India (2002)
jimrogers.com
India (2002)
1–10 of 59 posts
Re: India (2002)
#2How old is this article ?
From the content this looks pretty old, like India having 25 states etc.
Re: India (2002)
#3[deleted]
Re: India (2002)
#4How old is this article ? From the content this looks pretty old, like India having 25 states etc.
Looks like "6 Mar 2001" according to the link that goes to the article.
He recently appeared in the news for "quitting" India: http://www.livemint.com/Money/Hii5NshplbswnJpcb0cHgM/Jim-Rog...
Re: India (2002)
#5How is this relevant now? We are in 2015 not 2001.
Re: India (2002)
#6Funnily enough, after reading the first paragraph, it still sounds like a recent article even though it has been years. In fact, the country probably has taken two steps back under Manmohan Singh.
To a certain extent, even if the article was recent, it's not a surprise. Democracies are SLOW and India is still a social democracy trying to be a capitalistic democracy - so even slower.
Democracies move fast only during a crisis. Otherwise, they are inherently slow.
Even in the US, a majority of top issues have not changed much since the 90s. Politicians have been debating pretty much the same thing without much progress...
Re: India (2002)
#7> You can get just about anything in China or even in parts of Africa, but not here.
Any concrete examples? I think this is inappropriate any more.
Re: India (2002)
#8I think this is from 2002, a pretty long time ago. The infrastructure issues don't seem to have gone away though.
Re: India (2002)
#9If I have to blame one thing and only one thing, I will spare the Indian politician and blame the "babu-giri", Indian Civil Services, which is still modeled around its colonial predecessor. These are people recruited in their 20s and have a lifetime appointment in the system. Some are wise enough to get foreign education when possible, but most live in this bureaucratic bubble, and methodically eke their fiefdoms. These guys are the policy wonks, district level executives and every thing in between, and they do not have one frigging Idea, how the private sector works. They are worshipers of process and people are not in the picture. This culture permeates to every level, a culture of gatekeepers and fiefdoms, from the Secretary to PM to the peon in the municipal office.
India was called hope of Asia in 50s. The hope and promise was nothing new, and the delivery was never there.
Re: India (2002)
#10Funnily enough, after reading the first paragraph, it still sounds like a recent article even though it has been years. In fact, the country probably has taken two steps back under Manmohan Singh. To a certain extent, even if the article was recent, it's not a surprise. Democracies are SLOW and India is still a social democracy trying to be a capitalistic democracy - so even slower. Democracies move fast only during…
Factually if we take each point in the Article, a lot has changed and yet not enough:
1. You can get cross country SIM card easily in India today.
2. Taxes for IT business is uniform (no incentive for export per se)
3. Indian IT industry did just fine during bubble burst so Author's cyncism was bit misplaced.
4. Indian aviation industry is fierecly competitive. Today no one worries about future of Air India not because Air India has become good but there is enough competition.
5. I would argue that a lot has been done to ease Foreign investment since Article was written. Why just yesterday new measures were announced (http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/no-mat-on-fii-why...)