President of India in Kanpur; Inaugurates the Conference on Recent Advancements in Computer, Communication and Information Technology and Addresses the First Alumni Meet of Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University

The President of India, Shri Ram Nath Kovind, inaugurated the conference on recent advancements in computer, communication and information technology at PSIT College of Higher Education, Kanpur today (November 30, 2019).

Speaking on the occasion, the President said that technology has been a prime mover of social change. India’s journey from a poor nation at the time of independence to one of the fastest and biggest economies in the world has come about in part thanks to technology. As we aim to become a 5 trillion dollar economy by 2024-25, we again look forward to technology playing its role. Apart from giving us the economic might, new forms of knowledge have bettered the lives of people on the margins of society. Moreover, advances in information and communication technology have been a great equaliser in all walks of life.

The President said that technology, however, is just an instrument. Be it fire or electricity, it is a great servant but a bad master. When we deliberate on the latest technological advancements, we should keep foremost in mind the implications for the humanity. Kanpur has an excellent example of using technology for humanity. Over the decades, Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corporation of India (ALIMCO) has helped countless persons with disabilities by manufacturing rehabilitation aids, with focus on continuous technology upgradation.

Later in the day, the President graced and addressed the first alumni meet of Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur.

Addressing the gathering, the President said that last month he had launched the Endowment Fund of IIT Delhi, created in collaboration with the alumni of the institute. While launching the Fund, the President said, he was thinking that all educational institutions should establish such Funds. These Funds can be used to provide scholarships to poor and meritorious students, develop the infrastructure of the institution and to raise advanced technology and resources for the institution. The President urged alumni of the Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University to take this initiative forward in this university as well. The President contributed rupees 1,11,000 to the Fund and requested others to cooperate in this work.

Later in the evening, the President will attend a felicitation programme being organised by the Kanpur Nagar Nigam.

 

*******

Address by the Hon’ble President of India Shri Ram Nath Kovind on the Occasion of Inauguration of International Conference ‘ICRACCIT 2019’ on Recent Advancements in Computer, Communication and Information Technology

  1. I love to be in Kanpur, not merely because it is my city. I love it because this city is a true confluence of tradition and modernity. It is in this context that I feel proud to be here for the inauguration of the International Conference on Recent Advancement in Computer Science, Communication and Information Technology, which is being organized at PSIT, Kanpur. It is my privilege to address some of the brightest young minds in the country.
  2. Technology is very much woven in the genes of this great city. Down the ages, Kanpur always has had a unique relation with advancement of technology. One or another kind of technology took this city to great heights in the twentieth century. Its excellence in the textile industry earned it the name as “Manchester of the East” when its mills competed with the best in the world. The textile boom led to the setting up of a number of industries here, making the city an industrial hub. It also graduated to becoming a major trading centre and came to be called the “commercial capital” of Uttar Pradesh. After the textile boom, it has been the leather technology that is remaking this city. It is now called the “Leather City of the World”.
  3. Given this connection with technology and industry, it is no wonder that the city has been home to some of the best names in engineering education. What is particularly unique about the city is that its pursuit for material wealth is always accompanied by a determined effort to keep pace with the advanced education. Who in the world does not know the eminence of the IIT, Kanpur? Along with this great institute exists an equally important centre of learning, Harcourt Butler Technical Institute (HBTI), which has now become a full-fledged university. There are a host of other institutes which have produced excellent engineers and scientists.
  4. PSIT too enriches this heritage of the city. I congratulate the institute for organising this conference. I am sure it will prove to be an excellent platform for researchers and professionals from India and abroad to discuss latest developments in various domains.

