Exodus of the Rich?

A recent report on a statement by a worthy on 'too much tax terrorism', and the resultant exodus of HNIs (high net worth individuals, or the ultra rich) out of India, generated a heated debate.

This was also commented upon by a well knowm media personality.

Some of the reactions to the referred statements were like: 'If one includes the fast route for US and European visa, that will be as much as this and in addition the normal immigration visa offered by Canada and Australia.  Clearly the expectations is what am I getting for the contribution made in the form of taxes or hardships.' (emphasis supplied)

Now, in this global village, nobody begrudges the legitimate decisions of certain HNIs to shift base to greener pastures (sometimes after squeezing the Indian market for all potential opportunities, and getting all gung ho about India being a 'vibrant economy' and all that!).  One part of my mind (the impulsive one) tends to agree with the action and sentiments, what with it being a year-round hastle to optimise personal taxes, with seemingly usurious rates applicable otherwise.

But, perhaps because of my background in social development sector, there's another part of my mind which says such hankering after tax concessions is nothing but the fulminations of the already privileged seeking to further enhance their advantage, due and otherwise.

The issue is, have the rich (who're naturally the ones seeking to flee India if their demands for lenient taxation are not met) really earned all their income and wealth without any innate advantages or privileges bestowed on them (or, in many cases, wrangled by 'managing the environment')? Isn't their income and wealth at least in part (sometimes substantially) attributable to their privileged birth, education and other advantages either inherited or bestowed by the powers that be (if not by virtue of family background/social class)? I'm aware that this is akin to the argument advanced by the Ambedkarites in favour of perpetrating reservation, again something on which there could be two views, diametrically and violently opposed to each other.

Ñow, in contrast to the rich of a few generations back who mainly inherited their wealth (and doubtless enhanced it, though in some cases also squandered it!), the noveau rich and startup founders probably have a stronger claim to being 'self made millionaires/billionaires' who, as a corollary, don't owe anything to society or (taxes to) govt.  But try telling that to those living in urban slums or children of countless farmers, landless and otherwise, who for no fault of theirs (discounting both inherited wealth and inherited penury!) are forced to toil away without any visible progress across decades or even generations.  All while the future startup founders are reaping the benefits of a stable family, economic and educational environment courtesy their 'creamy layer' status (with no allusions to backwardness of any hue).

So, the threatened exodus sounds, especially to the underprivileged, like the Amazons and Googles of the world exploiting their workers at one end and avoiding taxes by basing themselves in tax havens at the other end.  As if only they've a God-given right to earn and enjoy the privileges of wealth!

Perhaps the only factor vitiating the argument against the fulminations of the rich is rent-seeking politicians making high promises to the poor but actively perpetrating leakage of public resources garnered through taxes by graft and inefficiency, something which doesn't seem like going away in my lifetime.

And that's a sobering thought...

Ageing...

Travelling on a vacation with an elderly couple, close relatives, provided some perspectives on the issues besetting ageing in India.

The elderly couple seemed lucky, as typical of their generation, as far as physical support of family members was concerned.  One of them has limited mobility, walking slowly with support of a stick.  Though trying to be as lively as ever, and with the background of a long career in security forces, he was as upright as ever.  

Though naturally not able to accompany the group on some parts of the trip due to limited mobility, he was sporting enough to offer to stay back in the hired vehicle and let others roam.  It was probably equally sporting of others to avoid leaving them behind and instead skip certain destinations, even as the long stretches of road were quite a tortuous experience for everyone and especially so for the elderly couple, what with the 'in season' mad traffic which was standstill for the most part, leading to swollen limbs from sitting in a vehicle for long stretches of time.

But all this got me thinking.  Compared to my generation in India, the previous generation seemed incredibly fortunate, though for them it's matter of fact and nothing special.  Though they may not have been horrified (like their previous generation) if their children had chosen to live separately from them, being aware of energing social realities, there's still the unsaid expectation that the children would look after them in old age just as they had looked after and brought up the children.

In contrast, my generation can hardly expect our children to stay with us beyond a stage.  This is not a lament, just an acknowledgement of reality as it exists now.  Due to education and work exigencies our children, global citizens as they are, are themselves never sure where they'd be at different stages of their life.  

So while most children of ours seem consciencious enough to think about supporting us to the best of their ability, the simple fact is that they may not be able to, frequently.  We're sometimes pleasantly surprised when a child consciously chooses to stay back near(er) to us to the extent they can, while of course not compromising on their education or career prospects.  

