NYTimes: “Right now, 21st-century geopolitics seems like it’s defined by the struggle between America and China. But the major power with the world’s fastest growing economy and largest population isn’t China. It’s India…Its large and spreading diaspora gives it a unique cultural influence around the world, one that may only increase as other major powers grow old and people remain India’s most important export.” Amitav Acharya: “India is not going to have the industrial revolution like China had — that stage has passed. It’s not going to become the factory of the world like China has become. That window has closed. But the next stage of economic development, a combination of industrial and high technology services — India still needs to find that niche and still move off from exporting raw materials or textiles and the like.”
Allen Grubman: “When you walk away from negotiation, both sides should feel the same way—happy, but also a little sad that they didn’t get everything they wanted. That’s a success. If you walk away delighted that you got everything, the guy who got screwed will be waiting for the opportunity to get you back. Getting everything you want is the beginning of the end of the relationship.”
Paul Ford: “Is the software I’m making for myself on my phone as good as handcrafted, bespoke code? No. But it’s immediate and cheap. And the quantities, measured in lines of text, are large. It might fail a company’s quality test, but it would meet every deadline. That is what makes A.I. coding such a shock to the system.”
WSJ: “The publication of John O. McGinnis’s “Why Democracy Needs the Rich” comes at an opportune moment. A law professor at Northwestern University and former U.S. Justice Department official, Mr. McGinnis seeks to defend the ultrawealthy from the growing number of accusations leveled against them. Although incomplete, Mr. McGinnis’s argument deserves to be taken seriously. Who are the rich? If they’re defined by wealth, Mr. McGinnis would include people in the top 0.1% of asset-holders—$61 million and above—as “truly rich.” What matters to the author isn’t how much they are worth, but how free they are to express their views, take risks and support innovative activities.”
