Discussion on Society in General Forum at TeluguPeople.com

idee lOkam !

Little seeds we sow in spring growing while the robins sing, give us carrots, peas and beans, tomatoes, pumpkins, squash and greens. And we pick them, one and all, through the summer, through the fall, Winter comes, then spring, and then little seeds we sow again. --Else Holmelund Minarik

Posted by: Mr. Siri Siri At: 18, Jul 2006 12:05:47 PM IST

"Will you walk into my parlour?" "Will you walk into my parlour?" Said the spider to the fly; "'Tis the prettiest little parlour That ever you did spy. The way into my parlour Is up a winding stair; And I have many curious things To show you when you're there." "Oh, no, no," said the little fly; "To ask me is in vain; For who goes up your winding stair Can ne'er come down again." I'm sure you must be weary, dear, With soaring up so high; Will you rest upon my little bed?" Said the spider to the fly. "There are pretty curtains all around, The sheets are fine and thin, And if you want to rest awhile, I'll snugly tuck you in!" "Oh, no, no," said the little fly; "For I've often heard it said, They never, never wake again Who sleep upon your bed!" Said the cunning spider to the fly,- "Dear friend, what can I do To prove the warm affection I've always felt for you? I have within my pantry Good store of all that's nice; I'm sure you're very welcome- Will you please to take a slice?" "Oh, no, no," said the little fly, "Kind sir, that cannot be; I've heard what's in your pantry, And I do not wish to see!" "Sweet creature!" said the spider, "Your're witty and you're wise; How handsome are your gauzy wings, How brilliant are your eyes! I have a little looking-glass Upon my parlour shelf; If you'll step in one moment, dear, You shall behold yourself." "I thank you, gentle sir," she said, "For what you're pleased to say, And, bidding you good-morning now, I'll call another day." The spider turned him round about, And went into his den, For well he knew the silly fly Would soon come back again. So he wove a subtle web In a little corner sly, And set his table ready To dine upon the fly. Then he came out to his door again, And merrily did sing, "Come hither, hither, pretty fly, With the pearl and silver wing; Your robes are green and purple, There's a crest upon your head; Your eyes are like the diamond bright, But mine are dull as lead!" Alas! alas! how very soon This silly little fly, Hearing his wily, flattering words, Came slowly flitting by! With buzzing wings she hung aloft, Then near and nearer drew, Thinking only of her brilliant eyes, And green and purple hue- Thinking only of her crested head- Poor foolish thing! At last Up jumped the cunning spider, And fiercely held her fast. He dragged her up his winding stair, Into his dismal den: Within his little parlour,- But she ne'er came out again! And now, dear little children Who may this story read, To idle, silly, flattering words, I pray you ne'er give heed; Unto an evil counsellor Close heart and ear and eye, And take a lesson from this tale Of the Spider and the Fly. --Mary Howitt

