"Dinner at 6:00" and cultural differences

As a kid, I always got fidgety if the newspaper was delivered later than usual.  Once, a great-uncle who was visiting with us asked me what my problem was and, more pointedly remarked: "as if the world waits for your statement on the day's news!"

If he were alive, he might chuckle about how I am making statements everyday in response to news and comments I read and watch--isn't that what blogging is mostly about?

The newspaper I grew up reading has a magazine feature on entertaining guests.  The author writes:

guests who come at eight — if that was when they were invited — deserve congratulations. If everyone's here by 9 o'clock I'm happy. Because the whole idea is to chat and catch up, you don't want to serve dinner the moment they're all there. But when some people come late, others, who thought they could come on time and wind up early, have to wait.

This alone reveals a completely different culture, a world vastly different, from the one that I have gotten comfortable with halfway around from India.

Dinner invitations are typically for six or half-past that hour at the latest.  Which means that an hour into the chat, we sit down for dinner.  Rarely is a guest anything more than five or ten minutes late.

A Swedish student who stayed with us for a fortnight remarked about their punctuality this way: "if dinner is at 6:00, and if we reach the host's place by 5:58, then we kind of wait for those two minutes outside the home, and then ring the doorbell at 6:00"

What a huge difference then between the culture in which I grew up, and the one in which I now live!

I can't even recall the last time I sat down for a meal at nine in the night!  By nine here, my system has digested the food, and I am typically getting ready to snack on a few nuts or a fruit.

There is more; the author of that piece in the newspaper writes:

The first is the one who looks at your table and says “the muffins are burnt”/ “the cake (which I've painstakingly baked, layered and iced) is crooked”.

The second kind takes a bite of something and says “Whoa! Uff! I can't eat that, it's too spicy”. I run to her with a bowl of cold dahi and she waves me away, and he who says, surveying the table, “I'm allergic to glutens. Isn't there any rice?”

My father noted after his visit to the US that people here are complimentary.  "It is wonderful" is a phrase that made a deep impression on him--that is the kind of response from dinner guests, or gift recipients, even f the food is lousy or the gift is sub-par. 

Sure, some of those compliments might be superficial, but that is infinitely better than guests casually and mercilessly critiquing a host about the food that he or she slaved over, right?

The great-uncle was one of those critics.  Well, he went around criticizing the food, and everything else.  There was no topic that was off-limits to him.  He brought many to tears.  A number of women in the extended family were practically traumatized by his scathing remarks on dishes.

These days when I visit India, I follow my schedules and protocols.  My breakfast and dinner hours are an hour or two before the norm in that context. The academic in me worries that I am being culturally insensitive.  But, ...

I am delighted if anybody cooks and invites me over.  The last time I was there, I was so thankful for the help from my parents' neighbors.  So thankful that I sent them thank-you cards after returning to the US. 

Those thank-you cards, which is not a part of the Indian culture, apparently was the talk of the apartment complex for a few days.  The neighbors repeatedly mentioned to my parents how much they liked the thanks I sent all the way from the US (and, of course, on what a wonderful son they have!)

The tourism hotel of the day

It is nearly invisible from the outside.

It is in Sweden, only a few miles away from the Arctic Circle ...

one more to my ever-growing list of places to go to :(

ht

Abba performing "Dancing Queen" at the wedding, again?

tomorrow ... Sweden's Crown Princess Victoria marries fitness trainer Daniel Westling. Five hundred million television viewers across Europe are expected to watch the 20m Krona (£1.7m) spectacle in Stockholm's specially renovated cathedral.

That report from The Guardian also notes that:

even non-royal watchers have taken an interest in the celebration, which it has been rumoured, will see Abba re-convene for the first time in almost three decades to perform for the royal couple — and play Dancing Queen.

Will be neat if they did perform :)

How Soccer Explains the World

While India and China seem to be in the news all the time when it comes to economic matters, their noticeable absence from the World Cup tournament in South Africa might be obvious even to those who are not sports junkies.

