasties” and hopefully handing J&K back as a full state only when the new leadership being built by it is strong enough.
This is a good opening for Pakistan as well. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) threat has act, even the meeting this Friday decided to continue keeping Pakistan on the grey list. Between this and American pressure, it’s no longer feasible for it to carry out any spectacular terror attacks in India beyond Kashmir. And if it is Kashmir, it gets an immediate response on the LoC. That’s a losing cause. India faces a stark reality in the Valley as well. Contrary to the expectation that with Central rule terrorism will vanish, it has actually become stronger as resentment has grown.
I read last week fine journalist-writer Rahul Pandita’s book The Lover Boy of Bahawalpur. Besides startling insights into how the Pulwama case was cracked, the standout point is that almost the entire lot of “foot-soldiers” in Jaish-e-Mohammed, the most Pakistani of all groups, is local Kashmiri youth. Only a leader or two are sent from Pakistan. The status quo, therefore, is becoming counter-productive. Looking further west, there is change in Iran too. Ebrahim Raisi is an acknowledged conservative, hardliner, and likely heir apparent to Khamenei. But the Biden administration would hope he will have the political capital to restore the nuclear deal.
If so, the Iran markets and oil supplies will open up. It will be good for everybody in the region. From Kashmir in India, across the Central Asian highlands into Iran, it is the same land-mass, with deep and wide demographic, ethnic and religious links. This is how and why the picture is changing. No big nation wants to be in a two-front situation. Joe Biden set up his summit with Vladimir Putin first because he realised that the US could not be at odds with both Russia and China at the same time. The commentary I read says he gave Mr Putin what he wanted: Respect as the leader of another superpower. He hopes that will keep him from getting hyphenated with China.
Similarly, for Mr Modi, the active two-front situation after Galwan is unsustainable and dangerous. That’s why the thaw with Pakistan became a strategic imperative. We can round off this argument by returning to answer Mehbooba’s question that sparked it: “India is talking to Mehbooba because it is talking to the Taliban.” And, India is talking to Pakistan too. Just not about what she might want on the agenda.
Thursday, June 24, 2021
Wednesday, June 23, 2021
Love Death and Robots : Season 2
First of all this theme is rocking
Episode 1 : Automated Customer Service
Themes Explored : a) Dependency on automated machines with AI
b) Ageing of population with low reproductivity
c) The Hegemony of Big Tech. Monopolisation within the tech world
d) Push advertising and targeted customer campaigns to increase revenues
Episode 1 : Automated Customer Service
Themes Explored : a) Dependency on automated machines with AI
b) Ageing of population with low reproductivity
c) The Hegemony of Big Tech. Monopolisation within the tech world
d) Push advertising and targeted customer campaigns to increase revenues
Batman : The Long Halloween Part 1
Just finished watching this movie and found it to be engaging almost like a classic neo noir suspense/crime thriller. The color pallettes used are wonderful and relevant for the theme of the movie
Tuesday, June 22, 2021
The Upside of Population Decline
By Adair Turner in Financial Express
Population Prophecies
In a World where technology enables us to automate everyjob , the far bigger problem is too many potential workers, not too few
China's recently published census showing that its population has almost stopped growing brought warnings of severe problems for the country. "Such numbers make grim reading for the party" wrote The Economist."This could have a disastrous impact on the country" wrote Huang Wenzheng, a fellow at the centre for China and Globalization in Beijing, in the financial times.But a comment posted on China's Weibo was more insightful " The declining fertility rate actually reflects the progress in the thinking of Chinese people - women are no longer a fertility tool".
Chinas fertility rate of 1.3 is well below the replacement rate but so is it for all adavcned economies.Australias rate is 1.66 and US rate is 1.64.In all developed economies the fertility fell below 2 in the 1970s and 80s and have stayed there.
When the US rate returned to around 2 in 1990 to 2005, some hailed it as "social confidence" versus "old europe". Infact, the increase was largely due to immigration with Hispanic migrants maintaining the high fertility rate of their less succesful economies. Since 2000, the Hispanic fertility rate has fallen form 2.73 to 1.9, while the rates for white people have well below 2 since 1970s and for african americans since 2000.
In India, more prosperous states have fertility rates well below replacement level with only UP and Bihar still well above. The national average in India was 2.2 in 2018 and the National family health survey finds that Indian women would like to have on average 1.8 children.
A half century of evidence suggests that in all prosperous countries where women are well educated and free to choose whether and when to have children, fertility rates fall well below the replacement level. If those conditions exist across the world the global population will eventually decline.
A pervasive conventional bias assumes that population decline must be a bad thing." Chinas declining birth rate threatens economic growth" opined the Financial Times, while several comments in the Indian Press noted approvingly that India's population would soon overtake China. But while absolute economic growth is bound to fall as populations stabilise and then decline, it is income per capital which matters to prosperity and economic opportunities.And if educated women are unwilling to produce babies to make economic nationalists feel good,that is a highly desirable development.
True when population age there are fewer workers per retiree and health care costs rise as percentage of GDP. But that is offset by the reduced need for infrastructure and housing investment to support a growing population. China currently invests 25% of GDP each year on pouring concrete to build apartment blocks, roads and other urban infrastructure some of which will be of no value as the population declines. By cutting that waste and spending more on health care and high technology it can continue to flourish economically.
In a world where technology enables us to automate even more jobs, the far bigger problem is too many potential workers and not too few. China's populaion aged from 20 to 64 will likely to fall by around 20% in the next 30 years but productivity growth will continue to deliver rising prosperity. India's population in that age band is currently growing by around ten million per year and will not stabilise till 2050.
But even when the Indian economy grows rapidly as it did during the Pre Covid era, its highly productive "organised sector" of about 80 million workers - those working in registered companies and government bodies on formal contracts failed to create additional jobs.
True below replacement level fertility rates create significant challenges and China seems to be heading in that direction.Many people expected that when the one-child policy was abolished the Chinas fertility rate would increase. But if you look at the freely chosen birth rates of ethnic Chinese living in successful economies like Taiwan (1.07) and Singapore (1.1) makes the expectation doubtful.
Moreover some surveys suggest that many families in low-fertility countries would like to have more children but are discouraged by high property prices, inaccesible and costly childcare and other challenges in combining work and family life. Policymakes should therefore seek to make it as possible for couples to have the number of children they ideally want.But the likely result will be average rate below replacement level for all developed countries, and over time, gradually falling populations. The sooner that is true worldwide, the better for everyone
Population Prophecies
In a World where technology enables us to automate everyjob , the far bigger problem is too many potential workers, not too few
China's recently published census showing that its population has almost stopped growing brought warnings of severe problems for the country. "Such numbers make grim reading for the party" wrote The Economist."This could have a disastrous impact on the country" wrote Huang Wenzheng, a fellow at the centre for China and Globalization in Beijing, in the financial times.But a comment posted on China's Weibo was more insightful " The declining fertility rate actually reflects the progress in the thinking of Chinese people - women are no longer a fertility tool".
Chinas fertility rate of 1.3 is well below the replacement rate but so is it for all adavcned economies.Australias rate is 1.66 and US rate is 1.64.In all developed economies the fertility fell below 2 in the 1970s and 80s and have stayed there.
When the US rate returned to around 2 in 1990 to 2005, some hailed it as "social confidence" versus "old europe". Infact, the increase was largely due to immigration with Hispanic migrants maintaining the high fertility rate of their less succesful economies. Since 2000, the Hispanic fertility rate has fallen form 2.73 to 1.9, while the rates for white people have well below 2 since 1970s and for african americans since 2000.
In India, more prosperous states have fertility rates well below replacement level with only UP and Bihar still well above. The national average in India was 2.2 in 2018 and the National family health survey finds that Indian women would like to have on average 1.8 children.
A half century of evidence suggests that in all prosperous countries where women are well educated and free to choose whether and when to have children, fertility rates fall well below the replacement level. If those conditions exist across the world the global population will eventually decline.
A pervasive conventional bias assumes that population decline must be a bad thing." Chinas declining birth rate threatens economic growth" opined the Financial Times, while several comments in the Indian Press noted approvingly that India's population would soon overtake China. But while absolute economic growth is bound to fall as populations stabilise and then decline, it is income per capital which matters to prosperity and economic opportunities.And if educated women are unwilling to produce babies to make economic nationalists feel good,that is a highly desirable development.