So when - and I consciously say 'when' and not 'if and when', as a pointer to the fond hope and confidence - our children offer to support us financially or otherwise, but remotely, it's perhaps incumbent on us to graciously accept such offer and make the best out of it to strengthen the parent-child bonds.  

The other choice is to act petulant and reject such offers, on the ground that the children 'should support' us unconditionally and 'in situ', sometimes even to the detriment of their own education or career prospects!  This'd be extremely 'childish' behaviour, in a reversal of generational roles, in most cases leading to a lot of bitterness all around and potentially even tearing the bonds asunder semi-permanently.

Because let's face it, emotions and feelings are biased by a huge 'recency effect', being determined most often by the complexion of a relationship over the last few years.  Nobody looks back to what someone may've done for him or her decades back! The truth of this would be clear if we're honest enough to look back to our own relationship with our parents.  Did we always treat them with the love and respect they deserved, while disregarding the small niggles in behaviour which are a natural part of an evolving relationship?

So for us it's important to, firstly, keep ourselves as healthy as we possibly can, starting in middle age or earlier, reminding ourselves that, unlike our previous generation, we'd most probably not have our children taking up caregiving responsibilities in our old age.  

As a corollary, it's incumbent to develop hobbies and interests, perhaps jointly with friends and relatives with whom maintaining good relationships is sine qua non anyway.  Amongst interests, travel is probably the best way to keep our mental channels open with wonder and excitement, besides gaining invaluable and progressive perspectives on life and cultures.  But of course ability to travel is affected to a large extent by economic and other considerations, even as our reluctance to travel alone even when we want to may be based more on fear of the unknown rather than any real risks, as in this day and age of tech enabled facilities, any and all services are available at the click or touch.

Which brings us to another facet needing attention at all stages in life but especially in old age - the need to be in tune with technology.  Many of us neglect keeping ourselves up to speed even with normal everyday technology.  I know first hand about seniors who still prefer to come down and go up multiple flights of stairs daily and visit shops to do even essential daily shopping, even while grocery and essentials can be and are delivered at our doorsteps in minutes by quick commerce companies after a few clicks on an app.  Now, we can't deny that at least a part of such daily visits to neighbourhood shops is to keep up traditional links, besides fulfilling the need to at least talk to someone, when children and even friends and relatives are not able to meet that need.  

But being reasonably tech savvy is not a luxury or fad but an essential survival skill these days, for banking, shopping, insurance, health and a host of civic services.  The alternative to this is either to go stand in long queues in inhospitable environments or be dependent on relatives and others to carry through digital transactions which, besides being a hit on self-respect, may also be open to abuse and even fraud.  Even otherwise, it pays to keep oneself aware of the contours of potential pitfalls in cyberspace, essential when it involves one's own money but also in domains like fake news and deep fake videos, to avoid getting caught in fraud and worse.

And while on the subject of travel, if one can't travel in person, those blessed with the hobby of reading and exploration have a relatively inexpensive option to 'go places' virtually, through the printed word or through ebooks, audiobooks and a host of other options.

As for the wider issue of interests, spirituality is also a valid choice for those so inclined.  And while the hoary concept of 'vanaprastha ashram' elucidated in our ancient scriptures is perhaps not fully practical these days, nothing stops someone from persuing spiritual leanings at any stage in life.

Besides all this, one thing to give serious consideration to could be senior living facilities.  With the burgeoning options, driven by the rising number of seniors with means or with supportive children, the stigma attached earlier to the concept of 'old age home' seems on the ebb, though the multitude of unfortunate cases of ungrateful children abandoning their aged parents at hovel-like dwellings is also a reality.

But there are now a number of senior living residences sprinkled across India providing reasonably good services to clientele.  I personally know people who're staying at senior living facility for a decade or more, and are quite happy with their life.  However, in the absence of any active regulatory mechanisms in the sector, selection of an appropriate facility requires very careful evaluation of all relevant factors, especially as it's hardly akin to a one time property purchase transaction, as provisioning of reasonably good level of services on a long term basis is essential.  Besides safety and health aspect of the infrastructure, including emergency and elective health support on need basis, optional services like laundry, cooking or food, wellness and social activities are some of the other aspects to be considered while selecting a senior living facility, necessarily a decision with long term implications.

Of course, a necessary factor in the entire decision to go in for senior living facility may be a certain level of emotional connect and sync between the spouses, if both are planning to opt for it.  Otherwise, if one is willing to adapt to the senior living life, while the companion is pining for the existing level of urban facilities and conveniences and shopping options and more, differences are bound to crop up sooner rather than later.  And this has the potential to actually raise the level of stress instead of leading to a peaceful life as intended, stress which most people may be ill-equipped to handle in their old age.

