Indian car rental market may be segmented under four broad categories. First, the most popular segment is of a fuel conscious and mileage hungry consumer who prefers a chauffer driven car. To extract maximum benefit from hired car, consumer representing

(5) mileage per liter of fuel that he has paid for. Consumer of this segment is very price sensitive and wants maximum value for money even if he may rent an by unorganized players. Branded players are lagging behind to true this segment because

(10) Indian marker, organized car rental industry is crawling for the last couple of years to position itself as a most sought after option to meet segment requirements. Hertz India is also practicing the same. To position itself perfectly in the mind of the targeted segment, it has gone for multiple strategic routes to win over different segments. The major external influencing factors for the consumer in this segment may

(15) be the firm’s marketing efforts to establish itself as a service provider with value for money. Due to their association with renewed airlines and hotels, Hertz, to a lot many people means faith. This may help Her to create an impression in the mind of this segment that they will definitively be cheated and get their value, even if it means spending a little extra. Further, it is trying to educate this segment about

(20) benefits of self-driven car as a medium of hassle-free journey by projecting a premium value for money image and with a fleet nix of compact and luxury cars (such as Ikon, Accent and Esteem).Second, a sizable amount of people are there who usually use their own compact or three box mid size car but prefer to enjoy the riding thrill of SUV (sports ?Utility Vehicles)

(25) like Ford Endeavor/Honda CRV/GM Chevrolet or a Luxury car like a Mercedes/Camry for a shorter time span. Upcoming new generations urban executive of large corporate in India with a high disposable income and proactive to enjoy all new things in life and to make it more adventurous and eventful represent this segment. To them renting a self-drive car and driving off to a palace of their choice in a

(30) Mercedes /SUV gives them an experience off to a place of their choice in a holiday. Under this same self-drive segment, another type of consumers are frequent international travelers (including foreign tourists) who prefer their privacy and independence and wish to choose their own routes/ car model at the time of exploring destination. They love their freedom& space in life whereever they

(35) travel without any barrier like being driven by a chauffer. Equipped with their internationally accepted credit cards, an international driving permit or license, they prefer advance car rental booking by logging on the car rental company’s website and thereafter just picking up the keys of their booked car once they enter a new country/city. They are adventurous, driving enthusiast, belonging to the uppermiddle

(40) class, have brand loyalty about their car rental agency. In this self-driven segment, Hertz India is trying to position itself as a contemporary service provider by offering both economy cars and SUV’s (Scorpio and Tata Safari). To win over occasional self-drivers of SUV type cars and frequent travelers. Hertz uses slo-gans like “Break free” or “Drive the World’s #1” regularly in travel magazines to portrait the quality of its cars,

(45) and the range it offers.
Third segment consists of instructional consumers, mainly hotels in big cities and air service providers. Institutional consumers prefer quality and service assurance to offer maximum possible service to their customers. In India, all big car rental agencies have contract with start hotels to offer rental service to them. In this segment, Hertz has

(50) prominent clienteles like Taj Group of Hotels, Marriott and Jet Airways. Further, they have contract with hotels like Shangrila in Delhi, and Renaissance and JW Marriott in Mumbai to provide all car rental requirements of them. Their other clients are Carlson Wagonlit, BTI Sita, Thomas Cook and online travel sites like Make my trip, India times and Travelgutu. according to their deal with Jet Airways, it allows Jet

(55) Privilege members to earn ‘miles’ every time they use Hertz car rental service. for every Rs. 1000/- spent on Hertz rentals, a Jet privilege member earns 100 JP Miles and special discounts are given to platinum, gold and silver card holders.
In recent past ‘fleet management’ is coming up a s a possible fourth target segment for car rental companies in India. Word wide cars are not purchased but only leased and

(60) this trend is getting its root in Indian market also. It means the management of a fleet of vehicles, using certain tools, to improve operational efficiency and effectiveness. To win over consumers of this segment, services should be professional and a fleet management company should address all the issues a company might deal a\with pertaining to managing its fleet. In India, Lease plan Fleet Management

(65) India (LPFM), the wholly-owned subsidiary of Leas plan Corporation, Natherlands is pioneer in this focusing more on car rentals than on fleet management. Though it provides chauffeur-driven cars to many companies like IBM, Sony, KPMG, Compaq, there is a huge scope in this segment for future growth. this segment demands

(70) Customized service in terms of vehicle acquisition, fuel management, vehicle financing and maintenance, resale of the cars at the end of the contract period etc.

