PC Models That Sound Like Alphabet Soup

Does it ever seem like PC manufacturers are clueless when it comes to actually selling products? or that they have no interest in making their products seem desirable, interesting, or fun? Let’s say that you’re in the market for a laptop. You do your research, and you narrow your choices to just a few likely candidates. “Hmmm,” you think. “Which one sounds best? Well, i could get a toshiba satellite L645D-s4036, an HP Pavilion Dv4-2173nr, or a Dell Inspiron iM501r-1459MrB.”

Don’t those model names just roll off your tongue?

Um, no. They’re a garbled grab bag of inharmonious numbers and letters. Can anyone really get excited about a product whose name can’t be recalled, much less repeated, without a teleprompter?

The products that i mentioned above aren’t exactly obscure items either; all three are best sellers at Amazon. so that means someone is buying them, even if their names have all the sizzle of a Microsoft security Bulletin code.

Why do PC names have to be so deadly dull? Consider the names of the latest phones: Droid incredible, iPhone 4, Samsung vibrant—simple, direct, zippy names all. Maybe this is one reason why throngs of buyers line up to snag the latest phone, whereas you never see a news report about people queuing up for a hot new notebook.

Sure, phone makers have it easier in some ways: fewer products in the line, fewer configuration options. But simplifying a name just requires a little discipline, creativity, and maybe—gasp!— even plain old fun. it works for car manufacturers, why not for PC makers?

Some manufacturers might argue that these unwieldy names are highly descriptive, giving an accurate representation of the internal options a buyer can expect. Te problem with that argument: PCs, both desk- and lap-bound, are now so configurable that no label can hope to encapsulate what’s really inside. Within any given line of laptops, you can chose from a panoply of processors, storage options, and more. Tat kind of choice is great; there’s just no need to call out every combination of options in the machine’s name.

Designed to Confuse

A cynic might say that computer manufacturers design their naming conventions to produce confusion. obfuscation isn’t accidental; it’s the point.

If a big-box store advertises a Widgettech Huzzah 5097B-15iJ laptop, it does not have to worry that a consumer may demand that the store match the price that a retail outlet across town is offering on the Widgettech Huzzah 5097B-15iK. in reality, there may be virtually no difference between the two units, but the consumer doesn’t know that.

Complex names also make online price comparisons impossible. Dozens of models; thousands of configurations; indecipherable, protean prices? Don’t sweat it; just click the ‘Buy Now’ button.

Still, i find it hard to believe that in - creasing customer confusion is an effective marketing strategy. Most manufacturers these days are selling a computing “experience,” not just a bundle of components. so why can’t they pick a name that conveys that experience and lose all the follow-on letters and numbers.

Customers would rejoice—and maybe even ask for products by name.

Mitul Choksi

7-September 2010

11 AM Indian Standard Time

Landmark decision: Vedanta denied mining rights

The Indian Government's decision not to permit the British company Vedanta to mine bauxite in the Niyamgiri Hills of Orissa is a landmark decision. The company has been known to publicly flout the local laws namely the Forest Rights Act and the Environment Protection Act, 1986.

The company has also been issued a show cause notice regarding its alleged non compliance with the provisions of the Environment Protection Act at its Lanjigarh refinery. The Government's decision insists that even the biggest companies must strongly adhere to the law of the land and not take it for granted.

It would be even more fruitful if the Government, in the interest of upholding the law and delivering justice punish the Government officials who helped Vedanta to break the law. It has been argued by some and accepted by the Government that the officials were acting in the best interests of the state and the nation at large. So in effect, they have been given a 'clean chit'. This decision raises the question whether this selective adherence to law involves some politics on part of the Government.

If the Government imposes this kind of punishment retrospectively then India will surely turn into an industrial wasteland as much of Indian industry has thrived in a similar fashion as Vedanta was attempting to.

Had Vedanta succeeded in acquiring this land the Government permission for mining it, it would have left the tribal people of the hills without their land which they consider sacred and as important to their livelihood as their arms and legs. It is in essence "the only place they can call home". They cannot migrate to nearby towns and villages as their lifestyle is totally different than those of people residing in urban and even "modern" rural centers. These tribes are in fact protected by the Schedule V of the Indian constitution and are entitled to some special rights which include the right of not being driven away from their land even in lieu of "suitable compensation".

