What they shouldn't have taught us at school

The attempt to teach moral science in schools must be the worst of the ideas ever proposed. Education is supposed to prepare students for the real world. However, the idealistic teachings on morals can never stand grounds in the real world. 

Experiences continue to teach us how many of the basic lessons taught were so wrong. Let us take a few examples.

Everybody is equal

It is no mystery to a mature mind that some are more equal than others.  They argued that if one is good at studies, the other is good at sports or arts or something unique. Well truthfully, sometimes one person is just better than another in every aspect that matters. Sometimes you are better and other times you are bettered. Sometimes we just have to accept our place in the hierarchy.

Take an example of countries now. My colleagues who had worked in the Middle East used to tell me the differential treatment meted to them just because they we Indians and not Europeans or Americans. On turning assertive they were politely asked if they remembered which embassy they belonged to.

Money can’t buy happiness

They taught us not to run after money and greed is bad. This must be the biggest lie ever told. Money is not a luxury, it’s a necessity. Let’s not count the people below poverty line (who will surely slap you on such an absurd statement) but consider the middle class. It’s not the money but what that money can buy: a liveable house, better schooling for children, better medical care of parents etc. Money, without a doubt, helps you buy things which can make you happy.

Flattery/ Ass-licking/ Politics doesn’t pay

If done tactfully, this is known to pay rich dividends. The ones who fail are the ones who become too obvious in their task. But schools taught us to always tell the truth however harsh. They taught us that indulging in politics is bad. They told us that success follows good work automatically. The need to be tactful, diplomatic, cheat and bribe, if necessary, and how to talk yourself out of a situation is something people have to learn on their own in the real world. The one who thinks that such cheap tactics could never work will soon realize how naive he is.

Be good and good shall be done unto you

Just general knowledge is enough to refute the fact. Dictators have led good lives and poor have died for no reason. Life is not fair. Life is a just a series of random happenings with little rhyme or reason (least at an individual level). Even if dictators are brought to justice and punished, it doesn’t change the fact that innocent people were killed at their hands. Does life become fair for them just because after two decades their killer was punished?

Schools prepared and continue to prepare students for an ideal world when the real world is not even close to it. Parents and popular culture don’t help either. Some may argue that it is these lessons that teach people to differentiate between right and wrong. Some may say that without even this moral code, the world may be much worse off for us all.

But if the lessons are going to make the world a better place at your cost, are they really worth learning?

Economics - A humanitarian perspective

Economics is a complicated subject. The attempt by economists to put it in the form of equations has further complicated things for the simple minded like me. Having read (the summaries of) works of great economists like John Maynard Keynes, Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman, I can’t help but be impressed at the foresight of these people. No doubt that many of the thoughts put forth by such economist have averted major crisis the world over, time and again.

But for a change, I thought, why not take a simplistic view of the whole thing. Combine the simple thought processes with the theories and knowledge of economics and try to look at the present economic conditions. Many of the points may be simple facts that we may have forgotten in the barrage of jargons.

The Premise

What is the aim of all theories in economics?

The aim is sustained economic activity and growth, a natural rate of employment, contained inflation etc. In short, economics aims at overall well being of humanity. 

What does the money spent represent?

It represents the use of limited resources of the world. Mostly it represents use of human efforts, fuel and energy lost forever. 

Keynes vs. Friedman

John Maynard Keynes suggested government impetus while Milton Friedman wanted free market economy. Disagreeing with neither Keynes nor Friedman, I believe free markets drive efficiency leading to progress while government regulations are required to ensure effective free market and play the saviour during troughs in the business cycles. So in combination, regulations to ensure fair play and efficient utilization of resources should lead to the said aim.

Where did we fail?

In recent times, the world has failed on both accounts. And the epicentre of these mistakes was the US and other developed nations on most counts.

Immediate precursors

Crisis of 2008

In some way it was the lack of regulations which lead to the events of 2008. In the upheaval, some capitalized on the crest in 2007 while many got stuck in the trough of 2008. Wealth was neither created nor destroyed. It was simply transferred from one hand to another. Keynesian economics followed with great investments by government leading to huge unmanageable debts.

War against terror

A report in June estimated that the American cost of the war at 3.2 to 4 trillion USD. The US government debt stands at a little less than 15 trillion USD. To put things in perspective, world’s GDP is 58.26 trillion. So by conservative estimates 20% of the debt money was used not for development but for destruction albeit in a different country. Let’s not forget that US is not the only country who incurred expenses in the war. So the overall cost of war is much more for the world, though US was the major spender.

