Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

The Technology & Economic Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to Technological and Economic developments in India. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15178
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by Suraj »

somnath wrote:I am quite ok for that to be defined as a POV - so it is not cussedness borne out of the 2004 defeat, but cussedness out of INC behaviour, lak of MMS's personality etc etc!!!
Thanks for the downhill skiing exposition.
somnath wrote:Net net, we have legislations not going forward because parties cannot agree on policies, including those that they purportedly have "credentials" on! Question isnt about who's at fault - I said a couple of times INC will pay the price at the hustings - but about the fact that things are stuck, to the detriment of national interest...For a party that is suppose dto be "nationalist", its a strange position to take though...
The party with the largest majority in a quarter of a century has been reduced to this: "it's all his fault! he doesn't agree and I lack the ability to use my majority to get things done!" Since you're imputing much greater sense of nationalism and adherence to the cause to NDA, why not carry that argument to its logical conclusion and also recommend that the UPA step aside and let the NDA get the job done ? :twisted:

The UPA's predicament - not just in the economic policymaking domain - is what you get when you have a strong majority led by weak leadership. I'd much rather take a tenuous majority in the hands of a charismatic respected leader than a sizeable mandate in the hand of someone who clearly is out of his depth as a PM - we both agreed long ago that ABV as PM and MMS as FM would be a dream team, after all.
Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by Arjun »

I said a couple of times INC will pay the price at the hustings
As an aside, INC might pay the price at the hustings for many different sins - but definitely not for lack of liberalizing reforms....That is the main reason INC has been lackadaisical as well - there is no mass constituency in India that would vote on the basis of presence / absence of economic reform.
Hari Seldon
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9374
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 12:47
Location: University of Trantor

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by Hari Seldon »

Fascinating debate. Regarding the point on leadership and give-&-take, from twitter @bibekdebroy
81 Bills pending before Parliament. In Budget session, Lok Sabha spent 12% of time on legislation, 6% Rajya Sabha. PRS figures.
Oh, I'm sure its all the opposition's fault only. After all, how can the UPA be at fault having delivered the fastest growth in Independent India's history by doing mostly nothing in either policy or practice (IOW, it seems to have mostly rode on the accomplishments of the private sector and previous reforms). To see how a govt can actively complement the private sector and generate stellar growth, look no further than Gujarat only.

BTW, the BJP did offer support on the women's reservation bill but even that has gone nowhere only.
@bibekdebroy Food Minister K.V.Thomas says food security bill will cost Rs 94,987 crore annually. 2.5 to 3 lakh crores over 2 years.
somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by somnath »

Arjun wrote:there is no mass constituency in India that would vote on the basis of presence / absence of economic reform
Thats not quite right IMO - there is a large constituency for "reforms" in the country, even if the constituency does not articulate its views in the syntax of pink papers...the profile of CMs enjoying "pro incumbency" is one indication of that - Modi, Sheila Dixit, Nitish Kumar, Naveen Patnaik...The almost complete absence of a "rollback" agenda in the polity too is another...
Suraj wrote:Since you're imputing much greater sense of nationalism and adherence to the cause to NDA, why not carry that argument to its logical conclusion and also recommend that the UPA step aside and let the NDA get the job done
I wasnt looking at it from a partisan perspective...When I said UPA will pay at the hustings, I didnt have Laloo in mind as the alternative :wink: Jokes aside, it is never just a function of political savvy of the ruling party, though that is the big elephant...It is also about the political divide being willing to work across sides...The biggest bangs in PVNR's time came pre-Babri, in a period when LK Advani described him as the "best PM since LBS"! The biggest "reforms" in ABV's time were those that were grandfathered INC proposals - FRBM, Insurance...(Highways didnt require legislative sanction)...

If the other side is willing, the baselines can be drawn - seems that "Barkis is just not willing" :)
Hari Seldon wrote:After all, how can the UPA be at fault having delivered the fastest growth in Independent India's history by doing mostly nothing in either policy or practice (IOW, it seems to have mostly rode on the accomplishments of the private sector and previous reforms).
RTI, new Intellectual Property Act, Cash transfers, UID, NREGS - the policy interventions made have been pretty impressive...Unfortunately for INC, mostly in UPAI...UPAII has been the disaster...There is a huge pipeline of good polciies, but no execution at all...

I dont understand this logic of "private sector" performance driving growth..That was the idea behind the reforms in the first place, ie, the govt should get out of the business of business!

BTW, women's reservation isnt linked to "economic reforms" - it is an incredibly bad idea (with no ground level support among even INC/BJP MPs), its good that its stuck....
Last edited by somnath on 20 Jul 2011 09:34, edited 2 times in total.
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4728
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by putnanja »

somnath wrote:...
If the other side is willing, the baselines can be drawn - seems that "Barkis is just not willing" :)
...
Yup, the congress needs to give up its BJP-phobia and work with it to get things done. It can't say that the BJP will have to support everything and they will offer nothing, as it will ruin their pro-minority image. PVNR wasn't afraid of dealing with BJP. However, Sonia-MMS have a strong aversion to BJP and they don't want to be seen as being too chummy with them to get legislation passed. Just look at the vitriol being poured out by congress spokespersons on BJP compared to the other way around. And "leaders" like digvijay aren't helping the congress cause either
Theo_Fidel

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by Theo_Fidel »

Personally I don't think the UPA is doing anything politically wrong. They won their 'mandate' on the basis of these exact policies how can you tell them to behave differently. Of course they are taking things to the extreme and completely dithering on the economy, but it continues to grow at 8%-9% does it not.

Say we liberalize labor laws without a national consensus, the opposition parties including BJP will bring the country to a standstill. How can this be good for the economy. Better we grow at 8% and not risk a labor war that could reduce us to 5%. The UPA was very definitely given a mandate for timidity and an open cash spigot.
Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by Arjun »

somnath wrote:Thats not quite right IMO - there is a large constituency for "reforms" in the country, even if the constituency does not articulate its views in the syntax of pink papers...the profile of CMs enjoying "pro incumbency" is one indication of that - Modi, Sheila Dixit, Nitish Kumar, Naveen Patnaik...The almost complete absence of a "rollback" agenda in the polity too is another..
The constituency might exist among the English-speaking 'elite', but as an overall percentage of voters this constituency is probably insignificant.

