Monday, 21 November 2011
Monday, 14 November 2011
Wednesday, 9 November 2011
Tuesday, 8 November 2011
Friday, 4 November 2011
Thursday, 3 November 2011
Need AB-ve blood
Lakshmi, studying EEE in chirala engineering college, her brother is with a heart transplantation now.The surgery has postponed in NRI hospital, vijayawada due to
unavailability of AB-ve blood. So if anyone of them wants to help him(atleast two
members are required) Please contact to this no. 8885666385
Wednesday, 2 November 2011
No poverty of ideas
Poor Economics
Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo
Random house
Rs 499 pp 306 For most of us Indians, answers to the following questions would be anecdotally self-evident: do the poor starve? Are the poor prone to disease? Are poor kids dumb? Do the poor breed faster? If you answered ‘yes’ to all of the above, Poor Economics could disabuse you of some fairly universal myths surrounding poverty. It doesn’t just tell you where you are wrong; you also get to know why you are right when you are.
Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo shun most received wisdom about poverty. Instead, they conduct randomised control trials “used in medicine to evaluate the effectiveness of new drugs” to figure out how people react to specific economic incentives. “The shift from broad general questions to much narrower ones has (its) advantage. When we learn about whether poor people are willing to pay money for (mosquito) nets, and whether they use them if they get them for free, we learn about much more than the best way to distribute (mosquito) nets.”
This approach — observe the phenomenon to derive the principle — has put man on the moon, and the MIT economists can’t be faulted for expecting similar breakthroughs in the social sciences. It’s a minor point that the scientist is in quest of immutable physical laws, whereas economists deal with the far more fickle human nature. The study of development economics nevertheless gains immensely from the empiricism Banerjee and Duflo bring to it.
So much for the method, what about the object of their scrutiny? The myriad ‘small’ answers to the ‘small’ questions posed by the researchers draw out a few broad themes. The poor lack information to make decisions. The poor have more decisions to make than the rich. Both the State and the market tend to keep the poor out. The rich do not conspire to perpetuate indigence. And finally, defeatism does defeat. In themselves, these inferences ought to shape society’s attitude towards poverty, and, to an extent, they form the guiding principles of most social welfare systems.
But the true value of Poor Economics lies in the wealth of opportunities that answers to the small challenges thrown up. De-worming children, dropping chlorine into the village well, mid-day meals in schools, micro-credit and micro-insurance, improved local government, each provides a “billion client opportunity” and this list is by no accounts exhaustive. Fortunately for India, quite a few of these innovations have found their way into the official programme to eradicate poverty, yet much more lateral thinking must seep in if the battle is to be won.
For instance, if micronutrients for the foetus and the infant have a demonstrable impact on future earning prospects, State policy may need to be radically rethought from storing grain to a cash incentive for pregnant women and their infants to eat fortified salt. It costs much less than the mountain of rotting grain. A school-building programme that churns out an army of illiterates could benefit from community volunteers. And handouts to parents that complete the inoculation cycle of their children go a long way towards disease eradication.
The one conclusion that appears counter-intuitive in India is the claim made by Banerjee and Duflo that there is no grand conspiracy of the elites to maintain, or tighten, their hold on the economy. India’s current pre-occupation with graft in high places is a periodic outpouring of public resentment. Corruption and the resulting failure of governance allows the rich to consolidate their position in society. The poorly trained private practitioner, for example, earns more than he should because the government doctor is absent. The problem is endemic, reaching into the Indian corporate boardroom.
Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo
Random house
Rs 499 pp 306 For most of us Indians, answers to the following questions would be anecdotally self-evident: do the poor starve? Are the poor prone to disease? Are poor kids dumb? Do the poor breed faster? If you answered ‘yes’ to all of the above, Poor Economics could disabuse you of some fairly universal myths surrounding poverty. It doesn’t just tell you where you are wrong; you also get to know why you are right when you are.
Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo shun most received wisdom about poverty. Instead, they conduct randomised control trials “used in medicine to evaluate the effectiveness of new drugs” to figure out how people react to specific economic incentives. “The shift from broad general questions to much narrower ones has (its) advantage. When we learn about whether poor people are willing to pay money for (mosquito) nets, and whether they use them if they get them for free, we learn about much more than the best way to distribute (mosquito) nets.”This approach — observe the phenomenon to derive the principle — has put man on the moon, and the MIT economists can’t be faulted for expecting similar breakthroughs in the social sciences. It’s a minor point that the scientist is in quest of immutable physical laws, whereas economists deal with the far more fickle human nature. The study of development economics nevertheless gains immensely from the empiricism Banerjee and Duflo bring to it.
So much for the method, what about the object of their scrutiny? The myriad ‘small’ answers to the ‘small’ questions posed by the researchers draw out a few broad themes. The poor lack information to make decisions. The poor have more decisions to make than the rich. Both the State and the market tend to keep the poor out. The rich do not conspire to perpetuate indigence. And finally, defeatism does defeat. In themselves, these inferences ought to shape society’s attitude towards poverty, and, to an extent, they form the guiding principles of most social welfare systems.
But the true value of Poor Economics lies in the wealth of opportunities that answers to the small challenges thrown up. De-worming children, dropping chlorine into the village well, mid-day meals in schools, micro-credit and micro-insurance, improved local government, each provides a “billion client opportunity” and this list is by no accounts exhaustive. Fortunately for India, quite a few of these innovations have found their way into the official programme to eradicate poverty, yet much more lateral thinking must seep in if the battle is to be won.
