What's new

India to Borrow and Spend More in 2010-2011

Status
Not open for further replies.
Continued - Sorry NY times loves India, the write too much lol

"Manufacturing is no longer done all under one roof," said Victor Fung, the chairman of Li & Fung Group, a large Hong Kong-based company that buys goods from factories across Asia for sale to retailers and wholesalers in the United States and Europe.

Indian officials are talking about expansion. Planning is under way for new wharves at Nhava Sheva, but the years-long task of construction has not yet started.

China has faced capacity problems, too. A surge in steel production in early 2004 overwhelmed Chinese bulk cargo ports. Inflation quintupled in a year, to 5.3 percent, as bottlenecks at ports, highways, railroads and elsewhere in the economy drove up companies' costs.

The Chinese response was swift and decisive. The pace of port investment nearly tripled in six months. Work crews labored around the clock to erect more cranes and expand wharves.

The Chinese economy grew at a breathtaking pace of 11.3 percent in the second quarter of this year, but consumer prices were just 1 percent higher in July than a year earlier.

By contrast, India is struggling with 8 percent inflation this summer as bottlenecks have appeared after three years of 8 percent growth.

Belatedly, India's roads and ports are improving. Just four years ago, Sona Koyo Steering Systems, an auto parts manufacturer, incurred hefty financing costs to keep a month's inventory on hand in case deliveries were delayed. Now the company's factory in Gurgaon makes six deliveries a day to a nearby Maruti car assembly plant; the eight-mile drive takes an hour or more because of constant traffic jams, but the deliveries get through.

"I'm not going to deny infrastructure is bad," said Surinder Kapur, Sona's chairman and managing director. "But a lot of our vendors are around us, a lot of our customers are close to us."

India is also starting to address chronic power shortages. But it is still a serious problem in northern India, where Mr. Kapur's steering systems factory is located. He receives electricity from the national grid just seven or eight hours a day. So the factory has three enormous diesel generators, one bigger than a typical Manhattan living room, operating at four times what an industrial user in the United States usually pays.

Despite such obstacles, India's manufacturing sector appears poised for further growth. In a country where the national symbol has shifted from government bureaucrats at aging desks to call center operators in cubicles, the next icon looks like it will be the laptop-toting engineer on a factory floor.

"The old philosophy was, 'I should work in an office, come in at 10 and leave at 4,'" said Nitin Kulkarni, 35, an engineer at the Hazira steel mill. But in recent years, he added, "there has been a revolution."
 
.
"India Shining" consists of islands of prosperity in a vast sea of poverty.

Can a country where a third of the population is illiterate be an Information Technology superpower? Can a country where 78 million rural homes have never seen electricity be an economic superpower? Can anyone feel safe living in islands of prosperity in a sea of poverty? While India’s educated elite are reveling in their new found status on the global stage, inequitable distribution of wealth and opportunities are shaking the very foundation of India’s new economy. Will the Indian government’s apathy towards the rural poor bring India’s party to an abrupt end?

In the last 12 years, India's economy has grown at an average annual rate of about 7 percent, reducing poverty by 10 percent. However, 40 percent of the world's poor still live in India, and 28 percent of the country's population continues to live below the poverty line. More than one third live on less than a dollar a day, and 80 percent live on less than two dollars a day. India's recent economic growth has been attributed to the service industry, but 60 percent of the workforce remains in agriculture.

The rate of increasing disparity between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’, is hard to miss in tech centers like Bangalore, Chennai and Delhi. Technology professionals are returning, having made their millions in the US. They are driving expensive cars and living in luxury apartments. Cities are growing in all directions. Farmlands are being acquired to build luxury townships, golf courses, five star hotels, spas and clubs. Poor farmers get paid off, and are forced to move further away from the city. And while global leaders and businessmen wax eloquent about India’s growing status as an IT superpower, everyone turns a blind eye to the majority of the population untouched by the economic growth.