It might also be useful to categorize 'reforms' into different buckets-

1. Reforms that remove the 'license Raj' and further free up Indian entrepreneurs, or open up new industries. These are directly positive for economic growth
2. Administrative reforms & reforms that improve transparency of governance (GST, RTI would be examples). These may tangentially have an effect in boosting growth
3. 'Reforms' that are primarily re-distributive - ie Welfare schemes like NREGA, Food Security act etc. Not everybody would even agree to classifying these under the 'reforms' bucket - but since you have used the term, I will go along with it. These have either a neutral or negative effect on growth.

The 'reforms' that largely bring in the voters and make a difference at the hustings are largely under (3) above. Performance on (1) and (2) will make zero impact on the hustings - in fact lack of these reforms might be positive for attracting voters. Unfortunately its (1) and (2) that will actually make a difference to long-term growth.

The two biggest liberalizers in Indian history - PVNR and NDA governments, paid for their idealism at the hustings.
somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by somnath »

putnanja wrote:the congress needs to give up its BJP-phobia and work with it to get things done. It can't say that the BJP will have to support everything and they will offer nothing, as it will ruin their pro-minority image. PVNR wasn't afraid of dealing with BJP. However, Sonia-MMS have a strong aversion to BJP and they don't want to be seen as being too chummy with them to get legislation passed. Just look at the vitriol being poured out by congress spokespersons on BJP compared to the other way around. And "leaders" like digvijay aren't helping the congress cause either
Its not as simple, cut-and-dry as that..To turn it the other way, BJP started off the UPAI tenure by that hysterical nonsense about Sonia Gandhi not being "allowed" to become PM (in hindsight, incredibly stupid for them, from a purely parisan perspective)...Its about cutting "deals" on specific issues, ones that are in larger national interest...On GST, Pranab Mukherjee has repeatedly gone public with pleas for suport...Ditto on the Insurance amendment, where the PM himself has gone public asking for support...

A politically savvier ruling party could have done better, but a little less cussed opposition too would have helped...In national interest!
somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by somnath »

Arjun wrote:The two biggest liberalizers in Indian history - PVNR and NDA governments, paid for their idealism at the hustings.
It was not "reforms", but other issues, primarily a failure to preserve social peace (and also massive corruption in PVNR's case) that trumped reforms...It can be argued that the electorate has no patience for a disturbance of social peace that interferes with the new aspirations sprung from reforms...
Arjun wrote:1. Reforms that remove the 'license Raj' and further free up Indian entrepreneurs, or open up new industries. These are directly positive for economic growth
2. Administrative reforms & reforms that improve transparency of governance (GST, RTI would be examples). These may tangentially have an effect in boosting growth
3. 'Reforms' that are primarily re-distributive - ie Welfare schemes like NREGA, Food Security act etc. Not everybody would even agree to classifying these under the 'reforms' bucket - but since you have used the term, I will go along with it. These have either a neutral or negative effect on growth.
The "growth" categorisations are debatable - GST for example is estimated to be able to add 200 bps to growth (and NREGS held up consumption during the crisis) - but let that pass...The electorate is as much concerned about #2 as it is with #3....All the current mess - 2G, land acquisition, mining scams, SEZs - they are a fallout of lack of reforms there...
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4728
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by putnanja »

somnath wrote:
putnanja wrote:the congress needs to give up its BJP-phobia and work with it to get things done. It can't say that the BJP will have to support everything and they will offer nothing, as it will ruin their pro-minority image. PVNR wasn't afraid of dealing with BJP. However, Sonia-MMS have a strong aversion to BJP and they don't want to be seen as being too chummy with them to get legislation passed. Just look at the vitriol being poured out by congress spokespersons on BJP compared to the other way around. And "leaders" like digvijay aren't helping the congress cause either
Its not as simple, cut-and-dry as that..To turn it the other way, BJP started off the UPAI tenure by that hysterical nonsense about Sonia Gandhi not being "allowed" to become PM (in hindsight, incredibly stupid for them, from a purely parisan perspective)...Its about cutting "deals" on specific issues, ones that are in larger national interest...On GST, Pranab Mukherjee has repeatedly gone public with pleas for suport...Ditto on the Insurance amendment, where the PM himself has gone public asking for support...

A politically savvier ruling party could have done better, but a little less cussed opposition too would have helped...In national interest!
Appeal for support?? :rotfl: There has to be give and take, and that doesn't mean giving just appeals and taking support!

So BJP didn'twant Sonia to be PM, what's wrong with that? Many indians aren't comfortable with it. They have their policies and ideologies. Don't the congress and sonia implicate RSS without proof for winning minority votes? That is much worse than raising SG's foreign origin issue, especially when she took more than 15 years to accept Indian citizenship??

For give and take to work, the congress should take BJP's sensitivities on some issues, and in turn expect support on some issues from BJP. Just appealing for support publicly does not equate to give and take!
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4728
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by putnanja »

GST by itself will not promote growth unless there is more money in the middle class hands. However, the government is in no mood to oblige. And given that the fiscal deficit will grow even more as the NREGA wages increase, and food security bill comes online, the middle class will be forced to pay more, while the government concentrates on winning the next election with more freebies.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by amit »

Sigh! Why does any debate on the economic policies have to turn into a political slang match of BJP vs Congress?

Can anyone point out fundamental differences in approach to economic liberalization between the two parties? Calling BJP-NDA more pro-liberalisation and at the same time supporting their opposition to GST and FDI in retail makes for interesting reading.

Let's face it both parties have broadly liberal outlook in terms of the economy. How much they achieve is a function of coalition politics. One advantage that NDA had and to some extent UPA1 also was there were less number of scandals to distract the govt.

