三泰虎

印度人的噩梦:沃尔玛携手中国产品席卷印度市场

印度Rediff网最近发表了Mohan Guruswamy撰写的一篇文章,题为《伟大的中国沃尔玛,为什么零售业外资会扼杀印度工作!》。作者在文章中对外资进入印度的好处和坏处都有提及,并且引用大量数据证明自己观点。文章最后得出结论,即“沃尔玛进入印度意味着美国获得利润、中国获得工作”。文章获得了不少印度网民的好评。

原文标题:Great Walmart of China & why FDI in retail will kill Indian jobs!
原文链接:http://www.rediff.com/business/slide-show/slide-show-1-great-walmart-of-china-and-why-fdi-in-retail-will-kill-indian-jobs/20120105.htm




印度人看中国产品:沃尔玛携手中国产品进入印度市场

Walmart's entry into India will mean profits for the Americans and jobs for the Chinese, says Mohan Guruswamy.

Foreign investment is invariably beneficial as it creates jobs, adds value, and contributes to the GDP.

Companies like Hyundai, Ford and Honda have built a giant automobile industry in India now producing over 2 million cars and tens of thousands of new jobs.

By 2017 India will emerge as the third-largest car-making country in the world, producing over 7 million automobiles. This would not be possible without foreign investment, technology and leadership.

In sector after sector, foreign investment has created huge new capacities catering to domestic and foreign markets. The level of foreign ownership makes no difference to the contribution foreign companies make to the economy.

Mohan Guruswamy称,沃尔玛进入印度意味着美国获得利润、中国获得工作。

外资创造工作,增加附加值,贡献GDP,所以肯定是有好处的。

现代、福特和本田等公司在印度建立了巨大的汽车产业,如今生产超过200万辆的汽车,创造了成千上万的工作。

2017年前,印度将崛起为世界第三大汽车生产国,生产超过700万辆汽车。如果没有外资、技术和领导才能,这是不可能的。

在一个又一个领域,外资创造的巨大产能满足了国内外市场。外商持股的公司和外国公司对(印度)经济的贡献没有什么区别。

担心中国产品涌入,印度人反对沃尔玛进入印度

The desirability of foreign investment must never be questioned as long as it creates jobs, adds value and contributes to development.

And these are just the factors that go against foreign direct investment in retail.

Study after study in developed and developing countries alike have shown that big box retail rather than creating jobs, destroy jobs.

In fact their utility in developed economies is due to the labour savings they achieve. This, combined with bulk buying and the recourse to monopsonic (the opposite of monopoly) practices, results in pushing down producer prices, undoubtedly with resultant benefits to the consumer.

On the other hand, the more of a commodity large retailers purchase in bulk, the lower the prices growers of agricultural commodities obtain! Studies by FAO and Oxfam attest to this.

只要外资创造工作、增加附加值和有助发展,外资就永远不能受到质疑。

以下是反对零售业外资的因素:

发达国家和发展中国家的一项又一项研究表明,零售巨头不是创造工作,而是破坏工作。

事实上,零售巨头在发达经济体的作用就是节省劳动力。连同大量采购和单向采购做法,压低了生产商的价格,无疑给消费者带来实惠。

另一方面,大型零售商采购越多商品,农产品种植者能得到的价格就越低!联合国粮农组织(FAO)和牛津饥荒救济委员会(Oxfam)的研究证明了这点。

For instance, a decade ago coffee growers earned $10 billion from a global market of over $30 billion but now they receive less than $6 billion out of a global market $60 billion.

The cocoa farmers of Ghana now receive only 3.9 per cent of the price of a typical milk chocolate bar but the retail margin hovers around 34.1 per cent.

A banana farmer in South America gets 5 per cent of the retail price of the banana while 34 per cent accrues to distribution and retail.

The average size of a Walmart is about 100,000 sq ft and the average turnover of a store is about $53.2 million, each employing about 300 workers. The turnover per employee averages $175,000.

Walmart has a 9 per cent return on assets, a 21 per cent return on equity, and its CEO Michael Duke's $35 million salary, when converted to an hourly wage, worked out to $16,826.92. In comparison to this new employees are paid $8.75 an hour that would gross $13,650 a year.

比如,十年前,咖啡种植者在全球300多亿美元的市场中获利100亿美元。如今,在600亿美元的全球市场中,他们赚了不足60亿美元。

加纳种植可可豆的农民现在每卖一根牛奶巧克力,利润只有3.9%。而零售利润徘徊在34.1%左右。

南美种植香蕉的农民赚的钱只占香蕉零售价格的5%,而分销和零售的利润是价格的34%。

沃尔玛的平均面积大约是10万平方英尺。每家门店的平均营业额大约是5320万美元,平均雇佣大约300名员工。每名员工的平均营业额是17.5万美元。

沃尔玛的资产收益率是9%,股权收益是21%。沃尔玛的CEO迈克尔·杜克的年薪是3500万美元,时薪相当于16826.92美元。相比之下,新员工的工资是每小时8.75美元,一年就是13650美元。

By contrast the average Indian retailer had an annual turnover of Rs 330,000. Only 4 per cent of the 12 million retail outlets were larger than 500 sq ft in size.

