The Indian Connection
There’s a reason why Reliance is considered the king of Indian stock markets and has the highest weightage in the Sensex. Even in the recent market crash, Reliance did not fall as steeply as other companies and its real decline started only after it was firmly established that the worldwide recession was here to stay and the oil bubble burst, bringing international crude prices crashing down to earth.
In 1982, Reliance Industries came up against a rights issue regarding partly convertible debentures. It was rumoured that the company was making all efforts to ensure that their stock prices did not slide an inch. Sensing an opportunity, a bear cartel which was a group of stock brokers from Calcutta started to short sell the shares of Reliance. To counter this, a group of stock brokers till recently referred to as “Friends of Reliance “Started to buy the short sold shares of Reliance Industries on the Bombay Stock Exchange.
The Bear Cartel was acting on the belief that the bulls would be short of cash to complete the transactions and would be ready for settlement under the “Badla” trading system prevalent in Bombay Stock Exchange during those days. The bulls kept on buying and a price of Rs.152 per share was maintained till the day of settlement .On the day of settlement, the Bear Cartel was taken aback when the Bulls demanded a physical delivery of shares. To complete the transaction, the much needed cash was provided to the stock brokers who had bought shares of Reliance, by none other than Dhirubhai Ambani.In the case of non-settlement, the Bulls demanded an “Unbadla” (a penalty sum) of Rs.35 per share .With this, the demand increased and the shares of Reliance shot above 180 rupees in minutes. The settlement caused an enormous uproar in the market and Dhinubahi Ambani was crowned the unquestioned king of the stock markets. He proved to his detractors just how dangerous it was to play with Reliance.
To find a solution to this situation, the Bombay Stock Exchange was closed for three business days, something which has not happened even of national emergencies like the recent Mumbai terror attacks
Monday, April 13, 2009
Sorry
Sorry……………………..
Remember we had a fight
Last night at eight
We broke all ties
And went for heart rendering cries
I thought that I was right
But now I realize it was my pride
Between us, the gap has widened
The bond we were tied in has
Loosened
On the roads, we stood –
And argued as hard as we could
Then we took different roads
Back to our abodes
You were going
Going far away
Without even listening
To what I had to say
I ran to stop you
But I was late
The train had already taken you
To a different state
As I walked on the narrow street
Kicking the stones with my feet
I asked myself
Was Sorry the word that was needed
Was it why it was least heeded?
I saw you sitting on the bench
Where for the first time we had met
I ran to you with a “much”
You would smile I could bet
But when I reached there
I found you nowhere
Perhaps my hallucination
I reached the road where we had
Fought
For a long time there I stood and
Thought
I had lost you forever
You would return never
I realized
That night –
Sorry was necessary------
Remember we had a fight
Last night at eight
We broke all ties
And went for heart rendering cries
I thought that I was right
But now I realize it was my pride
Between us, the gap has widened
The bond we were tied in has
Loosened
On the roads, we stood –
And argued as hard as we could
Then we took different roads
Back to our abodes
You were going
Going far away
Without even listening
To what I had to say
I ran to stop you
But I was late
The train had already taken you
To a different state
As I walked on the narrow street
Kicking the stones with my feet
I asked myself
Was Sorry the word that was needed
Was it why it was least heeded?
I saw you sitting on the bench
Where for the first time we had met
I ran to you with a “much”
You would smile I could bet
But when I reached there
I found you nowhere
Perhaps my hallucination
I reached the road where we had
Fought
For a long time there I stood and
Thought
I had lost you forever
You would return never
I realized
That night –
Sorry was necessary------
Proof That Economics
Proof That Economics is Boring…
Since time immemorial, poets have sung paeans to love & romance. History is littered with examples of enduring love & spell binding romances; and the ultimate embodiment of lasting love –a successful marriage. Yet, economics, (to its credit?) has managed to reduce the hallowed institution of marriage to nothing more then business function supported by a ‘theory’.