I'm not justifying the stupefying paralysis that has hit the current govt but what would you expect after the 2G, Commonwealth and other scams?
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by amit »

putnanja wrote:GST by itself will not promote growth unless there is more money in the middle class hands. However, the government is in no mood to oblige. And given that the fiscal deficit will grow even more as the NREGA wages increase, and food security bill comes online, the middle class will be forced to pay more, while the government concentrates on winning the next election with more freebies.
I suppose you do realise that GST is precisely meant to get more money in the hands of the middle class by spurring growth in the economy. The calculation, as Somnath pointed out is that a full implementation will add 2 per cent economic growth.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by amit »

putnanja wrote:GST by itself will not promote growth unless there is more money in the middle class hands. However, the government is in no mood to oblige. And given that the fiscal deficit will grow even more as the NREGA wages increase, and food security bill comes online, the middle class will be forced to pay more, while the government concentrates on winning the next election with more freebies.
Do you seriously think that more money in the hands of the middle class (and by implication less in the hands of the rural poor) will drive up economic growth in significant percentage points? Can you explain how you come to such a conclusion?
somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by somnath »

putnanja wrote:GST by itself will not promote growth unless there is more money in the middle class hands. However, the government is in no mood to oblige. And given that the fiscal deficit will grow even more as the NREGA wages increase, and food security bill comes online, the middle class will be forced to pay more, while the government concentrates on winning the next election with more freebies.
You make giants leaps of assumptions..
1. GST simplifies the indirect tax administration, brings down the average tax rate being charged, while increasing the coverage of the tax..In theory, what it means is lower retail-end prices for the good (or service), and higher tax collections for the govt...Both push growth up - former through higher consumption, latter through higher investment (or "G")..

2. Where is the "middle class will need to pay more" come from? Direct tax rates have remained rock stable since 1997, with marginal tinkering around with slabs...Another big bang reform, the DTC, will bring more rationalisation there when it happens...

BTW, if you think fiscal deficit is an impediment to growth, why dont you compare outlays on NREGS and those on tax exemptions every year? Which of the two contributes a higher number, according to you?
Theo_Fidel

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by Theo_Fidel »

This whole GST argument was gone into in detail earlier. There are serious doubts and questions about that claimed 2% savings, etc. Esp. in the way it is being implemented as Nandakumar (where are you) laid it out. At the moment the only thing we know for sure is it will generate more cash for the government.

Is the UPA corrupt, absolutely. No more or no less than any other. In the meantime we have to get used to investing massive sums of money. Next year when we hit $2 Trillion we will be saving and investing $700 Billion every year. Let me repeat that $700 Billion a year. One can only imagine the staggering amounts that will be siphoned of.

We have to get over this squeamishness a little bit. If you want a squeaky clean investment process, I can guarantee you nothing will get built, certainly not in the time frame it needs to be. Its about time we threw some money at our problems esp. infrastructure, we have it and can finally afford to.
Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by Arjun »

somnath wrote:1. GST simplifies the indirect tax administration, brings down the average tax rate being charged, while increasing the coverage of the tax..In theory, what it means is lower retail-end prices for the good (or service), and higher tax collections for the govt...Both push growth up - former through higher consumption, latter through higher investment (or "G")..
Don't agree with this.

If indirect tax collection is increasing in GST, it has been taken out of total consumption (C). So there is no lower-retail effect that you talk about - since the tax coverage is also increasing at the same time, that means the cost to the consumer will go up.

Secondly taxes collected by the government is basically redistribution of income which would otherwise have gone into investment (I) or consumption (C) so it cannot possibly add to growth.

A redistribution scheme can never contribute to growth. The only tangential effect on growth might be that businesses have less of a headache to deal with and therefore might be more comfortable in taking investment decisions.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by RajeshA »

X-Posting from India's Trade Agreements Thread
somnath wrote:
RajeshA wrote: am of the opinion that big retail chains which sell everything should be completely discouraged in the Indian market, even those from India. We should leave some space in the Indian market for the small man, the small businessman to make a living. So a WalMart would not stand a chance in India
then you should start with banning Kishore Biyani and Sunil Mittal! Anyway, the impact on small retail of organised retail is minimal in India - there is an authoriative impact analysis on that- refer to the "Economy thread"...
somnath ji,

thanks for clarifying some things.

The impact is small, because organized retail still has not taken over the system. From what I see in Germany, here except for the a few foreign owned chains who have been able to make a niche for themselves, especially because they sell exotic foods not otherwise found in Germany from Far East, Turkey, etc.; or other small shops who sell virtual junk at throwaway prices; it is very difficult for small retailers to really survive. There is only so much demand for personal care services, gastronomy, etc. a society can create.

Somebody can't just start hawking some products on the way side, or having small shops and hope they will get sold. The big chains control everything.

So when the economy is going good, people have jobs. But whenever the economy falters, and people start becoming jobless, there is practically no work outside the organized sector where they can do something and make a living. The social safety net jumps in, but for developed countries, that are now losing increasing manufacturing and even services share to the emerging economies, and cannot keep up with the rising health costs, social security costs, etc. it is a really bad omen, if there is no unorganized sector protected from huge businesses with deep pockets.

In India, the unorganized and protected sectors keeps our millions from drowning. It is good if in some sector of the economy there are only small players and the sector can support millions of self-employed players. In our modern information-society, industrial-society, the only two sectors I can think of is agriculture and retail. Too many players involved in agriculture would mean small land-holdings, higher production costs, and thus inflation at the stage of primary industries. I would rather have competitive primary and secondary industries in India. So the only place left for the population to go in times of weak economy when the organized sector cannot take in more workers, more employees is some sector that provides self-employment and shows a steady demand is retail. Of course one can find self-employment in services as well, but all that is limited, as the service providers are all well-established and entrenched. Also in many services, the skill-set needed would be quite specialized, and the unskilled would not be able to cope with that. In retail, one needs the least skill-set.

I am no economics expert, but it just makes common sense.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by amit »

Rajesh,

The problem, IMO is you are comparing apples to oranges when comparing the situation in Germany with that prevailing in India now. That's because India by several quantums has a far bigger potential for growth (I mean the internal market) that German has now or had over the past 20-30 years. What that translates to is there's more slack in the system than in Germany.

Apart from that, you miss the central reason for requiring organised retail in India. Due to a bad supply chain a horrendous amount of Indian farm produce is wasted - it either rots before it gets to the market or does not reach the market at all. Moreover whatever reaches the market is horribly overpriced in comparison to what the farmer gets for his produce at the farm, with the middle man siphoning off the rest.

What organised retail will do is take the middle man out of the equation by investing in cold storages, refrigerated trucks, the works. In short they will build up the supply chain network. Nobody but big retail has the money or incentive to do so and what large international chains can do is show us the best and most efficient way of doing that. And with the road infra getting better it would be possible. And processed foods (that is canned stuff) will also increase.