India has 53 towns each with a population over 1 million. If Walmart were to open an average Walmart store in each of these cities and they reached the average Walmart performance per store -- we are looking at a total turnover of over Rs 141,000 million with the employment merely of about 16,000 persons. Extrapolating this with the average trend in India, it would mean displacing about 758,000 persons.

比较起来,印度平均每家零售商的年营业额是33万卢比。在1200万家零售店中,面积大于500平方英尺的零售店只占4%。

印度有53座人口超过一百万的城市。如果沃尔玛在这些城市平均开一家超市,并且营业额达到平均水平——总营业额将超过1410亿卢比,而雇佣的人数只有大约1.6万人。按照印度的这种趋势推测,这意味着75.8万人将失去工作。

Quite clearly Walmart is not going to create more jobs in India. On the contrary it will cause a massive loss of jobs in direct retail.

This is the experience in the USA also. A 2004 study by the Pennsylvania State University concluded that counties with Walmart stores suffered increased poverty, and suggested that it caused displacement of higher paid workers in small family-owned retailers.

Another 2007 study has shown that towns in Nebraska with and without Walmart fared similarly different in terms of joblessness and poverty.

非常明显,沃尔玛不会在印度创造工作,而是造成零售业失去大量工作机会。

这也是美国的经验。宾夕法尼亚州大学2004年的研究得出结论,在有沃尔玛超市的城镇中,贫困是在增加的。研究指出沃尔玛造成小零售商里工资较高的工人失去工作。

另一项2007年的研究显示,在内布拉斯加州中,有沃尔玛和没有沃尔玛的乡镇在失业和贫困方面表现同样不同。

A study of Walmart's expansion in Iowa found that 84 per cent of all sales at the new Walmart stores came at the expense of existing businesses within the same county.

The major argument in favour of the benefits a Walmart or Carrefour will bring centers on the perceived benefits to agriculture and better prices to the farmer.

Empirical evidence from many countries, where big retail chains dominated, show that on the contrary farm realisations actually decline.

A recent joint study in Finland by Agrifood Research Finland and Pellervo Economic Research Institute reveals that for each kilo of rye bread purchased in 2010, for which the consumer paid 3.52 Euros, 1.24 went to the seller, while the grower received only 14 cents. A further 1.74 Euros were shared by the milling company and logistics, while the rest went to the state as taxes. The study also revealed that while the trade got 19 per cent of the takings on food, it went up to 29 per cent in 2009.

一项有关沃尔玛在爱荷华州的扩张的研究发现,新开的沃尔玛超市84%的销售额是以同乡镇的其他超市的损失为代价的。

沃尔玛或者家乐福支持者的主要论点是,它们将给农业带来好处和给农民带来更好的价格。

相反的是,许多国家的经验证明,大型连锁超市占统治的地方,农业实际上是衰退的。

芬兰农产品研究所和佩乐沃经济研究所最近在芬兰的一项联合研究揭示,消费者2010年购买每公斤裸麦面包需要3.52欧元。其中,1.24美元流进卖家的口袋,种植者只得到14分。烘烤公司和物流分享了1.74欧元,其余则是以税收的形式流入国库。这项研究也显示,贸易商在食品上的份额占到了19%,而这一份额在2009年上升到29%。

Finally, the study showed that food prices rose faster than other consumer goods between 2000 and 2010.

Big business and MNC's like PepsiCo, Cargill, ConAgra and even ITC have been procuring food grains and farm produce for several years now and there is no evidence that general prices have increased.

Even where better prices were paid to contract farmers, data available suggests that input costs have been higher.

Simple economic logic tells us that nobody pays more for a commodity that can be obtained for less. Business is about extracting profits and not about charity.

Protagonists of FDI in retail talk a lot about modernising the supply chain. Consider this: The National Sample Survey relating to household expenditures reveals that fruits and vegetables only account for 9.88 per cent of urban household expenditure.

研究最终显示,在2000年到2010年期间,粮食价格比其它消费品上升更快。

大企业和跨国公司,比如百事可乐、美国嘉吉公司、康尼格拉,甚至印度烟草公司,已经采购粮食和农产品几年了,没有证据显示物价上升。

数据显示,即使在承包农民能获得更好价格的地区,投入成本也变得更高。

简单的经济常识告诉我们,没人会为本可以以更低价格买到的商品支付更高的价格。商人是逐利的,而不是做慈善。

零售业FDI的倡导者大谈供应链的现代化。他们认为:有关家庭开支的全国抽样调查显示,水果和蔬菜只占到城市家庭开支的9.88%。

It is widely agreed that the supply chain that links the Indian producer to the domestic consumer is primitive, outmoded and wasteful. Many studies exist that detail the extent of wastage.

