Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down

AuthorTopic: UPA continues to sell the country  (Read 4049 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

feverpitch

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,327
  • Money: 893609.00
  • Lachchha Porotta drops a dung cake
Re: UPA continues to sell the country
« Reply #120 on: December 29, 2011, 11:54:07 AM »
1.   Politicians will gain.
 - anything new

So we don't fix the reason why this is so, and go ahead with giving each politician their own personal red carpet to switzerland. That's quite original and logical.

2.   Energy prices will be controlled by vested interests.
- OK, they will be anyway, do you know a way to stop that.

see above.

3.   and MNCs certainly will not be able to change that, unless they consolidate land holdings by getting involved in illegal evictions, the way United Fruit Company did in the banana republics of the Windies.

-   and what do you think the indian companies are going to do. Anything different my friend.

instead of suddenly trying to change tack, after having been repeatedly caught out at imagining MNCs to be only phoren, why don't you come up with a solution for once, instead of giving lame chalta hai solutions.

4.   MNCs like Walmart that are solely into retail (unlike the Tatas and Ambanis, who are into everything), will be forced to offer competitive prices by eventually getting involved in activities that stretch the law, or subvert it (bribery).

-   this is the most ridiculous argument I have heard. Whatever a company is into…..it will still try and make the most of any other venture they get into. Just because, Tata makes cars it will not take the foot of the pedal in retail. You are wrong here.

Agree and disagree. It can be expected that in good times, a business house with many interests will pay equal attention to all sectors it has a footprint in, but in recessionary times (as now), it makes perfect sense to focus on core competencies. Ever seen a CRT TV made by Hyundai? I have. Colonel owns one, bought from Walmart, of a vintage when the going was good for the Koreans. Never seen a second one (Of course, I haven't been to Korea)

5.   two arguments here:

First: More rats is more dangerous for the producer and consumer.


- where did you get this from, all available knowledge discounts that, unless you believe in a state owned economy, read no other rats, which you may well do, and regardless of the theoretical basis of such an assumption, all political models to that effect have failed. China is not an example, because, it is NOW a capitalistic model in disguise, with oppression thrown in.

Are you trying to argue on the basis of parroted bookish knowledge? When I say rats, I mean the real-life unscrupulous baniya businessmen masquerading as the holier-than-thou hypothetical-entrepreneur of laissez faire ideal.

Second: If more rats lead to consolidation and oligopolies because of financial clout, that too is bad.

-   yes and no.
generally speaking more rats should benefit the customer. Show me where this is not true.

one rat in the game can price fix. thats why monopoly commissions exist, to prevent that from happening.

One rat with a monopoly is different, forced monopoly is worse still.

The subject of "Economics" as studied in classrooms is probably the most perfect example of an epistemology whose theoretical claims exclusively follow events after they have already happened. As a former student of the same, I used to feel it was ironic when I found neo-converts parroting such drivel. I feel a bit sad these days about the same. Anyway, if we can move away from the hypothetical situation to reality, I hope you'll agree that you will neither find a pure monopoly anywhere as described in your Cliff Notes, nor will you find a condition where "other conditions remain the same". In reality, the market does not exist in a vacuum. It does in a situation where, instead, unscrupulous politicians/babus exist.

Back to topic. I never talked of monopoly, because the bookish concept doesnt exist in real life. In any case, if a monopoly commission does exist in India (I'm not aware of that), what chance that it will act in the way the US one did say against Microsoft? And even if it did, what chance that it will get it's decision right (I'm thinking in terms of Apple being the bigger monopoly than MS, but not suffering the persecution that MS had to undergo).

Now that I have answered the questions you put forward, which, by the way I did not think needed answering, can you answer my question?

If the foreign players are as bad as the Indian players in this market as your posts seem to confirm…..Why are you against them in the first place.

Why is Walmart any worse than Spencers?

PS: Since I was arguing that there was no difference amongst Western players and the Indian ones, I thought answering your post in detail was not necessary.

That's really rich and original. Why don't you go back and check how many times you have yourself muddled between Indian and Phoren MNCs, repeatedly indicating that MNCs are only phoren, only to be pointed out by me that your's is a naive view.

As for your question, may I humbly suggest the same recipe Blwe suggested to CP—ie, use google translator on my earlier posts?

If, you are arguing that Indian multinational companies are better than the foreign ones, in which ever way you think they are....then we can have a different discussion.

This is exactly what I had said in my last post, which you failed to grasp, and kept posting......

Nice try. But you're out, clean bowled through the gates.
Logged
"In societies where modern conditions of production prevail, all life presents as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has moved away into a representation."

Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle

ramshorns

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12,988
  • Money: 3867418.00
Re: UPA continues to sell the country
« Reply #121 on: December 29, 2011, 12:36:25 PM »
1.   Politicians will gain.
 - anything new


So we don't fix the reason why this is so, and go ahead with giving each politician their own personal red carpet to switzerland. That's quite original and logical.

2.   Energy prices will be controlled by vested interests.
- OK, they will be anyway, do you know a way to stop that.


see above.

3.   and MNCs certainly will not be able to change that, unless they consolidate land holdings by getting involved in illegal evictions, the way United Fruit Company did in the banana republics of the Windies.

-   and what do you think the indian companies are going to do. Anything different my friend.


instead of suddenly trying to change tack, after having been repeatedly caught out at imagining MNCs to be only phoren, why don't you come up with a solution for once, instead of giving lame chalta hai solutions.

4.   MNCs like Walmart that are solely into retail (unlike the Tatas and Ambanis, who are into everything), will be forced to offer competitive prices by eventually getting involved in activities that stretch the law, or subvert it (bribery).

-   this is the most ridiculous argument I have heard. Whatever a company is into…..it will still try and make the most of any other venture they get into. Just because, Tata makes cars it will not take the foot of the pedal in retail. You are wrong here.


Agree and disagree. It can be expected that in good times, a business house with many interests will pay equal attention to all sectors it has a footprint in, but in recessionary times (as now), it makes perfect sense to focus on core competencies. Ever seen a CRT TV made by Hyundai? I have. Colonel owns one, bought from Walmart, of a vintage when the going was good for the Koreans. Never seen a second one (Of course, I haven't been to Korea)

5.   two arguments here:

First: More rats is more dangerous for the producer and consumer.


- where did you get this from, all available knowledge discounts that, unless you believe in a state owned economy, read no other rats, which you may well do, and regardless of the theoretical basis of such an assumption, all political models to that effect have failed. China is not an example, because, it is NOW a capitalistic model in disguise, with oppression thrown in.


Are you trying to argue on the basis of parroted bookish knowledge? When I say rats, I mean the real-life unscrupulous baniya businessmen masquerading as the holier-than-thou hypothetical-entrepreneur of laissez faire ideal.

Second: If more rats lead to consolidation and oligopolies because of financial clout, that too is bad.

-   yes and no.
generally speaking more rats should benefit the customer. Show me where this is not true.

one rat in the game can price fix. thats why monopoly commissions exist, to prevent that from happening.

One rat with a monopoly is different, forced monopoly is worse still.


The subject of "Economics" as studied in classrooms is probably the most perfect example of an epistemology whose theoretical claims exclusively follow events after they have already happened. As a former student of the same, I used to feel it was ironic when I found neo-converts parroting such drivel. I feel a bit sad these days about the same. Anyway, if we can move away from the hypothetical situation to reality, I hope you'll agree that you will neither find a pure monopoly anywhere as described in your Cliff Notes, nor will you find a condition where "other conditions remain the same". In reality, the market does not exist in a vacuum. It does in a situation where, instead, unscrupulous politicians/babus exist.

Back to topic. I never talked of monopoly, because the bookish concept doesnt exist in real life. In any case, if a monopoly commission does exist in India (I'm not aware of that), what chance that it will act in the way the US one did say against Microsoft? And even if it did, what chance that it will get it's decision right (I'm thinking in terms of Apple being the bigger monopoly than MS, but not suffering the persecution that MS had to undergo).

Now that I have answered the questions you put forward, which, by the way I did not think needed answering, can you answer my question?

If the foreign players are as bad as the Indian players in this market as your posts seem to confirm…..Why are you against them in the first place.

Why is Walmart any worse than Spencers?

PS: Since I was arguing that there was no difference amongst Western players and the Indian ones, I thought answering your post in detail was not necessary.


That's really rich and original. Why don't you go back and check how many times you have yourself muddled between Indian and Phoren MNCs, repeatedly indicating that MNCs are only phoren, only to be pointed out by me that your's is a naive view.

As for your question, may I humbly suggest the same recipe Blwe suggested to CP—ie, use google translator on my earlier posts?

If, you are arguing that Indian multinational companies are better than the foreign ones, in which ever way you think they are....then we can have a different discussion.

This is exactly what I had said in my last post, which you failed to grasp, and kept posting......


Nice try. But you're out, clean bowled through the gates.
Logged

feverpitch

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,327
  • Money: 893609.00
  • Lachchha Porotta drops a dung cake
Re: UPA continues to sell the country
« Reply #122 on: December 29, 2011, 01:04:42 PM »
Do we need to be reminded how fugly our resident dancing goat is?
Logged
"In societies where modern conditions of production prevail, all life presents as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has moved away into a representation."

Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle

feverpitch

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,327
  • Money: 893609.00
  • Lachchha Porotta drops a dung cake
Re: UPA continues to sell the country
« Reply #123 on: May 12, 2012, 11:02:14 AM »
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?280884

PARLIAMENT: CONDUCT OF MPS
Su Casa Es Mi Casa

Businessmen-turned-MPs and public policy. Conflict of interest?

ANURADHA RAMAN


Quote
Insider Trading?

P.B. Kore of the BJP, M.A.M. Ramaswamy of the JD(S), D.R. Meghe, Cong: standing committee on health though they are in the management of medical colleges Venture capitalist Rajeev Chandrasekhar, industrialist Vijay Darda: finance committees Vijay Mallya, owner of Kingfisher airlines: civil aviation committee
***


It’s an intriguing time for a private member’s bill to come on ‘conflict of interest’. Congress MP from Tamil Nadu Sudarsana Natchiappan moved one such, titled Prevention and Management of Conflict of Interest Bill, on April 27. About the same time, another Congressman from Tamil Nadu, Union home minister P. Chidambaram, was being attacked by the Opposition for allegedly protecting son Karthi Chidambaram’s business interests in a telecom deal when he was finance minister.

Besides the immediate uproar, this is a serious issue that’s been eating into the “integrity quotient” of Parliament. Two years ago, the then Union urban development minister S. Jaipal Reddy had cautioned that nearly one-fourth of all Lok Sabha members could potentially have conflicts of interest with the business of the House. He was quoting a study conducted by the National Social Watch Coalition, which claimed 128 out of the 543 members of the 15th Lok Sabha belonged to the business class, which potentially may have conflicts of interest while participating in parliamentary deliberations on public policy.

Navin Jindal, Industrialist Navin Jindal, Congress MP, was on the PAC till last year. Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Venture capitalist from Karnataka one of few MPs on finance panel Vijay Mallya, Kingfisher head on the standing committee on civil aviation Rahul Bajaj, Bajaj Auto boss asks queries on auto industry. CPI(M) MPs object.

“When rich people come into Parliament, can you avoid a conflict of interest?” was the minister’s candid reaction to the study. It is in this background that this bill acquires significance. First a caveat: several thousand private member’s bills are said to be pending for introduction. The few which are introduced depend on a draw of lots. And what’s more, the introduction itself may not mean much as members may have to wait before the bill comes up for discussion. The system allows very few such bills to secure the approval of both houses and become law. Which is why, Natchiappan, a lawyer by training, is realistic. “At least, the bill was introduced,” he quips (see interview).

Indeed, it would be fortuitous if the bill ever comes up for discussion. Shortly after the bill was introduced, the Opposition stalled proceedings in Parliament seeking facts on the Chidambaram matter. (On Thursday, May 10, PC made a statement in the House saying none of his family members had a stake in the involved telecom firms, but the Opposition clamour continued.) Conflicts of interest are not confined to just MPs and ministers but includes virtually everyone active in the public domain. Other countries have taken the lead, and it’s time India too initiates legislation to control such conflicts, says Natchiappan.

The bill seeks to bring all public servants, ministers, consultants in public bodies and consultative committees within its ambit. “It goes beyond the Lokpal Bill. While that bill seeks to address corruption, the conflict of interest bill looks at the very root of that corruption,” says the MP.

For the MP, the bill began as an investigation into the possibility of mnc baby food manufacturers influencing public policies on malnutrition, which later became a full-fledged exercise in framing a legislation to tackle conflict of interest in the public sphere.

Says Arun Gupta, convenor of the Alliance Against Conflict of Interest, an umbrella of organisations and individuals, “The representation of corporate interests in committees which decide on drug policy, food and other essential items is a matter of serious concern. Public disclosures must be made on this.”

The alliance has pointed out instances where there were serious conflicts of interest: a former cabinet secretary, now in charge of a micronutrient organisation, pushing for a policy change in tackling malnutrition. Or the case of a former solicitor-general of India representing a multinational drug company, which has implications for the drugs patent regime. A 2010 report brought out by National Social Watch (see box) lists the potential of conflict that arises when MPs and industrialists are members of parliamentary standing committees.

As Natchiappan observes, he is appealing to the conscience of his fellow MPs when they raise questions or represent committees. The bill not only defines conflict of interest but also provides provision for a conflict commission and penalty in case of violation. Both imprisonment and imposition of fines have been provided for in the bill.

Across the political spectrum, there is some agreement that a certain rot has set in as parties have failed to prevent MPs from sitting on committees that oversee the very businesses they run. Yet no one acts on this, with the exception of the Left parties. The opening up of the economy has led to a host of pro-industry voices operating within Parliament, the same that is supposed to protect citizen’s interests, not promote those of corporates. It’s blatant, brazen and deeply worrying. So it was not without reason that former environment minister Jairam Ramesh bitterly complained to the speaker about MPs openly lobbying with him for their businesses. Call it CSR, maybe?



http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?280885

INTERVIEW

‘We Found Serious Infractions’

It is high time the nation discusses the impact of conflicts of interest in the public domain, says Congress MP from Tamil Nadu

OUTLOOK INTERVIEWS E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN


It is high time the nation discusses the impact of conflicts of interest in the public domain, says Congress MP from Tamil Nadu, E.M. Sudarsana Natchiappan. He explains why to Outlook.

Your bill speaks of conflict of interest arising out of public functionaries misusing office. What about Parliament?

The composition of the Rajya Sabha, for example, has changed vastly from 20 years ago. Big businessmen like Vijay Mallya, who earlier wouldn’t spend any time with politicians, are now taking time out to be present in the House. And there are several others like him. So it is important that we have the practice of disclosures in public space, through law. But it’s not just MPs or ministers or bureaucrats or corporate honchos. Conflict of interest is widespread.

How does it go beyond politicians and why are such conflicts unfair or a corrupt practice?

I feel the source of corruption lies in suppressing the conflict of interest when personal interests take precedence over public decisions. Everyone, and that includes MPs, mlas, ministers and corporate big daddies on parliamentary committees, should declare potential conflicts of interest first before agreeing to be on any of these committees. We began working on this bill three years ago and found serious infractions soon, like the baby food companies.... The campaign for mother’s milk could barely withstand the ad blitzkrieg launched by an mnc manufacturing milkfood.

The timing of the bill does raise uncomfortable questions about the Chidambaram matter....

Please don’t politicise the bill. I don’t want to get into a name-game thing. But there are MPs who sometimes represent corporate interests. Every country now has started to think on these lines. Don’t look at the bill just through the prism of politics. This impacts society as a whole.
Logged
"In societies where modern conditions of production prevail, all life presents as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has moved away into a representation."

Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle

Dayal Baba

  • One Day Star
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 402
  • Money: 64213.00
Re: UPA continues to sell the country
« Reply #124 on: May 12, 2012, 08:12:57 PM »

more selling of the country, this time through paid journos, exposed here:

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/sainath/article3401466.ece?homepage=true

Logged

Dayal Baba

  • One Day Star
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 402
  • Money: 64213.00
Re: UPA continues to sell the country
« Reply #125 on: May 12, 2012, 08:36:07 PM »


http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?280885

INTERVIEW

‘We Found Serious Infractions’

It is high time the nation discusses the impact of conflicts of interest in the public domain,...


sure, but does it cover the conflicts of interest in the media? consider this, a "journalist" (who is supposed to be a detached reporter of events) was exposed as the co-writer of the affidavit of a supposed "whistle-blower" to the supreme court!
Logged

feverpitch

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,327
  • Money: 893609.00
  • Lachchha Porotta drops a dung cake
Re: UPA continues to sell the country
« Reply #126 on: May 14, 2012, 07:25:19 AM »


http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?280885

INTERVIEW

‘We Found Serious Infractions’

It is high time the nation discusses the impact of conflicts of interest in the public domain,...


sure, but does it cover the conflicts of interest in the media? consider this, a "journalist" (who is supposed to be a detached reporter of events) was exposed as the co-writer of the affidavit of a supposed "whistle-blower" to the supreme court!


Journos don't need your endorsement to be the biggest pimps and whores in town. They, in particular the editors, other recognisable names, and the media-house owners-on-paper, already (and quite proudly) are the bukkake-geishas of any and every two-bit with cash.
Logged
"In societies where modern conditions of production prevail, all life presents as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has moved away into a representation."

Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up