For instance, if micronutrients for the foetus and the infant have a demonstrable impact on future earning prospects, State policy may need to be radically rethought from storing grain to a cash incentive for pregnant women and their infants to eat fortified salt. It costs much less than the mountain of rotting grain. A school-building programme that churns out an army of illiterates could benefit from community volunteers. And handouts to parents that complete the inoculation cycle of their children go a long way towards disease eradication.
The one conclusion that appears counter-intuitive in India is the claim made by Banerjee and Duflo that there is no grand conspiracy of the elites to maintain, or tighten, their hold on the economy. India’s current pre-occupation with graft in high places is a periodic outpouring of public resentment. Corruption and the resulting failure of governance allows the rich to consolidate their position in society. The poorly trained private practitioner, for example, earns more than he should because the government doctor is absent. The problem is endemic, reaching into the Indian corporate boardroom.
Monday, 31 October 2011
Sunday, 30 October 2011
Pawan Kalyan’s Common man protection force
Addressing newspersons here, Pavan Kumar, brother of Tollywood mega star Chiranjeevi, who donated Rs one crore for setting up the organisation said, the CMPF would strive to solve the problems faced by the comman people of the state. 'Irrespective of caste, creed and gender,' the organisation would serve the people to usher in a 'better society.' Stating that his fan clubs and friends would render their services to the organisation, he said those facing problems could directly contact and seek the help from the protection force
Common Man Protection Force' (CMPF) after depositing his licensed revolver in the Jubilee Hills police station today. Addressing newspersons here, Pawan Kalyan, who donated Rs one crore for setting up the organisation said, the CMPF would strive to solve the problems faced by the common people of the state. 'Irrespective of caste, creed and gender,' the organization would serve the people to usher in a 'better society.
Champagne sport meets Indian poverty................
NEW DELHI (AP) — The champagne world of Formula One has never raced in such contrasting surroundings like this weekend's Indian Grand Prix, with the areas surrounding the track reflecting the deep poverty of much of the country's people.
Some critics have attacked the idea of hosting a sport so associated with glamor and the high life in an area with so much deprivation.
Local billionaire businessman Vijay Mallya is the majority owner and team principal of the Force India team. He said the poverty of large parts of the population should not prevent the nation from hosting events like Formula One.
"In every country there are the privileged and underprivileged," Mallya said. "We have underprivileged people in our country, but that doesn't mean that the country must be bogged down or weighed down.
"The government is doing all it can to address the needs of the poor or the underprivileged people, but India must move on."
Most F1 races around the world are heavily subsidized by governments, both in paying the huge hosting rights and constructing the facilities. However, the Buddh International Circuit outside New Delhi and the associated costs have been entirely borne by local investment group Jaypee.
"In a country like India, with the profile of our people, with the number of underprivileged people we also have, it would be too much of an ask if we went to government and said 'subsidize motor sport,'" Mallya said. "God bless them (Jaypee), they've done a wonderful job and invested a lot of money and they haven't depended on any sort of government grants."
Williams team chief executive Adam Parr rejected the tag of elitism attached to F1, which may attract the jet set but has long since moved beyond the formative years of the sport when it was a hobby of the idle rich.
"If you look at the people who participate in the sport, drivers and the rest of us, everyone is from normal backgrounds, work hard," Parr said. "If you compare the amounts that people earn in our sport compared with an IPL or English Premier League, it's a much more democratic and much more spread-out kind of sport.
"On the eve of our Indian Grand Prix, it's very important to make the point that this is not an elite sport, it's a sport for the whole world."
___
HELMET TRIBUTES: Tributes to motor sport stars Dan Wheldon and Marco Simoncelli — both killed in race accidents this month — figure prominently on the helmets of several drivers at this weekend's race.
Ferrari's Fernando Alonso has the race numbers of the men displayed below his visor, commemorating the deaths of IndyCar's Wheldon and MotoGP rider Simoncelli.
Red Bull's Mark Webber used to work as a racing instructor with Wheldon and will be wearing a commemorative sticker on his helmet, as will McLaren's Jenson Button, who grew up racing against Wheldon in Britain.
McLaren driver Lewis Hamilton will be wearing a black armband in Sunday's race. The top of the British driver's helmet is painted with the face of reggae great Bob Marley, having promised the family he would do so to promote its charitable efforts.
Red Bull's Sebastian Vettel has the faces of all his crew members displayed on the top of his helmet, thanks for their role in helping him clinch back-to-back world championships.
___
CANINE CAPERS: While most people were able to see the funny side of Friday's practice session being red-flagged because of a stray dog on the track, Renault driver Bruno Senna had good reason to be less amused.
Senna hit and killed a dog on a track when racing in the GP2 series in Turkey in 2008 — and had hoped such canine encounters would never happen again.
Senna told Autosport magazine that when he arrived at the track for the India Grand Prix practice, he saw the dog walking around the entrance of the paddock.
"It shows that no one really paid attention to it and the fact that it got into the track is difficult to believe," he said in the magazine. "In the drivers' briefing, I will be sure to raise the point."
Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Saturday, 29 October 2011
Facebook/CMPF Page
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Common-Man-Protection-Force-pawan-Kalyans/188200744561022
Kindly Like THis PAge
Kindly Like THis PAge
Friday, 28 October 2011
Sunday, 19 June 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)