'Today in 2 hours if 5 crore people can vote then in 5 years time how many people can vote in 2 hours' Parakala Prabhakar

 

'India’s cricket soft power is giving it back to old racists!’

 

'The Solution to any Individual Problem is to BUY a Product'

 

India's New Criminal Laws from July 2024

 

Myth 1 - Economics is Objective

 

'What Politics Taught Me': Yanis Varoufakis

 

Bassem Youssef on Israel, Gaza and other things Arab

 

How Capitalism Distributes Power - in the second part of video

 

The Untold Realities of Pakistan: Kaiser Bengali

 

Office politics is not optional: learn to play the game or you’ll be its victim

Most of us disapprove of wily work machinations, but experts say ignoring power structures will hold you back writes Miranda Green in The FT

If there is one thing most people seem to hate more than politics, it’s office politics. Back-stabbing, conniving, sucking up and kicking down: being on career-enhancing manoeuvres makes people a target of derision among colleagues. This is often laced with envy if their machinations produce results. 

As the Divine Comedy put it in their 2019 song “Office Politics”: “Press the flesh, do the deal/ Book your place on the hamster wheel”. 

But in recent weeks, I’ve had a rethink, after being embroiled in holiday-period, mid-life job chat with friends and contemporaries. Many feel stymied, overlooked or are bored and miserable in roles they have outgrown. 

As with so much in life, when you reach the end of what the Americans (wonderfully) call the “pity party”, you need some constructive advice. Sometimes empathy is good. But sometimes it’s better to have a more bracing perspective. 

One shocking set of potential solutions (which I share in a spirit of passing on this useful jolt) came from consulting the most recent book by go-to theorist of office politics, Jeffrey Pfeffer, professor of organisational behaviour at Stanford. 

In The 7 Rules of Power he warns that “people opt out of the quest for power” often because they see bad people seeking it or using it for ill. But they become victims of this decision, missing out on the benefits of playing the game. “A comprehensive meta-analysis of the effects of political skill [at work] found it was positively related to job satisfaction, work productivity, career success and personal reputation, and negatively related to physiological strain.” In other words, the consequences of holding back from the fray could be feeling unrecognised and unhappy, watching both your output and health decline — yikes. 

Prof Pfeffer is not one to sugar coat his messages. He has spent a lifetime getting his disciples, at Stanford and elsewhere, to accept what he calls the brutal realities: playing politics is fundamental to getting anywhere at work. Interestingly, resistance to this message is widespread — people prefer what he deems the soothing idea that the light of great work will shine, even under a bushel. 

The Pfeffer method is probably most suitable to corporate life. But there are tips for anyone seeking a route up, or out of an unfulfilling rut. They include making yourself and your achievements as visible as possible, projecting confidence and authority, and making sure you network, network, network: you have to become an invaluable conduit and contact. 

His first piece of advice, however, is to face up to the fact that this stuff is vital: you need to, in his words, “get out of your own way”. Don’t disapprove of people you see engaged in self-promoting stratagems, learn from them. And if your identity depends on belief in, as Pfeffer satirically puts it, “a just world and the ultimate triumph of merit”, you are in danger of sacrificing what you want from your working life. 

Don’t get me wrong. Unlike many others, actual democratic politics has been a life-long obsession and delight to me, but I am not totally sold on the Pfeffer method of mastering the work-based variety. Do not expect a memoir entitled: How I stopped worrying and learned to love office politics. While Pfeffer argues you can’t fight “the behavioural realities of power”, straying too far from your core values will make you feel dreadful. But I am convinced by one thing: hiding from the trade-offs you are already making will send you straight back to that pity party. 

Some prefer — and are better suited to — ploughing their own furrows. It certainly seems a better use of energy than a preoccupation with internal status games. But Pfeffer would probably think this is culpably naive: I suppose it’s your own fault if you haven’t learnt how to at least play the system in order to be left alone to plough that furrow. And by the way, you do need appropriate recognition and reward. Very few can eat or shelter under their ideals. 

Here’s his warning to the mid-life cohort: “The ability to do power becomes more important as your career advances.” If “at a certain level everybody is smart,” you need other ways to make your mark. 