Social Inequality Threatening India's Economic Stability | Fast Company
 
.
Do you know who Greg Rushford is ? I am sure you dont because you cant read anything that is Pro-India anyways. Here read what he says about India -

India: The Emerging Giant
Reviewed by Greg Rushford


For nearly four decades there have been only a handful of serious
scholarly studies of what makes the economy of the world’s second mostpopulous country tick. And no wonder, since there wasn’t much ticking goingon. Despite promises of reasonably enlightened economic leadership afterits 1947 independence from British rule, by the 1960s India had become oneof the world’s worst economic performers—an infuriatingly inward-looking,impoverished, protectionist basket case. After such leading economic
theorists as Jagdish Bhagwati warned in the early 1970s that India’s
economy was headed south, there really wasn’t much more to add.
Now an economy that stagnated for a generation has been taking off,
growing more than 8.5% annually. In a book as impressive as the economyit describes, Columbia University economist Arvind Panagariya—fittingly, theholder of the Jagdish Bhagwati chair at Columbia’s School of Internationaland Public Affairs—has the story.


Since the reform process got underway in the early 1990s, India has beenon the move. Such formerly closed major sectors including banking,telecommunications, pharmaceuticals and airlines have been liberalized, andaverage industrial tariffs, once as high as 340%, have fallen to around10%. The reforms, particularly those directed at embracing internationaltrade, have paid off in real growth.
In 1990, India’s merchandise exports were $18.1 billion, a number thatwouldn’t double for 10 years. But such exports have doubled again in justthe past three years, to $102.7 billion. India’s service-sector exports, justshort of $30 billion three years ago, have shot up to more than $60 billion.Overall, trade now amounts to more than 43% of the Indian GDP. And whilethe exact numbers are subject to debate, there is no doubt that hundreds ofmillions of Indians have been pulled out of poverty. The professor finds much to applaud.Mr. Panagariya, however, is hardly a cheerleader. While he believes thatIndia’s impressive growth is likely to be sustainable, as long as reformscontinue, he scoffs at fashionable predictions that India will pass China in the coming half century. “Such long-term predictions have no more validitythan astrological predictions,” he quips.

The economist has the numbers toshow that India still has a long way to go: India’s share of worldmerchandise exports has doubled since 1990, but is still only about 1%. Bycontrast, China’s share of global merchandise exports rose to 6.5% by 2004 from 2.8% in 1984. And while India’s exports of goods and services are now
in the 20-plus percent range of its economy, China’s trade in goods and services shot up to 65% of its GDP in 2004 from 20%. And since 1990, India’s share of manufacturing to its total economic output has “stagnated at 17 percent.” In sum, to overtake China in 30 years, Mr. Panagariya figures, India would have to sustain its present growth, while China’s own presently double-digit growth would have to fall to about 5%. The most sobering calculation is that despite the great strides in reducing poverty, perhaps 300 million of India’s 1.1 billion people still subsist on some $1 per day.Beyond competition with China, Mr. Panagariya analyzes just about every economic issue that India faces, from macroeconomic topics including capital
markets and trade in derivatives and bonds, to the performance of specific sectors like agriculture, banking, insurance, infrastructure, water supply,electricity and education.

But for general readers, perhaps the most
interesting parts of this book would involve the classical “political economy” questions. How did India dig itself into such an economic hole and what remains to be done?

Mr. Panagariya explains the first part of the question by focusing on what happened after Indira Gandhi became prime minister in 1966, a position she held (excepting the three years between 1977 and 1980) until she was assassinated in 1984. By the time Mrs. Gandhi took office, evolving Asian tigers like South Korea were already looking outward. But India remained insular, evidenced by the combination of high tariffs, quotas, price controls and the infamous License Raj system of bureaucratic control that discouraged both imports and productive investments. “Socialism with a
vengeance,” Mr. Panagariya sums up this period. Under Mrs. Gandhi’s
leadership, India’s economy became strangled in red tape and
protectionism. The licensing regime was further tightened, while she
nationalized banks, insurance firms, the coal and oil industries, and
discouraged foreign investment and international trade.