One will readily concede that large format retailing with its capacity for bulk procurement and capital investment, even if it accounts for a fraction of the retail trade in the sector, might be able to make some headway in modernising the supply chain.

大家广泛认为,连接印度生产商和国内消费者的供应链是原始、过时和浪费的。许多已有的研究详述了损耗程度。

有人会轻易承认,即使只占零售贸易的一部分,大型零售商的大规模采购和资本投入,可能使供应链现代化取得一些进展。

But before we get into the 'for and against' argument vis-a-vis FDI, we must also ponder over the fact that a modern and nationwide supply chain has been created, indigenously, for milk and milk products which account for 8.11 per cent of household expenditure.

Similarly, we have an effective supply chain for food items such as cereals, pulses, and sugar and edible oils, which together account for 24.16 per cent of household expenditure.

All other non-food goods purchased by our households such as tobacco products and alcohol, processed foods and snacks, toiletries, detergents, garments, etc, which together account for 52.57 per cent of all urban household expenditure, are made available for consumption by modern and efficient supply chains.

但是,在“赞成和反对”FDI前,我们必须掂量这样一个事实:在占家庭开支8.11%的牛奶和奶产品方面,全国范围的现代化供应链已经自主建立。

类似的,我们有许多有效的食品供应链,比如谷类、豆类、糖类和食用油。这些占到了家庭开支的24.16%。

所有其他家庭购买的非粮食产品,比如烟草制品、酒类、加工食品、零食、化妆品、洗涤剂、服装等,总共占了城市家庭开支的52.57%。这些都通过现代化的有效供应链到达消费者那里。

Thus, what the average household does not get from a modern supply chain is a very small part of its purchase. So the argument that the pro-FDI lobby extends vis-a-vis of FDI in retail of modernising the entire supply chain is a bit exaggerated.

The supply chain as it is now is mostly modernised and efficient, and what is yet to be modernised covers only a very small part of urban household consumption.

The argument then that we need the merchants of the western world like Walmart to modernise just 9.88 per cent of the supply chain is a bit bogus and self-serving.

因此,普通家庭不能从现代化供应链那里买到的只占非常小的一部分。那些支持零售业FDI的说客所提出的,能够现代化整个供应链的说法有点夸大其词。

供应链现在已经大部分现代化和高效了。还没有现代化的只占城市家庭消费的很小一部分。

我们需要沃尔玛那样的西方公司来现代化9.88%的供应链,这样的论据有点虚伪和自私。

More than anything else it is Walmart's Chinese connection that should cause us to worry.

While Walmart has 352 stores in 130 Chinese cities with a total turnover of $7.5 billion, Walmart directly buys via its procurement centres at Shenzhen and Dalian over $290 billion worth of goods from more than 20,000 Chinese suppliers, 70 per cent of its 2010 global turnover of $420 billion. (The Atlantic, December 2011 pp82).

最重要的是,沃尔玛和中国人的关系是应该引起我们担心的。

沃尔玛在130座中国城市中有352家超市,总营业额是75亿美元。在深圳和大连的采购中心,沃尔玛直接从2万多家中国供应商采购价值超过2900亿美元的产品,占了2010年沃尔玛4200亿美元全球采购总额的70%。(大西洋月刊,2011年12月,第82页)

If Walmart were a country it would be the fifth largest exporter to the United States of America. This also suggests that Walmart's procurement from China is the major source of its profits.

With its huge monopsonic power, Walmart actually depresses wages, by forcing suppliers to cut costs.

A good example to demonstrate the low wages in the Chinese labour market is contained in a report by Thomas Fuller in The International Herald Tribune of August 3, 2006, which investigated the percentage split in profit in the shoe industry between the Chinese factories and those who market and sell the finished products in the US and Europe.

如果沃尔玛是个国家,那么它是美国的第五大出口国。这也显示沃尔玛在中国的采购是利润的主要来源。

沃尔玛拥有强大的垄断能力,它迫使供应商削减成本,实际上压低了工资。

在2006年8月3日出版的国际先驱论坛报中,托马斯·傅乐发表的一篇报告有一个揭示中国劳动力市场低工资的很好例子。他调查了中国工厂与美国、欧洲营销商在制鞋业的利润分配比例。

The factory owners after the laborious process of manufacturing makes a profit margin of 65 cents per pair of shoes, which are sold ex-factory for $15.30.

