Beggary at Traffic Junctions – A Reflection

If you’ve ever waited at a busy traffic signal in any Indian city, you’ve probably witnessed the familiar sight: beggars swarming cars, tapping on windows, extending hands, and sometimes selling trivial items. They hunt in pairs, sometimes in larger teams, aiming to extract money in the precious 30 or 40 seconds before the light turns green. It’s a perfectly timed act of desperation and strategy, an organized dance of need and guilt.

What I find particularly irritating is not just their persistence, but the fact that some motorists, in their generosity, unknowingly extend the wait time for everyone behind them. A few seconds of alms-giving often lead to a ripple effect of delay, while the traffic builds up and tempers flare. Yet, police officers stand seemingly indifferent, oblivious to the mounting congestion and the plight of impatient motorists.

What’s striking is how organized this street-level operation appears. Each member of the team has a role:

• The youngest of the gang usually carries a cloth or a wipe, rushing to your windshield before you can protest, swiping it with a theatrical flair. You didn’t ask for it, but by the end of it, you feel a peculiar sense of obligation to pay for the effort.
• The oldest member, typically a frail man with a stick, ambles up to your window, attempting to sell earbuds, pens, or other trivial items. His tired eyes and worn-out appearance tug at your heartstrings.
• A female member carries a young child, cradling them while she pleads for money, ostensibly to feed the infant. The sight of a child, hungry and helpless, is a powerful nudge to open your wallet.
• The male member, more assertive, sells balloons or glass sun shields, often approaching with a sales pitch that is hard to ignore in the few moments you have.

It’s a choreographed act, a well-rehearsed routine designed to extract sympathy - and ultimately, money - in mere seconds. But what fuels this response? Why do we feel compelled to give, even when we know it might be part of a larger racket?

The Psychology of Guilt and Enabling

This behavior at traffic signals mirrors something deeper in our psychology. As described in research, financial enablers often suffer from guilt over their own financial stability. They may feel undeserving of their own success and become duty-bound to “help” those who are visibly struggling, even if the struggle is part of an organized act. The same way a financially stable friend or relative may bail out someone who is irresponsible with money, we find ourselves handing out cash at traffic signals, not out of pure generosity, but out of guilt and the desire to relieve our discomfort.

These enablers often discount the role of effort and attribute the misfortune of others solely to bad luck. It’s easier to give a few rupees and feel like a savior than to question the system that perpetuates this cycle. Interestingly, many of these enablers are not big donors to public causes; their generosity is restricted to these close, immediate circles where they can visibly witness their “help” being accepted.

Money, after all, offers power, control, prestige, social acceptance, and approval. Some even hide their own financial strains to continue offering support - whether to beggars at a signal or to irresponsible friends and family. This behavior, while seemingly charitable, can also demotivate, undermine, and perpetuate dependence.

The Broader Social Reflection

If we extend this analogy to our social circles, the pattern becomes clearer. Why does a relative or friend, who is better off financially, continually bail out someone who is financially reckless? Research indicates that the giver often suffers from a kind of “money disorder.” They feel an obligation, rooted in guilt or misplaced loyalty, to step in and save someone from their own financial irresponsibility. And just like at the traffic signal, this behavior only enables the cycle to continue.

The beggary at traffic junctions is more than just a minor inconvenience—it’s a window into our collective psyche. It’s a reflection of how guilt, misplaced compassion, and the need for social acceptance drive us to enable patterns of dependency, both on the streets and in our personal lives.

Perhaps the next time you’re at that signal, instead of giving in to guilt, you might think twice about what you’re really enabling.

Capitalism’s Harsh Lesson: Why 16,000 Billionaires Never Existed

 

I. Introduction – The Billionaires Who Never Were

I recently stumbled upon a compelling statistic: Had America's wealthy families in 1900 simply invested their riches in the stock market, spent a modest 2% annually, and maintained average population growth, today there would be 16,000 'old money' billionaires. Instead, there are fewer than 1,000. This revelation prompted me to ponder the nature of wealth preservation.

This isn't just a tale of missed financial opportunities; it's a reflection of capitalism's inherent Darwinian nature. In the economic ecosystem, wealth that remains stagnant is akin to an untended garden, susceptible to the overgrowth of inflation and economic upheaval.

II. The Premise: 1900 Wealth + 2% Spending + Stock Market = 16,000 Billionaires?

The hypothetical is straightforward: if affluent families in 1900 had invested their wealth in the stock market, limited their annual spending to 2%, and allowed their families to grow at an average rate, the compounding effect would have resulted in approximately 16,000 billionaire heirs today.

