Stimulus and reforms don’t go together: Jaitley should have kept his fiscal deficit promise

Fostering Public Leadership - World Economic Forum - India Economic Summit 2010Vivek Kaul

Promises are meant to be broken, especially in politics. In the budget speech he made in July 2014, the finance minister Arun Jaitley had said: “My Road map for fiscal consolidation is a fiscal deficit of 3.6 per cent for 2015-16 and 3 per cent for 2016-17.” Fiscal deficit is the difference between what a government earns and what it spends. A little over seven months later he has gone back on his earlier promise. In the budget presented on February 28, 2015, Jaitley said: “I will complete the journey to a fiscal deficit of 3% in 3 years, rather than the two years envisaged previously. Thus, for the next three years, my targets are: 3.9%, for 2015-16; 3.5% for 2016-17; and, 3.0% for 2017-18.” The extra space that this creates will allow the government to incur an extra capital expenditure of Rs 70,000 crore during the next financial year. The thing is that just ramping up spending is not enough. At the end of the day what matters is not the quantity of spending but the quality. As Taimur Baig and Kaushik Das of Deutsche Bank Research had pointed out in a recent research report: “Recent budgets have routinely allocated close to 5% of GDP in capital spending, a non-trivial amount by any measure. But these generous allocations have not materialized in a discernible pick up in the investment cycle…If the authorities aim at high quality, high multiplier projects worth 4-5% of GDP as opposed to simply ramping up the rate of spending, they will handily achieve the goal of providing a boost to the economy, in our view.” This postponement of the fiscal consolidation by a year comes at a time when the Bhartiya Janata Party(BJP) has a majority in the Lok Sabha. The National Democratic Alliance(NDA) which the BJP heads, has close to 60% members in the Lok Sabha. The BJP has more than 50% members in the Lok Sabha. Given this, Jaitley and the BJP do not have to pander to the idiosyncrasies of multiple allies like the Congress led United Progressive Alliance(UPA) had to, before them. This is the first time India has had a single party stable government in the last quarter century. Over the years, one item that has wrecked the government finances is the subsidy on oil. Jaitley has been very lucky on that front since taking over. The price of the Indian basket of crude oil on May 26, 2014, the day the Modi government was sworn in, was $ 108.05 per barrel. It had fallen by around 60% to $43.36 per barrel by January 14, 2015. The oil price has risen since then. On February 26, 2015, the price of the Indian basket of crude stood at $59.19 per barrel. While prices have gone up over the last six weeks, they still are very low in comparison to where they were in May 2014, when the Modi government came to power. So, there is not much pressure on government finances when it comes to offering oil subsidies. Further, the government has used this opportunity to increas-e excise duty on petrol and diesel and garner revenue in the process. In fact, the finance minister has budgeted just Rs 30,000 crore for oil subsidies in 2015-2016, against the Rs 60,270 crore that will spent during this financial year. The consumer price inflation has also been brought under control by the Reserve Bank of India(RBI) and in January 2015 was at 5.1%. In fact, this is under the 6% inflation that the RBI will now have to work towards maintaining. As Jaitley said in his speech: “We have concluded a Monetary Policy Framework Agreement with the RBI, as I had promised in my Budget Speech for 2014-15. This Framework clearly states the objective of keeping inflation below 6%.” So, things are looking well on this front as well. The one big ticket item that Jaitley had to deal with were the recommendations of the 14th Finance Commission which increased the states’ share of central taxes from 32% to 42%. Jaitley chose not deal with another big ticket item in this budget. The public sector banks need a huge amount of capital in the years to come. The PJ Nayak committee report released in May 2014, estimated that between January 2014 and March 2018 “public sector banks would need Rs. 5.87 lakh crores of tier-I capital.” The report further points out that “assuming that the Government puts in 60 per cent (though it will be challenging to raise the remaining 40 per cent from the capital markets), the Government would need to invest over Rs. 3.50 lakh crores.” In the next financial year’s budget Jaitley has committed just Rs 7,940 crore towards this. So, he has more or less given this a complete miss. Also, as Jaitley said in his speech: “uncertainties that implementation of GST will create; and the likely burden from the report of the 7th Pay Commission.” This will only make things more difficult when it comes to controlling the fiscal deficit in the years to come. Long story short—controlling the fiscal deficit this year and ensuring that it was at 3.6% of GDP and not 3.9% of GDP was important. Also as Ruchir Sharma of Morgan Stanley pointed out in a recent column in The Times of India: “When the state spends in haste, it will repent at leisure…A stimulus mindset is the opposite of a tough reform mindset, and governments can rarely do both as the contrasting experience of the 1990s showed. By the end of that decade, most emerging nations had no money to burn, no lenders they could turn to.” So, stimulus and reforms don’t go together. Let’s see if Jaitley and the Modi government are able to prove that wrong. Only time will tell. But with 282 members in the Lok Sabha, Jaitley should have kept his promise to bring down the fiscal deficit on 28/2.

