'IPL will revolutionise the game' - Modi

'IPL will revolutionise the game' - Modi

Post by Rishi » Fri, 22 Feb 2008 07:44:37



Quote:






> > > > > > <snip>

> > > > > > > I am sure it will be a success in India, but I am not sure if it will
> > > > > > > attract that much interest elswhere initially.

> > > > > > It is an Indian league played between Indian cities. I don't expect it
> > > > > > to be a success elsewhere, not that elsewhere matters much anyway.

> > > > > Agreed; if there is as much money in it as appears to be the case,
> > > > > then the IPL could become to India what the NFL is to the US, and what
> > > > > happens (or doesn't) in other countries would be irrelevant. The
> > > > > Indian economy and population size can easily sustain a venture like
> > > > > this.

> > > > > - Chan

> > > > But if it really popular only in India, I am not sure it is going to
> > > > help the Indian economy that much with the salaries they give out to
> > > > foreign players. They need atleast some foreign endor***ts if they
> > > > don't make too much from TV outside of India.- Hide quoted text -

> > > > - Show quoted text -

> > > Economics 101.

> > > You don't need to export stuff to become wealthy.
> > > If IPL creates profits, the nation itself will become wealthy.

> > > If Microsoft hires Indians for cheap and sell Software only within the
> > > US and generates profit, it is good for the US net wealth

> > > OTOH, if Adobe hires US engineers and only exports software, but makes
> > > a loss, it is not good for the US net wealth

> > > As long as you are making profits, you don't care where you get your
> > > raw materials (Ricky Cheating & Michael Crooke) from.- Hide quoted text -

> > I don't know much about economics, but it sounds counter-intuitive to
> > me. If I were to make a guess, people spending might actually give a
> > false sense of economic growth in the shorter term, but in a case like
> > this where (assuming) we get 0 foreign investment but spend money to
> > get foreign players, then local spending would not help the economy at
> > all. But if you know what you are talking about, I will just take your
> > word for it.- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -

> The Wealth of a Nation is determined by how much they produce, not how
> many people are employed.

> Take extreme cases,
> i) Robots does all the human work including maintaining Robots. There
> is 100% unemployment, but each person is wealthy
> ii) There are One Million Companies hiring every employable person and
> every company is making a loss. There is 100% employment, but each
> person is poor

> Yes, those are idealistic example far in touch with reality. But,
> still you should drive towards (i) and not (ii)- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

It still does not work well with my logic. If everyone is out of a
job, how are they paying to buy what the robots make? You have to sell
it outside the country. Otherwise, there is no way the economy is
actually "growing".

I agree with the fact that the wealth of a nation has to do with
producing. But you cannot grow an economy, IMHO, if you only sell
inside the country AND your imports increase while your exports are
the same(importing foreign players, exporting nothing).

 
 
 

'IPL will revolutionise the game' - Modi

Post by linu » Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:20:29


Quote:
> > I am sure it will be a success in India, but I am not sure if it will
> > attract that much interest elswhere initially. It is a version of the
> > game dumbed down to the level of baseball. I don't know how being good
> > at 20-20 will make you a better test player.- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -

> I have a feeling people may get bored pretty soon, even in India. I
> hope I am wrong, with all the money and time they have put into this.

I think it will also depend on the civic pride that each city and the
citizens have. In the West, people are immensely proud when their city
based sports teams do well. Is there something similar in India? For
me one of the attractions of the International cricket is the national
rivalry. With out that, cricket for me loses some of the attraction. I
wonder if similar sentiment will appear concerning IPL?

 
 
 

'IPL will revolutionise the game' - Modi

Post by Rishi » Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:25:10

Quote:
> I think it will also depend on the civic pride that each city and the
> citizens have. In the West, people are immensely proud when their city
> based sports teams do well. Is there something similar in India? For
> me one of the attractions of the International cricket is the national
> rivalry. With out that, cricket for me loses some of the attraction. I
> wonder if similar sentiment will appear concerning IPL?

Civic pride - of course, but not attached to sports. No sport in India
or for that matter anywhere in the subcontinent I would think, has a
big following at the domestic level. I used to watch Ranji games and
even other local teams play with a lot of interest during my school
days, but the following was very very less. There used to be a little
bit of a fan following for domestic soccer but nothing that would come
close to a fan following for a Red Sox, Cowboys or Bulls. I really
cannot see that sentiment being attached to IPL either, atleast
initially until some sort of a rivalry develops between a few teams.

