Thank God we're Free!

'As I understand the Catholic ban on contraception (after slogging through much of Pope John Paul II’s mind-wracking Theology of the Body), it’s based on the idea that people should act in the completeness of their spiritual humanity even in the moments of their most intimate physicality. Thus sex should only take place within a sacralized and lifelong commitment of love without being detached from its essential purpose of conception.

I don’t have to agree with this doctrine to understand that it’s an heroic attempt to defend the one most essential ingredient of freedom: the concept of the inviolable human soul. In taking this stand, the church of Rome is doing exactly what churches are supposed to do. It is institutionalizing the fact that man is spirit, that he cannot live by bread alone.

Kings have wanted to snuff out this idea forever. They want to convince us that we’re bodies only, collections of material needs — and that they can fill those needs in exchange for their power over us. Without our churches, without our religions, nothing would stop them from filling us with bread and stripping us of freedom. Obama offers us this exchange virtually every time he opens his mouth. He will give you your contraception, but he will command your conscience.

Whether we’re Catholic or not, whether we agree with the Catholics or not, every single one of us should stand up against the Obama administration’s assault on their church. The Jews of Caesarea will be standing with us. So, I believe, will the Christ.'

- Andrew Klavan, 'Like Your Freedom? Thank a Church.'

Sphere: Related Content

Why we cast stones

Its easy to see why in India we have books being banned, and artists hounded out. Of course, the threat of violence is real, and so stymieing such possibilities through a 'ban' may be a good idea. But the real reason for such asinine acts (read, bans) playing out is because the books and the people in question dare to take on precepts and symbols from which others in the country draw their own identity.

Our sense of identity either is nurtured from within, or is drawn from the outside. At times it may even be a combination of the two. The most dangerous of places in the world to live in are those that house people drawing their identities from the outside. Such people draw their identity constructs through deep connections they build with their country, their social class, their religion, ethnicity, and so on. If you knowingly or otherwise hurt the latter lot through for example published literature, pretty soon you'll be an author on the run. The zealots will come after you not because you've taken on the symbols, but because you've dared to play fiddle with a part of their identity.

Consumers who are marketer delights are those that draw their identity from products and services. The kid at college with an external locus of control, desperate to appear 'cool' will buy into a brand that promises him just that. The rare kid who stays aloof and sidesteps a marketer's snare will probably be the rare one who constructs whose identity from within, drawing more from fundamental principles of human character.

In some ways its good if people are the stone throwing kind. Managing them is easy as all you have to do is to pander to the symbols they hold sacred. Selling too could be a lark as long as you stick to the social norms they live by and identify with.

Sphere: Related Content

The Class warfare we need

'The point is this: If we’re going to have a war, let’s do it right. The battle lines should be drawn orthogonally to the oversimplified “rich versus the rest.” A virtuous war would be one that rewards society’s honest earners and productive contributors, while punishing society’s predators, pirates, and parasites—all without regard to anyone’s income level. It is a target-rich environment that includes anyone (of any income level) who is cheating to win, any business or union (of any size) with its snout in the public trough, any politician filling that trough and feeding those snouts for reciprocal gain, and any group using the political system (at any level) to maintain its monopoly, or its winning “edge” against less-well-connected competitors.

Among “the rich” are many entertainment superstars, artists, CEOs, inventors, and entrepreneurs. Are all of them villains because of their huge incomes? Of course not. Most of them get where they are because they produce things that entertain us, make us more productive, save us money, or save us time. Most are “rich” because they earned it—and because they earned it, they do not deserve to be targets in the class war...

The true heroes in our economy are the producers and earners; they can be found all the way up and down the income ladder, and class warfare should defend and reward them instead of targeting them. Conversely, the proper targets are the class that includes cheaters, predators, pirates, and parasites—who can also be found at all income levels.'

- Steve Conover, 'The Class Warfare We Need.'

Sphere: Related Content

How does owning spectrum help us?

I hope amidst all the license cancellation din in India, the real issue isn't swept under the carpet, or misunderstood.

The honourable Supreme court may have cancelled licenses, but don't for a moment assume the business scene will get better if regulations are 'tightened' to ensure fairplay. Regulations and their stern application isn't the answer to business fair play. Instead its the opposite that works. Do away with regulations (read, licenses). Let the market do its job in deciding who gets in, stays, or goes.

Saying spectrum belongs to the people of India and the state is the trustee sounds mushily appealing. But what licensing 'people-owned' spectrum really does is raise costs for those who want to get into the business of telecom services. Such increased costs will see license buyers legitimately pass it on as higher service prices to consumers.

So where is the tom-tommed benefit to people in being spectrum owners if they have to pay higher prices? Sure, government kitties will swell through licensing, but don't tell me you are willing to bet such money will be used for social upliftment.

Fat chance.

The best thing a government can do is to stay out of the business of business, making it easy for private parties to do business. Private parties doing business under market driven competition conditions is what will really benefit the citizenry.

Here's hoping people understand that.

Sphere: Related Content

Liberty & the menace of Dowry

Consider this latest move being proposed by the Indian Planning Commission's Working Group on Women's Agency and Empowerment. A high-powered government panel has recommended income-linked cap on marriage expenditure, including gifts and food served. The panel wants wants to improve implementation of the anti-dowry law by appointing sufficient number of dedicated, full time dowry prohibition officers to enforce the Dowry Prohibition Act. It has also recommended a relook at the existing definition of what constitutes "dowry", and penalties for violation.

Unbelievable.

But then again, its another classic example of government infringing on individual liberties under the garb of protecting them. I agree the problem of dowry in India is a depressing one. Latest statistics show there's a bride burnt every hour in India.

How tragic.

But if you think regulation and its enforcement is the answer to curbing this menace, you're wrong. As I have said umpteen times before, the presence of a regulator is good news for violators, for it helps them get away with murder (literally) by ensuring the regulator is 'bought' out. Which by the way has been happening for donkey's years in India, and will happen till kingdom come.

Social problems can't be tackled by government via regulations. It can only be mitigated through individuals exercising their god-given liberty. Women, with parental support must refuse marriage offers if its accompanied by dowry demands. If such demands start post marriage, women must walk out if they are subjected to any sort of abuse (psychological or physical). Finally, if doing the former means remaining single, they must welcome it, open arms. They may also take the Sushmita Sen (kudos to her) route, if that's acceptable.

Now I know this isn't easy in India. But tell you what, this is the only way out. Plus its better than hoping government will come to a woman's rescue (it won't and can't), or hoping her husband and his family won't burn her alive.

In the world of consumers too, it must be same story. Ensuring consumers buy into quality products and services must come out their exercising their individual liberty. That is, consumers must decide whether to buy, or not to. Their not buying is their best response to lousy quality. Depending on government to ensure quality is chasing a pipe dream. Plus history shows that when regulators in India were out in full force pre-liberalisation, we as consumers were at the mercy of the lousiest products and services imaginable.

The key to getting your choice of partner, or your product purchase right lies in you exercising your god-given liberty. One that allows you to say a no when you so desire, and proclaim a yes when you think the person or the product's right. God forbid, even if your choice turns out wrong, fret not. Respond, and exercise your liberty.

Stop your patronage of the brand.

Kick the guy out!

Sphere: Related Content

Apology

'When one friend hurts another, a caring friend apologizes at once. The Master or Mistress of the Universe doesn’t: it’s the difference between being empathic and being arrogant.

Some people have more trouble apologizing than others. As the gifted psychoanalyst Dr. Nancy McWilliams has written, narcissists have particular difficulty expressing remorse because to them it implies fallibility and personal error, admissions that are psychologically intolerable to such people.

Apologies can be difficult for everyone. An apology includes a clear statement of one’s error or offense, such as being disrespectful, underhanded, mean-spirited, deceitful, disloyal, unfair, hurtful, condescending, inconsiderate, insulting, heartless, cruel, abusive, as well as negligent, careless, feckless, and reckless.

Is it pleasant to acknowledge that you’ve been any of these? No. It takes self-awareness, backbone, and a strong desire to do right by another human being.

Apologies matter if you value a relationship.'

- Belladona Rogers, 'Why Apologies Matter.'

Sphere: Related Content

Sociopaths

'Normalcy does not make for a good story; the psychopathology of everyday life does. Similarly, there are many who cannot live with the equilibrium of every day existence. For them, life needs a step function or two, a qualitative change from time to time. And unlike the sociopath, they are incapable of moving to the edge and testing the boundaries of what they can get away with while being oblivious to the consequences; they live vicariously through the destructive sociopath who can do all that. This is the attraction. The sociopath provides the soundtrack for other people’s existence. Whether through the vicarious experience of watching the sociopath push life to limits that they could not imagine or periodically going along for the ride with him at the wheel, those who tie themselves to sociopaths find the narrative of their own existence in the relationship...

