I can't help but offer an alternate view to the 'critique of capitalism' posted here a few days ago. Many critics of capitalism (including the author of the post above) compare the outcomes of capitalism (quoting the various ills in the world today e.g., inequality) to an imagined 'ideal state' that has never existed in the history of the world.

I'm a realist, focused on practical executable solutions (i.e., what should we do differently based on what we have learned) and believe the current outcomes of capitalism should be compared to the outcomes of pre-capitalistic and non-capitalistic socieities and economies.

This, more real, analysis reveals that although capitalism is by no means perfect (there are winners and losers in capitalism, just as there have been winners and losers in the evolution of our world. I believe the role of government is to mitigate the brutal 'survival of the fittest' results of capitalism), it is by far the best option available to countries and socieities seeking to improve their peoples standard of living.

Just go ask any Indian who tried to improve his or her families lot in life in the pre-1991 'socialist-democracy' era and who has been trying to do the same post the 1991 liberalization of India's economy. I think the answer is crystal clear. Non-capitalistic societies end up being extraordinarily political, with power, opportunity and information controlled by a few. Capitalism is an objective, fair system with the best (although not perfect) outcomes. I believe the best answer economically is a capitalist economy, balanced by government supported equality of opportunity (as much as possible - e.g., by ensuring equal access to education) and government provided 'safety nets' for those that fall to the bottom of the totem pole in capitalism.

The 'value of a life' is a recurring topic of conversation in our home. It has always confounded (and impressed) me how much americans value a single american life. I'm told a whole bunch of marines will go in and risk their life to try and save just one of their brethren during war.

I find this most fascinating, being part of a generation of Indians who grew up reading almost daily about dozens if not hundreds of deaths in Sri Lanka (the LTTE problem), Andhra Pradesh (the Naxalites), Punjab (the terrorism/secession problem there in the late '80s and into the '90s), Kashmir (you all know this one, I'm sure), Assam..and the list goes on (and this doesn't even include violence outside of India!!).

There was nary a day when one didn't hear of a 'brown bag' exploding and killing all the people on a bus...or some story similar to that. Most of us got used to this over the years, and became relatively immune to the violence and death.

I'll blog some other time about my hypotheses on what drives this dramatic difference in how a human life is viewed in different parts of the world.

Today I'm wondering and thinking of how one values a dogs life?

Yesterday, our beloved Great Dane Lara got 'bloat' - a relatively common but life-threatening condition that large breed dogs (particularly deep chested ones) are prone to. Here, for seemingly no reason, the dogs stomach gets filled with gas and twists on itself. Immediate surgery is required to reverse the condition, and many dogs die either during or soon after surgery. Aside from the emotional stress and pain, there's also the issue of expense. We're $1500 bucks down already (for the surgery) and just dropped her off at a 24 hour hospital which is going to cost another $500 or so per night. We're lucky that we can afford the expense, and she's lucky that we love her like crazy...but it does bring up the question: how far do we take this? What is the value of a dog's life? Here we are trying desperately to save this beloved dog, who we got from a rescue 3 years ago (she was already sick, and has had orthopedic problems since)....should we be saving a human life instead?

I'll tell the dog-lovers before I sign off that despite all the debates and questioning, the path forward is clear. We'll do whatever it takes to have some more time with Lara. She is special, with a gentleness and human-like emotional quality we've never found before. What if we weren't this lucky and didn't have this choice to make?

people, to me, are the most interesting and important thing in the world. priority number one, above work, above all the things i want to and need to get done in my life (in a macro sense, all said and done). personal relationships follow, then, as a key driver of my personal happiness and satisfaction...and people watching (and thinking about what i see) follows as an absorbing hobby.

so i've noticed, and often think about this: how we perceive a particular situation or incident seems to differ quite a bit from person to person. not surprising, i guess, since we view the world through the lens of our individual prior experiences and what we have personally learned through these experiences.

but perception, i believe, is reality (after all, our perceptions drives personal decisions and actions, which are real and tangible). but how can it be that there are over 6 billion people in the world walking around each with their own slightly and sometimes not so slightly different view of what's real? isn't the world we live in fascinating?

I'm falling in love with blogging. I've never kept a personal diary, but always wanted to. The opportunity to share my thoughts (even if the line of thinking isn't always 'complete' i.e., there's no clean resolution at the end of each thought) and have others comment, provide feedback, and tell me theirs is invaluable. I can't help but believe that over time, in aggregate, I will find more answers than I would have on my own. Certainly, I have already found a different kind of community.

So back to the theme of this one. I see information and opportunity as two of the key (if not the key) drivers of a lot of what I observe around me.

First, information: control of information is critical in most Indian families - information is power, and those in power limit access to information for those they want to keep less powerful than themselves. This could be husbands keeping wives less informed than themselves (a common occurance), the arab rich keeping information out of the hands of the common arab, the chinese government controlling information access to the common chinese...the list goes on. What we're seeing globally is the loss of control over information. The media are key to this loss of control..the internet, print media, satellites, globalization etc. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm waiting to see what happens as the billions of Indians, Chinese, Africans and Latin Americans who do not have open access to information get it more and more over the coming decades.

Second, opportunity: I think the root cause of a lot of the 'violence' we see in the world is lack of opportunity. And I specifically mean economic opportunity - the opportunity to rid yourself of hunger, thirst, disease and other basic human needs. A person without opportunity has no hope. This is where faith steps in. Because religions brings back some form of hope (the hope of salvation, nirvana, etc). Lack of opportunity combined with lack of information leads to billions of people following the words of those who control them. Typically, this is religious and political leaders who promise some form of 'light at the end of the tunnel' if those listening do what they are told.

So how do we spread opportunity to those that don't have it? And what role can an individual play in this?

Opportunity, to me, is the key to America's dominant global position right now. I came here for it. So did almost everyone I know who wan't born here.

I will be writing more on this topic over time as I think a lot of the public policy and foreign policy 'answers' lie in laws/policies/rules that in some way impact opportunity for the common man.

Sometimes at work, we talk of 'parent pleasers'. This is the category of kids who adore parental and societal adulation, and do what they can to act and succeed in the way that their families and communities love. Parent pleasers happen to make great employees. Until about 5 years ago, I was one.

Then I realized that although I was pretty well loved by others, there was something missing for me. It certainly seemed that I didn't know myself well emotionally. Perhaps this was because the 'parent pleaser' in me was focused more on the outside than on the inside.

5 years ago, I decided I would say what I really felt was right - and act only in a way I believed supported my personal beliefs. I also decided it was all right to change my mind. In fact, it was good to do so. After all, I can hardly claim to know everything. Quite the contrary, I have what we call a strong 80-20 approach to life. Which means I form opinions (also known as hypotheses by those close to me) based on my instincts, experiences and what little I know. And I feel free to change these opinions or hypotheses based on what I learn.

The question that bothers me, especially coming from a relatively traditional Sikh Indian family is: what is the role of compromise in my life? I often tell myself that as long as I live in a way that would leave me satisfied on my death bed, I was doing all right. But is this really the case? Or will I have regrets that I didn't compromise more? What role does compromise play in your life?