panduranghari wrote:In global perspectives, I posted a youtube video by Grant Williams called -Crazy:The story of debt.
When you say India needs access to capital. We have access to capital. Capital does not mean US dollars alone. This is important to internalise.
I said 'capital' not 'dollars'. And while global capital is not synonomous with the dollar, its not distinct either. Market sentiments across the world are close coupled and tend to drift in the same direction.
And yes we have 'access' to capital, everyone does. No sanctions in play. However what that capital costs us, depends on local risk, specific growth prospects and general appetite for risk in the global market.
When you say India needs Free Trade. We HONESTLY dont. We needed internal free trade and GST has already done that. We dont buy much from other countries, neither do we sell to others much. Except OIL.
It is not a binary choice. Internal free trade (something that no one can argue against) doesn't come at the cost of exports. That we don't buy much or less much is a description of our current state not a justification. For a country with our fundamental cost advantages (and reliance on foreign energy), limited trade that is not a plus.
Economic expansion also called growth cannot be sustained permanently. Unlike what the western economists who think economy is a machine and can be continuous be improved by tinkering, Indic view is different. Economy is not a machine. Its a living organism. A super organism. It breathes in and breathes out. Breathing in is the expansion. Breathing out is the necessary contraction to expel CO2 so that fresh O2 can be inhaled again. This is important to internalise.
High growth rates cannot be sustained indefinitely. I think everyone is familiar with Japan's example. And its the Chinese that are tinkering with their economic statistics who need to internalize that.
Nothing to do with India. We very very far reaching our full economic potential.
West as we know it collapsing under its own weight. On all measures- capital investments, debt growth, demographics, internal fissures.
The West has been 'collapsing' for decades now. If and when it does, the rest of the world will be in the muck with it.
And if a super global recession/collapse were to occur, I'd rather it be later than sooner giving Modi a larger window for his reforms and infra expansion.
If, theoretically, global trade were to collapse tomorrow, China would be worst hit but it would still have its highways, railways, airports, power-plants, schools, universities, cities, factories and skilled workers. The 'West' would have the same or more of it, but India much less.
We should stick to strategic ambivalence. I believe C Rajamohan has stated it. I am open to be corrected.
If west wants to engage India and derive benefit, they must accept Indian Exceptionalism. Trump will be more willing to accept this than Clinton ever will because as a businessman he understands the concept of letting the other party feel that they have won.
That's a philosophical idea. What it means in practice is... open to interpretation. Though I imagine, it'll feel good, much like a seat in the NSG & UNSC.
As for this supposed Trump philosophy of 'letting the other party feel they've won'.. I really don't even know what to say to that. Is that really a thing? Do his business partners, current & former, "feel" like winners? Do his customers, those buying steaks, water and business courses, for example, "feel" like winners?
And what does that mean for India anyway? Trump will... make us "feel" like winners too after putting his 'art of the deal' in play?
West should worry about stability. India does not. India gains much from disruption from the current status quo. I do find Rudradev ji's analysis that Westphalian model still has legs, a tad confusing because I feel the glue holding the westphalian model itself is loosing it stickiness.
I think the idea that India can remain aloof from and unaffected by stability in the "West" (which includes most of East Asia too) is a utopian one. Maybe decades from now, if the process of globalization has been reversed, that'll be true. For now, we're still early in the development cycle and still part of a closely interlinked global economy. Both facts that will remain true for the duration Trump's tenure in office.