TT Ram Mohan has an article in ET wherein he recommends regulations that place limits on the size of banks. The idea behind it-
A large, integrated financial institution today has hundreds of subsidiaries… it is impossible for any individual to understand what all the parts of such an organisation are doing…. Enterprise-wide risk management would seem to be an impossibility in such cases. … in the future, a financial firm that is too big or too interconnected to fail must be too big to exist.
Kay quotes a terrific aphorism from the legendary investor Warren Buffett: invest only in businesses that an idiot can run because sooner or later an idiot will. We need banks that can be run by idiots — and that means imposing a cap on the size of banks.
Surely the same logic also applies to countries. Hence it stands to reason that Obama’s powers should be limited to that enjoyed by a manager at Wal Mart, and Singh’s to that of the chief gardener at 10 Janpath.
Much has been written and said about SRK’s “detention,” and India’s “VIP culture” and “following laws” over the last week. I am with SRK on this one. There is a difference between a law and a diktat. If the US regime decides tomorrow that everyone flying into the country will have to sport dog collars, that is not a law based on reason, but some idiot’s whim. And US action in this case was nothing but an action based on a whim—the national security humbug. As if to prove that the US security apparatus is egalitarian in nature, everyone is pointing to the cases of Bob Dylan, and Ted Kennedy. But what is wrong is wrong regardless of the nature of the person at the receiving end. The problem is deeper than SRK being harangued. It is that people have become too deferential to authority. We live in the age of “the uniform is always right.” Rights and wrongs don’t seem to matter anymore.
If US security cannot recognize Dylan, or Kennedy, or Khan within a few minutes, they and their systems are either too dumb, or too sinister.
John Elliott writes about M.F.Husain’s self-imposed exile from the country. Between H, and Jaswant Singh, and Taslima Nasreen, the philistinism, and intolerance, and hypocrisy, that is part and parcel of Indian society have claimed a fresh batch of illustrious victims over the last couple of years. Husain and Nasreen have been driven away by the nationalist and “secular” forces respectively, and Singh’s book has already been banned by India’s favorite chief minister. As far as the BJP is concerned, Vajpayee was the last person in the party who had an IQ that exceeded 100. Now that he’s retired, the sooner the party self destructs, the better.
I really don’t see the point of embracing martyrdom when it comes to art, or literature, or even politics. If the only language the people of a country speak is that of the stick, it is better to stop speaking to them. In this matter, Husain is wise. Elliott writes-
He would no doubt like to return to India, but not with the risk of attacks and criticisms on his work. “At this age, I’m happy and I’m working. What I plan to do is not possible in India….If I was 40, I’d have fought, but at my age I have an urge to create, so let them do what they like.”
To paraphrase Rand, anyone who is proud of a society that tolerates all this, deserves it.