With a combined population of about 2.5 billion, China and India account for almost two-fifths of the humans on the planet, and yet their teams did not make it to South Africa.  This is not merely the result of the preliminary rounds that determine the qualifiers for the tournament, but might be a reflection of the respective sociopolitical ethos as well.

When the Olympics were held in Beijing last summer, it was clear that China had morphed into a sports power.  Chinese athletes earned the most gold medals—51—but, the United States beat China in the aggregate medal count by ten.  This rapid rise in Olympics was triggered by the Chinese government’s extensive investment in facilities and athletes themselves.

It also turns out that political decisions to invest in sports mean that there is a lot more attention paid to individual performances—such as gymnastics or diving.  Team sports require a lot more planning and coordination at various levels, and are not amenable to delivering quick results.  Further, a football—er, soccer—team, for instance, is simply more than a mere collection of eleven players on the field, and is a wonderful illustration of the philosophical notion that the whole is more than the sum of its parts.  The net result is that China did not get past the third round of the qualifiers for this World Cup. 

The US offers quite a contrast to the Chinese approach in that there is no formal government investment in sports, including football, and expenses are met primarily through sponsorships and endorsements.  The extensive network of youth soccer programs has been slowly and steadily developing quality players and the US soccer teams are no longer taken for granted.

India has neither the Chinese approach to sports, nor does it have an American style bottom-up grassroots structure.  But, it is not because the Indian population or government is indifferent to sports.  For instance, later this year, in October, India will be hosting the Commonwealth Games in New Delhi, and the government spending for it has generated immense controversy. 

Whether it is the Olympics or football, India does not suffer a shortage of television viewership either.  Millions, like my high school friend who lives in Chennai, even re-arrange their schedules in order to keep up with the telecasts from abroad.  But, this passion is not reflected in the results on the field—at the Beijing Olympics, India won one gold and two bronzes for a grand total of three medals. 

Such a situation is not a result of the attention on that other great game—cricket.  After all, teams from countries with significantly lesser population, like Australia or Sri Lanka, often humble the Indian cricket team.  And in field hockey, which is another popular sport in the Subcontinent, teams from the tiny Netherlands routinely rout the Indians.  In soccer, India’s team lost to Lebanon in the first round of the qualifiers.  It turns out that a billion people do not make a sports powerhouse!

A reason that is offered more often than not—even during my childhood years—is that the Indian culture advocates contentment.  Hence, the lack of a “killer instinct” that is needed to push oneself to be a winner in sports. 

As much as it is tempting to buy into this explanation, Sweden offers quite a comparison.  The Swedish folks, after all, have their own word for moderation—“lagom”.  “Lagom” is a way of life that emphasizes individual and social attributes such as enough, sameness, and average.  However, this has not precluded the Swedes from excelling in individual or collective activities. 

A sport is, thus, more than merely about the game itself.  It presents yet another opportunity to begin to understand the peoples of the world, and their cultures and politics.  Yet, if the game of soccer does not grab one’s attention, I suggest the following books as summer readings—“Soccer and Philosophy” and “How Soccer Explains the World.”

So, why are Swedes not so corrupt?

Am following up on a comment in a discussion on whether liberals are more corrupt than conservatives; the comment there was this:

How much you pay your public servants matters. And culture probably matters most of all. One of my favorite studies from the last few years looked at parking tickets for diplomats in New York, who of course can get away with leaving them unpaid because of diplomatic immunity. The Kuwaitis averaged 246 unpaid tickets per diplomat per year; the Swedes averaged zero.

Naturally, I followed up on that. So, what does the study say?

The authors find that there is a strong correlation between illegal parking and existing measures of home country corruption. This finding suggests that cultural or social norms related to corruption are quite persistent: even when stationed thousands of miles away, diplomats behave in a manner highly reminiscent of officials in the home country. Norms related to corruption are apparently deeply engrained, and factors other than legal enforcement are important determinants of corruption behavior.

I am willing to buy into this idea. I suppose there is a great deal of value in "lagom"

Nationalizing banks? Please, NO!

