Donald Trump must be a very disappointed man these days. Having imposed sweeping tariffs (he is still busy doing this) with self-proclaimed lofty objectives, he is still scanning the horizon to see what his revolutionary economic reforms have done to his country or to the world in general. He, like always, took up the issue of tariff as a major weapon to pre-empt what he himself calls the exploitation of his country by other countries. This is his primary grievance. As long as he has his cronies to support whatever he does, he has no worries, except that the magic potion that he has concocted for his country has not done anything to repair the US economy, at least so far. He dedicated (or wasted) one day this year as a Liberation Day for his country, the 2nd of April 2005, the day he introduced the tariff revolution on whole host goods and commodities. His administration imposed sweeping tariffs particularly on imports from China, Mexico, Canada, and the European Union citing national security and economic concerns. The other day, a U.S. trade court ruled that Trump’s global tariffs are illegal, arguing that he overstepped his executive authority. However, an Appeals court has temporarily reinstated them while reviewing the case, as of writing this. The uncertainty surrounding these tariffs has disrupted global markets, with businesses struggling to predict costs and supply chain impacts. Today the US has a number of learned economists who are famous around the world on their own. His Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent himself is a renowned economist, well known and well respected in every corner of the world. That leads to my moot point on Trump and his attitude in general. Trump gives the impression that he belongs to the tribe called “anti-intellectualism” and for good reason. Take, for example, his misadventure with tariffs itself. Trump is convinced that this is a sure shot panacea for America’s problems. He has an abiding grievance that other countries are taking undue advantage of the US. One’s suspicions on this gets buttressed when you see what he is doing to world renowned Universities like Harward and Columbia. Trump is busy, very busy, going after these institutions of higher learning making you wonder why he is going out of the way to tarnish America’s icons of excellence. Difficult to believe that he is doing so, for a worthy cause. Historian Richard Hofstadter’s classic work “Anti-Intellectualism in American Life” is often cited in discussions about Trump as it explores how American culture has routinely favoured charisma and pragmatism over intellectual depth. However, Trump’s defenders are quick to argue that his approach is strategic rather than anti-intellectual, positioning himself as a leader who prioritises action over academic debates. Some scholars point to his plain disdain for scientific consensus, such as his stance on climate change and his rejection of expert advice in areas like foreign policy and economics. Others highlight his communication style, which favours emotional appeal and directness over complexity, making him resonate with audiences who distrust traditional intellectual elites. Donald Trump has often been described as someone embodying anti-intellectualism, a term referring to scepticism or dismissal of intellectual pursuits, expertise and critical thinking. Analysts argue that his rhetoric, policy decisions, and approach to governance reflect a preference for instinct over expertise, simplistic narratives over nuanced analyses, and populist appeal over academic rigor. It is public knowledge today that Trump has limited attention span and is known for poor intellectual prowess. It would not be surprising that over the years he may have developed a complex about the ‘intellectual creatures’. That is also one of the reasons that he scoffs at genuine scientific achievements and is quick to dismiss the threats of climate change and vaccine experiments. Universities like Harvard and Columbia do everything to promote academic excellence that he hates probably because of his innate opposition and hostility towards intellectuals, scholars, and their ideas, often undermining the value of knowledge and critical thinking in society.
An organised setup to improve the efficiency of a government is a welcome move, whichever is the country and by whatever name such a setup is called. In the US it was called the Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE). In a developed country like the United States, such an initiative had evoked tremendous interest when it was set up by none other than the newly elected President himself. As if that is not enough, Trump appointed Elon Musk, arguably the most dynamic entrepreneur-businessman and the richest man on the planet, to head DOGE. On hindsight, this department that Musk headed was destined to fail given the atmosphere in which he had to work, and the mercurial nature of Donald Trump himself to produce results. This initiative proved once again that you can rework management principles, but you cannot reinvent the science of management. In the end, Musk flattered to deceive. He left the government, albeit unceremoniously: but politely by Trump’s standards. This experiment, it appears, failed almost before it take-off. Musk’s new role was intended to be temporary, but his departure comes amid growing tensions over Trump’s massive spending bill, which Musk criticised for undermining his cost-cutting efforts. Musk paid a heavy price when the share prices of Tesla tanked. Even when he helped reduce cost for the government, whatever it is; but unwittingly became part of a government indulging in extravagance. This development, however, did not come as a surprise as many would have anticipated such an endgame. Trump credited Musk with leading the “most sweeping and consequential government reform effort in generations” but also hinted that Musk “is not really leaving” and may continue advising the administration. While Musk claimed $175 billion in savings, critics argue that many spending cuts lacked transparency and led to severe disruptions, particularly in foreign aid and social programmes. Musk’s political involvement has reportedly damaged Tesla’s brand, with sales dropping amid global protests. He has also hinted at reducing his political donations going forward. Musk’s departure leaves questions about the future of DOGE and whether his cost-cutting vision will continue without him. However, Musk left the government with a golden key to the White House and Washington with a black eye.