Posted by: Mr. Siri Siri At: 18, Jul 2006 12:02:08 PM IST

Bush comes to shove SOUMYA KANTI MITRA SUNDAY, MARCH 05,2006 Playing poker with a smiling face is clearly President George W Bush’s forte. That explains why few have realised that the US has gained rather more than have we from his trip to India. What has been ill understood, too, is that economics is just a veneer. Underneath it lies the President’s concern with the emerging power of China. An economic giant within the region, it has been extending its sphere of influence farther to the west -- both amongst Islamic countries and other freewheeling nations spun off in the aftermath of the Soviet Union. The Left of course had always ‘suspected’ the USA’s intents. But, being serious for a moment, we too can see how, even when compared to his promises, the US President has given away only as much as we ourselves can internalise. In short, the outcomes of his promises depend on whether we can create the right institutional ambience for private flows of goods and capital. Except that it also needs to be admitted that nuclear co-option by the US will raise international credibility, lower borrowing costs, lower the dependence on traditional fossil fuels, ease inflows of hi-tech equipment and, of course, abridge project set-up times. That is due to the nature of the US, and international, economic systems. The days of state trading and diktat are past, and private investment flows based on country ratings dominate aid transfers! Accordingly, economic flows (of goods, capital or services) between nations are not driven by political interest but by market considerations. So it is we who must ensure that the President’s promises get the market support they deserve for them to pan out right. That implies we must go well beyond infrastructure. For, while that cannot be belittled, there is also an urgent need for financial and factor-market reform -- supplemented by competition to ensure efficiency. President Bush can do little without such reforms! (Like he could do little while seeing an US corporate giant like GM laying-off workers, reducing the pay of others, while the CEO himself accepted a massive pay-cut!) But the most novel sequel to such happenings is that even ‘location’ (which, standard economics normally assumes to be immutable) is now a variable, and determines realisation on capital invested! That explains why names like GE, GM, Microsoft, Citibank, AT&T and others already have a base here and in other developing economies. And they too are impatiently awaiting the advent of the second wave of liberalisation. A slice of India’s domestic market (with its 300 million strong middle class) is what they would like -- in addition to greater factor market flexibility and lower social security payments. They also want to outsource work on the basis of opportunities offered by India’s numerate, English-speaking, workers. To that lengthening list one can add the numerous other service-sector capabilities of a rapidly growing professional class. But India still has a long institutional path to traverse before the sum of FDI it attracts even remotely approaches the $69 billion of US FDI flow destined for China in 2004. In contrast, the FIPB here fielded no more than $36.7 billion between August 1991 and November 2005. As for the US share within that, it did not exceed 16% ($4.9 billion) And even this year's Economic Survey blandly states that India attracted only $5.34 billion in 2004, out of the $233 billion total which had been earmarked for Asia. The Survey additionally notes that India’s share in global FDI had increased from 0.5% to 0.8%, but even that was way behind what goes to other developing countries. Bush can do very little there, and self-help is the need! But things do not look like changing in a hurry. Look, for instance, at how even the Centre’s putatively market-friendly government has been unable to do anything positive to ease up FDI inflows into either organised retail or extractive activities. (The message plainly is: captive mining by all means, but not FDI!) India underperforms even in its trade relations with the USA. It ranked no higher than 22nd among US trade partners worldwide despite being its largest trading partner within the region! (Two-way amounted to $20 billion in 2004, rising to $25 billion in 2005.) And the Economic Dialogue that aims to enhance bilateral relations in finance, trade, commerce, energy, and environment is yet to get fully off the ground, or ‘deliver’. That is in sharp contrast with the Trade and Investment Framework Agreements (TIFAs) which the US has signed (or is still negotiating) with Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan (signed) and Bangladesh (under negotiation).So, the US will have achieved a lot more than it has by giving us the wherewithal to generate nuclear power if it can persuade New Delhi to unstopper the bottlenecks alluded to above.

Posted by: Mr. Siri Siri At: 18, Jul 2006 11:58:48 AM IST

ammO ! naaku chaala bhayamEstOndi! paapam bhaaskar gaaru,anupama gaaru elaa vunnaarO emO!

Posted by: Mr. Siri Siri At: 18, Jul 2006 11:58:21 AM IST

bhayapaDakanDi :) ai aam frenDlee .