Yet, reality tells a different story. The vast majority of these fortunes have dissipated over generations. This discrepancy highlights a fundamental truth: in capitalism, as in nature, survival favors the adaptable.

III. Darwinian Law #1: Adapt or Die

In the natural world, species that fail to adapt to changing environments face extinction. Similarly, in capitalism, wealth that isn't actively managed and adapted to evolving markets and technologies is prone to erosion.

Consider the industrial magnates of the early 20th century. Many of their descendants failed to pivot their investments in response to technological advancements, leading to the gradual decline of their fortunes.

IV. Darwinian Law #2: Competition Is Relentless

Nature is characterized by relentless competition, where only the fittest survive. Capitalism mirrors this, with constant market competition challenging the dominance of established players.

New entrepreneurs, armed with innovative ideas and technologies, often outpace traditional businesses. Without continuous reinvestment and innovation, even the most substantial fortunes can be overtaken.

V. Darwinian Law #3: Resource Mismanagement Leads to Extinction

In ecosystems, mismanagement of resources can lead to the collapse of populations. In economic terms, extravagant spending, poor investment decisions, and lack of financial education can deplete wealth rapidly.

The adage "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations" encapsulates this phenomenon, where wealth is built by one generation, squandered by the next, and gone by the third.

VI. Inflation: The Silent Predator

Inflation acts as a silent predator, gradually eroding the purchasing power of money. Without proactive investment strategies that outpace inflation, wealth diminishes over time.

Relying solely on the stock market without active management isn't sufficient. Diversification, regular portfolio reviews, and strategic asset allocation are essential to preserve and grow wealth.

VII. Conclusion – Prosperity Requires Participation

The hypothetical 16,000 billionaires serve as a cautionary tale. Wealth preservation isn't a passive endeavor; it demands active participation, adaptability, and continuous learning.

In the Darwinian landscape of capitalism, only those who evolve and engage with the ever-changing economic environment can ensure the longevity of their prosperity.

Trump Tariffs, Trade Wars & The Abel-Lerner Connection – What It All Means for the Real World ?

This whole thought came about after watching a video of Dr. Steve Hanke speaking to a think tank ...snippet below, where he pointed out something remarkably simple yet deeply profound: “Tariffs are a tax on your own exports.” That line hit me like a freight train - and sent me digging into the Lerner condition, a 1937 economic model influenced by the mathematical symmetry thinking of Niels Henrik Abel.

In the chaos of trade wars, tariffs, and political grandstanding, it’s easy to get lost in economic jargon. But sometimes, the best insights come from surprisingly elegant theories - like the one Lerner proposed.

Let me break it down.

Understanding the Lerner Condition and Abel’s Influence

Imagine you slap a tax on imports to protect your local industries. Sounds smart, right? But Lerner’s condition flips this idea on its head. He argued that an import tariff is economically the same as a tax on your own exports. That’s because when you make foreign goods expensive, your own exporters face retaliation or reduced foreign income, which means less demand for your stuff too. It's like trying to win a pillow fight by punching yourself in the gut.

Mathematician Niels Henrik Abel didn’t study trade, but his obsession with symmetry influenced Lerner’s thinking. Just like Abel found elegant balance in equations, Lerner applied symmetry to global trade. A tax on imports = a tax on exports. Simple. Brutal. True. So how will the present embroglio pan out?

Scenario 1: The Tariff Spiral – Everyone Loses

This is the “nightmare mode” of a trade war. Country A (say, the U.S.) imposes tariffs. Country B (China) hits back. Both sides keep raising the stakes.

We’ve seen this play out. Under Trump, U.S. tariffs on China soared. China retaliated, targeting American exports like soybeans - crippling U.S. farmers. Trade volumes shrank. Prices rose. Consumers in both countries paid more. Global supply chains bent and broke.

This spiral fits Lerner’s model perfectly. Both countries tried to win but ended up taxing their own economies. It's like two neighbors blocking each other’s driveways out of spite - and then wondering why no one can go anywhere.

Scenario 2: The Truce – A Pause, Not a Peace

Now picture this: after months of economic damage, both sides say, “enough.” They agree to a partial rollback. This happened with the Phase One trade deal in 2020. China promised to buy more U.S. goods. The U.S. backed off new tariffs.

Great, right? Sort of.

Yes, it eased tensions and helped some exporters (hello again, soybeans). But most tariffs stayed. China didn’t fully meet its promises. And the structural issues - tech theft, subsidies - remained unresolved.