While such ideas certainly appear, well, less than bright, Mr. Panagariya is more interested in explanations than condemnations. For instance, he observes that in regard to bank nationalizations, “it was widely believed that commercial banks effectively excluded farmers and small entrepreneurs from their lending operations, and that the government needed to do something to improve the access of these groups to credit.”

Meanwhile, as if India wasn’t already doing enough to cripple its growth, there were external shocks: wars with Pakistan in 1965 and 1971, a 1962 war with China, consecutive droughts from 1971-73 and also the oil-price shock in October 1973. Since 1991 India has gotten back on track, increasingly embracing globalization by lowering tariffs, removing import licensing, welcoming foreign investment and otherwise encouraging more Indian industries to compete in global markets. To cite just one example of how fast India can grow given the right policies, Mr. Panagariya references the opening of airlines to market forces, mainly in this decade. Domestic airline passengers numbered 8.1 million in 1991 and increased to 13.3 million in 2000; by 2005 passenger numbers had shot up to 22.7 million.


Still, Mr. Panagariya rightly points out that much more needs to be done. India’s ports remain clogged. Roads, particularly in poor rural areas, remain inadequate. Tariffs and subsidies, especially in the notoriously weak agriculture sector, are still too high. Thanks to nightmarish labor laws that kill entrepreneurial activity, rent control and restrictions on land use, urban infrastructure reform appears “intractable.” Despite the daunting challenges, Mr. Panagariya has reason to be optimistic.

Indian elites who once refused to heed the warnings of his mentor Mr.
Bhagwati are now paying attention. It is now “unthinkable” that the days of the License Raj will return. Add India to China and the other Asian tigers that have become worthy of the attention of world-class economists like Mr.Panagariya.

Mr. Rushford is editor of the Rushford Report, an online journal that
specializes in trade politics and diplomacy.
 
.
"India Shining" consists of islands of prosperity in a vast sea of poverty.

Can a country where a third of the population is illiterate be an Information Technology superpower? Can a country where 78 million rural homes have never seen electricity be an economic superpower? Can anyone feel safe living in islands of prosperity in a sea of poverty? While India’s educated elite are reveling in their new found status on the global stage, inequitable distribution of wealth and opportunities are shaking the very foundation of India’s new economy. Will the Indian government’s apathy towards the rural poor bring India’s party to an abrupt end?

In the last 12 years, India's economy has grown at an average annual rate of about 7 percent, reducing poverty by 10 percent. However, 40 percent of the world's poor still live in India, and 28 percent of the country's population continues to live below the poverty line. More than one third live on less than a dollar a day, and 80 percent live on less than two dollars a day. India's recent economic growth has been attributed to the service industry, but 60 percent of the workforce remains in agriculture.

The rate of increasing disparity between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’, is hard to miss in tech centers like Bangalore, Chennai and Delhi. Technology professionals are returning, having made their millions in the US. They are driving expensive cars and living in luxury apartments. Cities are growing in all directions. Farmlands are being acquired to build luxury townships, golf courses, five star hotels, spas and clubs. Poor farmers get paid off, and are forced to move further away from the city. And while global leaders and businessmen wax eloquent about India’s growing status as an IT superpower, everyone turns a blind eye to the majority of the population untouched by the economic growth.

Social Inequality Threatening India's Economic Stability | Fast Company

Again you have failed to answer anything and have gone back to your stupid posting. Learn to accept facts.
 
.
So your basically saying everybody on this planet is wrong about India, only Riaz Haq is right lol Come out of your hole, your just like a frog sitting in a well and calling it the world.
 
.
So your basically saying everybody on this planet is wrong about India, only Riaz Haq is right lol Come out of your hole, your just like a frog sitting in a well and calling it the world.

No, not everybody is wrong. Just you and chauvinist cohorts here are wrong.

