On Greed

I would be the first to admit that I have been lazy about writing and I could offer a slew of excuses none of which would suffice the explain the lack of activity on this blog. But sloth is not the topic of this discourse. It is another capital vice - Greed.

While I was finishing my undergrad, I was split between working for a HFT firm that promised riches beyond my dreams, and going for a PhD in Math which at that time seemed like a shot in the dark. I turned to my advisor for advice. In typically equivocal manner that is a characteristic of all good teachers he responded - "Take the greedy alternative. Do what seems like the best thing to do right now, don't think too far ahead." I ended up choosing the latter. Since then I have found myself reverting to those words several times when in enveloped by self-doubt and on almost all occasions they have stood me in good stead.

On my way back from Delhi, I watched Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. It was a fair way to kill time on what would have otherwise  been a very boring flight. One of the memorable statements in the movie was by the protagonist, Gordon Gekko - "Greed for the lack of a better word is a good thing." I agree. It is greed that keeps the proletarians working day and night. It is the lure of a better life that motivates students to slog and the farmers to till their fields. Greed in its myriad forms provides us incentive to push ourselves, and we all respond to incentives.

In fact I would go as far as to say that greed is a virtue that focuses our attention to what we desire the most and goads us to reach for it. Aside from its role as a motivator I think it is quite a reasonable default strategy. One cannot predict the random-bits in the future but by doing the greedy thing one can be assured of optimal results in the short-term.

NYC I miss you !!!

Dialogue

P: I am confused by the ongoing debate about taxing the rich, and the apparent holes in our governments tax codes. Why should I pay taxes at all ?

V: We pay taxes to the government to enable it to maintain vital services. In the absence of a central figure no one would have the incentive to sweep the roads and police the bad guys.

P: Hmm, that makes sense. We are all too busy with our own things to take care of everything. Then why can't we just have agencies that take care of these things for a nominal fee. Why do we need a government at a national level.

V: What you suggest is exactly the concept of local self-governance. It works well for discharging day-to-day civic duties, but there are times when we need a more global outlook, for example to hasten progress or to fight disruptive changes that would otherwise overwhelm such a parochial organization.

 P: Fair enough. Ok, so we need to pay taxes, why can't we all agree to pay the same dollar amount as our contribution to the effective functioning of society.

V: Well the prevailing consensus is that it not fair to ask the poor to pay as much as the rich. The rich should carry more of the burden.

P: Why is that ? Isn't that anti-evolutionary in some way. After all the crab with the bigger claw, or the faster lion doesn't simply give up some of its kill for the benefit of its peers. Then why are we expected to do so ? Why are we trying to suppress the selfish gene that has served us so well over the millennia.

V: This not altruism, it is a very convoluted form of selfishness. If the poor are taxed as much as the rich, it would inevitably lead to a revolution where the masses would revolt against the privileged. Ultimately, such a disruption of social order would hurt the wealthy more than the destitute as they are the ones who have the most to lose. So by contributing a larger amount they are in fact trying to maintain status quo, a situation that suits them well. It is a twisted way of self-preservation.

P: Ok. I see how higher taxes for the rich can be justified if one is willing to stretch his mind a bit. But wouldn't it be easier to have a uniform tax code where everyone pays a fixed fraction of their income to the government. This would ensure that everyone pays according to their capacity.

V: Ahh, but your proposal is based on the assumption that every dollar is made equal, which is not the case. You see, a rich person, by virtue of his wealth is likely to generate more money than someone who is poor. Wealth begets wealth and a 'fair' society must nullify this advantage through taxes. And for this purpose we have higher taxes for the rich since their preexistent wealth gives them an unfair advantage. I have plotted the effective tax rate in the US as a function of net taxable income(lets ignore capital gains tax for now, that is a whole different mess that Mr. Bush brought upon us), we see that it is almost linear.

P: So the government believes that a person's ability to create wealth increases linearly with the amount of wealth he possesses. Fair enough, but why is the curve linear ?

Pushkar : This is as far as I could take the dialogue within the limits of my reasoning. P was the prover and V the verifier.

Invictus

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul

-- William Ernest Henley

Epitaph

Hyperboloids of wondrous Light
Rolling for aye through Space and Time
Harbour those Waves which somehow Might
Play out God's holy pantomime

We didn't start the fire...

Religion confounds me, seldom by its necessity, but often by its practices. I have long given up attempting to rationalize its utility, and the urge to understand its purpose has been supplanted by resignation towards its permanence and ubiquity. However the practice of religion still holds challenges that are accessible to my intellect and amenable to reason.

I spent two weeks in Delhi, in February, for my sister's wedding. It was, in every sense of the word, 'a big fat Indian wedding', complete with numerous poojas and ceremonies. While killing time at one such pooja, and intermittently thinking about Batman, I had an epiphany. As Hindus we are obsessed with fire.

A Hindu marriage, like many of our modes of worship involves setting loads of stuff on fire; allegedly to please the gods and ward off evil spirits and possibly mosquitoes. We then sanctify the marriage by running laps around fire. To keep the proverbial fire burning, we continue our pyromaniacal ways by setting more things ablaze during Diwali and again over Lodi.

Then when spring rolls in, and we celebrate Holi, a festival that seemingly has nothing to do with fire. If anything, we douse each other with buckets of water and throw water balloons at unsuspecting motorists from rooftops. But dig a little deeper and the ambers of our arsonous past glow bright red with the breath of reason. We celebrate Holi to rejoice the demise of demoness Holika(and the miraculous escape for Prahlad) when she carried him into the fire. Hence the term Holika-Dahan.

And finally to secure a successful passage into the afterlife for the deceased, we do what any self-respecting Hindu would do, we set them ablaze. Overwhelmed by these questions, and smoke, I mustered the courage to ask our family pundit-ji about our obsession with setting things on fire. "It is because fire is pure and cleansing", he replied, as he lit the incense-sticks, and smoked some more stuff into the hawan-kund.

Gita 6:34

Chanchalam hi manah Krishna pramaathi balavad dridham;
Tasyaaham nigraham manye vaayoriva sudushkaram.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O Krishna, the mind verily is restless, turbulent, obstinate and powerful,
therefore, I consider it as difficult to control as the wind.