In today’s world and under the prevailing economic landscape in which a bank operates in India, it is very difficult to find major issues with any of the banks, broadly speaking. That is what we Indians thought till Indusind happened. Apparently, everything was hunky-dory, on the surface, at least. However, IndusInd Bank is currently facing myriads of major financial and governance challenges leading to a crisis of reputation and investor concerns. It looks as if the bank is on shaky ground going by what is emerging from newspaper reports. The bank reported its largest-ever quarterly loss of ₹2,329 crore in Q4 FY25 due to plain accounting irregularities. Internal audits revealed misclassified fee income of ₹172.58 crore and incorrect derivative trade entries, leading to a total discrepancy of over ₹2,600 crore. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) is reviewing the bank’s financial statements for FY24 and FY25 due to concerns over potential fraud. CEO Sumant Kathpalia has resigned. Katpalia was granted only a one-year extension before his departure. That was unusual and a signal from the regulator that everything may not be hunky-dory with the bank. On enquiry by RBI, it was found that the bank’s internal risk controls were found to be weak particularly in its currency derivative transactions. As of writing, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) is investigating six bank officials for potential insider trading related to these lapses. IndusInd Bank’s stock plunged 25% in a single day, wiping out ₹18,000 crore in market value. The bank’s net interest margin (NIM) fell to 2.25%, a sharp decline from 4.26% a year earlier. Investors are waiting for a new CEO and a clearer strategy to restore investor confidence. The RBI is also closely monitoring the bank’s governance and financial reporting practices. The market was given to understand that IndusInd Bank has unwound all internal derivative trades and shifted to external hedging to prevent further discrepancies. The bank has engaged an external agency for an independent audit to get to the bottom of the problem. Today, IndusInd Bank is at a critical juncture and its ability to restore investor trust will depend on strong leadership, regulatory compliance and financial stability.
Here is a book review for you – Abundance. This book is written by two Americans for Americans – Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson. For an outsider the book offers, at best, a sketchy patchwork of what could be done for the problems that the wealthiest nation faces. While doing so, it picks up a few real-life examples to show how successive governments had dealt with these problems earlier. It is an essay of how the American society is knitted together and why and where it falls short. The book identifies a few macro-economic issues and gives elaborate commentary on them. Some are relevant from a broad economic perspective to explain what is holding the US back in a number of areas. The book glosses over some critical macro-economic scenes in the society and also the government with very little concrete ideas as solutions. The book covers areas like policy, governance and economic reforms. The book also is replete with motherhood statements like “the right sees only the imagined glories of the past and the left sees only injustices of the present”. The book starts with a laudable objective like “Abundance, as we define it, is a state. It is the state in which there is enough of what we need to create lives better than what we have had. And so, we are focused on the building blocks of the future. Housing. Transportation. Energy. Health. And we are focused on the institutions and the people that must build and invent that future”. The unfortunate part is that the authors woefully fall short of their own set of goals for writing the book. In one place the authors presciently opine thus: “Americans are ‘symbolically’ conservate but ‘operationally’ liberal”! This statement is followed by another one like this: “Americans like both the rhetoric and reality of low taxes, but they also like the programs that taxes fund”. Come on, tell me something new. Tell me, in which country this paradigm is any different? Let me lay out one more quote from the book: “A few years ago we were greatly concerned about the ‘Ugly American’. Today we must act to prevent an ugly America”. A tall order indeed! Where are the solutions proffered in the book to attain these goals? I do understand that prescribing a body of solutions for macro maladies is difficult. But without such suggested solutions the objectives set out in the book looks incomplete. The book covers some very important topics in the society like Zoning Laws, Discovery of Penicillin and the concept of dealing with vaccinations with “warp speed”. The book has very little to talk about the broad societal issues. Consequently, in the end the book falls short particularly for the international audience. “Abundance”, however, is a significant and timely contribution to contemporary political thought for the Americans. The authors argue in the book that while we often focus on scarcity and zero-sum thinking, a shift towards embracing abundance – both in terms of resources and generosity – is crucial for effective policymaking and societal advancement. The book could have been better if only the authors wanted it to.
Today, as I write this piece, I am reminded that the final of the Indian Premier League (IPL) would be played in the Narendra Modi Stadium that has a capacity to accommodate more one lack spectators! For old timers like me, the transformation of the game is nothing short of a miracle. I have had the pleasure of playing cricket during my younger days at the university level. Considering the time and circumstances and above all the places from where we used to play cricket would be fit enough to be called the Jurassic Park, always subject to the vicissitudes of weather and almost always without permitting the game to interfere with our studies. The commercialisation of the game with IPL have changed all those rules. Haven’t you heard your father advising you: first become cricketer and then prosecute your studies, time permitting. A visitor from another planet would find it difficult, nay impossible to fathom the transformation the game has witnessed. Today with the advent of the shorter form of the game it is difficult to imagine that we had played Test cricket and other forms almost without spectators! In short, while traditional cricket is known for its patience, strategic depth and endurance, modern formats of the game focuses on aggressive batting, innovative shots and quick wickets, appealing to a broader, often younger, audience. It incorporates franchise-based teams, player auctions and glamour turning cricket into a pure unadulterated commercial spectacle. As if that is not enough, in the place of the old and doughty old-timers in the audience, you have colourfully dressed bevy of beautiful girls gyrating on the boundary line dancing with gay abandon. It is a wonder that the men in the middle are still able to concentrate on the game! In essence, IPL has revolutionised the game by introducing a rapid and thrilling format compared to the slower, more methodical style of conventional cricket contributing to the sport’s global appeal and commercialisation. Cricket today is more an opiate than ever before. In a poor country like India, this game is nothing short of a palliate to assuage the pangs of poverty of this poor country! Cricket today is the new religion. All of a sudden, eleven white flannelled fools have now become eleven multi coloured neo rich! Welcome to the new world of riches!
