China offers to finance 30 per cent of India’s infrastructure development plan

[Edison Chen]

The new retail FDI guidelines, are detailed and comprehensively seek to cushion any perceived negative impact of large foreign investors by directing their investment to India’s development needs. Investors would be required to commit quite deeply to the Indian economy, with $100 million infused over a three-year period, split equally between “front-end” and “back-end,” to deliver the supply chain infrastructure of great interest to so many in India, and would further need to source at least 30% of all products from “small industries” in India. An investor that manages to develop an approach to the complex Indian market meeting all of these requirements would demonstrate great interest and significant investment, indeed.

A Closer Look At FDI Flip-Flopping In India - Forbes

Look at this.

1) So Chinese FDI to India will at least source 30% Indian products, maybe more, if competitive. It's really good for you, even if it's half-half, China still be able to digest our domestic excessive industrial capacity by investing in India.

2) It's a three-year period, a smooth investment plan, won't cause a sudden flip-flop on your economy. Also this transitional period is good for Chinese companies.

And also:

http://dipp.nic.in/English/acts_rules/Press_Notes/pn5_2012.pdf

"6.1 PROHIBITED SECTORS:
FDI is prohibited in:
(a) Lottery Business, including Government /private lottery, online lotteries, etc.
(b) Gambling and Betting, including casinos etc.
(c) Chit funds
(d) Nidhi company
(e) Trading in Transferable Development Rights (TDRs)
(f) Real Estate Business or Construction of Farm Houses
(g) Manufacturing of Cigars, cheroots, cigarillos and cigarettes, of tobacco or of tobacco
substitutes
(h) Activities / sectors not open to private sector investment e.g

Infrastructure to enter India has no legal problem at least for now. BTW, India's economy has experienced the risk of exchange rate, to cause a outflow of FDI. With the negative influence of QE4's quit, India needs FDI, especially from China where companies are eagerly to find investment opportunities.

 

[Developereo]

How does India not offer good ROI? How does Brazil etc have better ROI possibilities? Do tell. Quantified if you would.

Look at the amount of FDI in 2013 in various countries. Divide it by their GDP.

That will tell you where the smart money is going.

 

[Edison Chen]

Well the brains are working here to decide whether it is of any use or not. So let's wait

It's not a difficult decision, although it would take several rounds of talks, procedures or even compromise.

 

[kbd-raaf]

Look at the amount of FDI in 2013 in various countries. Divide it by their GDP.

That will tell you where the smart money is going.

Wah. Double wah.

I'm out.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Well the brains are working here to decide whether it is of any use or not. So let's wait

I guess no decision will be made until after the Indian elections.

Congress has already rejected several of our investment offers before.

The offer would most likely be accepted only under a BJP majority government in India. Those guys are much more business friendly.

 

[janon]

Depends what you mean by defeat.

In terms of protecting our own landmass and region, we already did that in the 1950 Korean War, in which we surged into the Korean peninsula and pushed the USA + 16 of her allies into the longest retreat in the history of the American military forces.

If you mean the seas and the oceans, then yes America still dominates.

However we have our DF-21D, and the upcoming HGV, which we can produce in endless amounts if we go into war mode. They on the other hand, have to cross the entire Pacific Ocean, and rebuild their destroyed ships, and find replacement soldiers, while all we have to do is pump out missiles at a fraction of the cost. It will always be cheaper for us.

In one or two decades, we should be able to negate their military influence significantly.

Umm...aren't you forgetting that the USA has missiles too?

 

[Reviewer21]

True, It is democracy here, even to build a wall here it takes weeks to decide as even if one person isn't satisfied, then we have to make him agree to it and then go further.

It's not a difficult decision, although it would take several rounds of talks, procedures or even compromise.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Umm...aren't you forgetting that the USA has missiles too?

Read what I wrote.

They have to bring their men and equipment all the way across the Pacific Ocean.

We have all our assets right here, not to mention the largest manufacturing base in the entire world. How much of their air force can they bring? How many missiles? How much of their troops can they bring? We have all of our assets right here already.

How long will they trade cheap anti-ship missiles for their ships and soldiers? We can build anti-ship missiles cheaply and quickly, they will take a long time to rebuild their ships and hire more naval personnel to replace their dead ones.

