Over the past decade, India’s top five outsourcing companies have managed to raise labour productivity by less than 2 per cent annually because of their squeamishness to put more fixed capital behind human effort: The average value added by an employee has risen to roughly $40,000 a year, from $34,000 in 2015. The modest gains are going to labour, although not at the entry level where salaries have been stagnant. Profit per worker, in my calculations, has been practically unchanged in dollar terms.
The top 10 most valuable private companies, including OpenAI, ByteDance, Anthropic and SpaceX, have been sucking up funding mega-rounds and are collectively valued at $2tn. The top 10 most active VC funds, including General Catalyst, Andreessen Horowitz, Sequoia and Accel, are heavily focused on AI. “The most influential investors are essentially running concentrated AI funds, not diversified portfolios,” CB Insights concluded.One other significant difference today is how the Big Tech companies are reshaping the start-up universe given their overlapping roles as suppliers, customers, competitors, funders and acquirers. The Magnificent Seven US tech companies — Nvidia, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, Meta and Tesla — dominate the tech landscape in a way that was not the case at the dawn of the internet era. These giant companies are massive allocators of capital in their own right, investing almost as much as the entire VC industry. They also provide start-ups with AI software, cloud computing services and direct investment funding through their own sizeable corporate venture capital arms. But they are furiously rolling out AI themselves in sectors as varied as video generation, healthcare, autonomous driving and scientific discovery. Every time a giant AI company releases a new generative AI model, scores of undifferentiated start-ups shrivel up and die.
Oil executives seem to not only be balking at the risk of having assets nationalized but also expressing a view that has become standard across the sector: Big new projects have to survive intense scrutiny. Venezuela’s tar-like oil has to be diluted to flow through a pipeline. It has to be upgraded locally before it even gets to a refinery. That’s a multi-billion-dollar expense. For most of the past 15 years, Big Oil was focused on projects — such as drilling for North American shale oil — that have a quick and predictable payback, even though their production drops off steeply after the first year. To some extent, the companies deprioritized projects such as those in offshore oil, or heavy crude deposits like Venezuela’s, that keep producing at low cost for 10 to 20 years but require more upfront investment to bring online.So a lot of oil came from fields that were low in risk but relatively high in cost. According to Rystad Energy, a research company, in 2024 North American shale had a break-even cost of $45 a barrel. That was expensive compared with offshore deepwater ($43), offshore shelf ($37) and onshore Middle East ($27). From 2014 to 2024, daily crude production in the United States increased 71 percent, while production in the rest of the world actually decreased a couple of tenths of a percent, according to data in the Statistical Review of World Energy 2025. That’s changing a bit. North American shale is beginning to be tapped out, although the oil majors are using advanced technology to get more oil out at lower costs. Since around 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine and oil prices spiked, the oil majors have shifted some of their interest back toward higher-risk, longer-payout projects in parts of the world where the oil is cheapest — not North America. Exxon and Chevron have explored bidding on exploration opportunities in Libya. Last year, Chevron signed an agreement in principle to develop Iraq’s vast Nasiriyah oil field and other assets. Exxon is also in discussions with Iraq.
Interesting that Trump is forcing his oil companies to invest in a country that has historically been univestable despite its abundance of oil reserves, one reason being the high cost of extraction of the country's heavy crude (costs $70 to extract a barrel, when oil sells for $58).
4. In 2017 when Donald Trump said he was going to pull the US out of the Paris Agreement, this was the reaction of corporate America.
“Today’s decision is a setback for the environment and for the US’s leadership position in the world,” wrote Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman’s then chief executive, in his first post on what was then Twitter. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg agreed, saying the move was “bad for the environment, bad for the economy, and it puts our children’s future at risk”. Tesla’s Elon Musk and Walt Disney’s Bob Iger both quit White House business advisory councils. At Apple, Tim Cook said he had tried but failed to persuade Trump to abandon a move that would have “no impact on Apple’s efforts to protect the environment”. And other corporate leaders spoke out with equal force.
Last week he announced US exit from both the 34-year old parent of the Paris Agreement, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the UN's 38-yar-old Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it was met with silence from the same people.
5. China violates Taiwan's airspace with a drone for the first time,
A Chinese surveillance drone entered the airspace of Pratas, a Taiwan-controlled island in the South China Sea also known as Dongsha, for four minutes on Saturday. The unmanned aerial vehicle was a WZ-7 known as ‘Soaring Dragon’ according to a Taiwanese national security official. It flew at an “altitude outside the range of our air defence weapons and left following warnings Taipei broadcast via international radio channels”, Taiwan’s defence ministry said in a statement... “China has found another soft spot,” said Kitsch Liao, an associate director at the Atlantic Council’s Global China Hub. “They can repeat this to demonstrate that they can enter Taiwan airspace with impunity. And what do you do if they start flying lower and lower? If you decide to shoot the drone down when it comes into range, China can blame Taiwan because it didn’t do anything before.”
