It is the power of perception, silly

We are now well aware of the love that Justice Katju has for Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi. And also how this love spruced up Arun Jaitley's love for Justice Katju.

In his article, Justice Katju persuades 'idiot' Indians to not commit the mistake that the Germans made in 1933, when they elected Adolf Hitler to power. But Justice Katju does not mention why this happened. Germany was humiliated at the end of World War 1. The country was asked to bear the costs of the war and simultaneously was restrained from developing its industrial capacities and power to the fullest potential. This led to economic mismanagement, hyper inflation, joblessness and erosion of  hard-earned personal savings. Amidst all this Hitler's party provided a road map to what Germans of that time perceived as recovery to glory. And Hitler bolstered these perceptions through actions at critical points in time. This strengthened the perception that only the Nazi party can restore Germany's lost glory. The final nail in the coffin was the Great Depression, a product of the great American economic mismanagement. The result: an overwhelming number of unemployed young and old people in a stagnant economy and a political landscape that didn't inspire any hope or confidence.

See some common part? The creation of a perception and backing it up with visible actions. Today the youth of India perceive Modi as a man of action. They want an economy that is fully functional and provides them with jobs. They realise that the only way to achieve progress is through economic development. And he has backed these perceptions with actions. When every Tom, Dick and Harry is looting the country, Modi comes across as a clean person who hasn't indulged in any kind of corruption. His biggest PR coup was in getting Tata Motors' Nano plant to Gujarat in a matter of days. And almost every industrial house has lauded him for his skills in providing an investment friendly atmosphere.

What is the perception about Modi's challenger, Rahul Gandhi? He doesn't seem to have a firm stand on any issue that troubles today's youth. He doesn't appear to take a strong stand against those in his government who are  accused of corruption. His election time speeches haven't inspired the voters in UP, Bihar and Gujarat. He claims to strive for merit but is made Vice President of the Congress party even when he hasn't led the party to a single electoral victory! Majority of the 'youth' he has promoted are sons of erstwhile ministers. His plans on kick starting the economy are not known. He doesn't interact with people through media or social media and always seems to keep away from scrutiny. His own brother-in-law seems to be financially benefiting from Rahul and Sonia Gandhi's position in the centre. To top it, Robert Vadra called us 'idiot Indians' as "mango people in banana republic." In such a scenario, how cam he persuade people to vote for his party?

Oh yes, the riots of Gujarat were a reality and Narendra Modi was at the helm of affairs during those riots. You claim he hasn't been brought to justice. But so is the case with the 1984 anti-Sikh riots of Delhi. Who has been punished for those riots? In fact, the man who said that this is a reaction of very very angry people was made the Prime Minister of the country in just a few weeks of making that statement. Justice Katju, you did appeal to us 'idiot Indians' to not commit the mistake that the Germans committed in 1933. That we should not have a situation where Narendra Modi is at the helm of affairs of our country. Going by your appeal even those at the helm of the Congress should not be brought back to power. But sir, you haven't enlightened us about a possible and credible alternative to Mr. Modi. In such a scenario what are we 'idiots' supposed to do? Hope you do not take us on a ride with this opinion of yours!

