Bill Gates on mosquitos, malaria and education

Bill Gates hopes to solve some of the world's biggest problems using a new kind of philanthropy. In a passionate and, yes, funny 18 minutes, he asks us to consider two big questions and how we might answer them. (And see the Q&A on the TED Blog.)

Nandan Nilekani's ideas for India's future

Nandan Nilekani, the visionary co-founder of outsourcing pioneer Infosys, explains four brands of ideas that will determine whether India can continue its recent breakneck progress.

Pranav Mistry: The thrilling potential of SixthSense technology

At TEDIndia, Pranav Mistry demos several tools that help the physical world interact with the world of data -- including a deep look at his SixthSense device and a new, paradigm-shifting paper "laptop." In an onstage Q&A, Mistry says he'll open-source the software behind SixthSense, to open its possibilities to all.

Hans Rosling: Asia's rise -- how and when

Hans Rosling was a young guest student in India when he first realized that Asia had all the capacities to reclaim its place as the world's dominant economic force. At TEDIndia, he graphs global economic growth since 1858 and predicts the exact date that India and China will outstrip the US.

Devdutt Pattanaik: East vs west -- the myths that mystify

Devdutt Pattanaik takes an eye-opening look at the myths of India and of the West -- and shows how these two fundamentally different sets of beliefs about God, death and heaven...

Kargil War - Pakistani Army surrenders and accepts bodies

The Pakistani Army puts up a white flag and accepts the slain bodies of its officers in this damning video. Pakistan lost more than 4000-6000 soldiers in the Kargil war, while India lost 500 soldiers. Pakistan generally disowned the bodies of most of its soldiers but accepted a few senior officers.

According to the information fed to every Pakistani, the Kargil war was fought by mujahideen and not by Pakistani Army regulars. This video shows the Pakistan Army very clearly involved at Kargil. They did'nt count on ace videojourno Kunal Verma, filming the whole event. Nor did they count on being outclassed in combat, yet again, by an Indian.

Kargil War

Kissa killer kerosene ka - Marker may turn kerosene into killer fuel

Nearly 6.5 million BPL families who depend on kerosene for their cooking and lighting needs as well as farmers who use it for pumpsets and spray pesticides could soon be exposed to cancer-causing fumes from markers that will be laced with the poor man's fuel to check diversion.

Markers are chemicals that cannot be distinguished once they are mixed with kerosene. But if such doped kerosene is used to adulterate motor fuels, the marker will show up when petrol or diesel samples are tested using special equipment. Since kerosene costs nearly half of petrol or diesel due to subsidy, nearly 38% of supplies for the poor are siphoned off for adulterating motor fuels.

To check such diversion, state-run oil marketing companies are about to roll out the marker throughout the country. But test criteria specified in the procurement norms means only markers with `halogenated hydrocarbons' -- which can be detected using X-Ray (XRS) or gas chromatograph technology -- will qualify, sources said.

Halogenated hydrocarbons are among 189 `hazardous air pollutants' listed in the US Clean Air Act of 1990. The Act bans their use in fuels as after combustion they produce `toxic dioxins', described by US Environmental Protection Agency as extremely harmful to humans and environment. Generally, these chemicals are used to conduct lab tests to detect toxicity in foods and not used in fuels anywhere in the world.

It transpires that no environmental or health impact study was done before setting the procurement criteria, which appears to purely focus on a marker's ability to detect adulteration. Neither is there any hint that a marker will have to undergo a green or health test. This is surprising since as early as 2005, Hindustan Petroleum's then R&D advisor, A K Bhatnagar, had described the problems associated with halogenated hydrocarbons in his presentation on fuel quality made at a Ficci-Petrotech seminar in Delhi.

Company executives, however, said "pollution aspects have been taken care of" in the procurement norms. "The technical committee has laid down elaborate parameters. They will test each marker against those parameters and safety will be assured," a top executive of an oil company who is involved with the procurement process said, requesting that neither he nor his company be identified.

The crux lies in one of the criteria in the norms, called the `charcoal test'. In this test, charcoal should not be able to filter or remove the marker from kerosene. According to sources, only markers with halogenated hydrocarbons can pass this test.

 

Writer : Sangh Priya gautam.sanghpriya@gmail.com

Smoking Kills

The Shutka Book of Records- Shutka a town of superlatives

Shutka is a town of superlatives. Everyone proclaims to be a champion at something.
Who is the best at protecting the community from evil spirits? Who is the most talented singer in town? Meet the 'lamb champion' of 35 years and the greatest lover. They all star in Aleksandar Manic's unique film about Shutka, Macedonia, where the largest Roma community in the Balkans resides.

The Shutka Book of Records captures the idiosyncrasies of Roma culture, revealing the humour and tall stories of an ancient travelling people who are often persecuted but little understood.

The most obscure pursuits, from vampire hunting to training geese to fight and collecting hard-to-find cassettes of Turkish music, are all fair game in the townspeoples' constant quest for one-upmanship.