True when population age there are fewer workers per retiree and health care costs rise as percentage of GDP. But that is offset by the reduced need for infrastructure and housing investment to support a growing population. China currently invests 25% of GDP each year on pouring concrete to build apartment blocks, roads and other urban infrastructure some of which will be of no value as the population declines. By cutting that waste and spending more on health care and high technology it can continue to flourish economically.
In a world where technology enables us to automate even more jobs, the far bigger problem is too many potential workers and not too few. China's populaion aged from 20 to 64 will likely to fall by around 20% in the next 30 years but productivity growth will continue to deliver rising prosperity. India's population in that age band is currently growing by around ten million per year and will not stabilise till 2050.
But even when the Indian economy grows rapidly as it did during the Pre Covid era, its highly productive "organised sector" of about 80 million workers - those working in registered companies and government bodies on formal contracts failed to create additional jobs.
True below replacement level fertility rates create significant challenges and China seems to be heading in that direction.Many people expected that when the one-child policy was abolished the Chinas fertility rate would increase. But if you look at the freely chosen birth rates of ethnic Chinese living in successful economies like Taiwan (1.07) and Singapore (1.1) makes the expectation doubtful.
Moreover some surveys suggest that many families in low-fertility countries would like to have more children but are discouraged by high property prices, inaccesible and costly childcare and other challenges in combining work and family life. Policymakes should therefore seek to make it as possible for couples to have the number of children they ideally want.But the likely result will be average rate below replacement level for all developed countries, and over time, gradually falling populations. The sooner that is true worldwide, the better for everyone
Monday, June 21, 2021
2021 NBA Playoffs : Sixers have a Ben Simmons problem
By Kevin O Connor in TheRinger.com
The Philadelphia 76ers are a good team that needs to make a dramatic change. Could it be any more obvious after the Sixers lost to the Atlanta Hawks at home in Game 7, leaving them on the outside of the Eastern Conference finals yet again? The Sixers are pretenders, and the main reason is Ben Simmons.
So good, it should come with a spoiler alert
Simmons is one of the game’s greatest open-court players. He flows to the rim, where he can explode for ferocious two-handed slams or whip a pass to an open teammate for a 3. He was rightfully a unanimous selection for first-team All-Defense. But goodness gracious, his lack of offensive development is appalling. Simmons attempted only three shots in the fourth quarter in the entire series, finding himself relegated to standing in the dunker’s spot near the rim or occasionally setting a screen for his teammates. For the most part, he did nothing.
Simmons also lost his confidence. He started getting intentionally hacked because of his free throw struggles, and as a result, he feared getting fouled and going to the line. Late in the fourth quarter of Game 7, he passed on a wide-open layup to dish the ball to a heavily covered Matisse Thybulle, another poor free throw shooter.
“I’ll be honest,” Joel Embiid said after the game. “I thought the turning point was when we, I don’t know how to say it, when we had an open shot and we made one free throw.” After the game, Sixers head coach Doc Rivers couldn’t even come to Simmons’s defense when asked whether he believes the 24-year-old can be the point guard on a title team. “I don’t know the answer to that question right now,” Rivers said.
The answer is no—unless Simmons develops a reliable jumper and improves from the free throw line. But will that happen in Philly? The answer to that is likely also no, because time is of the essence thanks to Embiid’s health.
Simmons was a disaster, but Embiid played the whole series with a partially torn meniscus. Hate to say it, Sixers fans, but it’s fair to wonder: How long will prime Embiid last? We have seen how this story can play out for dominant bigs who suffer back or knee injuries. When Embiid isn’t his full self offensively, as was the case against Atlanta, he needs someone who can step up as a scorer. At times, it was Seth Curry. Tobias Harris pitched in. But it was never Philadelphia’s supposed second-best player, Simmons. What the Sixers need is a player who can run pick-and-roll, take some pressure off Embiid, and provide spacing as an effective shooter.
Daryl Morey knows this. That’s why he offered Simmons, draft picks, and young players for James Harden. That’s why he traded for George Hill and Curry. That’s why he drafted Tyrese Maxey. Morey is seeking a guard who can shoot.
Front offices around the league had mixed opinions about Morey’s decision not to go all in on Kyle Lowry ahead of the deadline. Multiple executives said it was a missed chance to add a playmaker who fit what the Sixers needed. Others understood. Lowry is 35 and an upcoming free agent they could pursue in a sign-and-trade this offseason. Acquiring him wouldn’t have necessarily made the Sixers Finals favorites anyway. (Not when they have a coach who decides to play Simmons and Dwight Howard at the same time in a Game 7. Shaky coaching decisions will have Philly sports talk radio questioning Doc, too.)
Opinions differ on Philadelphia’s decision not to pursue Lowry harder, but there is a consensus around the league that Morey resisted because he’s angling for an even greater star. He’s thinking about stars like Damian Lillard or Bradley Beal becoming available. CJ McCollum or Zach LaVine could also appeal to Philadelphia if they are put on the table.
Morey is a star hunter; has the value of Simmons dropped to the point that Philadelphia could easily get outbid for the type of marquee player that Morey covets? The Sixers have already tried to deal Simmons, then he had a stinker of a postseason, and the best player on the team has once again publicly expressed frustration with him. Simmons’s value could be low. (Trading Embiid, on the other hand, is a nonstarter.)
But the Sixers need to be careful. It’s not all Simmons’s fault. Sure, his fourth-quarter offense is about as impactful as Jahlil Okafor’s, but he’s never had a great basketball situation in Philadelphia. Until this season, Embiid didn’t shoot above average from 3, and the Sixers didn’t have a lot of shooters. Simmons also hasn’t been paired with a point guard whom he can screen for to run a lot of pick-and-roll. In a different basketball situation, Simmons can provide plenty of value on offense.
Consider Portland. McCollum for Simmons as the main piece in a Blazers-Sixers deal is what executives around the league, just like fans, think is a reasonable trade that makes sense for both sides. Simmons could be like a supercharged Draymond Green to Damian Lillard’s Steph Curry. For years, the Warriors have shredded teams because Curry would often draw a trap and pass the ball to Draymond, who could get to the rim or make a clutch pass to a teammate. Simmons would thrive in a role like that since Lillard feels the same type of pressure in the pick-and-roll.
McCollum, in turn, would help the Sixers. Any player who can create their own shot at a high level would. But it’s not a no-brainer deal. McCollum is 29, and he has underperformed in past postseasons. A backcourt of McCollum and Seth Curry would also make for a weak defensive duo. Blazers fans have just about had it with McCollum, just as Sixers fans have with Simmons. But they could each drag their problems to a new team too.
There are still some options for the Sixers should they decide to keep Simmons. Morey could make a couple more tweaks to the roster and find a great pick-and-roll point guard. And Simmons could commit to becoming more of a shooter this offseason—including, yes, switching to his natural right hand.
In 2016, Simmons admitted he’s a natural righty but his dad raised him to shoot with his left hand. “I think I was supposed to be right-handed. It’s all natural now,” he said at the time. Is it? People in his life have encouraged him to make the switch. Former Sixers shooting coach John Townsend worked with Simmons on attempting right-handed free throws and jump shots, but Simmons didn’t stick with it. Former teammate JJ Redick recently said on his podcast that he told Simmons (and DeAndre Jordan) they should make the switch to their right hand.
“I’ve seen them shoot right-handed. It’s better form right-handed,” Redick said. “They do everything else right-handed. I don’t understand why you’re shooting a basketball left-handed.” Redick is correct. Simmons released the ball using his right hand on 67 shots this postseason, compared to just nine shots with his left hand. That rate is consistent with his career rate of using his right hand going back to his time at LSU.
Simmons heavily favors his right hand on hook shots from the post, floaters, layups, and dunks. He’s a righty, and has far better touch with that hand. There is undeniable potential, which is why former coaches and teammates have encouraged him to make the switch. It’s up to Simmons whether he will explore the limits of his game or not.
Here’s the truth: Simmons is a reliable jumper away from being a modern Scottie Pippen. Maybe even Magic Johnson if he also becomes more confident. That’s what’s at stake. Maybe switching hands won’t work, but there’s no downside to trying. He could not be any worse than he already is as a lefty.