Dear Indian media, there are others apart from US elections

This post is born out of frustration. About reporting in the Indian web and electronic media. With the US election scheduled in November, everyone was busy reporting on the tiny details of the two candidates. Where Obama spoke, where did Romney have dinner, how their wives felt, etc. Hell, on the last two days, the reporters went into a kind of frenzy, reporting every step the two candidates took, that Obama cried during his final speech and many more. Now, most of the netizens will not be able to point out on the map, any of the cities or towns these two campaigned in. So, why are these elections so important to hog a major portion of the news space in India? Do we have no other newsworthy matters in hand?
Stephen Harper, Canada's prime minister, chose to visit India at perhaps a wrong time. Because our media was not interested in bringing to us what Harper had brought for the country. Our media felt that it is of more importance for Indians to know who the next US president is! So, nothing was in the prime time about Harper's visit to India. Nor was anything reported about his security personnel rejecting Indian measures and shipping in their own security limousines for Harper. Who is going to find out the truth of why this happened? When a visiting dignitary has to bring in his own security vehicles, is he being snobbish or is our government guilty of inadequacy? But of course, this doesn't matter to our media. What is more important news is how Obama cried in his last campaign speech.
Forget this negative part. The Harper government signed a few agreements with the Indian government. Of these, one was setting up a research programme with three Canadian universities and the IITs in the area of clean water technologies. But we know nothing of that! More importantly the two governments signed an agreement where temporary Indian employees working in Canada and temporary Canadian employees working in India and their will not have to contribute towards their social security or pension plans. This allows both, the companies and their employees, to save costs incurred on things whose benefits they wouldn't have ever received. Do we know of this? No, but we do know that Obama cried during his last speech. Doesn't matter if many Indians working on-site have been crying for years on the unjust contributions they have to make to the US social security system, when they are not eligible to receive any benefit from it.
We cheered Obama when he came to India and hailed him to take the nuclear reactor deal forward. But nuclear reactors run on uranium, which will not come from USA, but from Canada as it has one of the largest reserves of uranium. But we do not yet know at what stage is a deal for uranium supply with Canada? And what did Harper's visit achieve in that direction? We will have to read Canadian newspapers for that because our dear media was busy dissecting why Romney lost and Obama won! More importantly Canada wants to sign a free trade agreement with India. What will this agreement cover? What is the Indian government's view about this agreement? No we won't know of that till our media finds time from reporting how democrats and republicans will never reach any agreement because each controls one house of the US government.
Seriously, I am tired of this minute-by-minute updates of all that doesn't matter to our country. How do these affect India? In almost no way. Romney or Obama it doesn't matter to us. They don't do us any favour. While India has been purchasing military equipment from the US firms through its tax payers' money, the same are given to our western neighbours as part of aid to "fight terrorism". And why cheer Obama who has, during his campaign, talked of India only as a job stealer through outsourcing? More importantly, why not cheer Harper, who has given Indian employees on Canada their fair dues?  What I am seriously tired of is the Indian media. They have their own ideologies and iron-cast agendas. They won't budge from that. The nation's interest is secondary. That's why we saw more headline space for Sandy, compared to Nilam. In the web media it appeared as if Nilam had just kissed the Indian coast while Sandy rammed through the USA. New York's preparations where highlighted throughout, but not Tamil Nadu's. And of course, they conveniently missed the fact that the same Sandy had caused far more devastation in poor countries like Haiti and Cuba, which face crop loss too. But alas, they weren't having elections where the state was ruled by an opposing party to the president.

What is better: FDI or FII?

For now, the debate on foreign direct investment (FDI) in retail has been put on the back-burner. But, there is a raging debate on whether to allow FDI in the airline industry. As of now, foreign institutional investment (FII) in airlines is allowed. So, what is the difference between FDI and FII? And which is more beneficial?

In FII, there are investment banks or financial institutions based on foreign soil, which invest their money in shares of various companies in India. While there are complex rules and regulations that govern in what and how much they can invest, they are basically like stock brokers. They invest in stocks, which they feel will fetch them good returns. They are betting on the good financial performance of the company. And since they can invest anywhere in the world, they will always invest money, when they feel there is an environment for good growth in the particular business. And, once they feel that the environment is going bad and not conducive for growth, they will begin pulling out. Remember, this money after being pulled out of the stocks, gets repatriated out of the country. Domestic institutions, even if they withdraw from the stock market, keep the money within the country. In short, on a phone call or at the click of a mouse, billions of rupees can either flow into the country or flow out of the country.

On the other hand, FDI implies that the foreign entity comes to India, either on its own or in partnership with a local company, and invests in the permitted sector by putting in manufacturing, logistics, marketing facilities and helping set up a host of ancillary units. This leads to creation of assets in the country, using foreign currency. Of course, the investment is going to be recovered over time, and some portion of the profits are going to move to the parent company's country, but then a large portion of the revenue gets spent within the country itself. Moreover, it is not difficult to dispose of these created assets overnight. The procedure is tedious. Thus, only those companies who can stay invested through the thick and thin times, will think of investing. Moreover, if the foreign partner wants to exit, they have to sell off the assets to some person. Again, while the profits might go out of the country, the principal amount invested, does stay back. Thus, FDI always allows for a substantial portion of the capital to remain invested within the country. Of course, businesses might not be amenable to FDI. The foreign partner may obviously want some control over business decisions and directions. They might also decide what technology to bring in and what not to. Moreover, if the foreign company opens a wholly owned subsidiary here, then with their deep pockets, they can resort to predatory pricing and give the domestic ones a tough time. But, in the bigger picture, it is FDI which brings in technology, assets and some of the best global practices in business.