There are those that believe that they can be in a relationship with a sociopath and stay in control. Even some therapists will tell you that if you are going to be in such a relationship and can’t break it, then you must become like the sociopath. You must have an agenda for the relationship that you manipulate to your ends. You must see the relationship as an exploitive relationship and become the exploiter.

There is a major flaw in such advice. The sociopath neither loses sight of his ultimate goal nor of his self-interest. Ordinary people do. They succumb to the bonds of friendship or intimacy. Ordinary people have feelings. Sociopaths don’t. Ordinary people establish feelings of altruism, which the sociopaths do not, and which he ultimately manipulates when others are least ready to resist.

Sociopaths tell you how they are going to destroy you. They tell you stories of the relationships they have left in wreckage. It’s just subtle. You have to listen. I would bet that if people listened carefully to even a great exploiter like Madoff, there were hints of what he was really about. The sociopath can’t resist bragging. It is, next to lying, intrinsic to his very existence.

The most difficult relationship to extricate oneself from with a sociopath is a sexual relationship, for the sociopath uses sex as the ultimate form of manipulation and control, but feels little to no emotion in the process.'

- Abraham H. Miller, 'The Sociopath We All Know and Sometimes Love.'

Sphere: Related Content

Calm in Chaos?

I am glad Oprah was here. I have to thank her for making us feel good about the chaotic traffic in India. According to her it seems there's an underlying calm to everything that's witnessed in everyday India. Sadly, the heady feeling Oprah gave me went up in smoke as I travelled to work this morning. Maybe Oprah should travel back and forth from work everyday in India, and then wait and see if the 'calm' theory stays. My bet is, it won't.

Calm in chaos? You gotta be kidding me! Consider the statistics. According to the World Health Organisation's first ever Global Status Report on Road Safety (2010), road accidents have earned India a dubious distinction. With over 130,000 deaths annually, India has overtaken China and now has the worst road traffic accident rate worldwide.

But I guess Oprah will have none of the statistics. She will parrot what most other foreigners do about India. That's there's a spiritual calm to everything here. Now such 'blind' attitudes are easy to explain. Its akin to how consumers build zombie like attitudes towards premium lifestyle brands, never mind the products in question having zero differentiating features. The only feature that matters is the brand name. As for the differentials perceived, they live and last in consumer heads. Which is why consumers part with gobs of cash for labels.

Now I am not complaining. If perceptions can engineer and sustain premium sales, so be it. If perceptions can get Oprah to sing paeans to what is otherwise an unparalleled nightmare on Indian roads, probably I should sit back and let the heady feeling stay. And I mustn't worry too much about living such illusions long, for reality will hit.

Like it did this morning. On my way to work.

Sphere: Related Content

I'd Rather Go Blind

Etta James.

Diva.

RIP.

Sphere: Related Content

3 point Someone

When storywriter Chetan Bhagat tweets 'I have always believed that one can be good as well as enjoy the good life. So yes, got my own three-pointed star now!', he isn't crowing the purchase of a car, rather its him announcing his new-found status, proclaiming 'he's arrived'.

Has he?

Who cares.

But then his tweet is important for what it reveals. Something which most marketers miss seeing. That all buys at some level reek of needs that are psychogenic in nature. For Chetan, the 'three-pointed star' purchase was more an esteem buy than one aimed at fulfilling transportation needs. It wasn't functional value that was the pull, its what the car stood for that mattered.

The gravest mistake marketers make is in thinking that if consumers can't afford the price 'esteem' comes at, they don't harbour any. Take the Tata Nano for example. A superb functional value proposition from a car isn't all that middle/lower income consumers seek. They too (like Chetan) desire the 'status' a car can bring. A car brand that can't deliver 'status' may not sell, despite coming good on the 'value for money' proposition. Again, the challenge for the likes of Nano goes even further. Psychological value must come with minimal increase on the price tag.

As for Chetan, I'm glad he's got his pointed stars. He deserves every bit of it, for he's living testimony to what marketing can do, that talent can't.

Sell books.

Sphere: Related Content

Education, or something like it

'All too often I see too many young people trying to get into my field when they lack not only the personal qualifications but the needed willingness to make an effort. The university education they have received gets in the way of their understanding reality just as the proliferation of jargon makes them incapable of writing clearly, or — indeed — of having anything useful to say. At one point, we took on ten interns after making it clear that hard work could lead to employment. Nine of them did almost nothing despite the opportunity offered.

Masses of people with degrees decide that they should be writers, policy analysts, and academics (especially the kind who indoctrinate rather than teach anything truthful) far more than the numbers ever conceivably needed to fill these professions. And you can imagine what the political worldview of 90 percent of them is. Those who don’t find jobs are bitter that the capitalist economy has “failed.” Those who do find jobs will spend their career telling this to their students.

The governing idea of all this nonsense: Everyone who wants some elite, non-economically productive job should get one. This of course is a worldview that fits their “class interest.” That’s followed by the idea that any society which doesn’t perform this task is “unfair.” Massive deficits follow.

And after that comes the idea that the job of government is to take money from those who do something useful in order to pay not to those who cannot earn a living because of intense poverty, disease or other affliction, but rather to those who don’t want to do so because they have been crippled by miseducation and excessively high education.'

- Barry Rubin, 'The Graduate: Why Should Everyone Else Pay for Other People’s Dumb (and Hedonistic) Career Choices.'

Sphere: Related Content

Government isn't the solution to poverty, its the problem

The food bill in India isn't about how much its going to cost the Indian government. Its about how much money will be squandered in the name of feeding the poor. Years of socialist ramblings has ensured the authors and operators (read, intermediaries and some dealers of PDS outlets) of such schemes are the only ones who benefit. And yes, governments behind such hair-brained schemes mired in corruption too score brownie talking points.

Amidst all of this, the poor in Indian remain hopelessly poor!

Again, it isn't centralising or decentralising schemes of this kind. Its about fundamentally altering a mindset that believes Governments (whether Central or state) can alleviate poverty.

Governments can't!

Free Markets can!

To know better, watch the video above.

Sphere: Related Content

Cooing on a crimson tale

Lady Gaga leaving blood in the tub of the suite she was staying at has more to do with branding, than anything else. Perish the thought of any satanic rituals. Plus don't take reports of Gaga going gaga over paranormal investigators too seriously.

It's all part of the branding/positioning game.

One half of Lady Gaga is music, the other's pure performance. In fact, if asked to pick, I'd take the latter as being key to the Gaga story. Tell you what, the Gaga stories are far more important than what's real. A buy-in into the Gaga music is a buy-in into the complete story. Now there's a lesson there for for all those who are trying to sell.

Stories elicit better responses from consumers. More so in certain product categories. Of course, a story on its own can't engineer a sale. But the story could be reason why the brand's remembered, plus is differentiated from competition. The Gaga songs ain't any different or better than the rest of the stuff that gets sung.

But then which other crooner you know coos a tune that's carried by a crimson tale?

Sphere: Related Content

The only 'requisite' is Liberty!

'They are now paying for having built such an unrepresentative upper-crust leadership, deluded perhaps by the belief that this battle was theirs to win on Twitter, Facebook and television channels where their interlocutors were trumpeters or fellow travellers. They forgot that the battle for power and ideas is fought in a democracy’s parliament and within its institutions. They started to believe their own mythology of being apolitical. They did not realise that politics, in a democracy as diverse as ours, needs two essential pre-requisites: ideology and inclusiveness. Abhorrence of corruption is a universal virtue but not an ideology.'

Now that's the problem with a being a journalist in India (in this particular case it is Shekhar Gupta), more so if you belong to the gaggle of yesteryear journos who've been raised on what was socialist staple then, that government will engineer equitable prosperity. Tell you what, nothing of that sort happened for the last sixty years, and I bet it won't for the next sixty too, if we listen to the likes of Shekhar.

The 'battle for power and ideas' can't, and mustn't come out of political theatres. If they do, it means the ingenuity of private citizens has been consigned to dustbins. Plus, the ideas that do come out of political gatherings can't and won't benefit private tax paying citizens. It will only ensure the lot of the political class and bureaucracy is bettered. Worse, it will ensure the strangulation of 'private' ingenuity!

Note what Milton Friedman stated, 'The fundamental principal of the free society is voluntary cooperation. The economic market, buying and selling, is one example. But it's only one example. Voluntary cooperation is far broader than that. To take an example that at first sight seems about as far away as you can get, the language we speak; the words we use; the complex structure of our grammar; no government bureau designed that. It arose out of the voluntary interactions of people seeking to communicate with one another. Or consider some of the great scientific achievements of our time, the discoveries of an Einstein or Newton, the inventions of Thomas Alva Edison or an Alexander Graham Bell or even consider the great charitable activities of a Florence Nightingale or an Andrew Carnegie. These weren't done under orders from a government office. They were done by individuals deeply interested in what they were doing, pursing their own interests, and cooperating with one another.'