And having to negotiate between your own and other people’s agendas is just part of adult life. This year, it may be time to act strategically to try and secure your place — if not on the hamster wheel, then least somewhere you won’t complain about.

Why Bharat Matters: A review

 

Unpacking the Terror Attacks in Anantnag

 

The Background to the India Canada squabble

 

Inside Tony Blair Inc.

 

The Cycle of Power

In a quaint village nestled beneath the shadow of a towering mountain, the villagers' lives were ruled by the fear of a menacing dragon. Their lands were scorched, their crops destroyed, and their hearts gripped by terror. But hope wasn't lost; a group of courageous young heroes emerged from their midst.

Guided by legends of old and fueled by a desire to liberate their people, these brave souls set out on a treacherous journey. Armed with inherited wisdom, enchanted weapons, and unwavering determination, they scaled the mountain's heights and confronted the dragon in its fiery lair. After a fierce and harrowing battle, they emerged victorious, driving the beast away and restoring peace to the land.

The villagers rejoiced, celebrating their newfound freedom. The young heroes were hailed as saviors, their bravery inspiring songs and stories that echoed through the village square.

After some time, however, a new dragon soon emerged and started terrorising the village again.

---

Interpretation:

"The Cycle of Power" is a story that delves into the themes of leadership, the corrupting influence of power, and the nuanced dynamics between the oppressed and the oppressors. The narrative explores the gradual transformation of the young heroes from liberators to tyrants, demonstrating how the quest for survival and control can twist even the best intentions.

At its core, the story cautions against the dangerous allure of power. The initial triumph over the dragon represents the heroes' commitment to justice and their ability to challenge oppression. However, as leaders, they face a new set of challenges, and their journey illustrates the complexities of maintaining a just rule while navigating the harsh realities of resource scarcity and societal pressures.

The metaphor of the dragon's return as a manifestation of their own oppressive behavior is a poignant reminder of the cyclical nature of power dynamics. It emphasizes the potential for even well-intentioned leaders to become tyrannical when faced with difficult decisions and the burden of ensuring their community's survival.

The story's conclusion serves as a cautionary tale, highlighting the delicate balance that leaders must strike between maintaining authority and safeguarding the well-being of those they lead. It encourages self-awareness, humility, and a recognition of the potential for one's own actions to perpetuate the very injustices they sought to eradicate. Ultimately, "The Cycle of Power" invites reflection on the ethical challenges of leadership and the responsibility that comes with wielding authority.

Our shared values deserve better than a pointless term like ‘spirit of cricket’

The culture of English cricket is but one concept of morality – no person, and certainly no country, has a monopoly on virtue writes Jonathan Liew in The Guardian


So let’s talk about Nepal v Ireland in the Oman Quadrangular Twenty20 series last year. Ireland are 114 for eight in the 19th over when the ball is hit towards mid-on. The Oman bowler Kamal Singh lunges at it in his follow-through. At the same time the Ireland non-striker, Andy McBrine, tries to scamper through for a single. The pair collide. McBrine falls over. Singh keeps his balance, and tosses the ball to the wicketkeeper Aasif Sheikh, with the batter still sprawled on the turf, miles out of his ground.

The laws of cricket have nothing to say on situations such as this. Neither player is deliberately obstructing the other; neither player can avoid the collision without giving up a significant sporting advantage. Sheikh is perfectly at liberty to complete the run-out. But he does not. He holds on to the ball and lets McBrine complete the single, an act of sporting goodwill that will later earn him the International Cricket Council’s Spirit of Cricket award.

Yes, here we go again: a think-piece about the current Ashes series that has very little to do with the current Ashes series. One of the reasons the dismissal of Jonny Bairstow by Alex Carey on Sunday has created so much noise is because it is one of those issues where no expertise whatsoever is required to express an opinion. Anyone can participate in this game: Rishi Sunak, Sue off Twitter, Jeremy Vine, your best mate who doesn’t really know anything about cricket but thinks Josh Tongue is a funny name. Let’s fulminate. Let’s pontificate. Let’s play.

 

At which point we run into the minor inconvenience of Law 20.1.2, which is basically unequivocal on the point that Bairstow was out. Nobody really seems to dispute this, or even have a workable alternative to the law as it stands. What, then, is everyone arguing about? Ultimately, it comes down to ownership and territory and narrative and culture: who gets to define cricket, and in whose benefit they do so. And thus it is again – with deepest apologies – necessary once again to discuss Bazball.