It will take many years to get to a situation whereby the length and breadth of India would be covered by organised retail and before that happens the most of the people who depend on work that kiranas provide will migrate to other professions.

In fact the last time I was in India I used to go regularly to a Big Bazzar outlet near my house to pick up things. On several occasions I saw an interesting site. And that was folks with a trolly full of one particular product say, hand soap of two, three varieties. I enquired with one of them and he told me that he runs a small kirana and it makes sense for him to pick up in bulk from Big Bazzar rather than wait for the distributors to get around to visiting his shop, his demand is low and so he falls way down in the priority order of these distributors.

IMO kiranas and big retail can live side by side and if the power of middle men are reduced I can assure you prices would come down and more importantly we'd have taken a giant step in tackling the persistent supply side inflation that is eating into the economy.

JMT.
somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by somnath »

Arjun wrote:If indirect tax collection is increasing in GST, it has been taken out of total consumption (C). So there is no lower-retail effect that you talk about - since the tax coverage is also increasing at the same time, that means the cost to the consumer will go up.
Secondly taxes collected by the government is basically redistribution of income which would otherwise have gone into investment (I) or consumption (C) so it cannot possibly add to growth.
A redistribution scheme can never contribute to growth. The only tangential effect on growth might be that businesses have less of a headache to deal with and therefore might be more comfortable in taking investment decisions
Seems the entire literature on tax economics passed you by! The question isnt about the merits of having "taxes" at all (that is a very different discusion)...We already have a taxation architecture, the issue is about making that efficient, ceteris paribus..

The problem with the current indirect tax system is that its complicated, has cascading impact on prices and has a plethora of exemptions - leading to increased cost of compliance, reduced consumption and inefficient investment decisions respectively...All of which dampen growth from its optimum potential...By simplifying the tax structure, reducing costs of compliance, eliminating exemptions and reducing the tax rate, you reduce what is called the "negative grey area dynamic effects"..Adding all of that to the macro and trade and their multipliers...

There is no "tukkabaazi" here - NCAER conducted a full simulation on the impact of GST, on macro, on trade, the full jingbang...
the study also shows that ‘implementation of GST across goods and services is expected, ceteris paribus, to provide gains to India’s GDP somewhere within a range of 0.9 to 1.7 per cent.
The Vijay Kelkar report on GST was posted here before - once again...Has all the gory details..
http://fincomindia.nic.in/writereaddata ... 512091.pdf

(Of course, some "knowledgeable" members here have already termed VK as a "vested interest party", with the "vested interest" arising out of his alleged post-retirement sinecure in Canada! :wink: ) - its not true though...
RajeshA wrote:In India, the unorganized and protected sectors keeps our millions from drowning. It is good if in some sector of the economy there are only small players and the sector can support millions of self-employed players. In our modern information-society, industrial-society, the only two sectors I can think of is agriculture and retail.
Not sure about Germany, but the research globally on the macro impact of organised large retail is overwhelmingly positive...Espeically all the recent research on the impact of Walmart...

For India, it is even more so..simply because growth rates are so high, so there is only expansion of existing markets, and minimal cannibalisation...Anyway, instead of typing out a thesis (amit's already done some!), I will only reference the most authoritative study on the issue - the ICRIER analysis, commissioned by GOI to study exactly this..
http://siadipp.nic.in/policy/icrier_report_27052008.pdf
(Refer to Page 7 for the Main findings)....
Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by Arjun »

somnath wrote:Seems the entire literature on tax economics passed you by! The question isnt about the merits of having "taxes" at all (that is a very different discusion)...We already have a taxation architecture, the issue is about making that efficient, ceteris paribus..
You can think whatever you want. The point is the simplistic explanation in your earlier post, for the reported gain in growth (which is what I responded to) does not have a basis.

If you see Kelkar's report - he attributes the gain in growth primarily to more efficient allocation of factors of production and secondly to increased productivity of capital because indirect taxes go down for capital goods.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by amit »

^^^^^
Somnath, very few people have the time or energy to go through a 250 page report. :-)

So it helps to highlight some interesting parts. Let me point to one very interesting data point to all those who are worried that small traders would be swamped and rendered jobless the moment FDI in retail is allowed.

According to Table 2.6 (page 10 of the report proper) in 2006-07 (the latest numbers in the report) the total share of organised sector in India's total retail market was 4.1 per cent. Yes 4.1 per cent. So can one calculate how long it will take for Big Retail to "take over the market" similar to what Rajesh points to in Germany?

As I wrote most kirana shop owners and workers would have long graduated to other jobs before we reach anywhere near that situation.

Another data point: Table 2.5 says that food and grocery account for 59.6 per cent of total Indian retail (again 2006-07). Which again goes with my point that the first thing that would improve is the food distribution system (acquiring a Pan-Indian character as opposed to regional and/or local). And that would also go a long way to putting more money in the hands of the farmers and reducing food inflation a major component of supply side infaltion.
Last edited by amit on 20 Jul 2011 14:53, edited 1 time in total.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by amit »

Arjun wrote:
somnath wrote:Seems the entire literature on tax economics passed you by! The question isnt about the merits of having "taxes" at all (that is a very different discusion)...We already have a taxation architecture, the issue is about making that efficient, ceteris paribus..
You can think whatever you want. The point is the simplistic explanation in your earlier post, for the reported gain in growth (which is what I responded to) does not have a basis.

If you see Kelkar's report - he attributes the gain in growth primarily to more efficient allocation of factors of production and secondly to increased productivity of capital because indirect taxes go down for capital goods.

Arjun,

I don't want to get into the interesting discussion you are having with Somnath. But "increased productivity of capital" is not a good thing? And that would not add to GDP growth?
Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by Arjun »

amit wrote:Arjun,

I don't want to get into the interesting discussion you are having with Somnath. But "increased productivity of capital" is not a good thing? And that would not add to GDP growth?
Amitji, I was disputing Somnath's earlier simplistic explanation offered for the extra-growth (for example he talks of Consumption being boosted due to lower retail prices, Kelkar's explanation makes no mention of this)...as for the claimed growth itself - if you see Kelkar's report the explanation for that is complicated and takes into account several factors none of which can be reduced to objective mathematical equations. I am sure there is an element of truth to the Kelkar report - so I would not dismiss it at all. Several of the factors that Kelkar mentions are not easily quantifiable so I might not be so confident of a precise 1% or 1.3% additional growth - but I would not deny that growth would be boosted.
somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by somnath »

amit wrote:Somnath, very few people have the time or energy to go through a 250 page report
I know, which is why I referred to page 7 - the Main findings! :) Has all the key findings...
Arjun wrote:The point is the simplistic explanation in your earlier post, for the reported gain in growth (which is what I responded to) does not have a basis.
If you see Kelkar's report - he attributes the gain in growth primarily to more efficient allocation of factors of production and secondly to increased productivity of capital because indirect taxes go down for capital goods
I wasnt getting into a detailed explanation of how GST will get us incremental growth - only giving some general, broad points...For the details, there is VK!

