As the world progresses, with growth comes disparity. It is impossible to consistently achieve growth without compromising on equal distribution of wealth and opportunities. And this is because of basic human nature. Every human being, by his very nature, would seek the advancement of his progeny, his clan, his blood. That's the way the world evolves. It's your instinct. People generally try to boost their children's chances in various fields to succeed in life.
Education is one of them. Children of affluent parents would get opportunities to study in the best of universities. We can't imagine that all the industrialists' sons and daughters are smart enough to get into the Whartons and Harvards of the world. Whether they deserve this or not, or whether they make use of it or not is an entirely different matter. So, obviously, they are assured of a good label as far education is concerned.
Social connections is another area. By virtue of moving around and being associated in elite circles, you are naturally exposed to a higher citizenry, or rather, a citizenry that is in an advantageous position, compared to the masses. You can't get that otherwise.
But above all, it is confidence. The confidence that comes from having more money at your disposal, having more wealth, having a fallback in case you don't succeed the first time around, having a higher springboard in life. And this confidence is reflected in all actions and activities of life. Right from driving a car to talking to a group of people, they are less restrained and more natural. That confidence is really the clincher, the key differentiator.
You can't reduce disparities in confidence!
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Charity or Save the world; be politically correct!
After a short day at office yesterday I was leaving home soon since I had to go to the bank to foreclose my car loan. I was at Vikhroli station in a hurry, when I was stopped by a young girl, about 20, who represented Greenpeace. And she asked me politely whether I could listen to her for a few minutes. I agreed.
She briefly described what Greenpeace was and what they were working on. I told her I knew quite a lot about Greenpeace, but didn't tell her that one of the projects my company was working on was delayed because of activism by Greenpeace.
I asked her how I could help, the response to which she delayed, continuing her script to conclusion. I was getting impatient, wondering what was it that she wanted from me. I thought of asking 'Do you expect me to save the world here?' but I blurted out 'How can I help?'. She had to come to the point. Contributions begin at Rs 250 a month, conveniently chargeable to my credit card.
She almost concluded that I would save the world, sorry, contribute. I said I can't decide contribution standing here at the station at an odd hour. I asked for their website and details and said I'd update her whether I contribute or otherwise.
I wondered what was it that drove this young girl of 20, possibly, to stand in the afternoon sun and promote a cause which may or may not benefit her. And thats not enough, lest I sound like a irresponsible citizen of the world. I'm sure this girl doesn't understand the complete story, nor does she know whether she is on the right side of the world.
I concluded that she was doing it to earn brownie points. Maybe she was going away to America for further studies. Maybe she needed the experience on her application.
Is this is a good cause to be associated with for that? With all the controversy surrounding such activist organisations, it may not be a safe bet. I mean, someone opposed to this idea, with a reasonable understanding of the scenario (which this girl lacks) will be able to win an argument.
I had never had the need to be associated with any such cause for brownie points, so I can't comment on the appropriateness. But this led me to think whether one should choose a safer alternative, such as an old age home, women's issues, children in orphanages or the like, where you could only be right. After all, most in the world choose to play safe.
That would be so politically correct!
She briefly described what Greenpeace was and what they were working on. I told her I knew quite a lot about Greenpeace, but didn't tell her that one of the projects my company was working on was delayed because of activism by Greenpeace.
I asked her how I could help, the response to which she delayed, continuing her script to conclusion. I was getting impatient, wondering what was it that she wanted from me. I thought of asking 'Do you expect me to save the world here?' but I blurted out 'How can I help?'. She had to come to the point. Contributions begin at Rs 250 a month, conveniently chargeable to my credit card.
She almost concluded that I would save the world, sorry, contribute. I said I can't decide contribution standing here at the station at an odd hour. I asked for their website and details and said I'd update her whether I contribute or otherwise.
I wondered what was it that drove this young girl of 20, possibly, to stand in the afternoon sun and promote a cause which may or may not benefit her. And thats not enough, lest I sound like a irresponsible citizen of the world. I'm sure this girl doesn't understand the complete story, nor does she know whether she is on the right side of the world.
I concluded that she was doing it to earn brownie points. Maybe she was going away to America for further studies. Maybe she needed the experience on her application.
Is this is a good cause to be associated with for that? With all the controversy surrounding such activist organisations, it may not be a safe bet. I mean, someone opposed to this idea, with a reasonable understanding of the scenario (which this girl lacks) will be able to win an argument.
