Coke, Reliance Enter Indian Dairy Drink Market

“Jallikattu” or bull-taming, is an agricultural tradition intended to conserve and improve native cattle species, now under an existential threat from imported breeds and big corporations.

From the New Indian Express:

Natives that are not grown for pride are sent for slaughter causing drastic decline in sex ratio. Jallikattu enthusiasts claim the sport help to sustain bulls for longer.

“The bulls that don’t win the game are not used for pure-breed next generation natives. Each of the strong, pure natives are used for inseminating 10-15 cows. Let’s say half the bulls win human beings. Each of these will give rise to 15 more pure natives,” says a professor of Dairy Technology at TANUVAS. Going by Rajasekaran’s number, more than a lakh-and-a-half pure natives are produced by every batch of Jallikattu bulls.

Native species do not produce as much milk as some imported species and without impregnation by the best studs, partly conserved through Jallikattu, their existence would be in doubt.

India’s largest milk producer, Amul, in Gujarat, uses Jersey cows, imported from Holland.

Meanwhile,  beverage giant, Coca-Cola, is teaming up with India’s Reliance to enter the dairy drinks market in India, this year.

With demand rising powerfully, milk will soon have to be imported along with exotic semen and other inputs needed to continue cross-breeding the native and the foreign species. More imports means higher prices making milk unaffordable to the poor; it means higher costs, making farming impossible to the marginal farmer; it means reliance on European and hybrid breeds that demand more water and are less hardy; it means foreign species’ milk that causes schizophrenia, autism and type-1 diabetes.

That’s the context needed to understand the anger at the PETA-inspired ban of Jallikattu, already heavily regulated under India’s animal protection laws.

 

Modi’s New Year Speech: More Black Money Lies

There were some big whoppers in Modi’s propaganda blast on New Year’s Eve, which I sat through so that you, dear reader,  would not have to subject yourself to the tedium:

MODI-SPIN:

$500 and $1000 rupees notes (the old notes that were banned) were mainstays of the black economy.

FACT:

That would make the vegetable vendor, fish-monger, housewife, pensioner, and local shop-keeper all “black,” according to monetary moron Modi.

Of course, they are not. What with inflation, those notes are practically staples of normal day-to-day cash transactions: payment of daily wage workers, repairmen, and vendors.

The TV repairman takes Rs. 750 for an hour of repair on the antenna.  It would be normal to use a 500 and a couple of 100s for him. TV’s are not signs of great wealth, but widely owned by lower-middle-class  and even working-class people. A visit to the hospital, shopping at the vegetable or fish market, repairing a leaky ceiling – all of these would routinely be done with the banned notes.

MODI-MYTH

Demonetization has helped the Income Tax Department uncover more tax-evasion and money-laundering rings.

FACT

The Income Tax Department does not need demonetization to conduct raids on suspected tax-evaders. They do that in the course of their normal routine. In fact, demonetization has added NEW  rings of money-laundering and enabled corrupt bank officials to make a buck changing black to white. That explains the huge stashes (hundreds of thousands to millions)  of the new Rs. 2000 notes being busted all over the country.

MODI-MYTH:

The hard part is over. Corruption, drugs, trafficking, porn, and all other evils are based on black money held in cash and they have all suffered a permanent blow. Ramrajya is here.

FACT:

The largest part of black-money is digitally circulated in and out of India through market avenues such as round-tripping and participatory notes, neither of which was even mentioned in the Modi speech.  Black money is parked mostly in foreign bank accounts, in real estate, and in gold and diamonds. Far from helping eradicate corruption, cash bans and digitilization make it much easier for large players (like the government, large corporate entities and criminals) to manipulate and steal money from the ordinary man.

The aam admi’s troubles have only begun. He is being ruthlessly herded, through bribes and threats, into digital platforms for which he and the Indian infrastructure are ill-prepared.

MODI-MYTH:

More cash deposited at the banks will bring down inflation.

FACT:

One of the biggest problems with targeting black-money, is the inflationary consequences of sucking money out of hard assets and foreign accounts. Once in the country, they are bound to increase the supply of money in the country and pump up inflation.

Demonetization just changes the part of the economy where cash circulates.

It moves cash from the informal sector and small businesses to the formal economy and big businesses and government (banks lending to developers and companies).

It penalizes the winners in the free markets (the small businesses) and rewards the  losers (developers-government-banks-large corporations) .

It reverses the decision of the market and replaces it with a mandate from the center.

More deposits in banks means more money available against which banks can make loans.

Indeed, recapitalization of  banks with huge non-performing assets (bad loans to big industrialists and developers) is one of the real reasons for demonetization, not eradicating corruption – a story put out to hoodwink the public.