"A major US retailer, after factoring in shipping, store rent and salaries, sells the boots for $49.99. Assuming a pretax profit margin of about 7 per cent, an average among large US retailers, it earns $3.46 on the same pair of boots."

However the story doesn't end with the unfair profit margins. The Chinese labourers, who make the shoes, box them and even affix the price tag, are the ones who get the worst deal. The International Herald Tribune says, "Yet for all the sweat that goes into making shoes in Tianjin, the factory payroll is equivalent to $1.30 a pair, 2.6 per cent of the US retail price."

Should the salary of every worker in the Chinese shoe factory be doubled, the retail price in the US would merely go up from $49.99 to $51 or so.

By keeping wages low without the protection of trade unions, China is in effect subsidising exports. What the flow of cheap Chinese goods through the Walmart direct pipeline from China into India will do to Indian companies, particularly the SMEs can well be imagined.

在辛苦生产后,每双鞋子的出厂价格是15.30美元,工厂老板每双鞋子的利润是65美分。

“加上船运、店租和工资后,美国零售巨头每双鞋子卖49.99美元。假设美国大型零售商的平均税前利润大约7%,那么同样一双鞋子的利润是3.46美元。”

然而,不公平的利润分配并没有结束。生产、打包、甚至给鞋子贴标签的中国工人是分配最不公平的。国际先驱论坛报称“在天津,工厂每双鞋子支付的人工成本是1.3美元,只占美国零售价格的2.6%”。

如果中国鞋厂工人的工资翻一番,美国零售价格仅从49.99美元上升到51美元左右。

没有工会的保护,工资被压低。中国实际上是在补贴出口。可以想象,中国廉价商品通过沃尔玛进入印度,将损害印度公司利益,特别是中小企业。

Even without Walmart, Indian SMEs are being driven out in sector after sector by cheap Chinese imports. For instance, there is no light fittings industry left in India. Same for toys.

One can well imagine what a Walmart pipeline will do to the hosiery and woollen goods manufacturers in Ludhiana and Tiruppur.

The once-prosperous clock-making industry around Rajkot has almost entirely fled to China. Millions of jobs in the semi-organised sector now stand threatened.

Interestingly, in 1985, Sam Walton, the founder of Walmart was forced to say: "Something must be done by all of us in the retailing and manufacturing areas to reverse this serious threat of overseas imports to our free enterprise system. Our company is firmly committed to the philosophy by buying everything possible from suppliers who manufacture their products in the United States."

甚至在没有沃尔玛的情况下,印度中小企业也在一个又一个领域被廉价的中国进口商品赶出市场。比如,印度已经没有照明设备行业了。玩具业也一样。

可以想象,中国货通过沃尔玛的倾销,将对卢迪亚纳和蒂鲁布尔的针织品和毛织品生产商造成多大的伤害。

拉杰科特周围曾经繁荣的制表业几乎整个搬到中国了。松散组织部门的数百万份工作受到威胁。

有趣的是,沃尔玛创始人山姆·沃尔玛在1985年被迫称:“我们在零售业和制造业必须采取一些措施来扭转海外进口对我们自由企业制度的严重威胁。我们公司坚决恪守尽可能从美国本土供应商那里采购一切商品的原则。”

Having said all this, one must concede that change is remorseless. The constant displacement of workers by machines and methods is the story of the future.

Textile mills made most weavers redundant, just as robots in automobile manufacturing have rendered many workers as surplus. This is the story in all sectors of manufacturing.

While the future cannot be avoided there is no need to hasten the pain. Big box retail will bring benefits to many stakeholders; not the least being the state, which will see improved realisation of taxes and the construction industry, which will be called to build the new retail centres.

尽管说了这么多,人们必须承认改变是残酷的。机器代替工人是未来的发展趋向。

纺织厂让许多织布工变得多余。汽车制造业的机器让许多工人多余。这是所有制造业领域的现实。

虽然未来不可避免,但没有必要操之过急。大型零售商将给许多股东带来利益。至少国家的税收将增多。新的零售中心将被建设,建筑业将因此提高。

Better quality control and good management methods will spread into other sectors and down the supply chain manufacturers will demand from their suppliers what is demanded of them by their buyers.

Many talk of the revolution in retail, but governments must be more concerned with revolutions forming on the streets.

There are ways of achieving the former while avoiding the latter. Three simple suggestions to tweak the policy on the anvil are:

1. Insist that big box retailer's be foreign exchange neutral. That is, they export as much as they import.

2. Restrict big box retailers to outside municipal limits and to satellite towns instead of restricting them to within the 53 cities with more than a million people each. This will ease the urban chaos and encourage people to move into less expensive housing outside the big cities.

3. And finally, why put limits on foreign equity holdings? Allow companies like Walmart to own 100 per cent of their business in India. At the same time the government must insist that they bring in foreign loans to finance their entire capital investments in India. This will enable Indian financial institutions and banks to remain within sectoral limits and to extend financial assistance to Indian retailers.