In India, we wouldn't have been driving cars manufactured by Honda, Toyota, etc. without FDI. Nor, could we have seen the impressive returns on stock investments, without some contribution from FII. On the flip side, cold-drinks like Gold Spot vanished from the Indian market, once Parle sold their soft-drink companies to Coca-Cola. And the swings that one witnesses in stock markets or the price of the dollar, is partly induced by FIIs moving their money in and out of the country. An increase of both, though, signifies confidence in the government's policies, the ability of various government bodies to execute these policies and the capability of the local market to, at least partly, absorb their products. So, to sum it up, FDI is essential for bringing in foreign companies and allowing them to create assets, which will stay in the country forever. FIIs are essential to provide the money required for investment, without having to rope in a partner in the assets. Which one is better? Up to you to make a decision!

To FDI or not to FDI (in retail)?

With its decision on allowing 51% FDI in multi-brand retail, the cabinet has set loose the cat amongst the pigeons. Everyone, from those for it and those against it have been running helter-skelter to justify their stand. Now, I do not know if FDI in retail is a good option or not, because opinions of both sides have left me confused. But here are a few things that I would like to throw open to the readers of this blog. Readers are free to make their own decision on FDI in retail.

1. The Prime Minister said that FDI in retail would bring in modern technology and investment in back-end storage and logistics. This would help prevent damage to produce and thereby give a better price to farmers. But such technology isn't exactly any rocket science, that cannot be developed locally. More so, with Indian retail firms being there for long, why haven't they been able to invest in such technologies? Was it reluctance on their part or did government policies prevent them from  making such large-scale investments? Moreover, storage and transportation of fresh produce requires massive investments in infrastructure and streamlining of procedures. E.g., good roads that can endure heavy traffic, transparency in functioning of various toll nakas and R.T.O. check points, a reliable supply of electricity in small towns and villages, where farms are located. Why wasn't such investment made before? If India can develop technologies to send a spacecraft to the moon, such things should definitely be simpler.
2. Better prices of farmers and producers is also touted as another benefit. But then, if retailers were giving good prices to farmers, why is the US and EU continuously subsidising agricultural products? In effect, the taxpayers of the US and EU are collectively paying for the produce indirectly, when such money can be used for the benefit of the society at large.
3. Before bringing in FDI in retail, what has been done by the government to reduce wastage of food produce due to poor logistics and/or storage facilities? Everybody (at least the government) knows that farmers have to compulsorily sell their produce at the mandis or nearest APMC. All the wholesalers in these mandis are generally affiliated to some political party or the other. Even the workers at these mandis have unions which are affiliated to a particular political party. The elections to the office of these mandis is hard fought by political parties and used to show case their control over the local politics. This makes it quite clear as to why have these mandis not modernised. They never feared competition, because they patronised all those who were in power. They use their muscle in the legislature to see to it that nothing forces them to make investments and reduce cash flow. The wholesalers in these mandis have been responsible for loss of produce as well as its inefficient handling, leading to unnaturally high prices. Even if the government changes this law and allows the farmers to sell the produce to someone who offers them the best price, it would help the farmers, without the need for FDI. I have a suspicion here. With most mandis being dominated by regional parties, is the Congress trying to strike at their base by weakening their clout through the mandis?
4. While FDI in retail will generate jobs for many, how many would be lost? We need to consider the worst case scenarios in both cases, i.e. the minimum number of jobs that can be generated and the maximum that could be lost. Once we have that picture in front of us, then we can make an informed decision about whether there would be a positive employment or negative one.
5. The Amul model of co-operative involvement has been extremely successful in Gujarat and areas where Amul is operational. This means that Amul definitely has a lot of expertise in the areas of logistics and food processing, storage, transportation, etc. Why wasn't Amul called upon to provide their expertise to other agricultural areas as well? And can't others learn from Amul about the intricacies of logistics, storage, etc.? What prevents such learning, apart from no fear of competition? (Thanks, Dwaipayan Dasgupta for pointing this out)
6. Back in the early nineties, when the Indian economy was being liberalised, there was a group of people, basically owners of various companies, which was called the "Bombay Club". They lobbied with the government against liberalisation, stating that it would spell doom for Indian companies. But, the government went ahead and many of those belonging to the Bombay Club now have companies which are successfully competing with foreign giants and giving them a run for their money. Why? Because these companies were left with no choice, but to adapt the global standards. Will the similar analogy hold for the current retailers and wholesalers?
7. Despite the presence of many Indian retail giants such as Reliance Fresh, Big Bazaar, More, etc. my mother still prefers buying wheat and rice from her trusted aadatiya. At home, we still get our flour ground from the neighbourhood flour mill. And our family still buys fruits and vegetables from the vendor on the street or in the mandi. How difficult would it be for the big retailers to change this mind-set of the Indian consumer? Remember, Reliance Fresh, with perhaps the deepest pockets amongst the Indian retail giants, hasn't been able to shave off too much business from the small retailers.
8. Can we afford to become a country, where people drive 10-15 km (one way), just to get their weekly/fortnightly supplies? This, at a time when petrol prices are going through the roof with every passing day! The small retailer saves us a lot of fuel when we walk down to his shop and buy stuff from there. So, will the saving on food prices be enough to compensate for this long drive?
9. They say, a picture is worth a thousand words. I saw this picture at the Rumtek monastery near Gangtok. We need to learn a lot from this picture. It perhaps sums up the fact that we need to take a holistic approach on the issue of FDI in retail and not just look at it being able to provide more money to farmers and cost less to end consumers!!