What crap, right? Obviously, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences strongly disagrees, for in 1992, it awarded one G S Becker, the Nobel Prize in Economics for his use of basic principles of economics to address problems in sociology. So what exactly did this G S Becker do?
Gary Stanley Becker, in his pioneering “Theory of Marriage” argued that the existence of the marriage institution is associated primarily with the reproductive function. Thus the question of whether to marry at all, and to whom, is related to what happens within the marriage, specifically, what the gains are and how they are distributed and what division of labor they rest on.
According to Becker’s theory of marriage, the decision to choose a particular individual is based on the assumption that a better match cannot be found within the marriage market. The mate selection process involve search costs: generally, the longer the search, the higher the costs, and each person must decide whether to continue searching or to settle for the match he or she has found.
Becker holds that people marry only if they believe that the total utility of the union will be maximized. Part of this utility is based upon assortative mating, or the process of mate selection in which partners choose their spouses based on the utility of the traits they will bring to the relationship, such as attractiveness, height, intelligence, education, and income. Positive assortative mating occurs for complementary personal characteristics: for example, highly educated women are likely to attract and marry highly educated men; white women marry white men, and so forth. Negative assortative mating may take place for characteristics that are substitutes: for example, highly attractive women may choose to marry men with high income, partly because men tend to place higher value than women on physical attractiveness, while women are less willing to marry men with low earning and unstable employment.
How then, does the science of economics deal with divorce (love flying out of the window and the associated tribulations)? Simple: divorce is treated as a consequence of imperfect information in the marriage market and children are considered capital that stands in the way of divorce.
While Wordsworth and Keats are probably turning in their graves as I write, I have to agree that Becker certainly put forth his arguments in a logical manner. So the next time your girlfriend accuses use of being miserly about money, and having a calculator instead a heart, tell her. “Yeah, you may be right, there’s an economic theory about it “. And for the eternal hopeful, who still believes in love remember “love conquers all”.
[Editor’s note: No real proof is required to prove that Economics is interesting.
There is a book called FREAKONOMICS by Steven D Levitt, which was a New York Times bestseller and sold over 3 million copies worldwide. That book is more than adequate rebuttal for any contretemps against Economics as a subject.
Some of the interesting areas explored in the book include
• The socioeconomic patterns of naming children
• The negligible effects of good parenting on education
• The role played by legalized abortion in reducing crime (in USA) ]
Since time immemorial, poets have sung paeans to love & romance. History is littered with examples of enduring love & spell binding romances; and the ultimate embodiment of lasting love –a successful marriage. Yet, economics, (to its credit?) has managed to reduce the hallowed institution of marriage to nothing more then business function supported by a ‘theory’.
What crap, right? Obviously, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences strongly disagrees, for in 1992, it awarded one G S Becker, the Nobel Prize in Economics for his use of basic principles of economics to address problems in sociology. So what exactly did this G S Becker do?
Gary Stanley Becker, in his pioneering “Theory of Marriage” argued that the existence of the marriage institution is associated primarily with the reproductive function. Thus the question of whether to marry at all, and to whom, is related to what happens within the marriage, specifically, what the gains are and how they are distributed and what division of labor they rest on.
According to Becker’s theory of marriage, the decision to choose a particular individual is based on the assumption that a better match cannot be found within the marriage market. The mate selection process involve search costs: generally, the longer the search, the higher the costs, and each person must decide whether to continue searching or to settle for the match he or she has found.
Becker holds that people marry only if they believe that the total utility of the union will be maximized. Part of this utility is based upon assortative mating, or the process of mate selection in which partners choose their spouses based on the utility of the traits they will bring to the relationship, such as attractiveness, height, intelligence, education, and income. Positive assortative mating occurs for complementary personal characteristics: for example, highly educated women are likely to attract and marry highly educated men; white women marry white men, and so forth. Negative assortative mating may take place for characteristics that are substitutes: for example, highly attractive women may choose to marry men with high income, partly because men tend to place higher value than women on physical attractiveness, while women are less willing to marry men with low earning and unstable employment.
