Saturday, September 22, 2012

FDI Opposition In India



                             FDI Opposition In India
       Permitting FDI in multibrand retail is opposed in India. There are mainly two reasons to opposing it. One: it will devastate kirana and small traders. Two: it will harm the farmers. Almost every decision has two sides positive and negative. The sum of two must be positive to accept it.
      There are many negatives. The fear that small traders will get harm is not without reasons. Big companies like wall mart are sound in every respect. They can manipulate all situations in their favour leaving the small traders on their fate. Here adage big fish eats small fish fits to understand the situation.
      Farmers will not benefit. I was in USA for one year. I did my grocery. While in shop to purchase eatable items, I used to study the dynamics of the shop. Seeing the excellent quality of all items, I keep asking how you manage it. Shop keeper told me he used to import the best quality items from all over the world.
       He told me his shop is like assembly place of electronic items, all its parts are imported from abroad after through market search. Base on my experience, I can say coming big retail mall will follow the same steps what they are practicing. They will import the best quality at the lowest price worldwide.
      Distributed wealth among citizens is better than accumulated in few hands. Occupy Wall Street movement is a product of such cause in USA. This permission will help the process of wealth accumulation as the cost of small traders. If items are imported as expected then farmer will loose their market share. This may lead to reducing their incomes.
             Much of the inequality in the US arises out of rent-seeking -monopoly, exploitive practices by banks and corporate exploitation of public resources. In the Indian context, you will call it corruption but we call it corruption American-style, where you give away natural resources below market prices. India is doing it now but America has a long history of doing this. 
     The occupy protesters’ main issues are social and economic inequality, greed, corruption and the supposed undue  influence of corporations on government. We, addresses the growing income inequality and wealth distribution in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population.
      There are positives. It will put our small and kiran traders to competition. This will lead to breaking of their monopoly. This will also help in reducing their hoarding capacities. In competition, there will be improvements in their style of managements.
         Consumers will get better quality at reasonable price- not the lowest price. The prices will not be much lower as said. There is reason for this. Maintaining big AC shops and cold chain storage will incur additional cost. This will be loaded on items. Hence cost benefit will be meagre.
       Hoarding and market manipulation hit hard the consumers. This problem will reduce to some extent. Big malls try to keep away from such activities.
       New York City has rebuffed attempts by Walmart to open a store, making it one of the last remaining large US cities that the supermarket giant has failed to crack. Opposition to Walmart in the city is driven by what protesters say is the chain's history of low wages and poor employee benefits. There are also fears from unions that the company's low prices will hurt the profit margins of other shops, endangering the jobs of its members.
       A study says the buildings, pavement and consumerism created by Malls destroy farm land, wetlands, jobs, neighborhoods and social cohesion. They contaminate or eliminate the clean water supply and contribute to global warming through heat produced from pavement. They create and support massive global shipping and transportation of products we don't need, eliminate small businesses and jobs, degrade wages and impoverish the nation.
       Chetan Bhagat says FDI permission is no trick rather it is a treat. Accepting his arguments, we can say it is a treat and it is required too. But this treat is having dire side effects. Hence, we need desi treatment with less harm.
      The negative impact of shopping malls on the terrain of the human mind, converting core humanistic values into stark materialism and conspicuous consumption is immeasurable. We should not shed tears for the demise of the places where our purses, the environment, food and water supply, sense of community and the human mind are constantly being mauled.

        In the light of development, India lack much behind the America. If Americans are fearful and opposing it in a city like New York, how we can permit it. Except Congress and a few allies, almost political parties are opposing it on the ground that it is not in our favour now. Therefore, in the view of timing and situation, we can say, this reform will bring more harm than good in the long run. May be after a decade, we land in a economic situation like America as on date.

Heera Lal

(Views are personal and based on different sources)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ref:

9.http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/The-way-ahead-for-India/articleshow/17197252.cms