With most of the community living on welfare, next door to a vast refugee camp left over from the Kosovan conflict, Shutka could easily be a depressing, hopeless place.
While Shutka is cash poor, it is rich in imagination, and with so many champions in Shutka, there are opportunities for everyone

Google's Bus to Internet Nirvana launched in Tamil Nadu

Google India has launched what is being dubbed the Google Bus. It is a specially furnished bus with Internet connectivity, which will be touring different towns in Tamil Nadu - a state of India. The aim of the bus is to introduce, inspire and educate the general populace on the power of the Internet and how it can benefit common people




Seeking to attract more people on the information superhighway, the bus will be touring 15 towns in Tamil Nadu over a span of 45 days. India is projected to have Internet connectivity of around 20 million by the year 2010. And perhaps, the Google bus is Google's way of ensuring it gets to garner maximum portion of this pie. Google is providing updates of the bus trip at the specially set up web page The Internet Bus Project

Google gets really local

The search engine now helps you find that restaurant with uncanny accuracy

Ever wondered how you can search for the most esoteric information in the world on Google.com and find thousands of results with pictures? But try finding the address of the nearest barbershop and the experience is drastically different. Indeed, an entire family of local search engines and directories such as www.asklaila.com and www.justdial.com have sprouted up to help you do just that—locate products and services in your immediate vicinity with contact details and sometimes even directions.



Google map

But if you like to do all your searching in just one location, then we have good news. Google has just announce the global roll-out of a map enabled local search function within the traditional Google search interface. Type in the word “groceries” into a search engine and chances are that among the first few results is a small map of the location you are in with grocery stores marked out in typical Google Maps fashion.

It is by no means a 100% accurate depiction of the number or location of those stores. That’s because is simply using the IP (Internet protocol) address of your computer to make an approximation of where in the world you are. So it might know you are in Mumbai, but it definitely won’t know you are in Dosti Acres in Wadala East. But as a quick and dirty first-cut search the service is excellent. Clicking on the link further takes you a Google Maps site where you can browse through even more results. Some searches for restaurants and cinemas come with links to reviews, photos and detailed contacts.

And all this without using any complicated search strings or changing advanced settings. So before making plans this long Easter weekend give Google a whirl and see what it throws up.

47 Indian companies among Forbes ‘Global 2000 List’

New York: As many as 47 Indian companies, led by corporate behemoth Reliance Industries and the country’s biggest lender, State Bank of India, have made it to the list of world’s biggest 2,000 companies by US magazine Forbes.
However, five Indian companies — scam-hit IT firm Satyam Computer, realty firm Unitech, Suzlon Energy and two Anil Ambani group firms Reliance Power and Reliance Capital — have been dropped out of the Forbes ‘Global 2000 List’ this year.
Four Indian companies, Hero Honda Motors, Sun Pharma, Indian Bank and Jindal Steel and Power Ltd are the new entrants to the list.
Mukesh Ambani-promoted RIL, State Bank of India, and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation are among the top 200 companies ranked 121st, 150th and 152nd, respectively, on the list.

All the three top Indian firms have improved their ranks considerably from their last year’s positions, wherein RIL had been 193rd, SBI at 219th spot, while ONGC was ranked 198th.
Overall, the list is topped by industrial conglomerate General Electric, followed by Dutch oil and gas major Royal Dutch Shell, Japan’s Toyota Motor, ExxonMobil and UK’s BP in that order.

The rankings have been compiled on the basis of a composite score of sales, profit, assets and market capitalisation.

However, British banking giant HSBC Holdings has dropped to the sixth place this year from its numero uno position in the last year’s list.
The other top Indian firms on the list include Indian Oil (207th), NTPC (317th), ICICI Bank (329th), Tata Steel (463rd) and Bharti Airtel (508th).
The Indian presence is almost evenly divided among the private and state-run companies. While none of the Indian companies has managed to find a place among the top 100 firms this year as well, the elite club includes a firm run by person of Indian origin.

Lakshmi Mittal-headed steel behemoth ArcelorMittal is at 41st position. However, Vikram Pandit-run banking giant Citigroup has dropped to 472nd rank this year.
Further, Indra Nooyi-run beverage major PepsiCo has been ranked 115th, India-origin Francisco D’Souza-headed Cognizant Technology Solutions at 1389th place. Motorola, headed by Sanjay Jha, is at 658th place.

According to Forbes, the Global 2,000 companies have combined revenue of $32 trillion, $1.6 trillion in profit, $125 trillion in assets and $20 trillion in market capitalisation.

Other Indian companies on the list include SAIL (582), Reliance Communication (689), Larsen & Toubro (773), BPCL(795), Bhel(796), HDFC (808), TCS(834), Hindalco Industries (848), HDFC Bank (864), DLF (883), Infosys( 891), Punjab National bank (946), ITC (987), Wipro (989), Bank of India (997), HPCL (1,002), GAIL (1,037) and NMDC (1,057).