Simmons doesn’t even need to be more than average from 3. If he’s even a 35 percent shooter from 3 who can aggressively attack closeouts to feast against a rotating defense, we’d be talking. Add in some on-ball screening with a skilled guard, and suddenly he’s a weapon and not a liability. That gives the Sixers superstar insurance should Embiid get hurt again. Until then, their hopes rest solely on Embiid’s injury-prone body.
Embiid is one of the NBA’s toughest competitors. He plays through pain and still has long stretches when he smacks around opponents. But he does have a meniscus injury, which adds to a long list of health issues for his career. He has missed at least one game in three of his five postseason appearances. He’s never played more than 65 games. He missed the first two seasons of his career due to multiple foot surgeries, and thank goodness it hasn’t been a major problem since.
The hope is that Embiid doesn’t fall victim to injuries like many other talented big men before him. He’s one of the best and most fun players in the game today. Yet the Sixers must capitalize on his talents while he’s at his peak powers.
Embiid is a megastar with a durability problem. Simmons is a brilliant playmaker with a shooting allergy. The Sixers know their problems, but they’d better find the right answers soon.
The Philadelphia 76ers are a good team that needs to make a dramatic change. Could it be any more obvious after the Sixers lost to the Atlanta Hawks at home in Game 7, leaving them on the outside of the Eastern Conference finals yet again? The Sixers are pretenders, and the main reason is Ben Simmons.
So good, it should come with a spoiler alert
Simmons is one of the game’s greatest open-court players. He flows to the rim, where he can explode for ferocious two-handed slams or whip a pass to an open teammate for a 3. He was rightfully a unanimous selection for first-team All-Defense. But goodness gracious, his lack of offensive development is appalling. Simmons attempted only three shots in the fourth quarter in the entire series, finding himself relegated to standing in the dunker’s spot near the rim or occasionally setting a screen for his teammates. For the most part, he did nothing.
Simmons also lost his confidence. He started getting intentionally hacked because of his free throw struggles, and as a result, he feared getting fouled and going to the line. Late in the fourth quarter of Game 7, he passed on a wide-open layup to dish the ball to a heavily covered Matisse Thybulle, another poor free throw shooter.
“I’ll be honest,” Joel Embiid said after the game. “I thought the turning point was when we, I don’t know how to say it, when we had an open shot and we made one free throw.” After the game, Sixers head coach Doc Rivers couldn’t even come to Simmons’s defense when asked whether he believes the 24-year-old can be the point guard on a title team. “I don’t know the answer to that question right now,” Rivers said.
The answer is no—unless Simmons develops a reliable jumper and improves from the free throw line. But will that happen in Philly? The answer to that is likely also no, because time is of the essence thanks to Embiid’s health.
Simmons was a disaster, but Embiid played the whole series with a partially torn meniscus. Hate to say it, Sixers fans, but it’s fair to wonder: How long will prime Embiid last? We have seen how this story can play out for dominant bigs who suffer back or knee injuries. When Embiid isn’t his full self offensively, as was the case against Atlanta, he needs someone who can step up as a scorer. At times, it was Seth Curry. Tobias Harris pitched in. But it was never Philadelphia’s supposed second-best player, Simmons. What the Sixers need is a player who can run pick-and-roll, take some pressure off Embiid, and provide spacing as an effective shooter.
Daryl Morey knows this. That’s why he offered Simmons, draft picks, and young players for James Harden. That’s why he traded for George Hill and Curry. That’s why he drafted Tyrese Maxey. Morey is seeking a guard who can shoot.
Front offices around the league had mixed opinions about Morey’s decision not to go all in on Kyle Lowry ahead of the deadline. Multiple executives said it was a missed chance to add a playmaker who fit what the Sixers needed. Others understood. Lowry is 35 and an upcoming free agent they could pursue in a sign-and-trade this offseason. Acquiring him wouldn’t have necessarily made the Sixers Finals favorites anyway. (Not when they have a coach who decides to play Simmons and Dwight Howard at the same time in a Game 7. Shaky coaching decisions will have Philly sports talk radio questioning Doc, too.)
Opinions differ on Philadelphia’s decision not to pursue Lowry harder, but there is a consensus around the league that Morey resisted because he’s angling for an even greater star. He’s thinking about stars like Damian Lillard or Bradley Beal becoming available. CJ McCollum or Zach LaVine could also appeal to Philadelphia if they are put on the table.
Morey is a star hunter; has the value of Simmons dropped to the point that Philadelphia could easily get outbid for the type of marquee player that Morey covets? The Sixers have already tried to deal Simmons, then he had a stinker of a postseason, and the best player on the team has once again publicly expressed frustration with him. Simmons’s value could be low. (Trading Embiid, on the other hand, is a nonstarter.)
But the Sixers need to be careful. It’s not all Simmons’s fault. Sure, his fourth-quarter offense is about as impactful as Jahlil Okafor’s, but he’s never had a great basketball situation in Philadelphia. Until this season, Embiid didn’t shoot above average from 3, and the Sixers didn’t have a lot of shooters. Simmons also hasn’t been paired with a point guard whom he can screen for to run a lot of pick-and-roll. In a different basketball situation, Simmons can provide plenty of value on offense.
Consider Portland. McCollum for Simmons as the main piece in a Blazers-Sixers deal is what executives around the league, just like fans, think is a reasonable trade that makes sense for both sides. Simmons could be like a supercharged Draymond Green to Damian Lillard’s Steph Curry. For years, the Warriors have shredded teams because Curry would often draw a trap and pass the ball to Draymond, who could get to the rim or make a clutch pass to a teammate. Simmons would thrive in a role like that since Lillard feels the same type of pressure in the pick-and-roll.
McCollum, in turn, would help the Sixers. Any player who can create their own shot at a high level would. But it’s not a no-brainer deal. McCollum is 29, and he has underperformed in past postseasons. A backcourt of McCollum and Seth Curry would also make for a weak defensive duo. Blazers fans have just about had it with McCollum, just as Sixers fans have with Simmons. But they could each drag their problems to a new team too.
There are still some options for the Sixers should they decide to keep Simmons. Morey could make a couple more tweaks to the roster and find a great pick-and-roll point guard. And Simmons could commit to becoming more of a shooter this offseason—including, yes, switching to his natural right hand.
In 2016, Simmons admitted he’s a natural righty but his dad raised him to shoot with his left hand. “I think I was supposed to be right-handed. It’s all natural now,” he said at the time. Is it? People in his life have encouraged him to make the switch. Former Sixers shooting coach John Townsend worked with Simmons on attempting right-handed free throws and jump shots, but Simmons didn’t stick with it. Former teammate JJ Redick recently said on his podcast that he told Simmons (and DeAndre Jordan) they should make the switch to their right hand.
“I’ve seen them shoot right-handed. It’s better form right-handed,” Redick said. “They do everything else right-handed. I don’t understand why you’re shooting a basketball left-handed.” Redick is correct. Simmons released the ball using his right hand on 67 shots this postseason, compared to just nine shots with his left hand. That rate is consistent with his career rate of using his right hand going back to his time at LSU.
Simmons heavily favors his right hand on hook shots from the post, floaters, layups, and dunks. He’s a righty, and has far better touch with that hand. There is undeniable potential, which is why former coaches and teammates have encouraged him to make the switch. It’s up to Simmons whether he will explore the limits of his game or not.
Here’s the truth: Simmons is a reliable jumper away from being a modern Scottie Pippen. Maybe even Magic Johnson if he also becomes more confident. That’s what’s at stake. Maybe switching hands won’t work, but there’s no downside to trying. He could not be any worse than he already is as a lefty.
Simmons doesn’t even need to be more than average from 3. If he’s even a 35 percent shooter from 3 who can aggressively attack closeouts to feast against a rotating defense, we’d be talking. Add in some on-ball screening with a skilled guard, and suddenly he’s a weapon and not a liability. That gives the Sixers superstar insurance should Embiid get hurt again. Until then, their hopes rest solely on Embiid’s injury-prone body.
Embiid is one of the NBA’s toughest competitors. He plays through pain and still has long stretches when he smacks around opponents. But he does have a meniscus injury, which adds to a long list of health issues for his career. He has missed at least one game in three of his five postseason appearances. He’s never played more than 65 games. He missed the first two seasons of his career due to multiple foot surgeries, and thank goodness it hasn’t been a major problem since.
The hope is that Embiid doesn’t fall victim to injuries like many other talented big men before him. He’s one of the best and most fun players in the game today. Yet the Sixers must capitalize on his talents while he’s at his peak powers.