Posted by: లొట్టాస్ At: 18, Jul 2006 11:50:53 AM IST

East India Company in reverse SWAMINATHAN S ANKLESARIA AIYAR It’s the East India Company in reverse. Parts of Europe are in a funk about an “Indian invasion” says The Economist, the British financial magazine. Lakshmi Mittal has become the biggest steel producer in the world through a series of takeovers, and now bids to take over Arcelor, Europe’s largest steel company. Vijay Mallya’s bid for Taittinger, France’s prestigious wine producers in Europe, has produced shrieks of wounded pride in France. Anil Aggarwal of Vedanta/Sterlite has taken over Konkola, Zambia’s biggest copper mine, from Anglo American. The Indian Left claims that globalisation means the takeover of the world by western multinational corporations. In fact Third World MNCs are rising, and are repeatedly beating and taking over western MNCs. At the beginning of the 20th century, the biggest company in the world was US Steel. Today US Steel is a minor player. Among nations, China dominates. Among companies, Mittal dominates. No western steelmaker is big enough to save Arcelor from Mittal’s embrace, so the company has sought refuge in the arms of Russia’s Severstal. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd (JSPL) has won a contract to mine Bolivia’s huge El Mutun iron ore deposit, and convert part of it into steel. This is part of a trend: Hindalco has taken over two copper mines in Australia. Remarkably, all five bidders in Bolivia were Third World MNCs. Jindal’s rival bidders were Mittal Steel; China’s Shandong Luneng Hengyuan Trading Group; Brazil’s EBX Group; and a joint venture (JV) of two Argentinean companies. No western MNC was in sight. Possibly western MNCs were reluctant to bid after Bolivia’s nationalisation of oil and gas companies. Yet even that event has a Third World twist. The biggest foreign oil company to be nationalised by Bolivia was Petrobras, a Brazilian MNC. Exxon is the biggest US company by far. Yet Exxon’s global oil production is only 4.1 million barrels per day (mbd) of oil. Russia’s mostly public sector companies produce 9.3 mbd, and Saudi Arabia’s Aramco produces almost 10 mbd. Now, western MNCs are and will continue to be clear leaders in many areas. Boeing and Airbus look unbeatable in passenger planes. Car manufacturing is still dominated by US MNCs, although Japan is gaining ground fast. High-tech manufacturing like pharmaceuticals, microprocessors and mainframe computers are dominated by the West. So are financial services: banking, insurance, merchant banking, and stockbroking. Yet in all these areas Third World MNCs are gaining ground. IBM invented the PC, but after losing money for several years it sold its personal computer business to Lenovo of China. All leading Indian pharma companies — Ranbaxy, Dr Reddy’s Labs, Wockhardt et al — have become MNC s, taking over foreign companies. Indeed, Malvinder Singh, CEO of Ranbaxy, felt compelled to write an article in The Financial Times recently assuring the western public that Indian companies did not seek conquest, but merely wanted a partnership. This sort of soft diplomacy was once practised by western MNCs entering Third World markets. The biggest computer-related giants such as Microsoft, IBM, EDS and Oracle remain formidable world players, joined by new internet giants such as Google, Yahoo and e-Bay. But note that all these companies have been obliged to invest hugely in India in order to meet competition from Indian companies. IBM now employs over 40,000 people in India. Yet Indian software companies are a rising and probably unstoppable force in this area. TCS, Infosys and Wipro are the stars of the future, with far higher P-E ratios than many western rivals. They have rightly refused to buy many western MNCs available for sale. As Azim Premji puts it, “Why buy yesterday?” Air services have long been dominated by the West, but its biggest carriers are in trouble. In 2005, United Airlines lost $21 billion, Delta 3.8 billion, and American Airlines $861 million. But Dubai’s Emirates chalked up a record profit of $708 million. Emirates has ordered more than 100 new planes, and aims to become the world’s biggest airline. Port services used to be dominated by western companies like P&O. Yet P&O was put up for sale last year and the two top bidders — Dubai Ports and PSA of Singapore — were both Third World MNCs. Americans were so terrified of Dubai Ports taking over six US ports (which had been run by P&O) that politicians squeaked with rage, and Dubai Ports finally bought peace by agreeing to sell the US operations it had acquired. Indian MNCs have had a late start and are still finding their feet. Yet they are doing well in autos and auto ancillaries. The biggest auto ancillary giants — Delphi, Visteon, Dana, Federal Mogul — lost billions last year, and are relocating in fair measure to India for survival. Meanwhile Indian auto ancillary companies are soaring. Bharat Forge has become the second largest producer of forgings in the world, having taken over six plants abroad, and looks set to become numero uno. Tata Motors has acquired Daewoo’s truck assets in Korea, a bus company in Spain, and is starting a JV with Brazilian giant Marcopolo. The Tata group has also paid $239 million for Teleglobe, $431 million for Tetley Tea of Britain; $286 million for NatSteel of Singapore; $118 million for the truck operations in South Korea of Daewoo; and $130 million for the undersea cable network of Tyco. Indian banks are pygmies by world standards. Yet a recent survey in The Economist pointed out that banking was mostly a commodity service, where Indian companies could replicate the success already demonstrated in computer software and BPO. In which case ICICI Bank, HDFC Bank and others have a big global future. Standard and Poor’s has outsourced many of its global services to Crisil, its Indian subsidiary. JP Morgan Chase aims to shift 9,000 jobs to India. The bottom line is clear. Globalisation does not ensure the takeover of the world economy by western MNCs. On the contrary, it enables Third World companies to become global giants, thrashing western MNCs. In this manner, globalisation is creating a more equitable spread of world economic power.

Posted by: Mr. Siri Siri At: 18, Jul 2006 11:43:37 AM IST

naaku chaala bhayamEstundi.. ee madhya jarigina maaraNahOmam chuusaaka.(mumbaayilOdi kaadulE ..ikkaDidi!) namastE!

Posted by: Mr. Siri Siri At: 18, Jul 2006 11:42:11 AM IST

haaY siri siri namastE !