I had never had the need to be associated with any such cause for brownie points, so I can't comment on the appropriateness. But this led me to think whether one should choose a safer alternative, such as an old age home, women's issues, children in orphanages or the like, where you could only be right. After all, most in the world choose to play safe.
That would be so politically correct!
Does Twitter make money?
I've been fascinated and intrigued by whether website companies make money. Google may have 'non-intrusive' and 'relevant' advertisements, but I can't imagine they making any decent margin. Just think of the costs that they incur, maintaining these huge servers, the electricity costs, the airconditioning required to keep them cool, all for storing stuff that is at least 90% junk and unwanted. (In a separate post, I would like to discuss how much of junk the world might have created).
Youtube stores videos, Flickr stores pictures, and Scribd stores documents that add up to many gigabytes. So for all of this, the expense would be enormous. As I can think, any number of non-intrusive advertisements and sale of personal information cannot make up for this.
Twitter is a more recent phenomenon. It may have the benefit of being much modest in terms of size, since it restricts messages to 140 characters, has no images or videos. But with its popularity growing and the number of posts increasing at an exponential rate, it will be in trouble.
The one aspect that is different about Twitter is that it has no advertisements whatsoever. And by the language of what is written, I'm sure they can't figure out any pattern that they could use to sell your information, at least as of now.
It has succeeded in building a following of enormous proportion but hasn't done anything to capitalise on that yet. It could've easily put up advertisements, at least on its website, though many may be using the mobile application.
In the social networking world, it has achieved what very few have. To have so many tweeting away in such a short time is worthy of recognition.
I can see a few sources of income possible in the future. As for other such players, they could study patterns in tweets and generate targeted advertisement campaigns to select groups of individuals. They could be 'sponsored' tweets. In fact, they could have these sponsored tweeters following you.
As Google has reached out to the masses with their AdWords initiative, twitter could do the same. That way, you could have these small and medium businesses follow pertinent potential customers. This may work in the developed world better.
As a finance professional, I think they would securitise their future expected streams of income and leverage that to expand today, thus feeding their growth. Whether it will work, only time till tell. Whether it is desirable, I can say no now.
Since it runs predominantly on mobile applications in the developed world, I suppose they may have a tie-up with mobile service providers for a share in income generated because of tweets. This is yet to catch up in the developing world.
The interesting part in the case of Twitter is that they have a set of venture capitalists who have funded them. I'm sure they must be expecting and demanding a share of the pie when the cake is baked and ready to eat.
It'll be interesting to see where this leads. Till then, tweet away!
Youtube stores videos, Flickr stores pictures, and Scribd stores documents that add up to many gigabytes. So for all of this, the expense would be enormous. As I can think, any number of non-intrusive advertisements and sale of personal information cannot make up for this.
Twitter is a more recent phenomenon. It may have the benefit of being much modest in terms of size, since it restricts messages to 140 characters, has no images or videos. But with its popularity growing and the number of posts increasing at an exponential rate, it will be in trouble.
The one aspect that is different about Twitter is that it has no advertisements whatsoever. And by the language of what is written, I'm sure they can't figure out any pattern that they could use to sell your information, at least as of now.
It has succeeded in building a following of enormous proportion but hasn't done anything to capitalise on that yet. It could've easily put up advertisements, at least on its website, though many may be using the mobile application.
In the social networking world, it has achieved what very few have. To have so many tweeting away in such a short time is worthy of recognition.
I can see a few sources of income possible in the future. As for other such players, they could study patterns in tweets and generate targeted advertisement campaigns to select groups of individuals. They could be 'sponsored' tweets. In fact, they could have these sponsored tweeters following you.
As Google has reached out to the masses with their AdWords initiative, twitter could do the same. That way, you could have these small and medium businesses follow pertinent potential customers. This may work in the developed world better.
As a finance professional, I think they would securitise their future expected streams of income and leverage that to expand today, thus feeding their growth. Whether it will work, only time till tell. Whether it is desirable, I can say no now.
Since it runs predominantly on mobile applications in the developed world, I suppose they may have a tie-up with mobile service providers for a share in income generated because of tweets. This is yet to catch up in the developing world.
The interesting part in the case of Twitter is that they have a set of venture capitalists who have funded them. I'm sure they must be expecting and demanding a share of the pie when the cake is baked and ready to eat.
It'll be interesting to see where this leads. Till then, tweet away!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)