A must read: Is Obama BAD for India and especially Punjab?

[Summy]

Respected Times of India reporter Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar, reported on how Obama's economics might affect India and south asia for that matter.

"A look at the voting record and campaign content of the two candidates suggests that McCain might in many ways be better for India than Obama, especially on economic issues"

The biggest fear according to Aiyar, Protectionism with world trade.

"...pressures will mount for protectionist measures and beggar-thy-neighbour policies in the US, hurting countries like India. Apart from erecting import barriers and subsidising dumped exports, US politicians will seek to curb the outsourcing of services to India. Visa curbs will slow the movement of skilled workers and their dollar remittances back to India. McCain is one of the few American politicians in either party with the courage and conviction to stand up to protectionist populism. By contrast, Obama embodies protectionism. "

He also seems to think that Obama's government would precondition free trade (a way that India benefits immsensely from the us). He would precondition with bilateral movements on political, social, and labour fronts. For example, we trade this with you, but you must do this in return.

MAYBE THE WORST PART OF AN OBAMA GOVERNMENT AND HOW IT RELATES TO INDIA AND SPECIFICALLY PUNJAB?

Obama + Farming Subsidies.

"Obama favours extensive subsidies for US farmers, hitting Third World exporters like India. This has been one of the issues on which the Doha Round of WTO is gridlocked. McCain could open the gridlock, Obama will strengthen it"

With Inflation there was a bit of a good period for Punjabi farmers. They were able to get their crops overseas, get their output up, and that with government help, took the ease off the farmers. But with Obama in favour of susidies for the US farmers, that takes food out of the punjabi farmers mouth, and most likely increase suicide counts that have plagued the region.

Another interesting assertion:

"Obama also favours subsidies for converting maize to ethanol. The massive diversion of maize from food to ethanol has sent global food and fertiliser prices skyrocketing, hitting countries like India. But McCain has always opposed subsidies for both US agriculture and ethanol. While campaigning, he had the courage to oppose such subsidies even in Iowa, an agricultural state he badly needs to win if he is to become president"

Something else that might hurt the farming industry of punjab .


Does this affect people's opinion? Obama is obviously the better of the two candidates but this affect your opinion of his politics? What do people think. I had one friend (in canada) say that voting for Obama is voting for an increase of suicides in punjab (an educated man on the punjabi farming crisis)... Does that scare people?

 

[Vick]

He might be bad for India, but he sure as hell is better for America...

 

[pritpal94]

He might be bad for India, but he sure as hell is better for America...

Thats true ;D

 

[Tuckerrrr]

Summy, those Punjabi farmers who trade with the US will still be trading when Obama is president. They trade atta and other Desi goods to Desi shops around the country. You know Desi shops are not going to use American ingredients for Indo-Pak food.

If Palin comes to power, I think more people in the US will commit suicide lol.

 

[Summy]

Summy, those Punjabi farmers who trade with the US will still be trading when Obama is president. They trade atta and other Desi goods to Desi shops around the country. You know Desi shops are not going to use American ingredients for Indo-Pak food.

If Palin comes to power, I think more people in the US will commit suicide lol.

Uh No. The main exports of punjabi farmers arent desi products and atta. Obviously your a little uneducated on this subject. Read up on my previous posts to get an idea on the problem.

 

[Sher]

Obamas policies could potentially be worse than Palin's non-existant policies?

 

[Summy]

Palin's policies are McCain's policies... Why are you even looking at what Palin is doing policy wise? She doesnt even have policies nor does Biden.

Look at the Presidential candidate and their policies. McCain is more beneficial for economic prosperity for punjab. Obama is maybe more beneficial for social prosperity of country's like India and China, but worse for the economy of those countries. Nobody is saying that McCain is better than Obama defintely... All that is being said is that Obama is worst for Punjab than McCain. McCain has even acknowledged the farming crisis all over the world, and his anti stance on the gridlock of farming backs up that notion.

He would probably open up trading with India more than Obama. But Obama would DEFINTELY advance the country's relationships and probably advance the two countries reliance on each other.

McCain is villianified because of his party and because of his supporters. The sad part is that this guy actually does have admirable policies once you sit down and look at them. Not all of them of course, the majority of them go against logic, but people bag on him and jump on the bandwagon of Obama without looking at the two candidates wholistically.


THe government of punjab is even getting ready for an Obama government. They have alotted government relief to specfically deal with the farming crisis. For local american farmers, it is good news, but for indians and ESPECIALLY punjabi's, if Obama doesnt balance his reform at home and in the world, it could hurt them. But NOBODY really knows. If his record is any indicator (which they usually arent), he seems sympathetic to international causes especially dealing with arigculture. So, hopefully he will put forth some provisions and not force a social agenda along with a trade one. BUT for the first year or so, Obama will not have that luxury to demand anything in the world market.