Posted by: లొట్టాస్ At: 18, Jul 2006 11:39:34 AM IST

Does a Doha Round failure matter? SWAMINATHAN S ANKLESARIA AIYAR WTO and India Does it matter if the Doha Round of the World Trade Organisation ends in failure? The mini-ministerial round of talks at Geneva missed its June 30 deadline, and no new date or agenda has been set. The lack of seriousness of participants was well illustrated by commerce minister Kamal Nath. He arrived 90 minutes late for the first big meeting at Geneva because he was watching a World Cup football match. Some will say that he got his priorities right, since the World Cup is guaranteed to produce a result whereas the Doha Round is not. The world economy has for three years been booming, so much so that even sub-Saharan Africa has registered GDP growth of almost 5% per year. So the question can be asked, when existing trading rules are producing such good results, does it matter whether or not we get some more liberalisation through the Doha Round? Some economists argue that the future lies less with WTO multilateral arrangements, which are thorny and difficult to negotiate, than with bilateral and regional free trade agreements (FTAs). Not only are FTAs easier to negotiate, they are typically viewed as foreign policy triumphs, something that is definitely not the case with multilateral arrangements. I would argue that India has much to lose if the world switches from WTO to FTAs. The United States is keen on FTAs because it has a strong bargaining position in bilateral deals. In FTAs with developing countries, it has imposed labour and environmental standards, free capital flows and other such conditions that would be impossible in the case of a WTO deal. In all its FTAs, the US provides duty-free treatment for garment imports only if the garments are made from cloth exported by the US. WTO rules would ban such clauses. This explains why the US is happy to focus on FTAs, and gives much lower priority to WTO. Can India go the same way, and opt for FTAs on a wide scale? Alas, no. It does not have the economic or political clout to strike the strong bargains that the US has been able to. The so-called FTAs India has signed with Saarc partners, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Singapore are replete with exceptions and exemptions. They are political rather than trade initiatives. Indian politicians worry that any really free trade could bring a flood of agricultural imports that would hit farmers and increase farmer suicides. Farmer interests are strong even in the US where only 1.5 % of the population is in farming. In India, 60% of the population is still partially or wholly dependent on agriculture. This is the main reason why India cannot contemplate a free trade agreement with the US. Nafta has allowed the US to export subsidised maize to Mexico, hitting poor farmers there. No Indian politician dare contemplate a similar situation here. India would love to sign an agreement on free trade in services alone with the US, but Washington will not agree. It says that FTAs must be all-inclusive, and that services cannot be dealt with separately from goods. Several developing countries in Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa have signed FTAs with the US. Those in Africa and the Caribbean get preferential access to the European Union. All these countries have unfair advantages over India in western markets. WTO rules mandate equal trade rules for all. But FTAs destroy that level-playing field. We need a successful Doha Round to bring down overall tariffs, and thus reduce the preferential margin enjoyed by other developing countries. However, the biggest danger of a Doha Round collapse is not the proliferation of FTAs. One key reason for converting GATT into WTO was to control US legislators hell bent on protectionist legislation. WTO institutionalised international trade rules, backed by a dispute settlement machinery. Earlier, the US Congress had resorted to protectionism through Super 301 and Special 301 laws. This became difficult after the treaty obligations imposed by WTO. Yet even today US legislators keep introducing bills that are violative of WTO rules. One recent example is a proposal to slap an import duty of 27% on Chinese goods if China fails to revalue its currency. US Congress has given President Bush fast track authority to negotiate a WTO deal by mid-2007. If not, the fast track authority will lapse, and legislators will pick to pieces any later deal. That will more or less guarantee the end of the Doha Round: the chances of getting an extension of fast track authority are dim. Indeed, a Doha failure will encourage US legislators to increasingly introduce protectionist legislation that contravenes WTO rules, and challenge affected countries to do their worst. They can go to the WTO, which will rule in their favour. But a favourable ruling is of practical use to only powerful trading partners such as Japan or the European Union. If the US refuses to abide by a WTO ruling, the aggrieved countries can impose compensatory trade sanctions on the US. The EU has indeed done this on occasion, and this has typically persuaded US legislators to withdraw offending clauses. But developing countries lack the economic and political clout needed to use sanctions as a weapon. If, for instance, India imposes higher tariffs on US machinery exports, Japanese and European companies will be thrilled at the reduction in competition, and seize the opportunity to raise their prices. Besides, the volume of Indian imports may be too small to seriously affect US producers, who will therefore have less incentive to lobby US legislators to get rid of WTO-violating laws. In sum, a collapse of the Doha Round will probably lead to a surge of US protectionism, and undermine the entire global movement towards reduced trade barriers. The danger of protectionism may be especially high for service exports, as this will not violate existing WTO rules. That could hit India hard. It is one more reason for India to make a special effort to ensure that the Doha Round does not fizzle out.

Posted by: Mr. Siri Siri At: 18, Jul 2006 11:29:41 AM IST

Thanks dear Raj S.I'm fine. Yeah.Let people make comments and comments on comments.After all,that's what this thread is meant for.Lets see what people would say,other than repeating what one sheep had done/said.

Posted by: Mr. Siri Siri At: 18, Jul 2006 11:27:21 AM IST

< < Previous Page: 2 of 5 Next > >