Y4D

We will bring home a better system

News

FDI in retail: an unfinished debate

Posted by [email protected] on May 8, 2012 at 12:00 AM

Thomas Mathew: I think all this'romanticism' around 'small retail businesses' is hog wash, these so called'small retailers' are not as 'small' as they project themselves to be, they arethe biggest tax evaders,in fact hardly pay any tax, their employees are paid apittance, a lot of times they employ child labor, their practices includeextensive use of counterfeit brands, widespread adulteration and what not. Iflarge retail brands come up they are certainly going to offer better wages,better working conditions for laborers. So, my take on this is : BRING ITON......Nothing Walmart would do would be worse than what these smallbusinesses have been doing in perpetuity for the past 6 decades.

 

Tauqeer Alam: ‎Thomas Mathew very nicely put. I understand that these big stores will wipe out manysmall shopkeepers. But the question is what Reliance and Big Bazaar are doing?They are also big stores so what is difference if Wal-Mart or any other storescome? But this opposition seems like opposition of IT that computer will eatpeople's job. I am confused regarding FDI bill.

 

Surajit Dasgupta: Tauqeer's argumentis analogous to the question as to why our freedom struggle was never awidespread phenomenon. It wasn't because the indigenous rulers had been no lessatrocious!

If you are“confused”, Tauqeer, ask yourself a simple question: Whom should you side with-- a few lakh grocers and brokers OR 100 crore consumers and farmers?

 

Rohan Sharma: http://www.scribd.com/doc/64934718/Disadvantages-of-FDI-in-Retail

 

Anil Gupta: देश के किराना बाजार में विदेशी निवेश को मंजूरी, आज से देश कामालिक वालमार्ट..... जय हो


Tauqeer Alam: desh ka maalik Reliancefresh, Big Bazaar ho to Wal-mart ko bhi mauqa deke dekhte hain. warna sirf desikirana store. I understand some of the the concerns of left parties against FDIbut what is the difference if walmart and tesco make money instead of relianceand big bazaar?

Congress isbringing this bill is understandable. Communists are against it -- understandable.One thing which I dont understand is opposition from the BJP. Can any one tellme some logical concerns from the BJP which is other than opposition for thesake of it?

 

Mrinal Das: bjp : opposition inliteral sense not ethical. unproductive hypocrites.

 

Surajit Dasgupta: Now that we knowthat 'kirana' stores continue to thrive even in areas where Reliance Fresh andBig Bazaar came up more than three years ago, the coming ofWalMart/Carrefour/Tesco shouldn't be the indigenous grocer's concern. Asuspicion, therefore, arises: Are the protests being sponsored by Mukesh Ambaniand Kishore Biyani (to stifle competition, of course)?

 

Amitayu Ayu Sengupta: http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/PUBLICATIONS/HT/HD/2011/11/29/ArticleHtmls/Pranab-justifies-retail-FDI-timing-00000000000000.shtml?Mode=1

"pointingto the sliding SENSEX and tumbling Rupee, MUkherjee told HT "Except thispolicy announcement, can the Government address this issues?"

all thosearguing vociferously that FDI in retail is going to benefit Indian consumers,farmers, the cows in the fields or the crows in the sky please note...theFinance Minister has no illusions about why exactly FDI in retail is 'needed'!

 

Thomas Mathew: ‎SurajitDasgupta, Congress gets mostof its funding from big business, the communists owe their bread and butter tosmall retailers from the states in which their cadre is strong....So it alldoes add up, where your money is there your heart will be. Having said that, Ithink the same arguments that we hear today is nothing more than thosere-hashed from the 90s when the economic reforms were introduced.

 

Amitayu Ayu Sengupta: allowing FDi inyour economy essentially makes you subservient to their interests..now to keepthem in good mood, we need to allow FDI in retail..tomorrow god nows what eslewe have to sell off to them...and eveytime we have to sell something, we willhave all such grand arguments about how wonderful the whole thing is going tobe!! pathetic!

 

Thomas Mathew: ‎"allowingFDi in your economy essentially makes you subservient to their interests."Its Deja Vu!

 

Surajit Dasgupta: ‎Amitayu AyuSengupta,

This is howthe issue you have raised can be dealt with. This may explain the government haste:

1. Politicsand corruption:

Theconspiracy theories may be true.

2. Policy:

The UPAGovernment wants to counter the impression of its "policy paralysis".

3.Economics:

(i) Indiabadly needs a big inflow of dollars in the wake of the rupee hitting anall-time low exchange rate of 52 for a dollar.

(ii)Fighting price rise.

What Thomas Mathew and I support is not the corrupt deal that might have happenedbackstage. What we support is plain economic sense. At a time when the peopleare struggling to make the ends meet due to skyrocketing food prices, isn't itjudicious to do away with the seven odd levels of brokerage charged by themiddlemen between the farmer and the consumer, thus offering a higher price tothe former and a lower to the latter?

 

Amitayu Ayu Sengupta: if thecorporates actually do that, i would label them bigger fools than those whobelieve such will happen! what you will have in all probabilities is thecorporates eating up the entire brokerage charged by a handfull of middlemenall by themselves....they might streamline the delivery chain, but why on earthwill they be inclined to pay more to the farmers, or charge you or me any less?

 

ThomasMathew: Better prices tofarmers, better value to consumers, Better LABOR CONDITIONS, Amitayu AyuSengupta should be very happy with that. Have you seen the conditions ofworkers in these small retail shops? Ever asked them how much they arepaid?....These retail chains will probably pay then 10 times than that andbetter working conditions

 

AmitayuAyu Sengupta: while we are atit

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-11-16/news/30405584_1_pension-sector-fdi-cap-insurance-sector

now I amsure we will have some wonderful arguments of how this is going to be so goodfor us Indians!! and some more deja vu!

ThomasMathew, wishful thinkings arealways so wonderful! fully sympathise with you

 

ThomasMathew: ‎Amitayu AyuSengupta, Lets talk about thefacts. When the markets were first opened in the 90s, folks on the leftpredicted Apocalypse. I would concede its been a mixed bag, but I'd like tohear you make the argument that we'd be better off with a closed economy.

 

AmitayuAyu Sengupta: i am not talkingabout a closed economy...i am talking about the right to taking sovereigndecisions...I decide when I need FDi in any sector. I do not prefer beingamrtwisted by FDI to open up newer sectors or face flight of funds that willdestabilise my economy.

As for theclaims of FDI in retail resulting in higher returns to farmers etc, walmartcareffour etc operate in many countries across the world..they have no suchdubious track record, thanks to their efficient managerial skills that aredevoid of daydreamings!!!! corporates are here to earn profits, they are nothere to play good samaritans!