The list also has Canara Bank (1,059), PGCIL(1,085), Tata Motors (1,157), Bank of Baroda (1,184), Power Finance (1,324), Axis Bank (1,332), Union Bank of India (1,350), Grasim Industries (1,380), Indian Overseas Bank (1,462), Sun Pharma (1,522), M&M (1,529), Allahabad Bank (1,629), Indian Bank (1,659), Syndicate Bank (1,663), IDBI Bank (1698), Central Bank of India (1,724), JSPL (1,793), NALCO (1,794), OBC (1,869), UCO Bank (1,872) and Hero Honda (1,939).

The Indian animation industry started out by doing work for foreign companies. Increasingly, it is developing characters, lines and voices of its own

Lord Hanuman did what Ghatotkach, Ganesha and even a Romeo couldn’t. He got
people to watch his antics as he burnt Lanka and wreaked havoc on Ravana’s army. The animation movie Hanuman 1, released in 2005, thus did what no other Indian animation flick had done before—it got the audiences to the big screen, and made a tidy profit in the process. The film, produced at a cost of about Rs 3 crore,

grossed almost Rs 10 crore at the box office. Conceived and executed by Silverline Technologies and released by Percept Picture Company, Hanuman 1 marked the coming of age of the Indian animation industry.

Until recently, Indian animation companies were mostly back-end production houses for American studios. Today, however, the industry is coming into the limelight with its home productions. "Animation studios are spending close to Rs 30 crore per project," says Alpana Mishra, COO, UTV Motion Pictures. UTV plans to release two films next year: Arjun-The Making of a Warrior and Alibaba Aur Chalis Chor.

Tapaas Chakravarti, Chairman and CEO, DQ Entertainment International, agrees: "The animation industry started as a pure services business, like the IT industry, about 10-12 years back. But players soon realised that the entertainment sector did not work like the technology sector. They had to move up the value chain."

The success of Hanuman 1 has spurred many other players. A Nasscom-Ernst & Young report says the industry will grow from $460 million in 2008 to $1.2 billion in 2012—a CAGR of 27%. The numbers are small compared to the $80 billion global industry. But the growth is encouraging Indian animators.

The winds of change are already visible in the shift from low-end outsourced jobs to concept-to-screen contracts. And increasingly, animation houses are partnering with Bollywood and Hollywood studios to come out with international quality shows and films. Margins have gone up by 10-15% due to this shift, says Chakravarti of DQ. Of the 100 or so films that are currently in the pipeline, 28 are already in production, and about 15 are scheduled for release in 2010.

Still evolving

However, progress has been slow. Four years after Hanuman 1, the Indian animation industry is still waiting for its next big hit. Even on television, Japanese shows dominate, though the characters and themes are alien to the culture here. Pokemon and Dragon Ballz on Cartoon Network, Doraemon and Ganso Tensai Bakabon on Hungama and Ninja Hattori on Nickelodeon are some of the popular Japanese shows here. Hollywood films are far ahead of any Indian production in terms of quality and storylines. Moreover, some recent local launches have bombed badly. The biggest failure was Roadside Romeo, produced by Disney and Yash Raj Films. Analysts say the Tata Elxsi team did a great job on the animation, but the theme and target audience did not sync. "The romantic theme did not appeal to the kids and adults could not appreciate the dubbing by the Bollywood stars," says a critic. Jumbo, a Thai movie that was dubbed in Hindi with Akshay Kumar doing the voiceover, also tanked.

"None of the Indian animation films have got the desired audience, but that is more
to do with the content and a poor script," says P JayaKumar, Managing Director of Toonz Animation. "If Indian audiences can consume Western animation films, why won’t they consume homegrown content?"

Perhaps, the biggest constraint has been tight budgets and lack of characters with global appeal. The Rs 10-12 crore budget for an Indian animation movie means the financial risk is hedged, but quality takes a beating. "How can we compete with a $100-200 million Hollywood production that is three to five years in the making with something produced within $2.5 million?" asks Toonz Animation’s JayaKumar. The company recently acquired rights to produce a movie and a TV series based on stories from Chandamama. It’s also working on a movie based on Lord Shiva.

Toonz was the first company to animate a folk character, with its Tenali Raman series. The project, which cost around Rs 6 crore, established the studio’s—and India’s—credentials in producing original animation films. However, the show took nearly five years to turn profitable.

Partnering for profits

Studios are looking at new business models, including partnerships, to produce films and shows. Sometimes, the partnership may just be an investment. In return, they get to own a big chunk of merchandising rights. Some are even negotiating distribution rights. This ensures flow of money even if there is no cash flow in the short term. For example, Toonz has bought the rights for the PlayMobil characters and will be producing content (films, TV serials, etc) to be distributed by Sony Pictures.

Today, global companies are looking at India for co-production. "Indian studios are now on par with American, European or Japanese production houses in terms of skills and infrastructure. But it will be another three to four years before we can actually produce world-class content," says DQ’s Chakravarti. Almost 70% of the company’s content is co-produced or with back-end rights (including home video, TV, DVD, music, merchandising, etc). Some of DQ’s production properties include Iron Man, Large Family and Little Nick.

