US-return man slams India's product quality, compares D-Mart, Reliance with Walmart; netizens say: 'It's a joke...'
The caption to the post states, 'Why is there such a massive quality difference in products between the West and India?'
He mentioned that the massive difference in product quality 'is impossible to ignore' and is a concerning issue. Troubled and anguished to see the contrast in the products sold in India, even in the most basic things like garbage bags, he said they are 'flimsy and tear too easily, and in expensive, branded clothes that don't hold up after a few washes."
The Redditor, who moved back to India 4 years ago went on to compare supermarkets and wrote, "We have supermarkets like D-Mart and Reliance, but they are nowhere near the quality or selection of a Walmart - a store considered to be for the poor in the West - let alone a Target or Dillons.'
Acknowledging that companies have different manufacturing standards for various markets, he said, 'The vehicles sold as premium here, with luxury car-level GST, are actually quite affordable in the US. And even then, they still can't match the quality of their American counterparts in the same segment.'
Summarising his observation, he stated, 'You may buy premium products in India, but you won't get the quality of the standard product in the West.'
Suggesting that startups should focus on filling these quality gaps, he said, 'This is a huge opportunity for anyone with capital.'
A user explained the quality issue with an inciteful example and stated, "Float glass and mirrors from factories across the world have an anti-dumping duty on them or need a BIS certificate. Their product is superior and much cheaper, but because of the above issues we are stuck with overpriced glass and mirrors of bad quality. It's actually a joke as the price of production isn't that high at their scale but it's easier to lobby against international products than to innovate or face competition."
A second user replied, 'Even with same brands. KitKat manufactured is India is so shitty compared to the one in UAE. Try the KitKat chunky which is imported and you will see the difference.'
A third user wrote, 'In food items FSSAI's guidelines are less stringent than FDA's. For example, the European FDA has banned synthetic antioxidants like TBHQ in edible oils due to health risks, while India continues to allow their use.'
A fourth user remarked, 'If you think US quality is good, imagine how I feel when comparing Indian goods with European ones (which are usually much better made than American ones) There has always been a lack of attention to detail in India. 'chalta hai' is the culture. Also, craftsmanship suffers in a price-sensitive market.'
A fifth comment read, 'We don't rate things based on quality. The only thing we consider is the price so all the companies have adapted. Even Coca Cola tastes different in India.'
A sixth user stated, 'It's a mix of being very price sensitive (kuch bhi dedo lekin saste mai do) and a jugaad and chalta hai attitude towards not just quality of products but for everything we do in life (whether it be in the govt or in corporate or in our personal lives)'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
Mukesh Ambani's children salaries Revealed! Anant Ambani, Akash Ambani, Isha Ambani earn Massive amount of Rs…, Reliance releases statement…, RIL says…
मुकेश अंबानी के बच्चों की सैलरी New Delhi: The Mukesh Ambani-led Reliance Industries on Thursday released its AGM report. As per the official filing with the BSE, the company revealed that Anant Ambani, Isha Ambani, and Akash Ambani received equal salaries for the financial year ending 2024–25. The figures provided in the Reliance AGM report disclosed the earnings of each non-executive and full-time director for the financial year 2025–26. These directors include members of the Ambani family—Anant, Isha, and Akash—along with several other key executives, including Mukesh Ambani himself. It is important to note that apart from Mukesh Ambani, each of these three members of the Ambani family (Anant, Akash, Isha) earned Rs 2.31 crore. This income includes their fees and commission as part of their total remuneration. Here are some of the key details: Reliance Industries' Managing Director and Chairman, Mukesh Ambani, did not take any salary for the fifth consecutive year in 2024–25. The salary figures include performance-linked incentives for the financial year 2023–24 Other full-time directors, Nikhil R. Meswani and Hital R. Meswani, each earned ₹25 crore P. M. S. Prasad earned ₹19.96 crore in the year ending 2024–25. The tenure of an executive director's office is five years from the date of appointment. After the board meeting for the April–June quarter in June 2025, Reliance appointed Anant Ambani as its new full-time director. Reliance Industries appointed Anant Ambani, the youngest son of Mukesh Ambani, as a full-time director. Accordingly, as a full-time director, Anant Ambani will now earn between ₹10 crore and ₹20 crore annually in the form of salary, allowances, and perquisites. Reliance Releases Statement: 'The salary, perquisites, and allowances will be in the range of Rs 10 crore to Rs20 crore per annum. The annual salary increment will be determined by the HRNR Committee.' Under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Reliance will also provide Anant Ambani—under 'salary, perquisites, and allowances'—housing costs or house rent allowance (HRA), as well as gas, electricity, and water.