 

ThomasMathew: ‎"corporatesare here to earn profits, they are not here to play good samaritans!"Thats exactly what small retail shops do too......So why are they goodSamaritans who need protection from competition?

 

AmitayuAyu Sengupta: one step at a time...letus first denounce the grandiose ideas that bringing FDi in retail is going toget the farmers higher prices, and us consumer lower rates!

 

ThomasMathew: ‎"one stepat a time" What step is that?. I dont understand the difference in thecolor of the money and its causal implications to farmers prices, consumerrates etc that reliance brings in to what wal-mart would bring in.

 

AmitayuAyu Sengupta: ‎"Betterprices to farmers, better value to consumers, Better LABOR CONDITIONS"..iwas referring to these illusions!

 

ThomasMathew: Not illusions at all,in fact in the 90s if someone had predicted that mobile phones would be verypopular in rural India by 2011, you'd be asked to take a reality check. TheFACT is the free markets gets better value to everyone. It simply seems to workthat way.

 

AmitayuAyu Sengupta: yeah..itcertainly did for the OWS supporters :D we can discuss freemarket andcapitalism at theoritical, philosophical or even metaphysical levels isrelevant threads..please let us discuss about FDI in retail in this thread forclarity

http://berkeley.academia.edu/BarryEidlin/Papers/159992/A_Downward_Push_The_Impact_of_Wal-Mart_Stores_on_Retail_Wages_and_Benefits

http://www.nber.org/papers/w11782.pdf

 

ThomasMathew: You cant use a studyin the US and apply it to India. In India, nothing that walmart would do interms of wages, working conditions and so on can be worse than what these smallretail shops have been doing all these years. The wages that walmart offerswill be extremely lucrative compared to any small retail or even large retailchains could ever offer. Its apples and oranges, yes, in the US Wal-mart offersthe bottom of the pitcher wages but their labor standards are very high.

 

SurajitDasgupta: ‎Amitayu AyuSengupta,

If a producethat the farmer sells at Rs 5 a kg reaches us at Rs 70 a kg because of someseven levels of brokerage in between, there is no reason why the farmer can'tbe offered Rs 25 for the same amount and it reaches us at Rs 35. If you thinkthat the MNCs will gobble up all the brokerage and the product will continue tobe charged at Rs 70 for the consumer, what will then be the MNCs' USP, giventhat the 'kirana' stores will continue to coexist in the competition (becauseof a distinct purchasing pattern of the Indian consumer*)?

* [FromPandav Nagar in Delhi to Sector 17, Gurgaon, wherever Reliance Fresh exists,the 'kirana' stores do brisk business, too. The former is good for customerswho purchase a month's grocery in bulk; the latter is good for those who needto fill depleting kitchen stocks by buying a few 100 grams of variousproducts.]

 

AmitayuAyu Sengupta: the point is notthat they can't be offered..the point is they won't be offered..in your entirehypothesis, you miss the point that these kinara shops are dependant on themiddle men for their supplies..if MNCs succesfully remove the middlemen, theycan automatically choke out the kinara shops by killing their supply chain.

 

SurajitDasgupta: Which means thatyour heart bleeds for a motley group of brokers and not crores of consumers!

>>>theycan automatically choke out the kinara shops by killing their supplychain...<<<

Why didn'tthis happen when Reliance Fresh chain was set up? Indeed, it's your assertionthat is a hypothesis. Mine is a recount of real-life experience.

 

AmitayuAyu Sengupta: i expected betterunderstanding from you atleast!

bringing FDIin retail has 3 components to it..

a)procurement

b)distribution

c)sellpoints

to analysethe impact of FDI inclusion< please try to see the picture in the sense ofwhat impacts it will have at each stage of operation, and its interlinkages

 

SurajitDasgupta: The arrival of bigcompanies in retail will also ensure:

1. lesswaiting time for farmers to sell their produce;

2. bettercold storage and transportation facilities, making food reach us fresher.

 

AmitayuAyu Sengupta: how much didreliance fresh chain invest in these operations? just compare the scale ofcorporatisation we are talking about, and what we have now!

 

SurajitDasgupta: Mine is theconsumers' perspective. Whether Ambani's wallet swells or shrinks is none of mybusiness.

 

AmitayuAyu Sengupta: less waiting timeis an illusion, the waiting time of farm products are determined by theperishibility of the products, unless farmers have cold storage provisions oftheir own, they have no bargaining power in this regard...

mine is aneconomists perspective..i see the nation's economic as a whole, where we allare interlinked!

 

SurajitDasgupta: Unfortunately, thisthread cannot accommodate a powerpoint file. Or else I could have shown you allhow it works.

 

AmitayuAyu Sengupta: what you refer toas consumers perspective is what is known as class position in social scienceliteratures :P

 

SurajitDasgupta: ‎>>>isee the nation's economic as a whole<<<

Thesocialist/communist perspective (of trade unionism) has always sought tosafeguard the interests of a motley group in the organised sector at theexpense of a much larger population that operates in the unorganised sector. Inthis case, the Sanghi swadeshi lobby is behaving no different from you.

 

AmitayuAyu Sengupta: ‎"Theformer is good for customers who purchase a month's grocery in bulk; the latteris good for those who need to fill depleting kitchen stocks by buying a few 100grams of various products."

there inlies the whole point..in a situation where you used to buy everything from thekinara shops, you have shifted to buying the bulk from malls and the marginalfrom the kinara shop, thereby shifting the bulk away from the kinarashop...now, how many kinara shops can survive by loosing the bulk business iswhat many are worried about

 

AmitayuAyu Sengupta: in a country likeours where employment oppurtunities are limited...many kinara shop owners haveno option but to try running their shops, this is akin to destitude selling offarmers..and i simply donot support that

The issue oforganised and unorganised labour sector and their representations (and thechallenges thereby) are topics that warrants a seperate discussion byitself....


Jairaj WSanand: I think in all thesecomments people are forgetting the main issue here with any Foriegn"investment".

They takeaway the profits.

Why are wedoing that at the cost of the local kiryana shop.

If you takea look at foreign countries where Walmart reigns you have to buy what they sellyou. Almost all their goods are mainufactured in China. That is why there areno jobs for americans.

Its hasalways been the case when the americans learn the truth and are discardingthese multinational and are creating coops and farmers markets where they getaccess to healthy food GMO-FREE food. Chemical free food.

We Indiansare adopting the western ways.

Same thinghappened with Nuclear energy, Same thing happened with Fast food, Same thinghappened with so called health foods Like soy(which is actually bad forhealth).

What wediscard, ie. yoga, ayurveda, vedic knowledge and science the West is adopting.

Why BJP isopposing the same reason they threw out Coca cola in 75. They are alwaysswadeshi.

Is there nomoney in India to invest why should they allow FDI.