Embiid is a megastar with a durability problem. Simmons is a brilliant playmaker with a shooting allergy. The Sixers know their problems, but they’d better find the right answers soon.
Thursday, June 17, 2021
Japan's plan to stop Covid 19 outbreaks during the Olympics
Written by Shawn Radcliffe on June 9, 2021 — Fact checked by Dana K. Cassell
With the Tokyo Olympics set to start on July 23, several major Japanese cities are still under a state of emergency due to COVID-19.
The country also has about 40,000 active coronavirus cases, although case numbers have been dropping since mid-May. However, less than 4 percent of Japan’s population is fully vaccinated.
The situation is so tenuous that some Tokyo doctors are reportedly calling for the Games to be canceled, and many Japanese have soured on the event.
Right now, though, all signs point to the Olympics going ahead as scheduled.
In preparation, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) released a series of playbooks detailing how athletes, support staff, and others will be protected from COVID-19 during the games.
But Dr. Annie K. Sparrow, assistant professor of population health science and policy at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, and her colleagues say these measures fall short.
“The IOC’s playbooks are not built on scientifically rigorous risk assessment, and they fail to consider the ways in which [coronavirus] exposure occurs, the factors that contribute to exposure, and which participants may be at highest risk,” they wrote May 25 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Vaccination
One of the protective measures outlined in the playbooks is the COVID-19 vaccine. Athletes are encouraged to get vaccinated, although it’s not mandatory.
This is complicated by the shortage of vaccines in many low- and middle-income countries.
“Many countries just don’t have access to the vaccines or authorization for the vaccines,” said Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, an epidemiologist with the UTHealth School of Public Health in Texas.
She noted that young athletes who may be getting access to vaccines now might be nervous.
“We are getting pretty close to the Games, so athletes are going to start worrying about the side effects of vaccination on their performance,” she said.
The IOC says that it expects more than 80 percent of athletes and staff staying in the Olympic Village to be vaccinated. It’s not clear yet how close they will come to that goal.
The IOC has also not indicated how many other people involved in the Games will be vaccinated.
Given the lack of high vaccine coverage across the board — including among the Japanese public — other measures will be needed to control the spread of the virus.
Testing
The IOC playbook calls for athletes to have regular temperature checks and monitor themselves for symptoms. Any athlete with symptoms will be required to undergo PCR testing.
Still, Sparrow and her colleagues say monitoring for symptoms will miss a lot of coronavirus cases.
“Because people with COVID-19 can be infectious 48 hours before they develop symptoms (and may not develop symptoms at all),” they wrote, “routine temperature and symptom screening will not be effective for identifying pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic people.”
That’s why rigorous testing strategies like PCR testing — at least once a day — is needed, says Jetelina.
“We saw that this type of testing was very effective with the National Football League and Major League Baseball here in the United States,” she said.
The IOC playbook says “in principle” athletes will be tested daily whether or not they have symptoms.
In addition to daily testing, the NFL used other measures to keep its players safe, including strict mask requirements and identifying high-risk contacts through contact tracing.
The IOC plans on giving every athlete a smartphone with a contact tracing app, something Sparrow and her colleagues don’t think will work.
“Contact-tracing apps are often ineffective,” they wrote, “and very few Olympic athletes will compete carrying a mobile phone.”
Instead, they suggest the use of wearable devices that alert athletes when they are within close contact to others. Most athletes can wear these devices even while they compete.
Event risk levels
The chance of acquiring the coronavirus when around others depends on many factors, including the number of virus particles in the air and the length of time spent in that space.
That means that not all Olympic events or venues will carry the same risk, something the IOC playbooks don’t emphasize right now.
“The playbooks maintain that athletes participate at their own risk, while failing … to distinguish the various levels of risk faced by athletes,” Sparrow and her colleagues wrote.
They call for the IOC to classify events as low, moderate or high risk depending on the activity and venue.
For example, events like sailing and equestrian events would be low risk because athletes are outside and physically distanced from others.
Outdoor sports that involve close contact — such as soccer or rugby — would be medium risk.
Indoor events would carry a higher risk because of the decreased ventilation when inside. This holds even for individual sports like gymnastics.
Given these differences in risk, “protocols for keeping athletes and everyone else involved safe could vary on the basis of these risk levels,” Sparrow and her colleagues wrote.
Venue risk levels
Likewise, venues at the Games carry different COVID-19 risks.
“[The IOC] needs to address the differences in venues,” said Jetelina. “For example, how does a competition space differ from a non-competition space like hotel rooms?”
Any area where people gather in close proximity — such as buses, stadiums and cafeterias — is higher risk than an outdoor area.
Even hotel rooms, which will be shared by three athletes, are higher risk. In addition, if one athlete in the room tests positive, the other two will need to be tested and may have to quarantine.
While the focus of the IOC and Japan right now is on the Olympic games in July, the Paralympic Games are set to start on August 24.
This event carries its own risks, especially if there is an uptick of community transmission following the Olympic games.
“We know that some of the Paralympic athletes are in higher-risk categories for COVID-19,” said Jetelina, “so we certainly want to be more careful with the Paralympics.”
With the Tokyo Olympics set to start on July 23, several major Japanese cities are still under a state of emergency due to COVID-19.
The country also has about 40,000 active coronavirus cases, although case numbers have been dropping since mid-May. However, less than 4 percent of Japan’s population is fully vaccinated.
The situation is so tenuous that some Tokyo doctors are reportedly calling for the Games to be canceled, and many Japanese have soured on the event.
Right now, though, all signs point to the Olympics going ahead as scheduled.
In preparation, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) released a series of playbooks detailing how athletes, support staff, and others will be protected from COVID-19 during the games.
But Dr. Annie K. Sparrow, assistant professor of population health science and policy at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, and her colleagues say these measures fall short.
“The IOC’s playbooks are not built on scientifically rigorous risk assessment, and they fail to consider the ways in which [coronavirus] exposure occurs, the factors that contribute to exposure, and which participants may be at highest risk,” they wrote May 25 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Vaccination
One of the protective measures outlined in the playbooks is the COVID-19 vaccine. Athletes are encouraged to get vaccinated, although it’s not mandatory.
This is complicated by the shortage of vaccines in many low- and middle-income countries.
“Many countries just don’t have access to the vaccines or authorization for the vaccines,” said Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, an epidemiologist with the UTHealth School of Public Health in Texas.
She noted that young athletes who may be getting access to vaccines now might be nervous.
“We are getting pretty close to the Games, so athletes are going to start worrying about the side effects of vaccination on their performance,” she said.
The IOC says that it expects more than 80 percent of athletes and staff staying in the Olympic Village to be vaccinated. It’s not clear yet how close they will come to that goal.
The IOC has also not indicated how many other people involved in the Games will be vaccinated.
Given the lack of high vaccine coverage across the board — including among the Japanese public — other measures will be needed to control the spread of the virus.
Testing
The IOC playbook calls for athletes to have regular temperature checks and monitor themselves for symptoms. Any athlete with symptoms will be required to undergo PCR testing.
Still, Sparrow and her colleagues say monitoring for symptoms will miss a lot of coronavirus cases.
“Because people with COVID-19 can be infectious 48 hours before they develop symptoms (and may not develop symptoms at all),” they wrote, “routine temperature and symptom screening will not be effective for identifying pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic people.”
That’s why rigorous testing strategies like PCR testing — at least once a day — is needed, says Jetelina.
“We saw that this type of testing was very effective with the National Football League and Major League Baseball here in the United States,” she said.
The IOC playbook says “in principle” athletes will be tested daily whether or not they have symptoms.
In addition to daily testing, the NFL used other measures to keep its players safe, including strict mask requirements and identifying high-risk contacts through contact tracing.
The IOC plans on giving every athlete a smartphone with a contact tracing app, something Sparrow and her colleagues don’t think will work.
“Contact-tracing apps are often ineffective,” they wrote, “and very few Olympic athletes will compete carrying a mobile phone.”
Instead, they suggest the use of wearable devices that alert athletes when they are within close contact to others. Most athletes can wear these devices even while they compete.
Event risk levels
The chance of acquiring the coronavirus when around others depends on many factors, including the number of virus particles in the air and the length of time spent in that space.
