Comments on: This "Year of India" (4): The NY Times’ Man in Bombay http://www.radioopensource.org/anand_giridharadas/ Christopher Lydon in conversation on arts, ideas and politics Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:27:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: isabel http://www.radioopensource.org/anand_giridharadas/#comment-93565 isabel Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:18:47 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=5529#comment-93565 'nother' has a good point. To tap into the 4 billion poor in the world is an attractive market, as it was initially suggested by CK Prahalad and Hart in their first "Base of the Pyramid" model. Let's be creative, and manufacture smaller sizes, distribute better, develop cheaper products and so we can sell to 4 billion new clients. Alas, that was very myopic and brought more problems than happy shareholders. We live in a spaceship that has limited resources, and making more 'stuff' is not lifting anyone out of poverty. As a matter of fact, small size packaging makes more waste, and costs in proportion more than larger sizes. Hart learned the hard lessons, and in 2007 proposed many changes to the model. What is needed is to consider the systemic interconnections, and what are the real needs of the billions poorest. That may be access to transportation - which means many other things besides cars. ‘nother’ has a good point. To tap into the 4 billion poor in the world is an attractive market, as it was initially suggested by CK Prahalad and Hart in their first “Base of the Pyramid” model. Let’s be creative, and manufacture smaller sizes, distribute better, develop cheaper products and so we can sell to 4 billion new clients. Alas, that was very myopic and brought more problems than happy shareholders. We live in a spaceship that has limited resources, and making more ‘stuff’ is not lifting anyone out of poverty. As a matter of fact, small size packaging makes more waste, and costs in proportion more than larger sizes. Hart learned the hard lessons, and in 2007 proposed many changes to the model. What is needed is to consider the systemic interconnections, and what are the real needs of the billions poorest. That may be access to transportation – which means many other things besides cars.

]]> By: nother http://www.radioopensource.org/anand_giridharadas/#comment-93564 nother Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:10:54 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=5529#comment-93564 Anand Girlidharadas’s perspective is indeed enlightening. I do hear the voice of the new India. He convinces me that modernity has taken hold, and that Indians have one-uped us in our way of thinking. We like cheaper and more efficient, well, they found a way to make it MORE cheap and MORE efficient. Yes, the “new India” is winning, but It’s the “language” of our 1950’s that they are winning. Anand’s says, “there are three billion people, who would be very excited about a two thousand dollar car.” The language of the new now is, where is the good in three billion more people driving a ton of gas guzzling metal around congested cities with inadequate roads and bridges. And where are all these people going in these cars? Are they going to school, I pray? Is it good just because it will make them “excited?” Because the language of new now is - where is the happiness in the endgame of capitalism. In the modern world we find ourselves staring at a spiritual vacuum, and now I stare in wonder as India gleefully sucks out their own abundance of spiritualism. Anand says about the current captains of industry in the new India, “the constraints were essentially the same, they still had a billion poor people around them, that has not changed.” He argues that what has changed is “a new way of thinking.” Ok fine, but something else has changed as well, the standard of living for the workers of India’s competitors. As the wage rate in competitive countries increases, the value of a “billion poor people around them” gains value in direct proportion. Old economics, not “new thinking.” Anand’s take is important, but it’s a take from the top. His dad had the opportunity to look around at the trajectory of his colleagues and make a decision to migrate to the U.S. I’m not sure most Indian line workers have that luxury. Arnad is eloquently and intellectually ambivalent about the paradox on the new India. That makes good copy, buy there are a billion people who are not ambivalent about the new India, and when will we hear that voice? The voice of Unions, of child workers, of women, of Gandhi. Anand Girlidharadas’s perspective is indeed enlightening. I do hear the voice of the new India. He convinces me that modernity has taken hold, and that Indians have one-uped us in our way of thinking. We like cheaper and more efficient, well, they found a way to make it MORE cheap and MORE efficient.

Yes, the “new India” is winning, but It’s the “language” of our 1950’s that they are winning.

Anand’s says, “there are three billion people, who would be very excited about a two thousand dollar car.”

The language of the new now is, where is the good in three billion more people driving a ton of gas guzzling metal around congested cities with inadequate roads and bridges. And where are all these people going in these cars? Are they going to school, I pray? Is it good just because it will make them “excited?” Because the language of new now is – where is the happiness in the endgame of capitalism.

In the modern world we find ourselves staring at a spiritual vacuum, and now I stare in wonder as India gleefully sucks out their own abundance of spiritualism.

Anand says about the current captains of industry in the new India, “the constraints were essentially the same, they still had a billion poor people around them, that has not changed.” He argues that what has changed is “a new way of thinking.”

Ok fine, but something else has changed as well, the standard of living for the workers of India’s competitors. As the wage rate in competitive countries increases, the value of a “billion poor people around them” gains value in direct proportion. Old economics, not “new thinking.”

Anand’s take is important, but it’s a take from the top. His dad had the opportunity to look around at the trajectory of his colleagues and make a decision to migrate to the U.S. I’m not sure most Indian line workers have that luxury. Arnad is eloquently and intellectually ambivalent about the paradox on the new India. That makes good copy, buy there are a billion people who are not ambivalent about the new India, and when will we hear that voice? The voice of Unions, of child workers, of women, of Gandhi.

]]>