Another bigreason which is not accepted and is bordeline conspiracy is that the dollar isgoing to collapse very soon and Foreing companies want to invest in the nextbest currency.

The rupee isvalued more but it is these forces that are deliberately keeping the rupeedown. There is evidence of the GOVT deliberately keeping the rupee down. Sothat exporters(IT especially) profit and the major reason being FDI.(andindirect investment. They get more value for their investment.

Once all ofthis is over and they have invested enough money in such economies they willlet go of the dollar and it will crash.

Again thecommon man suffers the common man of america will be driven to poverty.

 

AmitayuAyu Sengupta: and please doread the articles that i have pasted..they are not manifestos of CPIM orBJP...please do read the impact of walmart on local economies....simply wishingit away doesnot work!

 

SurajitDasgupta: >>>there inlies the whole point..in a situation where you used to buy everything from thekinara shops, you have shifted to buying the bulk from malls and the marginalfrom the kinara shop, thereby shifting the bulk away from the kinara shop...now,how many kinara shops can survive by loosing the bulk business is what many areworried about<<<

 

That the kirana shops have survived and are also thriving in this competitionis a reality.

___

 

>>>in a country like ours where employment oppurtunities are limited...manykinara shop owners have no option but to try running their shops, this is akinto destitude selling of farmers..and i simply donot support that<<<

 

To look after a motley group of kirana shop owners -- or their MNC competitorsfor that matter -- is, anyway, with no prejudice towards my argument above, nota billion consumers' responsibility. Why should we billions turn our livesmiserable to keep a few thousand people in good humour?

___

 

>>>the issue of organised and unorganised labour sector and theirrepresentations (and the challenges thereby) are topics that warrants aseperate discussion by itself...<<<

 

It is very much relevant in this discussion. You are taking undue advantage ofthe fact that we, a billion consumers, are not organised while the brokers andbaniyas are.

 

MukulKanitkar: Just FYI- maybe thisis the reason for the hurry - http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3045walmart_iowa.html

The governmentclaims that the FDI in retail will help farmers. Here is an analysis how far itis true?? http://expressbuzz.com/biography/Indias-retail-sold-wholesale/337135.html


 

AmitayuAyu Sengupta: guess US does nothave billions of customers like we do!

 

MukulKanitkar: I would prefer tolook at my fellow countrymen as HUMANS rather than customers. The question ismore related to food security and the way of life rather than any soundeconomics.

 

Jairaj WSanand: ‎Surajit Dasgupta I doagree with you on many points. That is why I have no spoken about protectingthose Kirana shops as such.

Mukul Kanitkar has posted a link which is also the main reasons for themto look here.

So the mains issue is the foreign firms investing in India where India caninvest. they take away the profits.

I think we should tell the airline industry to sell hive of their entireinfrastructure to developing african countries and invest in the retail.

Mukul Kanitkar Wellsaid. could not have said it better >> The question is more related tofood security and the way of life rather than any sound economics.

USA has become a victim and that is what I mentioned in my earlier commentsthey are looking at the small farmer and grocers

Even whole foods and traders Joe are corporations that are redefining organic.In the end the human would have no option but to eat what is convenient forthese corporation to sell and grow and what is more profitable to them.

They even sell pharma drugs to benefit from your health consequences :-)

 

AmitayuAyu Sengupta: contract farmingand corporate retail is a heady mix for disaster..if the second is allowed, theformer will come in more strongly....we are already at par with some of thepoor African nations in terms of nutrition and other HDR parameters, very soonwe will beat them at it

 

MukulKanitkar: Here is anotherinstance of who are the real beneficiaries of the POLICY- http://www.thehindu.com/business/article2673818.ece

 

AmitayuAyu Sengupta: billions of blueblistering........consumers!!!

 

दीपकजोशी: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature/layer_embedded&v=lClGnaf2xVg

 

SurajitDasgupta: All the argumentsmade above since I logged out conveniently bypass the factor that the US andIndia were not identical economies when each, at separate points of time,opened retail to big companies.

 

‎>>>I would preferto look at my fellow countrymen as HUMANS rather than customers.<<<

 

And for people of this school of thought, baniyas are the only humans. The restof Indian society is cannon fodder. They must buy the garbage dished out by thebaniyas just because they happen to share the same nationality! What aconvoluted sense of patriotism!!!

 

ThomasMathew: Well, if the US was sobanking on this decision by India, if the Indian government had the BALLS(forgive the misogyny in the analogy for a moment), they should have demanded aquid pro quo with the opening up of the US agricultural sector for Indianfarmers...But this current administration would'nt have the guts to put forthsuch sensible demands ever

 

Jairaj WSanand: Retail chains arecurrently dishing out garbage in the USA. They are only going to serve worsequality products in India.

 

SurajitDasgupta: Response to SGurumurthy's article:

 

>>>That it will endlessly damage the huge 1.2 million strongcommunity-run retail business in India is undisputed.<<<

 

Far from it! Small-time Indian retailers continue to thrive in the competition.

 

I quote: "All those who expect big retailers like Walmart to come in anddevour small kirana shops should pause and think. Can Big Retail really dothat? Just look at what the average kirana store offers the average Indianhousehold. Firstly, it is just a stone’s throw away. So anytime the familyneeds something, it is easy to just stroll over and get it, even if it is aspaltry as a loaf of bread. Secondly, there is the trust about all the itemsbeing fresh and reasonably priced at the friendly neighbourhood kiranawalla.Thirdly, there is free home delivery, usually on a bicycle, for the regularmonthly supplies, colloquially called “ration”. And fourthly and mostimportantly, there is credit. Since the shopkeeper knows the families in thevicinity well enough, he can actually extend credit based only on the jottingsmade in a tiny pocket-sized plastic-covered notebook.

 

A vast majority of middle class India still shops from one of the millions oftiny kirana stores for precisely these reasons." [http://indianeconomy.org/2006/11/29/kirana-will-still-rule/]

___

 

>>>A total of 58.8 million of small and marginal farming families,that is over 32 crore rural people, live on farming in India. Their farm sizeis 5 acres or less. In contrast, in Canada, it is 1798 acres; in US, 1089acres; in Australia, 17975 acres; in France, 274 acres; in UK, 432 acres. TheUS farm size is 250 times larger than the Indian; the Australian farms, 4000times! Therefore, Farm Gate to Walmart supply chain that works in the US/Westcannot be imagined here.<<<

 

If really so (if the Wal-Mart model really does not work in India), what thenis the cause of your concern? Or, are you worried about Wal-Mart's health aswell?!