6. Ishan Bakshi makes some very important points on the central government's tax revenues on the back of the lowering of corporate taxes in 2019, the rejigging of the personal income tax slabs in the Union Budget of 2025-26, and the GST rate rationalisation of late 2025.
The net impact of these fiscal steps — even as the direct and indirect tax base has significantly expanded over the past decade — is constrained finances, forcing governments to restrain expenditure, despite the bluster of lavish spending. The estimates of the extent of revenue foregone due to these tax cuts vary considerably. Nonetheless, they are quite significant. For the corporate tax cuts, the initial estimates pegged the revenue foregone at Rs 1.45 lakh crore, while in the case of the income taxes, it was around Rs 1 lakh crore. For GST, while precise estimates are difficult to arrive at, they will reflect slowly in tax collections... Over the past decade, the Centre’s tax collections have barely inched upwards – net tax revenues were 7.2 per cent in 2014-15 and were budgeted at 7.9 per cent in 2025-26. Collections may, in fact, end up being lower this year.
7. Tim Harford writes about smart fitness tracker watches and their health behaviour tracking.
...in a study conducted with behavioural scientists Linda Chang, Erika Kirgios and Sendhil Mullainathan. The researchers asked a simple question: “Do we decide differently when some dimensions of a choice are quantified and others are not?” The answer emerged loud and clear from a series of experiments: yes, we do. Whenever experimental subjects were offered a choice between two options, they would tend to favour whichever option looked better on numerical measures and overlook qualities that were expressed as graphical elements, letter grades, star symbols or in words (“moderate”, “excellent”, “highly likely”). This was true whether the choice was between hotels, job applicants, conference locations, public works projects, restaurants or charitable causes. Numbers loomed large. What was quantified, got attention. This matters because fitness trackers purport to excel at quantifying some things and do not pretend even to quantify others. If quantification fixation applies, we would expect to see such trackers systematically pushing people towards the quantified behaviour at the expense of other things.
And the perverse incentives generated from such health behaviour tracking.
Larger studies strongly suggest that fitness trackers do not usually hinder weight loss, but the surprising and disheartening finding is an example in miniature of the quantification-fixation problem. In this case, both groups were equally active, but those using a fitness tracker were getting automatic, effortless validation of their effort, which they could then use to justify more indulgent eating. The lead researcher, John Jakicic, speculated at the time: “People would say, ‘Oh, I exercised a lot today, now I can eat more.’ And they might eat more than they otherwise would have.” Calorie counting is joyless, easily fudged — and not automated by the watch. We’re all familiar with the tendency to be virtuous in one aspect of our behaviour, then let ourselves off the hook somewhere else — choosing a healthy salad, then using it as permission to order dessert. Psychologists call this behaviour “self licensing” and fitness trackers encourage it by supplying us with asymmetric data. We are told how much we moved, but not what we ate. We get stark feedback on heart rate and step count, but the tracker looks the other way if we order french fries and a glass of beer.
8. Tej Parikh thinks that China will win the AI race with the US. I think this piece is one of the least persuasive ones from Parikh.
9. As anti-immigration and nationalism trends rise, it is likely that US companies will show increasing preference for US-born chief executives.
Foreign-born CEOs already face a more difficult time than native ones. Academic research shows they are held to a higher standard for performance and are more likely to be dismissed when things are going wrong. They also have to work harder to prove their legitimacy and trustworthiness. In politicised environments, the margin for error becomes smaller.
10. The continuous weakening of rupee despite the combination of low inflation, high GDP growth rates, and low current account deficit (around 1% of GDP) can be traced to the worsening trade balance and weak FDI inflows.
Merchandise imports averaged about $62 billion a month in 2025, far exceeding exports of roughly $37 billion and leaving a $25 billion trade deficit. Although services exports offset much of this gap, weak goods exports and a rising import bill — driven in part by higher gold and silver prices — have skewed demand towards dollars... In 2025, foreign portfolio investors (FPIs) withdrew about $19 billion from Indian equities on a net basis — the worst outflow on record... Gross FDI inflows have been stuck at around 1.7 per cent of GDP since early 2023, well below the 3 per cent seen in the mid-2000s... Between January 2024 and October 2025, gross FDI inflows averaged about $7 billion a month, while withdrawals ran close to $4 billion, leaving net inflows of barely $3 billion — negligible for a $4 trillion economy. Once rising outward investment by Indian firms, averaging $2-3 billion a month, is taken into account, the picture worsens. In effect, India has received close to zero net FDI each month over the past 22 months.
