Month: October 2009

This morning the Nobel Peace Prize committee were woken up by a call from the Ig Nobel Prize committee saying, “Congratulations! you have won!” (The Ig Noble prize people have just gone out of business — they cannot parody the Nobel Prize any more.)

The Nobel Peace Prize has become the Nobel Joke Prize. And not a very funny joke either. Not funny at all when in 1973 they gave it to Kissinger, a man who should have been tried for war crimes. Or maybe it should be called the Nobel Politicized Prize. Seriously, there’s something rotten in this sort of shameless pandering. Timeonline.co.uk calls it a “mockery of the Nobel peace prize” and writes, “Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. . . the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace. . . There is a further irony in offering a peace prize to a president whose principal preoccupation at the moment is when and how to expand the war in Afghanistan.”

What’s destroying the US is most likely this: government grown so big that its insatiable appetite devours the society that created it. Watching the US go down “the road to serfdom,” to use that memorable phrase from Hayek, is scary because what destroys the US can hardly not be expected to destroy weaker countries. Here’s Dan Mitchell arguing forcefully the case for limited government.
Continue reading “What’s Destroying the US?”

In the present issue of Pragati, I argue why bribing the Naxals to surrender will not work. “While the schemes speak of getting the Naxalites to surrender, the only surrendering that is being done is by the government. Financial incentives for surrender will result in an increase in violence.” The article is reproduced below.
Continue reading “Surrendering to the Naxals”

“Most of this month’s issue of Pragati deals with the nature of the Naxalite threat and the ways to address it. We argue that Naxalism is a manifestation of poor or absent governance but establishing good governance in Naxalite-affected areas, after successful security operations, requires the Indian government to invest in hybrid civil-military capacity that it does not yet have at the present time.” [Editorial]

To read the issue, click on the image of the cover.

Bill Easterly writes, “Entrepreneurs that do stick to fixed goals are very good at least at one thing – wasting investors’ money. An idea for an online grocery startup, Webvan, managed to go through $1 billion before finally pulling the plug.”
Continue reading “What Private Entrepreneurs Can Teach Social Entrepreneurs”

Dawkins has been channeling the spirit of Wodehouse. For all of us who like Wodehouse, a great piece by another of my favorite authors, Richard Dawkins. The Great Bus Mystery. (H/t — Nihar.) The first bit below the fold. Continue reading “The Great Bus Mystery by Richard Dawkins”

During his recent visit to the US, Rajesh Jain had a chat with Kevin Werbach, Wharton legal studies and business ethics professor. The topic was “What’s New with Net Neutrality and India’s Mobile Markets?” In the first part, Rajesh asks Kevin five questions on net neutrality and in the second part, the roles are reversed and Kevin asks Rajesh about the Indian mobile market. Very informative and interesting. An excerpt follows:
Continue reading “Rajesh Jain on Net Neutrality: A Knowlege@Wharton Discussion”