Based on the principles of free markets, looking after one's own interest is in fact most welcome. After all, the pursuit of self interest is what benefits society. It is self interest that turns the private citizen into a producer, or a participator in the business of production, so he can profit or earn wages. Again its self interest that makes consumers out of private citizens, so they can enjoy the fruits of their 'labour'. The two acts of production and consumption are the most legitimate acts that any society must foster and protect! For they are the only acts that matter!

Now when it comes to government and its regulatory diktats, self interest stands on shaky foundations, for such self interest plays out on taxpayer money. How moral or fair is that? In contrast, if private citizens were to use their money to pursue their own self-interest, who can fault that?

I hope and pray in the coming year, India riding on the wave Anna has started, realises liberty and its guarantee by government is the sole key to our betterment. I hope and pray we as nation understand the battle for power and ideas must play out in the market place sans regulation, among private citizens.

'Ideology' be damned, its done us no good, and won't! 'Inclusiveness' on its part is a mirage, played out the political class as a 'promise' that won't be fulfilled (at least not by them) for a zillion years to come!

Here's wishing us a better year ahead. Here's wishing we embrace liberty!

Sphere: Related Content

Deconstructing the State

'The State is not a god. It is not a supreme or “higher” or wiser or beatific or somehow omniscient authority. It is not a hypostatic substance. It is not a thing. Indeed, it is nothing. It is, in fact, a figment of iconolatric homage, a subtle and insinuating illusion which derives its power from a combination of its coercive function and the mystique of psychological projection on the part of those it controls. It is what the Greeks called an eidolon, a phantom or apparition, an image like Euripides’ Helen who was fashioned from cloud-stuff while the real Helen spent the Trojan War in Egypt. A moment’s reflection makes this species of necromancy glaringly obvious. Yet we are ruled by specters and chimeras, of which the State is a paramount instance.

There is, indeed, something ludicrous in the elevation of the State, as if it were not only an Idol of the Theater, but a production in the Theater of the Absurd behind which a stubborn and prosaic — and occasionally tumultuous — reality willy-nilly persists. This is the fact, like the poet Rimbaud’s “waterfall [that] echoes behind the comic-opera huts” in Illuminations. Regrettably, its theatrical, or even farcical, nature does not prevent it from being treated with undue respect or errant veneration. Despite its figuring as idol or comedy, the apotheosis of the State is no whimsical or laughing matter, since it disables critics from articulating — without seeming like heretics bent on sacrilege — reasonable ways to reduce its size and influence...

As Hegel pointed out in his Critique of the German Constitution, the chief purpose of the so-called State is self-preservation, which amounts in practice to a clique of self-interested individuals — with some exceptions — who labor chiefly to secure the enjoyment of their perquisites. Far too many of us are prone to give the State absolute ascendancy. We concede it a primacy it does not merit rather than perceive it as only an assembly of people in whom we have put our temporary and often disappointed trust.

In short, a great number of us do not regard the State in the proper sense of a governing body of representative officials elected to serve the people and ensure public order, and who can be dismissed or voted out should they prove venal or incompetent. Too often we regard it as a material entity, an idol, instinct with lustral properties and quasi-magical attributes. The State acts. The State disposes. The State governs. The State knows best. Or so we think. But the State, as such, neither acts nor disposes nor governs nor knows anything at all. Treated as a unitary object, when it actually conceals a multiplicity of discrete subjects, the State is a fungible hallucination to which we have accorded our political obeisance.

And it is precisely this form of laic credulity and intellectual conceit which unscrupulous or parasitical elites rely upon to work their will on those they are determined to dominate.'

- David Solway, 'Deconstructing the State'.

Sphere: Related Content

The Proper Role of Government

Sphere: Related Content

A Government of Laws, not of Men

If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.

This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.

A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.

The fundamental difference between private action and governmental action—a difference thoroughly ignored and evaded today—lies in the fact that a government holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force. It has to hold such a monopoly, since it is the agent of restraining and combating the use of force; and for that very same reason, its actions have to be rigidly defined, delimited and circumscribed; no touch of whim or caprice should be permitted in its performance; it should be an impersonal robot, with the laws as its only motive power. If a society is to be free, its government has to be controlled.

Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted.

This is the means of subordinating “might” to “right.” This is the American concept of “a government of laws and not of men.”

- Ayn Rand, “The Nature of Government,” from The Virtue of Selfishness.

Sphere: Related Content

The limits of Government

'In mankind’s history, the understanding of the government’s proper function is a very recent achievement: it is only two hundred years old and it dates from the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution. Not only did they identify the nature and the needs of a free society, but they devised the means to translate it into practice. A free society—like any other human product—cannot be achieved by random means, by mere wishing or by the leaders’ “good intentions.” A complex legal system, based on objectively valid principles, is required to make a society free and to keep it free-a system that does not depend on the motives, the moral character or the intentions of any given official, a system that leaves no opportunity, no legal loophole for the development of tyranny.

The American system of checks and balances was just such an achievement. And although certain contradictions in the Constitution did leave a loophole for the growth of statism, the incomparable achievement was the concept of a constitution as a means of limiting and restricting the power of the government.

Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals—that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government—that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizens’ protection against the government.

Now consider the extent of the moral and political inversion in today’s prevalent view of government. Instead of being a protector of man’s rights, the government is becoming their most dangerous violator; instead of guarding freedom, the government is establishing slavery; instead of protecting men from the initiators of physical force, the government is initiating physical force and coercion in any manner and issue it pleases; instead of serving as the instrument of objectivity in human relationships, the government is creating a deadly, subterranean reign of uncertainty and fear, by means of nonobjective laws whose interpretation is left to the arbitrary decisions of random bureaucrats; instead of protecting men from injury by whim, the government is arrogating to itself the power of unlimited whim—so that we are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.

It has often been remarked that in spite of its material progress, mankind has not achieved any comparable degree of moral progress. That remark is usually followed by some pessimistic conclusion about human nature. It is true that the moral state of mankind is disgracefully low. But if one considers the monstrous moral inversions of the governments (made possible by the altruist-collectivist morality) under which mankind has had to live through most of its history, one begins to wonder how men have managed to preserve even a semblance of civilization, and what indestructible vestige of self-esteem has kept them walking upright on two feet.

One also begins to see more clearly the nature of the political principles that have to be accepted and advocated, as part of the battle for man’s intellectual Renaissance.'

- Ayn Rand, “The Nature of Government,” from The Virtue of Selfishness.

Sphere: Related Content

Beware, its the lull!

The talking heads on TV think the Anna movement is fizzling out. I'd recommend they be smarter than that.

The passing of the Lokpal bill in the Indian Parliament means zilch to people in India. It surely provided frenzied talking moments for TV heads yesterday, as it did for parliamentarians to put in a show on the floor. But when it comes to the tax paying citizens of this country, the bill means nada. What is bound to continue and frustrate people will be an entrenched bureaucracy and political class that can't, and won't do anything to better people's lives!

Guess what happens then?

The movement will be back. It will ride on the frustrations of taxpaying citizens to take center stage again. And all it will take for that to happen is time. Its the 'timing' that will be the key. The 'time' needed for now, is for the weather to change, the holiday season to get over, and of course for corruption to rear up again!

All of the above will happen. The talking heads better take note.

Ditto for marketers who think their place in sun will continue forever. Entrenched brands take note. There's danger from an upstart round the corner. And consumers like people, don't care much about who you are, or that they patronise you for now. In fact, consumers will drop you at the blink of an eye and switch to a competing brand, if they buy into the promise of a 'better' solution from a competitor.

For now, its a lull on the Lokpal front. But the storm's brewing.

Beware.

Sphere: Related Content

Is Anna a media creation? Is Coca Cola about advertising?

Asking if Anna is a media creation is like asking if Coca Cola owes everything to advertising. Of course, no point thrashing this out with media fat cats of yore running down Anna on TV in the name of parliamentary supremacy, because they are products of a system thus far that's ensured their place in the sun. So these TV commentators won't be the first ones complaining about the 'system'. Plus they don't have a clue on what marketing is, and how it plays out.

Media and messages on it can only engineer for a brand, recognition and recall. Anything beyond mustn't be attributed to the either the media or messages running on it. Instead the 'blame' should squarely be put at the doorstep of the consumer, who if he buys the brand, indicates he's bought into the marketer's value proposition (read, brand) at least the first time around.

