HOUSE OF THOUGHTS (HOT)

I came to know of these great intellectuals from Marginal Revolution by Tyler Cowen

(as written by Tyler Cowen)

I have been reading / researching on contributions by Indian thinkers – from vedic period to current period. Once I make some progress, I will post it.

Until then, you may read about these great people!

1. Tjalling Koopmans.  He is a father of operations research and certainly worthy of a Nobel Prize, although perhaps in mathematics (if they had one).  His work on optimal routing theory remains central to transportation management and he also laid some foundations for quantum chemistry.  True, he doesn’t really appeal to my inner Austrian but he was an awesome intellectual figure and he also helped us win WWII.  We should all bow down and pay homage to Tjalling Koopmans.

2. Kenneth J. Arrow.  His reputation now far surpasses that of Samuelson’s and he was more philosophical to boot.  Where to start?   He understood his own impossibility theorem better than did the commentators plus he is the father of modern health care economics and that is maybe 1/10th of his total contribution!  People who know him also claim he is the greatest polymath they ever met.

3. Gerard Debreu.  He is the father of general equilibrium theory and also, as a philosopher of time, the real successor to Proust, as he once explained in an interview.  His extremely minimalistic approach to economics is better when it comes from the star than from the second-tier imitators but of course a real star he was.  I think of him as the father of economic science fiction and no I don’t mean that as a snub.

4. James Tobin.  About fifteen years ago I realized he was in fact one of the deepest Keynesian thinkers.  He also proposed the Tobit model and laid the foundations for modern portfolio theory.  He lives in an intellectual world different from my own but he is clearly deserving of his Nobel Prize several times over.

5. Franco Modigliani.  He is one of the guys who could have won more than one Nobel Prize.  That’s one for the Modigliani-Miller theorem (the implications of being able to chop up and carve up assets), one for the lifecycle hypothesis, and perhaps even another for his 1944 article on liquidity preference, which showed the concept was probably not enough to drive the Keynesian model except for the unusual case where liquidity preference was infinitely strong.  Sadly this piece remains neglected by modern purveyors of the liquidity trap idea.

6. Herbert Simon.  Bounded rationality and behavioral economics have already taken the profession by storm; his insights on computation, neurology, and artificial intelligence have not yet been incorporated into the mainstream in an effective manner, so his long-run influence will only increase.

7. Lawrence Klein.  I can’t say I am a fan of his macro modelling approach, but I’ll admit I haven’t spent much time with his work.

8. Trygve Haavelmo.  He pioneered how to attack identification problems in econometrics; among other things without him there would be no Steve Levitt and no Freakonomics.  He didn’t just get the Nobel Prize because he was a Scandinavian.

9. Harry Markowitz.  The father of modern portfolio theory, enough said.

Amazing, isn’t it?  I still think the profession as a whole overdoes theory (even today) and undervalues breadth and real world experience, but these are nonetheless thinkers to be revered.  Arrow and Simon are, by far, the two who have influenced me the most.  It’s also fair to say that GMU economics often extends in other directions, but except perhaps for Herbert Simon these are well-mined thinkers by the rest of the mainstream so not every economist need run in their direction.

“Gain Identity and come out of oppression through One mind”

Ayn Rand was a devoted Aristotelian - the central idea being that there exists an objective reality that is separate from consciousness and capable of being known. Thus she called her philosophy ‘objectivism’. And she applied key tenets of Aristotelian ethics - namely, that individuals have innate nobility and that highest duty of every individual is to flourish by realizing that potential.

[Source: Alan Greenspan's book - In the age of turbulence!]

I find this concept to be interesting and reinforces the concept of capitalism even more. In fact pure capitalism.

If I am correct, for a true follower of objectivism  CSR or giving back to society or collectivism would be an alien thing.

I find this interesting! I guess it would be interesting to explore more!

I was reading a work written on Dhirubhai Ambani by Gita Piramaal. In that, I came across an excellent line - “We cannot chage our rulers, but we can at least help them learn how to rule us better” - D.A. What a thoughtful statement!

Just a thought in H.O.T!

Damn! My house is not clean!

I was screaming on the other day. My house is not clean! My house is not clean!

I was shouting on the street! No one cared!

Frustrated that no one was helping, I came into the house and continued to tell that my house is not clean! As though a miracle would happen and someone would clean my house for me, to my satisfaction!

No one was coming! Finally, I had to take the broom and mop to clean it up - it will take a while to finish the work because….my house is not small!