Use of such valuable resources and in such huge amounts for the purpose of destroying more resources and properties is what it means to a simple mind. I am not even counting the lives lost in the whole war! The US was foolish enough to follow Afghanistan with Iraq, and the world was timid enough to watch. Power flew from the barrel of the gun and bodies such as UN yet again proved their worthlessness.

This single event was a failure on both counts of resource utilization and international regulations.

Long term Issues leading to the day

The problem may not just be episodic. Just as World War I was not just caused by the assassination of the Archduke of Austria alone but a series of factors, the present economic war is a manifestation of systemic decisions taken by the societies of the world over time.

Supply vs. Demand – a really macro view

Here the demand signifies what the entire human population requires while the supply signifies what this world can offer. The world today carries around 7 billion people and it has a limited set of resources such as fuel and metals. With limited supply and increasing demand, the cost of living is bound to increase. 

Consumerism

Consumer demand is essential to keep the economy alive. But how do you know when it is overdone? Take for example the consumption of energy. The per capita consumption of electricity in US is 1460 watts/ year while India stands at 50.5 watts/year. With the power cuts in India, people know that our consumption supply is less than optimal. But how do we tell if 1460 is too big a figure or not? The western world has indulged in excessive splurging for almost a century. It part of the reason of their growing economies. But it somehow doesn’t feel right from this simplistic framework of ours. It makes me wonder whether the west is in a way splurging at the expense of others.

GDP growth as a parameter

GDP of the world (in real terms) is constantly increasing. It has to, with the increasing population of the world. GDP growth is seen as a success parameter for nations. But ideally, we would want to have a situation such as Japan. Its economy is in constant recession. With lesser population, they need lesser goods to be produced. Even if the population were to stabilize, reduction in GDP of the world should be the aim as increased efficiencies should lead to lesser costs and prices for the same or even improved products.

Rich-poor divide

More than growth what we require is equitable distribution of what is already available. The topic of inequitable distribution finds place in political discussion (with little actual effect) but rarely in economic ones. A success of the economy is determined by the status of the bottom of the pyramid rather than the top. However, the capitalist philosophy been followed the world over has done little to solve the problem. The trickle down effect is hardly seen. Socialism on the other hand, drives down efficiencies and just makes everyone poorer. 

Conclusion

While the economists take care of our business cycles, it is these simple fundamentals discussed that will drive our economies in the long term. There is no simple answer to the complex problems. We need a series of great minds to focus on these issues and show us a way. If we focus our attention on just the short term economics, then as Keynes said, we may actually be all dead in the long term.

So what's the hype about?

There have been numerous debates as to whether the role of Steve Jobs in today’s world is over hyped. I for one, think it is. But let us try and understand the reasons for the hype.

Steve Jobs did not change the world. He didn’t invent the personal computer or the mouse driven GUI. People already listened to music on the move and owned cell phones. On the other hand, co-inventor of Unix OS and C programming language, Dennis Ritchie, passed away without making any major news. Without doubt his contribution to the world is much more than Steve Jobs’. I have no idea what Steve Jobs would have done in his life if not for the inventions of Dennis Ritchie. It’s actually like comparing the inventor of the wheel to the creator of the latest Mercedes car.

But let’s give credit to Steve for who he really was- a visionary marketer. The common link in all his success stories is that the success is less because of the basic product (similar products had always existed) and more due to the marketing skills of the legend. I would even risk saying that he may be the best marketer we have ever seen. He realised the latent need to make the computer and everyday electronic devices more user friendly. This one insight alone led to Apple becoming the second largest company in terms of market capitalization after Exxon. 

But the marketing legend is been bestowed with many more adjectives than this alone. The importance of Steve Jobs and Apple to the world is stated to be much more than it actually is. The reasons simply are as follows:

1. Steve Jobs passed away at the peak of the Apple success story. For example, the 27 club members wouldn’t have been as famous if they had lived on and died peacefully off their peak at 70.
2.  Steve Jobs was the face of Apple. He was like the lead singer of a band. No matter who wrote the lyrics and who gave the music, it’s always the lead singer who is remembered.
3.  His fall and return to power is what fairy tales are made of. His speech at Stanford graduation in 2005 mapping the story is one of the most (if not most) famous speeches of our time. This is one of the biggest factors in the making of brand Steve Jobs.
4.  It’s not the inventor or the back end guy who is remembered. It’s always the one who takes the product to the customer. Steve Jobs’ products in the initial stint were more impactful but he never gained popularity as the products/features were better marketed by Microsoft. However, his second stint gave him a cult status when he was able to market his products to the masses bettering competition.

     

Today when anyone sees and uses an Apple product, he feels the emotional connect to the face of the company. And emotions run much deeper than any logical argument which may try to prove the hype.