The column originally appeared on on Mar 2, 2015

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek) 

Busting a few myths about black money


Vivek Kaul

Growing up in erstwhile Bihar in the late 80s and early 90s, one of the first economic terms that I came across was “black money”. Those were pre Android phones, pre Google, pre internet, pre mobile phones and in large cases even pre landline phone days.
So, what did one do when one had a doubt like this and wanted to know what black money really was? One asked. Parents. Friends. Friends of friends(Okay, these were real friends of friends, not the Facebook variety that we have these days). Neighbourhood uncles and aunts.
Bhaiyyas and Didis preparing for the UPSC or the state public service exam. And hopefully an economist.
Ranchi was a small town during those days. My social studies text book even called it a “hill station”. And the chances of finding an economist there, were next to none (not that the chances have gone up now).
So, what you got were vague explanations like, black money was black money. People looked at you and probably wondered, why is the fellow even asking this.
And so the doubt remained. As time went by, as happens in such small towns, everyone who could leave the place, got up and left, including me. Of course, over the years, I figured out what black money was. Black money was black money, one of the few economic terms which are a definition in themselves.
In April 2009, the newspaper I worked for back then,
asked me to interview Proffesor R Vaidyanathan of the Indian Institute of Management at Bangalore. The professor put a number to the entire black money debate, which thanks to the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) was just about erupting then.
He said that around $1.4 trillion of Indian black money was stashed away abroad. This money, he elaborated could be in Switzerland and various British/US islands which are tax havens.
His estimate was based on a report titled
Illicit Financial Flows from Developing Countries: 2002—2006, brought out by Global Financial Integrity(GFI), a Washington based non profit organization.
The 2013 report of GFI said that nearly $343 billion of black money left India during 2002-2011. This amounted to around 3% of India’s economic output during the period. The number was particularly high in 2011, when around $84 billion may have left the country, the report suggested.
The GFI’s estimate does not take into account criminal activities as well as corporate tax evasion. These are massive sources of black money. Nevertheless, this is the most comprehensive study of black money which leaves emerging markets like India and hence, does give us a good idea of the amount of black money leaving the country.
In the recent past, prime minister Narendra Modi has taken up the issue of bringing back black money that has left India. In his latest radio broadcast over the weekend he told the country that “As far as black money is concerned, you should have faith on this ‘pradhan sevak’. For me, it is an article of faith. Every penny of the money of poor people in this country, which has gone out, should return. This is my commitment.”
While this is a good stand to take in public, getting back all the ‘black money’ that has gone out, back to India, is not a feasible proposition. The simple reason is that all this money is not lying around at one place.
There is a great belief that all this black money is lying around in Switzerland. This isn’t true.
Data released by the Swiss National Bank, the central bank of Switzerland, suggests that Indian money in Swiss banks was at around Rs 14,000 crore (2.03 billion Swiss francs). India was at the 58th position when it came to foreign money in Swiss banks. The total amount had stood at Rs 41,400 crore in 2006.
The reason for this is simple. Over the last few years as black money and Switzerland have come into focus, it would be stupid for individuals or companies sending black money out of India, to keep sending it to Switzerland.
There are around 70 tax havens all over the world. And so this money could be anywhere. Getting all this money back would involve a lot of international diplomacy and cooperation. Also, the question is why would tax havens return this money. Their economies run because of this black money and no one undoes a business model that is working.