Then they will have to bring it back over the Pacific Ocean. As for troop numbers, there is no comparison. Even without the Pacific Ocean in the way, we can always bring more troops by a significant margin.

Even a 1950's China was able to force the USA + 16 of her allies into the longest retreat in the history of US military.

America has superior power projection, sure. But we will be fighting on home ground, using all of our assets against whatever numbers they can bring across the Pacific Ocean.

The costs have outweighed the benefits for them even since 1950. That's why they stopped fighting us in direct combat after the Korean war, and used proxies instead.

 

[Reviewer21]

Agreed, especially modi. All he cares about is business and development.

I guess no decision will be made until after the Indian elections.

Congress has already rejected several of our investment offers before.

The offer would most likely be accepted only under a BJP majority government in India. Those guys are much more business friendly.

 

[neehar]

thats a welcome move.it will benefit both the countries.personally i dont think this just to invest money although it does play a role.it might be also to counter japanese investment in india.in any case we can benefit from both..

 

[janon]

Read what I wrote.

They have to bring their men and equipment all the way across the Pacific Ocean.

We have all our assets right here, not to mention the largest manufacturing base in the entire world. How much of their air force can they bring? How many missiles? How much of their troops can they bring? We have all of our assets right here already.

How long will they trade cheap anti-ship missiles for their ships and soldiers? We can build anti-ship missiles cheaply and quickly, they will take a long time to rebuild their ships and hire more naval personnel to replace their dead ones.

Then they will have to bring it back over the Pacific Ocean. As for troop numbers, there is no comparison. Even without the Pacific Ocean in the way, we can always bring more troops by a significant margin.

Even a 1950's China was able to force the USA + 16 of her allies into the longest retreat in the history of US military.

America has superior power projection, sure. But we will be fighting on home ground, using all of our assets against whatever numbers they can bring across the Pacific Ocean.

The costs have outweighed the benefits for them even since 1950. That's why they stopped fighting us in direct combat after the Korean war, and used proxies instead.

You are assuming that they will blindly follow the script you have planned out for them, in a war. You think they will keep sending naval armada after armada, while you keep pressing a switch and DFs kill them all. Until they run out of men. Unfortunately, real wars are not stage managed dramas, and you don't get to make up a script that the actors will follow.

The US will be well aware of the enemy's strengths and weaknesses, as does any military worth its name. What if, instead of sending carrier after carrier to become targets for your DFs, they send a few submarines with a hundred cruise missiles each, to decimate your naval ships? That's what they have SSGNs for. Further more, their LACMs can also fire at every CnC node on your mainland. That's just one possibility that comes to mind.

The fact is that there is no game changing technology that China has, that the US does not have or cannot have. They have the scientific and industrial base to wage war on anybody, and they have a defence budget that is several times bigger than China's. Under such circumstances, China simply cannot come up on top militarily, except maybe in a small skirmish.

During the Korean war, the US was not such a technological superpower that could outclass the rest of the world in the military sphere. Not to mention, there was another superpower namely the USSR that would back China in case of all out war. The US was there to control Korea, not invade China.

Today, and for the foreseeable future, the USN will remain unchallenged if you are thinking of an all out war. Unless you can come up with some paradigm shifting technology that the US cannot, that fact is unlikely to change. They have several methods to wage war, and the supercarriers you see are only their most visible tool of power projection - doesn't mean that it is the only tool. The supercarrier may be the defining image of the USN, but that doesnt mean they will send in carrier after carrier until they run out of them.

In any case all this is off topic for this thread.

 

[Reviewer21]

Agreed, nothing is predictable in war. Anything can happen anytime. Anyways it isn't the topic now. So let's talk on topic.

You are assuming that they will blindly follow the script you have planned out for them, in a war. You think they will keep sending naval armada after armada, while you keep pressing a switch and DFs kill them all. Until they run out of men. Unfortunately, real wars are not stage managed dramas, and you don't get to make up a script that the actors will follow.

The US will be well aware of the enemy's strengths and weaknesses, as does any military worth its name. What if, instead of sending carrier after carrier to become targets for your DFs, they send a few submarines with a hundred cruise missiles each, to decimate your naval ships? That's what they have SSGNs for. Further more, their LACMs can also fire at every CnC node on your mainland. That's just one possibility that comes to mind.