Ditto for Anna.

The 'buy-in' into Anna is a result of people identifying with a cause they believe can probably help them ease what is otherwise a miserable life, caused much by government and the zero accountability system its fashioned for itself, and not the people. Its quite amusing to hear political commentators sing paeans to parliamentary debate of the past. Really, the debates were of superlative quality? Fat good it did to us citizens, other than illustrate some politicians as being good at public speaking!

People and consumers buy into something only if they believe the value proposition being presented is perceived as a solution to their needs. Sure, the medium and the message matter to the point of 'presenting' the value proposition to its target constituents. Beyond that, its zilch contribution by either the media, or the message.

Anna today stands as a 'perceived' solution. Probably, he isn't. But I surely wanna buy in. Simply because the alternative to Anna's bill is status quo that's ruined us citizens for decades. Though I am a firm believer in eliminating regulation and allowing for the free markets to do its job, I know its a regulatory climate we have to live with in India. If so, a legislation that can hold regulators accountable is welcome.

In fact, more than welcome.

Sphere: Related Content

The Right to Rise

'Think about it. We talk about the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to assembly. The right to rise doesn't seem like something we should have to protect.

But we do. We have to make it easier for people to do the things that allow them to rise. We have to let them compete. We need to let people fight for business. We need to let people take risks. We need to let people fail. We need to let people suffer the consequences of bad decisions. And we need to let people enjoy the fruits of good decisions, even good luck.

That is what economic freedom looks like. Freedom to succeed as well as to fail, freedom to do something or nothing. People understand this. Freedom of speech, for example, means that we put up with a lot of verbal and visual garbage in order to make sure that individuals have the right to say what needs to be said, even when it is inconvenient or unpopular. We forgive the sacrifices of free speech because we value its blessings.

But when it comes to economic freedom, we are less forgiving of the cycles of growth and loss, of trial and error, and of failure and success that are part of the realities of the marketplace and life itself.

Increasingly, we have let our elected officials abridge our own economic freedoms through the annual passage of thousands of laws and their associated regulations. We see human tragedy and we demand a regulation to prevent it. We see a criminal fraud and we demand more laws. We see an industry dying and we demand it be saved. Each time, we demand "Do something . . . anything."...

Have we lost faith in the free-market system of entrepreneurial capitalism? Are we no longer willing to place our trust in the creative chaos unleashed by millions of people pursuing their own best economic interests?

The right to rise does not require a libertarian utopia to exist. Rather, it requires fewer, simpler and more outcome-oriented rules. Rules for which an honest cost-benefit analysis is done before their imposition. Rules that sunset so they can be eliminated or adjusted as conditions change. Rules that have disputes resolved faster and less expensively through arbitration than litigation...

We either can go down the road we are on, a road where the individual is allowed to succeed only so much before being punished with ruinous taxation, where commerce ignores government action at its own peril, and where the state decides how a massive share of the economy's resources should be spent.

Or we can return to the road we once knew and which has served us well: a road where individuals acting freely and with little restraint are able to pursue fortune and prosperity as they see fit, a road where the government's role is not to shape the marketplace but to help prepare its citizens to prosper from it.

In short, we must choose between the straight line promised by the statists and the jagged line of economic freedom. The straight line of gradual and controlled growth is what the statists promise but can never deliver. The jagged line offers no guarantees but has a powerful record of delivering the most prosperity and the most opportunity to the most people. We cannot possibly know in advance what freedom promises for 312 million individuals. But unless we are willing to explore the jagged line of freedom, we will be stuck with the straight line. And the straight line, it turns out, is a flat line.'

- Jeb Bush, 'Capitalism and the Right to Rise.'

Sphere: Related Content

The Moral Man & Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens is dead.

RIP.

But wait a minute. That means dwindling opportunities to demonstrate the work of grace, the handiwork of God. Hitchens was a celebrity who through his vitriol put God on center stage. Such Hitchenesque hatred allowed the likes of Dinesh D'Souza (among others) to comprehensively prove the existence of a loving God (video above), whilst demonstrating how we've benefitted as a race via the Judeo-Christian principles.

Hitchens and his ilk need to be around for us to be reminded and proven to, of the grace of god. Its much like needing liberal socialists, so we never take the goodness of liberty and free markets for granted.

The work of grace and of free markets is pretty much the same. They liberate us. As people, and as consumers.

CH, you'll be missed. Now you know why.

Sphere: Related Content

Curtailing Consumer Liberty

I have always bemoaned the lack of free market thought in India. Let me continue on that road. Its a pity that socialist ramblings guide policy decisions in India. Its one sure way of ensuring we remain a 'third world' country.

The latest in the line of lousy policy decisoins comes from a Planning Commission working group that's seeks to impose what could be a green cess of 3% of the annual insured value of all private vehicles and a steep urban transport tax to be collected at the time of purchase of private vehicles.

Welcome to what is the socialist liberal nightmare. One of the two key players to a country's prosperity, namely consumers (the other being producers) get penalised in such nightmares. Consumers are asked to pay more and more, so government can continue on with its hair brained schemes. Consider this. Should somebody like Mr. Sreedharan, the metro man who built a public transportation service be at the helm of a group that tries to curtail my use of my private vehicle? And again, if its private vehicles and their use that's being taxed, why not other products and services? Why shouldn't such planning groups recommend more taxes on everything we use? The way I see it, this global warming nonsense can be caused by every possible product and service we use, not just cars and mo'bikes!

Tell you what, the planning commission group can start leading the way through setting an example. Let them first give up their cars, their microwave ovens, refrigerators, mobile phones, washing machines, LCD TVs, iPads, laptops, and their like, to exhibit their commitment to saving the planet.

We'll then follow.

Better still, why don't we just ban cars and bikes, and go back to the bullocks and carts so we can keep everything 'green'! Or even better still, don't we just abandon our urban lives and retreat into caves!

Its time Sreedharan and his group took some lessons in free market economics. It wouldn't also hurt if they read up evidence that shows global warming is hoax that suits the Gores and railway engineers of the world. I know that's wishful thinking, but it could probably save us from hare brained ideas that seek to curtail consumer liberty. And liberty of that kind is what keeps a nation on a path to prosperity. 'Green cesses' do nothing other than fill government coffers, which in other words can be called hoarding money with zilch accountability.

Your guess is as good as mine on what happens to zero accountability money.

Sphere: Related Content

Hail the People, Hail Consumers!

Make no mistake about it. The constant reference to parliamentary sovereignty by the political class in India isn't so we prevent a descent into anarchy, its so we stay the way we are, subject as people to the whims and fancies of parliamentarians.

Its important at this time to take a few lessons from the principles of freedom enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America.

(Quoting from 'The 5000 Year Leap: Principles of Freedom 101')

10th Principle: The God-given right to Govern is Vested in the Sovereign Authority of the Whole People

... (Madison) declared: The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the PEOPLE altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and ton have viewed these different establishments not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. The must be told that the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, wherever the derivative may be found, RESIDES IN THE PEOPLE ALONE. (Federalist Papers, No. 46, p. 294; emphasis added)

11th Principle: The Majority of the People may Alter or Abolish a Government Which has become Tyrannical.

...Virginia Declaration of Rights: The government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people.... And that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, A MAJORITY of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefensible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal. (Annals of America, 2:432; emphasis added)

I agree our constitutional democracy has been designed differently from the US., but the principles of freedom and sovereignty of the 'whole people' is a universal.

Just like in the world of commerce.

It must not be government that decides who can sell, and who people can buy from. Its must be CONSUMERS! Its consumers who must decide that with the power of their purses. Its the money from their purses that must keep businesses alive. And if they choose not to patronise a particular seller, so be it! The seller must shut and go!

Sphere: Related Content

Why consumers will suffer in India

As Calcutta and the rest of India grieves, TV channels tom-tom the same question all over again. Times Now asks, 'Is India a zero public safety nation?'

Now isn't that easily answered? But then it really doesn't matter because as a nation we still won't the take the road that leads to better products and services. When I say better, I also mean safer. For the moment, Mamtadi, anti-FDI crusader has gotten the hospital in question's license cancelled. I wonder what good is it to those who have lost loved ones?

The truth is, its the license raj that ensures consumers get the rotten end of the barrel. Licenses that are supposed to protect us consumers from unscrupulous service providers are the real reason why the latter thrive. Fixing a system that depends on regulations ensuring quality is easy. Bribe the regulator and you can get away with near murder. Which is why for ages past, and for ages to come, the Indian system was, and will be 'fixed'.

And guess who'll suffer? Consumers! Sometimes with the kind of disastrous consequences like the one we witnessed today at the AMRI hospital.