Above all the policy-makers must realise that while it is an American corporation earning profits for its US shareholders, Walmart is mainly a retailer of Chinese goods. Its business model is quite unique.

更好的质量控制和管理方式将延伸到其他部门。下游生产商将把买家的要求转达给上游生产商。

许多人谈论零售业革命。但是,政府必须更加关注街道的混乱。

有一些办法可以在取得前者的同时避免后者。对于正在制定的政策,以下是三条用于调整的建议:

1、坚持零售巨头外汇收支平衡。也就是要求他们出口和进口一样多。

2、将零售巨头限制在市区外的卫星城镇,而不是限制在53个超过100万人的城市中。这将减少城市混乱和鼓励人们搬到较便宜的居住区。

3、最后,为什么要限制外资持股比例?应该允许沃尔玛那样的公司在印度建立100%股权的商业。政府同时必须坚持要求他们引进外国贷款来给在印度的投资融资。这将让印度金融机构和银行有能力给印度零售商提供资金支持,并且不会出现过度放贷。

最重要的是,政策制定者必须认识到,沃尔玛虽然是为美国股东赚钱的美国公司,但沃尔玛基本上销售中国产品。它的商业模式非常特别。

As Nick Robbins wrote in the context of the East India Company: "By controlling both ends of the chain, the company could buy cheap and sell dear."

In this case it means profits for the Americans, jobs for the Chinese.

就像尼克·罗宾斯在东印度公司的背景中所写的:“只要控制供应链的两端,公司就可以便宜买进、高价卖出。”

在这里的情况是美国人获得利润,中国人获得工作。

以下是印度网民的评论:



Big departmental stores
by Sensor Technologies (View MyPage) on Jan 07, 2012 10:35 PM | Hide replies

Couple of years ago I remember reading an article on how big departmental sotres has killed small retailers there by ruining ecoonomy of small towns in US. Hope we do not become another victim. We are people of billion.. We need to provide employment to not so skilled also not well educated people too,

我记得几年前看了一篇文章,讲的是大超市如何扼杀美国小镇的小零售商,造成那边的经济受到破坏。希望我们不会成为另一个受害者。我们有十亿人...需要为没有技能和受教育不多的人提供就业。

原创翻译:三泰虎 http://www.santaihu.com

 
There is nothing wrong in FDI in retail!
by Ravi (View MyPage) on Jan 07, 2012 09:03 PM | Hide replies

But the problem is with Walmart and its strategy of exploiting Chinese sweat shops, walmart may replicate the same in India too but that wont help India in developing its underdeveloped rurban or Rural areas. We should have legislation to prevent the dumping of Chinese goods in India and not against FDI in retail.

问题出在沃尔玛和它剥削中国血汗工厂的战略。沃尔玛可能在印度复制,但不会帮助印度发展不发达的农村地区。我们应该立法阻止中国货在印度倾销,而不是反对零售业的外国直接投资。

 
fantastic work by author
by modern chanakya (View MyPage) on Jan 07, 2012 12:29 PM

I have just read one of the most fantastic article on retail FDI. One of the best article on Rediff after a long long time. The article has a good measured approach highlighting all the pros and cons.

这是篇有关零售业FDI的非常好的文章。是很久以来,Rediff发表的最好的文章之一。文章客观公正,赞成的和反对的都有兼顾。

 
no need of wallmart
by ravi raju (View MyPage) on Jan 07, 2012 11:17 AM | Hide replies

No need of wallmart in india.Even in USA wallmart is not allowed in some states.Why should we allow.First ask usa to impliment in all their states then think of india.

印度不需要沃尔玛。即使在美国,有些州也是不让沃尔玛进入的。为什么我们要让它进入?首先叫美国在所有州都让沃尔玛进入,然后再考虑印度。

 
Entry of Walmart
by Gurumurthy Nageswaran (View MyPage) on Jan 07, 2012 11:00 AM

Highly insightful article. But, is it not true that wherever foreign investments came, Indian businesses have got modernised? As you observed, automobiles, Telecom, Banking, Insurance etc. Even now, a number of middlemen are exploiting farmers by paying very low price. It is a fact that the farmers are exploited not only in India but globally. I think we should encourage foreign investment in retail perhaps with a lot of protective measures. One should not be waiting endlessly for the Indian enterprise to catch up to global standards. I feel the arrival of Walmart might result in increased productivity and production of farm products.