If you look at the study, it talks of reduction in distortions, reduction in overall rates and reduciton o fcascading impact...Very broadly..

A discussion on whether taxes are "redistributive" is moot in this context...Therefore conclusions that GST "will never contribute to growth", or that "consumer costs will go up" are wrong...thats all...For the rest, yet again, there is VK!
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by amit »

Arjun wrote:Amitji, I was disputing Somnath's earlier simplistic explanation offered for the extra-growth (for example he talks of Consumption being boosted due to lower retail prices, Kelkar's explanation makes no mention of this)...as for the claimed growth itself - if you see Kelkar's report the explanation for that is complicated and takes into account several factors none of which can be reduced to objective mathematical equations. I am sure there is an element of truth to the Kelkar report - so I would not dismiss it at all. Several of the factors that Kelkar mentions are not easily quantifiable so I might not be so confident of a precise 1% or 1.3% additional growth - but I would not deny that growth would be boosted.

But then boss it would then imply that you don't think increased productivity of capital would result in lower retail prices of goods produced in a more productive manner using available capital?

Is this correct?
somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by somnath »

Arjun wrote:Amitji, I was disputing Somnath's earlier simplistic explanation offered for the extra-growth (for example he talks of Consumption being boosted due to lower retail prices, Kelkar's explanation makes no mention of this)...
I am surprised you managed to go through a 170 page report that you have never seen before in such short a time! Anyway, from the report..
it reduces the overall incidence of indirect taxation by removing the many distortionary features of the present indirect tax system. The switchover to a flawless GST will have significant macroeconomic effects
The benefit to the poor from the implementation of GST will flow from two sources: first through increase in the income levels and second through reduction in prices of goods consumed by them.
Please, dont be in a hurry to contradict for the sake of it!
Anyways,
Arjun wrote:if you see Kelkar's report the explanation for that is complicated and takes into account several factors none of which can be reduced to objective mathematical equations
Economics is an inexact science - so nothing can be bedded down in 2+2=4 formulae...That doesnt mean appropriate quant based background cant be arrived at..Read that report again, there is exhaustive quant work that was done to arrive at pretty precise ranges...
Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by Arjun »

amit wrote:But then boss it would then imply that you don't think increased productivity of capital would result in lower retail prices of goods produced in a more productive manner using available capital?

Is this correct?
You might be correct (though we have no quantification of the increased productivity and lower retail prices to see how significant they are in the overall scheme of things)...but Somnath's explanation for the lower retail prices was not the same as yours...

Here is what Somnath wrote for your reference...
GST simplifies the indirect tax administration, brings down the average tax rate being charged, while increasing the coverage of the tax..In theory, what it means is lower retail-end prices for the good (or service), and higher tax collections for the govt...Both push growth up - former through higher consumption, latter through higher investment (or "G")..
Just saw Somnath's post.....the reduction in prices due to GST as explained by Kelkar is largely for items consumed by the poor, the middle-class might see a rise in prices...there are a number of items that would see a rise in prices post GST implementation.

Anyway - my last post on this topic. I think I've conveyed my basic point.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by amit »

Arjun wrote:You might be correct (though we have no quantification of the increased productivity and lower retail prices to see how significant they are in the overall scheme of things)...but Somnath's explanation for the lower retail prices was not the same as yours...
Boss, you are asking for quantitative proof of something that's one of the basic tenets of economic theory. In effect that (assuming we don't have a monopoly or duopoly situation and instead have a reasonable free market) more efficient use of resources (factors of production) results in lower cost of production which translates into cheaper prices. This in turn can lead to greater demand and the cycle goes on to improve the economy.

I've been reading the exchanges between you and Somnath. Without vouching for him I would say what he's saying is essentially the same. The difference IMO is that I've tried to de jargonise my post and he's using a bit of economic jargon! :-)

But I note you said your last post on the issue, so let's move on.
Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by Arjun »

amit wrote:Boss, you are asking for quantitative proof of something that's one of the basic tenets of economic theory. In effect that (assuming we don't have a monopoly or duopoly situation and instead have a reasonable free market) more efficient use of resources (factors of production) results in lower cost of production which translates into cheaper prices. This in turn can lead to greater demand and the cycle goes on to improve the economy.
Cheaper prices is not a given from GST...there are several competing factors at play. For example prices of agricultural goods would go up. There is an an entire chapter in Kelkar's report that focuses on which items would see a price increase and which ones a price decrease. Kelkar himself is not making the claim that average cost of goods will go down as a result of GST. For your reference, here is the chapter where Kelkar explains the effect that 'flawless' GST will have on growth. Note that he assumes 'flawless GST' ie no imperfections in the implementation.
GST and economic growth

7.2 High import tariffs, excises and turnover tax on domestic goods and services have enormous cascading effects, leading to a distorted structure of production, consumption and exports. The existing tax system introduces myriad distortions which favour some goods and services at the expense of others. These distortions yield inefficient resource allocation and consequently, inferior GDP growth. In India, the motivation underlying the hugely differentiated scheme of indirect taxation of production and sales that has evolved over the country’s history was progressive and noble; the actual impact of such a structure is now widely acknowledged to be regressive, capricious, and sub optimal in terms of the efficiency of tax effort, leaving the door open for lobbyists and special pleading. The problem of the present distortionary indirect tax system can be effectively addressed by shifting the tax burden from production and trade to final consumption. The ‘flawless’ GST, which subsumes all indirect taxes on goods and services, is the most elegant method of taxing consumption. Under this structure, all different stages of production and distribution can be interpreted as a mere tax pass-through, and the tax essentially ‘sticks’ on final consumption within the taxing jurisdiction.
Report of the Task Force on Goods and Services Tax

