U.S. turn around on 26/11 and the MMRCA deal

The US state department spokesperson, Mark Toner almost went to say that the terror acts of 9th September 2001 and 26 November 2008 are not comparable. How did he justify Operation Geronimo? He says "What we've said all along is that this was an individual where, when we had actionable intelligence against him, we acted upon that because we believed he was a direct and imminent threat to the United States."

But the United States appeared reluctant to support India, if it chooses to carry out a similar operation against terrorists who have engaged in (proxy-) war against us. So, even if we have concrete information about Dawood Ibrahim's location and decide to carry out a similar operation, US won't support us. Why?

Now, if we try to connect the dots, what emerges is the fact that just last week, India rejected the bids of two American firms, namely Boeing (F/A-18 Hornet) and Lockheed Martin (F-16), from the $126 billion MMRCA deal. Had this deal been through, it would have generated lots of jobs back in the US, besides giving a fillip to either Boeing or Lockheed Martin. Add to that, a continued business in terms of spares, re-fitting, weaponry, etc. Alas, that was not to be. No matter how many times the US repeats that it respects India's decision, they are definitely hurt. There is a growing section that feels that India is ungrateful. They feel that the US has done a huge 'favour' to India by working out the 123 agreement, which ends India's isolation from the nuclear world. In reality, there was no 'favour' but purely business considerations. But, the US still has to see the economic benefits of the deal, as no concrete agreements have yet been signed with any of the American suppliers of nuclear power generation equipment.

So, a sore United States doesn't want to extend any more 'favours' to India. They are definitely hurt. One, the MMRCA deal has gone to Europe, with American businesses losing more than a $ 200 billion business over a long span. Two, the nuclear agreement hasn't led to any economic benefits as yet. Three, India abstained from voting on the UN Security Council resolution against Gaddafi in Libya. And hence, they are trying to distance themselves from being committed to helping India, in case it decides to carry out direct operations on Pakistani soil, in a manner similar to what they did. This denial, would boost Pakistan's confidence and shrink India's to a certain extent. It exposes the double standards of the US, where they are allowed to violate the sovereignty of any country in order to kill a person they call as their enemy, but other nations cannot do so. Of course, a few American citizens too have lost their lives in the terror attacks and the US may pursue the terrorists, to avenge killing of "their citizens", with none in the world questioning its aggression.

Note: This portion added as an afterthought
But, it now makes me wonder, what would America's position have been, had India short-listed either Boeing or Lockheed Martin in the final rounds. Surely, not as cold or opposite to what it appears today in the newspapers. No doubt, they would have further pressurised Pakistan into "taking action" against the perpetrators of  26/11 and then also went on to say that they are parallels between 9/11 and 26/11. At the very least, Mark Toner would not be make these statements in the media today.

What is common between Al Gore, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner?

In his world famous and super successful documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore utilises a lot of research and some sensational material that highlights the harm that the present lifestyle of humans can cause to mother Nature. He uses this to encourage and promote lifestyle changes that can atleast slow down, if not prevent, global warming. But, he faces a very steep uphill, because of the kind of opposition he is going to face to induce such lifestyle changes. Lobbyists from the oil industry, who need people to keep consuming oil and petrochemicals, even the automobile and airlines industries and many more people. These industries are easy targets as you can just give some large numbers on the carbon dioxide emissions emitted by them and introduce a guilt in the peoples' minds everytime they travel.

While I am not debating about who is the biggest villain and the best target to knock off first, let us look at how Al Gore has made his documentary. Let us accept that the only research that Gore has done is to collect data that highlights the causes of global warming. This has been done through published literature and talking to experts who have worked in this area for a long time. Gore has himself not performed any of the studies that have been used to build his documentary. Thus, Gore relies on and believes in the studies of the experts.