 It is the 7th largest in the world. It has more than 1 billion people living in it. India!

This may not just be a thought in H.O.T.  but would become ……

hi srivats….. the following article elaborate the feasibility of the project. - From Muthukumar

i too oppose the canal,not for religious reason but on economic and environmental grounds. Its rationale is more political than economic. It will become one more public sector white elephant.
The Palk Straits, between Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka, are so shallow that only small boats can pass through. So, east-west coastal ships have to go around Sri Lanka. So do ships from Europe and Africa to the east coast.
Sethusamundaram will be a furrow dredged in the sea-bed of the Straits, deep enough to accommodate ships of 20,000 DWT. The canal will save ships both distance (saving fuel) and time (saving daily charges for chartering ships). So, it should be able to charge ships for passage, like the Suez and Panama Canals. This revenue is supposed to make the project economic.
The project is a political gift for Tamil Nadu. It will hugely help Tuticorin port, which today can receive ships only from the west, and not the east. It will improve the viability of existing and planned minor ports in the state. Hence, Tamils call the canal a 150-year dream about to come true (it was first proposed around 1850).
Dreams are costless, but canals are not. Project documents claim that the canal will save ships 36 hours of time and 570 nautical miles of distance. But a recent study by Jacob John in Economic and Political Weekly exposes these claims as highly exaggerated. Up to 70% of the traffic through the canal is projected to come from Europe and Africa. And John estimates that the time saving from Europe to Kolkata will be only eight hours, and the distance saving 215 nautical miles. From Africa to Kolkata, the time taken will actually increase by 3.5 hours (being piloted through the canal is a slow process), and distance reduced will be only 70 nautical miles.
John calculates that ships could lose up to $4,992 per passage if they are charged the tariff laid down in project documents. In which case ships will find it cheaper to go round Sri Lanka. If the government cuts the proposed tariff to attract traffic, John estimates that the project’s rate of return could fall to an uneconomic 2.5%. I expect that the project will also suffer cost overruns in capital and maintenance dredging, and hence be in the red.
The canal is supposed to be ready
by November 2008, not far off. So why has the project not been able to sign up potential users? The finance minister has appealed to private shipping companies to participate in a project that will benefit them, yet no shipping company has come forward. The economics of the canal look much too dicey.
The Suez and Panama Canals save ships thousands of miles, and that makes them profitable. Sethusamundaram is not remotely comparable. It is designed for small ships (the project documents talk of 20,000 DWT), whereas the Panama Canal takes ships of up to 65,000 DWT and Suez takes ships up to 150,000 DWT.
The Suez and Panama canals were dug through land corridors, and once dug stayed dug — they did not face sand inundation from the sea. However, Sethusamundaram will be a furrow in the sea-bed, at the constant mercy of currents bearing sand.
The government’s environmental assessment has cleared the project on ecological grounds. Yet, much of that assessment was not about sand incursion, but about fears of possible damage to coral reefs, coastal erosion, oil spills, and changes in ocean salinity and temperature. Besides, the ecological studies were done from the Indian side of the Palk Straits, and not the Sri Lankan side, and so are technically incomplete.
My own major fear is not so much that the project will ruin the environment, but that the environment will ruin the project. I fear that ocean currents will keep dumping fresh sand in the furrow of the canal. The Palk Straits are shallow not by accident but because sand-bearing currents have made them so. Combating the full force of nature is perilous, expensive and sometimes impossible.
The project envisages maintenance dredging of two million cubic metres per year, infinitely more than required by the Suez and Panama canals. Jacob suspects (and so do i) that actual maintenance dredging will far exceed project projections, rendering the canal uneconomic. An extreme event (like the 2005 tsunami) could dump enough sand to close down the canal.
Finally, global shipping is shifting to ever-larger vessels. Bulk carriers and tankers often exceed 200,000 DWT, and those under 60,000 DWT are being phased out as uneconomic. Old general cargo vessels have been replaced by container ships, which started small but now exceed 35,000 DWT, and may soon touch 75,000 DWT. Such vessels cannot use the canal.
So, Sethusamundaram will be unsuitable for the large vessels of the 21st century. It is a 150-year old idea for 150-year old ships. That may be its epitaph.

Comment by R.Muthukumar — September 25, 2007 @ 7:08 am | Edit

I appreciate that every Government wants to be secular. However in the name of secularism or technology or science or logical reasoning, questioning the fundamental belief of one religious sect is not acceptable [existence of bridge built by Ram]. I am not asking them to worship the Gods but a mere courtesy to respect others belief! 