An estimate made by the International Monetary Fund suggests that around $18 trillion of wealth lies in international tax havens other than Switzerland and beyond the reach of any tax authorities. Some of this money must have definitely originated in India.
Further, in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, interest rates in Western economies have crashed. Switzerland is no exception on this front and hence, Swiss banks have been paying very low interest rates over the last few years. Given this it doesn’t make any sense for Indian black money to go to Switzerland, when there are better returns to be made elsewhere.
Indian black money found its way into places like Switzerland when India had limited investment opportunities. But that is not the case now. Hence, chances are that over the last few years, Indian black money has largely stayed in India where it has been invested in areas like real estate or in metals like gold. Further, chances are that a lot of black money is being round-tripped into India through
hawala to be invested in physical assets like land, apartments etc.
Hence, it is important that instead of chasing black money stashed all over the world, the government starts looking at transactions which generate black money in India. The two sectors which generate a lot of black money are real estate and education. No real estate deal is complete without paying a certain amount of the deal amount in “cash”. And even school admissions these days lead to money changing hands in the form of a “donation”.
Why can’t the government start local when it comes to unearthing black money? The answer is fairly straightforward. Many real estate companies and education institutes are run by politicians. Try taking a taxi around Mumbai and you will realize that most so called “education institutes” are run by politicians. The way this works is that the education institute is run by a non profit organization but all the assets(like the building in which the education institute is run) are owned by a private limited company and the education institute pays a rent to the private limited company for using all the assets. This is how money is tunnelled out. Why can’t the government look at these transactions?
It is ironical that we don’t even have a decent estimate for the total amount of black money in this country.
As a 2012 white paper released by the ministry of finance stated “There are no reliable estimates of black money generation or accumulation, neither is there an accurate well-accepted methodology for making such estimation.”
If the government is serious about tackling the black money menace it first needs a reasonable estimate of the total amount of black money in this country. It needs a comprehensive mechanism to figure out how black money is being generated and how and where it being hidden.
Further, the central idea in unearthing black money should be to bring more and more people under the tax bracket. The situation is abysmal on this front. As the former finance minister P Chidambaram said in his February 2013 budget speech “There are 42,800 persons – let me repeat, only 42,800 persons – who admitted to a taxable income exceeding Rs 1 crore per year.” This is a totally ridiculous number. There are probably more people making that sort of money just in South Delhi.
If the government is serious about the black money issue, it should be going after these people who are hiding their income and not paying taxes. But the question is can it do that? The income tax department is one of the most corrupt institutions in the country and given half an opportunity they are ready to sell themselves out lock, stock and barrel.
Further, it is worth remembering that a lot of black money that is generated is ultimately used by politicians to fight elections. Hence, it is in their interest that the status quo continues. To conclude, black money stashed away in foreign destinations is not the real issue. The real issue is the black money that continues to be generated and hidden in India and the inability of the government to tackle it.