People forget that Obama is a politican. He will say whatever it takes to get into power. If India and China pressure on him to ease up on the trade restrictions, and his policies @ home, it could benefit all. im in the boat that thinks he will bring prosperity back to the American market, which in return bring prosperity back to the overseas.


I read somewhere that Obama has a 9% approval rating in South Asia.

 

[Sher]

I read somewhere that Obama has a 9% approval rating in South Asia.

Too bad he isn't running for President of South Asia...

As you said, Obama would most likely advance the country's relationship and advance the two countries. This in itself could help Punjab.

I'm not saying Obama would be perfect, especially for Punjab, but look at it from the perspective of the American president. Should they be worried more about Punjab or America? I am concerned for the well-being of Punjab, but should that really be the deciding factor on who we should vote for? I think it would have alot more effect if it was an election in Punjab.

 

[Meistro]

This is only a small aspect of Obama's campaign. Americans are his first priority. South Asians in America arent going to vote for McCain just because India/Punjab won't be affected with him in office, if in fact, thats what you're implying. Thats why there is such a thing as lobbyists. We're not responsible for keeping India/Punjab's head above water because their agricultural industry wont be producing the same revenue that they did before, now that Obama might be serving. Either we suffer for 4 more years or India/Punjab suffers. Whats the more logical choice? We're coming out of 2 terms with Bush! Im not brushing aside the tragedy of farmers committing suicide. Its very sad that this happens, but this should be an eye-opener for people living in the villages, that an education is really important. Blame it on the Indian government for not providing it to the impoverished areas. Although India is progressing in many ways, Punjab seems to be holding back. We've got our own catch 22 here and theres only so much that can be done.

 

[Basim]

I read somewhere that Obama has a 9% approval rating in South Asia.

Too bad he isn't running for President of South Asia...

As you said, Obama would most likely advance the country's relationship and advance the two countries. This in itself could help Punjab.

I'm not saying Obama would be perfect, especially for Punjab, but look at it from the perspective of the American president. Should they be worried more about Punjab or America? I am concerned for the well-being of Punjab, but should that really be the deciding factor on who we should vote for? I think it would have alot more effect if it was an election in Punjab.

This is only a small aspect of Obama's campaign. Americans are his first priority. South Asians in America arent going to vote for McCain just because India/Punjab won't be affected with him in office, if in fact, thats what you're implying. Thats why there is such a thing as lobbyists. We're not responsible for keeping India/Punjab's head above water because their agricultural industry wont be producing the same revenue that they did before, now that Obama might be serving. Either we suffer for 4 more years or India/Punjab suffers. Whats the more logical choice? We're coming out of 2 terms with Bush! Im not brushing aside the tragedy of farmers committing suicide. Its very sad that this happens, but this should be an eye-opener for people living in the villages, that an education is really important. Blame it on the Indian government for not providing it to the impoverished areas. Although India is progressing in many ways, Punjab seems to be holding back. We've got our own catch 22 here and theres only so much that can be done.

+1. Is Obama running to be India's/Pakistan's president (prime minister) or America's president? India & Pakistan's president should be concerned about & addressing the matters of Punjab, not America's president. :

 

[Summy]

Haha what the fateh... I guess it went over everyones head, or maybe the I worded my post sounded weird.

I am not saying that Obama has to have any sort of alliegence or worry about punjab and india. OBVIOUSLY, he didntmake any of his platforms based on the punjabi farming crisis. If you look at the orginal post, I said how does this affect voters, and how would this affect them. I am just throwing out the facts, and the perceptions of many educated people. This has very little to do with Obama control, this is more how his policies affects the voters mind. Like I said, this might put pressure on the educated voter to put pressure on his or her representative to do something about the crisis, or to be more viliglant on those people who can support farmers abroad. Not for a split second am I asking Obama or thinking that Obama has an obligation to anyone but his american constit`s in this election.


Meistro, I think it has been very overplayed as far as blaming many things in Punjab to ther government. I hate the indian government, probably more than the average person. But the indian government has assisted the farmers GREATLY in this crisis. This crisis is something that is very new, and a new onset. The government for a while was very passive and didnt do much. HOWEVER, especially lately, they have performed excellently as far as educating the farmers, and providing care to the farmers.

I think its so easy to blame government for everything, but if your going to blame them, I think its better to have something substanial. I think on this issue, lately, they have been good, much better than parts of Africa who had a similar crisis and how their respective governments handled that crisis.

 

[Kamran786]

A must read: Is Obama BAD for India and especially Punjab?

