cannyben

In the rich world globalization had driven the wedge between social classes, while in the poor world, the main divide is between countries: those that adjusted to globalization and, in many areas, prospered and those that adjusted badly and, in many cases, collapsed. Indeed the Third World was never a bloc the way that that the first and second worlds were. But it was united by its opposition to colonialism and dislike for being used as a battlefield of the two then-dominant ideologies. As the Second World collapsed and globalization took off, the latter rationale evaporated, and a few countries, most notably India and China, accelerated their growth rates significantly, enjoying the fruits of freer trade and larger capital flows. And although these two countries adapted well to globalization, there is little doubt that their newfound relative prosperity opened many new fissure lines. Inequality between coastal and inland provinces, as well as between urban and rural areas, skyrocketed...

Historically, the dominant power tends to support globalization as a way to increase the ambit of its influence, expand trade and gain economic advantage, co-opt new citizens and possibly show the advantages. This was the case with the Roman, British and now American-led globalizations. But recently, the rich West - which saw globalization as a prelude to "the end of history" - is having second thoughts. Two fears drive this unease with globalization: The first is a fear of job loss due to competition from low-wage countries. The second is the fear of ethnic and cultural dilution due to increased immigration. The cause of the first fear is a fast reemergence on the world stage of China and India. For students of history, the rise of China and India is not a surprise. The two countries are just recapturing the ground lost during the 19th and most of the 20th century. Before the Industrial Revolution, China's and India's combined output accounted for one half of the wor...

I know a song writer who often gets his hit tunes while he is asleep. His subconscious mind works on the tune while he is asleep. It then comes to him as though he were in a dream. After heaving it in this sort of dream state, he awakens himself and puts the tune down on paper. It is like recording a dream that you want to remember. The utilization of the subconscious in this manner is an integral link in the chain of success. There are thousand approaches to the road that ultimately lead to success, but once the approaches have led you to the proper road, one must travel the “straight” and “narrow” the rest of the way. It is marked along the way with difficulties, and each milestone brings you closer to the goal, and each milestone is charged with a deep and gratifying reward of its own. Eventual success is the sum total of all these rewarding experiences merged into one glorious sensation of achievement. We now have a reasonable and logical question, can each of us do this by ourselv...

We ask our students, “Why do you study”? The immediate replies from the students include: for grades, admissions, ranks, bright future, happy parents. Surprisingly, no one thinks of knowledge. We explain to our students that it is very important to be knowledge-motivated and not grade-motivated. Not that grades are of no importance, but grades follow knowledge. Grades are merely scales by which we measure knowledge. Grades do not constitute knowledge. This distinction is vitally important. There are two negative aspects to grade-motivated learning. One is ego, and the other hostility. We always acclaim the toppers. Our actions boost the child’s ego. A child whose ego is thus inflated refuses to accept failure. Thus, the joy of learning is slaughtered systematically. The second aspect is hostility. Grade-motivated studies make a child hostile. All teachers must have noticed a certain unwillingness among the students to discuss their grades when answer scripts are returned after evaluati...