The trouble started on May 4, 2004,only days after Google’s celebrated coming- out party. Geico, the giant automobile insurer, filed a lawsuit against the search engine for trademark infringement. The insurer claimed the Google’s advertising system unlawfully profited form trademarks that Geico owned. Since all of Google’s revenue and growth was from advertising, the disclosure of the lawsuit appeared ominous. “We are, and may be in the future, subject to intellectual property right claims, which are costly to defend, could require us to pay damages, and could limit our ability to use certain technologies,” Google disclosed in public filing outlining potential risks. Abroad, where Google had promising growth prospects, similar court challenges also arose. “A court in France held us liable for allowing advertisers to select certain trademarked terms as keywords,” the company declared. “We have appealed this decision. We were also subject to two lawsuits in Germany on similar matters.”

To make matters worse, it turned out that prior to its IPO filing, Google had eased its trademark policy in the U.S., allowing companies to place ads even if they were pegged to terms trademarked and owned by others. That was a significant shift, and one, Google warned could increase the risk of lawsuits against the company. It was also a practice that Yahoo, its search engine rival, did not permit. Google claimed it made the policy change to serve users, but some financial analysts said it appeared designed to pump profits before the IPO.

And there was more. Competition form Yahoo and Microsoft posed a greater challenger to Google following the disclosure about its mammoth profitability. With so much money at stake, the intensity of the competition would heat up. Such competition might be good for computer users searching the Internet, but Google said it posed additional risk for potential shareholders. “If Microsoft or Yahoo are successful in providing similar or better Web search results compared to ours or leverage their platforms to make their Web search services easier to access than ours, we could experience a significant decline in user traffic,” the company disclosed. In addition, Google warned that irs momentum seemed seemed unsustainable due to competition and “the inevitable decline in growth rates as our revenues increase to a higher level.”

The there was the question of Googles’s exclusive reliance on advertising, and one particular type of advertising, for all of its revenue. That was potentially quite one particular type of advertising, for all of its revenue. That was potentially quite problematic. If Yahoo or Microsoft gained ground on search, users could flock to their Web sites, and advertisers could follow, “The reduction in spending by; or loss of, advertisers could seriously harm our business,” the company disclosed in its SEC filing.

In the beginning, the firm, earned all of its money from ads triggered by searches on Google.com. But now, most of its growth and half of its sales were coming primarily from the growing network of Web sites that displayed ads Google provided. This self-reinforcing network had a major stake in Google’s successful future. It gave the search engine, operating in the manner of a television network providing ads and programming to network affiliates, a sustainable competitive advantage. But there was a dark side there too, because of the substantial revenue firm a handful of Google partners, notably America Online and the search engine Ask Jeeves. If at any point they left Google and cut a deal with Microsoft or Yahoo, the lost revenue would be immense and difficult to replace. “If one or more of these key relationships is terminated or not renewed, and is not replaced with a comparable relationship, our business would be adversely affected,” the company stated.

Google’s small, nonintrusive text ads wee a big hit. But like major television an cable networks, which were hurt by innovations that enabled users to tune out commercials, the company faced the risk that users could simply turn ads off if mew technologies emerged.

Going public also posed a potentially grave risk to Google’s culture. Life at the Googleplex was informal. Larry and Sergey knew many people by their first names and still signed off on many hires. With rapid growth and an initial public offering, more traditional management and systems would have to be implemented. No more off-theshelf software to track revenue on the cheap. Now it was time for audits by major accounting firms. As Google’s head count and sales increased, keeping it running without destroying its culture was CEO Eric Schmidt’s biggest worry.

Google, the none that became a verb, had built a franchise and a strong brand name with global recognition based entirely on word of mouth. Nothing like it had been done before on this scale. The Internet certainly helped. But Google’s profitability would erode if the company were forced to begin spending the customary sums of money on advertising and marketing to maintain the strength of its brand awareness. Marketing guru Peter Sealey said privately that the advice he gave Google to study consumer perception of the Google brand was rejected by the company and that they were unwilling to spend money on marketing.

