A most suitable boy? Not Narendra Modi!

After a month of two, and sometimes even three, posts a day, yesterday I blogged only one.  Partly because I couldn't care. Partly because I know well that the cosmos couldn't care.

It is not as if the blog readers care either--there is no pile of emails inquiring whether I am alive.  Heck, not even one!

It is not that there was nothing to write about.

A couple of days ago, I composed an email to a friend.  It was related to Narendra Modi. (I am confident that by now the occasional truly American reader has moved away from my blog, and has been replaced by a bottom-feeding Modi troll!)  The last few days have had so much news about Modi that, to some extent, I am happy that I am not in India--else, I will be so consumed by the news!

The Kanchi Shankaracharya apparently supports Modi.  WTF!

Narendra Modi is a man of great qualities. Considering that everyone else in the system is bad and dirty, Modi is a suitable candidate, and he has my blessings. ...
Everything should be done in a dharmik manner. Trying to get Muslim and Christian votes in the name of secularism is wrong. Everyone should believe in their faith and work together to get God's blessings.

A man of great qualities?  Is this like when Bush remarked that he looked deep inside Putin's soul and found that Putin is a good man?  Is it like when Chamberlain returned to London assured that Hitler was for peace?  And when did the Shankaracharya become a political pundit?  Oh, I forgot--it is a long-standing tradition for the Kanchi religious leader to make political statements.  Give him a television channel and he can be India's Pat Robertson.

Even more disappointing it was to read that Jagdish Bhagwati supports Modi. You too, Bhagwati?  After writing so much that philosophically aligns you with libertarians, you are so keen on trading-off that philosophy in favor of a dirty politician because he is more pro-economic growth than the rest?  Growth and trade matter to you more than anything else?  Have you become senile, Professor Bhagwati?  Or, have you become so bitter that you haven't been awarded the Nobel that you have started tossing grenades in every direction?

I agree with Bhagwati's arguments that we need a better understanding of the "Kerala model" that has been lavishly praised in the economic development literature.  That state is a money-order economy, and not a self-sustaining one. Keralites flee the state and are to be found anywhere and everywhere on the planet because nothing has been going on there other than strikes and protests.  But, therefore, support Modi?  WTF!

The other Indian economist whom Bhagwati often targets, Sen--who immensely admires the "Kerala model"--has also wandered into this Modi issue.  In the first place, I was confused with Sen's comment that began with "as an Indian citizen ..."  Really?  Sen is an Indan citizen?  Even if so on paper, how much an Indian citizen is he after a life that has been spent outside India?  Maybe he is one of those "overseas citizens of India," who do not have any voting rights?

Bhagwati and Sen are, to some extent, offering the academic arguments on the possible economic policies of a Modi government versus whoever-it-will-be. It is one of those long-running debates in economic development.  I am betting that Ramesh, with his preference for the China-model of development, will side with Bhagwati.  That academic discussion is one thing, but a support for Modi is completely different.  But, I suppose it is not unrealistic to match the academic arguments with the ideas espoused by politicians and, therefore, Bhagwati overlooks Modi's horrible communal track record.

Meanwhile, Modi's supporters have been busy lobbying the US government to reverse its stand and allow Modi to visit the US.  Yes, the same US government that has killed plenty of people all around the planet, however innocent they might have been, has ruled for a few years now that Modi is a worse killer.  All because the US is the richest and most powerful country on the planet, and Gujarat is not.  No wonder that Modi wants to rapidly grow the economy--you can make your own rules when you are rich.

The rest of us can merely blog about all these. And nobody cares about what this blogger has to say because he is neither rich nor powerful. As a friend often--annoyingly often--used to say back in Bakersfield, "money talks, and bullshit walks!"

That reminds me--time for me to go for my walk! Especially to walk off the wonderful eggplant dish that I made and over-ate last night ;)

Doing good via the profit motive?

In what seems like eons ago, back in graduate school, when I began my formal intellectual exploration into the role of market and planning (government) in society, I read Amartya Sen's "The profit motive."  Since then, I have attempted to read Sen's works whenever he writes at levels much lower than he is capable of so that even blokes like me can pretend to understand.

