- Joined
- Nov 27, 2008
- Messages
- 927
- Points
- 0
LOL keling shit. trying to sell ur dark continent again. that shit hole is good for one thing and one thing only.
producing black smeely shits like you.
ahahaha
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Another Bombshell from MM: India not in the same league as China
- Thread starter SNAblog
- Start date
LOL keling shit. trying to sell ur dark continent again. that shit hole is good for one thing and one thing only.
producing black smeely shits like you.
ahahaha
If your POV is irrelevant then let us look at the report itself.
How can you gauge the true entreprenural culture or future economic progress of a country by interviewing its own citizens. Problem is that all the indian senior managers can talk till the cows come hope but India will not move without FDI. Remember that India is a poor country and needs lots of FDI.
FDI comes from foreigners. Interviewing CEOs of MNCs would give a more accurate result on the potential future of India, since it is the CEOS that will decide if they want to invest in India. At the moment the FDI king is China which means that is where CEOs are placing their bets! This is a fact. CEOs will only invest $$, especially in this period of tight credit when they are confident of the future. BMW just ok a US$1B plant in China. They are probably looking with a 10 to 20 year horizon before they pump in this $$$. So BMW thinks that future for the next 20 years in China is bright. That is why that 2030 time frame for India to be global economic superpower is nonsense and whoever generated that finding is wrong.
Never heard of Legatum Group. Wiki them and they are based in Dubai. Legatum Group has heavy investments in India and I would not be surprised if Indian business and political $$$ is parked in this group and then used to invest in india tax free. Who knows maybe that is where they found the indian senior managers!
And problem with trying to measure intangibles is that it is very subjective (indian senior managers are not a good focus group). You go ask a monk (ok not Ming Yi type) is $500 a month enough $ and they will tell you they only need $50 a month and that $500 is a lot of money. You ask another person if $500 is a lot of $$ and he tells you that dinner and KTV will run $2K minimum, $500 money no enough.
Took a look at the prosperity index and 1 of the 9 metrics they use is "social capital - trustworthiness in relationships and strong communities". India is listed as 5th in the world behind New Zealand, Swiss, Sweden, Australia!!
Does it seem like India has strong communities??? How about the dalits, the caste and the Hindu -Muslim or Hindu-sikh issues. Frankly I do not see where they get the information from (Senior Indian Managers again). Perhaps these managers sees the Dalit caste as a strong community within itself.
Do you think India is a very stable country? It has a 15% muslim pop and a right wing Hindu party (BJP). On top of this India is located in a region where Islam is being used by extremist. Does not take much for the extremist sentiments to sweep over to India. This in itself makes the country extremely unstable.
Remember that despite the publicity, IT and call centers are not enough to lift India out of poverty. And what many fail to notice is that the IT industry is actually sucking the top talents to the US - similar to what happened a generation ago when the top Indian brains left for UK. Majority of these cream of the crop will never make it back to India and are happy working in Silicon Valley. That does not help the country at all. Mittal the Indian Steel tycoon lives in London and most of his steel mills are located outside India. Looks good as a wealthy indian but does little for the country.
In fact India is basically exporting iron ore (little value added) to Chinese iron mills.
I think that India has great potential but there is no shortcut to prosperity. The first step is to recognise its shortcoming and stop hiding behind that "largest democracy nonsense".
They too will have to move up the industrialization route. Problem for India is that they have a super competitor sitting on top of them and it is tough to out flank the Chinese. This is a problem for many 3rd world countries like Vietnam, Cambodia, even Thailand and Malaysia. On top of that China has the benefit of overseas Chinese - the financial knowhow from HK where they can raise billions - the manufacturing knowhow from the Taiwanese and the generousity of Singaporeans in the MM! I think before the MNCs came to China, the first US$100B came in the form of investments from overseas Chinese. China had the benefit of the wealthy overseas Chinese.
How can you gauge the true entreprenural culture or future economic progress of a country by interviewing its own citizens. Problem is that all the indian senior managers can talk till the cows come hope but India will not move without FDI. Remember that India is a poor country and needs lots of FDI.
FDI comes from foreigners. Interviewing CEOs of MNCs would give a more accurate result on the potential future of India, since it is the CEOS that will decide if they want to invest in India. At the moment the FDI king is China which means that is where CEOs are placing their bets! This is a fact. CEOs will only invest $$, especially in this period of tight credit when they are confident of the future. BMW just ok a US$1B plant in China. They are probably looking with a 10 to 20 year horizon before they pump in this $$$. So BMW thinks that future for the next 20 years in China is bright. That is why that 2030 time frame for India to be global economic superpower is nonsense and whoever generated that finding is wrong.
Never heard of Legatum Group. Wiki them and they are based in Dubai. Legatum Group has heavy investments in India and I would not be surprised if Indian business and political $$$ is parked in this group and then used to invest in india tax free. Who knows maybe that is where they found the indian senior managers!
And problem with trying to measure intangibles is that it is very subjective (indian senior managers are not a good focus group). You go ask a monk (ok not Ming Yi type) is $500 a month enough $ and they will tell you they only need $50 a month and that $500 is a lot of money. You ask another person if $500 is a lot of $$ and he tells you that dinner and KTV will run $2K minimum, $500 money no enough.
Took a look at the prosperity index and 1 of the 9 metrics they use is "social capital - trustworthiness in relationships and strong communities". India is listed as 5th in the world behind New Zealand, Swiss, Sweden, Australia!!
Does it seem like India has strong communities??? How about the dalits, the caste and the Hindu -Muslim or Hindu-sikh issues. Frankly I do not see where they get the information from (Senior Indian Managers again). Perhaps these managers sees the Dalit caste as a strong community within itself.
Do you think India is a very stable country? It has a 15% muslim pop and a right wing Hindu party (BJP). On top of this India is located in a region where Islam is being used by extremist. Does not take much for the extremist sentiments to sweep over to India. This in itself makes the country extremely unstable.
Remember that despite the publicity, IT and call centers are not enough to lift India out of poverty. And what many fail to notice is that the IT industry is actually sucking the top talents to the US - similar to what happened a generation ago when the top Indian brains left for UK. Majority of these cream of the crop will never make it back to India and are happy working in Silicon Valley. That does not help the country at all. Mittal the Indian Steel tycoon lives in London and most of his steel mills are located outside India. Looks good as a wealthy indian but does little for the country.
In fact India is basically exporting iron ore (little value added) to Chinese iron mills.
I think that India has great potential but there is no shortcut to prosperity. The first step is to recognise its shortcoming and stop hiding behind that "largest democracy nonsense".
They too will have to move up the industrialization route. Problem for India is that they have a super competitor sitting on top of them and it is tough to out flank the Chinese. This is a problem for many 3rd world countries like Vietnam, Cambodia, even Thailand and Malaysia. On top of that China has the benefit of overseas Chinese - the financial knowhow from HK where they can raise billions - the manufacturing knowhow from the Taiwanese and the generousity of Singaporeans in the MM! I think before the MNCs came to China, the first US$100B came in the form of investments from overseas Chinese. China had the benefit of the wealthy overseas Chinese.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2009
- Messages
- 3,616
- Points
- 0
Walao, this week think i better stay clear of serangoon rd. Those ah neh must be damn tulan after reading what old fart said, and may run riot chopping every yellow skin on sight. This weekend i shall give my fav nasi brayani at Tekka mkt a miss :(:(
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Points
- 0
Contrary to most common beliefs, China did not really depend on FDI during its infant stage of development back in the 1980s. FDI forms a very small proportion of total investment.
I did my Economic Honors thesis on Financing Growth in China and the findings are very different from common perceptions. FDI only brought in technological and technical transfers while the amount of investment is very much lesser than its internal financing after China embarked on Financial reform along with its initial phase of rural agricultural reform which involves land reform as well.
The financial reforms on its banking system (the rural-cooperatives) has released huge amount of finances potential to finance the rural agricultural reform as well as the subsequent enterprises that sprung up thereafter.
China was successful then basically because wealth or money was not concentrated to few big families like what it is right now in India. The farmers and city dwellers are more or less on the same level of wealth and income. They have high saving rates which was under utilized due to policy restrictions. This is the main head start and difference between the development paths of China and India.
Goh Meng Seng
I did my Economic Honors thesis on Financing Growth in China and the findings are very different from common perceptions. FDI only brought in technological and technical transfers while the amount of investment is very much lesser than its internal financing after China embarked on Financial reform along with its initial phase of rural agricultural reform which involves land reform as well.
The financial reforms on its banking system (the rural-cooperatives) has released huge amount of finances potential to finance the rural agricultural reform as well as the subsequent enterprises that sprung up thereafter.
China was successful then basically because wealth or money was not concentrated to few big families like what it is right now in India. The farmers and city dwellers are more or less on the same level of wealth and income. They have high saving rates which was under utilized due to policy restrictions. This is the main head start and difference between the development paths of China and India.
Goh Meng Seng
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2009
- Messages
- 2,605
- Points
- 0
The report is a survey taken to guage and assess the internal dynamics of a country.
Whom they survey and what info they collect is one thing. These info are used along with the existing corelating factors of a country and its social and political order to draw analytical conclusions, which I beleive is what the think tank has a reputation for. Apparently the think tank has endorsed the view by providing supportive explanations.
There could be different views on the same issue.
There is no such thing that one POV has to be credible and the other views and expressions which one dont like, are to be discarded.
Ofcourse, we all have the option to make our own opinions from the info we have.
Whom they survey and what info they collect is one thing. These info are used along with the existing corelating factors of a country and its social and political order to draw analytical conclusions, which I beleive is what the think tank has a reputation for. Apparently the think tank has endorsed the view by providing supportive explanations.
There could be different views on the same issue.
There is no such thing that one POV has to be credible and the other views and expressions which one dont like, are to be discarded.
Ofcourse, we all have the option to make our own opinions from the info we have.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,589
- Points
- 48
so what will be the next rubbish ?
speak tamil or hindi ?
speak tamil or hindi ?
Very interesting. Depends on the stage you are looking at. In the early 80s few would even dare to venture into China. Big issues with currency and how to repatriate money. Heard that Equatorial Hotel Group even had their credit card machines linked to Singapore (you swipe the card but the transaction is as though it was in Singapore). So of course no FDI. People were concerned with how to get their money out so are careful about putting money in.
During that period the only investors were HK and Taiwanese who already had a humming export machines in plastics, electronics and garment back home. Cost them little to bring in the old machines and make use of the super cheap labor and export out the finished product - they got back their $$$ that way. That was the start. And China had huge advantage of this Chinese diaspora. This took place all over China in thousands of small business operations. During this period FDI is low. But once the Taiwanese and HK manufacturers saw how profitable it is to make in China they came in en-mass setting up the basic manufacturing supply chain. It was around this time that MM did the Suzhou project. I estimate that investments from Taiwan, HK and Singapore probably add up to $100B. Suzhou alone was probably in the $10B price range.
After that the MNCs came and they brought in a couple hundred billion a year in FDI. Do not forget that there was a 50/50 ownership requirement. So if GE brought in US$2B in FDI pretty much that means a Chinese company got $1B of that $2B. So if FDI is $200B a year, $100B of that is given to Chinese.
It was the initial Taiwanese/HK knowhow and investments that set the foundation for MNCs to come. That is one thing that india lacks.
During that period the only investors were HK and Taiwanese who already had a humming export machines in plastics, electronics and garment back home. Cost them little to bring in the old machines and make use of the super cheap labor and export out the finished product - they got back their $$$ that way. That was the start. And China had huge advantage of this Chinese diaspora. This took place all over China in thousands of small business operations. During this period FDI is low. But once the Taiwanese and HK manufacturers saw how profitable it is to make in China they came in en-mass setting up the basic manufacturing supply chain. It was around this time that MM did the Suzhou project. I estimate that investments from Taiwan, HK and Singapore probably add up to $100B. Suzhou alone was probably in the $10B price range.
After that the MNCs came and they brought in a couple hundred billion a year in FDI. Do not forget that there was a 50/50 ownership requirement. So if GE brought in US$2B in FDI pretty much that means a Chinese company got $1B of that $2B. So if FDI is $200B a year, $100B of that is given to Chinese.
It was the initial Taiwanese/HK knowhow and investments that set the foundation for MNCs to come. That is one thing that india lacks.
GFK you quote Morita:
"I conclude with this observation made by a reputed "Asian Confucian" industrialist.
" On the surface, China appears stable..but underneath it is not...On the surface India seems unstable, but underneath it is stable " - Akio Morita. Sony Corp founder."
Morita had a stroke in 1994 so he probably made this statement a few years earlier. That was almost 20 years ago. Apparently he was wrong. China has been piling on 8% growth for the last 20 years and its GDP probably tripled during this period.
Another telling sign - just compare Sony's investment in China vs India. Sony's operations in China is substantial and even its PS3 playstation is made in China. Why invest in an area that is not stable?
"I conclude with this observation made by a reputed "Asian Confucian" industrialist.
" On the surface, China appears stable..but underneath it is not...On the surface India seems unstable, but underneath it is stable " - Akio Morita. Sony Corp founder."
Morita had a stroke in 1994 so he probably made this statement a few years earlier. That was almost 20 years ago. Apparently he was wrong. China has been piling on 8% growth for the last 20 years and its GDP probably tripled during this period.
Another telling sign - just compare Sony's investment in China vs India. Sony's operations in China is substantial and even its PS3 playstation is made in China. Why invest in an area that is not stable?
growth rates do not always stay the same over long term, they change. 100 year ago the two richest countries n the world were Argentina and Australia, Burma and Philippine were the richest countries in SE Asia region after the war.
Singapore's has made great strides in past 40 years but is it sustainable? It may be that in 20 years Singapore is eclipsed in this region after all the reason for its success was being turned into a outpost for western and Japanese manufacturers in cheap Asia and as transport hub for the region. This is quickly losing its appeal. The same can be said for China, it is rapidly aging and has many serious problems that have been under tight control but after an upheaval it can come crashing down - like Yugoslavia.
saying India will always be below china is not based on historical fact just current form and mostly racists thinking by a very racists man.
i can say the same thing because the west has such a head start on china by centuries we will always be ahead of it. true or not? who can make such a claim when you don't know future events.
Singapore's has made great strides in past 40 years but is it sustainable? It may be that in 20 years Singapore is eclipsed in this region after all the reason for its success was being turned into a outpost for western and Japanese manufacturers in cheap Asia and as transport hub for the region. This is quickly losing its appeal. The same can be said for China, it is rapidly aging and has many serious problems that have been under tight control but after an upheaval it can come crashing down - like Yugoslavia.
saying India will always be below china is not based on historical fact just current form and mostly racists thinking by a very racists man.
i can say the same thing because the west has such a head start on china by centuries we will always be ahead of it. true or not? who can make such a claim when you don't know future events.
Nothing racist here lah just facts. Someone posted an article that said that India will be number 1 global economic super power in 20 years!! That is impossible. In 50 or 100 years it is entirely possible.
Yugoslavia is a poor comparison. Totally different.
Yugoslavia is a poor comparison. Totally different.
Similar threads