In their book Superfreakonomics, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner argue that while Al Gore's campaign is definitely good, it entails a lot of cost as it involves inducing behavioural changes in the humans. Instead, they suggest an alternate route that is cheaper and yet effective. Economists always attach a cost with any activity. But, what is forgotten, or deliberately avoided, is the fact that while we pay each other for the goods and services obtained, how do we pay back the nature, who is the source of all things living and nonliving? Nature doesn't accept currency. What it is currently accepting, is the burden of waste and emissions created by unmindful human activity.

In the chapter on Global Warming, Levitt and Dubner highlight some innovative(?) solutions that people are working on to reduce global warming. For most of their chapter, they rely on work done by a company called Intellectual Ventures (IV). IV is a company that is "building a portfolio of patents and creating an Invention Capital." It has also recently started its own research labs, where they try to find cost effective solutions to various existing problems. In this lab, IV researchers found out that injecting sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere from strategic locations, global warming can be avoided. This has been based on atmospheric studies that followed the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. These studies found that the eruption caused discharge millions of tons of sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere, which resulted in lower temperatures all around the world. Now, these studies and conclusions are drawn by scientists who are from prestigious institutes like MIT, Stanford, CalTech, etc. Levitt and Dubner have reported major parts of their conversation with the IV scientists.

But, what IV doesn't mention is that in 1992-93, the Ozone hole over Antarctica also reached an unprecedented size. This is merely six to eight months after the volcano exploded. Ofcourse, this may be because the amount of sulphur discharged in a short period of 1-2 days was unprecedented and staggering. And IV doesn't intend to release such amounts. Detailed arguments to oppose this strategy can lead to an independent posting on the blog.

Now, coming to the title of the post. So, what is common between Al Gore, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. They rely on the information presented by "experts" who may not have an unbiased view about their ideas. They place belief in the experts and report their views without seeming to question them too much. However, each of their experts does have an agenda in propagating his/her ideas. Getting more funding, generating profit through sale of tools and ideas are some such motives. In their first book Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner mention how information asymmetry leads to a bias in making decisions and forming views. Information asymmetry is when one party has access to certain information that it can use to its advantage, when the other party doesn't have any access to it. In this case, both parties, Gore and Levitt & Dubner are victims of information asymmetry.

Movie producers'-Multiplex owners row: A conspiracy theory

The ongoing strike by Bollywood producers against multiplex owners has definitely affected everybody. For those unaware, the producers decided to go on strike because the multiplex owners refused to agree to the producers' demands for greater share in profits from ticket sales at multiplexes. From movie watchers, to the producers, to the parking lot contractors, beverage stall owners in the multiplex, everyone stands to lose a lot of revenue. With movies not being released, their pirated versions too are not available. Hence many movie watchers (those who cannot afford multiplex tickets) are starved for movies.

But this strike is not without conspiracy theories. The beginning of the strike coincided with the IPL 2009 season. IPL began on 18th April (the kickoff began a few days earlier), while the movie producers began their strike on 3rd April. Well before the IPL, many producers had decided not to release movies when the IPL is going on as it affects their revenues. Hence, even without the strike, very few movies would have been released during the IPL. The tiff with multiplex owners gave the producers a very good reason for not releasing their movies. With this year's IPL producing much more drama, the bickering between producers and multiplex owners too started increasing as the tournament progressed. The IPL will be followed by the T20 World Cup in England. The T20 WC will be held between 6th and 21st June 2009. That IPL causes a drop in movie ticket sales is well known from previous year's experience.

According to this article (dated 5th May 2009), any movie requires 2-3 weeks of promotion prior to its release. And on 30th May, there were reports that the producers are willing to end the strike and have presented a compromise formula on the profits. Apparently, there have been claims that both sides are under pressure because of the financial losses they are facing. The ball now is in the multiplex owners' court. It is for the multiplex owners to now respond to the situation.

So, if the strike ends, we should see movies coming to multiplexes in two weeks from the date of truce. Assuming that the strike ends by 10th June, movies should be released on screens by 20th June. And 21st June is the T20 World Cup final. So, the multi-crore rupee question is

Was this strike actually called by the producers so as to extract a greater profit share from multiplex owners or was it just a means to avoid releases during IPL and T20 World Cup?