Ladies and gentlemen,

  1. I find the world of technology fascinating, because technology has been a prime mover of social change. India’s journey from a poor nation at the time of independence to one of the fastest and biggest economies in the world has come about in part thanks to technology. As we aim to become a 5 trillion dollar economy by 2024-25, we again look forward to technology playing its role. Apart from giving us the economic might, new forms of knowledge have bettered the lives of people on the margins of society. Moreover, advances in information and communication technology have been a great equaliser in all walks of life.
  1. Technology, however, is just an instrument. Be it fire or electricity, it is a great servant but a bad master. This city has been witness to the powers of technology to make as well as break. When you deliberate on the latest technological advancements, I would urge you to keep foremost in mind the implications for the humanity. Kanpur has an excellent example of using technology for humanity. Over the decades, Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corporation of India (ALIMCO) has helped countless persons with disabilities by manufacturing rehabilitation aids, with focus on continuous technology upgradation.
  2. We are told that we are entering the age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Futurologists envision a fundamental change in our day-to-day living as the digital and infotech revolution gives way to a convergence of cyber, physical and biological domains. Internet of Things and 3D Printing are already delivering what was till yesterday in the pages of science fiction. We can harbour great hopes that this will lead to all-round improvement in the human life. However, there are also fears of technology. For decades, Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology was a matter of academics, but now it has become real. Instead of all the long-cherished fruits of AI, the initial impact is in terms of job losses as machines take over human roles.
  3. All technological revolutions so far have given us great tools for improvement, but at a great price. Air pollution in Kanpur is a visible proof. But I am an optimist. I take heart in the fact that the great visionaries working at the cutting edge of technology have always been sensitive to the human concerns.
  4. I am sure you all are eagerly looking forward to exciting and fruitful brainstorming over the two days. Students too will have a great opportunity to learn from veterans. I once again congratulate the organisers of the conference and wish you all success.

 

Thank you,

Jai Hind!

****

Soma Roy Burman takes charge as new Controller General of Accounts

Smt. Soma Roy Burman, a 1986-batch Indian Civil Accounts Service (ICAS) Officer, took charge as the new Controller General of Accounts here today.

Smt. Burman is the 24th Controller General of Accounts (CGA) and is the seventh woman to hold this coveted position.

The Government of India appointed Smt. Burman, as the Controller General of Accounts (CGA), Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure with effect from December 1, 2019.

Smt. Burman holds the degree of M.Phil in Mathematical Statistics from the University of Delhi.

During her 33-year long career, she has held cadre positions at different levels in Ministries such as Home Affairs, Information & Broadcasting, Industry, Finance, Human Resource Development and Shipping, Road Transport & Highways. She has headed the Central Pension Accounting Office (CPAO) as the Chief Controller (Pension) and the Institute of Government Accounts and Finance (INGAF), New Delhi, as Director.

She has also handled important portfolios while on Central deputation to the Government of India, where she served as Deputy Secretary/Director in the Department of Economic Affairs (Budget Division) and as Joint Secretary and Financial Adviser, NATGRID, Ministry of Home Affairs. She has also held charge as Director in the office of Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India on deputation.

Prior to assuming the charge of CGA, Smt. Burman served as Additional Controller General of Accounts in the office of CGA handling the critical areas of Accounting Rules, Policy and reforms, Financial Reporting, Data Analytics, Cash and Budget Management.  Smt. Burman has been actively involved in the formulation of wide ranging reforms in these areas for strengthening Public Financial Management in the Union Government.

****

PM greets BSF personnel on BSF’s Raising Day

The Prime Minister Narendra Modi has greeted BSF personnel and their families on BSF’s Raising Day.

Prime Minister said, “Greetings to all BSF personnel and their families on BSF’s Raising Day. This force has been diligently protecting our borders. During natural disasters and crisis situations, BSF personnel have always worked hard to serve our citizens. Best wishes to the BSF family!”

PM wishes people of Nagaland on Statehood Day

The Prime Minister Narendra Modi has wished the people of Nagaland on their Statehood day.

Prime Minister said, “Best wishes to my sisters and brothers of Nagaland on their Statehood Day. This state is known for its great culture. The people of Nagaland are compassionate and courageous. May Nagaland scale new heights of progress in the coming years.”

