Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

India (2002)

jimrogers.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 59 posts

Re: India (2002)

#21

Post by melling »

ashwinaj wrote: post #17

This seems like an outdated story (seems like it's a 2001 article). (I'm ignoring fundamental problems like corruption etc. below) As far as the anti-foreign investment sentiment goes, it sounds repulsive on face value, but those of us (Indians) who've lived in the US would want a Walmart (just as an example) destroying all the mom and pop shops? I think a cautious approach for foreign investment is the way to go, th…

I would think increasing efficiencies and growing the economy would be what's in the best interest of the Indian people. If India had become the 2nd or 3rd biggest economy, along with China, would the average person be better off?

http://www.chinafirstcapital.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/201...

Re: India (2002)

#22

Post by yummyfajitas »

ashwinaj wrote: post #17

This seems like an outdated story (seems like it's a 2001 article). (I'm ignoring fundamental problems like corruption etc. below) As far as the anti-foreign investment sentiment goes, it sounds repulsive on face value, but those of us (Indians) who've lived in the US would want a Walmart (just as an example) destroying all the mom and pop shops? I think a cautious approach for foreign investment is the way to go, th…

As a person who's shopped at both walmart and local "mom and pop shops", yes. We also want Uber or Ola destroying the local taxi industry, and providing safer and better service to consumers. We want Flipkart or Amazon destroying local retail, Toyota destroying local automotive, etc.

Big scary (sometimes foreign) players only manage to "destroy" a local industry when the local industry is failing to satisfy local customers.

Re: India (2002)

#23

Post by pm90 »

The article is honest but the last paragraph makes me question whether it really was..

> India really is not a rational country. The English mushed India together in the panic of independence in 1947, but little heed was given to ethnic, religious, linguistic, historic, national, or geographic considerations which is one reason India has had problems with every one of its neighbors since. India as we know it will not survive another 30 or 40 years. This of course does not have to end in disaster, but it probably will given the chauvinism of its government and the way history has always worked.

Really? A democracy of 1.3 billion people which has held together for > 60 years and endured > 4 major wars will just topple? I find that very unlikely.

The fact is that despite a lot of troubles, the country has managed to remain more or less true to its principles of democracy and secularism, instead of devolving into a chaotic mess that most of the neighboring countries have faced. One reason is that the Indian Military has historically been apolitical, unlike many neighboring countries. I don't really understand how it has managed to stay together this way but I really hope that it does continue.

Re: India (2002)

#24

Post by dragonwriter »

chimeracoder wrote: post #19
guybrushT wrote: post #15

There are 2 amazing things about this article: 1. It was written a while ago, and the general description of the country and its problems are just as true. 2. This quote: "In the eastern section of India, there is a company called Bengal Fertilizer, which was built in the early nineties. The government spent $1.2 billion on it and it took seven years to complete. It now employs 1550 people with complete work schedule…

> A good piece of writing - quite critical about the country, but also comes from a place of affection for the country. I'm not sure where you're reading "affection" from. Rogers has been predicting and even actively cheerleading India's financial decline consistently for literally two decades. He even closes the article with a claim that is laughably ignorant[0] of historical facts, and just reeks of colonial apolog…

Re: "terrorists" and India at the time of independence

> That word didn't exist then, but that's absolutely what we would call them today

It had actually existed for about a century and half before that, and had been used in the modern sense (including referring to non-state and subnational actors, often directing violence against a state, rather than the original use referring to terrorism strictly in the sense of a top-down means of state control originating with the French Revolution's Reign of Terror and its architects, the original "terrorists") for about 70-80 years prior to Indian independence.

Re: India (2002)

#25

Post by koopuluri »

> No bubble ends with two-year lows. Bubbles end with 10 or 15 year lows

It seems like the software bubble ended with lows for maybe half that time. Is there anything peculiar to software or that time that made it different than other bubbles in history?

