The problem with economists is that they are extremely theoretical and extremely distant from their real emotions. While I was just making up my mind about getting Accord for refueling, the news channel started flashing the news of a new weird proposal by the government- A time limit on the working hours of petrol stations!!
Well how weird could that get. How could any one in his sane mind talk like this. Its preposterous, outrageous, without any semblance of sanity and lacking basic common sense.
That's exactly how I thought about it instinctively. Hell I would have continued to think that way had I been a little younger and not discovered the "Bi-polarization Theory".
For starters, this proposal may not even have been Moilly's original idea. Even if it would have been, it may have come through one of the many brainstorming sessions that he would have been sitting through. It may have well been one of the few ideas that might have survived in those Cabinet meetings. To be extremely critical about an idea without really understanding its origins and reasoning is like trying to judge a book by its cover. Most of us don't get to choose the circumstances we want to be in.
The more smarter economists and the media would argue that it could lead to hoarding, longer queues in petrol stations and more inefficiencies in the system. Moreover consumption would remain the same. The problem with the entire situation is that Moilly has hit the nail on its head. He has unassumingly described the problem in a very simple way. Its the oil. Oil which is our single largest import is making us poorer day by day. Somehow the more effluential and influential class don't want to realize and accept the fact that we are consuming more than we can produce. It the price of luxury.
Had it been another day when Nymex was trading at 220 USD per barrel and INR was trading at 85, the step that Moilly suggested would probably make much more sense. Unfortunately that step comes after many other steps would fail and Moilly couldn't have timed it better. He has indirectly tricked the media and the public to assume such a situation as a possibility and thereby making them outrageously ridiculous and hence giving the market a new bottom which is undesirable. Markets need to be regularly sensitized of these levels because our environments are constantly changing. Thus market tries to re-balance and correct itself to more sustainable model and thereby attaining equilibrium.
Moilly has clearly been misunderstood. The poor guy would now be hounded for his seemingly harmless comment which if looked at logically would possibly lead to a real reduction in consumption. Think about it. If you control the time for the petrol stations working, it is definitely going to reduce consumption. The US did it during the Oil price shock- they actually rationed their petrol. If India is in a crisis, its equally everyone's responsibility to contribute and reduce consumption and save some for tomorrow.
Ultimately any economist would agree that consuming less today keeps more wealth for tomorrow.
Poor Moilly has been asked to mix his words now. Tough luck Moilly!!
I hate my job :(
Well how weird could that get. How could any one in his sane mind talk like this. Its preposterous, outrageous, without any semblance of sanity and lacking basic common sense.
That's exactly how I thought about it instinctively. Hell I would have continued to think that way had I been a little younger and not discovered the "Bi-polarization Theory".
For starters, this proposal may not even have been Moilly's original idea. Even if it would have been, it may have come through one of the many brainstorming sessions that he would have been sitting through. It may have well been one of the few ideas that might have survived in those Cabinet meetings. To be extremely critical about an idea without really understanding its origins and reasoning is like trying to judge a book by its cover. Most of us don't get to choose the circumstances we want to be in.
The more smarter economists and the media would argue that it could lead to hoarding, longer queues in petrol stations and more inefficiencies in the system. Moreover consumption would remain the same. The problem with the entire situation is that Moilly has hit the nail on its head. He has unassumingly described the problem in a very simple way. Its the oil. Oil which is our single largest import is making us poorer day by day. Somehow the more effluential and influential class don't want to realize and accept the fact that we are consuming more than we can produce. It the price of luxury.
Had it been another day when Nymex was trading at 220 USD per barrel and INR was trading at 85, the step that Moilly suggested would probably make much more sense. Unfortunately that step comes after many other steps would fail and Moilly couldn't have timed it better. He has indirectly tricked the media and the public to assume such a situation as a possibility and thereby making them outrageously ridiculous and hence giving the market a new bottom which is undesirable. Markets need to be regularly sensitized of these levels because our environments are constantly changing. Thus market tries to re-balance and correct itself to more sustainable model and thereby attaining equilibrium.
Moilly has clearly been misunderstood. The poor guy would now be hounded for his seemingly harmless comment which if looked at logically would possibly lead to a real reduction in consumption. Think about it. If you control the time for the petrol stations working, it is definitely going to reduce consumption. The US did it during the Oil price shock- they actually rationed their petrol. If India is in a crisis, its equally everyone's responsibility to contribute and reduce consumption and save some for tomorrow.
Ultimately any economist would agree that consuming less today keeps more wealth for tomorrow.
Poor Moilly has been asked to mix his words now. Tough luck Moilly!!
No comments:
Post a Comment