Companies don\’t make investment decisions based on tax rates

If you cut tax rates, will companies invest more ? This is almost a religious belief in a certain party in a certain country in the world. Is it justified  ?
The answer, in my opinion, is mostly No.
Companies make investment decisions based on markets, sales projections, competitive advantage, margin potential, scalability and the like.  These are extremely complex business variables and occupy 90% of the time and effort that goes into a business decision.
The tax line is one of the last lines in the cash flows of an investment proposal. It is certainly important, but hardly a determiner of whether the investment goes ahead or not.
There are a few instances when the tax rate indeed becomes a determining variable in the decision. For example, in India, there have been many instances where the government, in an effort to stimulate an underdeveloped part of the country has allowed zero income tax rates for operations located in those areas. In such a case, the tax rate becomes a determiner of the location of the investment; not the investment per se. Nobody puts up a factory just because the tax rate is zero. They put up a factory because the business opportunity is compelling. Having decided to invest, they may choose to locate it in a low tax zone.
The other instance when a tax rate becomes a determiner of investment is if the tax rate is ridiculously high.  For example if the marginal tax rate is 90%, nobody will invest even if the business opportunity is compelling (M. Melenchon\’s supporters, are you listening ?). But if you cut the tax rate from 35% to 15% , it\’s a nice bonus, but it will not add one dollar of investment which otherwise would not have been made.
Further, companies make investments based on a 7 or 9 year time horizon. If one President cuts tax rates this year, what stops the next President from increasing it 3 years from now. So its almost inconceivable that a company which would otherwise have not made the investment, will rush to now make it because of the tax cut.
The argument that a major tax cut on companies, will spur investment growth is mostly flawed. It will however have the following consequences
It will improve corporate profits (for after all tax is a cost) and therefore both the investible surplus and/or dividends in the hands of shareholders. It will increase the wealth in the hands of those who are shareholders. They may spend it which will have a beneficial impact on the economy.
It will correspondingly increase the deficit that the government runs, and therefore the nation\’s borrowings. That will push the cost of borrowing and inflation.
But will it also increase tax revenues and therefore make the measure revenue neutral. Mostly No. But there is one big exception in the US, which will be the subject matter of the next post.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCzOJDJZHoBttdHAjJsnN9w?sub_confirmation=1

Companies don\’t make investment decisions based on tax rates

If you cut tax rates, will companies invest more ? This is almost a religious belief in a certain party in a certain country in the world. Is it justified  ?
The answer, in my opinion, is mostly No.
Companies make investment decisions based on markets, sales projections, competitive advantage, margin potential, scalability and the like.  These are extremely complex business variables and occupy 90% of the time and effort that goes into a business decision.
The tax line is one of the last lines in the cash flows of an investment proposal. It is certainly important, but hardly a determiner of whether the investment goes ahead or not.
There are a few instances when the tax rate indeed becomes a determining variable in the decision. For example, in India, there have been many instances where the government, in an effort to stimulate an underdeveloped part of the country has allowed zero income tax rates for operations located in those areas. In such a case, the tax rate becomes a determiner of the location of the investment; not the investment per se. Nobody puts up a factory just because the tax rate is zero. They put up a factory because the business opportunity is compelling. Having decided to invest, they may choose to locate it in a low tax zone.
The other instance when a tax rate becomes a determiner of investment is if the tax rate is ridiculously high.  For example if the marginal tax rate is 90%, nobody will invest even if the business opportunity is compelling (M. Melenchon\’s supporters, are you listening ?). But if you cut the tax rate from 35% to 15% , it\’s a nice bonus, but it will not add one dollar of investment which otherwise would not have been made.
Further, companies make investments based on a 7 or 9 year time horizon. If one President cuts tax rates this year, what stops the next President from increasing it 3 years from now. So its almost inconceivable that a company which would otherwise have not made the investment, will rush to now make it because of the tax cut.
The argument that a major tax cut on companies, will spur investment growth is mostly flawed. It will however have the following consequences
It will improve corporate profits (for after all tax is a cost) and therefore both the investible surplus and/or dividends in the hands of shareholders. It will increase the wealth in the hands of those who are shareholders. They may spend it which will have a beneficial impact on the economy.
It will correspondingly increase the deficit that the government runs, and therefore the nation\’s borrowings. That will push the cost of borrowing and inflation.
But will it also increase tax revenues and therefore make the measure revenue neutral. Mostly No. But there is one big exception in the US, which will be the subject matter of the next post.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCzOJDJZHoBttdHAjJsnN9w?sub_confirmation=1

