tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9825782.post6784430982304928831..comments2023-10-28T03:54:56.826-07:00Comments on Writing, Is? Fun!: 2G, Raja, Modi and GreedRamiah Ariyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04792893365470748755noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9825782.post-74689496125549140122011-03-22T03:35:49.310-07:002011-03-22T03:35:49.310-07:00This is ridiculous argument. Modi and Raja are in...This is ridiculous argument. Modi and Raja are incomparable so are the decisions. Modi is a selfless leader and Raja is Selfish hypocrite. Modi has not accumulated wealth but being pro-investments the Government acts as a enabler to the Industry(whomsoever it may be) . The Vibrant Gujarat summit is a case in point. Reliance, Tata and other big business giants find favor in Gujarat easily the most well developed state in the country. Modi is clean and no-nonse man. The country has no other leader. <br /><br />Raja is a selfish crook who came to power by the exit of Dayanidhi maran because Murasoli did a poll on Alagiri and Stalin. Raja is a sycophant of the Karunanidhi family rule. He has looted all wealth in the name of policies and the money has not come back to the General public if thats the case. The licenses are already sold at a rate of 700% for the next companies , so how does the common man make the benefit from the License ,the share of which is belonging to every Indian.<br /><br />Get a EEG and have your brains checkedVijay Radhakrishnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18197573738987179190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9825782.post-22496329847957765532010-12-10T09:10:05.823-08:002010-12-10T09:10:05.823-08:00In an interview with rediff.com, the lawyer who ca...In an interview with rediff.com, the lawyer who caused the notices on 2G scam, Prashan Bhushan, says this:<br />"Through corrupt practises, land is being acquired from the poorest of country and given away to the largest corporations.<br /><br />The cases of corruption has always angered me, particularly, corruption in higher places. It has the most serious impact on society. Unfortunately, the common people don't know about this kind of corruption. They are not much aware about the loot of public resources for the benefit of a few corporates.<br /><br />The simple point is that when land is acquired for rich corporates, poor people are directly affected but when 2G spectrum is allotted they are affected indirectly because public exchequer is deprived of huge sums of money. "<br /><br />Note that he explicitly links handing over land to corporations with the 2G scam.<br /><br />Link <a href="http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-the-man-who-is-fighting-to-expose-the-spectrum-scam/20101210.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Ramiah Ariyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04792893365470748755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9825782.post-53821976391818527062010-12-03T08:11:20.632-08:002010-12-03T08:11:20.632-08:00Shans,
Where do I start? Read the below carefully...Shans,<br /> Where do I start? Read the below carefully.<br />Modi is not a businessman. He can be a businessman with his money - not public money. What he did was an abuse of power. It is not his job exactly to figure out "profit". <br />Let us see why not - you only think it is a profit act because you think the profit is GUARANTEED. But it is not. Modi has no control over the Nano product. It could, in fact, be a bad product. So, in effect, Modi was GAMBLING with public money. We do not elect leaders for that.<br /><br /><br />When government interferes in a market and favors a single businessman, government is skewing the market. <br />For example, the success or failure of a product should be based on market conditions - that is, the quality of the product should be the sole determinant of its success.<br />But if government favors the Nano as "its" car company and offers subsidies, then the Nano's quality is not purely determined by market. If there are flaws in the product, it will still sell. <br />In the end, goernnment's intervention in the market does the following:<br />1. Stops competition<br />2. Gives consumers a bad deal<br />3. Sets up a monopoly<br />and finally, because of those:<br />4. LOSES Jobs and business<br /><br />This is not very obscure theory; it is pretty basic to economics.<br /><br />You CAN be industry friendly without favoring individual businessmen. That much is clear in every developed country - after all the UK or USA do not offer free land to businessmen. They simply have policies and infrastructure that makes businessmen thrive.<br />Creating an industry-friendly environment cannot happen just by waving a wand and bribing some businessman. It takes some time. You have to have good education system; law and order; infrastructure. If you had all that, over time your state will be an attractive business destination.<br /><br />Now let us talk about Modi's role.<br />You think Modi brought in Nano to "prove" something. You only think that because you like Modi. What the evidence shows is that Modi decided that Tata will get a lot of free land, electricity and road transport in his state. To me, that points to corruption, because it does not make sense from economics. To YOU, it makes sense - but only because you REFUSE to look at the evidence, but instead believe that there is some reason why Modi must be good. So your beliefs determine your statements, not open facts.<br />Also search for "crony capitalism" in Wikipedia.<br />Now, Raja COULD claim the same argument - he favors individual businessmen. The loss in 2G, is after all, a PROJECTED loss. Modi's decision causes losses too, projected losses. He is just not being audited for it.<br />I suggest learning some economics.Ramiah Ariyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04792893365470748755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9825782.post-49174917214780766952010-12-03T08:10:10.627-08:002010-12-03T08:10:10.627-08:00Shans,
Where do I start? Read the below carefully...Shans,<br /> Where do I start? Read the below carefully.<br />Modi is not a businessman. He can be a businessman with his money - not public money. What he did was an abuse of power. It is not his job exactly to figure out "profit". <br />Let us see why not - you only think it is a profit act because you think the profit is GUARANTEED. But it is not. Modi has no control over the Nano product. It could, in fact, be a bad product. So, in effect, Modi was GAMBLING with public money. We do not elect leaders for that.<br /><br />If business should be bribed to "invest" in a state; in fact, if individual businessmen should be bribed to actually do business,then we are talking about some kind of parallel economics. That is certainly not two centuries of economic theory.<br />When government interferes in a market and favors a single businessman, government is skewing the market. <br />For example, the success or failure of a product should be based on market conditions - that is, the quality of the product should be the sole determinant of its success.<br />But if government favors the Nano as "its" car company and offers subsidies, then the Nano's quality is not purely determined by market. If there are flaws in the product, it will still sell. <br />In the end, goernnment's intervention in the market does the following:<br />1. Stops competition<br />2. Gives consumers a bad deal<br />3. Sets up a monopoly<br />and finally, because of those:<br />4. LOSES Jobs and business<br /><br />This is not very obscure theory; it is pretty basic to economics.<br /><br />You CAN be industry friendly without favoring individual businessmen. That much is clear in every developed country - after all the UK or USA do not offer free land to businessmen. They simply have policies and infrastructure that makes businessmen thrive.<br />Creating an industry-friendly environment cannot happen just by waving a wand and bribing some businessman. It takes some time. You have to have good education system; law and order; infrastructure. If you had all that, over time your state will be an attractive business destination.<br /><br />Now let us talk about Modi's role.<br />You think Modi brought in Nano to "prove" something. You only think that because you like Modi. What the evidence shows is that Modi decided that Tata will get a lot of free land, electricity and road transport in his state. To me, that points to corruption, because it does not make sense from economics. To YOU, it makes sense - but only because you REFUSE to look at the evidence, but instead believe that there is some reason why Modi must be good. So your beliefs determine your statements, not open facts.<br />Also search for "crony capitalism" in Wikipedia.<br /><br />The whole "competition" between states is a myth created by the media. Every state now believes that they can pay a businessman to prove they are "friendly". That is a shortcut and it makes no sense.<br /><br />Now, Raja COULD claim the same argument - he favors individual businessmen. The loss in 2G, is after all, a PROJECTED loss. Modi's decision causes losses too, projected losses. He is just not being audited for it.<br />I suggest learning some economics.Ramiah Ariyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04792893365470748755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9825782.post-72061978168624840772010-12-03T07:28:19.580-08:002010-12-03T07:28:19.580-08:00Your views are of no logic. Bringing Nano to gujar...Your views are of no logic. Bringing Nano to gujarat is to prove it's the best place to invest. It's business. Maybe the land to nano is ground cheap. But this will attract many more investors and overall a profit act. <br /><br />But in 2G whats the profit you goof. The amount is 1.75 lakh crore which is uncomparable and how the hell you compare it with nano-modi.<br /><br />Be patriotic & think neutral. <br /><br />P.S : Know you will filter out. But this is the fact. f*** off.Shansnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9825782.post-85237151820946474392010-11-29T08:01:16.589-08:002010-11-29T08:01:16.589-08:00DI, We do not know otherwise at this point.
But th...DI, We do not know otherwise at this point.<br />But the point of the article is not that - the main point is that Raja is held to a different standard as compared to "CEOs" such as Modi, even though they did the same thing. Why was there no uproar in our media about Modi handing over public land to Tata almost for free? Why was there such a fawning coverage, as if Modi had won a competition, a privilege?<br />The main point is that as long as we do not define crony capitalism for what it is; we do not make it clear that favoring certain businesses does not amount to creating jobs or wealth; we are going to continue to see scams and scandals of this sort. It is no longer possible to distinguish corrupt politicians from "business-friendly" politicians.Ramiah Ariyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04792893365470748755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9825782.post-22567625666156776642010-11-29T07:50:15.290-08:002010-11-29T07:50:15.290-08:00To say that Raja was only favoring certain compani...To say that Raja was only favoring certain companies over the others for business upper hand or control and not for any other reasons is like hiding your eyes with your hands and saying that there is no sun, in broad daylight!! Please get in touch with reality.<br /><br />Destination InfinityDestination Infinityhttp://www.destinationinfinity.org/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9825782.post-57379069842716109622010-11-28T17:11:28.558-08:002010-11-28T17:11:28.558-08:00On a tangent, I'm curious to know your opinion...On a tangent, I'm curious to know your opinions on Lee Kuan Yew.Moulihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07119013103957637910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9825782.post-77173170805490625042010-11-28T16:07:15.865-08:002010-11-28T16:07:15.865-08:00All of this revolves around a simple process of,
1...All of this revolves around a simple process of,<br />1. Occupy public and common men property<br />2. Handover to your favourite businessmen<br />3. Brand it in the name of development.<br /><br />In the whole process government accounts loss whereas the politician gains.Look at the number of new property and business managed by the politician. It is very difficult for common businessmen to stand against this power, money and muscle.Mathi Rajanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493824128780258233noreply@blogger.com