Inflation rate at 11.05 %, PM threatens to quit

[blr_p]

Also, companies are irrationally hiking prices of processed goods in order to preserve their already inflated profit margins in a relatively long running, economically healthy India. I don't think the govt can control this. Manufacturers should show some restraint.

Good point.

Tho monetarists have argued that oversupply of money in the economy is the root cause behind inflation. All RBI has to do is increase interest rates to soak some of it up.

That comes with the drawback of slowing growth.

Who will risk that :huh:

Longer its put off the more painful the medicine.

 

[Neotheone]

Well it is only my personal opnion, but sooner or later we will have to sit back and reflect on what "Growth" really is. It is true that a 9% GDP growth rate is a great thing, but then again is it worth growing at that pace at the cost of 25% of our own people who're below poverty line and can only afford one meal per day (or less)? "Growth" has to be more than just economic, there are several areas such as educational, health, cultural, emotional, and even spiritual terms that need to be accounted for. not to mention the public infrastructure part that forms the backbone of growth. If we keep looking at growth as just a number, all we will get (and we already have) is a society where everyone keeps running behind an idea (money) without having any time to actually live his/her life .....this simple idea of money that was born out of the need to get rid of the barter system has complicated things unbelievably.

 

[Party Monger]

This is a viscious circle..No single remedy for it..
just wait for it to get over..

 

[Neotheone]

Or maybe, just maybe we've not even tried to find a remedy .

 

[blr_p]

Well it is only my personal opnion, but sooner or later we will have to sit back and reflect on what "Growth" really is. It is true that a 9% GDP growth rate is a great thing, but then again is it worth growing at that pace at the cost of 25% of our own people who're below poverty line and can only afford one meal per day (or less)?

Yes, it is worth it, a 9% growth is like a high tide that raises all the ships, it filters down automatically to the most needy at some point, always has, always will do. Surely even these poorer ppl will be better off than in leaner times

Inflation can be mitigated so long as there is growth.

Its very important to keep the illusion that next yr will be better so ppl don't get tight with their money, otherwise a depression sets in.

Have to keep the money go round working.

"Growth" has to be more than just economic, there are several areas such as educational, health, cultural, emotional, and even spiritual terms that need to be accounted for. not to mention the public infrastructure part that forms the backbone of growth. If we keep looking at growth as just a number, all we will get (and we already have) is a society where everyone keeps running behind an idea (money) without having any time to actually live his/her life .....this simple idea of money that was born out of the need to get rid of the barter system has complicated things unbelievably.

When has everyone ever done one thing

A high growth rate does not preclude ppl from following other things, indeed it can be argued that a high growth rate is the only thing that empowers ppl to do so. So you are not too bothered bout getting that next toy or going on that trip (within reason) as you know you can realistically make it back.

If everyone believes this then, life can be sweet :clap:

 

[Neotheone]

a 9% growth is like a high tide that raises all the ships, it filters down automatically to the most needy at some point, always has, always will do.

I agree that is is generally correct, just that i also feel it is not as effective if the growth is not generating capital/inftastructure/resources within the nation. I am not an economic expert but there is a considerable outflow of capital going on at the moment, I wonder what that means.

Inflation can be mitigated so long as there is growth.

I am sure you have your reasons for saying that , and since I am not an expert in financial affairs, I accept that (and yes, it sounds reasonable to me too )

Its very important to keep the illusion that next yr will be better so ppl don't get tight with their money, otherwise a depression sets in.

Have to keep the money go round working.

Good point, I get that too, and agree that we have to keep the money go round working, but something inside of me just asks if that is the optimum way of managing the world ? Somehow I also feel that this "illusion" is also responsible for a lot of chaos that exists on earth.

indeed it can be argued that a high growth rate is the only thing that empowers ppl to do so.

I agree that it can be argued to be true , but I hope we can find better reasons for motivating people towards "growth" than mere numbers .

 

[sydras]

Or maybe china is influencing those bloody commies.