非常深刻的文章。不过,只要外国投资进来,印度的商业就会变得发达,这难道不是真的吗?就像你看到的,汽车业、电信业、银行业、保险业等。即使在现在,许多中间商仍通过压低价格来剥削农民。不仅在印度,全世界的农民都是受剥削的。我认为,在拥有许多保护措施的前提下,我们应该鼓励零售业外资。人们不应该无休止等待印度企业赶上全球标准。我感觉沃尔玛的到来可能导致农产品产量的提高。

 
venkata sivananda
fdi in retail is good
by venkata sivananda (View MyPage) on Jan 07, 2012 10:55 AM | Hide replies

Sir you are speaking only on the goods they sell but what about the infrastructure they are going to create which will help in creating more and more job indirectly. The article is focussing only on direct job cuts

作者先生,你只提到了他们卖的产品。那么随之而来的基础设施呢。这将有助间接创造越来越多的工作。文章只关注直接的工作损失。

 
An article worth reading
by prakash kombra (View MyPage) on Jan 07, 2012 10:37 AM | Hide replies

India should first fight corruption and bring back the black money stacked in foreign banks. This will in itself help the citizens of this country. Fire the politicians if they cannot do this.

印度人首先应该反对腐败,将存在外国银行的黑钱要回来。这对国民有帮助。如果政客办不到就下台。

 
great article
by Informed (View MyPage) on Jan 07, 2012 04:40 AM

One of the best and sane articles I've read on this topic. Author has given facts and data to prove his points, has show respect to the other side ie., benefits of FDI, has factually weighed the positives of FDI and counterproductive impact, has also suggested a better way to implement FDI while appreciating the natural evolution of the industry. Great job overall

在这个话题上,这是我读过的最好和最理智的文章。作者以数据和事实证明自己观点,也提到了对立面,比如FDI的好处。这实际上权衡了FDI的正面和负面效果。此外,在赞同行业自然发展的同时,还建议了实施FDI的更好方式。总体来说,写得非常好。

 
China
by Bigb tripathi (View MyPage) on Jan 06, 2012 09:37 PM | Hide replies

People think China gets the manufacturing jobs and all. I say whoever can do it cheap should get the manufacturing jobs. This time it's China ( deservingly so). Tomorrow if Vietnam or Mexico or Ghana can do it cheaper then they will get the manufacturing jobs.

Why does India is getting most of the IT jobs? Because we can do it cheap. If we cannot do it cheap, then customers will move to other places. There should be no double standard.

The day when all chief ministers think and act like Modi, we can hope that we will be able to beat China in some areas in proper way. The banning of imports, hiking excise duty etc. only helps the lazy/inefficient manufacturers at the cost of common man and it encourages more manufactures to be lazy.

人们认为中国独占制造业。我要说的是,不管是谁,只要能生产更便宜的产品,都可以有制造业。这次是中国。明天如果越南、或者墨西哥、或者加纳可以生产更便宜的产品,他们将拥有制造业。

为什么印度获得大部分IT工作?因为我们可以让其更便宜。如果我们办不到,那么顾客将会转移到其他地方。这是没有双重标准的。

当所有首席部长都像穆迪那样思考和行动的时候,我们就可以期待印度在一些领域合理打败中国。禁止进口、提高消费税等方法,只会以牺牲老百姓的代价,帮助懒惰和无效率的制造商,鼓励更多的制造商不求上进。

 
Kudos
by seal a (View MyPage) on Jan 06, 2012 07:10 AM | Hide replies

WOW...What a fantastic article....hope the politicians read it and save this country at least now before its sold away.....Good job.
Nice to see a good article finally on rediff.

WOW...非常好的文章...希望国家在被出卖前,政客能看这篇文章并拯救国家...写得很好。能在rediff最终看到一篇好文章真开心。

 
Plz no war for walmart
by Admn (View MyPage) on Jan 06, 2012 01:14 AM | Hide replies

I recently visit the bharthi-walmart tie up store named as Easyday it was awesome i mean u know for sure the prices are low and apart from their low prices they have fabulous inventory managment and walmart is the pioneer in this field they make u addicted to that store.

我最近参观了巴蒂和沃尔玛的合资超市Easyday。超市棒极了。商品价格低。此外,他们拥有非常好的库存管理。沃尔玛在这个领域是先驱。它会让你迷上那个超市的。

 
Clear Message
by natesan elango (View MyPage) on Jan 06, 2012 12:58 AM | Hide replies

FDI will not do charity work. They need money at all costs. As the author said FDI in Retail sector is "profits for Americans, jobs for Chinese". Our politicians knew about this but they don't care about their own nationals. It happened in America now happening in India.

FDI不是做慈善工作的。他们不惜一切代价获利。作者称零售业FDI是“美国人获利,中国人得到工作”。我们的政客也明白,但他们不关心自己的国民。美国曾经发生过,如今在印度重演。

 
The Chinese Win Either Way
by np pn (View MyPage) on Jan 06, 2012 12:43 AM | Hide replies

The article states if Wal-Mart comes to India then the Chinese win because it is a big boost for thier manufacturing. What the writes ignores is a majority of manufacturing for the world takes palce in China. Irrespective of who sells them, China bases manufactures still win. Here in the US, if I go to any other retailer most products are still from China. So what difference does it make?