And that is exactly why I felt this might not be a huge success as it
is made out to be. If one watches any 2 teams play with as much or as
little interest, I think one would soon start losing interest with so
many games going on. Maybe some people watching soaps at the fixed
time everyday will switch to watching cricket everyday at the same
time :o)

But of course, because this whole concept is so new, there is no
telling what the reaction might be.

 
 
 

'IPL will revolutionise the game' - Modi

Post by tendulkar.co » Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:35:32


Quote:







> > > > > > > <snip>

> > > > > > > > I am sure it will be a success in India, but I am not sure if it will
> > > > > > > > attract that much interest elswhere initially.

> > > > > > > It is an Indian league played between Indian cities. I don't expect it
> > > > > > > to be a success elsewhere, not that elsewhere matters much anyway.

> > > > > > Agreed; if there is as much money in it as appears to be the case,
> > > > > > then the IPL could become to India what the NFL is to the US, and what
> > > > > > happens (or doesn't) in other countries would be irrelevant. The
> > > > > > Indian economy and population size can easily sustain a venture like
> > > > > > this.

> > > > > > - Chan

> > > > > But if it really popular only in India, I am not sure it is going to
> > > > > help the Indian economy that much with the salaries they give out to
> > > > > foreign players. They need atleast some foreign endor***ts if they
> > > > > don't make too much from TV outside of India.- Hide quoted text -

> > > > > - Show quoted text -

> > > > Economics 101.

> > > > You don't need to export stuff to become wealthy.
> > > > If IPL creates profits, the nation itself will become wealthy.

> > > > If Microsoft hires Indians for cheap and sell Software only within the
> > > > US and generates profit, it is good for the US net wealth

> > > > OTOH, if Adobe hires US engineers and only exports software, but makes
> > > > a loss, it is not good for the US net wealth

> > > > As long as you are making profits, you don't care where you get your
> > > > raw materials (Ricky Cheating & Michael Crooke) from.- Hide quoted text -

> > > I don't know much about economics, but it sounds counter-intuitive to
> > > me. If I were to make a guess, people spending might actually give a
> > > false sense of economic growth in the shorter term, but in a case like
> > > this where (assuming) we get 0 foreign investment but spend money to
> > > get foreign players, then local spending would not help the economy at
> > > all. But if you know what you are talking about, I will just take your
> > > word for it.- Hide quoted text -

> > > - Show quoted text -

> > The Wealth of a Nation is determined by how much they produce, not how
> > many people are employed.

> > Take extreme cases,
> > i) Robots does all the human work including maintaining Robots. There
> > is 100% unemployment, but each person is wealthy
> > ii) There are One Million Companies hiring every employable person and
> > every company is making a loss. There is 100% employment, but each
> > person is poor

> > Yes, those are idealistic example far in touch with reality. But,
> > still you should drive towards (i) and not (ii)- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -

> It still does not work well with my logic. If everyone is out of a
> job, how are they paying to buy what the robots make? You have to sell
> it outside the country. Otherwise, there is no way the economy is
> actually "growing".

When Robots create other Robots, Why do you need money to buy them? If
you are obsessed with money, a Robot will cost $5000 the govt will
print money and give it to everybody
Again you have to get the concept of wealth vs money. You have to
create wealth not print money.

Quote:

> I agree with the fact that the wealth of a nation has to do with
> producing. But you cannot grow an economy, IMHO, if you only sell
> inside the country AND your imports increase while your exports are
> the same(importing foreign players, exporting nothing).- Hide quoted text -

Good, at least you are on the right track.
Think of Planet Earth as a single country. Clearly, Planet Earth
doesn't export anything to other planets and all the selling is
inside. Yet, most citizens are inherently wealthier than the Kings(or
the Richest people) just 50 years ago and Planet Earth as a whole is
getting Wealthier*. That is Wealth creation. i.e You don't have to
export stuff to become wealthy. The only thing that matters is
productivity (i.e how efficiently we convert energy into products/
services) and the Nirvana of productivity is the Robot scenario that I
described.
Import / Export are used by clueless politicians to bolster their own
agenda

*Note: This is from a Human Being perspective. The only thing that is
consumed/used in all of these is energy. What is the limit of Earth's
energy? How much have we consumed so far? is it 1E-350%? or closer to
10%? We do get Sun's energy for free. Can the Technology advance so
far that we can tap into the energy of other planets? universe?

 
 
 

'IPL will revolutionise the game' - Modi

Post by Rishi » Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:51:44


Quote:








> > > > > > > > <snip>

> > > > > > > > > I am sure it will be a success in India, but I am not sure if it will
> > > > > > > > > attract that much interest elswhere initially.

