[Goanet] Remo speaks out (TOI, May 8, 2008)
In a reply to Remo > Mario speaks out If push comes to shove their money is then trapped in an asset they cannot easily carry away ... > Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 11:35:19 +0530 From: marie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Have you considered that, while it is true they (the foreigners) cannot carry away "land" assets, they then sell off the land at a huge profit and carry away all of it to their home lands --total loss for India. > If an Indian buys land the money is just circulated within India -- with probable loss to Goa. > Mario responds: > Marie, I wonder if you have noticed that the most economically developed countries in the world allow and encourage foreign investments - the least developed countries discourage or do not allow them. Prior to India and China's "liberalization" development took place at a snail's pace, now both are booming from the influx of foreign investment. They have quickly reached a point where they are now investing in other countries. > Here are some thoughts without going too deep into how free markets and free trade benefit everyone. > Yes, foreign investors can sell their fixed assets and carry away their huge profits to their home lands or any other place where they think their money would be a better investment. However, once they take the trouble and risk to invest in fixed and long term assets investors must have a good reason to pull out - they don't do so on a whim. This is a good incentive for the host country to conduct its economic affairs in a positive manner, with pro-growth and reasonable-tax rate policies, so that foreign investors will have little incentive to pull out, more will have an incentive to come in, and both sides will benefit. This has been the US experience. The result is a 95% employment rate, a low inflation rate and steady long term growth. > In your example, there was apparently no Indian around to buy the asset "at the right price" when the seller was ready to sell, or they would have bought it in the first place. Avoiding a foreign investor and waiting for an Indian investor to show up is what leads to slow growth and stagnation. > If there is a wholesale flight of foreign investors from a country, it will lead to economic problems, but not if only a few withdraw and are replaced by others as will happen if the host country conducts itself in a positive manner with pro-growth and reasonable-tax-rate policies. > In the meantime, the foreign owner's money either came from being earned somewhere else or was earned from doing some business in India. If it came from outside, it added a foreign investment to India's economy. If it was earned in India it stayed in India. > The original Indian who sold the asset benefited, those who used it in the interim benefited from its use, and those who bought it, whether Indian or foreign obviously think the price is right, or they would not have bought it. So what if the foreign investor made a profit? Denying private investors a profit is what caused Marxism to collapse wherever it was tried. > Under free market principles, no one loses when buyers and sellers make their own enlightened decisions and negotiate a price acceptable to both sides, without coercion from a more powerful entity, like the government or other influential agency. > If you observed Goa before and since the influx of non-Goan money, it went from a sleepy backwater, with hundreds of thousands of Goans fleeing to other places to make a living for their families, to a booming economy where enterprising Goans can now stay home and make a living if they choose to. Of course, they now have to compete with non-Goan Indians. Those Goans that are doing so are doing very well -locals always have a built-in advantage from knowing the language and culture, which the outsiders have to learn. > The problem in Goa has been that there were no systems in place to control development, and corruption was rampant as it is throughout India. For example, until recently, a builder could not build higher than four stories across from Miramar Beach. Now, thanks partly to Babush, they can go as high as eight stories. That was not a positive development from an aesthetic and architectural and environmental point of view but the developers got rich because they could build more apartments on the same valuable plot of land. > Now, out of frustration, as we increasingly see on Goanet and from emotional personalities like Remo, Goans are demanding authoritarian separatist Marxist style solutions which a) they are unlikely to get in a democratic Indian state like Goa, and b) authoritarian style administrations fail in the long run because these depend on who seizes the authority - you may not like the ideas of those who get the power. > The only rational solutions will come from, a) studying how the developed democratic countries control development without discouraging or stopping it, and b) using those techniques and processes to help India
Re: [Goanet] Remo speaks out (TOI, May 8, 2008)
Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 14:11:19 -0400 From: Chris Vaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Although Mario means well, he feels that "local zoning laws passed by local Panchayats. protect the local environment." > While this sounds and feels good good, it does not seem practical since there appears to be a lot of corrupt politicians the people should trust. > The concretization of Goa is now a reality largely because "bhaile" with deep pockets are buying up land which most native Goans cannot compete with. > Goa is a small place with a fragile ecology. This should be kept in mind when allowing unlimited domination of the natives by outsiders. > Goa should have been given the opportunity to determine its fate by means of a plebiscite--to join with India or remain autonomous. > Otherwise there will not be any 'Goan identity" and our Goanness will only be a distant memory. > Mario responds: > Chris, > In the US we call this "Coulda, woulda, shoulda..." > Besides regurgitating yet another essay on what could have been, would have been and should have been, I see no practical solution in your comments in the context of the realities of the situation in Goa. > Your dismissing the local Panchayats that are the closest to their own local problems and issues and interests not to mention the voters they are responsible to with general comments about political corruption in Goa describes a theoretical situation without a solution. This line of thinking leads nowhere. Instead of win-win situations you get power struggles with winners and losers. > If you read Vidhyadhar Gadgil's posts more closely, in Aldona, Moira and Benaulim the local Panchayats or Gram Sabhas responded to protests by the local people and rejected projects they felt would harm their environment. I have no idea what the consequences of these decisions will be to economic development in those areas. Obviously there were winners and losers. If there were zoning laws the developers would have come up with compatible projects that fit the environment and everyone could have benefited. > All local zoning laws would do would be to provide a streamlined process where the costs and benefits of every project would be weighed by organized rules that everyone knows up front, scrutinised by local leaders, with citizen inpout, and don't need mass agitation and morchas everytime there is a large development opportunity. >
[Goanet] Remo speaks out (TOI, May 8, 2008) Vol3, Issue 531
In a reply to Remo Mario speaks out If push comes to shove their money is then trapped in an assett they cannot easily carry away ... marie says Have you considered that, while it is true they (the foreigners) cannot carry away "land" assets, they then sell off the land at a huge profit and carry away all of it to their home lands --total loss for India. If an Indian buys land the money is just circulated within India -- with probable loss to Goa. -- marie
Re: [Goanet] Remo speaks out (TOI, May 8, 2008)
Although Mario means well, he feels that "local zoning laws passed by local Panchayats. protect the local environment." While this sounds and feels good good, it does not seem practical since there appears to be a lot of corrupt politicians the people should trust. Looking from afar it appears that the goverment is not responsive to the needs of the citizenry as we see bedlam graciously highlited on Goanet by common citizens armed with cameras. There is also an allegation of breakdown of the law exemplified by the recent withdrawal of a case against one Somnath Zuwakar who appears to be well-connected. The concretization of Goa is now a reality largely because "bhaile" with deep pockets are buying up land which most native Goans cannot compete with. Goa is a small place with a fragile ecology. This should be kept in mind when allowing unlimited domination of the natives by outsiders. Goans have a distinct culture than the rest of India -- even our food, music and customs are different. India itself was not monolithic before the British, who brought the maharajas and the nizams etc, under control. Goa should have been given the opportunity to determine its fate by means of a plebiscite--to join with India or remain autonomous. The vast majority of the world favored such a determination but the Soviet Union vetoed a resolution in the U.N. Thus we never had the opportunity to determine our future. It is incumbent upon the politicians in charge to discuss this situation with the Indian Govt. and seek an accommodation. Otherwise there will not be any 'Goan identity" and our Goanness will only be a distant memory. - Original Message - From: "Mario Goveia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 10:27 AM Subject: [Goanet] Remo speaks out (TOI, May 8, 2008) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 04:01:15 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rajan P. Parrikar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Quoting Remo: But, of course, it is. Tiny natural paradises like Goa, Ooty, Simla, Dehra Dun, etc., are too small and fragile to accommodate an onslaught of people from out of state. I would declare such places ecologically protected, and restrict land sale to locals only. They in turn would build just enough environment friendly hotels and tourist accommodations where visitors could come and enjoy the natural and cultural riches of these places ? and then go home. Instead, we?re systematically destroying each and every paradise through over construction and urbanisation. Once we destroy them all, where do we go on a holiday? to Pakistan? Mario observes: I think our Remo is becoming like Bono, which is not all bad as long as he doesn't get emotionally carried away with nutty ideas that conflict with reality. The tiny Swat Valley in Pakistan is a very beautiful place for a vacation - once they remove the radical Muslims terrorists who have infested it:-)) Sorry, Remo. Just kidding:-)) I wouldn't take a vacation in Pakistan unless someone else paid for it. While Remo seems to have stumbled onto a glimmer of a good idea here the problem with his rant is the typical Indian fear of foreigners owning things in India, probably due to our colonial experience. He has also fallen into the familiar trap that we see every day on Goanet from Arwin et. al., the fear of other Indians from out of state. Buyers and sellers of property are not the problem, folks. What they do with it, however, can certainly be a huge problem. Why not focus on the problem instead of wasting your time on the side issues? It is a compliment and a