The answer to better quality products and services for consumers isn't greater regulation. As I said, regulators can be fixed. Its been happening for donkey's years in India. The only way out ironically is to eliminate regulation and bring in competition. That will have quality zoom, and consumers benefit. For god's sake, bring the MNCs in!

But then again, that's something Indians can't mouth or even understand. The socialist nonsense that passes off as government regulating because they 'care' for us, is not easy to shrug off. The latest example is one that's the handiwork of Mamtadi herself. After all, didn't she stand steadfast and save us from big bad Wal-Mart?

Though tragic, don't be surprised at what happened today. Regulation and government control can't save us consumers. Only competition in the market place can! It'll take a while before we Indians get around to understanding that. In the meanwhile brace yourself for more tragedies!

The only thing that can save us are prayers. Here's praying for all of us!

Sphere: Related Content

Hooray to the nation of shopkeepers!

I am thrilled at the Finance Minister's assurance on our economy. He says the economy may be facing difficulties, “but that does not mean that we shall have to start eating lizard!”.

You bet.

I think it would do us Indians a world of good if we make the right comparisons, akin to the kind Pranab da is referring to. Thank god we have Bangladesh for a neighbour. As Mathew once said, 'A trip to Bangladesh is highly recommended. It will make you more appreciative of India.'

India remains a nation of shopkeepers. Three cheers to that!

The socialist nightmare plods on. Hooray! Let's stay poor!

Sphere: Related Content

Why do you wanna be someone else?

Managing peer pressure isn't easy. But I bet you'll survive if you've cultivated a strong sense of self-worth much before you are subject to the pressures of a peer circle. And I bet again, this would have happened the right way if your parents built in you an understanding and acceptance of worth based on character, not pretenses.

Let me explain. If you probably are trying to match up to what the world wants you to be, that's because you don't value yourself on character. Instead you are in a mad rush to conform to the the 'shallow' ways of the world. And pray, what does the 'world' want of you? If you are college goer for example, and then 'cool' is what they're hammering you into becoming. Which probably explains why you've changed so much from who you were. Now your clothes are different, your hair's done differently, you talk funny, the list goes on.

Pity.

You're forcing change on yourself so you are accepted by your peers. Explains why you are so susceptible to the lure of brands. You need brands to make you what others want you to be. Which of course is good news to marketers. For they lie in wait round the corner with a promise of the 'social persona' you so badly seek.

Well, this time I ain't sayin' pity. In fact, hooray to brands for helping you 'fit' in.

Sphere: Related Content

Show me the way

Sphere: Related Content

A boy and a girl

I always thought Jaden was the cool customer. No overt displays of affection, no happy yells at seeing me back from work. Brooklyn, all of a year old seems markedly different. She's the one who runs up, and gets picked. She doesn't hold back on resting on my shoulder or sitting on my knee.

Tell you what, I was cautioned on this marked difference in behaviour. Its been fascinating to see it unfold. As a father I am called to alter the way I respond to Jaden and Brooklyn. As the years go by, I guess it'll get tougher, but I'd like to believe I will be up to it.

Fluid changes in response depending on who the consumer is, or what he's turned into, is what marketers are called to do. Simply because consumers aren't alike. Also because they're going to evolve and so won't be like the way they were earlier. Segmenting to a certain extent helps marketers fashion customised responses. But the future will belong to those than can micro-market. That is, customise to the farthest extent possible. Of course, it won't be easy. But it will have to be done.

Just like I will have to deal 'differently' with Jaden and Brooklyn.

Sphere: Related Content

Liberty & Free Society

Sphere: Related Content

I am why businesses exist!

As a consumer I need to be worried about the Kirana store down the road that would go out of business if FDI is allowed in multi-branded retail?

As a consumer I need to be worried about the trader who will be squeezed out of the retail chain if Wal- Mart came in ?

Why?

The way I see it, every trade and traders within exist because I decide to spend my money on products and services! By that count, shouldn't I be the one who's protected? Shouldn't I be given the freedom to buy from whoever and wherever? If Wal-Mart's where I wanna buy from, who should have a problem? After all, the last I heard, its my hard-earned money I am spending, am I not?

Sphere: Related Content

The Caveman & The Vampire

Show me a girl who doesn't want to be swept off her feet, and I'll get you a mutt who can wink. Kinda explains why romancing vampires can be such a hit. Its the fantasy that's working. For all those women currently swooning over Edward, its their heads playing tricks on them. Its them living the fantasy romance in their heads.

Why?

Isn't that simple? How many women do you know who are being swept off their feet by their better halves? I know girls, its such a pity romance is dead and buried. That all you get is cavemen lookin' for meat.

Our fantasies are our escape from drudgery. And the only way we can live that fantasy is by turning consumers. Which is why we watch romancing vampires goggle-eyed on screen. Why we down good money on flashy gizmos that do nothing other than make us go yakety yak.

Thank heavens we live bored lives. Else marketers would be scraping the barrel. But for the moment its the marketers who are laughing their way to the bank. And women getting over a vampire-hangover are letting the reality of cavemen sink in.

Sphere: Related Content

Light bulb addiction

'Or, just possibly, this urge to stockpile incandescents is the product of simmering outrage. For decades, I have written about America as the world’s beacon of freedom, which it has been. Yet here we are, wards of the nanny state, with politicians dictating that even that prime symbol of American ingenuity, Thomas Edison’s incandescent light bulb, shall be regulated into oblivion. All this has been ably exposed as an act of crony capitalism, designed to enrich manufacturers who prefer to sell pricier light bulbs that a lot of Americans, if free to choose, prefer not to buy. And the actual mechanics of this ban have been greatly blurred, Washington-style, by framing this fix not as an outright prohibition, but merely as a phase-out of light bulbs that do not meet standards set by Washington in the name of “energy efficiency.” First the 100-watt incandescents vanish from the shelves. Then the 75-watt, the 60-watt and 40-watt. It is, in its way, a bipartisan dimming of choice, tacked onto an energy bill signed into law in 2007 by President George W. Bush, and –despite an attempt at repeal this past July — upheld by Democrats in Congress under President Barack Obama.'

- Claudia Rossett, 'Confessions of a light buld addict.'

Sphere: Related Content

Surprised at Moral Policing?

Surprised at Alka Pandeyji's moral policing act?

I am not.

After all Alkaji's antics must mirror what's socially sanctioned behaviour (read, slapping people around) in the badlands of UP. So I say let the freak show continue on. And let's enjoy the spectacle, though our stomachs may churn.

Even in purchase scenarios I am not surprised if I encounter behaviour that I consider rude. Hey, welcome to rude country where queuing may probably be quite the alien act. Okay, maybe that's an exaggeration, maybe people do queue up. Yeah, I've been in quite a few polite queues here in Bangalore.

But then there's the odd uncivil act that always crops up. And I ain't surprised.

Don't be.

Sphere: Related Content

Nonsense makes sense

Kolaveri di is an out and out case of stimulus response. Zero information processing, pure stimulus response.

Let me explain. As a stimulus Kolaveri di presents content that arrests our attention. Technically that means we select the stimuli because we hear and see something that is distinctly different. The lyrics, the tune, and the visuals that don't mean much are why it isn't ordinary. Surely, nonsense must stand out in sea of sense. Especially to a particular demographic that then takes to it lock stock and barrel. Add to this, the herd mentality kicking in. If Kolaveri di's cool, who am I to differ?

What follows our selection of this stimuli is an instantaneous act of organization and interpretation. Now this comes easy because it taxes none of the cognitive abilities. We aren't called to process any information, only respond to stimuli. And that's easy. After all, the lyrics mean nothing, the tune's arresting, and the scene compelling. Born out of impulse and instinct (which is why it is what it is), not careful design, Kolaveri di presents a body of work that connects at multiple levels.

But remember, Kolaveri di isn't a phenomenon. It's a fad that's having its time under the sun. What will soon follow will be wannabe Kolaveris trying to engineer what the original's pulled off. They will fail. By then, Kolaveri di will be dead.

But don't fret much, 'cos nonsense will again find its way in. For a certain demographic at times, nonsense is what will make complete sense.

P.S. - Why has the north of the Vindhyas taken to Kolaveri di? Simple. Taking to nonsense at times is a universal. Language's never a barrier.

Sphere: Related Content

Why this Kolaveri di? Here's why da!

Why this Kolaveri di?

Simple, da! It fall over the tipping point, da! Because it fulfilling the three general principles, da!

One, da, Kolaveri getting the 'law of the few right'!

'The law of the few says that success of any kind of social epidemic is “…heavily dependent on the involvement of people with a particular and rare set of social gifts.” These people are mavens – experts in a particular field, and connecters, known to and trusted by others, and who have wider connections to influential groups.'