To sum up, while taking a practical view of things while dealing with the emerging reality of children living separately, whether nearby or on distant shores, we seniors need to maintain positivity till the end of life while taking all necessary steps and life decisions to survive well and not be overly dependent on someone.

I think, therefore I am...

I was recently watching an episode of the hillarious Netflix series 'Cunk on Earth'.  The series, on its surface, starts with exploring the history of the world, in the style of the great Sir David Attenborough in BBC Earth, but frequently lapses into nonsensical questions and remarks.  In one passage of the episode I was watching, Cunk makes fun of the famous philosphical dictum 'I think, therefore I am' (reputedly coined by the 17th century French phisopher Rene Descartes) and goes into some convoluted ruminations on that, and also asks hillarious questions of an expert.

But, quite apart from all that Descartes meant to convey by the phrase, this seems to have a surprising parallel to the world of quantum physics.  As physicists like Carlo Rovelli (in his 'Helgoland', a history of how quantum theory was postulated in 1920s and then developed by a series of renowned scientists, many of them Nobel laureates) like to explain, anything in this world exists only in as much as it interacts with other things.  It's like answering the age old question 'If a tree falls in the forest and nobody sees it, did it actually fall' with a 'No', since it didn't 'interact' with anyone.  In that sense, it seems all things actually exist only as... ummm... possibilities or potential, not as real things, and 'pop into being' only when they interact with other things.  In the style of the elusive particles the observed behaviour of which apparently gave rise to the whole discipline of quantum physics.

But coming back to philosophy, it may also be said that even human beings exist only as possibilities or potential, in the rhetorical sense at least.  Positive Psychology guru Martin Seligman says that more than half of us are 'living in the future', that we're constantly thinking about future scenarios moment to moment, sometimes based on things done in the past and often predicted by what we intend to do.  But all such future plans are potential only, good or bad, and fructify as concrete things only when our plans or intentions are translated into actual action...

Book Review - 'Think Again' by Adam Grant

The subtitle of this book is 'The power of knowing what you don't know', and this describes very well the whole premise of the book, that we need to consider letting go of our set ways of thinking, to be able to enhance our understanding and knowledge of how things work in this increasingly VUCA - volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous - world.

The successive chapters of the book describe ways to deal with different aspects of the rethinking process: personal, interpersonal, collective, organizational and for kids.  Certain ideas in the book expand upon well-known strategies for fresh thinking, supporting the same with scientific and behavioural research findings.  Ideas like 'think like a scientist', constructing and testing hypothesis; 'persuasive listening', taking account of the 'question to statement ratio'; debunk myths for kids, stop asking them 'what do you want to be when you grow up'; and (in an organizational setting) foster psychological safety.

Some of the perspectives brought out well in the book hit home accurately.  For instance the thought about avoiding to be 'stranded on Mount Stupid', courtesy over confidence and misplaced reliance on a stand (haven't we met such 'stranded' people so many times!).  Grant also goes into some detail on different aspects of conflict.  First off, he recommends not only being receptive about but actively seeking contrary views, to counteract confirmation bias.  Towards this, he suggests building a 'challenge network', beyond the support network most of all strive for.  He posits the 'benefits of doubt', and suggests celebrating the 'joy of being wrong'.

But Grant also alerts the reader that while 'task conflict' is constructive and beneficial, allowing it to  become 'relationship conflict' is fraught with risks.  He posits that interpersonal conflicts need to be handled more like a dance and less like a battle. Towards this, he shares some strategies.  Like ask more 'How' questions, instead of more 'Whys' which may potentially harden the listener's stance.  Also, 'less is more': don't pile on too many arguments, which anyway makes the opponent put up their defences, and instead lead with a few strong points.  And while doing that, respect the autonomy of the other party, their choice to make their own decisions - don't be a 'logic bully', as one of Grant's former students apparently called him when bombarded with a flurry of arguments for career choices.  Seems many of us may've been at the wrong end of such 'over argument' from 'logic bullies'!

A large part of the book's appeal lies in the counterintuitive thoughts which Grant brings in, things which we don't readily think about.  Things like 'complexify', which goes opposite the buzzword of simplifying everything.  Grant argues that focusing on shades of grey of certain things or situations actually helps bring in more realistic and relevant perspectives, and thus helps us resolve or understand issues better.  Another advice, for oganizations this time, is to abandon 'best practices' (ah... aren't we all upto our gills with this term!), as the term assumes that we're already in the best place possible.  Instead, he says strive for 'better practices' on a continual basis.

