Google to Invest $10B in India

Post by Jweb_Guru » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 8:38 PM UTC

OJFord wrote: post #272

Jweb_Guru wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a pretty clear difference, to me, between saying "this practice is obviously wrong, but technically legal--and we should work to change that," and lauding the company's actions as "good accounting," scolding people for confusing the act of successfully evading paying taxes with "tax evasion" as though this particular bit of legal jargon were shedding light on anything for non-accountants, and carrying water…

I don't think there's much that's 'obviously' right or wrong in economic policies or tax law, and certainly companies that would fare worse under your proposed changes are the wrong target for urges of change. Or any legislation really, that's the point of case law, a particular circumstance wasn't anticipated, so there's some interpretation and umming and ahing, and thenceforth that example's able to be used to stee…

Post by shripadk » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 9:07 PM UTC

xxpor wrote: post #228

screye wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mukhesh Ambani who's got a good connect with the current ruling Government To be fair, Mukesh has got good connections everywhere. He is India's most powerful person. Amitabh and the Shahrukh (some of the world's richest actors, both half billionaires) both volunteered as servers at his daughters wedding as a show of appreciation. If a man can command the most powerful of his country to such level of willful subser…

Random language usage question: in India, if someone is referred to as a billionaire, would that be in terms of rupees or dollars? (1 billion INR is ~13.3 million USD) Or does it essentially never come up because a typical Indian would use lakh/crore instead? Is there's something like a "lakh croreaire"?

Post by cat199 » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 9:27 PM UTC

colinmhayes wrote: post #253

paulpan wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not familiar with Mukhesh Ambani or his reputation, but sounds like he's India's version of China's Jack Ma? Jack Ma and Alibaba came to the forefront due in part to his connections to the Chinese government. On the topic itself, it's unclear what Google's intentions are and how they could benefit from such an investment. $10B is not a big sum so is the purpose altruistic or as grease for other purposes?

Companies aren't altruistic, their only purpose is to provide value to shareholders. That doesn't mean this is a greasing, it could just be google wanting more people connected to the internet so more people use their products.

Post by smenyp » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 9:49 PM UTC

vinay427 wrote: post #279

bhaskara2 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

India is more democratic than even USA. Case in point Arvind Kejriwal and multiple such leaders. Anyone can form a party and contest the elections and actually have a fighting chance to govern India, can the same be said about the USA?

Maybe there is a case to be made here, and maybe you can make a convincing one given more time. However, as it stands there's a world of difference between the rise to (local) power of someone like Kejriwal and the claim that India is more democratic than the US. That is a rather specific feature that, even if true, is neither sufficient nor required to be democratic.

Post by Sangama34 » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:02 PM UTC

amrrs wrote: post #3

There's been a recent surge in American companies investing in India primarily through Reliance Jio (owned by Mukhesh Ambani who's got a good connect with the current ruling Government). It's been spiking since the Anti-China sentiment led Buy and Use 'Made in India' cries. Government has even asked eCom Flipkart and Amazon to display Country of Origin for each product. With all these, This investment from Google see…