Two, da, Kolaveri getting the 'stickiness factor' right!

'The second principle, the stickiness factor – is the message that makes an impact. Stickiness is more important than the medium. It can be an advertising device that forces people to read or listen to the ad’s message, and to actually absorb that message. It’s best done with a message that resonates with the reader, particularly in a way that offers a personal benefit. Or it could be a simple action or device that’s particularly user friendly.'

Three, da, Kolaveri lucky in getting the right 'context'!

'The third principle is context, the environment and circumstances that breed and foster an idea’s epidemic effect.'

Get it, da?
No, da?
Read 'Tipping Point', da!

Sphere: Related Content

The Retail 'nationalist' debate

The discussion on Indian TV (CNN-IBN) tonight?

Is FDI in Retail anti-national?

Well, don't bother watching. I'll tell you what the answer is.

YES, it is anti-national, if 'national' represents certain politicians (read, the communists and the pseudo-nationalists), the kirana store guys, traders (read, retail middlemen), and current big format retail players who can't stomach competition.

NO, it isn't anti-national, if 'national' means consumers in India!

So I guess the question that must be debated on TV needs to be 'What is NATIONAL?'

Sphere: Related Content

Fulfilling the Female Ego

'What makes Twilight “brain porn”? It fulfills the female ego in the same way pornography appeals to men.

Pornography exaggerates the most cathartic aspect of romantic encounters while dismissing real-life baggage. It elevates an irrational self-indulgence while ignoring any sense of responsibility, particularly to the other. For men, this translates to reckless sexual satisfaction. For women, it’s more complicated.

Sure, women like sex too. However, their enjoyment typically requires stimulation of the mind as much as the body. Women hope to be loved, desired above all others, and valued more than life itself. The Twilight Saga embodies this fantasy.

Pornography imagines that women exist for the sole purpose of satisfying men. The women in porn are not only willing, but eager. They are depicted as if satisfying a man is the means by which their own life is sustained. This is without the slightest pretense, explanation, or justification. The unconditional nature of the attraction is essential to the fantasy.

So it is in Twilight, only with the roles reversed. Edward Cullen and Jacob Black adore Bella, not due to any apparent merit, but simply because she is there. Indeed, they indulge her whims and endure her moods without conditions of any kind. Any objection they do offer is complimentary. I’ll only turn you into a vampire if you marry me. Every conflict between the three leads only serves to demonstrate how thoroughly both males are devoted to Bella.

The most objectionable example of this porn-like dynamic is the frequently shirtless Jacob. Watching his unrequited obsession with Bella play out on-screen evokes the same eye rolling disgust that women have endured for years while watching two-dimensional bimbos fawn over undeserving men. The relationship begins with him filling in for the absent Edward, serving as a platonic scratching post to tide Bella over until her main squeeze returns. From there, Jacob engages in progressively more demeaning exercises in fruitless devotion.

In the third entry of the series Jacob manages the lackluster achievement of badgering Bella into admitting some love for him, albeit not as much as she holds for Edward. Her ideal scenario is to be with Edward while having Jacob around to dote on her within the boundaries she sets. She treats Jacob like some kind of pervert for not being satisfied with this arrangement. In this way, the dynamic between Bella, Edward, and Jacob is not unlike that between a husband, wife, and mistress. Bella wants to marry Edward but have Jacob as a kept man. The only difference is that Jacob satisfies her emotionally rather than sexually.

Stephenie Meyer deserves a tip of the hat for a truly unique cultural achievement. She has managed to distill the essence of an addictive, illicit entertainment and bring it to a new audience without carrying over any of the taboo. It’s a masterful accomplishment. Men’s primal tastes are too brute to pull off such a trick.'

- Walter Hudson, 'Porn for Women: The Twilight Saga.'

Sphere: Related Content

Wal-Mart evil, or you stupid?

John Stossel on Wal-Mart:

"They have taken the values, the morals, the ethics, fairness that are the fabric of our society and put them aside and . . . put their profits before their people," said Blank.

That's foolish economics, and not very good morality. He is as wrong as the tycoon Michael Douglas played in the movie "Wall Street," who said: "It's a zero-sum game. Somebody wins. Somebody loses. Money itself isn't lost or made, it's simply transferred."

That's a myth. Businesses create wealth.

Take the simplest example. I buy a quart of milk. I hand the storekeeper money; she gives me the milk. We both benefit, because she wanted the money more than the milk, and I wanted the milk more than the money. This is why often both of us say "thank you." Because it's voluntary, business is win/win. A transaction won't happen unless both parties benefit. Each party ends up better off than he was before. And when you have millions of successful transactions, you end up very well off -- like the owners of Wal-Mart.

Their becoming rich doesn't mean there's less for the rest of us. Sam Walton's innovations created thousands of new jobs and allowed millions of Americans to save money.

In earlier eras, John D. Rockefeller and Cornelius Vanderbilt were depicted as evil. But the condemnation rarely came from consumers. It was competing businessmen who complained. And newspapers lapped it up, calling them "robber barons."

Vanderbilt got rich by making travel and shipping cheaper. Lots of people liked that.

No one was forced to buy the oil on which Rockefeller got rich. He had to persuade people by offering it to them for less. He offered it so cheaply that poorer people, who used to go to bed when it got dark, could now afford fuel for their lanterns.

These are "robber barons"?

"You could not find a more inaccurate term for these men than 'robber barons,'" said philosopher David Kelley. "They weren't barons. All of them started penniless. And they weren't robbers, because they didn't take it from anyone else."

Wal-Mart's critics act as if economic competition were a "zero-sum game" -- if one person gets richer, someone else must be getting poorer. If Wal-Mart's owners profit, we lose. But the reality is exactly what our ordinary language tells us: We make money. We produce wealth.

Wal-Mart created wealth. It started with just one discount store. Then, its owner, Sam Walton, invented new ways to streamline the supply chain, so he was able to sell things for less and still make a profit. By keeping prices low, Wal-Mart effectively gives everyone who shops there a raise, its own employees included.

Sphere: Related Content

Q & A

Better late than never. So here's my answer to questions posed. Also thanks guys, for the Qs.

Rachana asks, 'Is it possible that the same theory of ideal self be true for the concern for some strands of grey hair?'

I don't think so. When one bothers about an uncontrollable (in this case its greying) I'd suspect it to be the prompting of the ideal social self. A focus on a controllable (the bulge) could probably be a push to get to ideal self. Though I must admit, burning fat to look good can also mean its the ideal social self that's the prompter.

Aritra asks, 'But don't you think the influence a parent has on his kid lasts only to a certain age? According to me, by the time a kid hits puberty, his locus of influence(for lack of a better term) shifts more to external sources and the decisions made are also based on these factors. Your views?'

Sure, influences change over time, but the one that leaves an everlasting effect (thus cementing our personality) is the parental one. Our parents are most probably the reason why we are who we are. Even if our circumstances change, our response is fashioned by what's been embedded far earlier (read via parental influence) within us.

Agreed, the reference groups we take to and get influenced by change over time. But do the groups that come later have as much an effect on us as our family? I doubt it.

Vineeth asks, 'Hypothetical question: If Jaden were to be in a similar spot of bother, would your advice be on similar lines? :)'

Absolutely. For now I'll make sure he's prepared. Meaning, there's martial arts on the list of things to learn for Jaden. Now please don't think I am advocating violence. But I sure am advocating a kick in the nuts to get the bully to back off. It's that or a lifetime of trying to get over lousy self esteem caused by bullying louts!

Sphere: Related Content

I've been thinkin' about you

Sphere: Related Content

The contradictions we live

Getting Jaden to wear what we thought was a lovely checked shirt with a hood wasn't easy. The more we tried, the more he balked. For some time we couldn't get it. Why would he not wear something that looked so good on him?

And then it dawned.

There wasn't any other kid the in the neighbourhood donning the shirt with the hood. Jaden, we guessed didn't want to be the first one. Getting him to wear would mean showing him people wearing shirts with hoods. We figured we could start that at home. So last Sunday, Brooklyn and I got into the act by wearing jackets with hoods. Voila, Jaden acquiesces. He wears, and even starts to like the shirt. In the process we learn a lesson that's relevant to the world of marketing.

As consumers we live out contradictory desires. Our craving for a distinct identity is tempered by our need to stay within norms that guarantee acceptance. Brands that seek our patronage need to know this. They must construct for us our desired selves whilst keeping it all within what is socially acceptable. The envelope must be pushed, but not too further away.

Getting this balance right won't be easy for brands. The ones that can will be the ones we'll buy.

Sphere: Related Content

We NEED Wal-Mart!