Around the turn of the century; and interesting trend was slowly becoming prominent in retailing across the globe. Department stores were slowly becoming prominent in retailing across the globe. Department stores were slowly becoming less and less popular with customers. Large department stores offered a wide range of product categories - from apparel, luggage, toys, crockery, to home furnishing - as well as owned and managed the stock of products they sold inside the store and from their warehouses.Industry analysts started questioning whether this could still be the ideal retail model, and whether the changing retail environment marked the end of large department stores as we knew them.

On one side there were the stores that focussed on a particular category - electronics, toys, women’s wear or home appliances. Over the years, these had evolved into giant superstores and had become very popular with customers who went shopping for a particular product. On the other hand, there were discounters, hypermarkets and wholesale clubs that served the new age shoppers found their ambience to be formal and boring.

To keep pace with these trends, some department stores were steadily reinventing themselves. The most prominent among them was UK based selfridges chain. In 2003, Selfridges launched a new store in Birmingham, England that completely reinvented the idea of the department store. Brands competed with each other within the store but there was no heirarchy of goods: watches competed with each other perfume, and luggage with fashion. In addition the store organised various show stunts and performances through the day and called it, ‘shopping entertainment.’ Similar stores had come up in various parts of Southeast Asia, Japan and Europe. For customers, these new-age department stores seemed like mall, just the they didn’t have the walls that separate the different stores within a mall.

While this trend was becoming more and more apparent abroad, within India too, certain consumer patterns were emerging. Our experience showed that a customer visiting a mall typically walks into four or five stores. That includes a large store and a few smaller brand showrooms. After that fatigue sets in and he or she is unwilling to walk into any more stores at the mall.So we asked ourselves, what would happen if we removed the walls between the different stores in a mall? In that case, a customer would be exposed to multiple brands at the same time, without the necessity of walking in and out of different stores. And along with shopping we could also provide her with other entertainment options.

Within the company itself there was a renewed confidence and an urge to play a larger role in shaping the modern retailing space in India.We had completed more than six years in retailing. With Big Bazaar we had tried and tested our skills at offering a wide range of categories while Pantaloons was firmly positioned in the lifestyle segment. We could now create shopping and entertainment landmarks in the cities in which we had already established a strong presence.

There three insights - the metamorphosis of department stores into developed markets; customer fatigue at the existing shopping malls in India; and the need to create working on, Central. The objective was to create a retail format that was must larger and totally different from what India had seen till then. It would offer everything - from multiple brands for shopping, to restaurants, coffee shops, entertainment options and gaming zones - all under one roof.If we were able to deliver ton these two fronts, we could attract customers from every part of the city and make it the city’s prime shopping destination.

There were a couple of the issues that the Central model addressed quite well. Pantaloons outlets had limited space. We were positioning it as a fashion destination and thr business model was based on selling mostly brands that we owned, or what are called private labels. However, with its increasing popularity; we were being approached by multiple foreign and Indian brands to stock these at Pantaloons. Central, being far bigger in size allowed us to open up a lot of space for other brands paid us a certain percentage of their sales in the mall as commission. Based on the performance of these brands, we could decide on which to keep and which to discard.

The first Central mall was launched in Bangalore in May 2004. Measuring 1,20,000 square feet, it was spread over six floors and housed over three husband brands in categories like apparel, footwear, accessories, home furnishing, music and bools. In addition we had coffee shops, food courts, a Food Bazaar, restaurants, pubs and discotheques. A customer could also book tickets for movies and concerts, book travel tickets and make bill payments.

What has primarily made Central the ‘destination mall’ for Bangalore is its location.It is located in the heart of the city, at M.G. Road, where once Hotel Victoria stood. Moreover, we added a lot of features to further establish it as the focal point of the city.The Central Square located outside the mall building has been made available for art exhibitions, cultural performances, shows and product launches. And in 2005, the vintage car rally was flagged off from the Central flag-point, which has since become the epicenter for many such events.Thus, Central captured in all its glory what we wanted a destination mall to be, and loved up to its tagline of ‘Shop, Eat, and Celebrate.’

Soon after the launch of Bangalore Central, we opened the second Central in Hyderabad in November 2004. Once again it was located at the heart of the city on the Punjagutta Cross Road. Here, the roads connecting the city centre with Secunderabad, Jubllee Hills and the old part of the city; converge. It was more than double the size of Bangalore Central.Apart from over hundreds of brands to shop, it had food courts, restaurants, as well as a five-screen multiplex managed by PVR Cinemas. Much like the one Bangalore, Hyderabad Central didn’t take much time to become the nerve centre of the city.With an annual retail turnover of around Rs 200 crore it is presently among the largest retail destinations in the country.