7.3 The introduction of the GST will also bring about a macroeconomic dividend by reducing what have been called the “negative grey area dynamic effects” of cascading taxation. As a result it reduces the overall incidence of indirect taxation by removing the many distortionary features of the present indirect tax system. There are seven important macroeconomic channels through which the ‘flawless’ GST minimises the distortions. First, the failure to tax all goods and services distorts consumption decisions; it weakens the signalling power of relative prices. GST will reduce these distortions and enable all economic agents to respond more effectively to price signals. This will improve the allocative efficiency of the tax system. Second, the failure to exempt all sales to business distorts decisions regarding choice of production methods, particularly decisions on vertical and horizontal integration and what inputs to produce or sell. Since the GST will be a tax on consumption, all stages of production and distribution will be mere pass-through. Therefore, there will be no tax incentive for vertical and horizontal integration. Third, the taxation of capital goods discourages savings and investment and retards productivity growth. The ‘flawless’ GST envisages full and immediate credit for GST on capital goods (both buildings and plant and machinery), thereby fully eliminating the incidence of any indirect tax on the capital goods. This enhances the productivity of capital and hence reduces the incremental capital-output ratio (ICOR). This is perhaps the most important gain through the introduction of the GST in India. Fourth, for a given constellation of exchange rates and price levels, violation of the destination principle places local producers at a competitive disadvantage, relative to producers in other jurisdictions. The GST envisages comprehensive taxation of imports on consideration of consumption in India and irrespective of whether the imported goods and services are produced in India or not, thereby, providing a level playing field to domestic producers particularly in the import-substitution industry. Fifth, differences in the tax structure of different States and the Central Government greatly increase the cost of doing business53. The proposed GST, though dual in nature, envisages a uniform structure, design and compliance system at all levels of Government and across States.

Therefore, the cost of doing business in India will significantly reduce. The GST based tax reform provides a real policy opportunity to deal with this problem without waiting for prior and sweeping political economy changes. Sixth, GST, once introduced, will create a common market across the length and breadth of the country- something which has eluded us since long. The size of the market will cease to be limited by tax considerations. Further, it will restore the comparative advantage of resource rich states and enable them to emerge as production hubs. Seventh, at present, the combined statutory rate of VAT is close to 22 per cent54. Further, this marginal rate is applied to a very narrow base on account of a plethora of exemptions. Since economic decisions and compliance behaviour are based on the marginal rate, the higher the rate the greater the distortion and evasion. This is further compounded by distortion in resource allocation on account of a plethora of exemptions. Since we have recommended a substantially lower, uniform, and combined single rate of 12 percent55 on all goods and services, the economic distortion and the incentive to evade will be considerably reduced. We can also expect an upsurge in compliance and hence, revenue collections. This in turn will improve fiscal management and reduce the ‘crowding-out’ effect.

7.4 The overall macroeconomic effect of reduction in economic distortions due to GST would be to provide an impetus to economic growth. Using CGE Model, the NCAER study commissioned by the Thirteenth Finance Commission estimates the impact of the introduction of a GST which would eliminate all taxes on production and distribution and rest on final consumption only. The study is based on two important assumptions of full employment and that 50 percent of indirect taxes remain embedded and ‘stick’ on production and distribution. The study concludes that ‘implementation of a comprehensive GST in India will lead to efficient allocation of factors of production thus leading to gain in GDP and exports. This would translate into enhanced economic welfare and returns to the factors of production, i.e. land, labour and capital. The gains in real returns to land range between 0.42 and 0.82 per cent. Wage rate gains vary between 0.68 and 1.33 per cent. The real returns to capital would gain in the range of 0.37 and 0.74 percent.’.

7.5 Further, the study also shows that ‘implementation of GST across goods and services is expected, ceteris paribus, to provide gains to India’s GDP somewhere within a range of 0.9 to 1.7 per cent. The corresponding change in absolute values of GDP over 2008-09 is expected to be between Rs. 42,789 crore and Rs. 83,899 crore, respectively.

7.6 These additional gains in GDP, originating from the GST reform, would be earned during all years in future over and above the growth in GDP which would have been achieved otherwise. The present value of the GST-reform induced gains in GDP may be computed as the present value of additional income stream based on some discount rate. We assume a discount rate as the long-term real rate of interest at about 3 per cent. The present value of total gain in GDP has been computed as between Rs. 1,469 thousand crores and 2,881 thousand crores. The corresponding dollar values are $325 billion and $637 billion or as much as one-third to one-half of the country’s GDP for the year 2009-10
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by amit »

Arjun,

Sorry to say this but I think you need to re-read 7.3 and 7.4 very carefully.

But boss if your views on GST are based not on an economic perspective but on some other POV, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I have no intention of discussing politics on this thread. I think this is one of the best threads on this forum and it should remain focused on economic issues.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by RajeshA »

amit wrote:Rajesh,

The problem, IMO is you are comparing apples to oranges when comparing the situation in Germany with that prevailing in India now. That's because India by several quantums has a far bigger potential for growth (I mean the internal market) that German has now or had over the past 20-30 years. What that translates to is there's more slack in the system than in Germany.

Apart from that, you miss the central reason for requiring organised retail in India. Due to a bad supply chain a horrendous amount of Indian farm produce is wasted - it either rots before it gets to the market or does not reach the market at all. Moreover whatever reaches the market is horribly overpriced in comparison to what the farmer gets for his produce at the farm, with the middle man siphoning off the rest.

What organised retail will do is take the middle man out of the equation by investing in cold storages, refrigerated trucks, the works. In short they will build up the supply chain network. Nobody but big retail has the money or incentive to do so and what large international chains can do is show us the best and most efficient way of doing that. And with the road infra getting better it would be possible. And processed foods (that is canned stuff) will also increase.

It will take many years to get to a situation whereby the length and breadth of India would be covered by organised retail and before that happens the most of the people who depend on work that kiranas provide will migrate to other professions.

In fact the last time I was in India I used to go regularly to a Big Bazzar outlet near my house to pick up things. On several occasions I saw an interesting site. And that was folks with a trolly full of one particular product say, hand soap of two, three varieties. I enquired with one of them and he told me that he runs a small kirana and it makes sense for him to pick up in bulk from Big Bazzar rather than wait for the distributors to get around to visiting his shop, his demand is low and so he falls way down in the priority order of these distributors.