The failure of Vedanta can be attributed to many reasons, the primary being its inability to create a warm image in the minds of the tribal people through its CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) initiatives. The primary motive of any CSR initiative is to build positive long term relationships with its stakeholders (which include the surrounding community which it operates within).

If Vedanta had done its CSR properly, it might not have come to this. Thats a very big IF....!

Mitul Choksi

August 26, 2010

2:56 PM Indian Standard Time

To Save Africa We Need to Ignore its Nations

NOTE: PLEASE VOTE IN THE POLL ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THIS PAGE

Yes, I know the title sounds a little odd. How can we ignore the nations of the "Dark Continent" in order to save it. Diving directly into the topic I explain how.

For years we have known African nations to be under the clutches of its so called "Big Men", ruthless dictators who have held on to power despite of anything and everything. These men led African nations to ruin economically, socially and politically.

Most African nations achieved their independence in the 1960s (in fact 17 nations celebrate their 50th year of independence in 2010). These nations gained independence with great hopes and aspirations of ridding their poverty and developing a sustainable standard of living.

Unfortunately, all but one nation fell under the clutches of ruthless power hungry dictators who did anything and everything in their power to hold on to power including repression, extreme press censorship and even genocide. Needless to say, the economies of these countries suffered along with its population who became more poor in the years after independence than they were before. The only notable exception is Botswana (in Southern Africa) which has a stable multi-party electoral system and regularly holds free and fair elections. Its economy is also an exception as it has a rapidly developing economy and is considered to me a middle income country with per capital GDP exceeding US$ 6000.

African nations have been able to survive for so long with so much impunity primarily because of two reasons, 1) Recognition by Western governments and 2) Foreign Aid from these nations

All this "help" from Western nations was basically to ensure that Africa does not get attracted to the Soviets in the Cold War.

But the Cold War has ended and there is no major need for the West to continues supporting Africa like it did before the end of the Cold War. The first thing that these donor countries should do is to stop keeping these nations afloat with all their aid money. To do so, the international community should join hands in coming together and de-recognizing these nations and expelling them from the United Nations. This will force the African leaders to look for support inwardly as they will no longer have the support of the rest of the world.

This suggestion might sound radical but these type of actions were taken in the 1970s in Taiwan. The loss of recognition for Taiwan meant that it had lost support of the West in its fight for survival against China. The reigning Kuomintang party had no option but to liberalize the economy, legalize political parties, abolish martial laws and bring in a truly democratic system. The results are for all to see today is Taiwan is a major tech hub in the global economy today.

But what does this de-recognition mean in practice? It means that the international community will tell oppressive regimes like the ones in Chad, Rwanda, Sudan, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Togo and others to extract their populations from horrors that their governments have put them in and provide them with at least the basics of life like food, shelter, security and basic rights to begin with.

The logistics of derecognition would no doubt be complicated. Embassies would be withdrawn on both sides. These states would be expelled from the United Nations and other international organizations. All macroeconomic, budget-supporting and post-conflict reconstruction aid programs would be canceled. (Nongovernmental groups and local charities would continue to

receive money.)

If this were to happen, relatively benevolent states like South Africa and a handful of others would go on as before. But in the continent’s most troubled countries, politicians would suddenly lose the legal foundations of their authority. Some of these repressive leaders, deprived of their sovereign tools of domination and the international aid that underwrites their regimes, might soon find themselves overthrown.

African states that begin to provide their citizens with basic rights and services, that curb violence and that once again commit resources to development projects, would be rewarded with re-recognition by the international community. Aid would return. More important, these states would finally have acquired some degree of popular accountability and domestic legitimacy.

Like any experiment, de- and re-recognition is risky. Some fear it could promote conflict, that warlords would simply seize certain mineral-rich areas and run violent, lawless quasi states. But Africa is already rife with violence, and warlordism is already a widespread phenomenon. While unrecognized countries might still mistreat their people, history shows that weak, isolated regimes have rarely been able to survive without making significant concessions to segments of their populations.

For many Africans, 50 years of sovereignty has been an abject failure, reproducing the horrors of colonial-era domination under the guise of freedom. International derecognition of abusive states would be a first step toward real liberation.

NOTE: PLEASE VOTE IN THE POLL ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THIS PAGE

Mitul Choksi

13 June 2010

12:57 PM Indian Standard Time

Rant - American Double Standards

US Attorney General Eric Holder categorically went on the record saying that the American government will be comprehensive and aggressive and will not rest until justice is done in respect the oil spill caused from the collapsed oil rig of British Petroleum (BP) in the Gulf of Mexico. The spill has reportedly caused tremendous loss to the coastal economies of the United States along with incalculable damage to the ecological environment and marine life.