Companies don\’t make investment decisions based on tax rates

If you cut tax rates, will companies invest more ? This is almost a religious belief in a certain party in a certain country in the world. Is it justified  ?
The answer, in my opinion, is mostly No.
Companies make investment decisions based on markets, sales projections, competitive advantage, margin potential, scalability and the like.  These are extremely complex business variables and occupy 90% of the time and effort that goes into a business decision.
The tax line is one of the last lines in the cash flows of an investment proposal. It is certainly important, but hardly a determiner of whether the investment goes ahead or not.
There are a few instances when the tax rate indeed becomes a determining variable in the decision. For example, in India, there have been many instances where the government, in an effort to stimulate an underdeveloped part of the country has allowed zero income tax rates for operations located in those areas. In such a case, the tax rate becomes a determiner of the location of the investment; not the investment per se. Nobody puts up a factory just because the tax rate is zero. They put up a factory because the business opportunity is compelling. Having decided to invest, they may choose to locate it in a low tax zone.
The other instance when a tax rate becomes a determiner of investment is if the tax rate is ridiculously high.  For example if the marginal tax rate is 90%, nobody will invest even if the business opportunity is compelling (M. Melenchon\’s supporters, are you listening ?). But if you cut the tax rate from 35% to 15% , it\’s a nice bonus, but it will not add one dollar of investment which otherwise would not have been made.
Further, companies make investments based on a 7 or 9 year time horizon. If one President cuts tax rates this year, what stops the next President from increasing it 3 years from now. So its almost inconceivable that a company which would otherwise have not made the investment, will rush to now make it because of the tax cut.
The argument that a major tax cut on companies, will spur investment growth is mostly flawed. It will however have the following consequences
It will improve corporate profits (for after all tax is a cost) and therefore both the investible surplus and/or dividends in the hands of shareholders. It will increase the wealth in the hands of those who are shareholders. They may spend it which will have a beneficial impact on the economy.
It will correspondingly increase the deficit that the government runs, and therefore the nation\’s borrowings. That will push the cost of borrowing and inflation.
But will it also increase tax revenues and therefore make the measure revenue neutral. Mostly No. But there is one big exception in the US, which will be the subject matter of the next post.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCzOJDJZHoBttdHAjJsnN9w?sub_confirmation=1

Companies don\’t make investment decisions based on tax rates

If you cut tax rates, will companies invest more ? This is almost a religious belief in a certain party in a certain country in the world. Is it justified  ?
The answer, in my opinion, is mostly No.
Companies make investment decisions based on markets, sales projections, competitive advantage, margin potential, scalability and the like.  These are extremely complex business variables and occupy 90% of the time and effort that goes into a business decision.
The tax line is one of the last lines in the cash flows of an investment proposal. It is certainly important, but hardly a determiner of whether the investment goes ahead or not.
There are a few instances when the tax rate indeed becomes a determining variable in the decision. For example, in India, there have been many instances where the government, in an effort to stimulate an underdeveloped part of the country has allowed zero income tax rates for operations located in those areas. In such a case, the tax rate becomes a determiner of the location of the investment; not the investment per se. Nobody puts up a factory just because the tax rate is zero. They put up a factory because the business opportunity is compelling. Having decided to invest, they may choose to locate it in a low tax zone.
The other instance when a tax rate becomes a determiner of investment is if the tax rate is ridiculously high.  For example if the marginal tax rate is 90%, nobody will invest even if the business opportunity is compelling (M. Melenchon\’s supporters, are you listening ?). But if you cut the tax rate from 35% to 15% , it\’s a nice bonus, but it will not add one dollar of investment which otherwise would not have been made.
Further, companies make investments based on a 7 or 9 year time horizon. If one President cuts tax rates this year, what stops the next President from increasing it 3 years from now. So its almost inconceivable that a company which would otherwise have not made the investment, will rush to now make it because of the tax cut.
The argument that a major tax cut on companies, will spur investment growth is mostly flawed. It will however have the following consequences
It will improve corporate profits (for after all tax is a cost) and therefore both the investible surplus and/or dividends in the hands of shareholders. It will increase the wealth in the hands of those who are shareholders. They may spend it which will have a beneficial impact on the economy.
It will correspondingly increase the deficit that the government runs, and therefore the nation\’s borrowings. That will push the cost of borrowing and inflation.
But will it also increase tax revenues and therefore make the measure revenue neutral. Mostly No. But there is one big exception in the US, which will be the subject matter of the next post.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCzOJDJZHoBttdHAjJsnN9w?sub_confirmation=1

Companies don\’t make investment decisions based on tax rates

If you cut tax rates, will companies invest more ? This is almost a religious belief in a certain party in a certain country in the world. Is it justified  ?
The answer, in my opinion, is mostly No.
Companies make investment decisions based on markets, sales projections, competitive advantage, margin potential, scalability and the like.  These are extremely complex business variables and occupy 90% of the time and effort that goes into a business decision.
The tax line is one of the last lines in the cash flows of an investment proposal. It is certainly important, but hardly a determiner of whether the investment goes ahead or not.
There are a few instances when the tax rate indeed becomes a determining variable in the decision. For example, in India, there have been many instances where the government, in an effort to stimulate an underdeveloped part of the country has allowed zero income tax rates for operations located in those areas. In such a case, the tax rate becomes a determiner of the location of the investment; not the investment per se. Nobody puts up a factory just because the tax rate is zero. They put up a factory because the business opportunity is compelling. Having decided to invest, they may choose to locate it in a low tax zone.
The other instance when a tax rate becomes a determiner of investment is if the tax rate is ridiculously high.  For example if the marginal tax rate is 90%, nobody will invest even if the business opportunity is compelling (M. Melenchon\’s supporters, are you listening ?). But if you cut the tax rate from 35% to 15% , it\’s a nice bonus, but it will not add one dollar of investment which otherwise would not have been made.
Further, companies make investments based on a 7 or 9 year time horizon. If one President cuts tax rates this year, what stops the next President from increasing it 3 years from now. So its almost inconceivable that a company which would otherwise have not made the investment, will rush to now make it because of the tax cut.
The argument that a major tax cut on companies, will spur investment growth is mostly flawed. It will however have the following consequences
It will improve corporate profits (for after all tax is a cost) and therefore both the investible surplus and/or dividends in the hands of shareholders. It will increase the wealth in the hands of those who are shareholders. They may spend it which will have a beneficial impact on the economy.
It will correspondingly increase the deficit that the government runs, and therefore the nation\’s borrowings. That will push the cost of borrowing and inflation.
But will it also increase tax revenues and therefore make the measure revenue neutral. Mostly No. But there is one big exception in the US, which will be the subject matter of the next post.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCzOJDJZHoBttdHAjJsnN9w?sub_confirmation=1

Turn the world vegetarian

Humans love eating meat. Vegetarians and vegans (this blogger is a vegetarian) don\’t stand a chance. In quite a few countries in the world, you simply have to starve if you are a vegetarian.  In many others, your only ordering choice in a restaurant is likely to be an apology of a salad, that could more appropriately be fed to a cow !
Any chance that you can turn the human race into vegetarians ? Well, at least one company thinks so. The aptly named Impossible Foods based in California (where else)  would like to try. An interesting Q&A with the founder that I read in the Guardian, prompted this post.
The logic for turning the human race vegan is impeccable. The largest environmental impact that humans have created is from rearing animals for food – cows being the primary culprit. The resources utilised – water, land, etc – per pound of meat is also the largest. The absolutely atrocious conditions in which we rear and kill farm animals has to be a permanent blot on the human species (pig farmers in Iowa – are you listening ?) And if the population of farm animals decreases, there is a better chance of wildlife prospering,  as one of the chief causes of habitat loss is grazing. 
Of course, this is not going to happen. Go back to the first sentence of this post. 
I however have this feeling, totally unsubstantiated by data, that this might be a long term trend. Technology in food production is on the cusp of a revolution. After all humans don\’t eat meat because they like to kill animals. They eat it because they love the taste. If, and when, plant based foods are engineered to taste like meat, there is every chance that people will start to switch. Especially if it is cheaper.  And then, slowly, the ethical side of it will start to play a part. If you can satisfy your nutrition and the craving for taste without killing, why wouldn\’t you do it. After all, if many of the meat eaters actually saw how their meat was being produced, a good proportion will turn vegetarians immediately !
But this is not going to happen in a hurry. Impossible Foods is just a fad and, this being California, fads are always welcome. But good luck to them. I might even come out of retirement and open the India branch – at least it will get me into the good books of the awful gau rakshaks !
But one day, in the distant future, maybe 100 generations later, our descendants will look upon with horror at \”prehistoric man\” for killing and eating animals. And maybe somebody will read my post from the archeological archives and pronounce me as a prescient wise man !
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCzOJDJZHoBttdHAjJsnN9w?sub_confirmation=1

Companies don\’t make investment decisions based on tax rates

If you cut tax rates, will companies invest more ? This is almost a religious belief in a certain party in a certain country in the world. Is it justified  ?
The answer, in my opinion, is mostly No.
Companies make investment decisions based on markets, sales projections, competitive advantage, margin potential, scalability and the like.  These are extremely complex business variables and occupy 90% of the time and effort that goes into a business decision.
The tax line is one of the last lines in the cash flows of an investment proposal. It is certainly important, but hardly a determiner of whether the investment goes ahead or not.
There are a few instances when the tax rate indeed becomes a determining variable in the decision. For example, in India, there have been many instances where the government, in an effort to stimulate an underdeveloped part of the country has allowed zero income tax rates for operations located in those areas. In such a case, the tax rate becomes a determiner of the location of the investment; not the investment per se. Nobody puts up a factory just because the tax rate is zero. They put up a factory because the business opportunity is compelling. Having decided to invest, they may choose to locate it in a low tax zone.
The other instance when a tax rate becomes a determiner of investment is if the tax rate is ridiculously high.  For example if the marginal tax rate is 90%, nobody will invest even if the business opportunity is compelling (M. Melenchon\’s supporters, are you listening ?). But if you cut the tax rate from 35% to 15% , it\’s a nice bonus, but it will not add one dollar of investment which otherwise would not have been made.
Further, companies make investments based on a 7 or 9 year time horizon. If one President cuts tax rates this year, what stops the next President from increasing it 3 years from now. So its almost inconceivable that a company which would otherwise have not made the investment, will rush to now make it because of the tax cut.
The argument that a major tax cut on companies, will spur investment growth is mostly flawed. It will however have the following consequences
It will improve corporate profits (for after all tax is a cost) and therefore both the investible surplus and/or dividends in the hands of shareholders. It will increase the wealth in the hands of those who are shareholders. They may spend it which will have a beneficial impact on the economy.
It will correspondingly increase the deficit that the government runs, and therefore the nation\’s borrowings. That will push the cost of borrowing and inflation.
But will it also increase tax revenues and therefore make the measure revenue neutral. Mostly No. But there is one big exception in the US, which will be the subject matter of the next post.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCzOJDJZHoBttdHAjJsnN9w?sub_confirmation=1

Five Questions To Ask Your Election Candidate!

With elections not so far away, here are five questions you can encourage people to ask of their prospective representatives. We used these in the last general elections, and had encouraging results. They were re-printed by others and spread over a fairly wide area in Varanasi and Lucknow regions. Many candidates and their party heads had to touch upon these issues. Unfortunately, we got the idea fairly late during the campaign season. This time though we need not be so late!
Inviting everyone to take a look and use what they find fit. Right now, these are in Hindi (and not a good reproduction of the original flyer) – will put up an English version as well.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCzOJDJZHoBttdHAjJsnN9w?sub_confirmation=1

Learn from history – Steel tariffs don’t help

The US has been there before many times. And yet they do it again and again. Granted that logic and thoughtful action is not a feature of the current US administration. But still, you would have thought they would have read up what happened when they tried it last time.
I am referring to the announcement today that the US plans to impose a tariff of 25% on steel imports.
George W Bush tried the same tactics in 2002, with an eye on the same political prize – voters in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.  He imposed 8-30% tariffs on imported steel . At that time the target was European steel. Europe promptly took the US to the WTO and won sanctions of  some $2 billion. More tellingly, the politically astute European Union threatened retaliatory tariffs on oranges (goodbye Florida votes) and cars (ta ta Michigan votes).  Meanwhile steel prices in the US surged, screwing industries that buy steel. A later study concluded that 200,000 jobs were lost in the US as a result.  Bush retreated and called off the tariffs in 2003.
His father George HW Bush , and his predecessor Ronald Reagan tried various forms of it too. Reagan famously tried quotas on cars (at that time the target was Japan). The end result of that was that car prices went up by $1000 between 1982 and 1984 and the auto industry actually lost 60,000 jobs as a result of the quotas.
Obama indulged in steel tariffs too. His target was China. But that administration did it selectively – huge tariffs, selectively on products and against companies from China that were dumping.
It is not clear what the current administration is trying to achieve. Presumably their target is China , the current bogeyman and indisputably the cause of depressed world steel prices because of overcapacity. But China exports not much steel to the US possibly as a result of the Obama era actions. It is the 11th largest exporter to the US occupying a small portion of US imports – even India is above it in the rankings. The biggest exporter of steel to the US is Canada, followed by Brazil. Is the US trying to screw Canada ?
Why pick a trade war with Canada of all the countries. The US has a  deficit of $ 12 bn in goods and a surplus of $24 bn in services on a $ 700 bn two way trade. Overall the US has a surplus with Canada. And you want to provoke a war with them ? Yes, the current administration has launched a war on NAFTA, but even by that perverted logic, the target must be Mexico and not Canada.  Canadians are not fools . Selected tariffs from Canada  on Vehicles (bye Michigan) and Agricultural Produce ( adieu Ohio) and we are back to reliving the George Bush experience.
Albert Einstein is famously quoted to have said ” The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.” But to avoid that, you have to read history to determine what has been done before. Well, in the current administration, reading history is too much to ask. They would make a “yuuge” improvement if they could just begin with reading !

