3 ms·

> The main reason the government wants data to be stored locally and is also looking at controlling companies is for surveillance. But unlike China, not all pl

by kartan 8y ago

> The main reason the government wants data to be stored locally and is also looking at controlling companies is for surveillance. But unlike China, not all platforms have Indian created equivalents. Fortunately for the citizens of India, regardless of the state of surveillance in the U.S., the U.S. companies do fight a lot more against these controlling measures than any Indian born company ever would. There is a national security component that you are missing. The day we do not needs borders for people, we will not need a border for data. But we are not there yet. > “There is a strong feeling in many quarters that the reason that India has not been able to develop a Tencent or Baidu or Alibaba is because we have not been nuanced in our policies.” This is very reasonable. Your country does NOT need a new Google or Tencent. Because they already exist. The only way India can develop its own companies is by creating an artificial scarcity thru regulation. I see quite often asked Why does Europe not have tech giants? The easy answer is that they already exist and there is no way that small start-ups can fight them. This does not mean that to create that needs is good for the citizens. Maybe it is good that Europe depends on Google, Apple, etc than to try to create new local ones, as non-tech businesses can benefit early from their technology. But if the goal is to create your own tech giants, it is not possible when you are competing against well established cash-rich monopolistic companies. > "They also warned that India has fewer legal protections than the United States against government searches and data requests, so private data stored in the country could more easily end up in the hands of the police." The central government has shown that it has very little interest in getting a good privacy law in place. From my perspective, you may prefer that your data is in hands of another country, not even because they are more ethical but because they are just less interested in what you are doing. Local police in NewYork does not care what you are doing in New Delhi. So, the effect is the same. Your data may be safer in hands of people that have no political nor policial power over you.

amadeuspagel 8y ago
> The only way India can develop its own companies is by creating an artificial scarcity thru regulation. Programmers that don't work at tech companies work somewhere else, investors that don't invest in tech companies invest in something else. So it's wrong to say that just because a country doesn't have any tech companies it's poorer, and that protectionism for tech companies will make it richer. (This insight, and the ideology it refutes - mercantilism - are 200 years old[1].) > I see quite often asked Why does Europe not have tech giants? The easy answer is that they already exist and there is no way that small start-ups can fight them. Germany alone has SoundCloud and SAP. [1]: http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
- boulos 8y ago
  > Germany alone has SoundCloud and SAP. I find it amusing that you'd mention these two in the same breath. I'm glad SoundCloud didn't go under, but it's not like it's all wine and roses over there [1]. There are several European unicorns in the last decade (Spotify and Adyen for example), if you wanted to focus on startups. Alternatively, if the focus is companies in Germany that hire software engineers like SAP does, there's always Siemens, multiple German financial industry firms, SUSE, and so on. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/11/soundcloud-saved/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/11/soundcloud-saved/
- cabalamat 8y ago
  > Programmers that don't work at tech companies work somewhere else Yes, but maybe at a lower salary > investors that don't invest in tech companies invest in something else Maybe at a lower return. Countries that don't invest in high-growth sectors (which means high-tech) will over the long run have lower growth rates than ones that do. > So it's wrong to say that just because a country doesn't have any tech companies it's poorer, and that protectionism for tech companies will make it richer. When companies have a monopoly, they are able to generate an economic rent, which makes everyone except their shareholders poorer. Furthermore there is the sovereignty argument: a country not in control over its information infrastructure isn't really independent. So if a country can generate its own equivalents of Twitter, Facebook, Android, Google search, etc, there may well be a good case for it doing so.
  - amadeuspagel 8y ago
    The point was not that those programmers and investors are just as well off without protectionism (obviously not), but that the country as a whole is better off because the people that before would have produced knockoffs off western companies now produce something new.
thecleaner 8y ago
From a strategic standpoint its extremely bad to have the data in some other country. It can be used for all kinds of creatively drstructive purposes. Also protectionism is not that bad as long as competition is stiff in thr local market. Why would you want your local market to be taken advantage of by companies from other countries ? Free markets as a great idea was actually popularized by Britain in the 1800s because it always favours the incumbents. Given their industrial prowess no wonfer they said that. I would prefer tht local companies be given preference over foreign ones but low performers must not be bailed out on taxpayer money. They must be weeded out. That has been the go to approach to development in Japan, South Korea and China. With those policies in place they now have more tech giants than Europe.
theonemind 8y ago
> This is very reasonable. Your country does NOT need a new Google or Tencent. Because they already exist. The only way India can develop its own companies is by creating an artificial scarcity thru regulation. I see quite often asked Why does Europe not have tech giants? The easy answer is that they already exist and there is no way that small start-ups can fight them. Well, perhaps in the short term, yes, it does create artificial scarcity through regulation. However, if those barriers don't remain in place forever, you can have created a real competitor in those markets. I find this argument somewhat like saying, without trying any sort of emotional appeal, only to create an analogy, that you shouldn't waste time protecting a baby or make any sacrifices for it. The baby doesn't do anything that adults can't (they already exist), and it simply diverts resources from the adults (dealing with temporary artificial scarcity). All true enough, if you don't concern yourself with the future.