The impact of the economic downturn also cannot be ignored. Big companies like Riding on own content, the industry’s size is projected to increase from $460 mn in 2008 to $1.2 bn in 2012—a CAGR of 27%

Toonz or DQ may not be severely hit as they have a number of movies and content deals, both their own and co-productions, in the pipeline. But smaller companies will suffer as they depend on outsourced work.

Still, the industry is young. The Japanese style of Anime has a robust domestic market, but it took almost 50 years to develop that style and build that market. Indian companies started end-to-end productions only about five years ago. So, they’re still on the learning curve.

Should Advani, Manmohan Singh Debate On TV?

Whenever you have a discussion about presidential debates on television, somebody or the other will inevitably bring up the Kennedy-Nixon debate of 1960. By now that debate has passed into legend. According to folklore, Richard Nixon was comfortably ahead of John F. Kennedy when the two presidential contenders agreed to meet for a televised debate.

Judged purely on content, Nixon won the debate—or so the story goes. But television is a visual medium. Kennedy seemed cool and assured. Nixon had a sweaty upper lip. He was lit so that he looked like he was unshaven (what they call 5 o'clock shadow).

Viewers went with the visuals, not the content. The telegenic Kennedy won. The more experienced and cerebral Nixon lost the debate and eventually, the election.

Those who tell this story make the point that TV is not about content or substance.


It is about image and performance. The West may have fallen prey to the cult of televised politics. But fortunately, we in India can still avoid a situation where politicians are elected on the basis of TV ratings. And that's how it should remain.

Those who take this view argue that Manmohan Singh was right to reject L.K. Advani's offer of a televised debate. Why turn everything into a television event, they ask. Why not focus on old-fashioned campaigning and on issues of substance.

It's a powerful case but I don't necessarily buy it. First of all, the Kennedy-Nixon folklore is more myth than reality. Yes, Kennedy did look better but it's not clear that he won the debate. The polls were divided on who the actual victor was. Many said that Nixon had won. Moreover, that debate did not swing the election. In the event, Kennedy won by a tiny margin, almost entirely attributable to the votes that Mayor Richard Daley had stolen for him in Chicago's Cook County. Had the election been fair, Nixon might actually have won.

Nor do I believe that television necessarily favours the shallow and superficial at the expense of substance and depth. Take George W. Bush. You need only to watch him on TV to recognise that he is a moron. And yet, he ruled America for eight years in a tele-visual era.

The advantage of a television debate is that it allows voters to see where the candidates actually stand on the issues. At present, party spokesmen slug it out on news channels but the big leaders pass unchallenged.

Does Advani see no contradiction in supporting the legacy of Sanjay Gandhi while attacking the Congress for its undemocratic nature and its commitment to dynasty? Does Manmohan Singh regret his single-minded advocacy of the nuclear deal at so high a cost? Is Prakash Karat embarrassed that he has never won so much as a municipal election? Does Sonia Gandhi share Manmohan's commitment to economic liberalisation? Would she like to see Rahul as PM some day?

These are significant questions, the answers to which could determine India's destiny. But we never get these answers. We never find out where the truth really lies because these leaders appear only in controlled situations and rarely open themselves up to genuine, hard-nosed questioning.

Take Manmohan Singh. He must be the only prime minister of India to have never given a full-length interview to an Indian. (I don't include that brief comment about the Left and the nuclear deal to The Telegraph, made to serve his own political agenda.) Instead, he has spent five years giving interviews only to White people who he knows will not ask him questions on domestic politics he does not want to answer. Is it not shameful that the prime minister of India should shun any interviewer who is a citizen of his own country?

Sadly, our politicians avoid probing questions because they know they can get away with it.They are rarely questioned on the issues, never confronted with their contradictions and rarely asked to justify their actions. They like it that way. Manmohan is ready to leave the debates to Abhishek Singhvi and Kapil Sibal. Advani would much rather let Arun Jaitley do his dirty work for him.

A presidential-style debate would cut through this edifice of evasion. Our top politicians would be forced to explain their stands and to defend their positions. They will not be able to hide behind party spokesmen or to take refuge in enigmatic one-liners.

But of course, they'll never agree. The only reason why Advani has challenged Manmohan Singh to a debate is because he knows that the PM will never say yes and the debate will never happen. Advani is as reluctant to have his contradictions exploded as Manmohan is to explain himself.

So, they fall back on the old excuses: we don't have a presidential system; TV is a superficial medium; etc. And the people of India are denied the answers we deserve.


By Vir Sanghvi

Lend-Lease Pragram of Second World War II

Lend-Lease (Public Law 77-11)[1] was the name of the program under which the United States of America supplied the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, China, France and other Allied nations with vast amounts of war material between 1941 and 1945 in return for, in the case of Britain, military bases in Newfoundland, Bermuda, and the British West Indies. It began in March 1941, over 18 months after the outbreak of the war in September 1939.