That means that not all Olympic events or venues will carry the same risk, something the IOC playbooks don’t emphasize right now.
“The playbooks maintain that athletes participate at their own risk, while failing … to distinguish the various levels of risk faced by athletes,” Sparrow and her colleagues wrote.
They call for the IOC to classify events as low, moderate or high risk depending on the activity and venue.
For example, events like sailing and equestrian events would be low risk because athletes are outside and physically distanced from others.
Outdoor sports that involve close contact — such as soccer or rugby — would be medium risk.
Indoor events would carry a higher risk because of the decreased ventilation when inside. This holds even for individual sports like gymnastics.
Given these differences in risk, “protocols for keeping athletes and everyone else involved safe could vary on the basis of these risk levels,” Sparrow and her colleagues wrote.
Venue risk levels
Likewise, venues at the Games carry different COVID-19 risks.
“[The IOC] needs to address the differences in venues,” said Jetelina. “For example, how does a competition space differ from a non-competition space like hotel rooms?”
Any area where people gather in close proximity — such as buses, stadiums and cafeterias — is higher risk than an outdoor area.
Even hotel rooms, which will be shared by three athletes, are higher risk. In addition, if one athlete in the room tests positive, the other two will need to be tested and may have to quarantine.
While the focus of the IOC and Japan right now is on the Olympic games in July, the Paralympic Games are set to start on August 24.
This event carries its own risks, especially if there is an uptick of community transmission following the Olympic games.
“We know that some of the Paralympic athletes are in higher-risk categories for COVID-19,” said Jetelina, “so we certainly want to be more careful with the Paralympics.”
Sunday, June 13, 2021
Delta variant of covid virus
The Indian government has announced that they would be centrally purchasing and distributing the vaccines for the period till December 2021
They are planning to vaccinate almost 950 million people of India by then. This would be a massive exercise and vaccine manufacturing capacity needs to be built unlike any other in the world
Which is the reason why the Indian government would be funding the purchase and distributing it for free to the Indian population. They have sanctioned two new types of vaccines in addition to the already three in supply in order to meet the shortfall and facilitate an accelerated vaccination policy
the above snapshot gives an overview of the number of doses proposed to be manufactured and distributed for each vaccine
Dr Anthony Fauci Recently gave a presentation which explained the impact of the Delta variant and how virulent it is
It is becoming evidenthat the Delta variant has become the dominant variant of the covid virus. It has effectively replaced the alpha variant B 1.1.7. It's impact is primarily responsible for the huge second wave in India and seems to have a peak transmission in the 12 to 20 year old group which wasn't the case with the earlier variants of the virus. the most concerning item of the presentation was the fact that both the Pfizer and AZ vaccine seems to have a poor reception to the Delta variant of the virus
This is the reason Why two doses of the vaccine are extremely important because the single dose is less than 50% effective against the delta variant.
They are planning to vaccinate almost 950 million people of India by then. This would be a massive exercise and vaccine manufacturing capacity needs to be built unlike any other in the world
Which is the reason why the Indian government would be funding the purchase and distributing it for free to the Indian population. They have sanctioned two new types of vaccines in addition to the already three in supply in order to meet the shortfall and facilitate an accelerated vaccination policy
the above snapshot gives an overview of the number of doses proposed to be manufactured and distributed for each vaccine
Dr Anthony Fauci Recently gave a presentation which explained the impact of the Delta variant and how virulent it is
It is becoming evidenthat the Delta variant has become the dominant variant of the covid virus. It has effectively replaced the alpha variant B 1.1.7. It's impact is primarily responsible for the huge second wave in India and seems to have a peak transmission in the 12 to 20 year old group which wasn't the case with the earlier variants of the virus. the most concerning item of the presentation was the fact that both the Pfizer and AZ vaccine seems to have a poor reception to the Delta variant of the virus
This is the reason Why two doses of the vaccine are extremely important because the single dose is less than 50% effective against the delta variant.
Friday, June 11, 2021
The science of mangoes
What is the science of mangoes
The fruit is the vehicle for the mango plant’s selfish genes and its relentless pursuit of making more copies of itself
Illustrated by Krish Ashok.
By Krish Ashok
A perfectly ripe mango is an absolute marvel of nature. There are not enough Michelin stars to award the tree named Mangifera indica. No chef on the planet can concoct a dish that is such an ethereally perfect combination of sweetness, sourness, aroma, texture and just sheer joy. To truly appreciate this, one needs to understand why plants make fruits in the first place.
A fruit is a beautiful culinary construction, fine-tuned by millions of years of evolution to be perfectly enticing to the animals that eat it and, in the process, transport the seed far away to grow into another plant. The fruit is the vehicle for the mango plant’s selfish genes and its relentless pursuit of making more copies of itself. No amount of cooking can improve the flavour of a fruit because the plant has a vested interest in making it its magnum opus.
In fact, the primary distinction between a fruit and a vegetable is that the latter does not want to be eaten and will go to many lengths to biochemically synthesise nasty chemicals to prevent animals from eating it. Onions and garlic produce sulphur-based molecules that deter even the hungriest herbivore. Human beings have figured out ways to consume vegetables by cooking them, thus denaturing most of the nasty stuff before we consume it. But a perfectly ripe Imam Pasand (Himayat) mango starts its life as a flower on the tree. When it’s fertilised by male pollen, it initiates the production of hormones that lead to the expansion of the flower’s ovary walls. The accumulation of water-based sap in cell vacuoles is what we ultimately experience as the delicious yellow flesh of the mango. In the initial phases of the fruit’s growth, the sugars are stored as tasteless starch and the plant generates a ton of toxic chemicals in the milky white sap that oozes out of the stem, and astringent tannins and acids that serve as protection against pests and infection by microbes.
The moment the embryo says “Yep, I’m ready, let’s go”, the mango tree shifts into fourth gear. Starches get broken down into sugars, defensive chemicals disappear, the skin colour transforms into a bright, characteristic yellow (or red in the case of some cultivars) and a large number of aroma compounds are synthesised to appeal to the widest range of fruit-loving animals nearby, along with a softening of the flesh. This process, which we rather unromantically term “ripening”, is the fruit preparing for its own death in the most climactic possible way. The fruit dies to let the embryo travel elsewhere to grow into a new plant. When you smell the delicate tones of turpentine, vanilla, coconut, lime and Thai curry in an Imam Pasand, and are enticed to kill it and eat it, you are part of the glorious tale of its sacrifice.
But, of course, the modern-day mango-industrial-agriculture complex does not play by the rules of nature. Mangoes are harvested well before they are perfectly ripe. The goal is to get to that perfect ripeness in your fruit basket at home, and not any time earlier. Ripening is an irreversible and unstoppable process. It also continues after the mango has been harvested. The runaway chemical reactions that turn a sour and astringent raw mango into the pinnacle of deliciousness will eventually turn it into brown mush. The fruit is at its most vulnerable when perfectly ripe because there are no defensive chemicals to protect it from fungi, bacteria and insects.
So, here’s the basic challenge. The best- tasting mangoes will ideally be harvested very close to being perfectly ripe from the tree and consumed within days. Ripening away from the tree is, at best, a plan B for the plant. Ethylene gas, produced by most ripening fruits, is the hormone that accelerates ripening. So, let’s say you procure some expensive Alphonso mangoes (named rather unfortunately after a brutal Portuguese general named Afonso de Albuquerque, who has the unique record of being viscerally hated by two ex-colonies, Goa/India and Malacca/Malaysia, for the atrocities he committed during his time) that are still largely green in colour. There are two ways to ripen them. The quickest way is to wrap them in paper (don’t use plastic because the mango needs to breathe). That will concentrate the volatile ethylene gas inside and hasten ripening. If you are particularly short of time, throw in banana peels (many people tend to use a whole banana and end up wasting the fruit as it overripens in the process) with the mango in the paper enclosure. This will get you a ripe fruit in the quickest possible time.
If you have time to spare, put them in a cardboard box (with several holes) with hay. This is a very gentle way to ripen the fruit and gets you the best possible flavour. Rapid ripening always results in suboptimal flavour development. How do you know when it’s ripe? Don’t squish the mango. Just smell the bit near the stalk. You will know it because your brain will scream at 140 dB into the depths of your soul— “Eat this now!”
The fruit is the vehicle for the mango plant’s selfish genes and its relentless pursuit of making more copies of itself
Illustrated by Krish Ashok.
