The Financial Times in one of their editions in June 2007, (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ed531a4c-1add-11dc-8bf0-000b5df10621.html - can read it on-line only if you subscribe to ft.com) states that 60 % of India is in agriculture.
India does not have an appreciable food surplus or deficit. That means that 6 families are working to provide food to 10 families. Or, each one family lives on income it generates from providing food to 10/6 = 1 and 2/3 families. One of them is their own family. So, each family lives on income it generates from providing food to 2/3 of another family.
Doesn't sound very good. It is even worse than this:
1. The farmers get their money from selling to the first of many middle-men, so they get much less than what what we pay at a retail store.
2. This money is used for all their non-food expenses - living, education, retirement, ...
3. This is the average amount. So, broadly speaking, about half the families get less than this. My guess is that it many more than half get less than this amount.
One way to do something for India, is to increase this ratio of 2/3. So, if each family provides food for even 2 families, they increase their earning by a factor of 3.
Doable?
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Musical Instruments - simple vs. mechanical
I compare the musical instruments that my children and their friends use in the US, with what I used as a child in India.
My flute was a bamboo tube with a few holes in it; each finger movement covered or uncovered a hole. The Western flute is a sophisticated mechanical device with a large number of levers.
The shehani was an analog of the bamboo flute. Its Western equivalent, the oboe, seems as sophisticated as the western flute.
Clearly, the cost of producing a shehnai is much less than an oboe. And, there are fewer things to go wrong, and tune-up in the shehnai.
What does this mechanical sophistication, and increase in cost, do? Does it make it easier for the musician? Or, does it allow the production of better music? Or both?
My flute was a bamboo tube with a few holes in it; each finger movement covered or uncovered a hole. The Western flute is a sophisticated mechanical device with a large number of levers.
The shehani was an analog of the bamboo flute. Its Western equivalent, the oboe, seems as sophisticated as the western flute.
Clearly, the cost of producing a shehnai is much less than an oboe. And, there are fewer things to go wrong, and tune-up in the shehnai.
What does this mechanical sophistication, and increase in cost, do? Does it make it easier for the musician? Or, does it allow the production of better music? Or both?
Monday, May 28, 2007
Indian Economy Moving Towards Organized Sector
What percent of the Indian economy is in the "unorganized sector?" Numbers ranging from 60% to 97% are talked about.
With big corporations gradually moving into this space (e.g. Reliance getting into retailing), a significant part of this economy is going to be turned on its head. Do we understand the social implications?
- Many small businesses will be driven out. Their employees may find employment at large corporations, doing the same things, but under better working conditions. However, a significant majority of these business have no regular real employees - it is all family-run. What happens to these families?
- Cost structures of many of these are very low - almost insignificant profit margins. While large buying entities may reduce cost of acquisition, there will be additional corporate costs.
- Corporations will be able to flex their muscles to extract very low prices from suppliers. And they will dis-intermediate the middle man.
The quality of life of buyers, on the other hand, will improve substantially.
- Easier access to many things under the same roof. What you had to go to 5 stores to buy, and took and entire morning, can now be bought at a single store in half an hour.
- Their employees will have better working conditions.
Social implications are huge though.
With big corporations gradually moving into this space (e.g. Reliance getting into retailing), a significant part of this economy is going to be turned on its head. Do we understand the social implications?
- Many small businesses will be driven out. Their employees may find employment at large corporations, doing the same things, but under better working conditions. However, a significant majority of these business have no regular real employees - it is all family-run. What happens to these families?
- Cost structures of many of these are very low - almost insignificant profit margins. While large buying entities may reduce cost of acquisition, there will be additional corporate costs.
- Corporations will be able to flex their muscles to extract very low prices from suppliers. And they will dis-intermediate the middle man.
The quality of life of buyers, on the other hand, will improve substantially.
- Easier access to many things under the same roof. What you had to go to 5 stores to buy, and took and entire morning, can now be bought at a single store in half an hour.
- Their employees will have better working conditions.
Social implications are huge though.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Religion and Society
When a family friend - Mr. Jain's son joined the army, we were confused. Aren't Jains supposed to be non-violent. What then, is a Jain going to do in an army. At School, not just Jains, but also very strict vegetarian Hindus had no qualms about dissecting a frog. And, I have seen Doctors making offerings at temples for curing sick family members. All these appear incongruous. Are they really?
Why this disconnect between personal/religious life, and social/professional life? Is it because most Hindus ( and Jains, Buddhists, and maybe others) tend to separate religion from society? Religion is something to be practiced in private, and what Hindus do in public has much less to do with their religion, than followers of other faiths.
Hinduism allows this kind of thinking, by putting many fewer restrictions. For example, unlike Catholicism, Hinduism says nothing explicitly about abortion. And, unlike Islam, Hindism does not require Haj.
Maybe, it is this thinking that has allowed Hindus to be so tolerant and welcoming of other faiths. After all, Hindus don't care what people of other faiths do in their homes.
Why this disconnect between personal/religious life, and social/professional life? Is it because most Hindus ( and Jains, Buddhists, and maybe others) tend to separate religion from society? Religion is something to be practiced in private, and what Hindus do in public has much less to do with their religion, than followers of other faiths.
Hinduism allows this kind of thinking, by putting many fewer restrictions. For example, unlike Catholicism, Hinduism says nothing explicitly about abortion. And, unlike Islam, Hindism does not require Haj.
Maybe, it is this thinking that has allowed Hindus to be so tolerant and welcoming of other faiths. After all, Hindus don't care what people of other faiths do in their homes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)