One example. Is Modi going after Vijay Mallya of Kingfisher for non-payment of loans? Why, on the other hand, is he unable to waive loans that hard-working farmers have been unable to repay for reasons they cannot control – like the failure of rains?

And why is only Vijay Mallya mentioned in Indian media reports? Mallya is only a front for Rothschild interests….

in the same way that Khodorkovsky was a front for Rothschild interests.

What about the vast public sector loans made to the scion of the Tata drug-running fortune, Ratan Tata, a Rothschild cohort, to purchase   over-priced Corus steel (at $12.1 billion) on the advice of N. M. Rothschild, the merchant banker?

The purchase was made at the height of the commodity boom, only 6 years after Corus was a penny-stock.

Tata is another friend of the Rothschilds, getting low-priced loans from Indian public sector banks to help out Corus, and selling his cars in India at twice the price they fetch in the international market.

Corus, originally British steel, foundered on the demands of highly paid unionized British workers, with their plush pensions.

MODI-MYTH:

The main problem in India is corruption and dishonesty, a problem of culture, to be addressed forcibly by the government.

FACT:

Corruption or graft in India, as elsewhere, is a symptom, not a cause of India’s woes.

Behind the symptom is the real cause, which is is not cultural, but political: the replacement of a healthily functioning economy by a system of political patronage run from the center.

In a patronage system, WHO  you are and WHOM you know are more important that WHAT you do.

Instead of competing honestly for money, through providing better services, businesses are forced to compete for favor from the political class.

This necessity has dribbled down into the lowest-class from the highest.

Call it trickle-down graft.

Why is the center so influential?

Ultimately, it’s because of the life-blood of the economy – money – is controlled from the bank at the center – the RBI.

Furthermore, behind the RBI is a more remote but far more powerful center – the BIS.

Behind the BIS stands the great central controller, the globalist Rothschild cabal.

The prevalence of corruption in a society thus has little to do with the innate honesty or lack of honesty among people.

In a famous 2013 survey of major cities all over the world, the Reader’s Digest ((not known to be unfriendly to the West) actually found that when money-laden wallets were dropped on the road, the two cities where they were most often returned with the money intact and the reward refused, were Helsinki and Mumbai.

Notably, Helsinki is in Finland, which is ranked at the top of corruption-indices. Mumbai is in India, which is ranked toward the lower end of most corruption indices.

That says a great deal about such indices. It says even more about the divergence between the POLITICAL category of “corruption” and the MORAL category of honesty.

By deliberately confusing the two, practiced RSS propagandist Modi has dressed up  a thoroughly political project, a black operation hatched by the Anglo-Zionists,  in the swadeshi  (home-made) and swachha (white) robes of national health and morality.

 

List of NGO’s banned in India

From Karmayog.org:

Blacklisted NGOs

The 600 non-governmental organizations banned by the government up to March this year were funded by the Council for Advancement of People’s Action and Rural Technology, which works as a liaison between the government and NGOs. The council formulates projects and selects NGOs that can implement them. It also funds projects proposed by NGOs in different states, to take care of various development-related tasks. The blacklisted NGOs will not be allowed to start functioning again.

Andhra Pradesh (175), Bihar (123), Tamil Nadu(71), Uttar Pradesh (69) and Rajasthan (31) are the top five states where the blacklisted NGOs are based. Karnataka (22), West Bengal (21), Delhi(21), Haryana (20), Orissa (19) and Maharashtra (19) are in the top 10 states.

The full list of Blacklisted NGOs is at Map & State wise List of Blacklisted NGOs .”

I have a mixed to positive reaction to this. On one hand, a lot of NGO’s are certainly subversive agents of the globalist cabal.  I also question why they should direct government policies and projects.

On the other hand, a blanket banning of NGO’s seems to thrown the baby out with the bath-water.

Again, there is need for looking at things on a case-by-case basis, instead of going in for broad, sweeping policies that damage the good actors along with the bad.

In addition, top-down NGO’s seem to be a kind of contradiction in terms. The whole point of being non-governmental is missed when the NGOs act WITH the central government, rather than independently of them, or at least, only with local governments.

 

2004 McKinsey Report: Indian Informal Economy Dangerous

The roots of DeMo are deep in the globalization project.

The outsourcing agency responsible for the opening up of the Indian economy to Western interests, often in the most predatory fashion, was McKinsey and it was McKinsey that was bent on regulating and taxing the informal sector in India as far back as 2004.

Most tellingly, one of the reasons it gave for the need to introduce a Goods & Services Tax was the information such a tax would give on those businesses.

In business, information is money. Taxes thus become a way to subject rival businesses to surveillance and theft. The GST is next on Narendra Modi’s agenda, proving once again that the whole demonetization scheme is nothing more than the next step in the globalist project.