Overall, a gem of a book which really makes the reader think about the act of Thinking, and equips us to deal with the ever-changing world in a better way.

Book review - 'Helgoland'

 Helogoland' by Carlo Rovelli

In the last chapter of the book, Rovelli very kindly includes a few paragraphs which save the discerning reader the effort to write a review.  This is helpful, as writing any summary of this book could prove quite an impossible task for a layman, if interested, reader.  As the reader is never sure of having grasped the core of the concepts so beautifully explained by Rovelli.

But that's not a matter of shame.  Not when as formidable a scientist as Einstein himself just couldn't bring himself to accept some of the core ideas of quantum physics, falling back on rhetoric about God not playing dice.  The same remark which earned a retort from the great Niels Bohr.  The same Bohr who inspired a young Heisenberg to journey to the sacred island of Helgoland in the North Sea and come up with the astounding theory.

Without giving any spoilers (as if I could!), the Quantum theory of physics holds that "Everything is what it is only in relation to something else".  So it seems that the question 'If a tree falls in the forest and nobody sees it, did it really fall' was not a rhetorical or 'trick' question, but a valid scientific query.  And it's been answered with a 'No' by quantum theory of physics.

It'd fair to say that the Quantum theory took shape with the active collaboration of multiple scientists, among them Shrodinger (he of the Cat fame, the cat playfully depicted on some pages of this book) who initially diverged from Heisenberg on one facet of the theory but eventually came round decades later and accepted his error, even if in an offhanded sort of way.  Many of these scientists went on to be awarded the Nobel, and Rovelli may well be on the way there, being himself a Quantum physicist specialising in the string theory of quanta.

But the high points of the reading experience of this book was not the scientific facts and discoveries, interesting as these doubtless were.  Rovelli brings in his perhaps unique blend of science, history, philosophy and poetry to explain the core theory.  Here talking about philosophical sparring of Marx, Lenin and Bogdanov on the core of communism and private property.  There talking about the musings of 1st century CE Indian Buddhist monk Nagarjuna.  And then liberally quoting Shakespeare and the like.  All the while continuing to weave these disparate thoughts into the mesh of quanta.

One would especially like to recommend reading through the Notes at the end, not only to get more perspective as usual for any endnotes, but as a rich source of literature references spread across an eclectic range of domains.

Temples and changing culture

During my work travels across South East Asia about two decades back, I used to be surprised by relics of Hindu icons languishing behind majestic Buddha statues (in alcoves at Angkor Wat) or lying dejected (at Jakarta Museum).  Coupled with extensive commonalities with Indian languages in countries like Indonesia (Bahasa) and Cambodia (Khmer spoken alphabet seemed almost identical to Bangla, though the words and script are not), this may give the impression of Hindu culture being 'subsumed' by an expanding Buddhism in SE Asia (later to be overriden in some regions when Islam came in).

But recent research (as quoted in 'Coromandel' by Charles Allen e.g. Ch. 4) appears to indicate that similar subsuming of Buddhist and Jain culture, or the temples at least, may've happened right here in India. So it was never a one way street!

Empathy vs. Compassion

I've been quite a bit intrigued at times when certain persons are perceived as insensitive or even apathetic, even when they seem to be doing reasonably well helping the people or causes they're accused of being apathetic to.

Listening to the book 'Humankind' (an excellent ode to positivity, which takes apart all the negative 'tenets' we go by) by Rutger Bregman, the portion in the Epilogue dealing with compassion, clarified the issue a lot. 

The author says that, to really be able to help others, people need to be more compassionate, not necessarily (or not just) more empathetic.  This is supported with evidence from a scientific study of people's brains being scanned while they were told to consciously experience empathy and then compassion about a certain situation - it was reported that different areas of the brain 'lit up' in the two cases.

The author gives the example of a child who's afraid of the dark - to help the child, the parent or caregiver does not cower in a corner thinking about the causes of the fear (empathy), but instead feels for the child and soothes him/her with comforting behaviour (compassion).

It seems to me that people displaying compassionate behaviour have to retain a level of reasoning in their mind, to be able to formulate responses and actions to help out, and that may be why they're perceived as 'dispassionate' and thus 'devoid of feeling', not being able to balance 'thinking' and 'feeling' to the degree possible for the more voluble (who may be perceived as more empathetic but may or may not be more compassionate).

Added to this is the factor that compassionate behaviour may be more 'action-oriented', while empathetic behaviour can be more expressive (verbally or otherwise).  And we all know that the old adage of 'Actions speak louder than words' has been turned on its head in the current age of 'in your face' behaviour and microsecond attention spans where, for instance, love has to be expressed in words rather than just conveyed through gestures and actions.

Which is probably why people with genuine compassion, who may actually act on their feelings of empathy by helping through their actions, may be unfairly characterised as unsympathetic.

Fungibility in Nature

Had an epiphany of sorts, during my daily morning readings today.  (Nothing groundbreaking, and may look too simplistic to some.)

Being a finance person, I've been aware of the concept of fungibility since a few years now.  Basically, as I understand it, fungibility means that any random unit of a certain thing is exactly equal in value to any other random unit.  Money is the most common thing described as fungible, since a note or coin of, say, ten rupees is exactly equal in value to any other of ten rupees.  (This doesn't consider the practices of collectors, who fondly collect notes or, more typically, coins of a certain vintage, which actually gain in value over time, regardless of their underlying value which the Governor of Reserve Bank of India "Promise(s) to pay the bearer...' as printed on the note!)

The concept of fungibility has further come into prominence in recent years in the digital realm, specifically in the context of digital 'currencies' (recognised vor not) and 'tokens'.  Technically, all digital 'currencies' like Bitcoin and Ethereum are what is known as 'tokens', and one unit of, say, Bitcoin floating around anywhere in cyberspace is supposed to be equal in value to any other unit of Bitcoin stored or traded anywhere else, the value itself being arrived at through a complicated process, not relevant for our discussion here.  On the other side are NFTs, or Non Fungible Tokens.  These are supposed to be unique, typically representing something in real world, for instance a shoe or a song or a photo, usually with some unique identifier.  As such, these are 'non fungible', that is, no two units of the specific token is an exact substitute of any other.

Coming back to our core discussion after this lengthy detour, wouldn't it be helpful if we could consider our relationships with others also as 'fungible'?  Say, someone could have slighted us or even harmed us in some way in the past.  Typically, we carry around that hurt for years, sometimes our while life, even as we may realise that this actually harms us only and possibly restrains our development, without the object of our hate being even aware of it.  In such a scenario, couldn't we instead think back to the behaviour of another person who would've done us some good (and, if we think sincerely, most of us can surely find a person or persons to whom we should be grateful to).  

So, if we follow the concept of fungibility, can't we treat the behaviour of our do-gooder as an exact substitute for that of our supposed 'enemy'? (This may also be in line with the traditional Indian ethos of वसुधैव कुटुंबकम् or 'the world is our family'.) Once we're able to do that, we should be on our way to release the negative energy trapped in our feelings of hurt, letting our psyche fly higher to the realm of wholesomeness.

This could possibly also be applied to our own behaviour towards others.  But perhaps that's another discussion.

Something to think about...

Concepts of Freedom and Property in Mediaeval Europe

David Wengrow and the late David Graeber, 'spiritual father' of the Occupy Wall Street movement, co-wrote a wonderful critique of European-dominated narrative of world history, 'The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity'.  Their attempt is to stand on its head the self-important 'history written by victors', parts of which are anyway being debunked all around as formerly subjugated countries pull off the yoke of European economic colonialism, decades after political colonialism went out of fashion.

One of the themes tackled by the authors is that of European 'Renaissance' of the 17-18th century, heavily 'publicised' as a home grown effort.  With copious references to books of French Jesuit priests who arrived in North America with the invaders, putting forth detailed accounts of their interactions with indigenous American thinkers (including the legendary Wendat leader Kandiaronk, whose thoughts were popularised in books written by an itinerant French writer, in the style of dialogues with a 'noble savage', a construct which was catching on at that time), the authors comprehensively prove that much of the ideas underlying the Renaissance were actually absorbed from such interactions, and did not in fact sprout spontaneously in European minds.

On the subject of individual freedom and liberty in the specific context of property rights, the authors extensively quote the 18th century French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau.  He is shown to be heavily influenced by the then prevailing 'dialogues' floating about in European societies in various forms, including in the form of dramas, based on the same indigenous American thoughts.

In this context, a particular thought of Rousseau which is quoted throws light on how the concept of individual freedoms evolved in European cultures, as opposed to the completely different, much more egalitarian and compassionate path and bedrock of indigenous American philosophy.  Some excerpts may help:

On a slightly different note, not connected to the authors' arguments, the above perhaps puts in a bit of context a slightly puzzling feeling many people of cultures other than European have carried for years and years: namely, as to why people (or at least politicians) of European-descended cultures talk so much about liberty, equality, freedom and compassion (thoughts which may come naturally to people of some other cultures) while doing their level best to deny and snatch away those very things from others, earlier openly in the colonial era, and of late camouflaged behind veneers of free trade (read: economic dominance) and enforcement of 'rule based order' (read: war and other forms of aggression, driven by arms industry lobbies).

The reason for this dichotomy and holy talk may lie in the fact that in European societies in middle ages, from which most current Western politico-economic and social structures have developed over centuries, such lofty concepts were simply not the 'order of things' (unlike, say, in the Wendat society, or in the Lichchhavi and Shakya Janapadas of north India in the first millennium BCE).  Social and political status in European societies of that time was based purely on property and economic affluence, and individual freedoms and even liberty flowed out of that only, with no place for compassion of any sort on that count.  (As an aside, this may also be the reason for the violent opposition in such societies to even a whiff of the concept of Communism, a la McCarthy years in US, and its characterization as pure evil.) 

So could all that talk of compassion actually be arising out of a subconscious guilt at the human depredations inflicted upon other peoples by adherents of this core philosophy of European-seeded thought?

{We've to be very careful to distinguish here between indigenous American thoughts of that time and later/current American philosophies: the two have absolutely no parallels and are in fact diametrically opposite in many ways, not the least because most indigenous American tribes like the Wendat were wiped out by the marauding Europeans, something which continued at least till the 19th century if not later, and the current American philosophies are probably rooted on the bedrock of the same European thoughts, especially about property, dominance and freedoms, Renaissance-influenced or not.}

Surviving and Thriving in 'The Passion Economy'

All around, the poor seem to be getting poorer and the rich richer, on the back of their favoured vehicles of enterprises, virtual and real, ballooning up in size and scale, often courtesy the new-fangled technological tools of automation, AI, robotics and the like (with startups quickly becoming Unicorns and even Decacorns, even with minuscule success rates).  In this scenario, most may be excused for thinking that there's hardly a chance in hell for small and midsize businesses to survive, as the behemoths in their industry rampage around gobbling up all available spaces and monopolising supply chains.

Adam Davidson begs to differ.  With a plethora of real world examples, Adam illustrates how some smaller enterprises have not only survived but managed to carve out their own niches, fiercely protecting their turf, transforming what they do and how they do it, and actually growing their businesses sometimes beyond their own wildest imaginations.  And all this they do by consciously beating complacency and diligently working at identifying, being close to, and constantly delighting their core customer base with innovative products and services.

Adam delves deep into the whats and hows of the new age entrepreneurs, sometimes fourth or fifth generation descendants of the founders, to reveal what clicks.  He culls out 8 'Rules of the Passion Economy', and analyses each in depth for their potential to add scale and value to the chosen businesses.  The rules are centered around identifying the core business, pursuing 'intimacy at scale' with a sharp focus on customer passions (and how to communicate the passion 'story'), fostering entry barriers in terms of unique offerings rather than commoditization, and the nuances of selling price and what it conveys in terms of value.  All through, the focus is on relentlessly working to know the needs of core customers (something of a matter of faith with old world entrepreneurs but sometimes sadly neglected during the pursuit of scale and latest fads) and servicing such needs in unique ways.  Along the way, some entrepreneurs also explain why they chose to avoid growing beyond a point, to be closer to the customer and also to 'avoid unwanted attention' which'd detract them from their core mission.

The legwork put in my Adam epitomizes his approach to the Passion Economy itself.  The chapters come across not as cut and dried business narratives, but as intimate stories.  And the approach is thorough and deep.  For instance, in the chapter on Ocho Candy, Adam delves into the life and ethos of Jesuit priests, the nuances of mass production and distribution, the economics of consumer packaged goods or CPG, and a bit about private equity and venture capital, besides of course the science of candy bars.  That's some landscape to cover!  In a similar vein, Adam covers enterprises in such varied domains as business consulting, accounting services, winemaking, Amish manufacturers, stationery, and ice cream (besides or course candy bars).  In almost every case, Adam appears to have personally met the storied entrepreneurs, in an effort to glean out the essence of their approach, to synthesize a set of principles which can be adopted by almost any entrepreneur to plug into the 'passion economy'.

A great work, which can be read either as a set of fascinating stories of common people surviving and thriving against overwhelming odds, or as erudite lessons on interesting aspects of the modern world and economy.