There is a common thread running through England’s new vibes-based style of cricket and the piqued outrage that has greeted Bairstow’s stumping. Both, ultimately, are grounded in an idea of impunity and presumption: an assertion that England and England alone gets to adjudicate on what is good for the game. We get to say what constitutes entertainment. We get to decide how Test cricket must be saved. And, by extension, we get to judge what is sporting and fair, the norms of behaviour that our opponents will be expected to follow. You can keep your silly rules. We stand for more.

Of course, England is by no means alone in its sense of exceptionalism. Australia has long declared itself the moral arbiter of where “the line” stands in terms of sledging. India creates most of the sport’s revenue, and before long it will probably conclude that it should be creating most of the sport’s morality as well. The through-line here is power: the power to generate headlines, to set an agenda, to establish norms and impose them on others. In a sport as ritualistic as cricket, governed as much by tacit understandings and shared assumptions as written laws, this kind of soft power allows those with a platform to build an ethical framework around their own values and priorities.

 

Is it outlandish to posit that the reason Bairstow strayed out of his ground was because he had internalised a mindset in which rules were optional and the vibe was the thing? Feels like the end of the over? Hell, assume it probably is. The dismissal felt wrong to me, and it may well have felt wrong to you too. But then we have all been steeped in the culture of English cricket, with all its inherent flaws and biases and blind spots. It is but one concept of sporting morality, and it is probably about time we recognised there were others.

The real shame here is that so much of the discourse either falls along tribal lines or is couched in pointless terms such as “spirit of cricket”. Perhaps we need an alternative vocabulary here: what is unsatisfyingly described as the “spirit of cricket” is so often just a kind of basic empathy, a politeness, a willingness to treat others as one would wish to be treated. There is common ground to be found here, a recognition that there are parts of every sport that rules cannot delineate, because humans are complex and life is messy and the best sports express the very fullest of both. 

Let Carey be judged on his own free will, just as Sheikh was when he refused to rugn out McBrine. But you will also need to know that after Ireland’s reprieve McBrine hit the next ball for six, the last two wickets put on 13 runs and Ireland won a tight low-scoring game. Sheikh’s conscience may have been clear. But his team probably ended up bottom of the table as a result. “It would have been unfair to the opponent,” he said later. “We wouldn’t be pleased if our team had got the wicket in that manner, since it would be against our culture.”

Let us have a conversation about what cricket’s shared values should really be, and let those with the smallest platforms speak first. Let us recognise that no person, and certainly no country, has a monopoly on virtue. Let us fulminate. Let us pontificate. This is, after all, everyone’s game, and everyone can play.

Fallacies of Capitalism 15: The Voluntary Transactions of Actors in an Economy

A voluntary transaction refers to an economic exchange between two or more parties where each party willingly participates without coercion or external pressure. In a voluntary transaction, individuals are assumed to engage in the exchange because they perceive it to be mutually beneficial, based on their own preferences and subjective judgements of value.

However, the "voluntary transactions" fallacy arises when this concept is applied without considering the power imbalances and information asymmetries that can exist in real-world market transactions. While voluntary transactions are a foundational concept in market economics, it is important to recognise that not all transactions occur under ideal conditions of equal power and perfect information. Here are some additional points to consider:

1. Power imbalances: In many transactions, there can be significant disparities in bargaining power between the parties involved. For example, in labour markets, workers may face limited employment options and economic pressures, while employers may have more leverage in determining wages and working conditions. These power imbalances can influence the outcomes of the transaction, potentially leading to exploitation or unfair terms.

2. Information asymmetry: In voluntary transactions, it is assumed that both parties have access to complete and accurate information about the goods, services, or conditions involved. However, in reality, information can be unevenly distributed between buyers and sellers. Sellers may possess superior knowledge about the product, its quality, or potential risks, while buyers may lack access to the same information. This information asymmetry can undermine the notion of fully informed and voluntary choices.

3. Coercive pressures: While voluntary transactions should be free from coercion, individuals can face external pressures that limit their choices and compromise their ability to make truly voluntary decisions. These pressures can include economic necessity, social or cultural expectations, or systemic inequalities. For example, individuals may accept low-paying jobs or unfavourable contracts due to limited alternatives or the need to meet basic needs.