Data shows that net FDI in November was negative $446 million, compared with negative $1.67 billion in October.
Lowering the government’s stake to 51 per cent in 78 listed public-sector enterprises (PSEs) could unlock value worth about ₹10 trillion.
12. Ashok Gulati has a summary of the food subsidy.
In the case of rice, the economic cost hovers around Rs 42/kg, and for wheat, it’s around Rs 30/kg to FCI. It gives 5 kg of free rice or wheat to about 813 million people under the PM Garib Kalyan Yojana. Roughly 56 per cent of the country’s population of around 1.5 billion is covered. The introduction of point of sale (POS) machines in more than 5 lakh fair price shops (FPS) was a significant reform of the Modi government. It helped to reduce massive leakages in PDS. But how rational is giving free food to 56 per cent of the population, when, according to the World Bank’s extreme poverty criteria — $3 per capita/day/in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms at 2021 prices — India’s poverty came down to just 5.3 per cent of the population in 2022? Even at a higher poverty line of $4.2/per capita/day, poverty in India was about 24 per cent. One can argue that the extremely poor need to be given free food (antyodaya). Viewed from this perspective, only about 5 per cent of the country’s population needs free food, while others should pay at least half of the MSP. If not, then this policy is nothing but the biggest political revdi (dole) the government is giving consumers for votes.
13. FT Alphaville suggests that the threat of pulling out from the $35 trillion foreign holdings of US financial assets is not a credible option for Europeans and others trying to exercise leverage over the US.
While the US’s large current account deficit suggests that in theory there is the potential for the USD to drop should international savers stage a mass retreat from US assets, the sheer size of US capital markets suggests that such an exit may not be feasible given the limitations of alternative markets.
14. Amidst China's real estate crisis, this stands out
China had about 440 square feet of housing for each man, woman or child living in cities in 2024, up from 340 square feet only 15 years earlier. It was less than 100 square feet per person before Mao Zedong’s death in 1976.
15. In a ruling that has far-reaching implications for how India applies tax treaties to offshore transactions, the Indian Supreme Court has ruled on the tax treatment of Tiger Global's capital gains from the sale of its investment in Flipkart (done through three Mauritius-based entities) to Walmart for about $1.6 billion in 2018.
Tiger Global had argued that capital gains on the transaction should only be taxed in Mauritius and not India, in line with a treaty in place between both countries for decades. While a significant amendment in 2017 to the treaty had made capital gains on transactions in Indian shares taxable in India, it also exempted share purchases that were made before the change came into force. The Delhi High Court agreed with this view at the time. Last week’s ruling essentially strikes down this interpretation and makes all transactions vulnerable to being taxed in the country. The exact amount Tiger Global will have to pay the tax authorities is unclear, but some estimates suggest that tax plus penalties may be close to $1.5bn...The court said holding a tax residency certificate was not a “magic wand” that automatically bestowed the benefits of the treaty, and that Indian tax authorities could examine whether the structure of an investment had been created primarily to avoid taxes. In his concurring opinion, one judge wrote: “Taxing an income arising out of its own country is an inherent sovereign right. Any dilution of this is a threat to a nation’s long-term interest.” This signals that the court could take a similar approach if presiding over other investments. Foreign investors typically use Singapore, Mauritius, the Netherlands or other treaty jurisdictions to structure their investments into India. The supreme court’s order will force a rethink on this.
16. China is influencing the course of the Russia-Ukraine war by informally supplying drones to both sides.
China already makes 70-80 per cent of the world’s commercial drones and dominates production of critical elements such as speed controllers, sensors, cameras and propellers, according to analytics provider Drone Industry Insights. That has made it a hidden fulcrum in the conflict. “It just puts into perspective how much control the Chinese actually have over the outcome of this war,” says Catarina Buchatskiy of the Snake Island Institute, a Kyiv-based military think-tank. “They could just choose to supply or not to supply the Ukrainians. I mean, the drone is such a definitive battlefield weapon now. It underlines how China has kind of evolved into a really influential player.” China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the country had “always maintained an objective and just position on the Ukraine crisis” and had “never supplied lethal weapons to any party to the conflict and strictly controls the export of dual-use items, including drones”.
17. AI-related capex contributed as much to the US economic growth in H1 of 2025 as consumer spending, which makes up 70% of the economic output.
18. This sort of sums up Trump's presidency
Trump’s behaviour seems to be becoming even more erratic. Since the beginning of the year, he has staged a military operation in Venezuela; promised to intervene in Iran; threatened to annex Greenland; dispatched hundreds of masked federal agents to Minnesota; and launched law suits against the head of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, and the head of JPMorgan, Jamie Dimon. That is in just three weeks and there are three years of his presidency left to go.
No comments:
Post a Comment