Obama may or may not be bad for India.
But for me, this is my country, and this is were my primary interests lie. We've got to worry about ourselves before putting priorities on other countries. If that means
helping our economy before we help others than thats just something that we may need to do.

 

[Varun]

The farm subsidies definitely go beyond Party Platforms. No US President has, or ever will, take away these subsidies because of
a) the Agricultural Lobby is a staple of Capital Hill and has so much stake in the donation funds of hundreds of politicians
b) the idea of hurting US farmers would be extrememly unpopular in the rural belt of our nation (Mid-West) and just in general US societ y because we want to feel like we are self sufficient.

I personally believe in free trade, which means there should not be subsidies in both ways. Yet since the U.S. provides subsidies that allow for dumping, then its fine for India to also have subsidies for its farmers. Now the playing ground is level. This is an issue bigger than Obama though. So I would have to say this post's title is really misleading.

 

[Summy]

The farm subsidies definitely go beyond Party Platforms. No US President has, or ever will, take away these subsidies because of
a) the Agricultural Lobby is a staple of Capital Hill and has so much stake in the donation funds of hundreds of politicians
b) the idea of hurting US farmers would be extrememly unpopular in the rural belt of our nation (Mid-West) and just in general US societ y because we want to feel like we are self sufficient.

I personally believe in free trade, which means there should not be subsidies in both ways. Yet since the U.S. provides subsidies that allow for dumping, then its fine for India to also have subsidies for its farmers. Now the playing ground is level. This is an issue bigger than Obama though. So I would have to say this post's title is really misleading.

Varun Varun Varun, lets talk.

SInce the mid 90's, farming subsisides for farmers have decreased in the efforts of globalization. The farm belt of the United States is largely dominated by lareger operators, whereas the farming operations in Punjab and India are largely rural. I dont know if you have been paying attention but there has been an uproar in the farming belt because of the large amounts of importing the US was doing. According to Nouriel Roubini of New York University (an author quoted in the orginal articled), and nearly any other educated person on the recession would tell you that this is also a huge reason the US began so dependent on the world market, and suffered hugely when inflation started.

In 2006, the US government payed 1.3 billion dollars to farmers who dont actually farm. The problem with the farming sector of the US is that the governemnt spends loads of money on it. It spent in 2005, more than it spent of people on welfare. However, the money does not benefit individual farmers, and the money is going to larger regulating farming agencies, which use international imports as a way to drive up revenue.

You say that the US will never take away subsidies, but thats not the issue. The issue is where the subsidies have been alotted and what the responding affect if. Obama will tighten up on Indian trade, especailly importing. The author argues:

McCain voted 88% against bills that created TRADE BARRIERS (Bad for indian farming, and the economy who uses outsourcing and exporting as important economy drivers)

McCain is one of the few American politicians in either party with the courage and conviction to stand up to protectionist populism. By contrast, Obama embodies protectionism.

McCAIN VOTED 90% OF THE TIME AGAINST EXPORT SUSIDIES FOR US PRODUCERS. (Very similar to George Bushs record, good way to drive profit)

Obama only voted against trade barriers 36% of the time. He had two bills before him regarding export subsidies and voted FOR them borth times.

Obamain 07, voted AGAINST work visa for freign workers. He support FREE TRADE. Free Trade does not always benefit the country that needs traiffs as revenue for the producer of the goods. He support the OMAN free trade act, and has a strong record on free trade. More often he voted for protectionist measures including 100% scanning of imported containers (which would make imports slower and costlier), and emergency farm spending.


You cant just say India should allow subsidies for its farmers, and look everything is equal. India doesnt give Billions away to its farmers each year in an effort to grow their own output. India and punjab, like every other argiculature dependent nation, relies on exporting of goods as a revenue generator. Free trade on countries WHO EXPORT farming goods more than they import it, is not good. US benefits from free trade because their not so dependent on trade at all. India uses tariffs to pay its farmers for their goods.

There is a distinct difference than Obama and McCain. While both will allow subsidies to continue, one candidate is more hell bent on having them dominate US spending. McCain does not support the US arigculture subsidies as much as Obama and the voting shows for it. He believes that it is wasteful spending, (which a lot of it is, spent 1.3 billion on people who DONT farm last year) and he thinks that the world market should dictate the output. He hasnt voted for increases of spending (unlike Obama), but he has voted for greated transperency of the funds.

The article says:
Obama favours extensive subsidies for US farmers, hitting Third World exporters like India. This has been one of the issues on which the Doha Round of WTO is gridlocked. McCain could open the gridlock, Obama will strengthen it.