The real truth is that it's a tale of two Indias, a relatively small prosperous India; and a huge poor, malnourished and hungry India in which two-thirds of the population still defecates in the open. Your focus, and those of the ones you like to quote is on the former. It completely ignores the latter.
 
Last edited:
.
LOL read this Mr.Haq -


We Hate India

Recently two friends of mine forwarded me an email pointing to the existence of a hate community called "We Hate India" in Orkut. They wanted me to join a campaign calling for shutting down the community. My first reaction was that of intense curiosity; I logged onto Orkut and found the group. It contained a profile picture of a burning Indian flag and had (only) 86 registered members at that time. It was moderated by one Miraslov Stankovic from the Russian Federation.

Several different emotions swamped me. I started thinking about the power of hate, and its destructive potential. It baffles me that the dark side of human beings is so easy to evoke, and how it is so easy to marshal men and resources to fuel a machinery of hate, while it is so difficult to get people to donate money or time for a good cause. As I was thinking, my eyes fell on the number 86. Just 86! With millions of users in Orkut, that number would be less than the total number of new members registered in Orkut in 15 seconds. That raised another question in my mind -- "If hate is indeed as powerful as I think, why is the membership so small ?". Slightly baffled, I read the introductory page ( or the profile page ) of the community, and all my doubts were wiped out. The followers of an ideology based on hate usually lack the intellect to think (these people are usually designed to march behind symbols (the burning Indian flag in this case), not think), and look upon a leader to give voice and reason to their "movement". As with most enterprises, even hate requires a charismatic leader who the followers can look upon.

The tiny membership of "We hate India" is easily explained by the lack of leadership. Miraslov, the moderator of this group, is hardly able to organize his thoughts; much less communicate them. As I read through the profile of "We hate India", it left me intellectually disgusted. It wasn't the message (or the lack of it) that disgusted me, it was the quality of diction; it was a sort of incoherent verbal diarrhea. No wonder, not many people would want to be associated with such a group or such a "leader".

The second thought I had was about the power of online publishing and its consequences. The Internet has empowered people with tools to publish their opinions. This comes at a price -- a lot of stuff on the internet is copied, cached, or backed up. It is almost never deleted. The 86 members of "We hate India" run the risk of being branded as perpetrators of hate forever. Having a different political view is one thing; being part of a hate group is an entirely different ball game. This naively created community might have already come under the radar of secret services of a few countries. I can say without exaggeration that if one member of such a group commits a hate crime or is involved in a terrorist activity, other members of this group run the risk of being declared guilty by association. Just being part of this group can hurt their careers, and even their friends and families in the long run. Did these 86 people think about these consequences before openly declaring their participation in a hate group?

I did not join my friends in shutting down this hate community because I think every group has the right to freedom of speech (and its consequences). I may not agree with what they say, but I would defend their right to say what they want to say. I also think that as Indians we should stop being offended by trivial issues like burning of the National flag; as long as those burning the flag import the fabric and matchsticks from India, the parents of a few children in India would be earning money (in the textile and matchstick industry) to send them to school.

I Think: We Hate India

Maybe you should join the group also lol
 
.
"India Shining" consists of islands of prosperity in a vast sea of poverty.


I suupose this can be applied to almost any country. The urban areas are always more affluent than the rural areas. Some regions and provinces are more industrialised than others. Some regions are more agriculture based economies.
Even in US, California and Florida are much wealthier as compared to other states. In China too there is a huge disparity in wealth between urban and rural areas, between coastal areas and interior areas, between North and South, East and West.
We should look at the overall picture, than just at the micro level.
It would be better if we concentrate on where we are going, rather then where we are or where we come from. The present picture in India is definitely Not rosy, but the future looks very optimistic. This seems to be near consensus on this with all international analysts.
 