By Krish Ashok
A perfectly ripe mango is an absolute marvel of nature. There are not enough Michelin stars to award the tree named Mangifera indica. No chef on the planet can concoct a dish that is such an ethereally perfect combination of sweetness, sourness, aroma, texture and just sheer joy. To truly appreciate this, one needs to understand why plants make fruits in the first place.
A fruit is a beautiful culinary construction, fine-tuned by millions of years of evolution to be perfectly enticing to the animals that eat it and, in the process, transport the seed far away to grow into another plant. The fruit is the vehicle for the mango plant’s selfish genes and its relentless pursuit of making more copies of itself. No amount of cooking can improve the flavour of a fruit because the plant has a vested interest in making it its magnum opus.
In fact, the primary distinction between a fruit and a vegetable is that the latter does not want to be eaten and will go to many lengths to biochemically synthesise nasty chemicals to prevent animals from eating it. Onions and garlic produce sulphur-based molecules that deter even the hungriest herbivore. Human beings have figured out ways to consume vegetables by cooking them, thus denaturing most of the nasty stuff before we consume it. But a perfectly ripe Imam Pasand (Himayat) mango starts its life as a flower on the tree. When it’s fertilised by male pollen, it initiates the production of hormones that lead to the expansion of the flower’s ovary walls. The accumulation of water-based sap in cell vacuoles is what we ultimately experience as the delicious yellow flesh of the mango. In the initial phases of the fruit’s growth, the sugars are stored as tasteless starch and the plant generates a ton of toxic chemicals in the milky white sap that oozes out of the stem, and astringent tannins and acids that serve as protection against pests and infection by microbes.
The moment the embryo says “Yep, I’m ready, let’s go”, the mango tree shifts into fourth gear. Starches get broken down into sugars, defensive chemicals disappear, the skin colour transforms into a bright, characteristic yellow (or red in the case of some cultivars) and a large number of aroma compounds are synthesised to appeal to the widest range of fruit-loving animals nearby, along with a softening of the flesh. This process, which we rather unromantically term “ripening”, is the fruit preparing for its own death in the most climactic possible way. The fruit dies to let the embryo travel elsewhere to grow into a new plant. When you smell the delicate tones of turpentine, vanilla, coconut, lime and Thai curry in an Imam Pasand, and are enticed to kill it and eat it, you are part of the glorious tale of its sacrifice.
But, of course, the modern-day mango-industrial-agriculture complex does not play by the rules of nature. Mangoes are harvested well before they are perfectly ripe. The goal is to get to that perfect ripeness in your fruit basket at home, and not any time earlier. Ripening is an irreversible and unstoppable process. It also continues after the mango has been harvested. The runaway chemical reactions that turn a sour and astringent raw mango into the pinnacle of deliciousness will eventually turn it into brown mush. The fruit is at its most vulnerable when perfectly ripe because there are no defensive chemicals to protect it from fungi, bacteria and insects.
So, here’s the basic challenge. The best- tasting mangoes will ideally be harvested very close to being perfectly ripe from the tree and consumed within days. Ripening away from the tree is, at best, a plan B for the plant. Ethylene gas, produced by most ripening fruits, is the hormone that accelerates ripening. So, let’s say you procure some expensive Alphonso mangoes (named rather unfortunately after a brutal Portuguese general named Afonso de Albuquerque, who has the unique record of being viscerally hated by two ex-colonies, Goa/India and Malacca/Malaysia, for the atrocities he committed during his time) that are still largely green in colour. There are two ways to ripen them. The quickest way is to wrap them in paper (don’t use plastic because the mango needs to breathe). That will concentrate the volatile ethylene gas inside and hasten ripening. If you are particularly short of time, throw in banana peels (many people tend to use a whole banana and end up wasting the fruit as it overripens in the process) with the mango in the paper enclosure. This will get you a ripe fruit in the quickest possible time.
If you have time to spare, put them in a cardboard box (with several holes) with hay. This is a very gentle way to ripen the fruit and gets you the best possible flavour. Rapid ripening always results in suboptimal flavour development. How do you know when it’s ripe? Don’t squish the mango. Just smell the bit near the stalk. You will know it because your brain will scream at 140 dB into the depths of your soul— “Eat this now!”
Wednesday, June 09, 2021
Hearing aids for corporate india
The ‘hearing aids’ helping corporate India to listen better Thanks to these six factors, a new breed of entrepreneurs is participating in the recovery of the Covid-hit economy.
Written by Manish Sabharwal , GOPAL JAIN |
Updated: June 9, 2021 8:59:05 am
People stand in queue outside the Barakhamba metro station after resumtion of the metro services in a graded manner, in New Delhi, Tuesday, June 8, 2021. (PTI Photo: Atul Yadav)
George Fernandes once said, “When I chucked out Coca-Cola in 1977, I made the point that 90 per cent of India’s villages didn’t have drinking water, whereas Coke had reached every village.” It’s too late to ask the talented politician two questions: Instead of chucking out Coke, could we have learnt their secret of reaching every village? Did chucking out a law-abiding job creator help drinking water reach 90 per cent of our villages? The “Fernandes” anti-private bias lives on. Reactions to expanded corporate roles in farming and banking suggest every Indian entrepreneur deserves an episode in Bad Boys Billionaires. We make the case that this stale view ignores six “hearing aids” that are making our companies stronger by helping them to listen better.
In the wonderful movie, Two Popes, the conservative pope played by Anthony Hopkins tells his younger colleague, “All change is compromise but I need a hearing aid”. The pope’s deep insight — the most dangerous lies are the lies we tell ourselves — suggests listening needs structures, people, and tools. Reforms since 1991 mean a new breed of entrepreneurs is replacing crony capitalists because of six hearing aids.
One, lower entrepreneur equity holding. The average entrepreneur equity holding in listed companies is 50 per cent (we cringe at the “promoter” designation that implies circus showmanship). Not surprisingly, many bankrupt companies have entrepreneur holdings above 50 per cent because banks allowed them to borrow or steal their equity. But many new companies — Flipkart, Ola, Paytm, Inmobi for instance — have lower entrepreneur stakes, usually between 5 and 25 per cent because of multiple founders, multiple investors, and low debt. This is not unusual. Jeff Bezos owns 14 per cent of Amazon, Jack Ma owns 9 per cent of Alibaba, and Reed Hastings owns 4 per cent of Netflix. This is not dangerous: Conventional wisdom about skin in the game is not wrong, but company governance does seem to improve when entrepreneurs listen to institutional shareholders.
Two, the new insolvency and bankruptcy code. The suspension of IBC during Covid was painful but it is now back. Over decades, many financially unviable and operationally viable companies didn’t revive themselves because banks couldn’t force change and courts bafflingly allied with entrepreneurs rather than bank depositors. The negotiating leverage for banks has changed with IBC and we expect over 200 companies to change hands over the next 24 months. IBC’s biggest impact is outside the code: Entrepreneurs are careful about debt because of lender tools to eject them.
Three, bad diversification role models. The poet Maya Angelou said, “The universe is not made of atoms but stories.” Role models matter and the licence raj celebrated diversification because regulatory connections mattered more than ambition, courage, and persistence. But many competent entrepreneurs sunk their fortunes by diversifying too much too fast (diworsification). Higher competition now means that companies don’t have hostages but customers and success require them to focus on skills, brands, and talent that compound over decades. India’s new wealth creators usually run simple businesses and reward shareholders by allowing them to make their own diversification decisions.
Four, good partitioning role models. Entrepreneurs have three distinct roles — shareholder, board director, and CEO. Traditional thinking believed these three are guaranteed, permanent and concurrent. But many listed companies like Marico, Britannia, Dabur, Asian Paints, and Pidilite have, in recent times, grown their value and success by separating these roles and hiring CEOs with different and diverse surnames. Entrepreneurs now recognise that getting the train out of the station sometimes requires different skills than keeping the trains running on time, or making the train go faster.
Five, a growth and governance valuation premium. The drivers of a premium stock market valuation are slowly shifting from regulatory connections to growth and governance. Neelkanth Mishra of Credit Suisse suggests a supporting revolution — unlisted companies valued above a billion dollars now number about a third of the listed companies with that value. Some of this repricing is obviously driven by investor recognition that India is the only large nation on the planet with 20 years of secular growth ahead of it, but the lower risks of execution and capital allocation arising from improved governance are also important. These premiums catalyse a virtuous cycle of role modelling that in turn accelerates change.