The Battle of Hastings was the first major Norman victory in the Norman conquest of England in
1066 A.D. On September 28, 1066, William of Normandy, bent on asserting by arms his right to the English crown, landed unopposed at Pevensey. On hearing the news, the Saxon King Harold, who had just destroyed the Norwegian Viking army under King Harold Hardråde at the Battle of Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire, hurried southward, gathering what forces he could on the way. He took up his position, athwart the road from Hastings to London, on Senlac Hill some six miles inland from Hastings, with his back to the great forest of Anderida (the Weald) and in front of him a long glacis-like slope, at the bottom of which began the opposing slope of Telham Hill. The town called Battle in the modern county of East Sussex was named to commemorate this event.

The English army was composed almost entirely of infantry, and had just been through two forced marches and a battle. The shire levies, for the most part destitute of body armour and with miscellaneous and even improvised weapons, were arranged on either flank of Harold’s guards (huscarles), picked men armed principally with the Danish axe and shield.

Before this position Duke William appeared on the morning of October 14. His host, composed
not only of his Norman vassals but of barons, knights and adventurers from all quarters, was
arranged in a centre and two wings, each corps having its archers and arbiasters in the front
line, the rest of the infantry in the second and the heavy armoured cavalry in the third. Neither
the arrows nor the charge of the second line of footmen, who, unlike the English, wore defensive
mail, made any impression on the English standing in a serried mass behind their interlocked shields. Then the heavy cavalry came on, led by the duke and his brother Odo, and encouraged by the example of the minstrel Taillefer, who rode forward, tossing and catching his sword, into the midst of the English line before he was pulled down and killed. All along the front the cavalry came to close quarters with the defenders, but the long powerful Danish axes were as formidable as the halbert and the bill proved to be in battles of later centuries, and they lopped off the arms of the assailants and cut down their horses.

The fire of the attack died out and the left wing (Bretons) fled in rout. But as the levies broke
out of the line and pursued the Bretons down the hill in a wild, formless mob, William’s cavalry
swung round and destroyed them, and this suggested to the duke to repeat deliberately what the
Bretons had done from fear. Another advance, followed by a feigned retreat, drew down a second large body of the English from the crest, and these in turn, once in the open, were ridden over and slaughtered by the men-at-arms.

Lastly, these two disasters having weakened the defenders both materially and morally, William
subjected the huscarles, who had stood fast when the fyrd broke its ranks, to a constant rain
of arrows, varied from time to time by cavalry charges. The huscarles endured the trial for many
hours, from noon till close on nightfall; but at last, when the Norman archers raised their bows
so as to pitch the arrows at a steep angle of descent in the midst of the huscarles, the strain
became too great. While some rushed forward alone or in twos and threes to die in the midst
of the enemy, the remainder stood fast, too closely crowded almost for the wounded to drop.
At last Harold received a mortal wound, supposedly pierced through the eye by an arrow. The
English began to waver, and the knights forced their way in. Only a remnant of the defenders
made its way back to the forest; and William, after resting for a night on the hardly-won ground,
began the work of the Norman Conquest.

Battle Abbey was built at the site of the battle, and a plaque marks the place where Harold fell.

Some of the most important contemporary American literature is being written by immigrants to America and their children. A writer producing this literature may lack an American passport or, indeed, any kind of legal document permitting entry into the country. Yet it is still American literature because it is written in America and concerns America. It is a literature in which America can be found standing proud, with all its promise of freedom for those fleeing religious and social orthodoxy; but America is also stripped naked here, in all its reality of exploitation for those with nothing to offer but their cheap labour. Emerging in the last 30 years or so, it is a literature in which to read is the story of contemporary America.