A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to nearly $700 billion at 2007 prices) worth of supplies were shipped: $31.4 billion to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France and $1.6 billion to China. Reverse Lend Lease comprised services (like rent on air bases) that went to the U.S. It totaled $7.8 billion, of which $6.8 billion came from the British and the Commonwealth. Apart from that, there were no repayments of supplies that arrived before the termination date, the terms of the agreement providing for their return or destruction. (Supplies after that date were sold to Britain at a discount, for £1,075 million, using long-term loans from the U.S.) Canada operated a similar program that sent $4.7 billion in supplies to Britain and Soviet Union.[2]

This program is seen as a decisive step away from American non-interventionism since the end of World War I and towards international involvement. In sharp contrast to the American loans to the Allies in World War I, there were no provisions for postwar repayments. Some historians consider it an attempt to bolster Britain and the other allies as a buffer to forestall American involvement in the war against Nazi Germany.

Political background

Lend-Lease came into existence with the passage of the Lend-Lease Act of 11 March 1941, which permitted the President of the United States to "sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of, to any such government [whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States] any defense article". In April, this policy was extended to China as well.[3] Roosevelt approved US $1 billion in Lend-Lease aid to Britain at the end of October, 1941.

Earlier, there was an entirely different program in 1940, the Destroyers for Bases Agreement whereby 50 USN destroyers were transferred to the Royal Navy and the Royal Canadian Navy in exchange for basing rights in the Caribbean and Newfoundland. The UK had been paying for its material in gold under "Cash and carry".

Everett Dirksen, at the time a Republican U.S. Representative, was able to secure the passage of an amendment to the Lend-Lease bill by introducing the resolution while 65 of the House's Democrats were at a luncheon. Section (3)(c) of the Act thus provided that "after the passage of a concurrent resolution by the two Houses before June 30, 1943, which declares that the powers conferred by or pursuant to subsection (a) are no longer necessary to promote the defense of the United States, neither the President nor the head of any department or agency shall exercise any of the powers conferred by or pursuant to subsection (a)"

Administration

Franklin Roosevelt set up the Office of Lend-Lease Administration in 1941, appointing steel executive Edward R. Stettinius as head. In September 1943 he was promoted to Undersecretary of State, and FDIC director Leo Crowley became head of the Foreign Economic Administration which absorbed responsibility for Lend-Lease.

Lend-Lease aid to Russia was nominally managed by Stettinius. Roosevelt's Soviet Protocol Committee, dominated by Harry Hopkins and General John York, who were totally sympathetic to the provision of "unconditional aid." Until 1943, few Americans objected to Russian aid.

Significance

This chart shows the relationship in Gross domestic product between the Allied and the Axis during 1938-1945. For more information, see Military production during World War II.

Lend-Lease was a critical factor in the eventual success of the Allies in World War II[citation needed], particularly in the early years when the United States was not directly involved and the entire burden of the fighting fell on other nations, notably those of the Commonwealth and, after June 1941, the Soviet Union. Although Pearl Harbor and the Axis Declarations of War brought the US into the war in December 1941, the task of recruiting, training, equipping U.S. forces and transporting them to war zones could not be completed immediately. Through 1942, and to a lesser extent 1943, the other Allies continued to be responsible for most of the fighting and the supply of military equipment under Lend-Lease was a significant part of their success[citation needed]. In 1943-44, about a fourth of all British munitions came through Lend-Lease. Aircraft (in particular transport aircraft) comprised about one-fourth of the shipments to Britain, followed by food, land vehicles and ships[citation needed].

Even after the United States forces in Europe and the Pacific began to reach full-strength in 1943–1944, Lend-Lease continued. Most remaining allies were largely self-sufficient in front line equipment (such as tanks and fighter aircraft) by this stage, but Lend-Lease provided a useful supplement in this category even so, and Lend-Lease logistical supplies (including trucks, jeeps, landing craft and, above all, the Douglas C-47 transport aircraft)[citation needed]were of enormous assistance.

Much of the aid can be better understood when considering the economic distortions caused by the war. Most belligerent powers cut back on production of nonessentials severely, concentrating on producing weapons. This inevitably produced shortages of related products needed by the military or as part of the military/industrial economy.

For example, the USSR was highly dependent on trains, yet the desperate need to produce weapons meant that only about 92 locomotives were produced in the USSR during the entire war. In this context, the supply of 1,981 US locomotives can be better understood. Likewise, the Soviet air force was enhanced by 18,700 aircraft, which amounted to about 14% of Soviet aircraft production (19% for military aircraft).[6]

Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of US-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge ¾ ton and Studebaker 2.5 ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front.[7] US supplies of telephone cable, aluminium, canned rations and fur boots were also critical, the latter providing a crucial advantage in the winter defence of Moscow[citation needed].

Lend Lease was a critical factor that brought the US into the war, especially on the European front. Hitler cited the Lend-Lease program and its significance in aiding the Allied war effort when he declared war on the US on 11 December 1941.