How then, does the science of economics deal with divorce (love flying out of the window and the associated tribulations)? Simple: divorce is treated as a consequence of imperfect information in the marriage market and children are considered capital that stands in the way of divorce.
While Wordsworth and Keats are probably turning in their graves as I write, I have to agree that Becker certainly put forth his arguments in a logical manner. So the next time your girlfriend accuses use of being miserly about money, and having a calculator instead a heart, tell her. “Yeah, you may be right, there’s an economic theory about it “. And for the eternal hopeful, who still believes in love remember “love conquers all”.
[Editor’s note: No real proof is required to prove that Economics is interesting.
There is a book called FREAKONOMICS by Steven D Levitt, which was a New York Times bestseller and sold over 3 million copies worldwide. That book is more than adequate rebuttal for any contretemps against Economics as a subject.
Some of the interesting areas explored in the book include
• The socioeconomic patterns of naming children
• The negligible effects of good parenting on education
• The role played by legalized abortion in reducing crime (in USA) ]
Hijacking of Indian Airline
Kandahar Hijacking of Indian Airline Flight IC-814
Indian Airlines Flight 814 (abbreviated IC – 814) took off from Kathmandu, Nepal for New Delhi on December 24, 1999. Shortly after the aircraft entered Indian airspace (around 5:30 pm), it was hijacked by five afghan nationals. The hijackers threatened to blow up the plane with a bomb and ordered (flight pilot) Captain Devi Sharan to “fly West”. The hijackers wanted to head towards Lahore but the Pakistani authorities, wary of being linked with the terrorists, initially refused landing permission. This, coupled with the paucity of fuel, forced the hijackers to make an Emergency landing at Amritsar for refueling. But the Indian government wasn’t able to capitalize on this window of opportunity to disable the plane. After brief halts at Lahore and Dubai, IC-814 finally landed at Kandahar, Afghanistan. The hijackers demanded the release of three dreaded terrorists, secure in covert support of the Islamic Taliban regime .India, like Israel, tried a number of diplomatic avenues to no avail. Ultimately, as a political face –saving exercise , the Indian government had to give in to the hijackers demand ,and it continues to pay the price for the same even today (as evidenced by the role played by the freed terrorists in attacks on the Indian parliament and more recently, the Taj and the Oberoi hotels)
Friday, April 3, 2009
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
MOIVE PICK SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
FIRST OF ALL, THE DIRECTOR’S VISION WAS SIMPLY BRILLIANT. SURE, WE KNOW THAT THE SCREEPLAY BY SIMON BEAUFOY, IS BASED ON A NOVEL CALLED “Q&A” BY INDIAN AUTHOR VIKAS SWARUP BUT THEN, WHEN WERE WE EVER INTERSTED IN WATCHING A RERUN OF KAUN BANEGA CROREPATI? DANNY BOYLE SUCCESSFULLY USES FLASHBACK TECHNIQUE AS AN ANSWERS TO HOW A POOR TEENAGER (JAMAL MALIK) FROM THE SLUM OF DHARAVI NIS ABLE TO ANSWER KNOTTY QUESTION POSED BY THE SHOW HOST (PREM KUMAR).
JAMAL IS BEING INTERROGATED BY THE POLICE. HE IS A CONTESTANT ON KAUN BANEGA CROREPATI AND HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF CHEATING.
THE DIRECTOR SLOWLY REVELS JAMAL’S REAL LIFE EXPRINCES HELEPED SHAPED HIS RESPONSES.A LOT OF PEOPLE MIGHT SAY THAT THE CINEMATOGRAPHY IS SIMLY BRILINT (AND DESERVEDLY SO), BUT I GUEES ITS REAL TRUIMPH IS THAT THE MYRIAD TECHNIQUES USED BLEND SEAMLESSLY INTO THE OVERALL SCHEME (WITHOUT DISTRACTING THE VIEWER ), AND ARE A VITAL AID TO THE DIRECTOR IN BUILDING VIEWER INTEST. THE POLICE CHASE OF THE SLUM CHILDREN IN THE FIRST SCENE KEEPS YOU RIGHT ON THE EDGE OF YOUR SEATS AND PROBABLY RANKS AMONG THE BEST CHASE SCENCE EVER.