This is the halfway house. The bleeding slows, but the wound is still open. Trade recovers slightly, but the trust is fractured.

Scenario 3: The Standoff – The New Normal

Finally, we have the long-term stalemate: tariffs remain, trade adjusts, and both countries “decouple” bit by bit.

This is where we are today.

The U.S. still has tariffs on hundreds of billions in Chinese goods. China retaliates. Both economies slowly shift - U.S. importers turn to Vietnam or Mexico; China looks to ASEAN and Europe. Supply chains evolve, but efficiency drops. Everything costs a little more. Growth lags.

And the Lerner symmetry still applies. Those tariffs? They’re quietly taxing exporters and raising prices back home. No fanfare. Just a slow burn.

Final Thoughts: Trade Wars Are Boomerangs

If the Lerner condition teaches us anything, it’s this: tariffs hurt both ways. You can’t win a trade war by throwing taxes around. They come right back at you - hurting your exporters, your consumers, and your long-term growth.

Trump’s trade war with China showed this in action. The U.S. paid more, sold less, and achieved little lasting change. China took a hit too, but adapted.

So what’s the big takeaway?

In trade wars, there are no clean victories. Just costs - some obvious, some hidden. And if we want smarter policies in the future, we’d do well to remember what Lerner (and Abel) taught us: economic systems have symmetry - and that symmetry bites back.

The Mahakumbh Marketing Playbook: Modernizing the Lost & Found Saga

Lost & Found – R.I.P. Human Drama

I miss getting lost.

No seriously, back in the day, getting lost was an emotion. It was a plot twist. It was the reason for Bollywood’s existence. Today? It’s just…a GPS glitch.

You see, man is supposed to be a social animal. We were wired to mingle, bicker, play, fall in love, lose people and find them again - preferably with melodrama, rain, and background score. But no. Technology is killing it.

Socializing is now reduced to likes and comments on a post with a dog filter. Playing games means sitting in front of a console and yelling “camp the base!” at someone in Estonia. Even dating is a virtual tête-à-tête with someone who might be a fridge in disguise - or worse, a bot masquerading as Lolita_69.

Even our storytelling has suffered. Remember Bollywood’s golden age of "Lost & Found"? That magical plot device where a simple earthquake or mela separated families like socks in a washing machine - only for fate to reunite them decades later with matching birthmarks and theme songs?

Take Waqt (1965) - a disaster separates a happy family. No Google Maps. No Aadhar card. Just destiny, drama, and a whole lot of melodious pining.

Amar, Akbar, Anthony... and Alexa

Or Yaadon Ki Baaraat, where a tragedy tears apart brothers, but a childhood song knits them back together years later. Or Amar Akbar Anthony, where three brothers are adopted by families of different religions - Hindu, Muslim, Christian - and then reunited in a divine moment of joint blood transfusion. Yes, they simultaneously donate blood to their mother like the tributaries of the Ganga merging into one biological miracle. Science weeps. Bollywood rejoices.

In Parvarish, a police officer’s son and a dacoit’s son are interchanged at birth - growing up on opposite sides of the law. Classic The Departed meets Butch Cassidy, if you like your metaphors spicy.

But today? You can’t even misplace a kid in a fair without someone scanning his forehead. Literally.

Kho Gaye QR Mein: Mela 2.0

Take the recently concluded Mahakumbh. Now THAT was the dream setting for a classic "Mele mein kho gaya tha" story. A writer’s paradise. Lost children, teary mothers, impromptu songs, maybe even a holy cow or two nudging a character toward enlightenment.

But no. Enter Techno Babu with his QR-coded kala teeka.

Yes, Fevicol (Pidilite Industries) , in its infinite wisdom (and adhesive strength), launched the Teeka ID -a traditional black dot on the forehead, only with a twist. Embedded inside it? A QR code. So if your kid wandered off, a simple scan gave you all his details - name, address, favorite cartoon, probably even his lunchbox contents.

No suspense. No "Bachha kahaan gaya?" wailing. Just a beep and poof - child located. Drama canceled. Plot lost.

It’s like someone took your DDLJ moment and replaced it with a push notification: “Simran has been auto-rescued. Please proceed to Gate No. 3.”

So here lies the lost art of getting lost. Hijacked by GPS, murdered by QR codes, and buried under real-time updates.

I say bring back the chaos. Let us drift. Let destiny do its thing. Let us meet long-lost siblings through dramatic songs in shady bars. Let teekas be just teekas and not Google Maps in disguise.

Because sometimes, being found is only special…if you were truly lost.