IMO kiranas and big retail can live side by side and if the power of middle men are reduced I can assure you prices would come down and more importantly we'd have taken a giant step in tackling the persistent supply side inflation that is eating into the economy.

JMT.
amit ji,

First a little about what I prefer. I would like to see malls, shopping streets, corner shops selling their wares. Those kiranas on the corner, the mom&pop shops as one calls them in the States, they will of course be selling all types of stuff. But those shops which happen to be in the malls or in the shopping streets should concentrate only on one thing - women's wear, men's wear, perfumeries, dairy, fish, meat, fruits & vegetables, processed foods, Indian confectionery, namkeen, bakery, drugstore, telecommunications shop, electronics, household appliances, carpets, furniture, etc.

Here I am talking about how it used to be even before industrialization. Everybody used to sell one thing. Only this time the shopkeepers will not be selling their own produce, but what they buy from others. The specialization
The specialization would also bring down costs.

I think you are of the opinion that retail must necessary also control the logistics as the distribution is inefficient. I think one of the best distribution models is the post. The distributors companies can handle the volume. In fact there can be several distributor companies working at various levels of distribution. The logistics industry can be kept separate. If we want to really learn from the outside world, then it is the area of logistics, and not retail.

Another great model I see is car-sharing. Shopkeepers who buy similar products from one type in a given region can buy together bringing down the procurement costs due to buying in bulk. Many such networks of shopkeepers can come up.

The interface between the shopkeeper and the end-customer should however remain in the hands of the small shopkeeper.

By turning over the whole retail market to the WalMarts where one can buy everything from a pin to a car, we would not be solving the problem but creating a new one. We will be throwing the baby with the bathwater.

The baby is the retail market. The bath water being the inefficiency of our procurement and distribution networks.

You say that when the organized retail take over, the kiranas can look for a different profession. That is exactly my point. You have taken away the last profession he can self-employ himself in when nobody is willing to employ him as the lean times come.

Just look what a vast population we have. And when automation and mechanization and computerization is taking over the primary and secondary industries, or when the service providers would have already established themselves and when people start getting laid off, with their limited skill-set they would have nowhere else to go.

Efficiency can bring down the supply-side inflation, but for that we don't have to take away the last refuge of the poor man.

Probably because India is still so much in the beginning of its retail evolution, that India does not realize the downsides of a fully-developed organized retail market. It is unprecedented joblessness.
Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by Arjun »

amit wrote:But boss if your views on GST are based not on an economic perspective but on some other POV, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I have no intention of discussing politics on this thread. I think this is one of the best threads on this forum and it should remain focused on economic issues.
Boss, what is my position on GST that you are so worked up about? Please reread my posts and let me know.
Sorry to say this but I think you need to re-read 7.3 and 7.4 very carefully.
Do you even have a clue what I was trying to say ? I have no problem with Kelkar's explanation. Do you even know what Somnath's argument was, which is the source of my problem and not Kelkar's explanation? Are you saying prices of all items would be going down as a result of GST?
gakakkad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4990
Joined: 24 May 2011 08:16

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by gakakkad »

@ gurus I have a noob question. I encountered some factory workers in Khan land. To my surprise their opinion was against trade unions. How did Khanland succeed in getting semi skilled workers to be against trade union. Can such a thing be followed in India ? I mean it would be great if workers themselves wanted labour reforms .
somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by somnath »

Arjun wrote:the reduction in prices due to GST as explained by Kelkar is largely for items consumed by the poor, the middle-class might see a rise in prices.
And where exactly did Kelkar make this claim? One of the beneficiaries of the GST will be auto consumers - are automobiles for the "poor"?
Arjun wrote:Are you saying prices of all items would be going down as a result of GST?
And who exactly claimed that? there will be goods (and services) where prices would go up and ones where they would go down..But looking at the macro picture, when tax structures are simplified, when "exemptionary" distortions are eliminated, costs of compliance brought down - they result in lower costs of doing business and more efficient investment decisions - ergo, the cost structure of the economy becomes more efficient...Its Econ 101 - what is it that you are objecting to?

In fact what is it that you are indeed trying to say? You started off with some axiom of tax reforms being "redistributive" and therefore never a growth enabler - a completely illogical assumption ...Then you claimed that Kelkar made no claims of "lower prices" - when it is one of the fundamental tenets of the proposal...Then you go on to claim that there is no "mathematical basis" of the proposals - when it is quite the opposite, there is a robust quant backup for the recos..Finally you claimed all price reductions are for the "poor", middle class goods will see increases - based on what no one knows...

Net net, no one's sure what you are trying to establish!
somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by somnath »

RajeshA wrote:Probably because India is still so much in the beginning of its retail evolution, that India does not realize the downsides of a fully-developed organized retail market. It is unprecedented joblessness
And this definitive conclusion is based on?

Why dont you go through that ICRIER study - it has the data, the assumptions and the analysis, and critique it..That can be some basis of discussion...Otherwise, "I feel so" (or as one fellow member is so fond of saying "I drove through XYZ and therefore I know how it works") is a bit difficult to base a discussion on...
Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by Arjun »

somnath wrote:In fact what is it that you are indeed trying to say? You started off with some axiom of tax reforms being "redistributive" and therefore never a growth enabler - a completely illogical assumption ...Then you claimed that Kelkar made no claims of "lower prices" - when it is one of the fundamental tenets of the proposal...Then you go on to claim that there is no "mathematical basis" of the proposals - when it is quite the opposite, there is a robust quant backup for the recos..Finally you claimed all price reductions are for the "poor", middle class goods will see increases - based on what no one knows...

Net net, no one's sure what you are trying to establish!
Really? My problem all along was this explanation of yours....
somnath wrote:GST simplifies the indirect tax administration, brings down the average tax rate being charged, while increasing the coverage of the tax..In theory, what it means is lower retail-end prices for the good (or service), and higher tax collections for the govt...Both push growth up - former through higher consumption, latter through higher investment (or "G")..
Your basic point was of 'lower retail end-prices' which would lead to higher consumption. Your point also was that GST results in higher G (government investment) - resulting in higher growth.