The article originally appeared on on Nov 6, 2014

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek) 

Borrow less, don’t blame RBI: Time Jaitley stops doing a Chidu on us

Fostering Public Leadership - World Economic Forum - India Economic Summit 2010Vivek Kaul

A favourite pastime of former finance minister P Chidambaram other than telling us that the Indian economic growth was about to bounce back, was to ask the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to cut interest rates.
The new finance minister Arun Jaitley has carried on from where Chidambaram left.
On August 10, Jaitley had nudged the RBI to cut interest rates after taking various factors into account.

The thing with most politicians is that either they do not understand how a market operates or they pretend otherwise. Jaitley and Chidambaram, I assume would fall into the latter category. Allow me to explain.
The latest RBI annual report points out that “
the household financial saving rate remained low during 2013-14, increasing only marginally to 7.2 per cent of GDP in 2013-14 from 7.1 per cent of GDP in 2012-13 and 7.0 per cent of GDP in 2011-12…the household financial saving rate [has] dipped sharply from 12 per cent in 2009-10.”
Household financial savings is essentially the money invested by individuals in
fixed deposits, small savings scheme, mutual funds, shares, insurance etc. The household financial savings were at 12% of the GDP in 2009-10. Since then, they have fallen dramatically to 7.2% in 2013-14. A major reason for the fall has been the high inflation that has prevailed since 2008.
This has had two impacts. One is that expenses of people have consistently gone up, leading to lower savings. Further, of the money that was saved a higher proportion was directed towards physical savings like gold and real estate. This was done because the rate of return available on financial savings was much lower than the rate of return on gold as well as real estate. The average savings in physical assets between 2005-06 and 2007-08 stood at 11.4% of the GDP. This shot up to 14.8% in 2012-13(the data for 2013-14 is not available).
What has not helped is the fact that over the last few years the fiscal deficit of the government shot up dramatically, as its expenditure shot up at a much faster rate, in comparison its income. Fiscal deficit of the government is the difference between what it earns and what it spends. This increase in fiscal deficit was financed through increased borrowing.
In fact, buried in the
second chapter of the Economic Survey of 2013-2014 is a very interesting data point. In 2012-2013, the household financial savings amounted to 7.1% of the GDP. The government borrowing stood at 7% of the GDP. A similar comparison for 2013-2014 is not available yet. Nevertheless, it would be safe to assume that it won’t be materially different from the 2012-2013 comparison.
The conclusion that one can draw from this is that entire household financial savings were used up to fund the fiscal deficit. This is also reflected in the
following table from the Economic Survey.
average cost of borrowing
As the government borrowed more and more, eating up into the household financial savings, the cost of its borrowing also went up. In 2009-10, the average cost of borrowing stood at 7.5%. By 2013-2014, this number had shot up to 8.3%.
Lending to the government is the safest form of lending. Hence, the rate of interest that the government pays on its borrowing becomes the benchmark for all other kind of loans. Also, with greater borrowing, it left a lower amount of money available for others outside the government to borrow. As the
Economic Survey pointed out “In recent years, with a decline in the savings rate and an enlarged fiscal deficit, the external capital from outside the firm, available to the private sector has declined.”
So, with the government paying a higher rate of interest on its debt, and not enough money going around for others (which included banks) to borrow, it isn’t surprising that you and I had higher EMIs to pay.
To cut a long story short, if interest rates need to come down, the government needs to borrow less. If the government has to borrow less, it needs to spend less or try and increase its income. If this happens, there will be more money going around for everyone else to borrow, and will lead to a fall in interest rates.
Unless these things happen, any call by the finance minister asking the RBI to cut interest rates needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. The RBI may decide to humour the finance minister and go ahead and cut the repo rate (the rate at which it lends to banks). Nevertheless, any material fall in interest rates will happen only once the government is able to make serious efforts towards curtailing the fiscal deficit.
And the next time you hear Jaitley asking the RBI to cut interest rates, remember, he is trying to do a Chidambaram on us.

