Most educated Indian take the safe path of getting a job unless they have had a family business. It is the not-so educated people who are willing to take the risk.

For eg: Today we import most of our toys from China. Thailand etc. Why is no one entering the market. Booming market, good availability of raw materials but no one makes toys.

Fancy electrical lighting for homes : Again huge demand. All are imported from china.

If we were a truly enterprising people, we would not just be manufacturing these but also exporting.

Software which requires minimal capital sees quite a bit Indian enterpreneurs.

I am here to state that the present situation of the rural entrepreneurship in India. India had a good tradition of entrepreneurial talents in rural areas of India, such as the dairy farming, agriculture, wafer (pa-pad) making, pickles, dry vegetables, dry fruits, etc.

Due to urbanisation and industrial development, modernisation, and so on what ever may be the name is so called, today the age of mass production, people tend to give up their birth places and shifting to urban area, for monetary reasons, as urban areas provide good remuneration.

I hope that entrepreneurial talents are almost shifting to urban areas hence, entrepreneurial activities are dying in the rural India, now it has become the duty of the government to promote the entrepreneurial ideas in rural areas.

The evolution of the Self-Help-Group (SHG) a promotion of the government. Do many of us know that few SHGs have failed, and only some of the flourish due to the support of the locals.

Some dangerous myths have been generated in the wake of the sub-prime crisis. It is hard to think of a more charitable word for them than “nonsense”.
The first is that the crisis is attributable to “free market capitalism” and this is justification for compromising or abandoning the system.
This myth overlooks two basic facts: that markets have and should have fluctuations, panics and crises; and the failure of big corporations. These are natural and desirable manifestations of the dynamic nature of markets and essential parts of what makes markets superior to government alternatives, where countless follies are perpetuated at the expense of taxpayers and national prosperity.
Even if the market is responsible for the crisis — which it is not — there would be no justification for tampering with the system that has made countries with it the wealthiest.
Countries with the systems now being proposed as supposed solutions are the hellholes on earth where destitution is so normal that it is not regarded as a “crisis”. Brief setbacks in the world’s most successful system are no reason to switch to the world’s least successful systems.
Second, as far as the SA economy is concerned, exchange control can, at best, now be credited with brief and slight benefits, which do not justify its continuance in the long term. The National Credit Act (NCA) has plunged SA into an opposite “supra-prime” crisis.
The US government forced the market to provide credit to credit unworthy (sub-prime) people, whereas the SA government forces our market to deny credit to creditworthy people. This has caused or contributed to a collapse in our credit-intense sectors (vehicles, housing, furniture, clothing, and so on ) by as much or more than the collapse in America’s sub-prime housing sector.
Thousands of creditworthy South Africans, especially blacks, have been denied credit, hundreds of marginal businesses have collapsed due to the NCA making credit costly and risky.
The third and most fundamental myth is that the crisis is a manifestation of “the market”. The nonsense surrounding this idea goes so far as to attribute the problem to “Wall Street greed”, as if it is a new phenomenon, unique to the past few months and Wall Street financiers. It is an idea so obviously absurd as to justify no further comment.
“The market” has indeed been responsible for dubious practices such as underrating the risk of securitised and highly geared and leveraged derivatives, but this, on its own, is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition for the crisis. At most, it would have caused spontaneous market corrections and insolvencies for the guiltiest parties. South Africans can easily understand government provision of sub-prime credit and implicit backing by reference to our Land Bank, the sole purpose of which is sub-prime credit to farmers, and SA parastatals, which are implicitly government-backed and therefore able to purchase on credit.
The fourth myth is the thought that the crisis was caused by “deregulation”. The truth is that there were various laws which obliged banks to provide sub-prime credit such as the Community Reinvestment Act and the prohibition of “red-lining”.
What little deregulation there was, was firstly trivial and secondly of no direct relevance to sub-prime mortgages.

BY: Manik Prasher

For developing entrepreneurship in India, we have to stop promoting only technological entreprneurship. Where ever we see there is Venture Capitalist he or she is more willing to fund technological innovations rather than to good or great ideas. In my view if we want to develop entrepreneurship in India than we must have to stop attaching entrepreneurship only with technology instead good ideas in field of marketing, Financing and services etc. If any one starts a new marketing firm or new bus service or a warehouse in his or her city or village will be of equal help to the economy like any one starting a mechanical factory.

It is not that only technological innovations can help economy. Main focus should be on the idea and how much we can rely on the idea. There was one person who used a piece of bun added some vegetables to it and we got BURGER. One man was selling flavoured supari and tobacco on cycle, he went on to set up PAN PARAG, There was one man who wanted to see the call rates drop to the cost of post card, we got RELIANCE INFOCOM.