VC/Entrepreneur since 99. Building Climateh Tech ecosystem thru GoMassive Investing in Climate: https://nitter.cf/t.co/HfrwZbox53 Operating : https://nitter.cf/t.co/IeYShkdQlY
Around
Joined April 2011
- Tweets10.9K
- Following742
- Followers2.9K
- Likes20.3K
Shailesh Vickram Singh retweeted
People wonder why I'm so obsessed with donkeys. I've looked into it, and my only finding is that the rest of you are underdoing it.
The donkey was built for the ground where everything else gives up. It lives on thorn and scrub that a horse would starve beside, climbs rock on hooves like chisels, cools itself through those ears, and can lose nearly a third of its body weight in water, carry on eating, then drink 25 litres in three minutes and walk off as if nothing happened. We tamed it 7,000 years ago in the dry country of East Africa, and it has been the animal of the hard places ever since.
So it was the donkey, long before the horse, that carried civilisation on its back. One of Egypt's first pharaohs was buried at Abydos with ten donkeys laid in graves beside him, every spine worn from a lifetime under loads. The grain, the salt, the copper and the news of the ancient world moved at a donkey's pace, and wherever a hill is still too steep for a wheel, they still do.
The same animal fed our babies. Donkey milk is the closest milk on earth to a human mother's, Hippocrates prescribed it, and the foundling hospital in Paris kept a stable of jennies so the orphans could be put straight to the udder. A fair share of Europe's abandoned children owe their first month to a donkey, and most of those donkeys carry a dark cross down the back and across the shoulders, which the old story says was given to them on Good Friday.
It carried our wounded too. On the beach at Gallipoli a stretcher-bearer from South Shields found a stray donkey, and for 24 days the two of them walked up and down Shrapnel Gully under fire bringing broken men down to the boats, until a machine gun got the man. The donkey went back up with the next one. Of everything the Anzacs brought home from that campaign, the thing they chose to remember was a donkey.
Then there is the stubbornness, the one fact everybody is sure of, and it is the opposite of the truth. A horse meets danger by bolting, which is why horses die on cliff paths. A donkey stops, looks at the thing in front of it, and makes a decision, and it will refuse to step into water it cannot see the bottom of because it is right not to. For 7,000 years we have been calling a risk assessment an attitude.
Put one in a field of ewes and it appoints itself. A fox or a loose dog comes through the hedge and the donkey goes at it, head down, front feet first, and keeps going until the thing has gone. Nobody trains that in. It decided they were its sheep.
It remembers a face and a field after 25 years. It will stand over a dying companion for a day. It lives to 40 and outlasts half the people who ever owned it.
There are about 50 million of them alive, carrying water, firewood and children for the poorest people on earth, and close to 6 million a year are now killed for their hides, boiled down into a gelatine sold as a tonic. The animal that did the most work for the least thanks is being melted into a wellness product.
Seven thousand years of hauling us uphill, feeding our orphans and carrying our wounded, and the best we managed in return was to turn its name into an insult.
So no. Not nearly obsessed enough.
Delhi’s air pollution problem isn’t decided in October. It’s decided in March.
March–April is the thermostat, when we can still set the direction. October–November is just the thermometer. We watch the numbers climb and freeze like a rabbit caught in a searchlight.
Delhi’s air pollution plan, GRAP included, is like solving maths by chewing gum: lots of jaw movement, zero answers.
And GRAP Stage III restrictions are almost useless because
Shailesh Vickram Singh retweeted
I started Zomato with a spirit of service. Blinkit Ambulance is what that spirit of service looks like today.
In the last 2 years, we have served ~20,000 emergency cases (~42,000 cases in total). We haven't charged a single rupee for any of them. And we want to keep it that way.
With everything free, a growing share of bookings are for routine checkups, hospital visits and hospital-to-home transfers, trips that an Uber or private transport could have handled just as easily. Every such booking keeps a fully equipped emergency ambulance with paramedics off the road when someone's life may depend on it.