4. Market failures: The assumption of voluntary transactions fails to account for market failures, such as externalities or the undersupply of public goods. Externalities occur when the actions of one party impose costs or benefits on others who are not involved in the transaction. Market failures can result in suboptimal outcomes, where voluntary transactions do not account for the broader social or environmental impacts.

By considering these factors, it becomes clear that the "voluntary transactions" fallacy oversimplifies the complexities of real-world market interactions. Recognising the existence of power imbalances, information asymmetries, and other limitations is crucial for understanding the potential consequences of market transactions and designing policies that promote fair and equitable outcomes.

Fallacies of Capitalism 14: Capitalism is Synonymous with Democracy

The "capitalism is synonymous with democracy" fallacy assumes a direct and harmonious relationship between capitalism, an economic system based on private ownership and market competition, and democracy, a political system characterised by representative government and citizen participation. However, this fallacy overlooks the potential conflicts that can arise between economic interests and democratic decision-making processes in several ways:

1. Power imbalances: Capitalism can lead to the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few wealthy individuals or corporations. These entities may exert disproportionate influence over political processes, such as lobbying or campaign financing, which can undermine the principles of equal representation and fair democratic decision-making. The resulting power imbalances can distort policy outcomes and compromise the interests of the broader population.

2. Influence of money in politics: Capitalist systems often allow for the infusion of large sums of money into political campaigns and lobbying efforts. This financial influence can create an uneven playing field, where economic elites can exert significant control over political agendas and policy outcomes. Democratic decision-making should ideally be based on the will of the people, but when economic interests heavily influence political processes, the voices and concerns of marginalised or less affluent citizens may be marginalised or ignored.

3. Regulatory capture: In capitalist systems, regulatory agencies are responsible for overseeing various sectors and industries to ensure fair competition and protect public interests. However, there is a risk of regulatory capture, whereby the regulated industries exert significant influence over the regulators. This can result in policies that favour the interests of powerful economic actors rather than promoting the broader welfare or democratic principles. Regulatory capture undermines the accountability and responsiveness of democratic institutions.

4. Inequality and political participation: Capitalism can exacerbate economic inequalities, which, in turn, can influence political participation. When wealth and income disparities are significant, certain groups may have greater resources and access to political power, while others may face barriers to participation. This can undermine the democratic ideal of equal political voice and representation, as marginalised groups or those with limited economic resources may be less able to engage meaningfully in democratic processes.

5. Conflicts of interest: Capitalist economies rely on profit-maximising behaviour, which may run counter to certain democratic goals. For instance, economic actors may prioritise short-term profits over long-term societal or environmental well-being. Democratic decision-making often requires considering broader societal interests, including sustainability, social justice, and the needs of future generations. Conflicts can arise when economic interests clash with democratic principles, potentially undermining the pursuit of collective well-being and the long-term interests of society.

Recognising the potential conflicts between economic interests and democratic decision-making processes is essential for maintaining a healthy balance between capitalism and democracy. It underscores the importance of robust institutions, transparency, campaign finance reform, and mechanisms to mitigate undue influence and power imbalances. By addressing these conflicts, societies can strive for a more equitable and inclusive democratic system that ensures broad representation and safeguards against the dominance of narrow economic interests.

Economics Essay 86: Technology and Monopoly Power

Discuss whether governments should consider increasing the regulation and taxation of technology firms which have acquired significant global monopoly power.

he question of whether governments should consider increasing the regulation and taxation of technology firms with significant global monopoly power is a complex one. It involves weighing the potential benefits of increased regulation and taxation against the potential drawbacks and unintended consequences.

There are arguments in favor of increasing regulation and taxation for such firms:

1. Market Power and Anti-Competitive Practices: Technology firms with significant global monopoly power may use their market dominance to stifle competition and engage in anti-competitive practices. They may limit consumer choice, drive out smaller competitors, and impede innovation. Increased regulation can help ensure a level playing field and promote fair competition.

2. Consumer Protection: Technology firms often collect and handle vast amounts of user data, raising concerns about privacy and data security. Increased regulation can provide stronger safeguards for consumer data and ensure that technology firms adhere to ethical standards in their operations.