It may appear so :no: given their ideological approach to everything. I'm quite upset with them really.

You see, the left has been around for a while and is well versed with the use and lose attitude of the US along with the fact that they have always been hostile towards us and that we have always allied with the former Soviet Union. The Soviet Union..whatever they are, they supported us through thick and thin. The US has generally been double faced towards India.

Also, the fact that Pakistan has been their ally for so long and how they are distancing themselves from Pak does not go down well for their reputation.

But, you see The current US president has been the best president in decades for India. Even Clinton was a China loving freak who only paid lip service to India. But under Bush, our trade with the US has increased and there is much greater co-operation between our two countries. This deal is probably the best we'll get for decades to come and I think the left is making us miss on a very good opportunity.

 

[Neotheone]

the only reason that i see for not signing the deal would be that it would give USA a significant strategic advantage when dealing with India......it has the potential of compromising india's independent foreign policy too......I wonder why the government simply doesn't invest extensively on research for thorium based reactors , which can be a long term solution, considering our thorium reserves.

check this out:

The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Science Tribune

Thorium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

edit: the tribune states that :

the American viewpoint being presented to US lawmakers is that India has certain inherent strengths in the area of nuclear technology, which would enable India to forge ahead, albeit slowly, even without US cooperation.

this simply points that the dependence in the long run may not be so huge after all .......so maybe it is a good idea to go for it , even if it means slightly early elections

 

[blr_p]

The left has just using the bogeyman argument.

It's not about cosying up to the US, but the entire world. Sure we will buy maybe a few reactors form them but i bet the bulk will come from France.

The agreement opens a lot of doors for future research which has been slowed due to the world embargo since the 70s. We have already paid the price for this independence and to miss the deal would be to go through it again and a possibly weaker hand in the future, should a similar deal come up. There is always the argument that future US administrations will want to dangle a similar carrot in the future because of who we are and what they are but thats betting on an unknown vs a known now. I cannot imagine it being more liberal in terms of conditions than we have on the plate now.

Given the economy at the moment, i really doubt things will change for Congress, either way, they are dead. Which party could fare otherwise under these circumstances

Which means clinching the deal is the only significant foreign policy trophy they will have as a legacy to look back on.

Given what MMS achieved in the 90s, its hard not to think he could have done much better had he not had one hand tied behind his back

 

[dipen01]

Left parties are a blot on industrialized India.

I don't follow much of Politics but why is it always the Left Parties that oppose everytime ? UPA comprises of 14 Parties but mostly none are in the news? Any reason behind such reactions from Lefts ?

To be honest i didn't knew anything regarding to Lefts until i checked out few minutes ago.

The Left Front is an alliance of Indian leftist parties. In West Bengal and Tripura there are state-level committees of the Left Front. Currently Left Front governments rule both states.

The UPA alliance is being given external support from the Left Front, consisting of the four main leftist parties: Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India, Revolutionary Socialist Party and All India Forward Bloc (totalling 59 MPs). The reason that the communist parties have given for supporting the center-left Congress is that they wish to ensure formation of a de facto secular government at the centre. These parties are not a part of the government and support it externally, by providing the government with the requisite number of seats needed for staying in power.

What exactly does 'Secular Government' mean in this context ?

I am sorry to take it offtopic, but couple of references to Left's were made so i couldn't stop myself

 

[Shrey]

The nuclear deal does is so confusing, I don't know why the govt is so obsessed with it. It might be a good deal but nuclear energy is not going to solve energy issues, our requirements are huge, nuclear energy is costly as hell and the radioactive goo thats left over needs disposal. The govt needs to do simple things like promote conservation (Ban incandescent bulbs,give tax incentives to companies making electric vehicles etc etc) and push alternative sources. And in a way I'm happy that the fuel prices have gone up, because from now on everyone will start using fuel judiciously.

As far as nuke power goes, We should work towards Thorium based reactors (the technology for which is still a long way away), we won't need to buy any fuel from the US then, we got all the thorium we need back home.

 

[kippu]

we need the nuclear fuel and we have to get this ...the LEFT is doing this just because its america

 

[MAGNeT]

The nuclear deal does is so confusing, I don't know why the govt is so obsessed with it. It might be a good deal but nuclear energy is not going to solve energy issues, our requirements are huge, nuclear energy is costly as hell and the radioactive goo thats left over needs disposal. The govt needs to do simple things like promote conservation (Ban incandescent bulbs,give tax incentives to companies making electric vehicles etc etc) and push alternative sources. And in a way I'm happy that the fuel prices have gone up, because from now on everyone will start using fuel judiciously.

As far as nuke power goes, We should work towards Thorium based reactors (the technology for which is still a long way away), we won't need to buy any fuel from the US then, we got all the thorium we need back home.

Even us top nuclear scientist says.... nuclear is not the future as it involve heavy cost plus what about storing its waste???

He suggested use the solar panels to power wind turbine and generate electricity.....its being used in USA..in desert they put mirrors in2-4km range connected to turbines and some sort off stuff

Regarding thorium recently their was a big news.....they have been able to create energy enough to light a bulb.....it really is big achievement as its not done ever in world plus india have a huge thorium base.......hope they succeed in it and than we need not b dependent on foreign countries

 

[Hacker]

the only reason that i see for not signing the deal would be that it would give USA a significant strategic advantage when dealing with India......it has the potential of compromising india's independent foreign policy too......

Can you post some links to back up your claim because they are not true.
lol guys solar and wind energy to power a nation like India. So wat do you when the sun is not shining and the wind stops. solar and wind are good for small scale stuff, you cant power a the whole nation with that.

Nuclear energy is the best alternative we have. Look at france.

 

[sydras]

The nuclear deal does is so confusing, I don't know why the govt is so obsessed with it. It might be a good deal but nuclear energy is not going to solve energy issues, our requirements are huge, nuclear energy is costly as hell and the radioactive goo thats left over needs disposal. The govt needs to do simple things like promote conservation (Ban incandescent bulbs,give tax incentives to companies making electric vehicles etc etc) and push alternative sources. And in a way I'm happy that the fuel prices have gone up, because from now on everyone will start using fuel judiciously.

As far as nuke power goes, We should work towards Thorium based reactors (the technology for which is still a long way away), we won't need to buy any fuel from the US then, we got all the thorium we need back home.

In terms of yield, wind and solar energy cannot match nuclear energy. Wind energy is non-deterministic(cannot accurately predict yield within a time period, statistical analysis is reqd) and intermittent(no power when there is no wind). Solar is deterministic(yield can be somewhat determined while factoring seasonal change) but still intermittent. Unfortunately, these are major hurdles preventing their adoption as the need for continuous power is paramount.

Both technologies require huge areas and ideal locations to be efficient enough to generate say power for a city. They also require an efficient distribution system assuming they just can't be located anywhere.

But though both forms of energy cannot practically supply needs of an entire nation, there have been very significant advances in both these areas and they can always be deployed to supplement existing power generation units. They should be viewed very seriously as they do not have a carbon footprint and more or less a one time investment(25-30 yr life for a solar cell, 50 yrs for a windmill).

Nuclear energy on the other hand is highly efficient and a plant can operate at upto 90% efficiency. It is not highly location dependent(except for a water source required for cooling) and requires less land and most of the land required is for the exclusion zone.

The major problem with nuclear energy is spent fuel. But if you look at it practically, it just requires one location to dump it and it is normally stored at the reactor site or is either reprocessed to reduce mass or dumped deep into the earth.

Compared, to hydel power and fossil fuel generated power, the environmental impact is negligible.

W.r.t reactor technology, as far as I've read, only fission and fast breeder reactors have been implemented so far. Thorium and fusion based reactors are still experimental. So, we still require uranium. And no NPT signatory nation will supply fuel or technology to India for the same. I don't know the extent of our in house technology but I believe we've built some nine or so reactors with Canada's and Russia's help.

 

[Neotheone]

Can you post some links to back up your claim because they are not true.

Please refer to these articles about India's vote against Iran at the IAEA meet . Indian action was not something that I would call "an independent decision" .

The Hindu : Opinion / Editorials : India's shameful vote against Iran

The Hindu : Front Page : India will vote against Iran again

I hope I am not misunderstood as someone who'se against the deal. I just said what i did because I do see that as the only reason why india should not go in for the deal.

I also believe that it will be a good enough deal for india in the long run, particularly if they keep developing their own ability to develop thorium based reactors independently.

still , I would be absolutely against the deal if this deal ever comes in the way of nuclear research of any kind (including military) .

 

[Hacker]

Please refer to these articles about India's vote against Iran at the IAEA meet . Indian action was not something that I would call "an independent decision" .

Oh, so you are saying that India should have supported iran's so called "peaceful" nuclear programme.

You are saying that India should have supported iran even though russia and china voted against it. Is this the independent decision you want. hyeah:

still , I would be absolutely against the deal if this deal ever comes in the way of nuclear research of any kind (including military) .

This is a civilian nuclear deal it has nothing to do with the military. Search google for more info.

 

[Neotheone]

Oh, so you are saying that India should have supported iran's so called "peaceful" nuclear programme.

You are saying that India should have supported iran even though russia and china voted against it. Is this the independent decision you want. hyeah:

No.....I can assure you that I would always vote for whatever helps the nation best in the circumstances.

What I mean is this ....(please don't be confrontational here, otherwise the point of discussion is lost.) I am sure most of us agree on a few things:

1. Indian politicians just have different priorities than they are supposed to have, like they have their personal interests above everything else.

2. Their second priority (after personal benifit to the greatest possible extent) is to ensure the next election victory.

3. Then they look to appease those in the "right" positions, so that they stay loyal and support them in coming back to power.(it is almost a part of the second)

4. The national interests come in after this.

Now since that is a known fact, since the government went even against their political interests (they risked the left using the government's proximity to the USA and vote against Iran to secure a few minority votes ,and even a 1% shift is very very significant ) and decided to vote against Iran . That would imply (or at least suggest) that they could easily take decisions against even n the national interests . I am not sure but the USA and their corporates know how things are done , they are the number one power in the world for a reason, and we just can't afford to become another one of their puppets.

I still don't mean to oppose the deal, just that I want it ensured that we don't rush into it and also that any decision is through concensus (I talk about conses - excluding the left parties - because they exist merely to block everything the government tries to do. )

This is a civilian nuclear deal it has nothing to do with the military. Search google for more info.

I will, and get back if I find something concrete. For now, I do know that our government has to at least separate the civilian and military nuclear installations and can't use one's resources for the other type. It is a direct impact on the number of nuclear installations india can use for defence research related purposes.

EDIT: We are going way off the topic. I concede being a part of this and suggest we use a new thread for the nuke deal

 

[blr_p]

Nuff said.

I think the PM shoudl quit if it does not go through.

Do a search, there is a thread or two that went into the details earlier.

 

[Aces170]

Been doing financial research on alternate energy and nuclear power, is a clean power and tops any other fuel source, cant give any refernces but the nos (cost of ownership) are (USD/KWh)

Nuclear : 60-65

Coal based plant: 70-80

Coal+ oil based : 75-80

Wind: 80-90

Solar: 200-300

Solar at the moment is just too expensive, Nuke as you guys have mentioned have waste disposal issues. But with a lil bit research waste recycling will not be an issue. The nos I posted increases drastically if oil becomes 200 USD per barrel.

Another thing you guys are missing out, is clean energy, in the years to come we have to pay for Co2 emitted, and if those cost are accounted traditional power sources shoots upto 300-400 USD/KWh