The only book of Sen's that I ever purchased was The Argumentative Indian, which is right now on the bookshelf in my office.  A student, "Z," often jokes--yes, more than once it has been--that I should pretty much wear that book title as a name-tag so that strangers will immediately walk away from me.

Oh, I have digressed far away from the profit motive.  One of the challenges has always been with situations, which are in plenty, when the profit motive alone doesn't seem to work.  In fact, in quite a few contexts, the pursuit of profit generates a whole bunch of headaches too.  Troubling issues.

A couple of years ago, as we were struggling to recover from the Great Recession, Sen commented in this essay:

The economic difficulties of today do not, I would argue, call for some “new capitalism”, but they do demand an open-minded understanding of older ideas about the reach and limits of the market economy. What is needed above all is a clear-headed appreciation of how different institutions work, along with an understanding of how a variety of organisations – from the market to the institutions of state – can together contribute to producing a more decent economic world.

In other words, there is a lot yet to be understood regarding the appropriate roles for the state and market in society.  It is ultimate job security in my intellectual interests then!

Thus, it was more than interesting to read in the Harvard Business Review about how a market-based approach can do good to society.  Especially in Africa.

(BTW, I notice that the latest issue of the Economist has a special section on the positive development in Africa.  Will read that through tomorrow.)

This HBR piece begins with: "If you knew how to help feed the hungry — would you?"  Yes.  Of course, yes!

In that essay, the CEO/Chairman of General Mills describes the partnership framework that GM has developed with the UN's bodies, the USAID, and NGOs, and writes:

Though some may see this work as philanthropy, we see it as creating shared value with local African businesses. For example, Nyirefami, in Tanzania, is a company that mills flour. General Mills knows flour. We've been in the milling business more than 140 years, and with Gold Medal, we're still America's leading flour brand. PFS volunteers were able to provide Nyirefami with the technical expertise needed to install a quality control lab, and improve washing and pre-drying operations. With that, Nyirefami increased their milling capacity five-fold, paving the way for the company to buy more grain from local farmers, while also earning the highest level of food certification available in Tanzania.

The fact that he is qualifying the venture with "though some may see this work as philanthropy" itself is a dead giveaway that while not without profits, it is not entirely with profit alone as the motive.  He then goes on to list a few  ways in which businesses can "apply what you do best to reduce poverty and increase economic activity in the developing world."

And then there was another piece in the HBR where the author writes that highly profitable companies like Apple and Google drank a whole lot of milk from the taxpayer teats and now they aren't willing to help the taxpayers.  Reminds me of the many stories I have heard in India of children not helping their aging parents; I suppose this behavior means that corporations are people after all!

Anyway, the author has some sharp words for these behemoths:

Many of the revolutionary technologies that make the iPhone and other products and services "smart" were funded by the U.S. government. Take, for instance, the Internet, GPS, touchscreen display, as well as the latest voice-activated personal assistant, Siri. And Apple did not just benefit from government-funded research activities. It also received its early stage finance from the U.S. government's Small Business Investment Company program. Venture capitalists entered only after government funding had gotten the company to the critical proof of concept.
Other Silicon Valley companies, like Google, have profited in a similarly immense fashion: Google's algorithm was funded by the National Science Foundation. Many of the "new economy" companies that like to portray themselves as the heart of U.S. "entrepreneurship" have very successfully surfed the wave of U.S. government-funded investments. Hence, one secret to Silicon Valley's success has been its active and visible hand, in stark contrast to the Ayn Rand/Adam Smith folklore often bandied about.

In other words, not merely a story of a man, a plan, and an angel investor.  The author raises an important question:

A crucial question to be answered is not just whether the present system is geared toward the government showing a lot of the entrepreneurial courage, but why it is systematically badmouthed, despite its many successes.

Let me remind you that this is in the Harvard Business Review and not Mother Jones!

We are a long way from figuring out the institutional arrangement.  All we know is that we cannot flourish without giving the profit motive the necessary opportunities.  We also know that an excess of that is a disaster.  We are equally aware that government is not all bad, but that too much of it is very bad.  Where does that magical line exist separating government activities from those of the private sector?

Even Amartya Sen can't figure that one out!