The origins of this literature — of what may be called “a new literature of immigration”, for,
there is an older immigrant literature that was produced during the first few decades of the 20th
Century — lie in a legislative act of the 1960s. American immigration laws till the mid-1960s were marked by quotas governing who could be admitted to the U.S. based on country of origin. The laws — in keeping with American racial self-imagination — systematically encouraged white immigrants from Europe and placed obstacles before most others. The Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965 abolished the national origins formula and thus opened America’s door to a great variety of immigrants. In the 30 years that followed — for by the mid 1990s, the mood towards immigration amongst the political elite of the U.S. had begun to turn restrictive again — more than twenty million immigrants entered the U.S., more than during any previous period. The presence of Indians in the U.S. in large numbers today is a result of the 1965 act. Statistics show that more than half of the twenty million immigrants have come from seven countries: Mexico, the Philippines, China, Vietnam, Korea, India, and the Dominican Republic. The new literature of immigration captures the experiences of these immigrants.

Defining an immigrant is not easy. We can say an immigrant chooses — though the actual degree
of choice can vary according to the social privilege of the immigrant — to journey to a new
life in a new country with new laws. And we can add that also distinctive about an immigrant
is the depth of engagement, willing or involuntary, with the “host” country into which the immigrant, in whatever spirit, enters. An immigrant differs from a traveller, a tourist, a slave transported across an ocean, or even an exile. The importance of a literature of immigration springs from this thoroughgoing engagement with the host country on the part of the immigrant. Because of this engagement, an immigrant literature is able to bring scrutiny to the deepest acknowledged and unacknowledged beliefs and practices of the “host” country even as it captures the wrenching experience of relocation in an alien country for the immigrant.

The Filipina-American writer Jessica Hagedorn is one of the more distinctive voices of the new
literature of immigration that has emerged from the 1965 legislative revisions. An immigrant herself, in plays, poems and novels since the 1970s she has explored the experience of Filipino immigrants to the U.S. Her most important work is her first novel, the startlingly original ‘Dogeaters’. Published in 1990, ‘Dogeaters’ is a brilliant and inventive narrative set mostly in the Philippines. Nevertheless, it too touches on the immigrant experience through one of its chief characters who narrates some of the novel from her current vantage point as an immigrant in the U.S. The relationship of Filipino immigrants to the U.S. is inseparable from Filipino experience of occupation by the U.S. from the late-19th to the mid-20th Century. ‘Dogeaters’ explores the powerful presence of American political and ideological influence in the Philippines.

The line of separation between an over here and an over there is even more blurred in the case
of immigration from Mexico. Proximity to the U.S. has ensured a continuity of contact between
Mexicans in the U.S. and their relatives and friends still in Mexico. Yet, in a series of widely
read but controversial essays and book-length non-fiction, Richard Rodriguez has presented a perspective on Mexican immigration to the U.S. that can be described as assimilationist — as recommending to the immigrant a whole-hearted absorption into America. The son of a Mexican immigrant, he has assertively laid claim to an American-ness and shown little patience for Mexican-American attempts to claim special intimacy with Mexico. America is as overpowering a presence over there in Mexico as it is in the Philippines, but as an American over here Rodriguez feels no responsibility to the country. In ‘Days of Obligation’, written in 1992, he notes, “Mexico was memory — not mine”.

There is, some would say, a special irony in Rodriguez’s assimilationist stance — an irony born
of race. Race is to America what caste is to India, the thing that is always there even when
you think it isn’t. Not surprisingly, race and racism are special concerns of the new literature
of immigration. After all, so many of these new post-1965 immigrants are non-white people living in a predominantly white society. Is assimilation a genuine option in America for an immigrant who is not white? Even today, the answer is more complicated than it would seem. Again and again, the new literature of immigration returns to examine this issue from every side imaginable to sometimes say yes, sometimes no, and sometimes something else altogether. Other important obsessions for the new literature of immigration include nostalgia as well as guilt for the “home country” and intergenerational conflicts between immigrant parents and American born children.

The literary work of Indian immigrants to the U.S. shares much with the work of writers from
other communities while at the same time remaining distinctively Indian-American. Part of the attraction of such a notion as a new literature of immigration is its ability to make the reader break out of narrowly ethnic ways of viewing the world. How does Jessica Hagedorn’s immigrant view of the Philippines in ‘Dogeaters’ compare to Bharati Mukherjee’s immigrant view of India in ‘Jasmine’? How does Meena Alexander’s view of immigrant life in New York in her novel ‘Manhattan Music’ relate to that of Korean American novelist Chang-rae Lee’s in ‘Native Speaker’? The new literature of immigration being produced in the U.S. now, post 1965, asks such questions to its readers.