3. Tax Fairness: Some technology firms have been criticized for using complex structures and loopholes to minimize their tax obligations. Increasing taxation on these firms can help address concerns of tax avoidance and ensure a more equitable distribution of tax burdens across industries.

However, there are also arguments against increasing regulation and taxation:

1. Innovation and Economic Growth: Technology firms are often at the forefront of innovation and contribute significantly to economic growth. Excessive regulation and taxation may stifle innovation by creating barriers to entry and discouraging investment. It is important to strike a balance between regulation and fostering an environment that encourages innovation and entrepreneurial activity.

2. International Competitiveness: Technology firms with global reach operate in a highly interconnected and competitive global market. Unilateral regulation and taxation measures by a single country may lead to unintended consequences such as reduced competitiveness and disincentives for firms to operate in that country. International coordination and cooperation are crucial to address global issues related to technology firms.

3. Potential for Regulatory Capture: Increased regulation may inadvertently lead to regulatory capture, where firms with significant resources influence the regulatory process to their advantage. This can undermine the intended purpose of regulation and perpetuate the dominance of large technology firms.

In conclusion, the issue of increasing regulation and taxation of technology firms with global monopoly power requires careful consideration. While there are valid concerns regarding market power, consumer protection, and tax fairness, it is essential to strike a balance that promotes competition, innovation, and economic growth. International cooperation and a comprehensive approach are necessary to address the challenges posed by these firms effectively.

Economics Essay 64: Market Concentration

Markets dominated by large firms, such as Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon can deliver huge benefits to consumers. To what extent should economists be concerned by highly concentrated markets such as these?

Market concentration refers to the degree of dominance or control exerted by a few large firms within a specific industry or market. It is typically measured by indicators such as market share, concentration ratios, or the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI). When a market is highly concentrated, a small number of firms have significant market power and can influence prices, output levels, and competition within the market.

The extent to which economists should be concerned about highly concentrated markets, such as those dominated by Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon (referred to as GAFA), is a matter of debate. Here are some key considerations:

Benefits of Highly Concentrated Markets:

1. Efficiency and Innovation: Large firms often have the resources and capabilities to invest heavily in research and development, technological advancements, and innovation. This can lead to the development of new products, services, and technologies that benefit consumers. For example, Google and Apple have introduced groundbreaking technologies that have transformed the way people access information and communicate.

2. Economies of Scale: Dominant firms can achieve economies of scale due to their size, which can lead to cost efficiencies. This, in turn, can result in lower prices for consumers, as the cost savings can be passed on to them. Amazon's scale allows for competitive pricing and efficient logistics, resulting in cost savings and convenience for customers.

Concerns about Highly Concentrated Markets:

1. Reduced Competition: Highly concentrated markets can limit competition, leading to reduced consumer choice and potentially higher prices. When a small number of firms dominate a market, they can engage in anti-competitive practices such as predatory pricing, collusion, or exclusionary tactics that hinder the entry of new competitors.

2. Market Power and Exploitation: Large firms with significant market power may exploit their dominant position to extract higher profits at the expense of consumers. They may engage in practices such as price discrimination, monopolistic behavior, or leveraging their dominance in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another.

3. Barriers to Entry: Concentrated markets can have high barriers to entry, making it difficult for new firms to compete. This can stifle innovation, limit entrepreneurial opportunities, and hinder market dynamics. Incumbent firms may use their market power to discourage or impede the entry of potential competitors.

4. Data Privacy and Consumer Protection: Highly concentrated markets often involve the collection and use of vast amounts of consumer data. This raises concerns about data privacy, security, and potential abuses of personal information. Additionally, concentrated markets may limit consumer choices and make it challenging for regulators to enforce consumer protection measures effectively.

In evaluating the impact of highly concentrated markets, economists consider the balance between the benefits of efficiency, innovation, and economies of scale against the potential drawbacks of reduced competition, market power, and barriers to entry. The concern lies in ensuring that market concentration does not harm consumer welfare, impede competition, or stifle innovation. Regulatory measures, antitrust policies, and enforcement mechanisms can play a crucial role in promoting competition, protecting consumers, and addressing any potential negative consequences associated with market concentration.