So there's some people in India who think Wal-Mart shouldn't be allowed to set shop here. Pray why? Because it seems the farmers and the kirana people will go under.

Now lets for a moment think they'll go under, what's the remedy? Keep Wal-Mart out and have me, the consumer suffer higher prices! Well, pray why isn't that a concern of anyone? Oh, I get it, I am prosperous enough to not buckle under higher prices! But then think about it. Isn't everyone a consumer? Shouldn't our maid for example, have access to lower prices? If that access comes via FDI driven organised format retail, I say bring it on! Now if you think our maid can't access the superstore location, its good news for the kirana. It can stay and cater to her.

The truth is, the anti Wal-Mart tirade is familiar nonsense from bleeding heart liberals and political opportunists who don't care to understand the power of free markets. Ditto for socialists, communists, and environmentalists.

What a pity.

For those who want to flee economic ignorance and understand the value of free market competition, this article titled, 'Has Wal-Mart buried Mom and Pop?' is a must read.

Sphere: Related Content

Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth

This case of 'ragging' at the Sainik School in Jharkand is downright disgusting. Before we get to why some students resort to such disgusting behaviour, here's John Hawkins on how bullies need to be confronted.

John Hawkin's piece is a must read!

'You know why I was bullied? I was a quiet, meek, non-confrontational kid who liked to read and had zero interest in getting in fights. In other words, I was an easy mark. There was really nothing more to it than that. As I look back at it now, I can’t think of a single thing I ever did to merit being bullied. I didn’t mouth off, I didn’t pick on people, I didn’t want any conflict (as opposed to the present, where I’ve learned to revel in political warfare). This is one of the many reasons that to this day I roll my eyes when people say, “Why do they hate us?” I damn well know from personal experience that there are a lot of evil people who will try to hurt you for no other reason than because they think they can get away with it.

Let me also note that the tactics most people advocate to combat bullying are laughably ineffective. If you get bullied, go tell your teacher! Call a bullying hotline!

Yeah, right.

The reality is that if the teachers were really keeping a close eye on everything that’s going on around the school there wouldn’t be any bullying going on in the first place. The biggest reason bullies can exist is because teachers don’t pay attention to what’s happening most of the time.

Moreover, what does occur if you tell a teacher? The bully gets called into the principal’s office and he’s told not to bully you. Then you’re in exactly the same situation you were in before, but now the bully is really angry at you because you ratted him out. Now he’s really interested in getting a piece of you and there are dozens of little ways he can intimidate you. He can threaten you, he can pretend like he’s going to hit you, he can say mean things about you on Facebook, he can stare at you with a menacing glare — and keep in mind that this is someone you’re already afraid to deal with. What are you going to do? Go back to the principal and tell him the bully was looking at you funny? Give me a break. Additionally, you have to keep in mind that schools are extremely reluctant to expel students. So unless a bully goes completely over the top and brings a gun to school or knifes somebody, he’s probably not going to get kicked out. That means you’re going to see him almost every day, all year long.

So, what do you do? Call Lady Gaga? Lobby Harry Reid to make bullying illegal? No, of course not. There’s actually a time-tested, extremely effective way to deal with bullies that has worked for thousands of years.

It’s called punching them in the mouth.

It’s what I learned to do. I had to learn it because much to my dismay at the time, my father insisted on it. He took great pride in telling me a story about my brother who was pushed around by a bully at our local low-end country club. My father told my brother that the next time that bully started something, he had better hit him back. My brother was apparently more scared of my father than the bully because the next time my father took him to the country club and he ran into the bully, he fought back. My brother and the bully went at it man to man for a good five minutes. My father wouldn’t let anyone break them up. When it was over, the two of them went their separate ways and the bully never laid another hand on my brother.

Incidentally, that’s how it almost always worked with me, too. Inevitably, since bullies like to pick on people who are weaker than they are, they were always bigger than I was. So, when I fought back — and that happened several times over a two-year period — I won some and I lost some. But in every case, the bullying stopped right there.

There was one thug, for example, who picked on a lot of people. Most of the kids were a little afraid of him. We happened to both be at the Boys Club. (How much good would telling a teacher have done there?) He tried pushing me around. I decided I’d had enough and told him so. He ran at me to try to punch me and somehow or another, I bent down and actually managed to flip him over my back. He landed weirdly on the floor and didn’t get up for a few minutes. His arm was in a cast the next day. And that was the last time I ever had a problem with him.

Another time, there was a kid who was probably two years older than I was, 3-4 inches taller, and he outweighed me by 100 pounds. He had been picking on me. We were both on the basketball court at school. He walked up behind me and then out of the blue, he just put me into a headlock. The moment he let go, I turned around and slugged him in the face three times. He was so surprised and stunned by the punches, he didn’t even get off a single shot. Both of us were then sent to the principal’s office and we were both paddled (Again, this is what happens when the school gets involved. They didn’t see and hear every second of it; so the bully and the victim are treated as though they are equally at fault.) After that, bizarrely enough, that kid bent over backwards to be nice to me.

Eventually, I got to the point where I didn’t want to fight, but I didn’t walk away from any fights either. I can still remember a guy running his mouth to me. I responded, “F*** you, let’s fight!” He then said, “Uh, I was just kidding.” My response to that was to look him straight in the eye and say, “I wasn’t kidding at all.” He then found reason to make himself scarce. You want to talk about “building self-esteem”? Having a moment like that will do more to build a teenage boy’s self-esteem than any class he can ever take. Starting high school as a kid who’s bullied and ending it as someone that bullies are afraid to lay a hand on will change how you view yourself for the better, too.

Now, I’m not going to tell you that this is easy advice to give to a kid, especially one who’s intimidated, scared, and conflict-averse. What I will tell you is that it’s the right advice to give to kids, especially to kids who are being bullied.

There’s an old line from a Kenny Rogers song called “Coward of the County” and it goes, “Sometimes you gotta fight when you’re a man.” Some people will deny that, but it’s true, and no matter what they may tell you, boys who are being bullied know it’s true. That’s a big part of the reason that the bullying bothers them so much.

The good news for kids in that situation is that it doesn’t matter where you start; it matters where you finish. As timid as I was at the beginning of high school, by the time I was in college, I was taking Southern Long Fist Kung Fu and engaging in raucous sparring sessions. I came away from more than one of them with a black eye. Another time, my instructor kicked me in the chest so hard that the next day — and this is not an exaggeration — there was a bruise in the shape of his shoe imprinted on my body. Sound scary? I came to love it. There was just something exhilarating about taking a huge shot and continuing to move forward or delivering a crushing punch into another human being’s body. I got into it so much that to this day, I still have a heavy bag in my bedroom so I can get a little exercise driving it across the floor with punches, kicks, and knees.

Now, that doesn’t mean you should look for fights. To the contrary, you should avoid fighting if you can. You could get hurt, which is bad. You could hurt the other guy, which isn’t bad at all if he deserves it, but there could be legal ramifications. So, if possible, it’s always best to walk away from a fight. But, you should walk away with your pride intact. No one is allowed to put his hands on you. No one gets to threaten to beat you up. No one gets to physically abuse a friend, family member, or someone who’s under your protection. If you can dissuade people from doing that verbally, that’s for the best, but there is a time and a place to use violence against other human beings. That’s why, when kids are being bullied, you don’t tell them to call Lady Gaga; you tell them to use their fists.'

Sphere: Related Content

The 'Linger Effect' in Behaviour

At times you wonder why someone seems so angry. After all there wasn't anything that could be termed a provocation. Then why the outburst? Well, such anger is easy to decipher if you can unearth what I call the 'linger effect'.

Its hard for us to let go, more so if we've been hurt. Most hurt never finds closure. Which means it lingers. The outcome to such a 'linger effect' is its exhibition in another form, namely anger. So when people seem to be angry without reason, what they are actually doing is making an effort at getting over a past hurt. The pity is, it leaves the recipient of such anger bewildered.

Service providers too at times are at the receiving end of unexplainable consumer anger. The answer to such behaviour of course, lies in the 'linger effect'. Agreed, that's no consolation to the poor marketer at the receiving end. Though knowing why people behave they way do, should be of some solace.

I guess.

Sphere: Related Content

Coming & Going

Rajini on coming home:

'There is a sense among all of us displaced Indians, if you can call us that, that this is the best place for us to be in the world. The fact we have cultural ties adds to the idea that we can be more productive, and make more of a difference here.

Coming to live here is in some way attending to unfinished business. You can meet a person a few times, speak to them on the phone, or online, but only when you live with them do you really know them. My flirtation with India is now real. I'm about to make this place my home for the next few years. My dad left India in May 1966 and landed at Heathrow as a bright-eyed student. My mother followed a decade later. They both live in the UK, are integral members of the local community, and have raised three successful daughters.