Mint
2 hours ago
- Mint
Why India can't afford to jettison its relationship with Russia
US President Donald Trump is using the threat of stiff tariffs to try to peel India away from Russia, as he attempts to boost pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine. But decades of close economic, political and military relations between New Delhi and Moscow mean Trump faces a challenge in persuading Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to drop a partnership that has survived great geopolitical turmoil. In recent days, Trump has blasted India for its heavy reliance on Russian oil imports, as well as its longstanding purchases of Russian military equipment. On Wednesday, the president slapped India with an additional tariff of 25% on its exports to the U.S.—doubling the existing 25% duty that went into effect earlier this month—as punishment for its continued purchasing of Russian oil. Despite tariffs that could inflict real damage on the Indian economy, Modi has stood firm in the face of rising American pressure—a sign of how important relations with Russia are for the South Asian giant. India's foreign ministry called the penalty 'unfair, unjustified and unreasonable" and promised that India will 'take all actions necessary to protect its national interest." Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said earlier in the week that 'sovereign countries should have and do have the right to choose their own trading partners." On Friday, Modi wrote on X that he had a 'good and detailed conversation with my friend President Putin." 'I thanked him for sharing the latest developments on Ukraine," the prime minister wrote, adding that the leaders had 'reaffirmed our commitment to further deepen the India-Russia Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership." He said he expected Putin to visit India later this year. Since the Cold War, Russia has been one of India's most constant partners in a relationship anchored by arms deals, economic cooperation and diplomatic support for New Delhi as it faces off with regional rivals China and Pakistan. For its part, Moscow drew close to India after tensions grew in the 1960s between the Soviet Union and Beijing. In the decades that followed, Russia extended more than a billion dollars' worth of loans for the purchase of Russian military and nonmilitary goods. The charm offensive was further sweetened by Russian crude, which Moscow sold to New Delhi in the 1960s at a 10% to 20% discount to prevailing world prices. 'This was all part of the Soviet 'oil offensive,'" said historian Sergey Radchenko, Cold War expert and professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. Moscow even sent geologists to India to search for oil and, when little was found, the Soviet Union allowed India to purchase Siberian crude with shipments of tea so that New Delhi could conserve its cash reserves, he said. The bonds grew closer after the U.S. backed Pakistan—a bitter rival of India—and imposed a slew of sanctions on New Delhi in 1974 after its first nuclear test and in 1998 when India again tested its nuclear weapons. 'Many Indians still find Russia today, because of the history, a reliable partner," said Harsh V. Pant, head of strategic studies at the Observer Research Foundation, a think tank in New Delhi. 'Many in India believe that America has always been more favorably disposed towards Pakistan." Even Russia's invasion of Ukraine hasn't pushed Modi to repudiate Moscow. India—which has long pursued a strategy of avoiding alignments with other major powers—has stayed neutral on the Ukraine war, abstaining from United Nations votes to condemn the invasion and declining to join successive waves of Western sanctions. Meanwhile, India—a net energy importer with a voracious and growing appetite for energy—benefited from a shift by Western countries away from Russian oil, as well as a price cap that the U.S. and its allies have imposed on the country's crude. Sanctions targeting Russia's oil industry have increased Moscow's reliance on friendly nations such as India. Over the past several years, India has begun buying massive amounts of Russian oil. Last year, India accounted for more than one-third of Russia's oil exports, second only to China at nearly 50%, according to the Observer Research Foundation. Steep discounts have saved Indian refineries $17 billion over the past three years, according to credit-rating firm ICRA. Indeed, India isn't the only Asian country to benefit from Russia's increasing economic isolation. Rival China has likewise bought crude and scooped up assets inside Russia. But a creeping wariness in Moscow of overdependence on Beijing makes Russia's relationship with India all the more important. The cheap oil is critical for a country of 1.4 billion that is growing rapidly. The South Asian nation is the world's fastest-growing consumer of oil, behind only the U.S. and China in total consumption, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Its vast energy needs are met by importing 90% of its crude oil from overseas. Over the past three years, trade between the two countries skyrocketed to $69 billion, a record figure pushed higher by India's purchases of Russian crude. Those imports have allowed New Delhi to sell gasoline at a cheaper rate domestically and resell its oil products abroad at a fatter margin. 