The Attorney General even announced a criminal as well as a civil investigation into the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The administration of Barack Obama has vowed to hold the oil giant BP accountable for the disaster caused by its collapsed rig for billions of dollars.

However the world's worst industrial disaster was the in Bhopal in 1984. It has believed to claim up to 15000 lives and damaged the lives of thousands others. When asked if the US government will put more pressure on Dow Chemicals which bought Union Carbide Corporation a decade ago for cleaning up the site and extraditing Union Carbide executives including former CEO Warren Anderson who fled India just a few days after the accident and is absconding ever since the State Department officials diplomatically said "No".

The judgment given of two years in prison and fines of a few thousand dollars with no mention of Anderson is a travesty of justice which has left even American lawyers aghast.

Had this entire situation been the other way round and had an Indian company (or any other non-US company) been responsible for a similar disaster in the US, I am sure that the Americans would have left no stone unturned in getting their hands around the necks of the foreign company's management. If the management would have fled the US just like Anderson fled India, the US would have used "big brother scare tactics" to get them extradited to the US. If this seems far fetched then let me point to an example of what the US did in Pakistan. The Pakistani authorities have regularly been apprehending "terror suspects" on their soil and handing them over to the Americans even though an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis disdain these acts.

America was not likely to extradite Anderson even if he was convicted in absentia in India. The possibilities are even less now at a time when the US is keen to sell nuclear technology to India and the Indian government is facing a lot of heat from its allies as well as the opposition for agreeing to a "limited liability" clause in the nuclear agreement which absolves American corporations from paying astronomical amounts of damage in case another Bhopal like tragedy ever occurs in the future.

Its time we stood up to this double standard of America and at the same time kick our government in its derriere for taking this softly and sitting back like towards.

Remember, we will not be able to blame people in Bhopal for chanting "Death to America" if this sham justice goes through just like another run of the mill industrial accident.

A single currency is not required for economies to prosper

The recent crisis in Greece has exposed the inherent problems of the Euro. A currency adopted by 16 separate countries of the European Union (EU), more commonly known as the Euro Zone countries, the Euro has been through an almost unblemished and prosperous existence in the last 11 odd years since it came into being when the Euro Zone countries relinquished their own sovereign currencies and adopted a single and unified currency under the Euro.

During the global financial crisis of 2008-2009, it was widely believed among a large majority of people ranging from laymen to hedge fund managers that the Euro was a haven of safety where people could park their savings and investments without any fear of degradation of the currency and thus shield them from the depreciation of their money. This was a time when the fall of the US Dollar was considered imminent (along with the end of American hegemony in the world economy). Oh, how the times have changed!

It is now evident that the kind of crisis that has occurred in Greece and is feared to occur in Portugal, Spain and even Italy was inevitable.

The reason why this kind of crisis was bound to happen is that the Euro has been adopted in a situation where the countries that have adopted it have done so in a semi autonomous economic fashion where the European Central Bank (ECB) holds the power to issue and regulate the currency but the member nations themselves hold the authority to regulate their own sovereign finances which are merely monitored at the Euro Zone level but not regulated by questionable and ineffective laws. The second reason is a mere extension of the first. The Euro has been adopted by an economic "Super State" (the Euro Zone) while the politics of the member states is still an internal matter of the member countries. Thus, while there is an economic union there isn't a political one.

The introduction of the Euro with a low common rate of inflation (the law of averages is at work here) caused sharp declines in the rates of interest in many of the member countries which until the adoption of the single currency, had high borrowing rates. This resulted in these countries succumbing to the temptation of increasing government borrowing at the now lower interest rates resulting into ever rising rates of debt to GDP ratios. The debt to GDP ratio is as high as 115% in Greece and Italy.

Until recently before the crisis most debt issued by Euro Zone countries was treated as equal resulting in maintenance of the low interest rates of high debt countries. This continued until a default seemed clear in the near term for countries like Greece which might now have to go for a massive debt restructuring (read: refinancing) with help from other rich Euro Zone countries (read: Germany) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Even after the crisis has surfaced, Greece does not have the adequate tools to fight it as it is locked into the Euro. If Greece still had its own currency - the drachma, it would be able to fight this situation by devaluing its currency and thus help boosting exports and reducing imports. This is one of the biggest if not the biggest drawback of a single currency. Greece also loses the ability to control interest rates and use monetary policy effectively.