Six, rising board effectiveness. Many entrepreneurs now acknowledge that a board of directors that protects them from themselves is a valuable asset. The Tamil classic Tirukkural agrees: “Idippaarai illaadha emaraa mannan/ ketuppa rillaanung kedum” (The king whom no one checks, no minister corrects/ Does not have to wait for foes, himself he vivisects). Too many entrepreneurs discount the importance of cognitive diversity and distributed power because, as Wharton Professor Adam Grant suggests in Think Again, “We listen to opinions that make us feel good rather than ideas that make us think hard.” Cognitively diverse, empowered, and engaged boards seem better at stimulating a broader search for information, considering more alternatives, using multiple strategies, more original thinking, and cutting losses earlier on mistakes.
These hearing aids are creating an Indian private sector worthy of overcoming its trust deficit and will take the country’s GDP ranking to third over the next decade (from fifth today) with its superior outcomes for investors, employees, and national productivity. But Covid suggests administrative capacity holds back taking our per-capita GDP into the top 50 (from 142nd today) and we need equally powerful hearing aids for our civil service to overcome their execution deficit. India’s new tryst with destiny is an appointment she will keep only if we replace the tug-of-war metaphor between entrepreneurs and government — the “suit boot ki sarkar” insult or the Coke chucking out power trip — with a dance where neither is superior or skilled than the other. They just play different, crucial, and complementary roles.
Written by Manish Sabharwal , GOPAL JAIN |
Updated: June 9, 2021 8:59:05 am
People stand in queue outside the Barakhamba metro station after resumtion of the metro services in a graded manner, in New Delhi, Tuesday, June 8, 2021. (PTI Photo: Atul Yadav)
George Fernandes once said, “When I chucked out Coca-Cola in 1977, I made the point that 90 per cent of India’s villages didn’t have drinking water, whereas Coke had reached every village.” It’s too late to ask the talented politician two questions: Instead of chucking out Coke, could we have learnt their secret of reaching every village? Did chucking out a law-abiding job creator help drinking water reach 90 per cent of our villages? The “Fernandes” anti-private bias lives on. Reactions to expanded corporate roles in farming and banking suggest every Indian entrepreneur deserves an episode in Bad Boys Billionaires. We make the case that this stale view ignores six “hearing aids” that are making our companies stronger by helping them to listen better.
In the wonderful movie, Two Popes, the conservative pope played by Anthony Hopkins tells his younger colleague, “All change is compromise but I need a hearing aid”. The pope’s deep insight — the most dangerous lies are the lies we tell ourselves — suggests listening needs structures, people, and tools. Reforms since 1991 mean a new breed of entrepreneurs is replacing crony capitalists because of six hearing aids.
One, lower entrepreneur equity holding. The average entrepreneur equity holding in listed companies is 50 per cent (we cringe at the “promoter” designation that implies circus showmanship). Not surprisingly, many bankrupt companies have entrepreneur holdings above 50 per cent because banks allowed them to borrow or steal their equity. But many new companies — Flipkart, Ola, Paytm, Inmobi for instance — have lower entrepreneur stakes, usually between 5 and 25 per cent because of multiple founders, multiple investors, and low debt. This is not unusual. Jeff Bezos owns 14 per cent of Amazon, Jack Ma owns 9 per cent of Alibaba, and Reed Hastings owns 4 per cent of Netflix. This is not dangerous: Conventional wisdom about skin in the game is not wrong, but company governance does seem to improve when entrepreneurs listen to institutional shareholders.
Two, the new insolvency and bankruptcy code. The suspension of IBC during Covid was painful but it is now back. Over decades, many financially unviable and operationally viable companies didn’t revive themselves because banks couldn’t force change and courts bafflingly allied with entrepreneurs rather than bank depositors. The negotiating leverage for banks has changed with IBC and we expect over 200 companies to change hands over the next 24 months. IBC’s biggest impact is outside the code: Entrepreneurs are careful about debt because of lender tools to eject them.
Three, bad diversification role models. The poet Maya Angelou said, “The universe is not made of atoms but stories.” Role models matter and the licence raj celebrated diversification because regulatory connections mattered more than ambition, courage, and persistence. But many competent entrepreneurs sunk their fortunes by diversifying too much too fast (diworsification). Higher competition now means that companies don’t have hostages but customers and success require them to focus on skills, brands, and talent that compound over decades. India’s new wealth creators usually run simple businesses and reward shareholders by allowing them to make their own diversification decisions.
Four, good partitioning role models. Entrepreneurs have three distinct roles — shareholder, board director, and CEO. Traditional thinking believed these three are guaranteed, permanent and concurrent. But many listed companies like Marico, Britannia, Dabur, Asian Paints, and Pidilite have, in recent times, grown their value and success by separating these roles and hiring CEOs with different and diverse surnames. Entrepreneurs now recognise that getting the train out of the station sometimes requires different skills than keeping the trains running on time, or making the train go faster.
Five, a growth and governance valuation premium. The drivers of a premium stock market valuation are slowly shifting from regulatory connections to growth and governance. Neelkanth Mishra of Credit Suisse suggests a supporting revolution — unlisted companies valued above a billion dollars now number about a third of the listed companies with that value. Some of this repricing is obviously driven by investor recognition that India is the only large nation on the planet with 20 years of secular growth ahead of it, but the lower risks of execution and capital allocation arising from improved governance are also important. These premiums catalyse a virtuous cycle of role modelling that in turn accelerates change.
Six, rising board effectiveness. Many entrepreneurs now acknowledge that a board of directors that protects them from themselves is a valuable asset. The Tamil classic Tirukkural agrees: “Idippaarai illaadha emaraa mannan/ ketuppa rillaanung kedum” (The king whom no one checks, no minister corrects/ Does not have to wait for foes, himself he vivisects). Too many entrepreneurs discount the importance of cognitive diversity and distributed power because, as Wharton Professor Adam Grant suggests in Think Again, “We listen to opinions that make us feel good rather than ideas that make us think hard.” Cognitively diverse, empowered, and engaged boards seem better at stimulating a broader search for information, considering more alternatives, using multiple strategies, more original thinking, and cutting losses earlier on mistakes.
These hearing aids are creating an Indian private sector worthy of overcoming its trust deficit and will take the country’s GDP ranking to third over the next decade (from fifth today) with its superior outcomes for investors, employees, and national productivity. But Covid suggests administrative capacity holds back taking our per-capita GDP into the top 50 (from 142nd today) and we need equally powerful hearing aids for our civil service to overcome their execution deficit. India’s new tryst with destiny is an appointment she will keep only if we replace the tug-of-war metaphor between entrepreneurs and government — the “suit boot ki sarkar” insult or the Coke chucking out power trip — with a dance where neither is superior or skilled than the other. They just play different, crucial, and complementary roles.
Friday, June 04, 2021
Covid stagnation
Why isn’t the prospect of long-term economic stagnation giving us nightmares? Pratap Bhanu Mehta writes: Even as we battle Covid, we have to think about what will truly reverse the diminishing of our economic fortunes.
Labourers working in a factory in New Delhi (Express Photo/Praveen Khanna) The GDP numbers, like the Covid numbers, have become the object of regular anxiety and contention. With both, there are now questions on what exactly we are measuring. There is relief, or official spin, if they turn out to be less worrisome than predicted. If the GDP growth is close to negative 7.3 per cent, there is a huge sigh of relief. It could, after all, have been negative 10 per cent. These are small mercies. But there is no denying the fact that the Indian economy has been amongst the worst performers, even in the South Asia region.
So here is the big picture we need to keep our eyes on. India is staring at the prospect of slower growth, rising poverty, and a shrinking middle class. This is the first time in a generation that India is experiencing something like this. Instead of moving towards being a high middle income country, we will be relieved if we don’t slip further down the global ladder. Everyone understands that Covid was a shock to the economy, and we will, at some point, emerge from this shock. But we are in completely uncharted territory in terms of our psychological orientation to the economy.