Obama also favours subsidies for converting maize to ethanol. The massive diversion of maize from food to ethanol has sent global food and fertiliser prices skyrocketing, hitting countries like India. But McCain has always opposed subsidies for both US agriculture and ethanol. While campaigning, he had the courage to oppose such subsidies even in Iowa, an agricultural state he badly needs to win if he is to become president.
----------------------------


With all of this combined, how can you say the title is misleading... Do you think that Obamas policies are beneficial... This is obviously not the case buddy.

 

[manveersihota]

summy what i dun understand is why u puutin down ppl. id we are so "uneducated" then why do u bother posting things? all ur doing is trying to seek attention. and to tell you the truth ur nuthin more than an attention-hungry freak who thinks he's a know-it-all. i said this b4, there is no reason to put down ppl. banda baanh jaa. srsly. ur not gettin a gud rep anyway. if ppl dun noe wu ur talking abt, here's an idea, in stead of being a douche-bag, educate them on the matter. vidya-daan is the best daan. so stop being an A-hole. instead of ppl wanting u off btf and pol, they'll come to u fr advise. ur points are gud, but bro ur way of communicating is wrong.

 

[Summy]

ur not gettin a gud rep anyway.

haha, yeah because thats what I am looking for, a good rep haha. Your still a kid manveer, your like 16 right? when you get a little older you will realize that people could honestly care less about your feelings. its not that im a jerk, or its not that I care how I talk to you, look at my points, if you want to comment, do or so, learn, if not then dont. This whole thing about people saying "watch how you talk", I dont know... that sounds like a personal problem. You should handle it personally...

But again, this is old... this whole thing of change your tone summy, I dont deal well with the ignorant of the world...If your not educated on the subject, im not your friend, dont talk unless you have something intelligent to say, thats something that has flew over too many kids.

tay naalay paa, tu sala gaala kadd da, naalay kehnda, baanda bun jaa... pehla apna vaal dekh mera mcdonalds wala veere, phir mera maagar chh rhey. Aye hai, tu mera enna phikaar rakh daa paa? Aash karo sihota saab, mera vaal naa dekhiyoo, kyon ke tainu putta mai taa nahi baaldna atay tu apna diet kaadey vee nahi kaataounaa haha.

 

[Varun]

You have statistics which should bolster you're argument, but I cannot come to conclusions unless I know the specifications of each bill. For example, one thing you cited as harming free trade was the scanning of containers. I would actually support such a law due to the possibility of illegal immigration that has occured as well as the now ever so important anti-terrorism security threats. In the same way, who knows the specifications of the other bills you cited. Now, as for protectionism. I understand that capitalism has created jobs over the past decades and swept millions of people, from around the world, out of poverty. Yet there still needs to be regulations and oversight. And in each different economic case its important. There are times when protectionism is not the way to go, then there are times when oversight is needed. You cannot just speak in general tongues. Foremost, in this state, when the U.S. government is a prime shareholder of many of the most powerful financial institutions in the world...do you really think there is going to be less populism. Its too late to talk about the government not getting involved.

The main point though. You want to talk about Obama and Indian economic policies. Obama will support the U.S. nuclear deal that has already been passed by Congress (even though he wants to see non-proliferation happen). This will bring billions of dollars to India. Asany economist can tell you, money moves cyclically. One job at a powerplant leads to hundreds of corellated jobs as those billions of dollars trade hands from the original benefactors to other sectors of the economy (everyone from the dhaba stands opening near these workplaces to the realestate developers selling homes to nuclear engineers). That to me is one huge thing.

One quick question, in your previous post you mentioned: "Obama also favours subsidies for converting maize to ethanol. The massive diversion of maize from food to ethanol has sent global food and fertiliser prices skyrocketing, hitting countries like India. But McCain has always opposed subsidies for both US agriculture and ethanol. While campaigning, he had the courage to oppose such subsidies even in Iowa, an agricultural state he badly needs to win if he is to become president. Something else that might hurt the farming industry of punjab ."

How will higher food prices hurt the farmers of punjab? They can sell their product for even greater profit when the demand is high.

 

[HarmanSingh]

Manveer, this is actually a good discussion and I see no problem with it. You can check out SepiaMutiny for a nice discussion on this issue as well, b/c I am pretty sure that is where Summy got this topic from.

Here is a map of the world made by "The Economist" which charted who would win the election if the world could vote. It is not even close, even in India.

http://www.economist.com/vote2008/

This is not necessarily completely related to the original thread, but it does discuss the candidates' stances/statements which affect Sikh Americans, and was compiled by the Sikh Coalition.

http://www.sikhcoalition.org/documents/SikhAmericanVoterGuide2008.pdf

 

[Sher]

Good finds Harman. On the Sikh Coalition one.... look at Gene Amondson's responses. Theyre hilarrious. He must be having tooo much fun running.

 

[manveersihota]

summy u make me laugh. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!