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Good Chance For Barack


  Good Chance For Barack

 Assessing Obama’s Prospect for 2012

President Obama faces tough bid for re-election. The nation’s economic outlook is considerably darker than during his first campaign for the White House, but one of his biggest advantages is that he has a variety of paths to victory in key battleground states. He is unlikely to repeat his margin of 365 electoral votes of 2008. But he only needs 270 to win a second term, allowing him to lose a handful of states that he carried four years ago and still be victorious.
The president’s disapproval ratings, in addition to the large number of Americans who say the country is on the wrong track, have stirred serious alarm about Mr. Obama’s prospects. The president’s central argument for re-election is built around fairness and pushing back against the assertion that he is not up for the job and could not improve economic circumstances in a second term.
New York Times polling guru Nate Silver, in his first 2012 presidential election forecast, gives President Barack Obama a clear advantage over Republican nominee Mitt Romney heading into the summer. 
If the election were held in very near future, Silver writes, Obama would have an 80 percent chance of winning re-election. But things could change quickly — Silver's model projects that Obama has a 60 percent chance of winning in November. 
Some of Silver's model's key projections: One, if the election were held in very near future, Obama would win approximately 300 electoral votes to Romney's 238. He would win the popular vote by a 50.5 to 47.9 percentage. Two, in the November 6 forecast, Silver's model has Obama winning roughly 291 electoral votes to Romney's 247. Three, popular vote in the November 6 model: Obama 50.5, Romney 48.4. Four, Together, there's about a 5 percent chance either Romney or Obama could theoretically win the Electoral College and lose the popular vote.

If inflation averages what it has for the past 13 quarters; and if economic growth picks up a bit from where it has been this past quarter (January-March 2012), the equation predicts that Obama would receive 52.5 percent of the two-party vote, and be 85 percent sure of getting a majority. If inflation worsens over the next 6 months, and the economy grows more slowly than it has in any of the past four quarters, the prediction is that he receives only 49.0 percent, yielding only 34 percent certainty of attaining a majority of the two-party popular vote.
So a lot depends on what happens between April and November. An economic forecast of this election ranges from a fairly solid victory for Obama (although somewhat narrower than his win in 2008) to a close loss (Ford’s loss to Carter in 1976). But the best current forecast is for a cliffhanger Obama victory, a bit less narrow than Nixon over Humphrey in 1968 (or than Gore’s “victory” over Bush in 2000).
Mr. Obama held the edge, 45 percent to 40 percent. Mr. Obama's approval rating two years into his term (49 percent) was higher than two of the last two three presidents to win a second term - Presidents Reagan and Clinton. (President George W. Bush had a 59 percent approval rating at the midpoint in his first term.)  
And as Time's Michael Scherer notes, even those who disagree with Mr. Obama tend to like him - a crucial factor in winning the independents who broke from the Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections. The fact that 84 percent of Americans (according to an Associated Press poll last month) call Mr. Obama a likeable person speaks to his advantage among the casual voters who may not go to the polls in a midterm year but will cast ballots in 2012.
Then there's the prospect of a strong third-party candidate making waves in the general election. If the Tea Party backs a challenger to a Republican nominee it sees as too moderate, the conservative vote could be split, making Mr. Obama's path to victory that much easier. Without Ross Perot, it's worth remembering, Mr. Clinton might never have been president.
Also important is the power of incumbency. As Mark McKinnon and Myra Adams note, "In the last 56 U.S. presidential elections, 31 have involved incumbents; 21 of those candidates have won more than one term." Incumbents have the advantage of being a known personality - and even voters not entirely sold on a president tend to favor the known over the unknown.
Is the Stock Market Voting for Obama?  “The close relationship between President Obama’s chances of re-election and the level of the S&P 500 appear to suggest that the stock market favors a Democrat as president,” says Paul Dales, senior U.S. economist at Toronto-based Capital Economics.
Dales is convinced Obama will get re-elected as long as the S&P 500 remains above 1200 (the index would have to drop 15% from current levels to hit that mark). If history is any indicator, the market isn’t likely to lose all of its gains through the rest of the year. The S&P 500 is up 12% this year. And in 13 of the last 15 presidential elections, the S&P 500 has rallied during the final seven months of those years, according to the Stock Trader’s Almanac.
Measurements of chances of repetition by different scales are endorsing his reelection. 365 electoral votes in 2008 can go down to 270 to win. On economic (inflation condition) parameters, he is winning. Statics proves incumbent president has more than 66% of winning prospect. Stock market indicators are supporting his win. Therefore, if his election chances was bright in 2008, Barack has good chances of repetition.
Heera Lal
(Views are personal and based on different sources)
Ref:

Saturday, September 8, 2012

Political Marketing- Obama’s Race To Win

    Obama’s Race To Win
    Different Political marketing agendas and reduced margin than 2008
        