Bring on the obituaries for nuclear energy

The tragedy of the unprecedented earthquake and tsunami in Japan has given all the so-called experts and environmentalists to pressurise governments around the world to give up power generation using nuclear energy. And they have forced many editorials, which are virtually writing obituaries for nuclear energy.

Thanks to the 24 hour breaking and sensationalising news channels, those opposing the Jaitapur nuclear power project have got a new lease of life. They have been claiming that the earthquake has shown how dangerous nuclear energy is and are asking the government to think of other sources to generate electricity. What other sources? None have a clear answer about it. Many of them say that renewable sources of energy should be used. The proposed Jaitapur project would generate around 10,000 MW of electricity, once fully operational. Do the opponents have an idea, how much land would be required to generate the same amount of power using wind energy? A rule of thumb indicates that roughly 60 acres/MW are required if wind farms are built on land. This means, roughly 6,00,000 acres of land will be required to build a Jaitapur equivalent of wind farm. Do we have that much land to spare, even when farming is possible alongside a wind turbine?

If catastrophic disasters were to shape events in history, we perhaps would never be driving cars or flying in aeroplanes.The debris of Air France flight 447 hasn't yet been recovered. The crash caused a loss of 228 lives. Over the decades, commercial aircraft have crashed for various reasons and we have lost precious lives in these unfortunate incidents. This hasn't prevented the civil aviation sector from expanding like never before, nor has it stymied the development of new, better, larger and faster aeroplanes. So, why does nuclear energy invoke such fear?

Why isn't similar (or greater) contempt reserved for coal-fired power plants? Though they do not pose a threat of radiation contamination, but contamination of the environment due to fly ash and smoke has had an adverse effect on the people residing near such power plants for over generations. And when people talk of problems in disposing nuclear waste, they conveniently forget the havoc caused by fly-ash waste, which is gathering in landfills. In India, less than 50% of fly ash is recycled. Isn't it a problem? We do not have technology to safely dispose fly-ash, yet do not oppose coal-fired power plants.

The point I want to make here, is that we cannot wait beyond a certain limit to get started with enjoying the benefits of technology. We have to use and develop it side-by-side. Anticipate problems, solve them early and if mishaps or disasters occur, we should learn from them and improve designs and procedures accordingly. Writing such premature obituaries is not going to help in any manner. Nuclear power is currently cheapest among the clean methods to generate electricity and if India desires to achieve all-round development, it will have to make use of this source at some point of time. And the earlier it does, the better it would be.

I would like to end with an interesting quote, I heard the other day. "The earthquake and tsunami have resulted in the deaths of more than 10,000 persons in Japan. But the failure of the Fukushima nuclear power plants hasn't yet cause a single death."