'It's not going to be shutting off the Russian tap in the immediate future," said Syed Akbaruddin, former Indian permanent representative to the U.N. and dean of the Kautilya School of Public Policy in Hyderabad. 'There is no way, given the cost differential and the impact on the budget." To be sure, Indian refineries have already started hedging their bets by curbing their purchases in recent weeks, according to data and analytics firm Kpler. Imports of Russian crude oil fell about 500,000 barrels a day in July to a five-month low of 1.6 million. According to the company's analysis, India's private refiners, which process over 50% of imported Russian crude, are expected to boost their imports from other sources including the Middle East and West Africa—but can't cut off Russian oil completely. 'Replacing Russian barrels is no easy feat—logistically daunting, economically painful and geopolitically fraught," Sumit Ritolia, Kpler's lead research analyst in refining and modeling, wrote in a research note. Meanwhile, Trump has also taken aim at India's historic reliance on Russia for military equipment. Although New Delhi has been trying to diversify its suppliers in recent decades, Russian and Soviet-made equipment still makes up over 50% of India's arsenal. New Delhi continues to be a loyal customer of Russian arms. Part of the appeal is Moscow's willingness to share technology and help India manufacture arms domestically. In contrast, under former President Joe Biden, the U.S. signaled its openness to technology transfers, but Washington has dragged its feet on some projects. Last month, the Indian navy commissioned a new stealth frigate purchased from Russia. Two more frigates are being built in India with technical assistance from Russia's Yantar shipyards. In 2018, during Trump's first term, India bucked threats of sanctions from the U.S. to agree to buy five squadrons of Russia's top shelf S-400 air-defense system. Three of those squadrons so far have been delivered—and stationed along India's borders with China and Pakistan. 'It will be many decades before India can actually replace the Russian kit in their inventory, if they can replace it at all," said Ashley J. Tellis, an expert on geopolitics at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
‘We'll all be poorer with Donald Trump's tariffs — but he can't halt clean energy'
Gernot Wagner Gernot Wagner is a climate economist at Columbia Business School and faculty director of its Climate Knowledge Initiative. Speaking to Srijana Mitra Das at Times Evoke, he discusses Donald Trump 's tariffs — and their implications for the net zero movement: Donald Trump has called the Indian economy 'dead' — how do you analyse that? I take Donald Trump's comment about India being a 'dead economy' about as seriously as anything else he says — the 50% tariffs on India and Brazil are now his latest instance of economic arson. Nobody even knows how long these tariffs will last, how high they'll be in a month, who will get exemptions or why. The tragedy is, Trump holds real power to damage the US — and the global — economy. BLOWING IN THE WIND... Donald Trump dislikes wind turbines, which he considers a blot on the landscape — yet, these are actually far better at preserving nature, a fact many nations accept by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like This new air conditioner cools down a room in just seconds News of the Discovery Undo What are the key economic implications of Donald Trump's tariffs for America — and the world? The main implication is higher inflation — we will all be poorer for them. 