The fact is that there is no game changing technology that China has, that the US does not have or cannot have. They have the scientific and industrial base to wage war on anybody, and they have a defence budget that is several times bigger than China's. Under such circumstances, China simply cannot come up on top militarily, except maybe in a small skirmish.

During the Korean war, the US was not such a technological superpower that could outclass the rest of the world in the military sphere. Not to mention, there was another superpower namely the USSR that would back China in case of all out war. The US was there to control Korea, not invade China.

Today, and for the foreseeable future, the USN will remain unchallenged if you are thinking of an all out war. Unless you can come up with some paradigm shifting technology that the US cannot, that fact is unlikely to change. They have several methods to wage war, and the supercarriers you see are only their most visible tool of power projection - doesn't mean that it is the only tool. The supercarrier may be the defining image of the USN, but that doesnt mean they will send in carrier after carrier until they run out of them.

In any case all this is off topic for this thread.

 

[Arya Desa]

The Cantonese phrase "Ah Cha" is not necessarily racism.

During the period of colonization, many of the police officers in HK were brought over from British India, and they were from Punjab province.

They had a word in their North Indian dialect which meant "OK, good" which sounded like "accha" and that is how they got that nickname.

The way he used to say it was in a mocking, condescending tone. Funny how a grown man in so insecure he has to insult a child. Also, you sound just like the Indians who defend the word "chinki" because of historical context. I know that word offends you every much, this "accha" word offends me and other Indians in the same degree.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

You are assuming that they will blindly follow the script you have planned out for them, in a war. You think they will keep sending naval armada after armada, while you keep pressing a switch and DFs kill them all. Until they run out of men. Unfortunately, real wars are not stage managed dramas, and you don't get to make up a script that the actors will follow.

The US will be well aware of the enemy's strengths and weaknesses, as does any military worth its name. What if, instead of sending carrier after carrier to become targets for your DFs, they send a few submarines with a hundred cruise missiles each, to decimate your naval ships? That's what they have SSGNs for. Further more, their LACMs can also fire at every CnC node on your mainland. That's just one possibility that comes to mind.

The fact is that there is no game changing technology that China has, that the US does not have or cannot have. They have the scientific and industrial base to wage war on anybody, and they have a defence budget that is several times bigger than China's. Under such circumstances, China simply cannot come up on top militarily, except maybe in a small skirmish.

During the Korean war, the US was not such a technological superpower that could outclass the rest of the world in the military sphere. Not to mention, there was another superpower namely the USSR that would back China in case of all out war. The US was there to control Korea, not invade China.

Today, and for the foreseeable future, the USN will remain unchallenged if you are thinking of an all out war. Unless you can come up with some paradigm shifting technology that the US cannot, that fact is unlikely to change. They have several methods to wage war, and the supercarriers you see are only their most visible tool of power projection - doesn't mean that it is the only tool. The supercarrier may be the defining image of the USN, but that doesnt mean they will send in carrier after carrier until they run out of them.

In any case all this is off topic for this thread.

You are putting words in my mouth that I never said.

I agree that the USA is currently the unchallenged superpower. All the facts support this.

Now that we've got your American ***-kissing out of the way, maybe we should discuss the topic at hand?

And please don't reply to me in the future, I will not reply to you either.

 

[janon]

You are putting words in my mouth that I never said.

I agree that the USA is currently the unchallenged superpower. All the facts support this.

Now that we've got your American ***-kissing out of the way, maybe we should discuss the topic at hand?

And please don't reply to me in the future, I will not reply to you either.

Not so fast. You can't simply use a few derogatory comments on me like ''*** kissing'', and then request me not to respond. That's called last wordism. You ought to understand that saying the truth is not *** kissing. You have indulged in this accusation in the past as well, when I made a positive remark about Britain, that I am an *** kisser for the British. Learn not to put labels on people as a substitute for countering their claim. Note that I did not call you names or attack you personally, I only countered your post. I could have stooped to your level and called you a deluded chinese, instead of offering a lengthy rebuttal. And then asked you not to respond.