What does this mean?

I am trying as much as i can to make sense of what is happening in the wall st and what it all means to us. Everyone by now knows the birds eye view of the issue. What i am worried is, what it holds for us in the short and medium term.

Questions that rankle my mind are:

1) Is the market (not the stock market, but the job market - I am a consultant you know) going to be hit really hard because of the credit crisis?

2) How long would it take for the job market take to recover in that case (what i read is really not encouraging)?

3) Though dollar is strengthening vis-a-vis Rupee currently, is this is a short term spike? Should i send back all my savings or Should i hold it. Would the dollar also crash one fine so hard that i won't have enough time to send back what i have in time?

4) With US going into a recession (this is the best case scenario) is it time for me to look for a job in India and move back or is India going to be hit even harder since most of the IT jobs are dependent on US projects?

5) Will this US recession lead to more layoffs in India (it has already started, though at a small level) which in turn might lead to a minor subprime level crisis in India, as all these IT pros find it hard to repay their home loans?

6) Should I invest in real estate in India now or should i wait for some more time until the effects of this credit crisis is seen in India?

I am still looking for answers and anyone who can shed any light on these issues are most appreciated.

It Ain't Schadenfreude Nor Self-flagellation

Having written about the success of Republican party, i started thinking about the Democratic Party. The more i thought the more i realized that the party is equally responsible for its dismal performance despite being a party with a higher moral authority (in real issues) and performance record (Clinton's Presidency). Now that the election cycle is approaching its final phase, let me dare to play Edgar (KC) Cayce and prognosticate. As much as i hate to say this, i seriously think McCain is going to have this election in his bag. These are the reasons i could think of:

1) Don't Nominate the Weakest Candidate during Primaries: A very weak presidential candidate on the democratic side. This is the bane of democratic party i suppose. The party base is so fragmented that they did not pick the strongest candidate either in 2004 or now. Howard Dean would have been the go-getter, no non-sense type of guy who could have taken down Bush. But instead they chose Kerry, a very accomplished candidate, yet who seemed to lack the killer instinct. Whatever Obama supporters might say, to an average american he is never going to trump McCain in terms of experience. Even if i am in their shoes, i would be much more comfortable with McCain, having seen him work for the last 28 years rather than an unknown personality like Obama. The way Obama has been touting his community organizer experience as a qualification for being president is foolhardy. However altruistic his intentions and whatever postive effect he had on a small community doesn't by any logic make you immediately eligible for being the President of a Superpower. He doesn't have that much experience in the senate as well. After all, he started his campaign within one year of being a US Senator. All he can show for in the senate experience is the Illinois state senate, where he never took a stand in many of the controversial issues, voting present instead of yes and no.These are serious disadvantages which the democratic base wants an undecided voter to overlook. The effect of this is already apparent. Sarah Palin is now comparing her very slim experience to Obama's and tells that he has even lesser relavant experience compared to her. Obama now has to defend his record against someone like Sarah Palin instead of taking his fight to McCain. During the primary he was immensely helped by the Hillary Hating media which did not scrutinize him that much about his record.

2) Slogan Trumps Rhetoric : The republicans are very good at packaging their message (even if its empty) in catchy slogans which an average guy can identify with. Take this for example. McCain : Country First. Obama : Change we can believe in. Which one makes sense immediately? For an average rural voter, country first makes so much sense. It doesnt matter in reality, its an empty slogan meaning nothing. Try convincing him about 'change we can believe in'. Democratic Party need better marketing advisors. Obama might be a good orator, but that ain't enuf if you cannot package his message in slogans that voters will latch on to.


3) Attack while You Attack: Democrats are so bad at attacking their political opponents with the intensity and ferocity thats needed in politics. The republicans are so good at trashing around Democrats. Sarah Palin is against sex education and the republican party uses every opportunity to portray itself as a party of "family values" (remember Lewinsky episode). Instead of using Bristol Palin's pregnancy out of wedlock to expose the hypocrisy of both Palin and her party, the democrats tried to act all high-minded telling it is a private issue. On the otherhand Bush, who didnt fight in vietnam, was able to portray a war-hero like John Kerry as weak on national security, Bush - again who was born into a very rich family depicted John Kerry as an elite snob.

4) Don't Antagonize Your Own Base Sucking up to Undecided Voters : This is a chronic problem with the democrats. They forget who their real base is. It is the people in the left who really care about freedom, privacy, female and gay rights, immigration reform, rule of law etc., However, one mistake democratic nominees in general, but Obama in particular has been doing is to belittle the support of these people, and try to shift their position to the center as if to bring the people from right and the so called independents to support them. That is never going to happen. For the people in the right, democrats are anyways the elite, godless, baby killing, gutless snobs. While any independent seeing the shift in policy positions would think that democrats are not principled enough to stand up for anything, thus ending up losing a part of their own base (in Obama's case - belittling Hillary's supporters and Hillary during Primary, voting for FISA while all the while claiming you are against it are just two examples, supporting Off-shore drilling while saying you are not for it).

5) Highfalutin Speeches Won't Take You High : Obama keeps giving all these flowery speeches which keep telling what is wrong with the current govt, which is all fine. But he has never given a single speech detailing his policy positions. I follow this elections a bit closely and have never seen him anytime give a speech that would go towards answering some questions voters might have. Whenever this was brought up in blogs or on TV, the questioners are directed to his website. I don't give a damn about what is there is his website, if people are still saying they aren't clear where he stands, that means he is not articulating his vision clearly. Its not their mistake for not looking up his website. He is not communicating his policies well.


Though there are more reasons, i stop here for the sake of brevity. ;)

(i was supporting Hillary during primaries and a democrat at heart - hence the title)

C Karthikeyan

A couple of thoughts

The Idea of Ram:
I have been mulling over this question for quite a while now. Ram, the most controversial of Hindu gods. From my understanding, Hinduism places a name to a set of values and calls it a GOD. I always assumed thats the reason we have the incredible number of Gods. To me the idea is more important than the personality associated with it. I consider only the idea of Ram sacred, not Ram himself. I mean, Ram is considered to be God only for the values he represented and lived by, not because he was just an avatar of Vishnu. I mean, its so easy for God to be virtuous, victorious, royal etc., after all he can be anything he wants to be. But for a man to live like Ram (being as virtuous), that is an achievement. To me when we worship Ram, its not the guy we worship, but what he stands for. Hinduism, i thought was very clear about that. It also acknowledged the same set of values does not hold well all of the time and to all of the people. Hence the plethora of Gods with seemingly contradictory qualities. Of course, like in every religion, we fight for the guy instead of what he stood for. With this understanding when i hear stories about Ayodhya temple issue to Ram Sethu, i can only laugh. Anyone having a better understanding or a different perspective please leave your comment.

Success of Republicanism:
The Republican Party has held power of either the presidency or congress or both for 26 out of the last 28 years. For someone who has lived in this country only during the Bush Presidency this is beyond ridiculous. How do people vote for a party which is against women's right to choose (there itself the party should lose 50% support), against science, against equality, against fiscal responsibility, against healthcare reform, for corporations instead of people, that does nto agree to Global warming science, against unions, which gives incredible tax break for the super rich while cutting down benefits for the middle class and poor, bungled in various foreign policy issues. How can people be fooled into supporting a party against their own self-interest just because of these invoke Gun and God in every step of the way. This is something i will never understand. After 8 years in power, republicans now run with a theme of change. McCain having been in washington as a senator for 28 years is now running with a theme of changing stuff in washington. How dumb does he think Americans are?