by kartan 8y ago

amadeuspagel 8y ago

> The only way India can develop its own companies is by creating an artificial scarcity thru regulation. Programmers that don't work at tech companies work somewhere else, investors that don't invest in tech companies invest in something else. So it's wrong to say that just because a country doesn't have any tech companies it's poorer, and that protectionism for tech companies will make it richer. (This insight, and the ideology it refutes - mercantilism - are 200 years old[1].) > I see quite often asked Why does Europe not have tech giants? The easy answer is that they already exist and there is no way that small start-ups can fight them. Germany alone has SoundCloud and SAP. [1]: http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

boulos 8y ago
> Germany alone has SoundCloud and SAP. I find it amusing that you'd mention these two in the same breath. I'm glad SoundCloud didn't go under, but it's not like it's all wine and roses over there [1]. There are several European unicorns in the last decade (Spotify and Adyen for example), if you wanted to focus on startups. Alternatively, if the focus is companies in Germany that hire software engineers like SAP does, there's always Siemens, multiple German financial industry firms, SUSE, and so on. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/11/soundcloud-saved/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/11/soundcloud-saved/
cabalamat 8y ago
> Programmers that don't work at tech companies work somewhere else Yes, but maybe at a lower salary > investors that don't invest in tech companies invest in something else Maybe at a lower return. Countries that don't invest in high-growth sectors (which means high-tech) will over the long run have lower growth rates than ones that do. > So it's wrong to say that just because a country doesn't have any tech companies it's poorer, and that protectionism for tech companies will make it richer. When companies have a monopoly, they are able to generate an economic rent, which makes everyone except their shareholders poorer. Furthermore there is the sovereignty argument: a country not in control over its information infrastructure isn't really independent. So if a country can generate its own equivalents of Twitter, Facebook, Android, Google search, etc, there may well be a good case for it doing so.
- amadeuspagel 8y ago
  The point was not that those programmers and investors are just as well off without protectionism (obviously not), but that the country as a whole is better off because the people that before would have produced knockoffs off western companies now produce something new.

thecleaner 8y ago

From a strategic standpoint its extremely bad to have the data in some other country. It can be used for all kinds of creatively drstructive purposes. Also protectionism is not that bad as long as competition is stiff in thr local market. Why would you want your local market to be taken advantage of by companies from other countries ? Free markets as a great idea was actually popularized by Britain in the 1800s because it always favours the incumbents. Given their industrial prowess no wonfer they said that. I would prefer tht local companies be given preference over foreign ones but low performers must not be bailed out on taxpayer money. They must be weeded out. That has been the go to approach to development in Japan, South Korea and China. With those policies in place they now have more tech giants than Europe.

theonemind 8y ago

> This is very reasonable. Your country does NOT need a new Google or Tencent. Because they already exist. The only way India can develop its own companies is by creating an artificial scarcity thru regulation. I see quite often asked Why does Europe not have tech giants? The easy answer is that they already exist and there is no way that small start-ups can fight them. Well, perhaps in the short term, yes, it does create artificial scarcity through regulation. However, if those barriers don't remain in place forever, you can have created a real competitor in those markets. I find this argument somewhat like saying, without trying any sort of emotional appeal, only to create an analogy, that you shouldn't waste time protecting a baby or make any sacrifices for it. The baby doesn't do anything that adults can't (they already exist), and it simply diverts resources from the adults (dealing with temporary artificial scarcity). All true enough, if you don't concern yourself with the future.