The economics of Classical Music in India

 (carnaticdurbar.com)
This blogger is  a recently turned fan of Indian classical music. Being the weirdo he is, it is only to be expected that he would turn his attention to the economic side of this . Yes, I know it’s weird with a capital W that instead of humming a tune, a blog post on economics is what comes out.
Classical music in India is economically a basket case. Every piece in the carnatic music supply chain is in doldrums moneywise.
Take the fan. A listener will only go to a concert if it is free. Will not buy a ticket even if it is just Rs 50. It is perfectly acceptable behaviour to go to a concert, find that there is a ticket and return back without going in ! The fan is a complete hypocrite. Music must be free. Musicians don’t deserve money. But their own salaries (pensions) must be doubled.
Artistes, unless they are at the top of the profession earn an absolute pittance. I am  certain that what most upcoming musicians earn will not even be up to the minimum wage levels in India for casual labour. It is not unknown for lesser musicians to pay to perform rather than the other way around.
The musicians at the very top do earn for their concerts and the popular perception amongst the fans is that they demand too much money. This is nonsense. They may earn Rs 100,000 for a concert; something they have to share with the accompanying artistes. They can probably do 4 or 5 concerts a month on an average. That level of earnings is equivalent to what a middle manager in a company doing an irrelevant pedestrian job will make. And these are the top musicians in the land.
The organisations that hold these concerts are called sabhas – they are the equivalent of music clubs. Given the facts above, every one of them makes a loss and are barely solvent. How they survive is a mystery.
With these economics, it is hardly surprising that there are zero facilities for concerts. None of the cities have anything like the equivalent of an opera house. There is just one good concert hall in the cities of Chennai, Mumbai and Bangalore and they were all built at least 25 years ago. Not a single new concert hall of any size or quality has come up in decades – and just witness the number of malls, cinema multiplexes, resturants and the like that have sprung up. Concerts are held in ramshackle places where the word acoustics is foreign and as for facilities, what are they ?
There are two lifelines that has so far kept this genre going.
One is sponsorship from businesses. Sabha organisers harry, beg, plead, grovel for grants for businesses. You can always find a music fan in a company and they sometimes contribute for a concert. This can hardly be justified in any company for business reasons – this must just be written off as a handout with no benefit for the business.
For the artistes themselves, their main source of income is teaching music to Indian Americans on Skype. You see, the Indian parents in the US feel very guilty for disassociating their children from Indian culture. They are partial to therefore teaching them Indian classical music. Skype offers a perfect medium. Its a nice ego boost to be taught by the finest musician in the genre. This is how artistes put food on the table. The dollar goes a long way as you know.
Another option for artistes is to perform in  the US.  The huge Indian American community in the US wants to “keep in touch” with Indian music, even if they are pretty ignorant about it. For some strange reason Cleveland (of the “bum state” fame) is the headquarters of carnatic music.
All this makes for depressing reading. Musicians world over, in most genres, are millionaires. Classical music in  India is however economically gasping for breath. It is in decent health in terms of listener interest. But it can only thrive if a sensible economic model starts to emerge. For a start, listeners should start paying for a concert instead of demanding it for free. I’ll buy a ticket for every concert I go to , or if its a free concert, at least drop the notional ticket price into the donation box.