While I don't disagree with Kelkar's explanation for the growth, your logic was completely different. 'lower retail end-prices' is not a given on a weighted average basis across all products as a result of GST - even Kelkar does not make that claim. Retail prices would go down for some items and go up for others - its difficult to say what the end-result would be on an overall basis. Secondly higher government investment is not a driver for the increased growth (note that Kelkar does not include this in his list of factors leading to higher growth) - since it is merely a redistribution of what would otherwise have gone into C and I. Growth IS enhanced due to GST, but this is as a result of other factors - which is lower cost of DOING BUSINESS, cost of compliance, capital goods incentives etc
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by amit »

RajeshA wrote:amit ji,

First a little about what I prefer. I would like to see malls, shopping streets, corner shops selling their wares. Those kiranas on the corner, the mom&pop shops as one calls them in the States, they will of course be selling all types of stuff. But those shops which happen to be in the malls or in the shopping streets should concentrate only on one thing - women's wear, men's wear, perfumeries, dairy, fish, meat, fruits & vegetables, processed foods, Indian confectionery, namkeen, bakery, drugstore, telecommunications shop, electronics, household appliances, carpets, furniture, etc.

Here I am talking about how it used to be even before industrialization. Everybody used to sell one thing. Only this time the shopkeepers will not be selling their own produce, but what they buy from others. The specialization
The specialization would also bring down costs.

I think you are of the opinion that retail must necessary also control the logistics as the distribution is inefficient. I think one of the best distribution models is the post. The distributors companies can handle the volume. In fact there can be several distributor companies working at various levels of distribution. The logistics industry can be kept separate. If we want to really learn from the outside world, then it is the area of logistics, and not retail.

Another great model I see is car-sharing. Shopkeepers who buy similar products from one type in a given region can buy together bringing down the procurement costs due to buying in bulk. Many such networks of shopkeepers can come up.

The interface between the shopkeeper and the end-customer should however remain in the hands of the small shopkeeper.

By turning over the whole retail market to the WalMarts where one can buy everything from a pin to a car, we would not be solving the problem but creating a new one. We will be throwing the baby with the bathwater.

The baby is the retail market. The bath water being the inefficiency of our procurement and distribution networks.

You say that when the organized retail take over, the kiranas can look for a different profession. That is exactly my point. You have taken away the last profession he can self-employ himself in when nobody is willing to employ him as the lean times come.

Just look what a vast population we have. And when automation and mechanization and computerization is taking over the primary and secondary industries, or when the service providers would have already established themselves and when people start getting laid off, with their limited skill-set they would have nowhere else to go.

Efficiency can bring down the supply-side inflation, but for that we don't have to take away the last refuge of the poor man.

Probably because India is still so much in the beginning of its retail evolution, that India does not realize the downsides of a fully-developed organized retail market. It is unprecedented joblessness.
Rajesh,

First of all please don't Ji me. I feel very awkward. :)

Now coming to your conclusions, to be frank I would reiterate that you are using a totally different yardstick. Your conclusions IMO are totally off.

Please read this post to understand why I feel so.
somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by somnath »

^^^Hmmm, traversed quite a convoluted route - from saying tax reform is "only redistributive" (and "never" growth-inducing) to claiming bizarre conclusions from the report! :)

BTW, I have heard no one ever argue that plugging rent seeking is only a redistribution of C and I - Econ 101 again! Samuelson is a good starting point!

Anyways, no point nitpicking...Its good you have progressed from
Arjun wrote:A redistribution scheme can never contribute to growth
to
Growth IS enhanced due to GST
And now, as long as you are no longer claiming prices of only "goods for the poor" will decline and those for the middle class will increase, the matter is settled!

Limited point was that GST is critical, will lead to higher growth, and hence needs to be passed..Pronto....Rest is, "argumentative economics" only :wink:
Last edited by somnath on 20 Jul 2011 20:14, edited 1 time in total.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Indian Economy: News and Discussion (Apr 1 2011)

Post by amit »

Arjun wrote:Do you even have a clue what I was trying to say ? I have no problem with Kelkar's explanation.
Arjun,

No need to get rhetorical and worked up. I'm not interested in your running battles with Somnath on this thread and in others. Yes I've followed them inasmuch that I follow those threads. I've drawn my own conclusions about them but they're not important to the current discussion.

My responses to you are not dictated by your points with Somnath. You have raised a number of points that I found untenable.

Here they are:

Point1:

You wrote:
If indirect tax collection is increasing in GST, it has been taken out of total consumption (C). So there is no lower-retail effect that you talk about - since the tax coverage is also increasing at the same time, that means the cost to the consumer will go up.

Secondly taxes collected by the government is basically redistribution of income which would otherwise have gone into investment (I) or consumption (C) so it cannot possibly add to growth.
Yet later on the extract you quote from the report says this:
Further, the study also shows that ‘implementation of GST across goods and services is expected, ceteris paribus, to provide gains to India’s GDP somewhere within a range of 0.9 to 1.7 per cent. The corresponding change in absolute values of GDP over 2008-09 is expected to be between Rs. 42,789 crore and Rs. 83,899 crore, respectively.
Is additional gains to GDP not growth in your estimation?

Point2:
You wrote:
A redistribution scheme {in context, you are referring to GST here} can never contribute to growth. The only tangential effect on growth might be that businesses have less of a headache to deal with and therefore might be more comfortable in taking investment decisions.


Yet in a later post you wrote:

I am sure there is an element of truth to the Kelkar report - so I would not dismiss it at all. Several of the factors that Kelkar mentions are not easily quantifiable so I might not be so confident of a precise 1% or 1.3% additional growth – but I would not deny that growth would be boosted.


Point3:
You wrote:
Cheaper prices is not a given from GST...there are several competing factors at play. For example prices of agricultural goods would go up. There is an an entire chapter in Kelkar's report that focuses on which items would see a price increase and which ones a price decrease. Kelkar himself is not making the claim that average cost of goods will go down as a result of GST.


Kelkar does not need to make this claim. It is a given that if the cost of production goes down, in a free market situation or near free market the retail cost goes down. I think that should be obvious. But I’m interested in your point about prices of agri goods will go up, can you give a reference to that point?

Point4:

You wrote:
Are you saying prices of all items would be going down as a result of GST?


We are talking on the macro perspective about the countrywide effect of a new taxation system. In view of this your question is just rhetorical and does not merit an answer.
Post Reply