European diaries, Part 3: Rules, regulations and human rights

Now that I have written a few good and humourous things about Europe, let me also talk about the "bad" things in Europe. Here, in India, we keep on commenting how clean the western countries are, how they follow rules and regulations, etc., etc. Well, mainland Europe is clean, its streets are bereft of any dirt or garbage. People carry leftovers in their bags and drop them off only in bins kept at frequent locations and cleaned at regular intervals.

But, to say that (western) Europeans have highest regard for rules and regulations, is far-fetched. In Europe, smoking is banned in public places and public transport. So, while Europeans do not smoke on trains, you should watch them at railway stations. Before boarding the train, the passengers smoke incessantly. And as the guard blows the whistle, to indicate closing of doors, they stub the cigarette on the platform and get into the train. These stubs are left on the platform, to be collected by the cleaning staff, whenever they do their rounds. Even at intermediate stations, passengers get down from the train, take a few puffs and then get back in the train. It is common to find numerous cigarettes stubs at station entrances and exits.

In the Louvre museum in Paris, there are strict instructions, written on the entry ticket and atleast one wall of every gallery, to not use the camera flash while photographing the artwork inside. Yet, you will find everybody, majority of whom are Europeans and Americans, violating this rule and nonchalantly using the camera flash to click photographs. They do not even spare the cathedral, where others have come in to offer their prayers.

And finally, while the European Union champions itself as an organisation that strives for enforcement of human rights, it falters in its own backyard. One of the most basic right of any human is access to potable water. Even in India, (supposedly "third world" and having a bad record of human rights violations) there are free water fountains in cities, towns, railway stations, etc. where anybody can drink water. And restaurants are bound by law to provide potable water free of costs to their customers. But, none of this exists in Europe. You are required to buy your beverage at the restaurant, whether it is water or Coke. And both are priced at the same rate. Of course, tap water in Europe is so potable, that you can even drink from the wash basin tap. But then, isn't it necessary to provide for free (or cheap) access to water to commoners? Why should water be priced at the same rate as cold-drinks or slightly cheaper than beer? I do not see any of the European countries acting on this issue any time in the future. Even the USA has a law which makes it compulsory to provide free potable water at every place that serves food.*

While we brood about our uncivilised ways and their civilised ways, let's thank God for the things we already have.

*About the free potable water in USA, I was told about this by a US citizen. I personally do not know if such a law exists and do not hold me responsible if this information is incorrect.

Denouncing Hindu traditions is ticket to being "cool" and "progressive"

While the debate and outrage about the Khap panchayats in Haryana banning same-gotra marriage continues, many of the so-called neo-, liberal-Hindus have jumped on to the Hindu tradition bashing wagon. What the Khaps do, or prescribe is not appreciable at all, but why start bashing Hindu traditions on a whole, even without trying to understand it?

I came across this article by "youth icon" Chetan Bhagat.

What's Gotra Got To Do With It?

The great literary genius of today opens the article by saying, "I don't know why it was invented, or why it is still relevant. As if it wasn't good enough to divide people on caste, we needed one more level of sub-caste slicing to ensure as many Indians hate each other as possible." Well, honourable Chetan Bhagat, if you do not know, why are you commenting about it. Even Wikipedia has an explanation about the gotra system. If you do not believe in Wikipedia, it has a set of references given at the end of the articles, which you are free to explore. But no, you choose to bash the Hindu traditions left, right and centre. Because, that is what makes you the "modern", "progressive" and "cool" person that you are. That is what makes you the "youth icon". And it is you, who is making a baseless claim that by sub-dividing into gotra, we are making humans hate each other as much as possible. No sir, we do not "hate" any person from other gotra.

Remember, Hindu religion is the only one which gives mere recommendations and guidelines to its followers. You can be a Hindu even if you do not believe in Ram. But, if you openly express disbelief in Mohammed, you'll be persecuted. Or, in the Christian world, be thrown out of the church.

The gotra system was devised to identify people according to a set of genetic composition. How did this system evolve, may still be a mystery, but it doesn't mean that it was born out of thin air to satisfy someone's ego. There is a rationale behind it. Try to explore that. But, you do not have the time to do it. It is easier to bash the tradition rather than explore the logic behind it. And marriages within the same gotra were avoided so that the diversity of the genetic pool is maintained and there is less chance of aggravation of the weaknesses that people belonging to the same set of gene pools would have.