文章称,如果沃尔玛进入印度,将极大促进中国制造业,所以中国人是赢家。文章忽视的是世界大多数制造业在中国。不管谁卖商品,中国货都将是赢家。在美国,如果我去其他零售店,大多数产品仍然来自中国。所以,这会有什么不同呢?

Re: The Chinese Win Either Way
by sethu kaliyur (View MyPage) on Jan 06, 2012 02:10 AM
it kills the small and medium enterprises in that country which employ millions of people.


它在那个国家扼杀了雇佣数百万人的中小企业。



 
M G
Its proxy imperialism
by M G (View MyPage) on Jan 05, 2012 09:09 PM

Now Countries don't need big armies to invade other countries and loot them. Their corporations do the same. The motive remains the same for centuries, only the methods have changed. Seriously think about it guys!!! Its no different. Sad but true.

国家现在不需要庞大的军队来入侵和掠夺其他国家。他们的公司代劳了。动机几个世纪以来都没变。只是方式改变了。朋友,认真考虑吧!这没有区别。伤心,不过是真的。

原创翻译:三泰虎 http://www.santaihu.com

 
Kachar Patti
In USA Walmart is an Atom Bomb for other businesses
by Kachar Patti (View MyPage) on Jan 05, 2012 08:30 PM

In USA Walmart is an Atom Bomb for other businesses in the surrounding area. It takes losses initially to kill other businesses in the area. Though Wallmart is closer to my place I never buy anything from Walmart because it kills local businesses and helps Chinese crooks.

在美国,沃尔玛对附近的其他超市是“原子弹”。沃尔玛最初通过亏本来扼杀该地区的其他超市。虽然沃尔玛靠近我住的地方,由于它扼杀了本地超市和帮助中国骗子,我从来没有在那里买过任何东西。

 
FDI in multibrand retail
by vilas apte (View MyPage) on Jan 05, 2012 08:16 PM | Hide replies

from thisarticle one gets the impression that the entry of walmart/carrefour/tesco & metro will benefit china the most,because as mentioned that 70% of the goods on these MNC's racks are manufactured & procured from china. as reported this is the case in usa & europe, it will be similar here when they enter & set up shop in india. i fail to understand why MMS whose no love lost for china is well known is insisting on FDI in multi-brand retail, which indirectly would be helping the chinese manufacturing companies, who presently are facing a slump due to recession in usa & europe. MMS should review this.

这篇文章给人的印象是,如果沃尔玛、家乐福、特易购和麦德龙进入印度,由于这些跨国公司货架上的商品都采购自中国,中国将是最大的受惠者。根据报告,美国和欧洲就是这样的情况。如果跨国公司在印度开设超市,情况也类似。众所周知,辛格不喜欢中国。我无法理解,为什么辛格坚持在多品牌零售中引入外资。这些超市间接帮助由于美国和欧洲不景气而面临衰退的中国制造企业。辛格应该重新评估。

 
We need FDI in basic infrastructure
by Argumentative Indian (View MyPage) on Jan 05, 2012 01:42 PM | Hide replies

Our roads connecting villages to cities are still pathetic. This is a basic facility which developed countries have provided decades ago. This will enable massive reduction in transportation costs and fast movement of vegetables etc. by road.

We need a much more widespread, safe, hygenic and sophisiticated rail network. I am well aware that ours is the world's largest rail network etc., but that is just NOT good enough. We don't have the kind of air & road networks that both China and US have and we're still much poorer than both, so passengers will still travel on rail more than on planes or cars.

(我们在基础设施上需要外资)。我们连接城市和乡村的公路仍然很差。这是发达国家在几十年前就具备的基本设施。公路能够大规模降低运输成本和加快蔬菜的运输。

我们需要更广泛、安全、卫生和先进的铁路网。我很清楚印度铁路是世界上最大的铁路网。不过那不够好。我们没有中国和美国那种级别的航空网和公路网。我们仍然比两国穷得多。所以,乘坐火车旅行的乘客仍然比坐飞机或者汽车的乘客要更多。

 
FDI retail
by FRANCIS DIAS (View MyPage) on Jan 05, 2012 12:37 PM

You should also give us the other side's version of how it would be good.Yes the Chinese large scale production of all goods has killed many a market. And we are now realising that their quality is getting worse.
Indians should realise this.All political parties should (silently) without much fanfare discourage Indians from using Chinese products.India's vast market has become a huge dumping ground for the Chinese & other products due to Globalisation which was forced on us. Also our retailers are no better. Look at their huge profit margins and what do they pay their workers?