The article originally appeared on on August 23, 2014

Act now: Arun Jaitley needs to use his lucky streak to push through reforms


Fostering Public Leadership - World Economic Forum - India Economic Summit 2010

Napoleon Bonaparte once said “I know he’s a good general, but is he lucky?”
Luck is an essential part of politics and lucky governments tend to do better than plain and simple skilful governments. As ex cricketer turned writer Ed Smith writes in
Luck—A Fresh Look At Fortune “Academic research supports the idea that voters often can’t tell the difference between lucky governments and skilful ones.” In fact, research carried out by Australian economist Andrew Leigh suggests that “it is more important to be a lucky government than an effective government”. Leigh studied nearly 268 elections between 1978 and 1999.
As Smith writes regarding this study “A government’s average rate of re-election is 57 per cent…Even superb economic management, outpacing world growth by 1 percentage point, only raises the Prime Minister or President’s likelihood of re-election from 57 per cent to 60 per cent. An economically competent government gets an electoral boost of 3 per cent; a lucky one gets a leg up of 7 per cent [i.e.]… the government’s re-election rate jumps to a 64 per cent likelihood.”
Hence, if a government has “luck” going for it, it is important that it does not throw it away and takes some decisions that help it over the long term.
Narendra Modi took over as the Prime Minister of India on May 26, 2014. Things were looking difficult on the economic front and a poor monsoon was being predicted.
The fiscal deficit of the Indian government as on May 31, 2014, stood at Rs 2,40,837 crore. This meant that during the first two months of the financial year (April 2014 to March 2015), the fiscal deficit had already reached 45.6% of the annual target. By June 30, 2014, the fiscal deficit for the first three months of the financial year had reached 56.1% of the annual target. Fiscal deficit is the difference between what a government earns and what it spends.
Typically the income of the government is back loaded, given that its earnings are the highest during the last three months of the financial year. But a large part of the expenditure of the government is more or less spread out through the financial year. Given this, the fiscal deficit typically tends to be high during the first few months of the year.
Nevertheless, even after taking this factor into account, a fiscal deficit of 56.1% of the annual target during the first three months of the year was a very high number. During the last financial year the number had stood at 48.4%. This was largely a reflection of the fiscal mess that the Congress led UPA government had left the country in.
Over and above this, the initial monsoon numbers were not very encouraging. The India Meteorological Department(IMD) in a press release dated July 11, 2014, pointed out that the“rainfall activity was deficient/scanty over the country as a whole” for the period between July 3 and July 9, 2014. This deficiency of rainfall was at 41% of the long period average.” This delay in rainfall had led to a 51% annual decline in the sowing of kharif crops.
These two factors which could have undermined the performance of the new Modi government greatly, have changed for the good in the recent past.
One of the major reasons for a high fiscal deficit has been the fact that oil marketing companies have been incurring huge “under-recoveries” on the sale of diesel, cooking gas and kerosene. The government in turn has had to compensate the OMCs for these “under-recoveries”. This pushed up the government expenditure and hence, the fiscal deficit.
The good news is that oil prices have been falling.
The international crude oil price of Indian Basket of oil as computed by Petroleum Planning and Analysis Cell (PPAC) fell to US$ 99.94 per barrel on 19.08.2014. Two months earlier on June 19, the price of the Indian basket of oil had touched $111.94 per barrel.
This fall in oil prices has ensured that
the under-recoveries of the OMCs for the financial year 2014-15 are projected to be Rs 91,665 crore while the figure was Rs 1,39,869 crore in the 2013-14. If this trend continues the government is likely to incur a lower expenditure for compensating the OMCs for their under-recoveries. And this will also have an impact on the fiscal deficit.
The government has also been lucky on the monsoon front. As the IMD said in a release dated August 15, 2014, “For the country as a whole, cumulative rainfall during this year’s monsoon has so far upto 13 August been 18% below the Long Period Average (LPA).” This is way lower than the deficiency in early July. A bad monsoon could have created several economic challenges for the government. Thankfully, the scenario did not turn out to be as bad it was initially expected to be. Hence, it is safe to conclude that the Modi government has indeed been very lucky on the economic front during its first 90 days.
Given this, the government should use this lucky streak to push in some reform on the pricing of petroleum products. With oil prices falling, this would be a good time to decontrol diesel prices. Over and above this , this would be a good time to limit subsidies on kerosene and cooking gas as well.
As has been suggested here earlier, this might be a good time to start raising cooking gas prices by Rs 10 per cylinder every month, in order to eliminate the subsidy on it, over a period of time.
What might further work for the Modi government is the fact that oil prices might continue to fall in the years to come. As Crisil Research points out in a report titled
Falling crude, LNG, coal prices huge positive for India dated August 2014 “Over the next five years, we expect global oil demand to increase by 4-4.5 m
illion barrels per day (mbpd).
However, crude oil supply is expected to increase by 8-10 mbpd. This, we believe, will bring down prices from current levels.”
This should help the government control its fiscal deficit. If the government is able to lower its fiscal deficit, it will have to borrow less and that will eventually lead to lower interest rates. If the government borrows less, there will be more money to lend to others. At lower interest rates consumers are more likely to borrow and spend. This will have a positive impact on economic growth.
The Modi government has luck going for it right now, but this may or may not last. Hence, it is important that it makes the best of it, and pushes in some decisions which will work well for the economy in the long run.

The article originally appeared on on August 22, 2014 
(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek)