             
              2008 Presidential election displayed the disturbing level of racial and ethnic division Obama brought to the White House. Obama took only 45% of the white vote. He was elected only because of his dominance in ethnic minority votes. Approximately 95% black voters voted him.
             A news in Daily Telegraph (6 November 2008) “Power of the white voter is fading” by Gordon Rayner says Obama drew his support disproportionately from ethnic minorities and the young (The figures do not add up to 100% because of Provisional Votes)
Voting Pattern based on race & Ethnicity:
White Americans voted 55% for McCain and 43% for Obama.
Black Americans voted 4% for McCain and 95% for Obama.
Hispanics voted 31% for McCain and 66% for Obama.
Asians voted 35% for McCain and 62% for Obama.
Jews voted 22% for McCain and 77% for Obama.   
Voting pattern gender wise:-
Men voted 48% for McCain and 49% for Obama.
Women voted 43% for McCain and 56% for Obama.
Voting Pattern Age wise:-
Voters aged 18-29 voted 31% for McCain and 66% for Obama.
Voters aged 30-44 voted 46% for McCain and 53% for Obama.
Voters aged 45-59 voted 49% for McCain and 49% for Obama.
Voters aged 60+ voted 52% for McCain and 46% for Obama.
First time voters voted 30% for McCain and 69% for Obama.
              Voting on racial or ethnic lines inevitably reduces representative politics to a bun fight. Each minority is seeking its own advantage rather than the national advantage. Not only that, presently in USA, the only group which does not campaign either on ethnic or racial lines is the group which still forms the numerical majority in the country, namely, whites. Whites, especially, identified with the founding of the USA, those of Anglo-Saxon lineage.
             When any part of the white population who tries to speak up for the needs and desires of white Americans, It is labeled a fruitcake at best and racist at worst by mainstream politicians and media.
            Gordon Rayner say I must mention here, Whites today in places such as the USA and Britain know that if they say anything which can be interpreted as racist, they run, at best, a grave risk of losing their employment, especially if that employment is in the public service, and at worst, demonization by the media with the possibility of legal action, both civil and criminal, being taken against them.
               Moreover, the definition of racism used by the politically correct is now so wide that includes any statement by whites which is deemed “non-inclusive”, that is, it refers only to white society and culture.
             Obama can’t be said a successful president if measured by any objective standards. He couldn’t fulfill dreams which were sold as political product- the Change we can.  He neither kept his promises to those who voted for him or met their general expectations of him nor simply being competent in difficult economic times.
              But in spite of all above facts, Obama has solid accomplishments. He has navigated the US economy out of the depression that was feared in early-2009. Recovery may be patchy but America is weathering the global slowdown better than other developed economies.
              He has restrained Israel from striking Iran's nuclear installations though recent hawkish statements from Tel Aviv point to a possible attack before the presidential election.
              His withdrawal decision of US army from Afghan was a good political move. He wanted to please families by uniting them. This is fulfilling many other objectives but he was prompted for a political gain with an eye on 2012 election. And it is politically fruitful and humane too.
              Above all, in all his four years as head of the nation, he is blameless and non-controversial. It also seems, as it is apparent, within the party opposition is less intense than 2008. Hillary’s contest for nomination against Obama was very dangerous for him. From party angle, he is on more strong footing than 2008, which is very crucial this time.
              Educated, rich and developed Americans visualize and evaluate the situation in a holistic view. They know problems- economic or waging war outside the country- is inherited by him. Added upon this is the spillover of the world economic recession. In the light of gravity of facts, four year is not good enough time to cure a cancerous illness like these. Hence, he deserves next term to complete the task, he initiated. He has proved this by his working intentions.
               Due to aforesaid reason, he will be able to muster and get the support of whites, where he is weak. America is a capitalist country. They will not risk on economic front by giving power to republicans without giving full chance to compete the task initiated by Obama.  A change of presidency is not favorable for the economy of the country.
               Medical care is a big issue in US. By Obama care, he is able to prove his intentions about solving these complicated issues of the country. On this matter almost all citizens will appreciate him, as it is long due issue awaiting heeds of presidents. This is a populist step as it is involving all citizens.
                 He has done what Bush can’t. Osama killing has brought back Americans lost pride. This will help in bringing country’s primacy which became dull with trade tower attack. Attack on trade tower was a big blow for USA. This is like breaking the back bone of a nation. This is an emotional issue. So, Obama strikes the emotional cord of the citizens. This is proved by full fanfare celebration all over the country on Osama killing.
                    