___

 

>>>The SMFs in India farm about 34% of the cultivated area, butproduce 41% of food grains; their productivity is 33% higher. Replace smallfarms by large ones. Nation’s food production will instantly fall by 7%.<<<

 

This mathematics is not convincing. Nor is the geography in it. Extensivefarming (EF) has globally produced better results than the intensive variety(IF), and has also offered better standard of living to an average farmer.

 

1. While IF significantly increases yield per acre, per person, and per GBP, itlimits and destroys the natural habitat of most wild creatures, and leads tosoil erosion.

 

2. While food should become more affordable to the consumer as it costs less toproduce, this does not happen in India because of seven levels of brokersbetween the farmer and the consumer.

 

3. While, in IF, the same area of land is able to supply food and fibre for alarger population reducing the risk of starvation, the mindless use offertilizers alters the biology of rivers and lakes (The hypoxic zone in theGulf of Mexico as being encouraged by nitrogen fertilization of the algaebloom).

 

4. Pesticides kill useful insects as well as those that destroy crops. Use ofpesticides have numerous negative health effects in workers who apply them,people that live nearby the area of application or downstream/downwind from it,and consumers who eat the pesticides which remain on their food.

 

5. On the one hand, IF leads to a reduction in anthropomorphic carbon dioxidegeneration (resulting from removal of the sequestration afforded by woodlandsand rainforests). OTO, large amounts of energy is wasted to produce, transport,and apply chemical fertilizers/pesticides. The chemicals used may further leavethe field as runoff eventually ending up in rivers and lakes or may drain intogroundwater aquifers.

 

In case of EF, ...

1. Mechanisation can be used more effectively over large, flat areas.

 

2. Greater efficiency of labour means generally lower product prices.

Animal welfare is generally improved because animals are not kept in stiflingconditions.

 

3. There are lower requirements of inputs such as fertilizers.

 

4. Local environment and soil are not damaged by overuse of chemicals.

[this section, courtesy: Wikipedia]

___

 

>>>SMFs produce most of the 100.9 million tons of milk.<<<

 

What we get is synthetic milk, which in fact is no milk at all.

___

 

>>>A less known, stunning truth about rural India is that more than60% of India’s food production does not enter commercial stream at all, butgets distributed, consumed within the villages. It is retained or stored byfarmers for consumption, payment of wages in kind to farm labour; and for useas seed and feedstock for animals; for sale within the village.<<<

 

Contrary to the assertion of the author, subsistence agriculture is not at alla desirable scenario. Rather than seeking pride in it, India should be ashamedof not being able to offer the farmer a deal better than his having to consumethe little crop he has produced, leaving nothing to be sold and earned from.

___

 

>>>Even if a small part of the 60% un-marketed food production isdrawn into the market through supply chain which Walmarts will establish, thatwill mean urban pricing in rural areas.<<<

 

That urban pricing -- much less than today's urban pricing that takes intoaccount several intermediaries -- will still leave the farmer with morepurchasing power, as he has already got a better price from the big retailerthat the broker who so far used to buy his produce never offered him.

___

 

>>>The Konkan people see, but don’t eat Alfanso but only export it forhigh prices<<<

 

The government, and not any private company, is responsible for this senselessexport policy. One may consider the case with tea also in this regard. What weconsume is tea dust; tea leaves are all exported.

___

 

>>>Now, by its retail FDI policy, the UPA government expects Walmartto go where the Planning Commission Working group had asked the government togo!<<<

 

The PDS has been a complete disaster because of corruption within the ranks ofthe government. The situation is aggravated by the scene of grains rotting inFCI warehouses. How can such a government, whose bureaucrats exact bribes fromration shopkeepers who hoard, be considered patriotic? And how are bigretailers encroachers or traitors of the nation if the leakages, wastages andsiphoning are effectively stopped by them?

 

MukulKanitkar: I totally agree thatthe Kirana will still rule. I am not opposed to FDI for fear of anything on thecontrary I am against it because it will not be of any benefit to Bharat. Itwill totally be counter productive. We do not need the False Capital fromoutside, we need internal liberal policies to free the real Capital blocked inour society. The concept of Capital generation through foreign investment is awell preserved myth. It is only an outflow.

 

SumitKeshwani: The vote ofparliament should be must to pass such laws.

 

Sumit Keshwani: 'Walmart:turnover $400 billion,employs 2.1 million people.Indian retail:turnover $400 billion,12 million shops employs 44 million.


 

Vijay Jamwal: aisa kon sa chamatkar wallmart karne jaa raha hai jo hum bhartiya nahi karsakte the,

kya sarkar hamen vaisi suvidha deti jaisi vo wallmart ko de rahi hai? kya humbhartiya itne ayogya hai ki retail shop bhi dhang se nahi chala sakte? kya yetarakki ke nishan hai, ye kaisi tarakki jo hamari kabiliyat ke bina hai?

 

SurajitDasgupta: ‎>>>I totally agree that the Kirana will still rule... It willtotally be counter productive.<<<

 

Counter-productive for Wal-Mart. Let Wal-Mart worry about that. Why are youworried, given the fact that you agree the kirana stores will continue tothrive in the competition?

___

 

>>>The concept of Capital generation through foreign investment is awell preserved myth. It is only an outflow.<<<

 

That we earn such amounts in salaries and profits which we couldn't imaginewhile we were children, dependent on our parents who used to earn in thepre-1991 era far less than what we earn post-1991, is a myth?

 

An LDC's salary pre-1991: Rs 800 per month

An LDC's salary post-1991: Rs 11,000 per month

 

A top bureaucrat's salary pre-1991: Rs 3,500 per month

A top bureaucrat's salary post-1991: Rs 96,000 per month

 

Even after a great decline in the value of the rupee and 6% inflation perannum, that is a substantial gain. Children of middle class families no longerhave to wait for years together to get their demands met by the parents.

 

I love such 'myths'! :-)

 

Anshuman Nirvana: The double standard of BJP on FDI in retail is simply appalling.When they ruledunder the banner of NDA they were prophets of free market economy and now theyare posturing like the left parties.Atleast they should be a constructiveopposition and not disrupt parliament in this way.We deserve better from ourelected representatives.Are we as a country ready to look beyond this partieswho have lost all credibility in our eyes.


 

Sumit Keshwani: BJP was never in favour of 51% FDI in multi brand retail or 100% FDI in singlebrand retail. They were only contemplating 26% FDI.

 

BJP is not disrupting parliament, govt is disrupting it by not allowingadjournment motion which is a constitutional right of opposition. andopposition her eis not just BJP.

 

Rajeev Khare: ‎Thomas Mathew, Who is allowing the small retailers to indulge in malpractices ? Thegovt. So the govt needs to get it act together and get them to behave. Thatwill keep the national wealth within the country. Or else it will fly out. Wewill keep on arguing and someone else will take the booty out.

