Our roles as either employers or employees provide suitable excuses to prevent us from playing a more active role in society, vis-a-vis social issues. The employee thinks that an employer is more suited to affect change in society by virtue of her power, wealth and connections. The employer's gripe is a lack of time and hence imagines that an employee with a defined role in the organisation will have time to offer a social cause, unlike him who has to constantly juggle between various roles. While there is truth in each other's claims, maybe the greater truth is that everyone has limitations that prevent them from pursuing a social cause that is close to their heart. Families have children to take care of, the poor have to worry about their next meal, denizens in big cities have to wade through traffic/crowded trains to get anywhere.......which makes it an effort to accomplish anything which is not an necessary/urgent requirement. Maybe the solution is to pick up an issue/cause in the immediate vicinity not necessarily with the aim to change the world, but to take small steps in changing the environment around oneself. Obstacles do help provide an explanation when goals aren't met. But I suppose there's good reason why we celebrate the individuals who have attained their goals despite the obstacles in their path.
A part of corporate strategy seems to account for any fines that may be levied when transgressing the law. If the profit potential can offset the fine amount, then it seems to be a path to pursue. Or at least that's what The Economist has discovered.
Meanwhile, magazines think enough time has passed since Jobs death for them to be critical about him without offending anyone. Wired ran an article focussed on the dark side of Steve Jobs, which isn't necessarily flattering.
No one takes ads at face value, it is widely agreed that most ads are an exaggeration of the professed qualities of the service or product. But the company's image can take a beating when it becomes public knowledge. Case in point, Nokia. The new Lumia 920 is supposed to showcase a camera feature that allows the user to take great videos even while moving, using a technology called Image Stabilisation. But the ad catches them using a proper camera and lighting equipment to capture the shots. The story broke out on the Verge and was later picked up by the BBC. Just what a struggling phone-maker needs, bad publicity.
When flipping through BBC and CNN on the tv, it's hard to escape coverage over the Democratic and Republican conventions taking place in America. Obama will have some explaining to do over his "change" campaign which won him the elections the last time around (don't think Americans feel their country has changed for the better). In a global context, the world economy isn't better off than it was four years ago. On the other hand Romney comes across as slightly elitist. Born into wealth and power (father was CEO of American Motors and later Governor of Michigan), and as Matt Taibbi mentions "...raised in prep schools, no early exposure to minorities outside of maids...." he runs the risk of being perceived as as a wealthy outsider.
Sep 1, Saturday. Time manages to be in two boats at once, end of the week and start of the month.
Meanwhile in Gujarat, Modi informs the Wall Street Journal that the high levels of malnutrition among children in his state can be attributed to the beauty conscious nature of the Indian middle class. This was in the context of a report which came out recently that claimed 47 % of children in Gujarat under the age of 3 are underweight. Modi supporters usually refer to his record of being an able administrator and Gujarat becoming a prosperous state under his watch. But as the Hindu puts it succinctly in the editorial today, "This is what makes Gujarat, which is a prosperous State in the macroeconomic sense, something of a puzzle. Some of its human development indicators are as bad as or worse than India’s poorest States."