Economic blocs around the world have a unified mechanism for increasing inter-regional as well as intra-regional trade but do not have a single currency precisely because of the reason mentioned above. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the East African Community (EAC), the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) are examples of economic blocs with members agreeing on trade mechanisms but maintaining separate currencies.

Despite all these problems the Euro still looks resolute enough to survive this on going crisis but from the looks of things the Euro Zone may lose some of its members with only countries fiscally strong enough remaining in the zone with perhaps a resurgent and strong Euro. Looking back one can say that countries which were fiscally weak and having high debt-GDP ratios were allowed to join the union which ultimately lead to this crisis.

Even if the union manages to frame some sort of policy to control fiscal irregularities amongst members in the future, the problems of having a single currency will still remain.

Mitul Choksi

30th May 2010

11 PM Indian Standard Time

3G Auction Madness

While it is true that the introduction of 3G (3rd Generation) Mobile Services will change the way how me perceive the marriage of the cellular phone and the Internet the way the 3G services and its insanely precious spectrum is being treated by the government and telecom companies is sheer madness in my opinion.

The first thing that comes to my mind is how the exorbitant price of the spectrum can be justified by telecom companies in such a cut throat competitive market. This question becomes even more difficult to answer when one realizes that telecom companies do not have a proper business model in mind for attracting and maintaining 3G subscribers. Another complication added to the mix is the recommendation from Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to companies having more than the floor 6.2 MHz of spectrum to pay up.

If this recommendation comes to fruition then companies like Vodafone Essar and Bharti Airtel will end up paying around 18000-19000 crore rupees for 2G and 3G spectrum. Add to this capital expenditure of 8000-9000 crore rupees for establishing and launching 3G services and capital costs at around 12-13 percent or Rs. 3000 crore and you get a stock market panic in the telecom sector. The market rightly questions these extremely high costs for 3G services as it fears whether these companies will be able to get a sufficient number of customers who are willing to pay significantly higher fees to access high speed Internet services on their cell phones.

If this does not happen then the telecom companies will have no other option but to use the free portion of the 3G spectrum to provide 2G service (voice and text services ) which is already a very cut throat market and ultimately end up being big time losers.

This basically means that these companies will require one out of every five subscribers to generate a revenue of at least Rs. 500 (this is something Reliance Communications and TATA) are currently earning with their 3G Internet cards). But even they do not have the magic one out of five number. Converting 20% of their subscribers into 3G users in a relatively short to medium period seems quite unlikely for these telecom companies.

And then there is the big question of state owned telecom companies namely MTNL and BSNL.

Both companies have agreed to take 3G spectrum a year ago but haven't made much headway in getting subscribers, so their 3G revenues are minimal. The problem though lies in their agreement to pay the auction price for the 3G spectrum. MTNL could end up paying 6000 crore rupees for Delhi and Mumbai circles while BSNL will have to pay 9000 crore rupees for the rest of India (the total price for a pan India license is Rs. 15000 crore). Thanks to TRAI recommendations MTNL may also have to pay up Rs. 2700 crore for the extra 2G spectrum whereas BSNL will end up paying Rs. 3100 crore if the recommendation is accepted by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT).

The only hope for these two state owned companies lies in the hands of the government coming out with some sort of special dispensation for them. Whether private telcos will take that lying down and whether the Competition Commission of India (CCI) will cry foul remain unanswered questions.

Mitul Choksi

18th May 2010

7:57 PM Indian Standard Time

Only Fools will pre-order the Apple iPad

Friday morning, the fool's parade started. Apple is taking online "pre-orders" for its iPad tablet, which is supposed to begin shipping on April 3 in the United States. Buying a new kind of product sight unseen is foolish. Especially given how mysterious Apple has been on what the iPad can do and what restrictions on capabilities and media access it will place on users and content providers.

Why blow $500 to $830 on a device that may not be what you expect? Just wait a mere three weeks to see for sure what it actually does and what surprises, good and bad, Apple has packed into the iPad.