 

SurajitDasgupta: ‎Rajeev Khare,

 

How can a machinery where all jobs are permanent, where there is no incentivefor performance and no punishment for non-performance "get its acttogether"?

 

Jairaj WSanand: Again SurajitDasgupta You are totally arguing on this out of context. Ok you are rightwith the kirana argument. I totally agree.

Lets talk about the point Mukul Kanitkar put forward.>>>We donot need the False Capital from outside, we need internal liberal policies tofree the real Capital blocked in our society. The concept of Capital generationthrough foreign investment is a well preserved myth. It is only anoutflow.<<<

What do you have to say about this. I think this is the real issue we shouldnot be allowing FDI.

 

ThomasMathew: ‎">We do not need the False Capital from outside, we needinternal liberal policies to free the real Capital blocked in our society"You wanna go back to the 80s, is what you're saying...

 

AnkitKumar Agrawal: Entry offoreign players in retail will most definitely disrupt the current balance ofthe economy; will render millions of small retailers jobless by closing thesmall slit of opportunity available to them. Primary task of government inIndia is still to provide livelihoods and not create so called efficiencies ofscale by creating redundancies. It may have lot of benefit but in today'sscenario India is not in position to allow FDI in retails.

 

ThomasMathew: ‎"Primary task of government in India is still to providelivelihoods and not create so called efficiencies of scale by creatingredundancies" This is Keynesian economics at its best, dig a hole all day,next day fill it up, as long as everyone's getting paid, its all good...

I dontunderstand this whole argument of 'Capital from inside' and 'Capital fromoutside'. The ambanis, Tatas, Birlas, Mittals etc are all 'insiders' suddenly?They probably spend less time in India than some foreigners do.

 

Ankit KumarAgrawal: ‎Thomas Mathew pleaseclear your stand, what u want to say. Is FDI in retails should be allowed ornot?

 

SurajitDasgupta: ‎Jairaj Sanand,

I did not elaborate on my counter-argument to the above when I explained howthe salaries of middle class people increased dramatically after the economywas liberalised to a great degree in 1991 (because I thought everybody knewabout the cause-effect phenomenon).

If an LDC's salary increased from Rs 800 a month to Rs 11,000 a month and asecretary's income went up from Rs 3,500 a month to Rs 96,000 a month, it wasbecause of competition. At first the MNCs hiked the salaries to hithertounthinkable levels. To compete with them and stop the flight of humanresources, the Indian blue chip companies hiked their salaries to comparablelevels. Finally, government employees demanded that they be treated on par,resulting in the Fifth and Sixth Pay Commission recommendations (ignore theargument for a while that the government is not a baniya store generating comparableprofits against which higher salaries can be demanded by its 'helpers').

As for the tirades against "foreign" companies, is "vasudhaivakutumbakam" merely a slogan? Of course, they will demand some profitagainst the benefits they generate in the areas they invest in. But aren't thebenefits for us substantial enough to justify this demand by the MNCs? I thinkthey are.

 

ThomasMathew: ‎"Is FDI in retails should be allowed or not?" My personalopinion is all barriers to the free flow of capital are the biggest impedimentto progress, so I'm all for it. My only grouch is government not playinghard-ball with the US by demanding a similar opening up of the American farmsector to Indian farmers

 

MukulKanitkar: The myth in this post1991 era boom is that it is because of the foreign investment. The fact is thatthe libaralization in 1991 opened the internal economy and this freedom of ourown domestic entrapraneurs is the engin for the growth demonstrated by you.

The largest growth of our economy was during the post Pokaran era when therewere economic sanctions but domestic openness. We not only survived but weboomed during the sanctions hence the world had to come rishing to Bharat. Thesanctions were lifted without our signing CTBT.

The present PM has a myopic vision as far as economic issues are concerned. Wecan deal from our position of strength.

FDI in any sector has been counterproductive for our people not the MNCs. Sowill it be for our economy in retail sector.

We are seeing two types of things 1 in the name of FDI - the dirty money (notonly tax evasion generated black money but corruption, drug and terror money)stashed away is allowed to get back. This benefits only the corrupt section ofour polity and corporates.

The second phenomenon is equally dirty. The foreign money pumped in the stockexchanges has been manipulating the Sensex for their benefit thus robing thereal investers. Ups and downs in the share market in last decade must bethoroughly invested.

Before we open the economy to the world we must deal the internal isuues.

1. Participatory notes to be bannned and the past transections to investigated.

2 Total open economy within the country. No disparity due to state policies.This can be achieved by curtailing the government control and not by measureslike CST.

3 In fact logical taxation is another reform that is needed.

4 Inflation to be controlled by removing the government controlls and totallydisbanding the '' comodity Market''

5 Black money generation, movement and storage to be stopeed by effectiveaction.

Once we organize internal economy, we can open it 100% but not in the presentstate of affairs.

 

AnkitKumar Agrawal: ‎Thomas Mathew In youroutlook,for free flow of capital India government should abolish all the Customduty, entry tax, safeguard duty, anti dumping duty etc etc..

 

ThomasMathew: Yes...Absolutely.....Iam a free-market libertarian who wants to see a federal government reduced tobare minimum

 

SurajitDasgupta: ‎>>>The fact is that the libaralization in 1991 opened theinternal economy and this freedom of our own domestic entrapraneurs is theengin for the growth demonstrated by you.<<<

Well then, why is it that the only addition to the well known names of tycoonsin the pre-1991 era -- the Tatas and the Birlas -- is the Ambanis besides somereal estate giants? And could the real estate boom be sustained withoutincreased purchasing power of Indians realised through the process explained byme in the comment above?

___

>>>The largest growth of our economy was during the post Pokaran erawhen there were economic sanctions but domestic openness.<<<

The sanctions applied only to sectors pertaining to defence preparednessincluding, obviously, space science.

___

Ankit Kumar Agrawal,

All your queries have been dealt with already in this thread. Please go throughthe debate right from the first comment onwards.

 

AnkitKumar Agrawal: ‎Thomas Mathew But asper my opinion In today environment Indian Industry are not competent enough tohandle the pressure from foreign companies.

 

SurajitDasgupta: How then have theyhandled it after the introduction of Reliance Fresh and Big Bazaar in the pastthree years?

 

MukulKanitkar: No Thomas - pre 1980there was no domestic liberalization. I am taliking about post 1998 era ofeconomic sanction which allowed the domestic economy to grow without theforeign manipulations in Capital market.

 

SurajitDasgupta: ‎Mukul ji,

 

Could you furnish statistics to substantiate your claim, please?

 

Jairaj WSanand: ‎Surajit Dasgupta Firstoff companies who pay high salaries are the ones who sell goods and services ata high price.

I remember growing up in a hostel that had some 80 medical representatives andmanagers.

Merck and pfizer paid the highest salaries, But their tablets were 6 timescostlier than local companies.

In that sector I have seen salary increase from 5000 to 9-10k. But never incomparison to 15-20k that MNCs could offer.

Even if they pay double salaries their sell products at 6 times the cost.

I think salaries is not a benchmark of development.

In USA there are no generic drugs Pfizer and Merc (with another handfulcompanies) Rule. Without insurance a common man cannot afford medical treatmentin USA.

Why do you think there is a rise in medical tourism.

Coming back to the point I don't think increase in salary is any measure.

Salary has to increase with inflation too so the increase in salary is anatural phenomenon.

 

ThomasMathew: ‎'Indian Industry' What is 'Indian industry'? An industrial house with anIndian at the head?. You think the Tatas, Birlas, the Mittals deserve some kindof safety cushion against foreign competition?

 

The only reason why theIndian IT industry has boomed is because its very tough to put trade barriersand regulate it, all you need is a telephone line and a computer.....Its theprime example of how free trade can produce immense wealth

 

MukulKanitkar: ‎''inter capital'' does not only include ambanis and Tata that is mere18% of our idomastic Capital. I am talking about our small investors andcommunities like Nadars contributing the 60% of our capital generation.

The total share market generated capital is only a marginal factor in The greatIndian story. Bharat is growing in its own typical way.

 

AnkitKumar Agrawal: Government firstneed to improve infrastructure, low-cost utilities, competitive interest ratesand trade facilitation. Once these reforms bring down the cost of ourmanufacturing goods, we can expect global retailers to source domestically. Inthe absence of these reforms, international retailers will be selling theproducts of low-cost economies, leading to an adverse setback to our alreadychallenged manufacturing sector.

 

ThomasMathew: ‎"I am talking about our small investors and communities like Nadarscontributing the 60% of our capital generation." All forms of capitalshould be welcome, entrepreneurship cannot thrive if its shackled byregulations of various kinds.

 

SurajitDasgupta: ‎Jairaj Sanand,

I am with you on the question of pharmaceuticals. For one, I look down uponhypochondriacs for whom devouring allopathic pills is a normal way of life, andmanufacturers who whip up this frenzy.

Nevertheless, I doubt the faux need created by the pharma giants is the solereason for their ability to offer higher salaries. In any event, Indian genericdrugs sell more than the patented originals made by the MNCs, and that isprecisely why our drug regime irks the international innovators.

Further, Indian operators do not display scruples either. To escape the net ofthe drug control regime, they claim many of their medicinal compounds to benutritional supplements!

The need of the hour is to sensitise people about the price and qualitydifferentials. The National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority, a UnionGovernment body under the Ministry of Chemicals, is working on it. This is aninitiative Y4D could take up for public good.

 

AnkitKumar Agrawal: Foreigners getloans at 4% interest. Indians get at 12%. How can we compete.China had wipedout their traders so they need.

 

SurajitDasgupta: Then ask thegovernment to change the interest rate. You are barking up the wrong tree.

 

MukulKanitkar: Yes surajit,

I will as soon as I get to my Laptop. Right now in train to Chennai.

2. The post pokaran sanctions were total economic sanctions by US, Europe andJapan. The sanctions in space and nuclear and other Hi-Tech sector weretechnology transfer sanctions.

To meet the Forex demands the goverment had issued Bonds for NRIs which wereover subscribed by the patriots abroad.

3. It is media spl the financial press which is responsible for our knowingonly a few tycoons. Old one like Tatas and new one like Murthys. The realsheros like Dr Courien of Amool ans S K Nadar, and many unknown non baniyacommunities like Ramgadhiya Luhars in Punjab who are the real enins of Indiangrowth.

 

AnkitKumar Agrawal: Thats why i amsaying that first government should promote competitive environment then onlyintroduce FDI in ratail.

 

SurajitDasgupta: ‎>>>Foreigners get loans at 4% interest. Indians get at12%.<<<

But the divide is not strictly on the foreign-versus-indigenous lines. In SEZsacross the country, Tatas get even machineries in subsidised rates while otherbusinessmen have to buy the same equipment at market rates.

Ankit Kumar Agrawal and Mukul Kanitkar ji,

The swadeshi lobby lacks credibility. While it has chosen the convenient wayout of howling in protest against corporatisation at any hint of Coca Cola andWal-Mart, it wets its pants while contemplating just a word against the likesof Ambanis, Tatas and Mittals.

Ambani kare to chamatkar, Walton kare to balatkar!

 

AnkitKumar Agrawal: In our country,we have had business and businessmen since long and they have the ability tocompete and in the present scenario one has to give three four times more thecost of capital as they (foreign companies) bring low-priced capital so nocompetition can take place. By bringing the retail bill, our industries will berooted out

 

I am notconcerned about Tata & Ambani who works on so called SEZ, EOU, EPZ etcetc... We are concerned about the small one which now a days growing in modest.

 

SurajitDasgupta: I doubt you are notconcerned. I suspect you live in mortal fear of Indian corporate giants.

 

AnkitKumar Agrawal: doubt whatever ucan... and suspect you are an agent of walmart.

 

SurajitDasgupta: I am reminded of aninteractive session that Outlook editor Vinod Mehta had with a batch of freshgraduates from a journalism school some years ago.

A student: Sir, how come you never take on the might of the corporates?

Mehta: Why? We are always up in arms against Coca Cola!

Student: What about the desi corporates: Ambanis, Tatas, etc?

Mehta: mujhe apni dukaan band karwani hai kya (do you want me to shut shop)?

 

MukulKanitkar: ‎@ Thomas - Totally agree with you on complete open, unshackeld economywithin. When we put our house in order we can open it up conpletely to theworld.

Again agree on the point of No government or as less as possible in all theactivities except security external and internal.

@ Surajit - Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam is not Vassudhaiv Aapanam. Universal familynot market.

 

SurajitDasgupta: ‎>>>suspect you are an agent of walmart.<<<

I am an agent of 120 crore Indians minus a few lakh baniyas.

 

>>>Universal family not market.<<<

"Market" is not a bad word.

 

AnkitKumar Agrawal: i think u arejealous of baniyas.... And anyone who care for intrest of 120 crore Indianswill always support there intrest.

 

Protect nationalinterest. Just because the whiteman has money it does not mean we should importforeign bridegrooms.

 

MukulKanitkar: I dont know about theswadeshi lobby but as I remember the biggest protest against Relliance freshwas led by them. Uma Bharati burnt down one Mall.

I am not speaking on behalf of any lobby. But the biggest protest by farmers [email protected] regim was led by Bharatoya Kisan sangh. Dattopant Thengadis speech onthat ocassion is available on Youtube. It is great policy statement pn realBharatiya way of dealing with economy

JFYI.