I grew up in India, when most of the banks were government owned. The few private banks were way smaller than these government entities. While India is seeking to make these large public-sector banks more efficient, here in the US there are loud calls to nationalize major banks.
Granted that we are in a serious crisis .... but, nationalize? and, yes, I have no expertise in this topic, but I don't think I am that significantly less smart than the elected officials who are expected to make this decision. So, ....

Yet, I was waiting for a real expert to articulate in simple terms the kinds of apprehensions I have on this topic. And, here is Alan Blinder on why nationalizing is not a good idea, even though it worked well for Sweden:

WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE? First and foremost, the Swedish government had to deal with only a handful of banks; we have more than 8,300. Numbers matter, because deciding where to draw the nationalization line isn’t easy. Presumably, no one wants to nationalize all the banks, thousands of which are healthy. But where do you stop, once you start?

Suppose we nationalized four banks. Bank Five would then find itself at a severe disadvantage in competing for funds with the government-backed quartet. Forced to pay higher interest rates to attract depositors and other creditors, its profitability would suffer. Soon, Bank Five might start looking like a candidate for nationalization, too — followed by Banks Six, Seven and so on.

THE DOMINO EFFECT As stock traders began to contemplate the nationalization of Banks Five, Six and Seven, their share prices would tank, and short-sellers might consign the companies to an early grave.

THE MANAGEMENT CHALLENGE The Swedes had a relatively simple task. They never had to deal with institutions of the size and complexity of our banking behemoths.

Mr. Geithner has emphasized that governments are ill-suited to manage businesses. I’d take the point a step further: Overseeing the management of dozens, or hundreds, or maybe even thousands of nationalized banks is a daunting task.

POLITICAL OBSTACLES The process of nationalization and reprivatization went amazingly well in Sweden partly because it was remarkably free of political interference. Would that happen here? You decide. My bet is no.

THE CONFIDENCE QUESTION Finally, because nationalization runs counter to deeply ingrained American traditions and attitudes, there is a danger that it might undermine rather than bolster confidence.

To which Paul Krugman responds:

1. I just don’t understand a lot of what my colleague Alan Blinder wrote. In particular, I don’t understand how the good bank/bad bank solution is possible unless you pump in large amounts of public funds.

You might say, why can’t a bank just split itself, giving the bad stuff to one piece and the good stuff to the other? Because it has to divvy up the liabilities as well as the assets. And if it gives the bad bank (which isn’t solvent) a bunch of the liabilities, this amounts to defaulting on its debts — and the bondholders will sue. So the good bank-bad bank thing seems to implicitly carry the assumption that someone, namely you and me in our capacity as taxpayers, guarantees the bad bank’s liabilities. In which case we are in fact nationalizing the losses, but privatizing the gains.

Well, here is what I think: the bottom line is essentially how much we (taxpayers) absorb the losses, and allow private interests walk away with profits. That is the bullet we need to bite. I am ready to let go of the gains that will flow towards private interests (and see if we can somehow tax them), and just take over the bad debts and get moving. The zombie status will otherwise continue on forever, and make economic recovery that much more a challenge.

So, Obama and Geithner, do what Alexander did to untie the Gordian Knot--take a sword and slice it. In this case, into "good bank" and "bad bank". Don't listen to economics professors for ever--we faculty, in any discipline--love to debate, and we can go on and on without reaching a conclusion.

Release Me: The Swedish song

That voice is Frida Öhrn’’s. 28-year-old Frida was born in Stockholm, Sweden. Her mother, a teacher, and her father, a chiropractor, divorced when she was very young, so she was raised for the most part by her mother. Music was key to Frida’’s life from a very early age, “we sang a lot when I was little, my mother sang a lot, and my father taught me how to play the guitar, and he showed me all kinds of music, Elvis and The Beatles and honky-tonk music.”. Outside of music, Frida’’s passion as a child was dancing – classical ballet, tap dancing, oriental dancing, and figure skating, which she competed in professionally until the age of 15. “So I always had that love to be onstage, to communicate with people from the stage. I like having attention. I am one of those...”
More at the official website

Paid maternity leave

From: the Economist