So we are making a change from now onwards: Emergency transfers – free, as always. Non-emergency transfers – ₹2,500, charged after the trip. Broadly in line with what private ambulances charge. This money goes to Eternal Foundation, which runs these ambulances and will help us scale them even further.
We hope that this charge will dramatically drop the usage of our Ambulances for non-emergency cases. 10-minute ambulances have saved and can save thousands of lives, and we need to keep them available for emergencies that need them the most.
One more thing. Scaling high quality ambulances is hard. The biggest bottleneck is trained, empathic paramedics. Our training academy is scaling as fast as we can without compromising on quality, and @albinder and team are committed to bringing Blinkit Ambulance to all major cities in India in the next 2-4 years.
Stay well, and I pray you don't need us. @sparsh_sehgal – I wish your grandma a speedy recovery, and I am so glad we were able to be there on time.
Shailesh Vickram Singh retweeted
Elon Musk: "Mesmo que eu seja criticado por todo o mundo, não vou largar o X". O motivo faz pensar.
Repórter: "Por que você se apega tanto ao X?"
Elon: "O que você quer dizer com isso?"
Repórter: "Desde a aquisição, só há críticas, não é?"
Elon: "É verdade."
Repórter: "Políticos também o criticam."
Elon: "Sim."
Repórter: "Há conflitos com autoridades reguladoras."
Elon: "É verdade."
Repórter: "Honestamente, não seria mais fácil vendê-lo?"
Elon: "Por quê?"
Repórter: "Você tem a Tesla e a SpaceX, não é?"
Elon: "Tenho sim."
Repórter: "Não há necessidade de ficar no centro das controvérsias, certo?"
Elon: "Mas o que isso resolveria?"
Repórter: "...... Hein?"
Elon: "Eu acho importante ter um lugar onde as opiniões possam ser trocadas livremente."
Repórter: "Mas há opiniões desagradáveis também, não é?"
Elon: "Claro."
Repórter: "Há opiniões erradas também."
Elon: "É verdade."
Repórter: "Então, não deveria haver restrições?"
Elon: "Até onde restringir?"
Repórter: "Isso é..."
Elon: "Quem decide quais são as opiniões corretas?"
Repórter: "..."
Elon: "É fácil proteger apenas as opiniões com as quais concordamos."
Repórter: "Sim."
Elon: "Mas e quando surgem opiniões contrárias?"
Repórter: "..."
Elon: "É aí que o verdadeiro teste da liberdade de expressão acontece, não acha?"
The US has been the freest country, whether it comes to property, opinion, etc., and hence has attracted talent and capital. But I think even the US is now entering an interesting phase, so the next 2–3 years will be very interesting to watch as what happens to Elon and others, with a kind of reverse McCarthyism playing out
Shailesh Vickram Singh retweeted
I wish @EACtoPM @sanjeevsanyal will recommended government to repeal Article 311. This article is biggest barrier to 'ease of doing business'. If govt repeal this, it will be biggest reform ever. Bureaucrats will resist this but political leaders need to take stand...
The idea that lateral entry will change things is flawed. The odd talented individual is certainly useful but when done wholesale, you will just replicate the same situation. After all, the career babus and the laterals are drawn from the same population. The problem is a cultural one - partly inside the bureaucracy, but just as much in the general public - that we give too much power and importance to government. Just state any issue here on social media and the default response is to ask government to get involved. We just love babudom. Then we are puzzled that they turn up and interfere.
Shailesh Vickram Singh retweeted
Most success in business is fat-tailed and probabilistic. Most effort in business is dedicated to pretending that it isn't.
Amidst all the controversy over Shaun's model (who cares), I think this is a key point.
Private equity tends to be focused on incrementalism.
Cutting costs. Growing with existing customers. Adding new, similar customers. Gaining wallet share.
These aren't bad; they make sense. They just aren't step function, exponential.
The focus on what you can underwrite may raise the floor, but it also limits the ceiling. That's their model.
"The models that dominate all human decision-making today are duly heavy on simplistic logic, and light on magic – a spreadsheet leaves no room for miracles."
-@rorysutherland
This seems be especially true with AI. I am seeing a lot of PE guys very skeptical of ROI on AI. But the experimentation and giving some room for "magic" could lead to exponential improvement.
It's not a criticism of PE, it's just not their model. They need hard data on ROI for every dollar they spend.
That's the delta between the two groups - PE needs to underwrite every single expense and VC is trying to find exponential outcomes.
In 1958, Chairman Mao had the same argument. Humans were doing all the work and sparrows were eating for free, so he launched the Eliminate Sparrows Campaign during the Great Leap Forward.
Some 200 million odd sparrows were killed, which logically saved huge amounts of grain for the Chinese people. But a minor thing happened: nobody was left to eat the insects. Locusts took the harvest, feeding into a famine that killed an estimated 45 million Chinese people.
A little success makes people start calculating who’s “carrying” whom. Same logic is being applied here.
Every person, every association, every region adds something you can’t see on a balance sheet until it’s missing. Bengaluru isn’t Bengaluru without the rest of India.
Mtual Fund Sahee hai giving smooth exit to FPIs.
Earlier FPIs looking to exit at scale were caught in a bind: sell heavily without enough buyers, and their own selling would drive prices down and eat into their returns. Then came the surge of domestic money through SIPs. A steady stream of household savings supplied the buying power to absorb foreign selling, giving FPIs a golden opportunity to exit with less pressure on prices.That buying is a source of market resilience, but it also cushions policymakers from the consequences of investor dissatisfaction. Nobody can assume that households will keep up their SIPs through a prolonged period of disappointing returns. Their monthly contributions should not become an excuse to postpone examining why other investors are reducing their exposure.
The Ambiguity Tax: Why a tax cut won’t bring foreign capital back
In a recent column, Akash Prakash put net foreign portfolio investor (FPI) outflows from Indian equities since the September 2024 market peak at about $65 billion. Much of the chatter in the media and on social media reduces the explanation to taxation: long-term capital gains tax (LTCG), securities transaction tax (STT), this tax or that tax. The implied solution is equally simple: remove a levy and India will once again become the darling of global capital. A tax cut may change an allocation. It cannot, by itself, repair confidence in the rules.
In 1961, Daniel Ellsberg described a choice between two urns. One held 50 red and 50 black balls. The other held 100 balls in an unknown mix. People often preferred to bet on the first urn, whichever colour they were asked to pick. Under the standard model, no single probability estimate for the second urn can justify both preferences. People place a value on knowing the odds.
Indian regulation is the second urn. If India shines at anything, it is uncertainty and nightmare paperwork. Rules can change in the middle of an investment's life, and India's history includes retrospective changes as well, the 2012 Vodafone amendment being the best known. For a small fund or investment vehicle, even a new condition governing future contributions can disturb the economics on which money was originally raised. Past investments may remain untouched while the assumptions for the years ahead are rewritten. A single circular can reopen an entire investment thesis.
An investor can model a known tax. It is far harder to model a liability that may emerge from a new interpretation of an old transaction. A business can budget for a clearly defined approval process. It struggles when it cannot tell which interpretation will prevail, or when a matter will be considered settled. Such uncertainty can lower the price investors are willing to pay, delay investment, or send capital elsewhere.
And much of the ambiguity tax is paid per commitment, not per dollar. A fund of funds considering a $10 million allocation to India can face much of the same tax advice, legal analysis and committee work as one considering $100 million. The smaller cheque therefore carries a heavier burden. When counsel cannot establish how the rules will apply over the life of the fund, the committee may simply pass. The allocation never reaches the stage of negotiating terms.
Even GIFT City, built to bring India funds home, is not immune. In October, Artha Bharat, which manages over $800 million there, said it would move two fund structures to Abu Dhabi Global Market, citing tax uncertainty, compliance burden and investor restrictions. That is Ellsberg's second urn, rebuilt inside the institution designed to remove it.
Policy in India is designed for the big trees: sovereign funds, global houses and anchor investors who arrive with a battalion of lawyers. But a forest is not made of big trees alone. The grass, shrubs and saplings hold the soil, and without them even the big trees eventually fall. Capital works the same way. Small funds, funds of funds and first-time managers are where tomorrow's large investors and large companies grow. A regime that only the big trees can survive is not an ecosystem. It is a plantation.
The hard truth is that investors and entrepreneurs are tired of Indian regulators: of ever-changing, ever-appearing rules and complete uncertainty. So if anyone thinks a tweak to this tax or that tax will reverse the flow of capital, it will not happen. We must remember that tinkering with tax rates does not change the mindset of an administration that defaults to uncertainty and ever-increasing paperwork.
FPIs looking to exit at scale were caught in a bind: sell heavily without enough buyers, and their own selling would drive prices down and eat into their returns. Then came the surge of domestic money through SIPs. A steady stream of household savings supplied the buying power to absorb foreign selling, giving FPIs a golden opportunity to exit with less pressure on prices.That buying is a source of market resilience, but it also cushions policymakers from the consequences of investor dissatisfaction. Nobody can assume that households will keep up their SIPs through a prolonged period of disappointing returns. Their monthly contributions should not become an excuse to postpone examining why other investors are reducing their exposure.
The same problem now reaches beyond investment into the ordinary business of earning foreign exchange. RBI's new export-declaration framework took effect on 1 October. On 7 October, RBI acknowledged misunderstandings over reporting obligations and clarified that individuals' contracts of a personal nature were outside the requirement. It said FAQs would clarify the position.
Yet by 24 October, reports showed individuals and small businesses facing demands for export declaration forms and delays in having overseas service payments credited. SME industry bodies had also asked RBI to stop avoidable professional-certification demands for routine small-value transactions. A business that has completed its work and earned its money is left trying to establish what will satisfy the bank. That gap between the regulator’s explanation and the customer’s experience is the ambiguity tax in practice.
It is high time the powers that be re-examined regulation. The lens should not be taxation, round-tripping and who is stealing, but how capital formation can happen and what fair play looks like for people trying to create capital.
Almost every new rule now arrives labelled "ease of doing business". Most close one door and open three. The export declaration framework was meant to simplify. It did retire one form. It also brought many service exporters, who never needed a declaration before, under a new one. The bank already knows the money arrived, from whom, and why. So why is the form needed at all? Nobody seems to have asked that question before the rule was written.
From the conditions attached to investment vehicles to the paperwork surrounding money already earned abroad, India's tax authorities, RBI and SEBI all leave investors with the same feeling: go away, go away, don't bring your money to India.
It is not that India does not want capital. It treats all capital as dirty until proven clean, and so keeps adding layer upon layer of regulation.
But policy should be judged by outcomes, not intentions. Judged that way, congratulations: the treatment has worked. So why the panic? We should celebrate. Policy rarely achieves its desired outcome. The operation was successful, though the patient is dead.
The issue with graph is not the tax rate but the ambiguity or rather randomness
20% - Ablosihed - Exempt - Exempt - 10% - 12.5%
India is country of randomness
The Ambiguity Tax: Why a tax cut won’t bring foreign capital back
In a recent column, Akash Prakash put net foreign portfolio investor (FPI) outflows from Indian equities since the September 2024 market peak at about $65 billion. Much of the chatter in the media and on social media reduces the explanation to taxation: long-term capital gains tax (LTCG), securities transaction tax (STT), this tax or that tax. The implied solution is equally simple: remove a levy and India will once again become the darling of global capital. A tax cut may change an allocation. It cannot, by itself, repair confidence in the rules.
In 1961, Daniel Ellsberg described a choice between two urns. One held 50 red and 50 black balls. The other held 100 balls in an unknown mix. People often preferred to bet on the first urn, whichever colour they were asked to pick. Under the standard model, no single probability estimate for the second urn can justify both preferences. People place a value on knowing the odds.
Indian regulation is the second urn. If India shines at anything, it is uncertainty and nightmare paperwork. Rules can change in the middle of an investment's life, and India's history includes retrospective changes as well, the 2012 Vodafone amendment being the best known. For a small fund or investment vehicle, even a new condition governing future contributions can disturb the economics on which money was originally raised. Past investments may remain untouched while the assumptions for the years ahead are rewritten. A single circular can reopen an entire investment thesis.
An investor can model a known tax. It is far harder to model a liability that may emerge from a new interpretation of an old transaction. A business can budget for a clearly defined approval process. It struggles when it cannot tell which interpretation will prevail, or when a matter will be considered settled. Such uncertainty can lower the price investors are willing to pay, delay investment, or send capital elsewhere.
And much of the ambiguity tax is paid per commitment, not per dollar. A fund of funds considering a $10 million allocation to India can face much of the same tax advice, legal analysis and committee work as one considering $100 million. The smaller cheque therefore carries a heavier burden. When counsel cannot establish how the rules will apply over the life of the fund, the committee may simply pass. The allocation never reaches the stage of negotiating terms.
Even GIFT City, built to bring India funds home, is not immune. In October, Artha Bharat, which manages over $800 million there, said it would move two fund structures to Abu Dhabi Global Market, citing tax uncertainty, compliance burden and investor restrictions. That is Ellsberg's second urn, rebuilt inside the institution designed to remove it.
Policy in India is designed for the big trees: sovereign funds, global houses and anchor investors who arrive with a battalion of lawyers. But a forest is not made of big trees alone. The grass, shrubs and saplings hold the soil, and without them even the big trees eventually fall. Capital works the same way. Small funds, funds of funds and first-time managers are where tomorrow's large investors and large companies grow. A regime that only the big trees can survive is not an ecosystem. It is a plantation.
The hard truth is that investors and entrepreneurs are tired of Indian regulators: of ever-changing, ever-appearing rules and complete uncertainty. So if anyone thinks a tweak to this tax or that tax will reverse the flow of capital, it will not happen. We must remember that tinkering with tax rates does not change the mindset of an administration that defaults to uncertainty and ever-increasing paperwork.
FPIs looking to exit at scale were caught in a bind: sell heavily without enough buyers, and their own selling would drive prices down and eat into their returns. Then came the surge of domestic money through SIPs. A steady stream of household savings supplied the buying power to absorb foreign selling, giving FPIs a golden opportunity to exit with less pressure on prices.That buying is a source of market resilience, but it also cushions policymakers from the consequences of investor dissatisfaction. Nobody can assume that households will keep up their SIPs through a prolonged period of disappointing returns. Their monthly contributions should not become an excuse to postpone examining why other investors are reducing their exposure.
The same problem now reaches beyond investment into the ordinary business of earning foreign exchange. RBI's new export-declaration framework took effect on 1 October. On 7 October, RBI acknowledged misunderstandings over reporting obligations and clarified that individuals' contracts of a personal nature were outside the requirement. It said FAQs would clarify the position.
Yet by 24 October, reports showed individuals and small businesses facing demands for export declaration forms and delays in having overseas service payments credited. SME industry bodies had also asked RBI to stop avoidable professional-certification demands for routine small-value transactions. A business that has completed its work and earned its money is left trying to establish what will satisfy the bank. That gap between the regulator’s explanation and the customer’s experience is the ambiguity tax in practice.
It is high time the powers that be re-examined regulation. The lens should not be taxation, round-tripping and who is stealing, but how capital formation can happen and what fair play looks like for people trying to create capital.
Almost every new rule now arrives labelled "ease of doing business". Most close one door and open three. The export declaration framework was meant to simplify. It did retire one form. It also brought many service exporters, who never needed a declaration before, under a new one. The bank already knows the money arrived, from whom, and why. So why is the form needed at all? Nobody seems to have asked that question before the rule was written.
From the conditions attached to investment vehicles to the paperwork surrounding money already earned abroad, India's tax authorities, RBI and SEBI all leave investors with the same feeling: go away, go away, don't bring your money to India.
It is not that India does not want capital. It treats all capital as dirty until proven clean, and so keeps adding layer upon layer of regulation.
But policy should be judged by outcomes, not intentions. Judged that way, congratulations: the treatment has worked. So why the panic? We should celebrate. Policy rarely achieves its desired outcome. The operation was successful, though the patient is dead.
The Ambiguity Tax: Why a tax cut won’t bring foreign capital back
In a recent column, Akash Prakash put net foreign portfolio investor (FPI) outflows from Indian equities since the September 2024 market peak at about $65 billion. Much of the chatter in the media and on social media reduces the explanation to taxation: long-term capital gains tax (LTCG), securities transaction tax (STT), this tax or that tax. The implied solution is equally simple: remove a levy and India will once again become the darling of global capital. A tax cut may change an allocation. It cannot, by itself, repair confidence in the rules.
In 1961, Daniel Ellsberg described a choice between two urns. One held 50 red and 50 black balls. The other held 100 balls in an unknown mix. People often preferred to bet on the first urn, whichever colour they were asked to pick. Under the standard model, no single probability estimate for the second urn can justify both preferences. People place a value on knowing the odds.
Indian regulation is the second urn. If India shines at anything, it is uncertainty and nightmare paperwork. Rules can change in the middle of an investment's life, and India's history includes retrospective changes as well, the 2012 Vodafone amendment being the best known. For a small fund or investment vehicle, even a new condition governing future contributions can disturb the economics on which money was originally raised. Past investments may remain untouched while the assumptions for the years ahead are rewritten. A single circular can reopen an entire investment thesis.
An investor can model a known tax. It is far harder to model a liability that may emerge from a new interpretation of an old transaction. A business can budget for a clearly defined approval process. It struggles when it cannot tell which interpretation will prevail, or when a matter will be considered settled. Such uncertainty can lower the price investors are willing to pay, delay investment, or send capital elsewhere.
And much of the ambiguity tax is paid per commitment, not per dollar. A fund of funds considering a $10 million allocation to India can face much of the same tax advice, legal analysis and committee work as one considering $100 million. The smaller cheque therefore carries a heavier burden. When counsel cannot establish how the rules will apply over the life of the fund, the committee may simply pass. The allocation never reaches the stage of negotiating terms.
Even GIFT City, built to bring India funds home, is not immune. In October, Artha Bharat, which manages over $800 million there, said it would move two fund structures to Abu Dhabi Global Market, citing tax uncertainty, compliance burden and investor restrictions. That is Ellsberg's second urn, rebuilt inside the institution designed to remove it.
Policy in India is designed for the big trees: sovereign funds, global houses and anchor investors who arrive with a battalion of lawyers. But a forest is not made of big trees alone. The grass, shrubs and saplings hold the soil, and without them even the big trees eventually fall. Capital works the same way. Small funds, funds of funds and first-time managers are where tomorrow's large investors and large companies grow. A regime that only the big trees can survive is not an ecosystem. It is a plantation.
The hard truth is that investors and entrepreneurs are tired of Indian regulators: of ever-changing, ever-appearing rules and complete uncertainty. So if anyone thinks a tweak to this tax or that tax will reverse the flow of capital, it will not happen. We must remember that tinkering with tax rates does not change the mindset of an administration that defaults to uncertainty and ever-increasing paperwork.
FPIs looking to exit at scale were caught in a bind: sell heavily without enough buyers, and their own selling would drive prices down and eat into their returns. Then came the surge of domestic money through SIPs. A steady stream of household savings supplied the buying power to absorb foreign selling, giving FPIs a golden opportunity to exit with less pressure on prices.That buying is a source of market resilience, but it also cushions policymakers from the consequences of investor dissatisfaction. Nobody can assume that households will keep up their SIPs through a prolonged period of disappointing returns. Their monthly contributions should not become an excuse to postpone examining why other investors are reducing their exposure.
The same problem now reaches beyond investment into the ordinary business of earning foreign exchange. RBI's new export-declaration framework took effect on 1 October. On 7 October, RBI acknowledged misunderstandings over reporting obligations and clarified that individuals' contracts of a personal nature were outside the requirement. It said FAQs would clarify the position.
Yet by 24 October, reports showed individuals and small businesses facing demands for export declaration forms and delays in having overseas service payments credited. SME industry bodies had also asked RBI to stop avoidable professional-certification demands for routine small-value transactions. A business that has completed its work and earned its money is left trying to establish what will satisfy the bank. That gap between the regulator’s explanation and the customer’s experience is the ambiguity tax in practice.
It is high time the powers that be re-examined regulation. The lens should not be taxation, round-tripping and who is stealing, but how capital formation can happen and what fair play looks like for people trying to create capital.
Almost every new rule now arrives labelled "ease of doing business". Most close one door and open three. The export declaration framework was meant to simplify. It did retire one form. It also brought many service exporters, who never needed a declaration before, under a new one. The bank already knows the money arrived, from whom, and why. So why is the form needed at all? Nobody seems to have asked that question before the rule was written.
From the conditions attached to investment vehicles to the paperwork surrounding money already earned abroad, India's tax authorities, RBI and SEBI all leave investors with the same feeling: go away, go away, don't bring your money to India.
It is not that India does not want capital. It treats all capital as dirty until proven clean, and so keeps adding layer upon layer of regulation.
But policy should be judged by outcomes, not intentions. Judged that way, congratulations: the treatment has worked. So why the panic? We should celebrate. Policy rarely achieves its desired outcome. The operation was successful, though the patient is dead.
Shailesh Vickram Singh retweeted
No other country has the insane regulation to scrap vehicles after 10 or 15 years that India has in Delhi NCR. It's nothing short of madness, in a country where people use their vehicles for decades; and many can't afford the switch.
It's also an environemental disaster in terms of the energy, material, mining and plastic used to create a new vehicle.
Can you believe that this crazy resolution was passed by the farce which calls its "National Green Tribunal" but was instead meant as a power and reward system for crony FCRA NGOs.
Of Jalebis, Calculus, and Why Indian Corporate Treasuries Prefer Liquid Mutual Funds to Frontier Tech
Every few months arguments about U Economy vs Indian economy flares up online. The pundits open their spreadsheets and, depending on which way they lean, either mourn or celebrate the gap. The reasons offered are always the same. Size. History. Capital. Talent. Race. R&D budgets. Almost nobody names the one that matters.
🧵
The gap between the US and India isn’t economic size. It’s risk appetite.
SpaceX, worth nearly two trillion dollars, has bought Cursor for sixty billion. Shrink that to Indian scale and then ask this simple question. Can we picture a billion-dollar Indian company handing a sixty-million-dollar exit to a young startup? We cannot. Our balance sheets are not small. Our appetite for risk is. Economy size does not create risk capital. Risk-taking creates economy size.
svickram.substack.com/p/of-j…
Shailesh Vickram Singh retweeted
Not me. My bullish stand in India is paying off. And India‘s comeback is not so „quiet“ given that India is about to reach a deal with the US, has signed FTA with the EU, stabilized the relationship with China and is expanding ties with Russia.
No other actor has managed that.
Everyone is watching the Asian tech meltdown. Almost nobody is watching what's happening in India.
zerohedge.com/the-market-ear…
While Hindi headlines scream “RBI ने 7 लाख करोड़ झोंके,” a Korean economist is pointing out India has grown above 7% for five straight years, and IMF, ADB and World Bank have all raised forecasts. The data hasn’t changed.
Looks like Indian media is more negative on India vs global institutions
I just wonder why such a sensational and fundamentally wrong headline is being pushed by media houses:
“RBI ने रुपये झोंक दिए.” RBI simply sold USD and got INR back. That’s a transaction, so is not that RB is burning cash in some stupid manner - whats going on, attempt to create mass hysteria on these things also ?