Last edited:
.
I suupose this can be applied to almost any country. The urban areas are always more affluent than the rural areas. Some regions and provinces are more industrialised than others. Some regions are more agriculture based economies.
Even in US, California and Florida are much wealthy than other states. In china too there is a huge disparity in wealth betwen urban and rural areas, between coastal areas and interior areas, between north and sout, East and west.
We should look at the overall picture, than just at the micro level.

The differences in most other countries do not result in the kind of abject poverty, hunger, malnutrition and illiteracy that exists in India.
 
.
The differences in most other countries do not create the kind of abject poverty, hunger, malnutrition and illiteracy that exists in India.

Lol you still haven’t replied to - So that means that analyst at NY times, Greg Rushford, KEITH BRADSHER, Peter Mandelson, Peter Drucker, Etc etc are all wrong about India ? Only you know the truth about India?

Don’t change the topic or continue with your useless rant.
 
.
Lol you still haven’t replied to - So that means that analyst at NY times, Greg Rushford, KEITH BRADSHER, Peter Mandelson, Peter Drucker, Etc etc are all wrong about India ? Only you know the truth about India?

Don’t change the topic or continue with your useless rant.

I bet , he will never answer the question.
It amuses me that he is not able to find a single positive thing about pakistan.
He fails to comprehend that criticizing india will not make pakistan a great country and pour investment.
 
.
The differences in most other countries do not result in the kind of abject poverty, hunger, malnutrition and illiteracy that exists in India.

Yes. thats right.. Thats why India is called a "Developing Country" and "Emerging Economy". It means there is a lot of scope for development.
India has come a long way, and there is still a long way to go. But, the good news is, We are on the right path.
 
.
See now since he shut you up you fell down so low that you had to remind the defecation part when you yourself know that 66% of your population defecates in the open!

How low can you fall!! Don't you have better things to do? You seriously need to see a doctor and I strongly suggest a CT Scan to find out any deficiencies or problems with your brain!

I know the absence of sanitation in "Shining India" embarrasses chauvinistic Indians like you, but repeating your lies ad infinitem won't help you!

Here's the truth:

While a mere 14 percent of people in rural areas of the country (India)- that account for 65 percent of its 1.1 billion population - had access to toilets in 1990, the number had gone up to 28 percent in 2006. In comparison, 33 percent rural Pakistanis had access to toilets in 1990 and it went up to an impressive 58 percent in 2006.

Similarly in Bangladesh, 36 percent of rural people have access to proper sanitation. The corresponding figures for Afghanistan and Sri Lanka were 30 percent and 86 percent respectively.

More at : India trails Pakistan, Bangladesh in sanitation India trails Pakistan, Bangladesh in sanitation
 
.
I know the absence of sanitation in "Shining India" embarrasses chauvinistic Indians like you, but repeating your lies ad infinitem won't help you!

Here's the truth:

While a mere 14 percent of people in rural areas of the country (India)- that account for 65 percent of its 1.1 billion population - had access to toilets in 1990, the number had gone up to 28 percent in 2006. In comparison, 33 percent rural Pakistanis had access to toilets in 1990 and it went up to an impressive 58 percent in 2006.

Similarly in Bangladesh, 36 percent of rural people have access to proper sanitation. The corresponding figures for Afghanistan and Sri Lanka were 30 percent and 86 percent respectively.

More at : India trails Pakistan, Bangladesh in sanitation India trails Pakistan, Bangladesh in sanitation


Please re-res this **** article - It is shoddy journalism because the percentages do not make sense.
 
.
Please re-res this **** article - It is shoddy journalism because the percentages do not make sense.

I know, these figures will never make sense to you...they are so terribly embarrassing.

Here's some more shoddy journalism for you:

India has the greatest proportion of people in Asia behind Nepal without access to improved sanitation, according to Unicef. Some 665 million Indians practice open defecation, more than half the global total. In China, the world’s most populous country, 37 million people defecate in the open, according to Unicef.


India Failing to Control Open Defecation Blunts Nation?s Growth - Bloomberg.com

http://www.riazhaq.com/2009/10/fixing-sanitation-crisis-in-india.html
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom