Election Results

 I think I must have wasted a full 24 hours on watching the election results coming in. Some thoughts:

1. This was way closer than what was predicted by the so-called experts. It's cute when people claim their predictions were not THAT wrong because the candidate did finally win. Or that the error margin is the same as in previous elections. The bottomline is their estimates were incorrect.
2. It is a relief to see how the final picture is setting up. I had picked Joe as the most likely candidate to win both the primaries and the election. I had to fight many close friends who were at times frustrated and angry to see me backing "a less progressive candidate." My choice was based on my understanding of the preferences of the country and who I thought was mostly likely to prevail. It feels gratifying to get texts from the same friends who concede I had a point. 
3. The political impasse will continue. It seems Joe over performed considering the balance of votes in Congress. This is important. There was no roll-over but people still felt they had to make a distinction at the top of the ballot even while voting conservative down-ballot.

I need to get back to work now! A day was lost.

Notes on COVID Part III

I should've been writing more frequently but PhD pressures made sure I didn't do anything beyond an intransigent proof.

Still, for record keeping purposes, this was my draft from April 22, unedited,

----------

We'll start this edition by pointing out an erratum in my first post. First, Shakespeare did not write King Lear during the plague, he wrote it during a period of brief respite from it, between 1603 and 1610. He did write a play, Coriolanus, during the plague years. Read more here.

The New Yorker also tries to make an argument that Newton's two year hiatus from Cambridge, and ensuing isolation, was not the reason for his brilliant achievements. He was already thinking deeply about the problems at least a year before, and continued producing outstanding work after re-joining academic life.

I don't buy the argument. That he was a genius and was producing outstanding work all his life is indubitable. Yet, it doesn't mean he couldn't have had an extra spurt of creativity from his isolation. The argument doesn't convince me, but the article is still an inspiring read.

*****

I will be focusing on India in this post. I do so because the country stands at the cusp of exponential explosion. It is a critical time and understanding the data would do some good.

----------

Yeah, India did see the exponential increase in cases.

And just for completeness sake, right now we seem to be on the cusp of an exponential rise in deaths from COVID here in the US.

Sigh.

Notes on COVID-19 Part - II

Lazy data work here but I am wondering if this will be the third week in a row when the number of cases reported on a Tuesday shoots up.

The consecutive red bars are JHU numbers from Sundays and Mondays. It would seem that reporting of deaths falls at the close of the week.

Not clear if there's a reason or if it's sheer coincidence.

But if there is a pattern the number of deaths today should be 2500-2600 roughly. Based on the size of the jumps the last two times.

Previous post

Notes on COVID-19, Part I

The world is in a mess. The COVID-19 -- or coronavirus; I will use both terms interchangeably -- pandemic has humbled humanity. It's a virus that rides on the traits that define the 21st century world, such as a globalized economy and the wanderlust of an unprecedented number of prosperous individuals.

The virus manages to lull every newly vulnerable country into the proverbial false sense of complacency. Most of us aren't naturally wired to fear an exponential function. Till then (and beyond), the virus spreads easily and incubates for roughly 5-7 days before announcing its presence (if at all). It leaves 80% of the infected relatively unscathed but devastates the rest. The body goes into overdrive fighting the virus and, in its worst form, the body's aggression can lead to lungs getting filled with fluid and debris, or can lead to complications seemingly unrelated to a lung disease.

What does a person do in these times? For sure, it is everyone's responsibility and basic common-sense to stay indoors but I don't see that from my window in upper Manhattan. A friend recently shared data that showed roughly 50% of New Yorkers being out of their homes every day.

If one does choose sense and sensibility, there is much to be done on a personal level. New opportunities beckon. For example, if a person doesn't read now with their alternative options drastically reduced and work disrupted, then it is hard to think of a time when they would.

I have lined up the following books -- The Decameron by Boccaccio, King Lear by Shakespeare, and Don Quixote by Cervantes. I have never read the first, I think it is an apt book right now since its backdrop is the Black Death. King Lear was written during the time of plague and I couldn't remember the details of the story; it has been so long since I consumed Shakespeare. Don Quixote is one of my favorite books and I couldn't resist the opportunity to read the whole novel -- one of the first ones ever written -- again.

People have shared Isaac Newton's achievements when Cambridge shut down during the plague. The tale is undoubtedly inspiring but working in a cramped Manhattan apartment doesn't seem to replicate the same setting despite having many more luxuries than 17th century England. Then again, the luxuries probably distract than help.

I also intend to share news and views related to economics and finance because why not? As a researcher it's a time to process how the world is changing. An economist cannot do much in these times obviously. But maybe they can change the way people think about non-normal events.

And who knows? Maybe this will be the new normal. The virus is frustratingly resilient and it brings no comfort knowing it belongs to the family that includes the common cold. If the common cold is any omen, it's going to be hard to find a vaccine for COVID-19. Or maybe we could always have had a vaccine for the cold but that wasn't considered to be a profitable undertaking.

Watch this space for more. 

A 2-page proof

I was reading about Hao Huang's pursuit of the "sensitivity" conjecture in theoretical computer science and how he was able to prove it after many years of thinking not by treating it as an all-consuming mission but as a guilty secret to indulge in when possible. Deep questions take time to answer. But those are the ones worth going after.

The final proof was two pages long.

Learning Restraint

I feel terrible today.

All the months approaching the elections I was happily ensconced in a bubble of disregard and disinterest. I didn't worry about the anxious heart-on-the-sleeve debates neither was I piqued by the shocking absence of knowledge in what many friends said.

As the months went by the mood of excitement was undeniable. There was much to be argued on and there were too many people saying all the things that needed to be questioned. I succumbed to the irrestible fervour of the moment. I talked and argued. I attacked and parried. And I chose to draw conclusions on the state of the nation when all I had was paltry understanding (not a bad effort though).

The thing is, I realize I am too immature. I am too ignorant and unenligtened to have ventured so bravely forth into the world of political science. And that is what this short piece is about.

We like to be indignant about things that rankle and bite into our conceptions of the world. We defend our turf and we use all the tools and tricks at our disposal. But to what end?

How does supporting one particular side help your cause? Are we sure of our vision for the country? Have we spent time working out those demands that we as citizens are entitled to have? Is your side defining your view of life, rather than the reverse?

The trigger for this post of self-doubt is only a small consequence of the innumerous debates on the Edit Pages of the best newspapers we have. When I read the arguments I feel meek and childish. I realize my vigorous nods of approval were, at times, instinctive and unsubstantiated. I realize that a good rebuttal can shake out well-written critiques with amazing effectiveness. And I realize I didn't spend enough time to analyze the arguments as I could have.

I feel terrible.

Have you subsconsciously attached this post to refer to my stand on some issue - seeing it as a moment of personal victory? That you feel a sense of righteous justice at feeling my doubt and are therefore vindicated on your unweighted opinion?

Then you're as much a victim as I am.

I think it is time for conscious self-restraint. I think it is time to question the country we want before looking at the poor stock of merchandise on hand. It is time to restrain oneself from judging anyone so soon, positively or negatively.

I need to know more first.

Two Cents of Electoral Wisdom

Very quickly, I'd like to give my take on the decisive mandate given to Mr Narendra Modi:

1. End of the Coalition: As much as we'd like to talk about the benefits of federalism, one of the bigger reasons why India has faced stagnation, paralysis, even corruption (though that is more fairly shared among all and sundry) is the fact that parties have been shackled by the often unjustified and obstructionist demands of their coalition partners. This election ensures that all flimsy agenda fall back to the back burner. The country can finally breathe.
2. The Power of Media and Perception: If not today the next Lok Sabha election will have an overwhelming number of people influenced by social media. A lesson in planning, pitching and strategic perception building - now called electioneering - was born. Brands were created. And the marginal effects of social media were visible this time too, especially for the urban voter. If other parties don't form a serious PR and media plan soon eventual irrelevance is guaranteed.
3. Weight of Expectation: All eyes are well and truly set on Narendra Modi. He has been rewarded with an empowering mandate. The expectations are just as high. He will have the power to push his ideas onto the country at large but he also has no excuses for failure. It would be interesting to see if he will temper his nature now that he leads India and it would be important to know if he is ready to conform to the expectations of those voters who have reposed considerable faith in the hope that he will put equitable development ahead of ideology.
4. Illusion of Left-to-Right Change: Politically and ideologically, the right of center party has won. I wonder though, if there'll be any significant change in the economic thinking towards the Right - the concept of limited government. It will be a huge call to take - the country is still predominantly dependent on our (dysfunctional) safety nets. Will radical changes be made? I wonder...
5. A Two-Party System: I don't really buy the notion of the Congress being decimated for all eternity. One simply cannot forget the organizational strength of the party and its pan India presence. Vote share percentages also tell us that it received the second highest vote percentage, not only in India but in important states as well. The mandate is a timely reminder that just about anyone can be dumped onto the streets by the power of the ballot and that's good. The Congress would be expected to come out cleaner and lighter from this chastening experience. The writing is as stark as it can be - evolve or perish. And just as we need a strong party at the center, we also need a strong opposition. Let the country churn. Let the country grow.
6. AAP Test: It's tough to call AAP's future. Hindsight tells us they spread themselves too thin and that voters were disappointed by their perfunctory treatment of the seats they received at Delhi. Forming a party on a wave is one thing. To carry the unit forward is another. It requires tremendous patience, a willingness to leave behind your professions and other ambitions, and also having a core principle of existence. Without these, it may be difficult to sustain the goodwill and trust they had managed once. The Delhi elections will be crucial.
7. The economy is still screwed: The economy is going through a period of manic stress and it doesn't seem likely that it can be kickstarted in one or even two years. The policy solutions are more or less decided and in place. Vagaries such as the El Nino persist and it is anyone's guess how the many pending clearances can be delivered without making a number of grassroots people unhappy. It'll take a miracle to turn this ship around.
8. Reading Habits: At any rate, it is heartening to see that people have finally abandoned the Bennett and Coleman stable (TOI & ET) to push forward arguments. The intellectual command of these two newspapers in particular is so abysmal I find it hard not to herd them in the category of tabloids. The quality of content in ET has deteriorated at a stunning rate. In the same vein, quoting the Kasturi and Sons' products (Hindu and Business Line) apart from other far more competent b-papers such as Business Standard and Financial Times is a welcome sign.  All is obviously not so well. In the mania of wanting to believe their biases (an overwhelmingly widespread publicly available example of confirmation bias), a number of people resorted to using blogs with no or shabby data back-up to argue their cases. The best model for us to emulate would surely be the debates on the blogs of even normal students of economics in the West, with reasoning backed by actual papers and data from accepted statistical institutions. Things have improved, however, in sum.
9. Data: I wouldn’t call it a closed case but the debates finally did churn out discussions on facts. A discussion with data is always difficult – it being a hell lot easier to just give an opinion formed from your surroundings. Which is why politics is so popular. It gives people the illusion of arguing for economic policy, manifestos and social indices with as much knowledge as Hodor’s vocabulary. It gives people a sense of empowerment, of pseudo-intellectual stimulation. That, and Ayn Rand’s drivel. The latter stages did bring out people armed with facts and that made the debates worthwhile and surprisingly enriching
10. It's finally over: It really is. The media had hijacked our lives with an incessant and often unnecessary cacophony of analyses. Newspapers such as the Economic Times forgot their raison d'etre and instead fed us tales of politics with unabashed and unhealthy glee. Facebook became a street for breathless, excited supporters who held us witness to all their biases and over-the-top proclamations of the weight of Destiny. By the end of it, I am glad it's over.

Let's sit back and watch our new government perform. My hope is for decisive and clean governance with focus on all sectors of the populace. My apprehension is over an increase in intolerance of our plurality (that is actually a concern; plurality meaning the ability to be yourself in different dimensions). I wish them the very best.

I have to end with a personal belief that stems wholly from Asimov’s Foundation series. The events and the relative importance of even a handful of elections will not deter the country from following the macro-level path set for it by long term indicators. That is not to change with any change in the ruling party.

At the same time, with a touch of realism and humility, I remember those famous lines of Keynes as he exhorted governments to act and not to expect that economics would save us in the long run:

“In the long run, we’re all dead.”

Some thoughts after today's final

After Friday's semifinal match, most people had already handed over the Norman Brookes Challenge Cup to Rafa Nadal. With reason. His supreme command against Roger Federer was astonishing and only an entrenched fool could not give some credit to the devastating, utterly unremitting Spanish bull that he is on these occasions. Federer may be a player way beyond his peak (and 32) but even his best would have had many issues in dealing with Nadal's form that night.

The final was a significant match, in hindsight. A win at the 2014 Australian Open would have brought Nadal at 14 Grand Slams, matching Pete Sampras¹ but crucially also giving the Spaniard at least two wins at every Major in the circuit. The French Open would have been next and it would take a brave man, even now, to bet against him. It's not a wild assumption that most journalists would already have begun a long, winding account of the greatness of Nadal and the way he was surely on his way to becoming the undisputed greatest of all time much before the match began.

Except none of this materialized.

Stanislas Wawrinka played the match of his life. For one hour or so, he was bludgeoning balls and had completely outplayed and outmatched Nadal. The back injury, when it came, was a factor only later. Wawrinka earned the title. Improbably he becomes the first man in over twenty years to beat the top two seeds en route to winning the Australian Open. And lest we forget, today he beat a man against whom he had never won a single set in all their previous 12 meetings.

You would still tip Nadal to win many more Majors. But the match brings many more facts into perspective. To remain injury free is just as important as playing on an incredibly high level. As much as we may generate sympathy for Rafa, his constant inability to remain fit will become as important a factor as anything else when the final verdict on him is given. Injuries cannot be slotted in the category of mere bad luck - they are as much the responsibility of a tennis player as his/her backhand. The way Nadal plays is nothing short of astounding and it's true there are very few people who can beat him when he plays his best (the only exception must be handed over to Djokovic who beat Nadal very convincingly in his magical 2011 season which stretched next year to a very close 2012 French Open semi-final between the two).

The question in my mind really goes like this: How much longer will Rafa play his attritional gruelling brand of tennis? And how much more will his body take before we see his decline?

The decline will come. Of that we can be sure. Rafa Nadal is soon to be 28 years of age. He has two years by my guess to win his Slams. His body will crumble before his game does.

If I'm wrong, then I'll have no qualms about calling him the GOAT.

1: I think's that's why he was called to present the trophy tonight in anticipation of Nadal's feat. This is exactly what happened when Federer won his 14th in the 2009 Wimbledon.