tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8333809138908703025.post8108193207784100415..comments2008-11-10T16:13:53.686-08:00Sudarshan Dharmapurihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16777942709721703298noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8333809138908703025.post-28554822992300328602008-11-10T16:13:53.686-08:002008-11-10T16:13:53.686-08:00Good words.Emmlyhttp://edithainsurance.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8333809138908703025.post-87413484237106569392007-06-18T15:46:19.990-07:002007-06-18T15:46:19.990-07:00The same rediff article also points out that the <I>actual</I> FDI inflows into India are far lower than the <I>announced</I> numbers. Going by these actual numbers, the amount spent by Indian companies buying foreign companies is in fact higher than the FDI inflow into India.Sudarshan Dharmapurihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16777942709721703298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8333809138908703025.post-6220450834480826482007-06-18T15:37:00.000-07:002007-06-18T15:37:00.000-07:00I am not sure of the <I>"fact"</I> that India Inc spent more money buying foreign firms than FDI into India. Did a quick google search, and found these 2 articles,<BR/>http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/31/business/rupee.php<BR/>http://www.rediff.com/money/2005/dec/31fdi.htm<BR/><BR/>The "fact" is off by a factor. While India Inc spent 1.7B in the 1st 8 months (say 3B in the entire year), that's still 10 times less than FDI (30B)... off by a factor!<BR/><BR/>The other paradoxes are also equally questionable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com