A skyscraper, of which each floor will rotate on a whim, will apparently be built in Dubai by 2010. If you are cringing based on what I thought at first blush, then breathe easy - the movement will supposedly be powered entirely naturally and the building’s carbon footprint should consequently be in check. Check out a video of how the twirling tower is slated to look here. Crazy!
In an unmissable TED talk lasting just 4 minutes, Alisa Miller, head of Public Radio International, tells us how the US media tells the news. Her message - no matter how amusingly delivered - is disturbing, especially considering how journalism is one of THE most influential and important ways in which world-views are shaped. Yet another question that springs to mind: is it time the world reevaluated its misguided enchantment with American capitalism or not?
Hillary Clinton said a couple of days ago: I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally OBLITERATE them. This DEMOCRATIC candidate’s willingness to be perceived as the next war-president of the US is both sickening and scary. What exactly is going on?!?!
The QE2 is retiring in Dubai. Come 2008 and it will be the property of Dubai World, a real estate development arm of the Government of Dubai. Cunard has sold her and the ship will soon become a luxury floating hotel, fully equipped with boutiques, bars, and a museum. It will be anchored to The Palm Jumeirah, an artificial island so big, it is apparently visible easily from outer space.
.
.
.
From a financial perspective, I hear raising a hotel of the QE2’s specs would likely take 4 years and cost 4 times the $100 million it was acquired for. But more than that, the United Arab Emirates is a maritime nation - I think this will do wonders for the Dubai brand and significantly enhance tourism appeal. To think that the QE2 project is just one of the city’s many such avant-garde ventures off-late…
.
I have to say I am impressed by the premium the government (yes, the government!) puts on original thought around here.
Here is a thoughtful piece from the Times of India today. By Jay Bhattacharjee, a business and industrial analyst, it comes on the eve of Sarkozy’s visit to India. I thought it made a couple of very valid points - those that corporate India could be truly mindful of at this juncture.
.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy may have recently received a lot of media attention for reasons that are not exactly flattering. However, one policy initiative of his seems to have aroused a lot of interest. The Elysee Palace has invited two Nobel laureates, Amartya Sen and Joseph Stiglitz, to advise the French government on a new methodology for calculating national income (NI) and gross domestic product (GDP) that would incorporate non-economic inputs like quality of life and other social indicators.
.
This development is a reflection of the deep divide between continental European scholars and the Anglo-Saxon market economy proponents on what constitutes a nation’s well-being. In post-Thatcher Britain and post-Reagan America, the approach to the calculation of a country’s GDP and NI has been based on conventional economic indices. Even allowing for corrections to these figures on account of different price levels (purchasing power parity), the estimates of NI and GDP have not mirrored the approximate levels of national well-being.
.
Economist Paul Krugman wrote an article in July 2005 on the relative performance of the French and American economies. He said that the big difference between the two “is in priorities, not performance”. He went on to emphasise that the issue was about “two highly productive societies that have made a different trade-off between work and family time”. He felt there is a lot to be said for the French choice.
.
According to OECD data, French productivity, defined as GDP per hour worked, is manifestly higher than the US figure. While admitting that French GDP per capita is well below that of the US, Krugman attributes it to the additional time that French workers spend with their families. Without minimising the problem of higher unemployment in France, he notes that full-time French employees work shorter weeks and enjoy more paid vacations than their American counterparts.
.
When we compare typical middle-class families in France and the US, it becomes evident that the French enjoy good schooling (at little cost) and an excellent healthcare system that are not available to American families. The Krugman analysis was taken a step further by an OECD study in 2006. It considered a number of alternative indicators of well-being or even “ill-being”, as it said tongue in cheek. It recognised that GDP, as currently calculated, has many shortcomings, since it does not take into account factors like leisure or the degradation of the environment, or income distribution.
.
OECD analysts researched the impact of unconventional variables like these three, as well as other indices of wellbeing like social outcomes of policies and reported happiness. The authors admit that the new variables suffer from various drawbacks, including availability, measurement and crosscountry comparability problems. Nevertheless, they strongly recommend that conventional GDP calculation must be supplemented with other indicators, in order to give a more meaningful nuance to the concept of national welfare.
.
Clearly, Sarkozy would like Sen and Stiglitz to carry this research further and possibly create a newer framework for measuring national well-being. During the run-up to his election last year, Sarkozy himself played the Anglo-Saxon card to denigrate his country’s record of creating and maintaining a high quality of life that the rest of the world admired. He was castigated by British commentators who pointed out that 2005 data portrayed the UK quite poorly when it came to critical social indices. While it had overtaken France in per capita GDP, it had approximately 17 per cent of its population living in poverty, compared to 7 per cent in France.