 

SurajitDasgupta: ‎Ankit Kumar Agrawal,

I am not jealous of, but a victim of, baniyas. I have been through thehardships your ilk heaped on the people of the country in the pre-1991protectionist era. I have stark memories of that dark epoch of Indian history.And I do not want to return to that life where I will be forced to buy every shitthat you throw at me because I wouldn't have a choice.

But yes, I also pity baniyas. As Shekhar Gupta wrote in his latest article, abaniya has never been offered the highest rank, a preserve of Brahmins, inBharatiya Janata Party. Perfect Manuvadis!!!

 

AnkitKumar Agrawal: only becauseonce u become so called victim u are staking the interest of 120 crores Indians

 

VivekGupta: ‎100+comments and I think we have still not discussed one important aspect of thisKirana shops. The black money! Yes, these kirana walas (including other similarsmall businesses) hardly contribute anything to our tax structure. Why shouldwe bothered about those who hardly pay any tax and all the money turns intoblack money.

 

SurajitDasgupta: ‎>>>only because once u become so called victim u are stakingthe interest of 120 crores Indians<<<

Their interest lies in being able to have and exercise CHOICE. And you areanti-choice. You are a monopolist.

 

MukulKanitkar: FDI helps the socalled Corporate Giants. So India inc, CII were first to welcome the cabinetdecision.

Likes of Malya and Byani are desperate for FDI to bail them out of theirsituation.

 

SurajitDasgupta: Farmers support ittoo.

An ET report:

///

Large farm lobbies are backing the government's decision to allow foreignsupermarkets to set up shop in the country, saying it will shorten the supplychain and get growers a larger share of the final selling price.

Most farmers, however, want the government to go a step further and make itmandatory for retailers to buy 75% of their produce directly from farmers,bypassing the restrictive 'mandi' auction system.

"Traders and middlemen are sucking our blood. But no political party istalking about our interest because we are not organised like labour unions, norhave deep pockets like traders," said P Chengal Reddy, secretary-generalof Consortium of Indian Farmers Associations ( CIFA).

"India has 600 million farmers, 1,200 million consumers and 5 milliontraders. Both farmers and consumers are benefited by FDI in retail," Reddyadded.

Last week, the government allowed 51% foreign direct investment (FDI) inmulti-brand retail and also raised FDI limit in single-brand retail to 100%.The move, however, stirred up political dissent with parties such as the BJP,CPI(M) and TMC demanding the government drop its plan as it would cost millionsof jobs.

But big farmers are all for retail reforms. Bharat Krishak Samaj, a farm lobbywith more than 75,000 members, said it supports FDI in retail on the conditionthat direct procurement from farmers is made mandatory. "Till it is a law,nobody is going to follow it. Everyone is bothered about shopkeepers,"chairman Ajay Jakhar said.

Farmer leaders say the stranglehold of middlemen and traders is at the root ofrural poverty and India's food inflation.

CIFA's Reddy said farmers' biggest problem is marketing. "Farmers declareda crop holiday in Andhra Pradesh because they couldn't sell. Cotton farmers inMaharashtra committed suicide because they couldn't sell," he said.

"FDI in retail will open alternative avenues of sale for us," Reddyadded.

He said the mandi system does not favour farmers because they lose 5% of thevalue in transportation, 10% in broker commission and 10% in qualityparameters. "Direct purchase by large retailers will solve thisproblem."

The thumb rule of price rise from a farmer to a consumer in perishables such asfruits and vegetables is 1:2:3:4, said S Baskar Reddy, joint director(agriculture & rural development) at Ficci, an industry body. What a farmersells for 1 is sold at the mandi at 2, which becomes 3 at the mandi at theconsumption centre and 4 when it reaches the consumer through a retailer.

Farmers near urban areas are already finding ways to circumvent the mandisystem and reach the consumer directly. For instance, 23-year-old farmer SChandrasekhar drives 10 km every Sunday to sell fresh vegetables to joggers andwalkers on Chennai's Besant Nagar beach. Some 1,160 km away, Shriram Gadhave,president of All India Vegetable Growers Association, organises buyer-sellermeets at Thane and surrounding areas to facilitate better price recovery."FDI in retail will give us an instrument to get better prices and helpconsumers as well," Chandrasekhar said.

///end of quote

 

AnkitKumar Agrawal: The government'sclaims that the entry of large retail led by transnational firms would not makea difference to net employment and would, in fact, augment it substantially arequestionable. They exaggerate the direct and indirect employment that largeretail would create and ignore the number of jobs they would displace. Therequirement that the foreign investor should bring in a minimum investment of$100 million implies that the FDI being sought is in units that are moretechnology- and less labour-intensive. On the other hand, the attempt to temperthe adverse impact on employment by restricting entry to cities withpopulations exceeding one million is without substance. It does not change thesource of the competition (giants like Walmart, Carrefour, Tesco and Metro) northe locations in which such competition is most likely to be faced.

Yet, the Commerce Minister's claim is that the policy has a “unique Indianimprint” that would make its impact here very different. This is a poor effortto obfuscate issues. Consider one aspect of the unique imprint: the requirementthat 30 per cent of manufactured or processed products sold should be sourced fromsmall and medium enterprises. This requirement based on a process ofself-certification that is to be monitored would be difficult to implement evenin India. But it becomes meaningless because it applies to such producers fromanywhere in the world. As a briefing paper from the Commerce Ministry notes, inorder to ensure that there is no violation of World Trade Organisation norms,“30 per cent sourcing is to be done from micro and small enterprises which canbe done from anywhere in the world and is not India specific.” This would beimpossible to implement and will only encourage international sourcing at theexpense of domestic producers.

AP The playersdisplaced would consist of not only smaller retailers but also medium and largewholesale dealers who would be rendered irrelevant by the ability of largeconglomerates to contract with and procure directly from producers. File photo

With deep pockets and international sourcing capabilities, global retail chainswill outcompete domestic players, displace jobs, and undermine livelihoods.

In predictable fashion, the Manmohan Singh government chose to ignore voices ofopposition and implement its agenda of permitting foreign investment in theretail trade. While Parliament was in session, the Cabinet met to approve thehitherto prohibited foreign direct investment in multi-brand retail, with a capof 51 per cent on foreign equity that ensures majority ownership.Simultaneously, the cap on foreign equity investment in single-brand retail hasbeen enhanced to 100 per cent, offering sole ownership rights to foreigninvestors.