Don't get me wrong: The iPad concept is promising in many ways. And I have no doubt that the iPad will appeal to many people even if it's not perfect. But we've all seen promising product demonstrations that resulted in major letdown when we finally got a hold of the real thing. Why take that chance? After all, the first-generation iPad is particularly likely to have disappointments, as it's the version that will tell us what, after the hoopla dies down, Apple should have done.

Sure, we can expect Apple to make future innovations in the iPhone OS (which the iPad uses) available to the first generation of iPad devices through OS upgrades -- as Apple has nicely done for iPhone and iPod Touch owners. But the iPad's hardware isn't upgradable, so you'll be stuck with the iPad's relatively low amounts of memory and its lack of connectors such as USB that I would expect Apple to remedy inthe future. And you'll be stuck with whatever iTunes-based content locks Apple decides to place on media content and e-books.

Remember, the same thing happened with the iPod Touch, Apple's iPhone-based PDA. The first-generation iPod Touch could play only a few sounds and even then only at a whisper, so its calendar alarms and new-email alerts were useless unless you wearing its earphones. You couldn't change the volume without using the touchscreen -- a real issue when driving, jogging, or carrying groceries. There was no microphone, so you couldn't take voice memos or use services like Skype. (Apple even blocked external microphones from working on it!) Despite Apple making sure each iPhone OS revision has continued to support the first-generation iPod Touch, those hardware limits remain in the actual devices.

You can bet that similar types of issue will be discovered in the first iPad.

Maybe I'm wrong -- maybe the iPad will be the full "magic" that Steve Jobs promises. Wonderful! If that's the case, buy one when you know it really is magic --after people not employed by Apple have had a chance to really use it and put it through its paces. Until then, why send Apple your money until you know for sure? Doing so would be, well, foolish.

A fool and his money are soon parted, the saying goes. Let's hope most Apple fans are as smart as they claim to be.

Why do we need to thank Microsoft?

I know this might be a little surprising blog entry for most people who know about the famed history of Microsoft and the various trials (literally) and tribulations it has gone through since its inception in 1975.

Microsoft is generally considered as monopolistic uncompetitive software behemoth that rules the computer operating system and productivity software market with an iron fist and forces computer manufacturers, distributors and consumers with no other option than its Windows and Office products. The fact that Microsoft's software has historically been buggy and and plagued with countless security problems (remember Code Red) doesn't do it any good in scoring good points in the public image.

Yet, despite knowing all this I am saying that we should thank the Redmond, Washington based software giant. I go through my arguments in the following paragraphs.

Everyone in the technology and business community owe a big debt to Microsoft and its founder Bill Gates and CEO Steve Ballmer. These guys taking the concept of computing, revolutionized it and then made it ubiquitous.

It is generally considered 'hip' to criticize Microsoft for its failures (remember Microsoft Bob and Windows ME) especially on the consumer side of computing but even though they faced many failures ranging from bad marketing (Windows Vista), bad security (Windows 2000 and Windows XP pre-SP2) to simply a really poor products (Windows ME and Windows 98 First Edition) they have somehow managed the job of getting almost every consumer and every business on a single platform. Although the platform is still closed its ubiquity makes interoperability very easy.

While some argue that Apple has superior products (which is debatable) they don't realize that the recipe for such "proclaimed superiority" rides on the back of Apple's total control of the software and hardware platform of their products. This is true for all their products including Macs, iPhones, iPods and even the brand new iPad. Apple has this control whereas Microsoft does not. This same feature of Apple made it a niche product (even though it is superior in some aspects) and made Microsoft a ubiquitous product.

Since the boom of computing started in the 1980s Apple developed a certain monopoly not only over its products but also on its distribution channels. And just like any other monopoly in the world Apple kept the prices of its products considerably higher compared to cheap PCs with Windows. This situation made it a no-brainer for businesses to go for the Windows based PC rather than the more expensive Macintosh.

This eventually led to the increase in market share of the Windows platform which made it a no-brainer for software developers who obviously started to write programs for Windows as more and more people would be targeted through the Windows platform.

Meanwhile Microsoft made backward compatibility (the ability to run programs for older versions of Windows to run on newer versions of Windows) a key aspect of its software development. This inevitably led to code bloating and lessening of innovation but from a brighter perspective it made businesses rest assured that its mission critical applications would not break down on a newer version of Windows. This was not the case with Apple.

I must note here that this blog post is not meant as an attempt to bash Apple but is to make people realize that Microsoft is responsible for making computing ubiquitous and reachable and affordable to all.

