Economic Times.com
THE SINGH NEVER WAS A KING
Dr S Deman, London/Pittsburgh, says: Soon after sworn in as PM Hon'ble Prime-Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh (a Sikh) claimed that India could achieve a 9% rate of growth. As an economist I could not figure out how this would be achieved when most developed economies around the world are facing not only a recession but also a deflation/depression. In fact, even China with 50% saving rate could not make such erroneous claim. I asked the Prime-Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh/Dr Montek Singh's office to provide me a blue print to justify their fairytale.
Pranab Mukherjee's Hollow Budget & Hike in Oil Prices: Has Pranab Mukherjee allocated 2-3% of GDP in Infrastrucutre - Transport, Railways, Roads, Road Transport, shipping, Inland Water Transport, Ports, Cilv Aviation, Construction, etc? Answer is NO, as he has no money and there is already a deficit of 6.5% in the budget. In fact, Pranabda's Budget appears to be an Obituary rather than the hope of glorious fulfilment of election manifesto. The sign of any package for stimulating the economy from the quagmire of recession is nowhere to be seen even at a distant horizon. In defence of this criticism, Dr Singh & Dr. Singh (Ahuwalia), in a joint enterprise relied upon the external help without realising that in the Worldwide Financial Crisis, the Masters are in more Trouble than "Rhodes slaves Scholarship", who have pledged to restore the British Empire again.
Far from addressing the economic crisis and contrary to the spirit of the Cong/UPA Election Manifesto, under the CIA pressure (though they themselves are practicing protectionism), Singh & Singh also announced that market forces should decide oil prices rather than Govt. This escapes the logic to fight the recession where one need control on the fuel prices to boost production. There are 4 components of Oil prices; (i) Oil refining and transportation cost, ii) Fore Court, (iii) VAT (Tax) (iv) Fuel Duty (Tax). Since last year crude oil prices have almost halved but neither the Govt nor markets have responded proportionately. In view of global recession, members of G20 plus countries including India's Prime Minister, Dr Singh met at the summit held in London early this year. Many important decisions were taken with the caveat of French Prime-Minister. One of the key issues emerged was that the Countries must learn lessons from Japan and the Countries of Gang of Four and give sufficient boost to the economies (at least from 2-3% of GDP) to overcome the present financial crisis and member states must fight against protectionism. Unfortunately, Dr Manmohan Singh and his Americanised Dy Chairman of Planning Commission, Dr Montek Singh and their Colonial Masters like, Golden Brown/Tony's Cronies came out with a boost of only 1% of the GDP on the table to deal with the plight of people and the financial crisis. In fact, Manmohan-Montek Singh Corporation (made in World Bank of America) went one step farther by privatising the Oil prices and increase in Oil/Diesel prices whereas Mr Borack Obama was openly advocating protectionism. However, in view of low low demand for oil by China and India due to recession and low crude oil prices I believe no law of economics can justify the increase in prices let alone privatisation of oil prices.
Further, although there is a difference between Dr Manmohan Singh's claim of 8-9% growth rate and Dr Montek Singh's reduces announcement of 7% growth rate, one wonders how this could be realised given anti people oil pricing mechanism and no significant boost in the infrastructure. In fact, even china with 50% saving rate and over half a trillion $ package for infrastructure could not dare to make a claim of more than 6% growth rate (half of previously) despite centralised planned economic system. Yet, some economists within china and overseas doubt very much if even 6% growth rate would be achievable. Dr Singh & Dr Singh (World Bank mafia) are dreamers and their dreams would never be realised in practice? The moment of truth has come to acknowledge that, Singh was never a King!
9 Jul 2009, 2128 hrs IST
The World Bank of America has tendency to create Ivory Tower professors of Indian Political Economy for India with shallow scholarships to carry their bandwagons of austerity programmes, for example, like Raj Krishna, Dilip Swamy, Dr Manmohan Singh, Dr Montek Singh, Prof. Pangariya, etc. Joan Robinson, a Cambridge Economist and winner of Cambridge controversy debate of 1970s with Paul Samuelson, decribed these freetrade economissts very eloquently as follows:-
THE SINGH NEVER WAS A KINGDr S Deman, London/Pittsburgh, says: Soon after sworn in as PM Hon'ble Prime-Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh (a Sikh) claimed that India could achieve a 9% rate of growth. As an economist I could not figure out how this would be achieved when most developed economies around the world are facing not only a recession but also a deflation/depression. In fact, even China with 50% saving rate could not make such erroneous claim. I asked the Prime-Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh/Dr Montek Singh's office to provide me a blue print to justify their fairytale.