As a 2004 McKinsey report titled The Hidden Dangers of the Informal Economy put it pithily, “Informal companies evade fiscal and regulatory obligations, including value-added taxes, income taxes, labor market obligations (such as social-security taxes and minimum-wage requirements) and product market regulations (including quality standards, copyrights, and intellectual-property laws).” So far, governments in India have turned a blind eye to these illegalities, not least because they were worried about the consequences on employment and on the economy if they decided to enforce the rules. But it seems the present government not only wants to change that policy, but also wants to force the pace of change.

It is, of course, a laudable objective and the decision to force it through is a bold move. The big question though is: will it work? The McKinsey report is very critical of the informal sector, because its avoidance of regulation and taxes gives it an unfair advantage over firms in the formal economy, who are unable to increase their market share despite being far more productive and efficient. The report wants governments to start enforcing the rules against the informal firms, so that the formal sector benefits.

Significantly, it says value-added tax is a good place to start, since it enables the government to gain information about the informal firms and then go after them. It’s no surprise then that the government is trying to push through a comprehensive goods & services tax (GST). And that’s not the only place where the government seems to be heeding McKinsey’s advice—the report also says, “Another way of improving enforcement is for governments to partner with payments providers such as banks and credit card companies to increase the number of monetary transactions accurately recorded by the collections system and thus to raise the quality of the data available to tax enforcers.” The government’s push to a digital economy is precisely on these lines.

The expectation is that the short-term pain will lead to long-term gain. The benefits are expected to come from more tax revenue collected, which can then be used by the government to provide sops for the masses. The coming budget, for instance, is expected to echo this approach. The benefits are also expected as more firms join the formal economy, with access to funds and technology. The hope is that informal businesses will transform themselves from being the dirty underbelly of Indian capitalism into respectable, tax-paying, suited and booted members of a sleek, productive and bourgeois modern India.

Will the audacious gamble succeed? The McKinsey report didn’t think that informal firms could change so easily. It pointed out that informal businesses tend to structure their supplier and customer relationships in ways that make it difficult to go above board later, that customers of an informal firm come to expect very low prices, and many would go elsewhere if it transformed itself into a formal company and had to raise them. Indeed, the report said, “The idea that informal businesses might grow and join the formal economy is therefore a myth.”

Many firms in the informal economy would cease to be competitive if they are exposed to the full brunt of taxation and regulations of the formal economy. A 2014 paper by Rafael Porta of the Tuck School of Business and Andrei Shleifer of Harvard University, published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, concluded thus: “we are skeptical of all policies that might tax or regulate informal firms. Rather than encourage informal firms to become formal, such policies may have the effect of driving them out of business, leading to poverty and destitution of informal workers and entrepreneurs. The recognition of the fundamental fact that informal firms are extremely inefficient recommends extreme caution with policies that impose on them any kind of additional costs.”

In other words, shock therapy such as demonetisation could very well turn out to be counter-productive. Instead, Porta and Shleifer say the cure for informality is economic growth. The evidence shows that informality declines, albeit slowly, with development. An 2009 OECD paper on Informality and Informal Employment also came to the conclusion that policies that make it more difficult for informal firms to carry out their activities and stricter enforcement of laws and regulations “have contributed to increased poverty and vulnerability by pushing already vulnerable groups of people into even more difficult situations.” What the government should instead aim for is expanding the formal sector, by making it easier for firms to operate there. But that is easier said than done and the record of the formal sector in creating jobs has been dismal.

The saving grace is that much of the talk about a transition to a cashless economy will remain just rhetoric. It’s also likely the government will soon realise that forcing the pace of change on the informal economy carries with it huge costs and it will opt instead for less ambitious, less intrusive methods.

Indian Bankers Revolt Against Central Bank

Indian bankers are demanding the resignation of Urjit Patel, the RBI governor, who has been silent about the extraordinary measures taken on his watch:

“Holding Governor responsible for ineffective handling of the crisis post the drive, All India Bank Employees Association vice-president on Wednesday said that bank unions are adamant about their demand for the former’s resignations as well as lockdown of the apex bank.

Questioning the failure of the as the regulatory system, Utagi said that Patel, who hasn’t uttered a word till now, should resign with immediate effect.

“Since two weeks, the bank employees are working from eight in the morning till midnight including weekends. Still, there are truckloads of work to do. There has been absolutely no cooperation from the RBI’s side,” Utagi told ANI.

It added to the mess by banning cooperative banks from exchanging old notes or accepting deposits,” he added.

Stating that the present situation is a clear mess, Utagi further said that there have been one million employees at various banks who are working day in and day out in a situation characterised by a shortage of cash counting machines, fake notes detection machines and manpower security personnel.

The All India Bank Employees Association vice-president’s assertion come as a united opposition is cornering the government in Parliament and demanding Prime Minister to explain the rationale behind imposing such a decision.”