你应该给我们讲外资好处的那一面。是的,中国人大规模生产的各种产品扼杀了许多市场。我们现在认识到他们的质量越来越差。印度人应该认识到这点。在不过分宣扬的情况下,所有政党应该阻止印度人购买中国货。由于强加给我们的全球化,印度广大的市场成为了中国货和其他产品的倾销地。此外,我们的零售商也不是什么好货。看看他们巨额的利润和支付给工人的工资。

 
Good way to make India Poorer
by Suresh (View MyPage) on Jan 05, 2012 12:13 PM

at least indian traders & retail houses like
reliance / TATA invested in the country ....not like walmart taking profits out making US economy stronger while improving chinese job market ...its same as east india did to make indian economy weaker.

chinese govt offers tax incentive to export plus by manupilating their currency they goveadditional 12 - 18% extra incentive to destroy indian industries

(外资是让印度变穷的好方法)。至少印度贸易商和零售商会在国内投资,比如信实和塔塔...而沃尔玛只是从中获利,让美国经济更强大,让中国就业市场改善...这就像东印度公司让印度经济变弱一样。

中国政府通过税收优惠和操纵汇率的方式鼓励出口。他们通过12%到18%的额外激励措施来摧毁印度产业。

 
MNC's
by Snehendu Biswas (View MyPage) on Jan 05, 2012 11:51 AM | Hide replies

Pepsico buys potato for Rs. 6/- per kg from farmers in Punjab & WB and sell the processed products like Lays chips for more than Rs 300/- per kilo. Different small indian companies produce those for them. Selling a processed potato over 50 times its buyng cost...Does it make any sense?

百事公司以每公斤6卢比的价格从旁遮普邦和西孟加拉邦农民那里购买土豆。然后加工成土豆片那样的产品,并以每公斤300卢比的价格出售。许多印度小公司为百事加工。以采购成本的50倍来出售加工过的土豆...这样有意义吗?

Re: MNC's
by Arun Kumar (View MyPage) on Jan 05, 2012 12:02 PM
Your absolutely correct on the contrary why cannot Indian companies make similar and better product than Pepsico and sell it in much cheaper rate than Pepsico ....dont u think there is a food for thought in this??? Do we lack in lack in marketing strategy?


完全正确。不过,为什么印度公司不生产比百事更好的产品,然后以更便宜的价格出售...你不觉得这是值得思考的吗?我们是否缺少营销策略?



 
excellent insight
by sudhir jain (View MyPage) on Jan 05, 2012 11:39 AM

i am yet to come better insight on retail economy. i am proud of this author. i would like to contact him.

(非常有见地)。我对零售经济看得更透彻了。我为作者自豪。我想和他联系。

 
WELCOME TO FDI
by Bineet Kumar (View MyPage) on Jan 05, 2012 10:52 AM

We Indian are complacent and wish to live by that. We must embrace world rather going back. FDI will bring better management and logistics to the country. We should not die to argument who fear change.

India has witness all this in telecom, bank etc but we all know finally things have improved that could not have been possible otherwise.

LET US WELCOME FDI FOR IMPROVEMENT.

EFFICIENCY IS WELCOME TO INDIA.

Lets us kick off our old habits.

我们印度人满足于现状。我们必须拥抱世界,而不是倒退。外资将给国家带来更好的管理和物流。我们不应该毁在害怕改变的人的手中。

印度已经在电信和银行业见证过这些。我们都知道情况最终改善了。否则,这些都是不可能的。

为了进步,让我们欢迎外资。印度欢迎效率。让我们摒弃老习惯。

 
illogical article
by chaitanya vinjamuri (View MyPage) on Jan 05, 2012 09:55 AM | Hide replies

this argument doesn't make sense.
Looks like this guy doesn't like china.

(没有逻辑的文章)。这种争论没有意义。看起来,这个家伙不喜欢中国。

Re: illogical article
by Hari Narasimhan (View MyPage) on Jan 05, 2012 10:06 AM
Not an illogical article, he has expressed his views.It is up to you to take it or leave it.


Liking or disliking China is his wish.


不是一篇没有逻辑的文章。他已经表达了自己的观点。接不接受是你的事。喜不喜欢中国是他的自由。


Re: illogical article
by watcha doon (View MyPage) on Jan 05, 2012 11:05 AM
On the contrary this article makes a lot of sense! The author has brought substantial data to the table and is justifying his statements with reasoning. Is that making you nervous Mr Chaitanya?


恰恰相反,这篇文章非常有意义!作者引用大量的数据来证明自己的观点。这是否让你紧张,Chaitanya先生?


此文由 三泰虎 编辑,未经允许不得转载!:首页 > 印度人看中国 » 印度人的噩梦:沃尔玛携手中国产品席卷印度市场

()
分享到:

相关推荐