The aftermath of the catastrophic terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York in
2001 has brought renewed pressure on immigrant communities in the U.S. In the ensuing climate
of suspicion, the new literature of immigration can do the work of humanising immigrants to other
Americans. It can also reveal, as only an immigrant perspective can, many previously overlooked aspects of contemporary American life to both Americans and interested readers in other parts of the world.

How should reasonable people react to the hype and controversy over global warming? Judging by recent headlines, you might think we are already doomed. Newspapers have been quick to link extreme weather events, ranging from floods in Britain and Mozambique to hurricanes in Central America, directly to global warming. Greens say that worse will ensue if governments do not act. Many politicians have duly jumped on the bandwagon, citing recent disasters as a reason for speeding up action on the Kyoto treaty on climate change that commits rich countries to cut emissions of greenhouse gases.

Yet, hotheaded attempts to link specific weather disasters to the greenhouse effect are scientific bunk. The correct approach is to coolly assess the science of climate change before taking action. Unfortunately, climate modeling is still in its infancy, and for most of the past decade it has raised as many questions as it has answered. Now, however, the picture is getting clearer. There will never be consensus, but the balance of the evidence suggests that global warming is indeed happening; that much of it has recently been man-made; and that there is a risk of potentially disastrous consequences. Even the normally stolid insurance industry is getting excited. Insurers reckon that weather disasters have cost roughly $400 billion over the past decade and that the damage is likely only to increase. The time has come to accept that global warming is a credible enough threat to require a public-policy response.

But what, exactly? At first blush, the Kyoto treaty seems to offer a good way forward. It is a global treaty: it would be foolish to deal with this most global of problems in any other way. It sets a long-term framework that requires frequent updating and revision, rather like the post-war process of trade liberalization. That is sensible because climate change will be at least a 100-year problem, and so will require a treaty with institutions and mechanisms that endure. The big question over Kyoto remains its cost. How much insurance is worth buying now against an uncertain, but possibly devastating, future threat? And the answer lies in a clear-headed assessment of benefits and costs. The case for doing something has increased during the three years since Kyoto was signed. Yet it also remains true that all answers will be easier if economic growth is meanwhile sustained: stopping the world while the problem is dealt with is not a sensible option, given that resources to deal with it would then become steadily scarcer.

That points to two general conclusions about how to implement Kyoto. The simplest is that countries should search out ―no regrets‖ measures that are beneficial in their own right as well as reducing emissions -- such as scrapping coal subsidies, liberalizing energy markets and cutting farm support. The second is that implementation should use market-friendly measures that minimize the costs and risks of slowing economic growth.

The arguments center on this second point, and in particular on the use of emissions trading and carbon ―"sinks" (such as forests) that could lower the cost of reaching the Kyoto targets. The Americans want unrestricted trading and generous definitions of what constitutes a sink, despite scientific uncertainties about this point. The Europeans want strict curbs on both.

The common thread to these issues is that the Europeans are taking a moralistic stance that the lion‘s share of reductions should come from ―"real" emissions cuts at home. The implication is that cuts made via market mechanisms such as trading, or the clever use of carbon sinks, are somehow unworthy. Yet the planet is impervious to where or how cuts are made, so long as the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is reduced.

Not that the American stance is beyond reproach. Though negotiators try to paint themselves as principled, market minded folk, the real explanation for their position is pragmatic. They know there is no chance that America will meet its target through cuts in domestic emissions. That is why they see sinks and trading as saviors. And, though they are on firm ground in insisting on unrestricted trading, they should agree to conservative definitions of sinks until scientists understand them better.

The proper aim of the negotiations should thus be to turn Kyoto into a treaty that bites, but with full flexibility over how countries should reach the targets that they have signed up to. And the guiding principle must be to err on the side of flexibility. A rigid deal that imposes heavy costs on economies would not only be undesirable in its own right; it would risk scuppering the Kyoto process altogether, leaving the atmosphere far worse off. Onerous short-term targets that force expensive adaptation will come at the expense of jobs, wages and other public goods, including measures to improve the environment. The pain could be particularly acute in the developing world.

The best Kyoto deal would harness the engine of economic growth and the ingenuity of entrepreneurs, not bet against them. Not only would that ensure that the treaty was implemented at minimum cost. It would also help to create new markets and provide incentives for businesses to innovate.