Sir, in the kind of social circles that you live, you might be meeting wildlife activists and conversation experts. If you sit and talk with them, they would tell you how dangers inbreeding is. That is, the dangers of allowing a pride of tigers to breed amongst themselves. The mother of the pride forcibly kicks the young ones out of her zone so that they do not inbreed with the females. You see, nature too has its own way of ensuring genetic diversity. And this is why, when a tiger and two tigresses were transferred into Panna National Park, they were chosen from different sanctuaries. So, let us leave all your mathematics and calculations of only 0.1% of DNA may be sibling like. All the mathematics and computer simulations of your fellow MBAs and investment bankers couldn't prevent the financial recession.

Many of the ancient Indian customs and religious activities have a reason for existence. The responsibilities of "educated" people like you is to try to search the reason behind it and weed out all that is not correct. For e.g., the ghungat system, dowry, etc. But, you choose to bash and berate every tradition of the Hindus. To add, you are an IIT engineer and an IIM-A MBA holder. You should be scientifically decimating the theory that same-gotra marriages are harmful, but you choose to play with emotions. And you play to the gallery of the neo-Hindus.

I would have liked your article if it was against the dictator-like rule of the Khaps. That is completely unacceptable. That high-handed rule of the Khaps has got nothing to do with the gotra system. It is just that this is one of the issues they are using to flex their muscles. But you choose to centre your article around "regressive ideas" of the Hindus.

Earth Hour Participation: What would be achieved?

Earth Hour is back!! Today, on March 27th, we would be switching off almost all of our connections with the electricity for one hour between 8:30 PM to 9:30 PM. How many in India would participate is a question. With IPL on in full swing, there would be a very few people who would want to contribute their bit towards this cause.

But, in my opinion, India is already contributing its bit towards this issue, albeit not voluntarily, but because of the lackadaisical attitude of the ones who rule the country. Their inaction and mess up forces many parts of rural India to go without power for anywhere between 12-16 hours every day. In Maharashtra, one of the economically advanced states, the scheduled duration of power cuts ranges from 2-3 hours per day in small cities to 12-14 hours in rural areas. These people, for no fault of theirs except their geographical location, are deprived of facilities and comforts that the their metro-dwelling brethren and the western world consider as a right!

Now, coming to our towns and metros. In most of the houses (except those of the rich and above) the electricity load is around 4-5 kW. This is enough to run a refrigerator, television, washing machine, storage water heater, adequate lighting and fans. Contrast this with the blow dryers present in most of the washing machines in the US. Each dryer has a rating of 4 kW, equal to the load of an entire household. Some of these dryers have already made their way into India too. What this means is that the average household usage of electricity in Indian metros is far far less than the average usage in American metros.

Symbolically, the Earth Hour may signify the enthusiasm of people across the world in doing their bit to slow down the rate of global warming. But, that will not be achieved by mere symbolism or token activities. It needs sustained efforts on the part of everybody to bring about a lifestyle change, reduce our dependence on electricity guzzling appliances, try and enjoy the variations in the climate and maximise the use of natural resources to achieve our objectives.

Don't want India, but want luxurious treatment by India

On very rare occasions, tabloids print useful news in their papers. And their reputation is what makes sure that such items are read by few amongst the serious newspaper readers. E.g., today's Mumbai Mirror carried a piece of news that should rattle every patriotic Indian and ask the government some serious questions. But, I'm doubtful about how many would ever read that.

Hurriyat chairman wants stylish jeep

This is the headline carried by MM. Now, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq has allegedly asked for a swanky bullet proof jeep to go around in the Kashmir valley and rejected the government-offered bullet proof vehicle. So, Mr. Farooq wants to enjoy the hospitality of India and at the same time rant about separating from India. No country would have allowed this. In U.P., if you do anything against Mayawati, by word or action, your security is reduced to a lower grade with immediate effect. But, these separatist leaders have received threats from militants and infact Fazal Haq Qureshi was even shot at. So, our generous government decided to protect the very men who wanted to separate J&K from us. And these people have shamelessly accepted the security of that very establishment against whom they are agitating from autonomy, independence, etc. How can these people even dare to betray their morals? If they want to separate from India, they shouldn't accept the country's security measures. Let Mirwaiz buy his own bullet-proof vehicle. Since he is fighting the state, let him also arrange for his own security and not use the state's forces. How can they fight for independence from India and at the same time, enjoy luxuries bought and paid for by the Indian taxpayers' money?

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.