> > > > > > > > It is an Indian league played between Indian cities. I don't expect it
> > > > > > > > to be a success elsewhere, not that elsewhere matters much anyway.

> > > > > > > Agreed; if there is as much money in it as appears to be the case,
> > > > > > > then the IPL could become to India what the NFL is to the US, and what
> > > > > > > happens (or doesn't) in other countries would be irrelevant. The
> > > > > > > Indian economy and population size can easily sustain a venture like
> > > > > > > this.

> > > > > > > - Chan

> > > > > > But if it really popular only in India, I am not sure it is going to
> > > > > > help the Indian economy that much with the salaries they give out to
> > > > > > foreign players. They need atleast some foreign endor***ts if they
> > > > > > don't make too much from TV outside of India.- Hide quoted text -

> > > > > > - Show quoted text -

> > > > > Economics 101.

> > > > > You don't need to export stuff to become wealthy.
> > > > > If IPL creates profits, the nation itself will become wealthy.

> > > > > If Microsoft hires Indians for cheap and sell Software only within the
> > > > > US and generates profit, it is good for the US net wealth

> > > > > OTOH, if Adobe hires US engineers and only exports software, but makes
> > > > > a loss, it is not good for the US net wealth

> > > > > As long as you are making profits, you don't care where you get your
> > > > > raw materials (Ricky Cheating & Michael Crooke) from.- Hide quoted text -

> > > > I don't know much about economics, but it sounds counter-intuitive to
> > > > me. If I were to make a guess, people spending might actually give a
> > > > false sense of economic growth in the shorter term, but in a case like
> > > > this where (assuming) we get 0 foreign investment but spend money to
> > > > get foreign players, then local spending would not help the economy at
> > > > all. But if you know what you are talking about, I will just take your
> > > > word for it.- Hide quoted text -

> > > > - Show quoted text -

> > > The Wealth of a Nation is determined by how much they produce, not how
> > > many people are employed.

> > > Take extreme cases,
> > > i) Robots does all the human work including maintaining Robots. There
> > > is 100% unemployment, but each person is wealthy
> > > ii) There are One Million Companies hiring every employable person and
> > > every company is making a loss. There is 100% employment, but each
> > > person is poor

> > > Yes, those are idealistic example far in touch with reality. But,
> > > still you should drive towards (i) and not (ii)- Hide quoted text -

> > > - Show quoted text -

> > It still does not work well with my logic. If everyone is out of a
> > job, how are they paying to buy what the robots make? You have to sell
> > it outside the country. Otherwise, there is no way the economy is
> > actually "growing".

> When Robots create other Robots, Why do you need money to buy them? If
> you are obsessed with money, a Robot will cost $5000 the govt will
> print money and give it to everybody
> Again you have to get the concept of wealth vs money. You have to
> create wealth not print money.

> > I agree with the fact that the wealth of a nation has to do with
> > producing. But you cannot grow an economy, IMHO, if you only sell
> > inside the country AND your imports increase while your exports are
> > the same(importing foreign players, exporting nothing).- Hide quoted text -

> Good, at least you are on the right track.
> Think of Planet Earth as a single country. Clearly, Planet Earth
> doesn't export anything to other planets and all the selling is
> inside. Yet, most citizens are inherently wealthier than the Kings(or
> the Richest people) just 50 years ago and Planet Earth as a whole is
> getting Wealthier*. That is Wealth creation. i.e You don't have to
> export stuff to become wealthy. The only thing that matters is
> productivity (i.e how efficiently we convert energy into products/
> services) and the Nirvana of productivity is the Robot scenario that I
> described.
> Import / Export are used by clueless politicians to bolster their own
> agenda

> *Note: This is from a Human Being perspective. The only thing that is
> consumed/used in all of these is energy. What is the limit of Earth's
> energy? How much have we consumed so far? is it 1E-350%? or closer to
> 10%? We do get Sun's energy for free. Can the Technology advance so
> far that we can tap into the energy of other planets? universe?- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

Nay, still does not convince me. So I will stay clear :o) But still to
assume I said "print money" to create wealth is a bit far from what I
said or meant.
 
 
 

'IPL will revolutionise the game' - Modi

Post by tendulkar.co » Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:58:28


Quote:









> > > > > > > > > <snip>

> > > > > > > > > > I am sure it will be a success in India, but I am not sure if it will
> > > > > > > > > > attract that much interest elswhere initially.