The risk of high food inflation hasn't gone away yet



Vivek Kaul 

Consumer price inflation(CPI) for the month of June 2014 came in at 7.31%. This was the lowest since January 2012. Wholesale price inflation(WPI) for the month of June 2014 had come in at 5.43%, which was a four month low.
A major reason for the fall in overall inflation has been a fall in food inflation, which as measured by the CPI, stood at 7.90% during the month of June 2014. In May 2014, the rate had stood 9.4%. In June 2013, the rate was at 11.84%.
Food inflation has been controlled to some extent due to several steps taken by the Narendra Modi government, which was sworn into power in May 2014. The government has set limits on the export of staples like onions and potatoes. It also decided to sell 5 million tonnes of rice in the open market.
These steps have obviously helped in the near-term. But how do things look over the next few months? The
India Meteorological Department in a press release dated July 11, 2014, pointed out that the“rainfall activity was deficient/scanty over the country as a whole” for the period between July 3 and July 9, 2014. This deficiency of rainfall was at 41% of the long period average.
This delay in rainfall has led to a 51% annual decline in the sowing of
kharif crops. What this means is that there will be an impact on their production in the months to come, which is likely to lead to a price rise.
When it comes to rice and wheat, the government has enough stock to ensure that it can prevent a rise in their price. As on July 1, 2014, the Food Corporation of India,
had a food grain stock of close to 69 million tonnes, which is much more than the strategic reserve that it needs to maintain. A part of this stock can be sold in the open market, in case the lack of adequate rainfall has an impact on the production of food grains, in the months to come.
But the government does not have the same option when it comes to vegetables and fruits. WPI data suggests that vegetable prices fell by 5.89% in June 2014, in comparison to a year earlier. CPI data suggests that vegetable prices went up by 8.73% in June 2014, in comparison to a year earlier.
If we look at the breakup provided by the WPI data potato prices went up by 42.52% in June. A major reason for the same seems to be the fact that the delay in the rains has led to a delay in sowing, harvesting and supply of crops.
Data provided by
the National Horticultural Research and Development Foundation proves this. As on June 2, 2014, the potato prices at the Agra mandi were Rs 12.15 per kg and the arrival of potatoes was at 1350 tonnes. On July 14, 2014, the arrival of potatoes had fallen to 720 tonnes and the price had shot up to Rs 16.20 per kg. This explains to a large extent the dramatic rise in the price of potatoes in the month of June. The current trend suggests that the price of potatoes will continue to rise in July as well.
Also, despite a minimum export price of $450 per tonne being set, a huge amount of potatoes are being exported to Pakistan.
A recent PTI report suggests that “as much as 1,500 to 2,000 tonnes of potatoes are being exported to Pakistan per day through Attari-Wagah land route in the wake of scarcity of the main vegetable crop in the neighbouring nation.”
And what about onions? Onion prices in June 2014 went up by 10.7% in comparison to the same period in 2013. In June 2013, onion prices had risen by 114.76%. The onion prices between May and June 2014 rose by 16.06%.
The arrival of onions at Lasalgaon, the biggest onion
mandi in the country has come down between June and July. In June, the average daily arrival of onions had stood at around 1590 tonnes, at an average price of Rs 13.67 per kg. For the first half of July, the average arrivals have fallen to a little over 1200 tonnes at an average price of Rs 19.67 per kg.
This clearly is not a good sign.
A recent report in the Business Standard pointed out that the National Horticultural Research and Development Foundation put “the onion inventory across the country at 2.4-2.5 million tonnes.” The country consumes around 1.2 million tonnes of onions per month. This means that the current stock of onions will last till end of August 2014. “The problem will aggravate in September, when the existing stocks finish. The government should start importing,” RP Gupta, director of National Horticultural Research and Development Foundation told the Business Standard. Onions can last as long as six months. Hence, unlike vegetables, the government can import and store onions if it wants to.
Other than this, fruit and milk prices continue to rise at a very high rate. Fruit prices in June 2014 rose by 21.4%( as per the CPI) and milk prices rose by 10.82%(as per the CPI). Egg, meat and fish prices also rose by 10.27%(as per the CPI) in comparison to last year. This is an impact of the loose-fiscal policy run by the Congress led United Progressive Alliance government. As a recent report titled
What a Waste! Brought out by Crisil Research points out “Loose fiscal policy, rising demand for high-value food items and substantial increases in wages — especially in rural wages, as a spillover [of] the rural employment guarantee scheme — have translated into higher demand for proteins. This has raised the prices of items such as milk & milk products, egg, fish and meat as supply falls short of demand. The production of milk and eggs has risen by only 3-4% a year, compounded annually, during 2009-10 to 2012-13, while inflation in this category has risen 14-15% a year.”
Due to these reasons the risk of high food inflation will not go away any time soon.
The article appeared with a different headline on on July 15, 2014

(Vivek Kaul is a writer. He tweets @kaul_vivek)