Forty-five years on, and I'm doing the reverse. I share the same fears as my father did as he stepped off the plane with only £75 in his pocket, but just as he found new success and a home in England, I hope to in India.'

Sumedh on going away:

'Why do I feel better in the U.S.? Maybe it’s not because I’m at home here, but because I’m an alien. Perhaps three thousand years of history have made us Indians a little too familiar with one another for our own good. We’ve perfected Malcolm Gladwell’s “blink” — the reflexive, addictive and tragically accurate placement of other Indians into bullock carts, scooters, airplanes and who knows what else. These issues exist in all countries, but in India, I could see the bigotry in high fidelity and hear the stereotypes in surround-sound — partly because it is worse in India, mostly because I am Indian.

India’s wealth and lifestyle disparity is still impossibly great; I probably spent more on pizza than on my maid. She knew this too, because she was often the one who handed the pizza delivery guy his money. Everyone in India has to deal with this, but I coped in the worst possible way: by dehumanizing her and other people like her, ever so slightly, ever so subtly — chronic amoebiasis of the soul.

Though my return to India failed, I came back feeling more optimistic than ever about India’s long-term success. India is regaining her leadership position — the position she held ever since humans were civilized, a position she lost only because of a few uncivilized humans (at least give us back our Koh-i-noor!). I know India will rule the future. It’s just that I’ve realized — I’ve resigned myself to the fact — that I won’t be a part of that future.

I’m glad I went back to India, and I’m glad to be back in the U.S. Life has come full circle but the center has shifted. I didn’t go to India to find home, but I did find it; I now know where I belong. As Laozi might have said, sometimes the journey of a single step starts with a thousand miles in the opposite direction.'

Sphere: Related Content

Lapse and Lunacy

Unlike what most believe, Rick Perry's 'brain freeze' moment doesn't have to numb his campiagn. Latest reports seem to suggest the Perry camp's getting its response to gaffe right. They have decided to 'embrace' the memory lapse moment and have dispatched an email to their supporters stating, "Write us to let us know what federal agency you would most like to forget. "Is it the EPA and its job-killing zealots? The NLRB and its czar-like dictates? The edu-crats at the Department of Education who aim to control your local curriculum?"

Plus they've encouraged supporters to add a $5 as donation with every suggestion!

I say, cheeky, and brilliant!

Gaffes are good if they can elicit empathy. Who amongst us hasn't had a memory lapse moment? In fact tell you what, at times my mind blanks up mid sentence while in a class! So I quite understand what happened to Rick. My guess is, so can you. Its up to the Perry camp to play this story right, and up to Perry to not do this often.

Its a thin line between lapse and lunacy.

Recovering from a lapse can be easy if you manage its aftermath well. Ditto when it comes to lapses whilst crafting value propositions for consumers. Breakdowns are to be expected. What's important is how the marketer salvages post lapse. Negative publicity, can for example be capitalised on if the brand spins and humanises the reported lapse, and then corrects it quickly.

The Perry campaign is far from dead. It can still bounce back with vigor. But it'll take more than just spin. Its time Perry delivers on substance.

Sphere: Related Content

Building Steve, Breaking Qaddafi

Giving up the ghost with famous last words at times makes news. Especially if the people in question are newsmakers. Steve went with a few wows and Qaddafi tried 'don't shoot' to avoid kicking the bucket.

Now its important we know they went that way. More so for their intended audience. The 'wow' story tops up nicely the legend that Steve is. For those swooning, this story is only a reaffirmation to what they have always believed, that Steve is God. The Qaddafi story though similar, is quite a contrast. His pathetic plea firmly unseats him from the pedestal of a revolutionary. So all those who believe in the revolution can now know their leader is a miserable coward who pled for mercy, something he didn't ever consider during his tyranny.

Last words are important. They are stimuli that build perceptions. In the case of Steve, the legend must go on. The Steve stories I dismiss as near nonsense is lapped up by the Apple horde. Which is good, 'cause in the end its about the cash registers ringing. I surely don't have a problem with that. I also don't have a problem with last minute pleas if they can usher in people's rule.

Much of the Steve and Qaddafi story, I guess isn't true. But these stories are important, for they build brands, for the good and bad. Which is helpful. The good enables us to buy in, the bad aids rejection.

Sphere: Related Content

The Leftist tomorrow

'Leftism is bad for people. It makes them awful. The unwashed, ill-mannered, anti-Semitic, entitled, and now violent mobs littering various parts of the nation under the banner “Occupy” believe their ideas will lead to a better society — but they actually are the society their ideas lead to. Their behavior when compared to the polite, law-abiding, non-racist demonstrations of so-called tea partiers tells you everything you need to know about the end results of statism on the one hand and constitutional liberty on the other...

Why wait to see such results come home? Leftism is an ignoble creed on the surface of it. Its followers display their awareness of its shamefulness by projecting its evils onto their opposition. Leftists accuse conservatives of avarice, but which is greedier in a person: to seek to hold on to what is his own, or to seek, as the leftists do, to plunder what belongs to others? Leftists call conservatives racist and sexist, but who is it who wants race and gender enshrined in law? Who penalizes white or male babies for sins they never committed on the long-exploded theory that evil can undo evil?Leftists call conservatives hateful… I would answer “Read the papers!” but the papers lie because our journalists are leftists and they know down deep what they’re like, who they are. Compare instead the rhetoric and honesty — not of those selected by the media, or those quotes they’ve selected — but of those in equivalent positions at equivalent times. The gracious and open-hearted George W. Bush versus the divisive, self-serving, and dishonest Barack Obama, just to take one example.

Every one who sympathizes with the Occupy movement should take a good look at them — not as they will be in the paradise of their aspirations but as they truly are this minute. Look at them, and understand that that’s what tomorrow will look like if they have their way today.'

- Andrew Klavan, 'What Leftism Does to People.'

Sphere: Related Content

Happy Diwali

Sphere: Related Content

Why we buy

Jaden was pretty pleased about his birthday. The party had something to do with it. So did the gifts he got. Post the celebrations he did something that comes naturally to most of us. He took out one his toys, a remote controlled race car into the corridor to show it off to his friends.

The reaction to Jaden’s ‘display’ was understandable. Envious, the others boys responded. One such response by a kid was to counter with his own set of ‘new’ toys. Another was to try and crash Jaden’s car beyond repair so it could be immobilised.

Envy is a good and a bad thing. The good is what prompts us to strive for more so we can counter conspicuous displays that get bandied about in our face. The bad prompts us to go the destruction route. We try and covet what isn’t ours, or at least not allow for others to have what they have. The talkative amongst us take the ‘bitching’ ventilating route .

Now most of marketing taps into envy, I believe in a good way. Much of marketing as much as it presents to us value propositions that fulfil needs, also prompt us with promises of greater esteem. The latter taps into our sense of envy. On our part, we keep ourselves intact in our heads and manage envy by doing what marketers want us to do.

Buy.

Sphere: Related Content

5

Happy Birthday, Jaden.

Sphere: Related Content

The Wall Street Mob

'There is something ludicrous about a throng of ranting, raving, raging college kids slurping Starbucks and staring into iPhones while angrily protesting the very system that made it all possible in the first place. Even the mob's ability to turn out the mob is made possible by this system. It's like an infant indignantly lifting its head from the breast of its mother and saying, "You don't exist."

Well, Steve Jobs existed. As co-founder and CEO of Apple, he changed the world for the better. The Wall Street "occupiers" are exploiting the technology that he helped create.

What the Wall Street horde and Roseanne do not understand is that in America, people generally get rich by providing a product or service that people want. Sure, there are exceptions. Some get wealthy by promulgating vice instead of virtue -- witness the porn industry's parasitical attachment to Jobs' technology industry. Some are rich because they inherited the money -- witness the Kennedy family. By and large, however, "the rich" earn their riches through the consent of millions of citizens who voluntarily purchase products and services through their own free will. That is called the free market; it is the opposite of the command economy.

The failure of young people to know the difference is yet another failure of this nation's horrendous educational system, and especially our bankrupt universities -- bankrupt, that is, morally, albeit certainly not financially. The universities that have mis-educated the mob charge far higher fees than any Bank of America ATM. You want to see greed and enslaving levels of debt? Look at what an Ivy League college charges.

Roseanne and the mob do not understand this country and its market system. Neither is perfect, nor are the wealthy people they produce. You are, however, free here -- and free to keep the wealth you earn.

Steve Jobs understood. May he rest in peace.'

- Paul Kengor, 'On Steve Jobs, Roseanne Barr, and the Wall Street Mob.'

Sphere: Related Content