'Price up, quantity demanded down' is a steadfast economic principle. It applies here too. Of course, there are complexities — are there ever smart tariffs, for instance? The answer can be 'Yes' in, say, a climate context with carbon tariffs like the European Union's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism ( CBAM ). These are the kind of tariffs which even writers of The Economist can get behind because they help level the playing field for a policy that is a step in the right direction, internalising negative externalities and ensuring the market functions better. Once, John Stuart Mill and Alexander Hamilton, both philosophers of liberalism, wrote favourably about setting tariffs for infant industry protection. A fledgling United States of America was extremely dependent on England — tariffs were the only way to jumpstart certain industries. Today, fastgrowing economies like India can benefit up to a point from intelligently applied targeted tariffs to foster domestic industry. However, things are different with Trump's tariffs — these do not benefit anyone. Consider the deal struck between the European Union (EU) and the US now — tariffs essentially went from almost 0 to 15%. US consumers buying European products are paying more while European consumers buying American products are also doing the same — everyone is poorer. Trump says the tariffs will boost US manufacturing and competitiveness — will they? There might have been a grain of truth to that, had the tariffs not come hand in hand with measures that actually hurt our competitiveness and manufacturing. The One Big Beautiful Bill passed recently removes many incentives that, under the Inflation Reduction Act of the Biden administration, helped onshoring the solar manufacturing supply chain in America. Five years ago, the US produced 13.5 new gigawatts of solar panels — this year, the US surpassed 50 gigawatts worth of domestic solar panel assembly. China dominates the global solar panel manufacturing supply chain. But this change in the US was because of concerted industrial policy, guiding things in the right direction on manufacturing, climate and competitiveness. Now, Donald Trump famously hates wind turbines. He also hates solar panels. Why? These cut into the profits of the fossil fuel industry. So, this is a double whammy for the US clean energy transition. It is now more costly to import solar panels — it is also more costly to manufacture them domest-ically. Yet, the clean energy transition is the inevitable future for business and manufacturing — there is only so much the Trump administration can do to stand in its way. The big winner from all these measures is China — the big loser is the US. The most worrying feature for businesses here is the random process of setting tariff levels, the inadequacy of the reasoning behind them and the erratic nature of it all. Businesses crave policy certainty. If you were to announce a complete phase-out of internal combustion engines by, say, January 1, 2035, as discussed and instituted in the EU, companies can say, 'Alright, that's 10 years from now, let's figure out how to adjust.' They can rework their investments and then strategise how to gain. Here, we have the administration saying, 'Tariffs are coming on this date — oh, now they're delayed by 90 days. Now they're on, now they're off'. Such uncertainty is hardly likely to benefit US competitiveness. How do you see the global energy transition? I am optimistic on some fronts. India and China have net zero goals. However, I am pessimistic about what is happening politically in the US at the federal level — plenty of damage will be done. But while those in charge are taking steps backward in the US, globally, the transition is accelerating in the right direction. You mentioned the EU's CBAM — this was recently rejected by BRICS which called it unilateral and discriminatory. What is your view? Of course those on CBAM's receiving end have obligations to their own citizens and would quite prefer CBAM to not exist. However, there are two important points here. First, the planet benefits overall because CBAM expands the carbon club or the set of nations willing to work on the best policies and nudge things in the right direction. Second, CBAM enables certain countries and industries to gain — for example, the Korean steel industry basically has two major companies. Those two groups export only about 5% of their production to the EU. So, only 5% of South Korea's steel production is directly affected by CBAM. That said, the prospect of CBAM coming along has been in place for a while. This prompted both these leading producers in the South Korean steel industry to invest in lower carbon steel production technologies that will help them avoid those carbon tariffs — CBAM justifies such investments, subsidies and domestic policies, all of which help the planet. BRICS could see that as a key result. India already has many climate-oriented policies, like the electrification of two- and three-wheelers, that are in many ways more advanced than anywhere else in the world. These have a clear rationale to them — electric motors are fundamentally better technology, a much more efficient mode than internal combustion engines. Why shouldn't a rapidly growing economy like India not jump for that, instead of locking itself into inefficient old technology? Why not use CBAM as an opportunity to do exactly that?