A swing voter or floating voter is a voter who may not be affiliated with a particular political party (Independent) or who will vote across party lines. In American politics, many centrists, liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats are considered "swing voters" since their voting patterns cannot be predicted with certainty. Such votes are usually sought after in elections, since they can play a big role in determining the outcome.
                These undecided voters, called "the persuadables" by the campaigns. Gallup’s daily tracking poll shows the number of undecided voters hovering between 6 percent and 8 percent — compared with 11 percent at this point in 2008. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll put the percentage of undecided voters at 3 percent, down from 12 percent in late July 2008. A Pew survey found 5 percent didn’t know who they’d vote for, half of the number at this point in 2008.
                Obama-cool from outside and fiery from inside-has broad acceptance like Atal Bihari ex-PM of India. He is well read and experienced about his politics- powerhouse of knowledge. William G. Mayer in his book swing voting pattern in American politics says in case of reelection incumbent on average gets 46 percent as compared to 42 percent of the challenger.  Due to broad acceptability, these swing and undecided voters will lean towards him in last moment and sail him out as second term president of USA.
                Above and over, his inside fire to solve chronic problems will well win a second term simply because there is no challenger who will be able to embrace policies which might displace outwardly cool Obama.
  
    Heera Lal
 ( heeralalpcs@gmail.com)(Views are personal and based on different sources)

Ref:
o    :)




Sunday, September 2, 2012

Coal Gate: The best way- Confession and Rectification


              Coal Gate: The best way- Confession and Rectification
         No doubt the blockade of parliament over coal scam is a bad sign for the democracy. It is negative action but with a positive aim. Aim is to highlight the issue democratically at the highest level.  In a series of scams, this is one of the biggest after 2G. It is sensitive politically, economically and nationally.
        Renowned author S A Aiyar has provided an option to current deadlock.  This option of not cancelling coal blocks and levying heavy royalties sounds foul to help manipulators. This gives impression of sponsored news to help a friend with opinion making and diverting the attention which may not be true.
          If this proposal is accepted what will happen. It will promote manipulations, bad governance, bad procedure, non-performers, and wrong big high profile venders.  It is also a try to cool down the heat generated over the issue by justifying allocation over auction.
           We, public players, do the things with the sole primary aim to achieve public welfare. Performance auditing of CAG has proved this aim as secondary rather than primary in many cases. Current CAG Vinod Rai is a renowned civil servant of India. On this ground, he got job as CAG.
           He knows well what to report and how to report. He also knows any minor mistake on his part will land him in great trouble. It is also true that, he will not like to earn any discredit by any wrong report what is his asset of life. Hence challenging him on mandate issue sounds incorrect. His reports are well proved by documentary and circumstantial evidences.
         Politically it is better to confess and rectify to put the issue to an end. In light of many objections why allocation was preferred over auction? There is no convincing justification. Saying some CMs opposed auction, it is not sufficient to discharge the blame.
Veracity of Papers submitted by the companies was not verified. The technical competencies and capacities were not checked. Unqualified, non capable companies got the mining work. Why this soft corner with these big companies. Is this not a corruption and manipulation in formalities to benefit someone not deserving it?   In the age of boundary less world, and net carrying information age, public is now able to read between the lines and smells all frauds fabricated inside the strong fort of  files and powers.
           In most economic activity both goal and means are important. In this case, we are at wrong side of both. We adopted allocation as means in place of auction. Auction is more transparent. It can bring more money. Hence, certainly it would have been better if our means would have been auction in lieu of allocation.
           Goal was to secure more and more funds to promote public welfare. Allocations fetch fewer funds. So, less money is available for development. Therefore desired goal to fetch more funds is not achieved.
             In this economic activity, both goals and means are not in tune with rule of law. This is the report of CAG. Hence, economically it will be judicious to correct this manipulation by cancelling it for auction like 2G.
             Legally speaking, we must discourage bad governance, bad practice and procedure and manipulations. Levying heavy royalties, ignoring all manipulations to avoid action is not legal. Law doesn’t permit it. Money loss is one aspect among many anomalies associated with it.  Cancellation is the only way to rectify all anomalies done manipulatively. The option suggested is rectifying only one point that is of money recoupment none other. 
             Taking heavy royalties will set a wrong precedent for future of a rotten system. If not cancelled, corrupt forces will not discourage who are manipulating law of land at the cost of nation. To teach lessons to such forces, to avoid such repetitions, cancellation is the best way out among all options.  
             For the aforesaid reasons, it is expedient politically, economically and legally to cancel allocation for auction in a timely manner to avoid inconveniences. A through probe is required to book the real culprits. 
             By performance auditing, CAG has invited the attention of nation on 2G and coal scam. This attention will help in finishing wrong practices. Shedding wrong practices and adopting appropriate one will be conducive to achieving our goal of a developed nation. Hence CAG reports are acting as catalyst in this direction.  Therefore, instead of decrying CAG, we need to praise him.
Heera  Lal
(Views are personal, based on different sources)
Ref: