U.S. Tech Giants Bet Big on India, and Now It’s Changing the Rules
wsj.com
wsj.com
In the 70s, where a country was protectionist about cars, that probably meant fewer, worse and more expensive cars. Same for steel, dishwashing soap, telephones and shoes. Trabants instead of Toyotas, and less of them. Protectionism came with a high efficiency cost, and that meant poverty.
Today's digital economy can be very different. The relationship between incoming revenue and outgoing expenses is often arbitrary and that means efficiency is squishy. If Toyota had to operate on half it's current budget, Toyota would produce half as many cars. If Facebook had to operate on half (or less) of it's current budget, they "produce" the same social media (or advertising) "product."
The cost of protectionism in this environment is totally different to steel, cars and ikea furniture. If Facebook and twitter cease to exist, the "supply" of social media experienced by the public isn't a problem... at least not for long.
An ecommerce business is not a social media business, but it is further along that spectrum. So is a smartphone business, financial services business, online ad platform and many of these "digital monopoly" sectors.
The protectionist proposition is just more attractive, with the big, immediate, obvious costs removed.
Protectionism has always been popular, politically. It's nationalistic, and that's popular with the public. It puts a lot of policy making power in politicians hands and that's popular with politicians. Business tends to like it, domestically. Opening trade was, imo, and contrary to popular opinion, a forced hand. It was never ideological. Ideologically, it's unpopular. The "stable state" is protectionism.
Protectionism was just very costly in the 70s, 80s & 90s... so it died down some.
It doesn't mean that at all.
It's hard enough to compete against these established Tech Giants if they just come in and buy all the domestic companies. Not to mention the companies are starting with a massive head start.
What worked for China was acting a fool for a few decades. No rules, no regulations, nothing.
Like a boa constrictor, staying motionless, allowing its prey to feel completely relaxed, then slowly but surely, tighten its grip until it's too late for the prey to escape.
With its proximity to China, India could have had China's business.
What china did was nothing special. It wasn't revolutionary. It was what every industrial power today did - from the US in the 1800s to germany and japan and the asian tigers like south korea and taiwan did. Protectionism + foreign investment + manufacturing.
The united states created the blueprint for success in the 1800s. All the smart nations have copied it and gotten successful.
One of the first things the US did was to place tariffs to protect local industry. And for 100 years, protectionism was how the US rose from a relatively insignificant nation to the largest economy in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St...
Without the tariffs and protectionism, the US industries would have been owned by britain, france, etc. Or maybe it was like a boa constrictor. I don't know.
The tarrifs then increased during every war the US had with Britain.
It’s no surprise that the US talks of trade wars, due to the way its history of tarrif is entangled with warfare, and dislike of the nations a tarrif is aimed against,
The free market is best for maintaining general prosperity; it gives individual people the freedom to make what they think is the best choice. But there are probably military implications to letting key infrastructure for social and economic organisation enter the control of US corporate giants.
can see plenty of domestic and govt investment in local startups.
At least in the US we can easily find out this information and vote on it.
Do you remember all the freely available information that showed Banks, Oil companies and massive corporations all spent considerably more on Clinton's 2016 campaign, yet somehow the media tells us Trump is "Big businesses" guy those companies worked hard to get into office? Easily verifiable to you right now. Are you going to go check my work? Opensecrets.org
Cognitive dissonance is never so strong as when we are telling ourselves it's not cognitive dissonance.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/02/joe-biden...
Dig just a little bit, and you'll find examples on nearly everyone who has been in DC for a while except perhaps Bernie Sanders who's "only" worth $3.5M.
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" said Harry Truman. This holds to this day.
Obama, probably one of if not the most well-known person IN THE WORLD, wants to write a book. How could the deal not be worth a ton? Makes complete sense.
Also the book is just a book. If people buy it, then he should make money.
Best thing would be if the president's family already had successful businesses and did not expand them thanks to "the name", which is what we have now. Mike Pence's family also didn't suddenly become "very talented" either it looks like, or we'd know about it already.
At a minimum, I want the "free press" and the various oversight bodies to scrutinize this shit with a magnifying glass and drag it into the open _irrespective_ of the political affiliation of whoever is in the White House.
Care to a elaborate a bit please?
* Mandatory censorship of information (Google before leaving, Bing)
* Foreign ownership limits (aka forced intellectual property transfers)
* Capital outflow restrictions
* Heavy subsidies allowing local firms to sell products at below cost (e.g. steel, bicycles)
It worked a second time and half a dozen times more just the past 100 years. Japan, Germany, France, South Korea, Taiwan, etc all used protectionism to develop their local industries and companies, just like the US did in the 1800s and like China did most recently. Protectionism is required to protect young local underdeveloped industries and companies from wealthier foreign companies. Every major industrialize power used protectionism to get to where they are at today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St...
It isn't a secret. It's a well established fact by now.
> Automation right around the corner and India isn't willing to do the things china was allowed to do.
Rather than automation, it's india's politics and the mindset of a large portion of their elites. If you want to understand why india won't be successful, just look at the members of the british commonwealth. You'll see that india is still in it. If the political elite of india, for whatever reasons, still think being part of the british commonwealth is a good idea, it is obvious they are not going to do anything to truly improve india - especially things that might hurt their former colonial masters and the west's interests. You'll never see the US in the british commonwealth with the english queen as our head of state. I'm sure you'll never see china in it either. The elites in the US and china has some national pride needed to improve their nations.
Also, india doesn't have the "political center/authority" with which to enact painful reforms internally to industrialize and to ward off external pressure from the west. The problem with India is that they lack the nationalistic aspects of Japan, Germany, France, South Korea, Taiwan, etc which allowed these nations to protect their local industries and develop. And any attempts towards a nationialism in india would led to some internal friction, but more importantly, the west will stoke divisions within the population and amongst the elites to destabilize india and get it back under control.
India has a lot of potential but without a strong political center/authority, it can never fulfill its potential. And you only really need that strong political center/authority to provide internal stability and protect from destabilizing foreign interference for a decade or two to help your local industries and companies to develop and industrialize. Otherwise, your country will be bought up by capital rich companies and countries. Who knows if Modi is the man for the job. Given india's history, I won't be holding my breath.
Also, in case you think protectionism doesn't exist in the US, China, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, etc. look at what is happening with huwaei and the trade war. Look into the protectionist policies of every major industrial nation. It's strange how the wealthy nations love protectionism for themselves but want open markets for poor nations.
That's the first time I've ever heard someone say the Commonwealth is an indicator of anything. First off, Queen Elizabeth isn't the head of state of India. The head of state of India is the President of India, selected by a vote of the national and state legislatures[1]. Second, having the head of the House of Windsor as their constitutional monarch hasn't impeded Canada or Australia's development in any way whatsoever.
India's membership in Commonwealth amounts to basically a cultural and educational exchange program. They participate in the Commonwealth Games every 4 years (or however often they occur). There are no trade or military agreements, or anything else of consequence.[2]
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_India
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations#Trade
Probably because you are from Britain, Canada, Australia or New Zealand.
> First off, Queen Elizabeth isn't the head of state of India, like she is in Canada or Australia.
But queen elizabeth is the head of the commonwealth. The commonwealth is headquartered in london. The official language is english. The commonwealth is the british empire rebranded - and poorly at that in my opinion.
> Second, that hasn't impeded those nations' development in any way whatsoever.
Because canada and australia are descendent nations of britain. India was a conquered nation of britain. Surely even you can see that india and african colonies were treated differently than canada, australia and new zealand.
> India's membership in Commonwealth amounts to basically a cultural and educational exchange program.
A cultural and educational reminder of their humiliating past?
> They participate in the Commonwealth Games every 4 years (or however often they occur). There are no trade or military agreements, or anything else of consequence.
I don't think you understand what I am saying. A truly great nation. A nation that aspires to be important. Cannot think like a colonial nation.
Do you think south korea or taiwan would join a japanese empire rebranded as commonwealth of nations? Of course not, their elites will never allow it. But india is. If the indian elites do not have the requisite national pride needed for india "to be great", how will the nation become great?
All major industrial nations have become great via the top-down model. The people at the top need to have that vision first. India simply does not have them amongst their elites.
Look at China. They've lifted nearly a billion people out of poverty. India is just now working on trying to get toilets for their people.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-05-12/india-access-toilets-...
400 million indians do not have access to reliable electricity. That's more than the population of the US ( 320 million ).
https://phys.org/news/2013-11-rural-india-electricity.html
Both india and china liberated themselves from western colonialism around the same time. China has improved drastically while india lags behind. Why is that? The list of members of the british commonwealth tells you all you need to know.
Nope.
> The commonwealth is the british empire rebranded
I wasn't aware the Commonwealth suppresses industry in nations outside Britain with tariffs, uses them as a source of cheap raw materials for British manufacturing, and as captive markets for those manufactures. Or that Britain sends gunboats to enforce treaties and blockade ports of members that don't comply. Or that India, Nigeria, Pakistan and all the other Commonwealth members still have their laws made for them by the British Parliament and have no representation.
> But queen elizabeth is the head of the commonwealth. The commonwealth is headquartered in london. The official language is english.
Yeah, because these are the only things that all the members have in common.
> Because canada and australia are descendent nations of britain.
So you yourself are admitting that a lady with a crown and a golden stick makes no difference to whether a former British colony progresses or not. It depends purely on the treatment they received from Britain.
> A cultural and educational reminder of their humiliating past? If the indian elites do not have the requisite national pride needed for india "to be great", how will the nation become great?
The past is the past - there's little point in holding grudges. India parted from Britain on relatively friendly terms. Pride is toxic, destructive, unproductive. Grownups do not stew over historical insults. They try to build a better future.
> I don't think you understand what I am saying. A truly great nation. A nation that aspires to be important. Cannot think like a colonial nation.
I don't think you understand that for member nations such as India, Pakistan, Nigeria, the Commonwealth is a glorified tea club. There are no political, trade, or military implications whatsoever. They swap stories, make friends, have a good time. I don't even know what "think like a colonial nation" means.
"Commonwealth citizen" is only a meaningful term for nations in the Caribbean and British Isles.[1]
It's crazy to say you shouldn't ever establish cordial relations with your former colonizer. The US was scrambling to do exactly that immediately after winning the Revolutionary War, when they lost their only friends in the French Revolution.
> Do you think south korea or taiwan would join a japanese empire rebranded as commonwealth of nations?
And yet South Korea has managed in the recent past to cooperate with Japan to co-host important international events. They also had a rather more bitter parting than India and Britain.
> China has improved drastically while india lags behind. Why is that?
There are many reasons for this. None have anything to do with membership in a social club of nations.
So an indian immigrant in the US? I'm running out of guesses.
> I wasn't aware the Commonwealth suppresses industry in nations outside Britain with tariffs,
I didn't say it did. I said it represented a mindset. That india, pakistan, nigeria, etc are still in the commonwealth says a lot about the mindset of the elites. Funnily enough, india, pakistan, nigeria aren't the epitome of progress and development.
> The past is the past - there's little point in holding grudges. India parted from Britain on relatively friendly terms.
India didn't part on good terms. But I agree the past is the past. Why is india still part of the british empire/commonwealth?
> Pride is toxic, destructive, unproductive.
The US, China, Japan, Korea, France, Russia, Britain, etc are all very prideful nations. Reality says you are wrong about pride.
> And yet South Korea has managed in the recent past to cooperate with Japan to co-host important international events.
Yes. But not as part of the japanese empire. Koreans would view that as a humiliation for korea to be part of the japanese commonwealth after a few decades of colonialism. You seem to be under the bizarre illusion that India can't have good relations with britain or anyone else after they leave the commowealth. The US isn't part of the commonwealth and yet US-british relations are far more important that british-indian relations.
> There are many reasons for this. None have anything to do with membership in a social club of nations.
It has everything to do with india's membership in their former colonial master's club.
Do you think russia or china would join a reborn mongol empire/commonwealth? The british empire was one of the most evil and cruel institutions in human history. And india suffered under british colonialism for nearly 150 years. Think about what it says about the indian leadership that they still cling to the british empire?
A slavish minded leadership cannot help their nation. It's an impossibility. It's what separates US, Britain, Japan, China, Russia, etc from the likes of india.
India should be a major world power on par with the US, China, Russia, etc. But they are not. What they are is a pathetic member of their former colonial master's club. Unless that changes, india will never change.
Modern colonialism.