I SINCERELY BELIEVE (WITH THE APPROPRIATE APOLOGIES) THAT EVEN AN INDIAN DIRECTOR HASN’T EVER DEPICTED REAL MUMBAI LIFE AS ACCURATELY AS IS DONE IN THE MOVIE. ALL THOSE WORDS USED TO DESCRIBE MUMBAI’S. FAST PASED LIFE, THE JOY, THE TEARS AND THE FRUSTIONS; COME TRUE IN THE WONDER THAT IS SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. AR RAHMAN’S MUSIC IS ANOTHER HIGH WATERMARK OF THE FILM.
TILL VERY RECENTLY, DANNY BOYLE WAS BEST KNOWN AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE CUIT HIT TRAINSPOTTING. BUT WITH SLUMDOG MILLIONIRE, THE BRITISH DIRECTOR OF ARTHOUSE FAVOURITES HAS COME FINALLY OF AGE.
FIRST OF ALL, THE DIRECTOR’S VISION WAS SIMPLY BRILLIANT. SURE, WE KNOW THAT THE SCREEPLAY BY SIMON BEAUFOY, IS BASED ON A NOVEL CALLED “Q&A” BY INDIAN AUTHOR VIKAS SWARUP BUT THEN, WHEN WERE WE EVER INTERSTED IN WATCHING A RERUN OF KAUN BANEGA CROREPATI? DANNY BOYLE SUCCESSFULLY USES FLASHBACK TECHNIQUE AS AN ANSWERS TO HOW A POOR TEENAGER (JAMAL MALIK) FROM THE SLUM OF DHARAVI NIS ABLE TO ANSWER KNOTTY QUESTION POSED BY THE SHOW HOST (PREM KUMAR).
JAMAL IS BEING INTERROGATED BY THE POLICE. HE IS A CONTESTANT ON KAUN BANEGA CROREPATI AND HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF CHEATING.
THE DIRECTOR SLOWLY REVELS JAMAL’S REAL LIFE EXPRINCES HELEPED SHAPED HIS RESPONSES.A LOT OF PEOPLE MIGHT SAY THAT THE CINEMATOGRAPHY IS SIMLY BRILINT (AND DESERVEDLY SO), BUT I GUEES ITS REAL TRUIMPH IS THAT THE MYRIAD TECHNIQUES USED BLEND SEAMLESSLY INTO THE OVERALL SCHEME (WITHOUT DISTRACTING THE VIEWER ), AND ARE A VITAL AID TO THE DIRECTOR IN BUILDING VIEWER INTEST. THE POLICE CHASE OF THE SLUM CHILDREN IN THE FIRST SCENE KEEPS YOU RIGHT ON THE EDGE OF YOUR SEATS AND PROBABLY RANKS AMONG THE BEST CHASE SCENCE EVER.
I SINCERELY BELIEVE (WITH THE APPROPRIATE APOLOGIES) THAT EVEN AN INDIAN DIRECTOR HASN’T EVER DEPICTED REAL MUMBAI LIFE AS ACCURATELY AS IS DONE IN THE MOVIE. ALL THOSE WORDS USED TO DESCRIBE MUMBAI’S. FAST PASED LIFE, THE JOY, THE TEARS AND THE FRUSTIONS; COME TRUE IN THE WONDER THAT IS SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. AR RAHMAN’S MUSIC IS ANOTHER HIGH WATERMARK OF THE FILM.
TILL VERY RECENTLY, DANNY BOYLE WAS BEST KNOWN AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE CUIT HIT TRAINSPOTTING. BUT WITH SLUMDOG MILLIONIRE, THE BRITISH DIRECTOR OF ARTHOUSE FAVOURITES HAS COME FINALLY OF AGE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