Large international retailers are bound to use the opportunity to get a shareof the large Indian market. Foreign sales have been an important source ofrevenue for many of them amounting in 2007 to as much as 74 per cent in thecase of Ahold of Netherlands, 52 per cent for Carrefour of France, 53 per centfor Metro of Germany, 22 per cent for Tesco of the United Kingdom and 20 percent for Walmart of the United States. Walmart's 20 per cent too has to be seenin context: with $379 billion of revenues in 2007, it stood way ahead ofCarrefour, which came in second with $123 billion in the global league tablefor revenues.

Power of the chains

The power of these chains has been amply illustrated in other contexts, wherethey have been in operation. With deep pockets and international sourcingcapabilities, they exploit economies in procurement, storage and distributionto outcompete and displace domestic intermediaries in the supply chain. Thisoccurs not in one or a few centres, since each retail chain tends to establishprocurement, warehousing and distribution facilities across regions and cities.Once the smaller middlemen are displaced, we have a few large firms and theiragents dealing with a multitude of small, medium and relatively large producerson the one side, and a mass of consumers, on the other.

The relationship with producers is that of an “oligoposony,” with a few buyersand a large number of sellers. With consumers, it is one of an “oligopoly” withfew sellers and a large number of buyers. Structurally, this provides the basisfor an increase in margins at the expense of prices paid to producers orcharged to consumers. The new “middlemen” appropriate these higher margins.That a part of the margin may be shared with the producer or consumer toincrease retail volumes and market shares does not take away from the fact thatthe distribution of power within the supply chain benefits the largeintermediary. In the medium term, it is the dominant position of these largeplayers that would influence the size and direction of margins.

Thus, on the production side, the danger is that the prices paid to and returnsearned by small suppliers, especially in agriculture, would be depressedbecause a few oligopolistic buyers dominate the retail trade. Given theprecarious viability of crop production even at present, that shift couldseverely damage livelihoods. On the other hand, once the retail trade isconcentrated in a few firms, retail margins themselves could rise, withimplications for prices paid by the consumer, especially in years when domesticsupply falls short.

Within the supply chain itself, it is to be expected that the players displacedwould consist of not only smaller retailers, stretching from kirana stores tostreet vendors, but also medium and large wholesale dealers who would berendered irrelevant by the ability of large conglomerates to contract with andprocure directly from producers. The immediate and direct effect would be asubstantial loss of employment in the small and unorganised retail trade aswell as in segments of the wholesale trade displaced by the big retail chains.

The potential significance of this impact can be judged from the role of theretail and wholesale trade in generating employment in the country. Accordingto the National Sample Survey Office's survey of employment and unemployment in2009-10, the service sector category that includes the wholesale and retailtrade (besides the much smaller repair of motor vehicles, motorcycles andpersonal and household goods) provided jobs for 44 million in the totalworkforce of 459 million.

It is no doubt true that the impact of foreign-invested retail would berestricted to the urban areas since entry as of now is permitted only in citieswith a population of more than one million. But this is where the employment intrade would be the highest. Twenty-six million out of the 44 million employedin the sector are located in urban areas. Many of these workers find themselvesin the services sector (especially in the retail trade) because of inadequateemployment opportunities in agriculture and manufacturing. Out of 71 millionjobs in services in the urban areas, around 36 per cent are in the retail andwholesale trade and repair services. In sum, from an employment point of viewthis is a sector that is central to livelihoods, however precarious some ofthose jobs can be. It is a poor substitute for the missing social securityprogramme.

 

SurajitDasgupta: ‎>>>The players displaced would consist of not only smallerretailers but also medium and large wholesale dealers who would be renderedirrelevant by the ability of large conglomerates to contract with and procuredirectly from producers.<<<

Right. But we are under no obligation to keep them rich by rendering ourselvespoor.

 

AnkitKumar Agrawal: Criticising thedecision to approve 51 percent Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in multi-brandretail, Janata Party chief Subramanian Swamy on Tuesday said the opening up themarket to foreign investors would harm Indian industries.

"In our country, we have had business and businessmen since long and theyhave the ability to compete and in the present scenario one has to give threefour times more the cost of capital as they (foreign companies) bringlow-priced capital so no competition can take place. By bringing the retailbill, our industries will be rooted out," said Swamy.

"Secondly, optimum utilization of the black money would be made if the retailbill is brought and that is why I oppose it," he added.

The political upheaval over FDI in retail failed to subside today despite anall-party meeting, with a united opposition, joined by UPA constituentsTrinamool Congress and DMK, stalling proceedings by remaining adamant on theirdemand for a rollback.

Last Thursday, the Cabinet approved 51 percent FDI in multi- brand retail, Asper this move, many global retailers like Wal-Mart, Carrefour and Tesco canopen outlets in India.

The Cabinet also decided to remove the 51 per cent cap on FDI in single brandformat under which companies in food, lifestyle and sports business run stores.Owners of brands like Adidas, Gucci, Hermes, LVMH and Costa Coffee can havefull ownership of business in India.

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) or foreign investment refers to the net inflowsof investment to acquire a lasting management interest in an enterpriseoperating in an economy other than that of the investor.

It is the sum of equity capital, reinvestment of earnings, other long-termcapital, and short-term capital as shown in the balance of payments. It usuallyinvolves participation in management, joint venture, transfer of technology andexpertise. (ANI)

 

Jairaj WSanand: ‎Surajit Dasgupta Readthis link http://www.indiaresource.org/

And this

www.killercoke.org

Now tell me what has Ambanis done that coca cola have done to humans all overthe world?

Your arguments are not profund. Its just why are we not catching Ambanisneck...because they did not murder people like cocacola does.

They did not bribe the police and lathi charge them and none of the media evenreported it.

This is a very superficial argument

 

SurajitDasgupta: The posturing of theswadeshi lobby is for no reason other than the fact that traders are theirbiggest financiers. The lobby is 'contractually' bound by their funders.

 

AnkitKumar Agrawal: ‎Surajit Dasgupta pleasehave a look of the above 2 site suggested by Jairaj Sanand.

 

SurajitDasgupta: ‎Jairaj Sanand,

 

Read"The Polyester King", if you can procure this banned book fromsomewhere. For a real-life check, run your car on fuel from a Reliance pump andsee how long the engine lasts.

Ankit Kumar Agrawal,

 

For corroboration of claims, I only trust university theses and lab reports.And Jairaj Sanand knows this pretty well.

 

AnkitKumar Agrawal: Changes whichmay end up hurting domestic interests are really counter-reforms. The time forallowing FDI in retail sector in India has still not come.

Categories: Economics

Post a Comment

Oops!

Oops, you forgot something.

Oops!

The words you entered did not match the given text. Please try again.

Already a member? Sign In

1 Comment

Reply kapil das
4:02 AM on February 10, 2014 
Why we need FDI ?, and if we need FDI how much percentage we can allow?, and we need to have a monopoly control also, the Polyester King will come!

Recent Blog Entries

Recent Forum Posts

No recent posts