Wednesday, 28 December 2011

Different satellite navigation systems

Currently four major economic power blocs have their satellite navigation systems, either fully operational or in process of being so. These systems are used for military and civilian purposes both. Here are four systems:
  1. GPS - US government-run satellite navigation systems. Global Positioning System (GPS).
  2. Beidou - China's own GPS. It offers location, timing and navigation data to China and surrounding areas. China has 10 setellites at the moment and plan to have 35 by 2020 to cover entire world.
  3. Glonass - Russia's satellite navigation systems
  4. Galileo - EU's satellite navigation systems. First satellite was launched in Oct 2011, planned to be fully operational by 2019

Thursday, 1 December 2011

Why FDI in retailing is good for India?

Recently Indian govt. proposed to allow 51% FDI in retailing. As expected there is big hue and cry and opposition to this. But I think it's good for India. Here is why I say so:

  1. retailing is one of the biggest employer in the western world so India would have many employement opportynities for youth. Since retail does not require very highly qualified employees so this would be good opportunity for Indian youth who can't and dont go for very high education

  2. average standards of goods and services would increase in retailing and consumers would have more choices

  3. there will be backward integration in the entire supply chain so many more opportunities in entire supply chain for both employement and business

  4. With improved supply chain, farmers would get better prices for their produces

  5. With increase in demands from retailers, better quality seeds and high yield seeds would make way into agriculture so overall agri-productivity would increase

  6. Better supply chain solutions like warehousing and cold-storage would reduces the wastage of agriculture produce which is astonishingly high in India.

  7. There will be knock-on effect on other secots like real estate, transport, packaging, and almost all sectors of the economy

  8. expansion of middle class, as the employees in retail would be mostly coming from lower middle class and low-income families so with their higher earning they will join burgeoning middle class

  9. in local mom-n-pop retailing, there are hardly employee friendly policies and employee generally overwork, with corporate retailing better employee policy would be followed and employees would be better paid.

  10. Overall quality of life would increase in India

  11. More competition so better prices for end-consumers

  12. When worlds leaders in retailing like Walmart, Carrefour comes to India and they may start sourcing for their global markets also from india, thus increasing the exports.

  13. There would not be much threat to mom-n-pop stores as they would still be dominating corner areas in societies and in fact they would benefit as they can source their goods from these big retailers. With stores like Lifestyle, Shoper's Stop and Central, shops on streets selling clothes did not disappear. Similarly Reliance and Big Bazaar have not displaced kirana stores, which continue to complement the services provided by these big stores.

  14. Indian large retailers would get stronger and improve with competition as Pizza Hut could not destroy Haldiram but made it only stronger. So this fear is misplaced.

  15. Small retailers indulge in malpractices like under-weighing, adulteration, this would go away and government can better regulate big retailers

  16. better retailing technology and practices would come into India

  17. This would expand overall retail market instead of just eating into share of existing players so more opportynities and growth

  18. Local stores in India avoid paying taxes completely, which is huge revenue loss to govt. But with retailers, income would increase for govt.

Over a period, govt have to come up with good regulations to regulate the retail markets so the market develops well and it does not hurt others like farmers. So success depends on unbiased regulations. If the market regulations are good and there is fair competition, consumer is always going to be king.

Wednesday, 23 February 2011

Internet can change government too? Amazing!

I have always been fascinated by (the power of) Internet and I always feel lucky to be born at a time when Internet came into being. As I moved into my mid-twenties and Internet started to become widespread and famous and that was the time I hooked onto it and ever since have been riding on it. I feel lucky because it’s the Internet where I go when I have any doubt or any question and it has always given me an answer for my questions, I guess always right one.I was always aware of the power of Internet but never believed that it can change world so much. If one sees the events taking place in the Arab world these days, one will just be amazed at the power of Internet. It’s Internet that helped the protesters in these countries to unite and protest against the authoritative governments, it was Internet that gave people voice to share with like minded people of their countries and spread among all. Internet was the media which then spread it to another country and then another and then entire Arab world. So it’s the Internet which is trying to democratize the part of world. I never thought that Internet can change a government also.It’s just amazing.

Tuesday, 11 January 2011

We get what we deserve: being citizen of a developed or poor nation!

Currently history of how the US became favourite destination for immigrants in early years, back in 1400s, and how it grew from there is my favourite reading interest. So I am exploring this topic a bit. And this has made me think how few countries became wealthier and others remained poor despite almost same opportunities. Here I give my take on this as to why some countries became wealthier and others not.

I wonder how so many countries like US, Australia, New Zealand, and even Brazil and many other, which are all completely full of immigrants only with very low native population, have same characteristics, well almost, but only the US is a super power but others not. Local native population in these countries is very less or in fact negligible they are mostly migrant population and all are natural resources rich. So we can say that all these countries had almost same kind of people or culture to start with when these lands began to take form as countries. But today they are all at different stage of development or influence in the world.
Similarly lot of Asian countries like Japan, China, Korea, India, Malaysia to name a few were all at almost the same level of development around 60 years ago but today they are very different. Some have rushed way past and others are left way behind and it will take them decades to catch up with others.
Similarly, at the time of independence India and Pakistan both were at almost the same stage but today the gap between the two have widened beyond imaginations both politically and economically.
Almost all these countries I mentioned up here were all at the same stage of development at some time and had same sort of resources to start with but some of them have gone way up in development but others are lingering at the same level where they started, or just a bit up from where they started. All had everything same except the people who led them were different, or of different characteristics.
So in my understanding what it says is that the two countries, with same sort of problems, and same amount of resources at their disposal to start with may end up being completely different countries few years down the line if the political masters who ultimately takes the decisions about the future of a country are not competent enough. So the future of a country and ultimately that of its citizen lies completely in the hands of politicians of the any day. How today’s politicians behave today will decide our and country's future tomorrow. It’s only the decision makers at the helm that differentiate a country from other. If a country has an able and competent leader at the helm it’s surely going to go in the right direction. This seems to be the reason why US and Japan are where they are today and other countries are not there yet.
Then if we see little deeper, these all countries are democracies, or mostly have been democratic in their history, so their leaders were and are decided by the societies of these countries only. That means the leader of a country is as good as selected by citizens of that country and deserved by that country.
So does it prove that if a country is developed it’s citizen deserve it and if a country is not developed it’s because its citizen do not yet deserve it? Else they would have chosen such leaders to lead them to a developed future? So ultimately the future of a countries is in the hands of the citizen of that country and politicians are only there to be blamed.