In the name of technology progress why to shatter people’s belief. Can’t they listen and act properly? There are studies which show this Sethu project may not be feasible; why can’t they act on that? What are the alternate routes they have looked into? 

 My humble request to the concerned, respect others feelings and beliefs.  This is an earnest request because ‘Veterans’ are ruling the state and they have accomplished lot of things. They have brought lot of improvements into the system. TN is growing and they take care of common man. I don’t want this project to be a black mark for them by spoiling and destroying the beliefs of the people. 

 Will they listen?

Many of us were lured by Harry Potter and the characters in the series for variety of reasons. One that stands out is the character called ‘Snape’.

All through the series Snape was portrayed as a bad guy or in Potter language a death eater. Even when Dumbledore makes Snape his confidant, we were not in a position to believe that he would live up to his expectations.

Snape not only lived upto his expectations but gave his life in the process. The quality which makes me look upon Snape with admiration was his nature of not to look for recognition, praise or reward for what he was doing.

Snape was cursed, hated and loathed for his actions and his acrimonious nature was hated even more. Though he hated Harry for some reason or other, his word to Dumbledore and his own reasons to protect Harry lead him to sacrifice his life.

For quiet some time, I have been wondering if there could be anything or anybody who is selfless and does not care about the recognition or reward for their action. Got an answer – Snape!

I guess being selfless would bring peace of mind! If not while living; at the least at the time we go other world!

Just a thought in H.O.T!

Some interesting facts & figures in AUTO (TUK TUK) business in Chennai!

(The absolute figures might be approximate but the % is more or less fine)

Number of autos with permit : 40,000

Actual number of autos in chennai : > 1,00,000

Then how’s the difference : Autos from other places like chengalpattu, kancheepuram, NO PERMIT (app 60,000)

 Hmm…bribes help man!

Available permits: NONE - ZERO.

What is the approximate cost of permit in BLACK: Rs 80,000 + Rs 3,250 for name transfer [app]

[Thank God service tax, sales tax, edu cess & other taxes are not applicable - some relief!]

 Ownership of Autos:

 90% not owned by drivers of auto! So, plenty of room for money lenders to play!

Financing:

Hmm…you may think that the trusted govt owned banks would come to the rescue & provide loans! Ok here is the story

Only 65% of cost of auto would be given by bank. [App cost of Auto Rs 2,00,000 and increasing]

So, because of higher initial payment, the buyers go to money lenders! Hmm…you know what is the rate of interest

Fitness Test:

Govt rate or cost for FC is app Rs 500 but the cost acually is Rs 1,400 to Rs 1,700 depending on how many hands to be greased!

Hmm…money money…!!!

So coming to share auto: App Rs 600 is the rent per day and above rules of bribe and loans apply!

Disconnect in rule for share auto:

“6 people are allowed in a share Auto” - City Commissioner

“4 people are allowed in a share Auot” - RTO

“Sorry too less to manage our business - so we take 12″ - Auto driver!

“Ha ha ha…we love these disconnects…time to make money”.. - Mamus!

How business friendly!

Just a thought in H.O.T!

007 series would continue!

What is the cost of buying or making the goods cheaper and cheaper, day after day?!

Do you think this question is ridiculous? Think again!

When you buy a toy for your kid sibling or buy a cool t-shirt or a frozen food at a very very cheap - what is the price you (we) are paying?!

By hesitating to pay a couple of dollars or few hundred rupees more to a product we are actually paying a greater price either in the form of personal health issues or destroying our ecosystem – polluting our environment.

To know more, read about how Chinese industries operate – recent product recalls etc! There are issues with Indian industries too (textile and dye industries especially)!

It is chicken and egg case, wherein when you ask the company why they give products which are cheap (lesser quality) to customers they put it on customers and vice versa.

Soon, there may be a day, when even if we are willing to pay more to an environmental and ‘living being’ (not only human) friendly product – suppliers may not be able to provide it! Reason – very resource would have been polluted by then!

Do we want this scenario? What can we do as customers or vendors to avoid this situation?

It is said in B-schools that QUALITY as a distinguishing factor is long gone – now it is taken for granted by customers; I don’t think so! Quality & environment friendliness will capture the mind of a customer even today and definitely tomorrow!

Just a thought in H.O.T!