Pranab Mukherjee's Hollow Budget & Hike in Oil Prices: Has Pranab Mukherjee allocated 2-3% of GDP in Infrastrucutre - Transport, Railways, Roads, Road Transport, shipping, Inland Water Transport, Ports, Cilv Aviation, Construction, etc? Answer is NO, as he has no money and there is already a deficit of 6.5% in the budget. In fact, Pranabda's Budget appears to be an Obituary rather than the hope of glorious fulfilment of election manifesto. The sign of any package for stimulating the economy from the quagmire of recession is nowhere to be seen even at a distant horizon. In defence of this criticism, Dr Singh & Dr. Singh (Ahuwalia), in a joint enterprise relied upon the external help without realising that in the Worldwide Financial Crisis, the Masters are in more Trouble than "Rhodes slaves Scholarship", who have pledged to restore the British Empire again.
Far from addressing the economic crisis and contrary to the spirit of the Cong/UPA Election Manifesto, under the CIA pressure (though they themselves are practicing protectionism), Singh & Singh also announced that market forces should decide oil prices rather than Govt. This escapes the logic to fight the recession where one need control on the fuel prices to boost production. There are 4 components of Oil prices; (i) Oil refining and transportation cost, ii) Fore Court, (iii) VAT (Tax) (iv) Fuel Duty (Tax). Since last year crude oil prices have almost halved but neither the Govt nor markets have responded proportionately. In view of global recession, members of G20 plus countries including India's Prime Minister, Dr Singh met at the summit held in London early this year. Many important decisions were taken with the caveat of French Prime-Minister. One of the key issues emerged was that the Countries must learn lessons from Japan and the Countries of Gang of Four and give sufficient boost to the economies (at least from 2-3% of GDP) to overcome the present financial crisis and member states must fight against protectionism. Unfortunately, Dr Manmohan Singh and his Americanised Dy Chairman of Planning Commission, Dr Montek Singh and their Colonial Masters like, Golden Brown/Tony's Cronies came out with a boost of only 1% of the GDP on the table to deal with the plight of people and the financial crisis. In fact, Manmohan-Montek Singh Corporation (made in World Bank of America) went one step farther by privatising the Oil prices and increase in Oil/Diesel prices whereas Mr Borack Obama was openly advocating protectionism. However, in view of low low demand for oil by China and India due to recession and low crude oil prices I believe no law of economics can justify the increase in prices let alone privatisation of oil prices.
Further, although there is a difference between Dr Manmohan Singh's claim of 8-9% growth rate and Dr Montek Singh's reduces announcement of 7% growth rate, one wonders how this could be realised given anti people oil pricing mechanism and no significant boost in the infrastructure. In fact, even china with 50% saving rate and over half a trillion $ package for infrastructure could not dare to make a claim of more than 6% growth rate (half of previously) despite centralised planned economic system. Yet, some economists within china and overseas doubt very much if even 6% growth rate would be achievable. Dr Singh & Dr Singh (World Bank mafia) are dreamers and their dreams would never be realised in practice? The moment of truth has come to acknowledge that, Singh was never a King!
9 Jul 2009, 2128 hrs IST
The World Bank of America has tendency to create Ivory Tower professors of Indian Political Economy for India with shallow scholarships to carry their bandwagons of austerity programmes, for example, like Raj Krishna, Dilip Swamy, Dr Manmohan Singh, Dr Montek Singh, Prof. Pangariya, etc. Joan Robinson, a Cambridge Economist and winner of Cambridge controversy debate of 1970s with Paul Samuelson, decribed these freetrade economissts very eloquently as follows:-
“The economist's case for free trade is deployed by means of a model from which all relevant considerations are eliminated by the assumption”.
Joan Robinson
Further, although I do not claimed to be an expert on India Political Economy I have read one of my former classmate and colleagues, Prof. Pangariya's (Prof. Raj Krishna's puppy) intreviews on Globalisation attacking Professor Stiglitz. However, his work on trade negotiations lack strategic interaction and he is nowhere near Stiglitz's scholarship (who quit Word Bank for its unrealistic austerity programmes for third world countries). In fact, his comments on Prof. Stiglitz’s attack on Globalisation, not only lacks theoretical underpinning, but also appears to be a public relations exercise to please their imperialist Masters. Most of the academics do not even realise what they have been doing subconsciously might be serving the cause the CIA/World Bank.
Posted by News&Views on Racism at 13:06
Further, although I do not claimed to be an expert on India Political Economy I have read one of my former classmate and colleagues, Prof. Pangariya's (Prof. Raj Krishna's puppy) intreviews on Globalisation attacking Professor Stiglitz. However, his work on trade negotiations lack strategic interaction and he is nowhere near Stiglitz's scholarship (who quit Word Bank for its unrealistic austerity programmes for third world countries). In fact, his comments on Prof. Stiglitz’s attack on Globalisation, not only lacks theoretical underpinning, but also appears to be a public relations exercise to please their imperialist Masters. Most of the academics do not even realise what they have been doing subconsciously might be serving the cause the CIA/World Bank.
Posted by News&Views on Racism at 13:06
No comments:
Post a Comment