Re: India (2002)

#26

Post by chimeracoder »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #22
ashwinaj wrote: post #17

This seems like an outdated story (seems like it's a 2001 article). (I'm ignoring fundamental problems like corruption etc. below) As far as the anti-foreign investment sentiment goes, it sounds repulsive on face value, but those of us (Indians) who've lived in the US would want a Walmart (just as an example) destroying all the mom and pop shops? I think a cautious approach for foreign investment is the way to go, th…

As a person who's shopped at both walmart and local "mom and pop shops", yes. We also want Uber or Ola destroying the local taxi industry, and providing safer and better service to consumers. We want Flipkart or Amazon destroying local retail, Toyota destroying local automotive, etc. Big scary (sometimes foreign) players only manage to "destroy" a local industry when the local industry is failing to satisfy local cus…

> We

You're speaking neither as an Indian national, an Indian shopowner, or even an employee of a low-margin local business in India.

I understand that people living elsewhere have perspectives on this, as do ex-pats living in India, but those aren't the people who are principally harmed by this. It's very easy to conclude that this is "worth it" when you're only benefiting from it[0] not the one feeling the pain.

[0] 'As a person [from the US] who's shopped at both walmart and local "mom and pop shops" [in India]'

Re: India (2002)

#27

Post by puranjay »

pm90 wrote: post #23

The article is honest but the last paragraph makes me question whether it really was.. > India really is not a rational country. The English mushed India together in the panic of independence in 1947, but little heed was given to ethnic, religious, linguistic, historic, national, or geographic considerations which is one reason India has had problems with every one of its neighbors since. India as we know it will not…

There seems to be a western fascination with the idea of breaking India into different countries. River of Gods, a sci-fi novel by Ian McDonald, imagines India as 12 separate nations.

I don't ascribe this to malice, but to sheer bewilderment. From a rational perspective, India should not really exist. It is just too large and heterogeneous to stick together.

When I was in the US, some people asked me if I "speak Indian". The rational brain assumes that if they speak French in France, Italian in Italy and German in Germany, they must speak Indian in India.

Half an hour later, I figured out why the west never can and never will understand India

Re: India (2002)

#28

Post by trequartista »

pm90 wrote: post #23

The article is honest but the last paragraph makes me question whether it really was.. > India really is not a rational country. The English mushed India together in the panic of independence in 1947, but little heed was given to ethnic, religious, linguistic, historic, national, or geographic considerations which is one reason India has had problems with every one of its neighbors since. India as we know it will not…

People have been talking about the "Balkanization of India" for a while now. But there are no signs of this yet. Indians have a deep rooted (albeit slightly misguided and maybe even chauvinistic) sense of patriotism.

Re: India (2002)

#29

Post by yummyfajitas »

chimeracoder wrote: post #26
yummyfajitas wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a person who's shopped at both walmart and local "mom and pop shops", yes. We also want Uber or Ola destroying the local taxi industry, and providing safer and better service to consumers. We want Flipkart or Amazon destroying local retail, Toyota destroying local automotive, etc. Big scary (sometimes foreign) players only manage to "destroy" a local industry when the local industry is failing to satisfy local cus…

> We You're speaking neither as an Indian national, an Indian shopowner, or even an employee of a low-margin local business in India. I understand that people living elsewhere have perspectives on this, as do ex-pats living in India, but those aren't the people who are principally harmed by this. It's very easy to conclude that this is "worth it" when you're only benefiting from it[0] not the one feeling the pain. [0…

I'm speaking as a consumer in India - one of the people hurt by the current regime. You seem to want to ignore the value to consumers - why?

Also, what is the relevance of my nationality? I make no secret of it, I'm merely trying to understand why you bring it up.

Re: India (2002)

#30

Post by hariis »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #22
ashwinaj wrote: post #17

This seems like an outdated story (seems like it's a 2001 article). (I'm ignoring fundamental problems like corruption etc. below) As far as the anti-foreign investment sentiment goes, it sounds repulsive on face value, but those of us (Indians) who've lived in the US would want a Walmart (just as an example) destroying all the mom and pop shops? I think a cautious approach for foreign investment is the way to go, th…

As a person who's shopped at both walmart and local "mom and pop shops", yes. We also want Uber or Ola destroying the local taxi industry, and providing safer and better service to consumers. We want Flipkart or Amazon destroying local retail, Toyota destroying local automotive, etc. Big scary (sometimes foreign) players only manage to "destroy" a local industry when the local industry is failing to satisfy local cus…

Generally, the locals do not understand the damage done by Walmart, Amazon and such until it is too late.

One example, http://storyofstuff.org/blog/dear-jeff-bezos-im-leaving/

Post reply on HN