> > > > > > > > > It is an Indian league played between Indian cities. I don't expect it
> > > > > > > > > to be a success elsewhere, not that elsewhere matters much anyway.

> > > > > > > > Agreed; if there is as much money in it as appears to be the case,
> > > > > > > > then the IPL could become to India what the NFL is to the US, and what
> > > > > > > > happens (or doesn't) in other countries would be irrelevant. The
> > > > > > > > Indian economy and population size can easily sustain a venture like
> > > > > > > > this.

> > > > > > > > - Chan

> > > > > > > But if it really popular only in India, I am not sure it is going to
> > > > > > > help the Indian economy that much with the salaries they give out to
> > > > > > > foreign players. They need atleast some foreign endor***ts if they
> > > > > > > don't make too much from TV outside of India.- Hide quoted text -

> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -

> > > > > > Economics 101.

> > > > > > You don't need to export stuff to become wealthy.
> > > > > > If IPL creates profits, the nation itself will become wealthy.

> > > > > > If Microsoft hires Indians for cheap and sell Software only within the
> > > > > > US and generates profit, it is good for the US net wealth

> > > > > > OTOH, if Adobe hires US engineers and only exports software, but makes
> > > > > > a loss, it is not good for the US net wealth

> > > > > > As long as you are making profits, you don't care where you get your
> > > > > > raw materials (Ricky Cheating & Michael Crooke) from.- Hide quoted text -

> > > > > I don't know much about economics, but it sounds counter-intuitive to
> > > > > me. If I were to make a guess, people spending might actually give a
> > > > > false sense of economic growth in the shorter term, but in a case like
> > > > > this where (assuming) we get 0 foreign investment but spend money to
> > > > > get foreign players, then local spending would not help the economy at
> > > > > all. But if you know what you are talking about, I will just take your
> > > > > word for it.- Hide quoted text -

> > > > > - Show quoted text -

> > > > The Wealth of a Nation is determined by how much they produce, not how
> > > > many people are employed.

> > > > Take extreme cases,
> > > > i) Robots does all the human work including maintaining Robots. There
> > > > is 100% unemployment, but each person is wealthy
> > > > ii) There are One Million Companies hiring every employable person and
> > > > every company is making a loss. There is 100% employment, but each
> > > > person is poor

> > > > Yes, those are idealistic example far in touch with reality. But,
> > > > still you should drive towards (i) and not (ii)- Hide quoted text -

> > > > - Show quoted text -

> > > It still does not work well with my logic. If everyone is out of a
> > > job, how are they paying to buy what the robots make? You have to sell
> > > it outside the country. Otherwise, there is no way the economy is
> > > actually "growing".

> > When Robots create other Robots, Why do you need money to buy them? If
> > you are obsessed with money, a Robot will cost $5000 the govt will
> > print money and give it to everybody
> > Again you have to get the concept of wealth vs money. You have to
> > create wealth not print money.

> > > I agree with the fact that the wealth of a nation has to do with
> > > producing. But you cannot grow an economy, IMHO, if you only sell
> > > inside the country AND your imports increase while your exports are
> > > the same(importing foreign players, exporting nothing).- Hide quoted text -

> > Good, at least you are on the right track.
> > Think of Planet Earth as a single country. Clearly, Planet Earth
> > doesn't export anything to other planets and all the selling is
> > inside. Yet, most citizens are inherently wealthier than the Kings(or
> > the Richest people) just 50 years ago and Planet Earth as a whole is
> > getting Wealthier*. That is Wealth creation. i.e You don't have to
> > export stuff to become wealthy. The only thing that matters is
> > productivity (i.e how efficiently we convert energy into products/
> > services) and the Nirvana of productivity is the Robot scenario that I
> > described.
> > Import / Export are used by clueless politicians to bolster their own
> > agenda

> > *Note: This is from a Human Being perspective. The only thing that is
> > consumed/used in all of these is energy. What is the limit of Earth's
> > energy? How much have we consumed so far? is it 1E-350%? or closer to
> > 10%? We do get Sun's energy for free. Can the Technology advance so
> > far that we can tap into the energy of other planets? universe?- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -

> Nay, still does not convince me. So I will stay clear :o) But still to
> assume I said "print money" to create wealth is a bit far from what I
> said or meant.- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

I know. I just gave an example of that. Anyway, in the long run, the
aim of any franchise should be to make profit, everything else will
take care of itself. (i.e creating employment, import/export is really
a useless exercise and only puts barriers to achieving Nirvana) Of
course, in the real world it is hard to think long run and human
beings personal agendas and anecdotes will trump everything else