Expert Zone

Straight from the Specialists

India Markets Weekahead – An opportunity for investors

Photo

(Any opinions expressed here are those of the author and not of Thomson Reuters)

Indian markets were down for a third consecutive week with the Nifty closing 2 percent lower at 5565 on weak economic signals and disappointing corporate results.

The rupee held on at 60.67 to the dollar.

The appointment of Raghuram Rajan as the next governor of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) brought the market some cheer. Rajan, a former chief economist at the IMF, is seen as a pro-growth policymaker.

International markets ended weak on concerns that the U.S. Federal Reserve could taper down its stimulus programme. Positive data on the Chinese economy was probably the only redeeming feature.

This week, the Companies Bill replacing the Companies Act of 1956 was passed in the Rajya Sabha. This should lead to better corporate governance and investor protection, which our markets need to restore confidence. The trust deficit seems to be at an all-time high with stocks getting butchered at the first whiff of trouble.

Why India slowed

Photo

This piece comes from Project Syndicate. The opinions expressed are the author’s own

For a country as poor as India, growth should be what Americans call a “no-brainer.” It is largely a matter of providing public goods: decent governance, security of life and property, and basic infrastructure like roads, bridges, ports, and power plants, as well as access to education and basic health care.

Is finance too competitive?

Photo

The opinions expressed are his own

Many economists are advocating for regulation that would make banking “boring” and uncompetitive once again. After a crisis, it is not uncommon to hear calls to limit competition. During the Great Depression, the head of the United States National Recovery Administration argued that employers were being forced to lay off workers as a result of “the murderous doctrine of savage and wolfish competition, [of] dog-eat-dog and devil take the hindmost.” He appealed for a more collusive business environment, with the profits made from consumers to be shared between employers and workers.

Concerns about the deleterious effects of competition have always existed, even among those who are not persuaded that government diktat can replace markets, or that intrinsic human goodness is a more powerful motivator than monetary reward and punishment. Where the debate has been most heated, however, concerns the effects of competition on incentives to innovate.

What money can buy

Photo

By Raghuram Rajan
The opinions expressed are his own

In an interesting recent book, What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of the Market, the Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel points to the range of things that money can buy in modern societies and gently tries to stoke our outrage at the market’s growing dominance. Is he right that we should be alarmed?

While Sandel worries about the corrupting nature of some monetized transactions (do kids really develop a love of reading if they are bribed to read books?), he is also concerned about unequal access to money, which makes trades using money inherently unequal. More generally, he fears that the expansion of anonymous monetary exchange erodes social cohesion, and argues for reducing money’s role in society.

Is inequality inhibiting growth?

Photo

By Raghuram Rajan
The opinions expressed are his own

To understand how to achieve a sustained recovery from the Great Recession, we need to understand its causes. And identifying causes means starting with the evidence.

Two facts stand out. First, overall demand for goods and services is much weaker, both in Europe and the United States, than it was in the go-go years before the recession. Second, most of the economic gains in the U.S. in recent years have gone to the rich, while the middle class has fallen behind in relative terms.

  • Editors & Key Contributors