Of course Apple has its bright side too. No one thought that Apple (a computer company) would revolutionize the music industry with its legendary iPods or the phone industry with its iPhone. The iPad too looks promising but we'll have to wait and watch how it turns out to be.

The only thing Microsoft needs to fear and work for is its gradually eroding innovation. They have shown in recent months with the launch of Windows 7 that they can innovate but they have their work cut out for them as now Apple is charging ahead with breakthroughs in technology and awe inspiring innovation.

But for the time being we should look at the brighter side and thank Microsoft....

PLEASE VOTE ON THE POLL ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THIS PAGE

Mitul Choksi

February 10, 2010

2:32 PM Indian Standard Time

The trouble dealing with India's deficit

As we proceed closer and closer towards the Union Budget 2010-11 a question that is being commonly asked in the governmental as well as intellectual circles is that of India's bulging fiscal deficit.

The key points being discussed are whether the government will keep on upholding the various "stimulus" measures that it provided to the economy in the aftermath of "The Great Recession" (which to be fair was not so great in the case of India!).

But the question of fiscal deficit is not only being faced by India but rather by the finance ministries of all major and industrialized nations in the world including the US, UK and numerous nations of the Euro Zone.

According to the Finance Minister (FM), Mr. Pranab Mukherjee's own projections he sees India's fiscal deficit at 6.8% by the end of 2009-10. But there are signs already that the fiscal deficit may remain much higher and the FM misses his target. The Central Fiscal Deficit (CFD) stood at a whopping 7.9% in the first half of fiscal 2009-10 as compared to 4.4% for the corresponding period in the previous fiscal year.

The financial ministry is showing indications of curbing this stimulus and gradually removing it altogether in a gradual process but the road does indeed seem very tough and tricky for the FM to meet his target and reduce the deficit.

The key reasons why I believe that reducing the deficit is going to be tough for the FM are listed as follows:

1. Generally the activities for which the government provides various ministries with money take time to start and thus spending picks up gradually, only accelerating in the end of the financial year. Thus we haven't seen the real expenditure happening as of now and will only get a clear picture of the total expenditure towards the end of the FY that is still around 2 months or so away.
2. One of the other major reasons why the deficit won't budge is that the tax revenues of the government will not pick up this time unlike the previous years due to a sharp decrease in tax rates in various avenues, especially indirect taxes like CENVAT (Central Excise). Excise revenues of the government have declined nearly a quarter in the November-January period as compared to the previous year due to a sharp decrease in duty rates even though the industrial production has risen in the same period compared to the corresponding period in the previous year.
3. Direct tax collections have risen only marginally this year.
4. Customs and Service Tax collections are down significantly.
5. The Tax-GDP ratio which is a very important economic indicator has gone from 12% in the April-September period last year to 10.3% in the current fiscal year.
6. The government also has to provide for other expenditures like fuel subsidies, food subsidies, loan waivers to farmers and many other such expenses.
7. The government can't just forgo spending on the initiatives taken by it in the previous years which include many large social sector programs that require a lot of spending.
8. The government also needs to allocate sufficient funds to various ministries and departments in the upcoming fiscal so as to not hinder their working and ensure smooth working of these departments.
9. The 3G spectrum auctions which were earlier slated to be held this fiscal year are more or less likely to be held in the next fiscal (or even in the one after that) due to various bureaucratic hurdles. The auction was supposed to fetch the government anywhere between 30-50 thousand crore rupees which would have been a great help in covering the deficit

Looking at all these things, I think its safe to say that some sort of severe austerity drive and maybe even gradual tax increases are in store for us including monetary tightening by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to control credit growth (not to mention control the spiraling inflation).

I don't think the budget will have anything "stellar" in store for us although the government may concentrate on taking measures to ease tariffs and taxes for specific sectors who really do need its support in order to thrive or survive.

One thing is certain. The stimulus measures will go away fairly rapidly restoring the pre-recession tax regime in order for the government to facilitate an increase in its revenues. And anyway, we won't need the stimulus in a few months time as the economy will be almost back to the boom time growth rates.

As Union Finance Secretary Ashok Chawla recently said in a meeting of leading representative body of trade and industry "Too much stimulus when the body is getting healthy may not be a good thing. It can be injurious to health."

Let's wait for 28th February to find out what happens....

Mitul Choksi

4-Feb-2010

11:19 PM Indian Standard Time