In the first decade of this century, we were looking at an average of seven to eight per cent growth, steep drops in head count poverty numbers, and an expanding middle class. But all of these trends are now in reverse. Growth has slowed and it would be a brave economist who has any analytical basis for projecting what India’s trend growth rate will be over the next five to 10 years. We are on a wing and a prayer. We do not have authoritative consumption-based poverty figures since 2011. But Azim Premji University’s “State of Working India” report, 2020, estimated that almost 230 million Indians had fallen back into poverty. For reference, the period of growth from 2000 to 2016 had seen roughly 270 million lifted out of poverty. A new Pew Research Centre Report, published before the second wave lockdown, suggested that the Indian middle class had shrunk by about 32 million people in 2020. And we don’t have serious numbers on shrinking incomes or on the possible effects of long-term morbidity. This number could get worse.
There are signs of this all around. The latest CMIE unemployment numbers put out by Mahesh Vyas are sobering reading. The unemployment rate is 14.5 per cent as of the end of May; the rural unemployment rate had crossed 7 per cent. Labour force participation has not increased. As Jean Dreze had prominently pointed out in these pages, it is unlikely that nutrition levels, employment wages had even recovered to pre-pandemic levels before the second wave struck; household savings have been generally on a downward trend. This big picture truth of economic worries can be easily obfuscated by the narrative wars.
The Sensex is rising, fuelled by global free money. There is a lot of excitement about unicorns; they are certainly a testament to entrepreneurial dynamism and ingenuity. But the idea that they are the backbone of a thriving economy is exaggerated. There might be limited progress on the distribution of private public goods like gas and water. But these cannot take away from the fact that for the first time in a generation, young India is looking at a bleaker future than their parents did in terms of employment and income.
It is a remarkable fact that this fundamental triad of slower growth prospects, potentially shrinking middle class and rising poverty has been kept out of public political consciousness. The poor in India were always invisible. But the degree of economic and ideological obfuscation is such that even the normally influential middle class’s tale of economic uncertainty has become invisible. What should worry is not just the trends; but the fact that we are not worrying enough about the worrying trends. There is good reason to think that unless there is drastic change in national priorities, the very foundation of our future is being sapped.
So even as we battle with Covid, we have to think about what will truly reverse this diminishing of our economic fortunes. There are the obvious things to do. An investment in health is an investment in the economy; but our health investment is still in catastrophe management mode. For example, we are still not investing enough in long-term surveillance of the disease or dealing with its secondary effects. The government has done the right thing by extending the free foodgrain programme, and creating credit facilities of various kinds. But there is still going to be a serious loss in nutrition gains in rural India. And it is hard to imagine that output declines, employment losses, and the adverse environment for small businesses will not warrant another round of income support of some kind. As Uday Kotak has argued, we need a major fiscal stimulus to support consumption. It is highly likely that in the pandemic India has probably slipped back on its education goals and targets.
Other measures like regulatory reform and privatisation are underway, though how effective they will be is an open question. There will have to be a serious reconsideration of tax policy. This is not the place for technical details. There is no question that the range of investment — in health, education, infrastructure, income support, that the Indian economy requires will need a new social contract. The top one per cent have benefited enormously from the current economy. Devesh Kapur has made the powerful point that taxing the super rich a bit more, those who have made extraordinary gains over the last two years, even if temporarily, to service the real needs of the economy more, should not be seen as an act of redistribution. So much of the money that is being made on the stock market, in real estate or in capital gains is because of the easy liquidity governments are providing; a little bit of payback as a gesture of solidarity or justice is not unwarranted. The spectre of our bad old days of socialism and 90 per cent marginal rates of taxation will be trotted out to obfuscate the basic fact: We need to invest in our future, and we cannot do so without more taxation.
A million plus Covid deaths is an extraordinary catastrophe. But the prospect of long-term economic stagnation should also give us nightmares. We are in completely uncharted territory.
Labourers working in a factory in New Delhi (Express Photo/Praveen Khanna) The GDP numbers, like the Covid numbers, have become the object of regular anxiety and contention. With both, there are now questions on what exactly we are measuring. There is relief, or official spin, if they turn out to be less worrisome than predicted. If the GDP growth is close to negative 7.3 per cent, there is a huge sigh of relief. It could, after all, have been negative 10 per cent. These are small mercies. But there is no denying the fact that the Indian economy has been amongst the worst performers, even in the South Asia region.
So here is the big picture we need to keep our eyes on. India is staring at the prospect of slower growth, rising poverty, and a shrinking middle class. This is the first time in a generation that India is experiencing something like this. Instead of moving towards being a high middle income country, we will be relieved if we don’t slip further down the global ladder. Everyone understands that Covid was a shock to the economy, and we will, at some point, emerge from this shock. But we are in completely uncharted territory in terms of our psychological orientation to the economy.
In the first decade of this century, we were looking at an average of seven to eight per cent growth, steep drops in head count poverty numbers, and an expanding middle class. But all of these trends are now in reverse. Growth has slowed and it would be a brave economist who has any analytical basis for projecting what India’s trend growth rate will be over the next five to 10 years. We are on a wing and a prayer. We do not have authoritative consumption-based poverty figures since 2011. But Azim Premji University’s “State of Working India” report, 2020, estimated that almost 230 million Indians had fallen back into poverty. For reference, the period of growth from 2000 to 2016 had seen roughly 270 million lifted out of poverty. A new Pew Research Centre Report, published before the second wave lockdown, suggested that the Indian middle class had shrunk by about 32 million people in 2020. And we don’t have serious numbers on shrinking incomes or on the possible effects of long-term morbidity. This number could get worse.
There are signs of this all around. The latest CMIE unemployment numbers put out by Mahesh Vyas are sobering reading. The unemployment rate is 14.5 per cent as of the end of May; the rural unemployment rate had crossed 7 per cent. Labour force participation has not increased. As Jean Dreze had prominently pointed out in these pages, it is unlikely that nutrition levels, employment wages had even recovered to pre-pandemic levels before the second wave struck; household savings have been generally on a downward trend. This big picture truth of economic worries can be easily obfuscated by the narrative wars.
The Sensex is rising, fuelled by global free money. There is a lot of excitement about unicorns; they are certainly a testament to entrepreneurial dynamism and ingenuity. But the idea that they are the backbone of a thriving economy is exaggerated. There might be limited progress on the distribution of private public goods like gas and water. But these cannot take away from the fact that for the first time in a generation, young India is looking at a bleaker future than their parents did in terms of employment and income.
It is a remarkable fact that this fundamental triad of slower growth prospects, potentially shrinking middle class and rising poverty has been kept out of public political consciousness. The poor in India were always invisible. But the degree of economic and ideological obfuscation is such that even the normally influential middle class’s tale of economic uncertainty has become invisible. What should worry is not just the trends; but the fact that we are not worrying enough about the worrying trends. There is good reason to think that unless there is drastic change in national priorities, the very foundation of our future is being sapped.
So even as we battle with Covid, we have to think about what will truly reverse this diminishing of our economic fortunes. There are the obvious things to do. An investment in health is an investment in the economy; but our health investment is still in catastrophe management mode. For example, we are still not investing enough in long-term surveillance of the disease or dealing with its secondary effects. The government has done the right thing by extending the free foodgrain programme, and creating credit facilities of various kinds. But there is still going to be a serious loss in nutrition gains in rural India. And it is hard to imagine that output declines, employment losses, and the adverse environment for small businesses will not warrant another round of income support of some kind. As Uday Kotak has argued, we need a major fiscal stimulus to support consumption. It is highly likely that in the pandemic India has probably slipped back on its education goals and targets.
Other measures like regulatory reform and privatisation are underway, though how effective they will be is an open question. There will have to be a serious reconsideration of tax policy. This is not the place for technical details. There is no question that the range of investment — in health, education, infrastructure, income support, that the Indian economy requires will need a new social contract. The top one per cent have benefited enormously from the current economy. Devesh Kapur has made the powerful point that taxing the super rich a bit more, those who have made extraordinary gains over the last two years, even if temporarily, to service the real needs of the economy more, should not be seen as an act of redistribution. So much of the money that is being made on the stock market, in real estate or in capital gains is because of the easy liquidity governments are providing; a little bit of payback as a gesture of solidarity or justice is not unwarranted. The spectre of our bad old days of socialism and 90 per cent marginal rates of taxation will be trotted out to obfuscate the basic fact: We need to invest in our future, and we cannot do so without more taxation.
A million plus Covid deaths is an extraordinary catastrophe. But the prospect of long-term economic stagnation should also give us nightmares. We are in completely uncharted territory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)