Repayment

Large quantities of goods were in Britain or in transit when Washington suddenly and unexpectedly terminated Lend-Lease on 2 September 1945. Britain needed to retain some of this equipment in the immediate post war period. As a result the Anglo-American loan came about. Lend-lease items retained were sold to Britain at the knockdown price of about 10 cents on the dollar giving an initial value of £1,075 million. Payment was to be stretched out over 50 years at 2% interest. [8] . The final payment of $83.3 million (£42.5 million) due on 31 December 2006 (repayment having been deferred on several occasions) was made on 29 December 2006, it being the last working day of the year. After this final payment Britain's Economic Secretary, Ed Balls, formally thanked the US for its wartime support. It should still be noted that Britain has never paid off its WW I debt, there is still a balance owed of 866,000,000 GBP valued in 1934. Britain made payments until 1934 and then stopped after the US agreed to a 1 year halt, but they never resumed making payments after that. It must be noted that Britain was owed far more by other countries taking part in WWI than she herself owed, a net loss for the British Empire, the richest empire in the world. [1]

Size and repayment terms of the British debt

The original size of the debt and repayment terms (including deferments) can be ascertained from the debates in the Commons on 28 February 2002 and House of Lords on 8 July 2002 as recorded in Hansard:

"Bob Spink: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what outstanding liabilities there are to the United Kingdom of lend-lease loan facilities arranged during the Second World War; [38441]…"
"Ruth Kelly: The information is as follows..."

"Under the Agreement, the loans would be repaid in 50 annual installments commencing in 1950. However the Agreement allowed deferral of annual payments of both principal and interest if necessary because of prevailing international exchange rate conditions and the level of the United Kingdom's foreign currency and gold reserves.

The United Kingdom has deferred payments on six occasions. Repayment of the war loans to the United States Government should therefore be completed on 31 December 2006, subject to the United Kingdom not choosing to exercise its option to defer payment.

As at 31 March 2001, principal of £243,573,154 [$346,287,953 at the exchange rate on that day] was outstanding on the loans provided by the United States Government in 1945. The Government intends to meet its obligations under the 1945 Agreement by repaying the United States Government in full the amounts lend [sic] in 1945."

Similarly, Hansard records from a debate that took place in the House of Lords on 8 July 2002:

"Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is this payment part of the lend-lease scheme under which the United States supplied munitions, vehicles and many other requirements including food and other provisions that were needed badly by us in the last part of the war?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I referred to lend-lease in the context of the generosity of the United States throughout that period. However, the debt that we are talking about now is separate; it was negotiated in December 1945.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord remind me as to exactly how much the loan was, and how much we have repaid since then in principal and interest?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the loan originally was £1,075 million, of which £244 million is outstanding. The basis of the loan is that interest is paid at 2 per cent. Therefore, we are currently receiving a greater return on our dollar assets than we are paying in interest to pay off the loan. It is a very advantageous loan for us."

Quotations

Franklin D. Roosevelt, eager to ensure public consent for this controversial plan, explained to the public and the press that his plan was comparable to one neighbor's lending another a garden hose to put out a fire in his home. "What do I do in such a crisis?" the president asked at a press conference. "I don't say... 'Neighbor, my garden hose cost me $15; you have to pay me $15 for it' …I don't want $15 — I want my garden hose back after the fire is over."

Some questions about the terror attacks

# How many terrorists were there? Did they number 20 as Maharashtra Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh told a press conference on Thursday? Or did they number many more? If two or three terrorists attacked the CST, how many terrorists were present at the Taj and Trident? Did the CST terrorists drop a grenade/explosive device at Dockyard Road on the way to the station? Or was someone else responsible for that act of terror which claimed three lives?

# The terrorists are said to have set up control rooms at the Taj and Trident hotels, a Cabinet minister told PTI on Thursday. When were these bookings made? A detailed investigation into the bookings made at both hotels in the months, weeks and days before the attacks may reveal the names of suspicious guests who registered there.

# Military sources tell rediff.com that there was no way the terrorists could have carried so much ammunition with them when they assaulted the two hotels with their guns blazing. They believe the ammunition may have been stored earlier in rooms at both the hotels, perhaps on the higher floors.

# If some of the terrorists had registered at the hotels earlier, could these men/women have left along with the guests who were released? Did the police record the identities and addresses of the guests who were released from both hotels?

# Indian Hotels Chairman Ratan Tata indicated on Thursday that the terrorists had intimate knowledge of the Taj, its service corridors, its layout. Does this mean that they had a mole inside the Taj? Or more worrying, did a couple of them work there at some point of time? Did they have drawings of the layout of the two hotels?

# If the terrorists were Pakistani, how did they have such an intimate knowledge of the terrain? The two or three cowards who attacked the CST on Wednesday night made their way from the CST through a road on the left side of The Times of India building towards the Cama and Albess hospital/Azad Maidan police station, a route that is known only to true-blood Mumbaikars. Were they locals? Or did they conduct extensive reconnisance of the likely routes of escape?

# These same two or three men, who are said to have commandeered ATS Chief Hemant Karkare's [Images] police Qualis after shooting him, Additional Commissioner of Police Ashok Kamte and Inspector Vijay Salaskar, revealed similar familarity with the road outside the Esplanade Court, making an easy U-turn towards the Metro cinema junction rather than head on the road towards the CST. How did they know this if they were Pakistanis?

# How did those men, whose images have appeared all over the world, get to the CST from Colaba where they are said to have landed by boat? Did they take a taxi? Or did they have local transportation? Did they come by a suburban train, which could explain the firing on one of the suburban train platforms? Who left the grenade on the Gitanjali Express, which killed a Bengali mother?

# The terrorists are said to have done extensive reconnisance of the city. If they are Pakistanis, how did they get earlier entry to the city unnoticed? Did they come in by boat? Or did they use other routes to escape notice?

# Such an operation could not have been conducted without extensive training and preparation, possibly on models of the Taj and Trident or Chabad House/Nariman House. Could this have been achieved at the rudimentary training camps hosted by the Lashkar-e-Tayiba in Pakistan occupied Kashmir? Or was it a more systematised operation conducted by a State agency in a hostile country?

# How did they know Chabad House/Nariman House, which even long-time residents of Colaba -- the area in South Mumbai where the Taj, the Leopold Cafe [Images] and Chabad/Nariman House are located -- are unfamiliar with? The choice of this target indicates precision thinking -- it is doubtful if the Lashkar strategists are capable of such deep strategy -- and again points the needle of suspicion at a government intelligence agency in a nation inimical to India or renegades within such a bureau.

Faces of Terror

8 Things You Should Know about the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act

Overview

Given the rapid pace of change in the financial markets these past few weeks along with a barrage of information that makes it difficult to distill what information matters most, we have created this key insights overview of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Importantly, please note that the observations that follow are meant to provide a brief overview for executives at our member organizations based upon an initial review of the DRAFT Act. Our interpretation of the Act's implications may change as we review the final version of the act and we review more commentary on it by regulators and policy makers. You should not rely on this information as legal or tax advice.

Eight Things You Should Know Even if You Are Not a Financial Institution

1. Broad Power to Stabilize the Financial Markets. While a large portion of the Act's 110 pages go to oversight, the Treasury Secretary has broad, sweeping power under the Troubled Asset Relief Program ("TARP”)-probably broader than any government minister has had in modern history-to stabilize the US financial markets.

2. Potential Suspension of FAS 157. The Act (Sec. 132) gives the SEC authority to suspend FASB Statement 157 (i.e., the mark-to-market accounting requirement) for any issuers or any class or category of transaction; given the SEC's actions to prohibit short selling and loud complaints in the press about mark-to-market requirements, the SEC is likely (at least a 50% chance) to exercise this authority to some degree.

3. Purchases of Troubled Assets from Retirement Funds. The Act authorizes the Treasury Secretary to purchase Troubled Assets from retirements as defined by clauses (iii), (iv), (v), and (vi) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (excluding non-qualified deferment plans as defined by clause of section 402(c)(8)B) for corporations with retirements funds whose value has been substantially compromised by investments-even indirect-in Troubled Assets, this provision MAY provide an avenue for relief depending on the Treasury Secretary's plan and purchase priorities; at this time, it is unclear how the Act's provisions providing the Treasury with an equity or debt interest in participating financial institutions and limitations on executive compensation would apply in these instances.

4. Not All Financial Institutions May Benefit from the Act. Don't assume that your bank or financial partner is inherently stronger as a result of the TARP program; financial institutions don't have the right to participate; for example, the Treasury Secretary can choose to exclude a financial institution that doesn't have strong prospects for long-term viability; overall, the Treasury Secretary is charged with deploying a scarce (albeit large) set of funds and to take into account the "net present value to the tax payer” of the purchases and guarantees made, which likely means the funds won't be spread peanut butter thin and, most likely, we will see many more financial institutions fail.

5. US National Debt Will Increase Sharply and Potentially Permanently. Despite provisions giving the Treasury warrants, preferred stock, or senior debt obligations in participating financial institutions, nothing in the Act requires TARP to NOT increase the national debt; the deficit will increase dramatically in the short term and the national debt ceiling was raised to $11.315 trillion; the President is required to submit legislation 5 years hence proposing how to recover from financial institutions any shortfall, but there is no guarantee such legislation will pass or that a feasible method of recovery will exist.

6. Frequent Shocks to the Financial System May Persist. The Act creates a number of incentives that favor auctions and open-market transactions for Troubled Assets over direct purchases (e.g., different executive compensation limits for participating institutions, less burdensome reporting and oversight for the Treasury Secretary, and direction in the Act to the Treasury Secretary) and the Treasury will need to issue large amounts of debt to finance TARP; the former transactions periodically and suddenly will create new pricing information that may change substantially (i) the valuation of assets in mark-to-market models and (2) investor assessment of the health of individual institutions, the financial system, and the housing market; the latter Treasury auction may produce substantial swings in interest rates and dollar exchange rates, as well as highly correlated commodity prices (e.g., crude oil prices). Additionally, much like the Federal budget, the program requires continuing acts of Congress (authority under the Act sunsets in December 31, 2009 and may be extended briefly by the Secretary for up to 2 years from the passage of the Act) which may create uncertainty.

7. Early Look at Potential Broad Executive Compensation Changes. The Act provides an early look at how the next administration and Congress may consider reshaping executive compensation more broadly than just financial institutions participating in TARP, especially regarding tax deductibility; limits include:

(1) restrictions on golden parachutes (either prohibition of payment or the ability to create new ones);

(2) limits on incentives that threaten the value of the financial institution; (3) provisions for the recover of compensation based on earnings/gains that later prove materially inaccurate; and (4) tax deductibility limits with the $1 million cap falling to $500k and golden parachutes even more likely to be treated as non-deductible (if it is even possible). Note that the executive compensation limitation draws a line between companies that participate via direct sales of assets and those that participate via open auctions; clearly favoring the latter. The motivation of lawmakers in drawing this distinction is unclear to us at this time (beyond a bias toward using market mechanisms for the purchase of assets).

8. Criminal Enforcement like the Post-Enron Period. The Act tightens up fraud provisions around use of FDIC protection claims and directs key players to co-operate fully with the FBI in investigations related to the financial crisis. Executives should expect far reaching investigation (if not charges) that extend not just to financial institutions, but also to their advisors, customers, and partners who helped create mortgaged-back securities (e.g., accounting firms, law firms) or transacted in them (e.g., pension funds, corporate treasuries).


Other Things You May Want to Know About the Act

What TARP Encompasses


* Section 101 of the Act empowers the Treasury Secretary to purchase Troubled Assets (basically any residential or commercial mortgage-related assets) held by financial institutions originated on or before March 14, 2008, or others as determined the Secretary after consultation with the Fed Chairman.

* Instead of purchasing those assets, Section 102 allows the Treasury Secretary to issues guarantees for the interest and principal of Troubled Assets (not to exceed 100%) held by financial institutions in return for a premium paid by those institutions; the premiums must at a "level necessary to create reserves sufficient to meet anticipated claims, based on an actuarial analysis, and to ensure that taxpayers are fully protected”; the premiums are managed in the Troubled Assets Insurance Financing Fund.

* The Treasury Secretary has authority immediately to tap up to $250 billion, which the President can increase to $350 billion; the Treasury Secretary can increase that authorization up to $750 billion upon sending a notice and plan to Congress, so long as Congress doesn't disapprove of the plan through a joint resolution within 15 days of receiving the plan.

* The Act encourages the Treasury Secretary to place special emphasis on supporting institutions that lend to lower-income borrows as well as small financial institutions that were well capitalized prior to the government placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship.


* The Treasury Secretary has broad power to manage the purchased Troubled Assets, including sell them and create securities based on them.

* Note also that there are a number of provisions throughout the act designed to assist financial institutions negatively affected when the government placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship (e.g., treatment of gains/losses of preferred stock in those institutions as ordinary income) and to prevent incidental penalties to companies like J.P. Morgan Chase who purchased financial institutions and assets as part of broader efforts to shore up the financial markets.

Efforts to Reduce Foreclosures

* The Treasury Secretary must create a plan designed to reduce the number of foreclosures; to that end, the Secretary can change the terms of residential mortgages in purchased Troubled Assets.

* Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must issue plans designed to encourage lenders to participate in the HOPE program (the July 2008 law aimed at stemming the US foreclosure rate), although it remains voluntary and its efficacy to date in shoring up the housing market is questionable.

Protection of Taxpayers

* The Act directs the Treasury Secretary to establish policies and otherwise act to prohibit participants in TARP from unjust enrichment, which largely means that the Secretary shouldn't pay more for Troubled Assets than they cost the person from whom they are purchased; there are potentially important exceptions for current owners and conservators of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and Washington Mutual.

* The Treasury Secretary takes a warrant in publicly traded companies for non-voting common stock or preferred stock in those companies who sell Troubled Assets under the program; non-publicly traded companies must provide senior debt instruments instead; the Treasury Secretary determines the terms and conditions and will include anti-dilution provisions; the Treasury Secretary can establish de minimis exceptions where the aggregate purchase from the institution is under $100 million.

* Costs of purchased and guaranteed Troubled Assets will be determined in accordance with the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 USC 661 et. seq.).

Oversight

* The Act creates an Office of Financial Stability, headed by an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Presidential appointment, with Senate confirmation).

* The Treasury Secretary must consult with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Secretary of Housing & Urban Development; note, though, that consultation typically doesn't have a lot of teeth.

* The Act also creates a Financial Stability Oversight Board consisting of the Fed Chairman, the Treasury Secretary, the Director of the Federal Home Finance Agency, the SEC Chairman, and the Secretary of Housing & Urban Development; the Chair of the Board is selected by its members, but it can't be the Treasury Secretary; it meets monthly and has the power to create a Credit Review Committee to evaluate the Treasury Secretary's exercise of purchase authority.

* The Comptroller General has oversight of TARP, basically to evaluate the efficacy of the program and its implementation as well as to monitor controls; it can only report and recommend changes; the Comptroller General also is charged with creating a big "what happened, who is responsible, and what should we do about it” report by June 1, 2009.

* The Act creates a Special Inspector General also to oversee TARP.

* The Act also creates a Congressional Oversight Panel.

Kosi Flood in India ( Bihar) - a national calamity

Bihar Flood/ Kosi Flood a national calamity

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: flood floodindia)