Personality (type) of FDI debate

I think there are two ways of looking at the FDI debate:

1. India is rich and growing rich.

2. India is poor and becoming poorer.

It might be very obvious where one stands by their view on the above. I was once told by somebody that with FDI in retail they will be able to go to new malls to shop. Can't disagree with him, but that is one part of the equation. I also know a mom-pop store who have run their establishment for ~30 years, for whom increased competition would mean retirement.

Depending on where you are on your perspective of the rich-poor spectrum, I guess, so you will see the issue. More biased you are the to the Rich argument, more inclined you are to shop and experiment new consumption habits; more bias you are to the FDI reforms. 

If you are so inclined to see the pain and sufferings of others, if you read the suicides of farmers, closure of industries and general lack of affluence in a particular section of society, I guess that your bias would be take the Poor argument.

[If you distill this further, you could end up Jungian personality concepts, which we rather not go into :) ]

Let me give you some empirical assumptions (evidence) for above:-

1. Its kind of strange that most of the supporters seem to the urban yuppies. People who seem to oppose this move seem to be people who are from the hinterland. 

2. I would also bet the following extension: people who support the FDI usually shop at 'non-personal' super-markets and are most probably 'out-of-towners' or recent movers. Continuing, I would bet that most people who support the FDI, have some good contact with retailer(s), even though they may rarely shop there. In effect, the people who are shooting people have not really seen the "whites of the eye" of the victim. FDI in retail is just an impersonal event.

3. I am often fond of mentioning, that people who have not visited or stayed in a village should not be preaching about rural development. What you see on TV, read in papers etc are just one shadow of a story; the real experience is a whole lot different. To pursue further, I would assume, most of the people who say farmers will be benefited really are not farmers. Perhaps they don't even own a agri-land. Most people who are opposed to the notion that farmers will be benefited are probably very closely linked to farmers and/ or understand their turbulence either by experience or social relations /situations.

4. Also people who berate middle-men don't seem to have ever come across a good middle-man who takes a bunch of risks by advancing money, giving inputs and guaranteeing the off-take - all in a social-financial system where farm credits are a headache to come by, where farm loans add more nuisance than needed*. Of course, it is only the wrong types who are mentioned in newspapers. 

I have put across some points which empirically stands out, whether it is true or not, is useless as it will not solve anything. However, what it can do is help us understand if we are biased by any such factors - life, society, upbringing, occupation etc - which makes our opinions on FDI just so colored by bias.

*[And most unfortunately, nobody in the world seems to be bothered about educating the farmer on the subsidies  government programs, training, assistance, horticulture support; etc. And the big one: nobody seems bothered about providing farmer with basic irrigation [apart from free power]