good thing when foreigners put their money into your country. If push comes to shove their money is then trapped in an assett they cannot easily carry away and under ultimate control of your sovereignty as a country. They know this and factor it into their investment decisions. The US is considered the safest place for foreigners to invest in long term fixed assets, but when Iran captured the US embassy in the late 70's and took scores of diplomats hostage their assets in the US were immediately frozen and put out of their control. Is Remo, in his hardly infinite wisdom, the one who is going to decide how many environment friendly hotels and tourist accommodations are "just enough"? The glimmer of a usable idea that Remo seems to have stumbled into is the need to avoid "systematically destroying each and every paradise through over construction and urbanisation." This is best done by local zoning laws passed by local Panchayats to protect the local environment. This is not rocket science, folks. Ever developed country uses such local zoning laws to maintain compatibility with local requirements, ecology, environment, history, culture, architectural integrity, etc. etc. etc. The local Panchayats have enough examples they can study all across Europ
[Goanet] Remo speaks out (TOI, May 8, 2008)
Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 04:01:15 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rajan P. Parrikar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Quoting Remo: > But, of course, it is. Tiny natural paradises like Goa, Ooty, Simla, Dehra Dun, etc., are too small and fragile to accommodate an onslaught of people from out of state. I would declare such places ecologically protected, and restrict land sale to locals only. They in turn would build just enough environment friendly hotels and tourist accommodations where visitors could come and enjoy the natural and cultural riches of these places ? and then go home. Instead, we?re systematically destroying each and every paradise through over construction and urbanisation. Once we destroy them all, where do we go on a holiday? to Pakistan? > Mario observes: > I think our Remo is becoming like Bono, which is not all bad as long as he doesn't get emotionally carried away with nutty ideas that conflict with reality. > The tiny Swat Valley in Pakistan is a very beautiful place for a vacation - once they remove the radical Muslims terrorists who have infested it:-)) Sorry, Remo. Just kidding:-)) I wouldn't take a vacation in Pakistan unless someone else paid for it. > While Remo seems to have stumbled onto a glimmer of a good idea here the problem with his rant is the typical Indian fear of foreigners owning things in India, probably due to our colonial experience. He has also fallen into the familiar trap that we see every day on Goanet from Arwin et. al., the fear of other Indians from out of state. > Buyers and sellers of property are not the problem, folks. What they do with it, however, can certainly be a huge problem. Why not focus on the problem instead of wasting your time on the side issues? > It is a compliment and a good thing when foreigners put their money into your country. If push comes to shove their money is then trapped in an assett they cannot easily carry away and under ultimate control of your sovereignty as a country. They know this and factor it into their investment decisions. The US is considered the safest place for foreigners to invest in long term fixed assets, but when Iran captured the US embassy in the late 70's and took scores of diplomats hostage their assets in the US were immediately frozen and put out of their control. > Is Remo, in his hardly infinite wisdom, the one who is going to decide how many environment friendly hotels and tourist accommodations are "just enough"? > The glimmer of a usable idea that Remo seems to have stumbled into is the need to avoid "systematically destroying each and every paradise through over construction and urbanisation." This is best done by local zoning laws passed by local Panchayats to protect the local environment. > This is not rocket science, folks. Ever developed country uses such local zoning laws to maintain compatibility with local requirements, ecology, environment, history, culture, architectural integrity, etc. etc. etc. The local Panchayats have enough examples they can study all across Europe and America. This makes development a win-win situation for everyone, without the mindless and destructive and unnecessary xenophobia that continues to impedes so much progress in India. >
[Goanet] Remo speaks out (TOI, May 8, 2008)
To Goanet - Excerpts of a TOI interview with Remo Fernandes: May 08, 2008 What disturbs you most about Goa? The few crab-minded Goans who are hell-bent on manifesting all that is worst about Goa: those who attack fellow Goans who try to fight for Goa. They are the ones who do Goa most harm, for they destroy the only thing which could save Goa: Goan Unity. And by fighting fellow-Goans, they hand over Goa on a platter to those who are sweeping Goa from under our feet and laughing all the way to their Swiss Banks. Do you also feel that Goa is being invaded by outsiders? But, of course, it is. Tiny natural paradises like Goa, Ooty, Simla, Dehra Dun, etc., are too small and fragile to accommodate an onslaught of people from out of state. I would declare such places ecologically protected, and restrict land sale to locals only. They in turn would build just enough environment friendly hotels and tourist accommodations where visitors could come and enjoy the natural and cultural riches of these places – and then go home. Instead, we’re systematically destroying each and every paradise through over construction and urbanisation. Once we destroy them all, where do we go on a holiday… to Pakistan? * Regards, r
