Great growth in India doesn't mean great growth for India companies. It could mean better growth for companies that are trading with India.
The political ramifications of our festering financial and economic crisis have reached the sidewalks of New York, as well as other large and small cities across the US.
The rise in equities helped strengthen the economy.
It's much easier for a middle class Indian entrepreneur to start up a computer company than it is for an Indian company to build roads and transportation systems suitable for a population that is getting wealthier and demanding more basic services.
So much of what happened to India late last year and early into 2011 is the same story we've seen with other big emerging markets, and that is that investors started to realize that the growth trajectory in India would have to get moderated by tightening policy.
After all, as a taxpayer, if I'm acting as the insurer against losses, I should have the right to say what risks the insured can take.
In many cases, the Treasury will get preferred or convertible preferred stock for the money it gives to banks. These shares typically don't have voting rights, possibly to give more of a hands-off appearance to the government.
There's a foot race between gas bills and paychecks.
If we continue to print new paychecks at the rate we've been adding them, that mitigates a lot of the damage of higher gasoline prices.
It would be helpful if someone would lay out exactly the economic mechanism that gets us from yet lower interest rates to actual economic activity.
The Greek debt issue, for example, is such a threat because if that country ever defaulted, it might cause some bank that's 'too big to fail' to actually fail.
A lot of the state-sponsored growth in India was just too fast. You went from cradle to Nirvana in a short period of time.