.
Sarkozy now realises that he had picked the wrong ammunition during the election campaign. The French people would never buy the Anglo-Saxon model that his fund-raisers had been pushing for. His new advisers may help him to restore some balance in his policymaking.
.
For his Indian hosts, will Sarkozy advocate a similar index?
The Tata Nano is undoubtedly the world’s cheapest car, but consider the context in which it is embedded. The Chevy Aveo (~$11,000) is less than 1/4th of the US per capita income. Granted that India’s middle class is growing fast, but the Nano (~$2500) is priced at more than 3X India’s per capita income!
Now that says something.
And its a fact those that levy accusations at Ratan Tata - for furthur choking up India’s roads with bizarrely affordable cars - should consider. When you add to it the fact that European safety and emission standards are met by the Nano, then outright naysayers begin to look just a little silly.
Sunday’s cartoon responds to the generally respectful tone accorded Mike Huckabee, who does not believe in evolution and is therefore, by definition, a lunatic.
Kudos to Airtel and the chaps at Rediffusion DY&R in India for the new direction in which they have taken the campaign.
It’s almost predictable, which is precisely why it is close to genius. Much like the Corona campaign: on-the-tip-of-your-tongue intuitive. The trick often lies in hitting on a concept so seamless that everyone - from consumer to creative to CEO - takes a look and wonders why they didn’t think of it first. Nice!
Airtel’s reliability index better be pretty good though, or users might have to take the brand with a pinch of salt! Good for beer, not so much for a mobile network - no matter how noble its advertising.
Condoleeza Rice at a press conference on Friday: “The United States doesn’t have permanent enemies; we’re too great a country for that.”
No-permanent-enemies is obviously semantic strategy to clarify that North Korea and Iran are indeed enemies until they comply with nuclear demands. It makes little diplomatic sense to refer to enemies - however temporary - as enemies out loud. Okay, so it’s a clumsily put statement, but at least it is honest.
Now the too-great-a-country bit. It brings to mind instantaneously the fact that truly great countries - if there are indeed such things - should have no enemies! Particularly in the unctuous way the US currently does. What were her speechwriters thinking when they churned that out?
I once had conflicted feelings about Starbucks, but am now an unabashed fan of the brand. See a few years ago, I tried hard to avoid Starbucks, and patronized several local coffee shops in Austin instead. I purposefully focused on the boring luxury of each Starbucks store and the small component of free trade coffee they sell. I was appropriately peeved when they bought out Peet’s, and yes, rolled my eyes regularly when the person ahead of me got a grande-non-fat-three-pump-vanilla-soy-latte-extra-hot-no-whip.
Then I moved to LA where there weren’t as many local-coffee-places-with-parking in my neighborhood. And so I became thoroughly happy with my 2-percent-grande-iced-latte-for-4-big-bucks again. Then Highland Perk opened up in Eaglerock. Yay, I could now act-local-think-global again!
That’s till I stumbled in on a groggy Sunday morning and absent-mindedly asked for a “grande percent latte” out of habit. The much-tattooed many-pierced coffeemaker replied, “Don’t know what grande is, nor what percent means. The latte I understand.” So I laughed a bit and he mumbled: “I don’t respond to Starbucks-speak.” Why is that, I asked. And he said, “Because they don’t really care about coffee, and if you go there, then neither do you.” I was annoyed because, as you know, the decapitalist (if you will) in me had been awaiting this bickering barista’s inclusion in my daily routine for a while…
Even so, I went on to amicably say I’m from Austin and how I miss its strong local coffee shop culture - sort of indicating that it’s not out of choice that I go to Starbucks. Bu he didn’t thaw a bit, no. So I left and took my dog to the park and sipped his latte. And it was good, but no better or cheaper than Starbucks - which is where I stopped off on the way back for a refill. I could say I did that only to avoid dealing with His Highandmightyness again, but really, it was then that I gave up hating on the Starbucks I love. Call me what you will. =)
Now I’m back in India where, despite the profusion of international brands that have hit, Starbucks has not yet arrived. But I’m currently visiting Dubai and it’s been around here for a while. As you can imagine, I’m one foot out of the door and in my sneakers so I can run.
PS: Starbucks also makes an effort to spark social change and I find that commendable. Whether or not the at-times-controversial effort is made solely in the interest of increasing their ’star’ and - consequently - ‘bucks’ factor is anyone’s guess. At least they make it.