Discussion:
Car exports from India surge 28%, bikes zoom 45%
(too old to reply)
TwistyCreek
2006-07-20 06:19:00 UTC
Permalink
Sunday, 16 July , 2006, 12:09

New Delhi: Passenger car exports from India jumped by 27.97 per cent in the first quarter of the fiscal 2006-07 on the back of impressive figures from Korean car major Hyundai Motors along with car market leader Maruti Udyog and Tata Motors.

Overall auto exports from the country also registered a healthy growth of 27.32 per cent at 2,47,847 units during the quarter, which also witnessed overseas shipments of motorcycles registering a whopping 45.30 per cent jump while that of scooters, fell by 42.89 per cent.

According to figures released by the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM), passenger car exports from India in the April-June period this fiscal stood at 49,132 units as against 38,393 units in the corresponding fiscal previous year.

Infy's silver jubilee smash: A special

Leading the export pack was Hyundai Motor India Ltd, which clocked a total of 30,842 units during the quarter as against 24,372 units in the same quarter a year ago, up 26.54 per cent.

Maruti Udyog also managed to improve its exports performance by 12.93 per cent at 7,544 units in the quarter as against 6,680 units in the corresponding period previous year. Tata Motors also increased its shipments to 4,865 units from 3,292.

http://samachar.com/openbin/redirect_new.vs?H/20060716/walletwatch_business/1,http://sify.com/finance/fullstory.php?id=14250589&headline=Car~exports~surge~28%,~bikes~zoom~45%
Straydog
2006-07-20 21:16:05 UTC
Permalink
Financial Times, Thurs, July 20, 2006, page 9

title "Singh sounds the alarm over educational failings"

Some quotes from the article:

"Manmohan Singh, India's prime minister, could hardly have been blunter.
The Indian educational system is in such crisis, he said last week, that
it threatens the country's growth. For an outside world that haprbours an
image of a system churning out hard-working, numerate, techno-savy and
English-speaking graduates in their millions, the comments should come as
something of a shock."

"A new report [Higher Education in India: the need for change, by Pawan
Agarwall, Icrier, June 2006] highlights the waste of human capital
inherent in a higher education system that produces large numbers of
graduates who are unemployable even in sectors afflicted by by severe
labour shortages. 'The overall state of Indian higher education is dismal
and therefore poses a severe constriant on the supply of qualified
manpower,' says Rajiv Kumar, director of the Indian Council for Research
on International Economic Relations."

"Unemployment of graduates, at 17.2 per cent, in higher than the overall
rate of joblessness in the country. It is estimated that nearly 40 per
cent of graduates are not productively employed. Many show little aptitude
for the type of work to which they aspire and settle for low-grade
clerical work after enduring long periods of unemployment."

"A recent study cited by the Planning Commission found that 38 per cent of
children who have completed four years of schooling cannot read a small
paragraph with short sentences, while 55 per cent of such children cannot
divide a three-diget number by a single-diget number."

Also included is a bar graph that actually shows, progressively higher
unemployment with progressively higher levels of education (up to 12
years).
Phil Scott
2006-07-20 21:58:12 UTC
Permalink
Whelll.... now the truth comes out.
Post by Straydog
Financial Times, Thurs, July 20, 2006, page 9
title "Singh sounds the alarm over educational failings"
"Manmohan Singh, India's prime minister, could hardly have
been blunter. The Indian educational system is in such
crisis, he said last week, that it threatens the country's
growth. For an outside world that haprbours an image of a
system churning out hard-working, numerate, techno-savy and
English-speaking graduates in their millions, the comments
should come as something of a shock."
"A new report [Higher Education in India: the need for
change, by Pawan Agarwall, Icrier, June 2006] highlights the
waste of human capital inherent in a higher education system
that produces large numbers of graduates who are
unemployable even in sectors afflicted by by severe labour
shortages. 'The overall state of Indian higher education is
dismal and therefore poses a severe constriant on the supply
of qualified manpower,' says Rajiv Kumar, director of the
Indian Council for Research on International Economic
Relations."
"Unemployment of graduates, at 17.2 per cent, in higher than
the overall rate of joblessness in the country. It is
estimated that nearly 40 per cent of graduates are not
productively employed. Many show little aptitude for the
type of work to which they aspire and settle for low-grade
clerical work after enduring long periods of unemployment."
"A recent study cited by the Planning Commission found that
38 per cent of children who have completed four years of
schooling cannot read a small paragraph with short
sentences, while 55 per cent of such children cannot divide
a three-diget number by a single-diget number."
Also included is a bar graph that actually shows,
progressively higher unemployment with progressively higher
levels of education (up to 12 years).''
That was enlightening... sort of looks like US business is
looking to hire the cheapest idiot they can find,,, then make
that work somehow, as long as they can get another quarters
profit or their ten million dollar bonus....and to hell with
everything else.

not to worry though... economic collapse will cure em of that,
too its legal... perhaps there could be fraud charges filed or
even a class action as these lie and say they cant find the
talent in the US...so must go to india....thats fraud of
course.. and the damages are in the trillions...not to mention
a destroyed nation and bankrupted brain trust.



confirms my suspicions with the banks... they hire minumum
wage and let anyone go that wont fit their few management
spots..... so we get constant newbies and idiots on the front
lines....

that explains a lot...like the 6000 lb ceiling panels in the
big dig..held up with anchor bolts! Im glad I wasnt there
to see the engineering done, whats' left of my already fried
mind would have been boggled into oblivion.


Phil Scott
Straydog
2006-07-20 23:00:11 UTC
Permalink
Oh, there is more, just wait.
Post by Phil Scott
Whelll.... now the truth comes out.
Post by Straydog
Financial Times, Thurs, July 20, 2006, page 9
title "Singh sounds the alarm over educational failings"
"Manmohan Singh, India's prime minister, could hardly have
been blunter. The Indian educational system is in such
crisis, he said last week, that it threatens the country's
growth. For an outside world that haprbours an image of a
system churning out hard-working, numerate, techno-savy and
English-speaking graduates in their millions, the comments
should come as something of a shock."
"A new report [Higher Education in India: the need for
change, by Pawan Agarwall, Icrier, June 2006] highlights the
waste of human capital inherent in a higher education system
that produces large numbers of graduates who are
unemployable even in sectors afflicted by by severe labour
shortages. 'The overall state of Indian higher education is
dismal and therefore poses a severe constriant on the supply
of qualified manpower,' says Rajiv Kumar, director of the
Indian Council for Research on International Economic
Relations."
"Unemployment of graduates, at 17.2 per cent, in higher than
the overall rate of joblessness in the country. It is
estimated that nearly 40 per cent of graduates are not
productively employed. Many show little aptitude for the
type of work to which they aspire and settle for low-grade
clerical work after enduring long periods of unemployment."
"A recent study cited by the Planning Commission found that
38 per cent of children who have completed four years of
schooling cannot read a small paragraph with short
sentences, while 55 per cent of such children cannot divide
a three-diget number by a single-diget number."
Also included is a bar graph that actually shows,
progressively higher unemployment with progressively higher
levels of education (up to 12 years).''
That was enlightening... sort of looks like US business is
looking to hire the cheapest idiot they can find,,, then make
that work somehow, as long as they can get another quarters
profit or their ten million dollar bonus....and to hell with
everything else.
not to worry though... economic collapse will cure em of that,
too its legal... perhaps there could be fraud charges filed or
even a class action as these lie and say they cant find the
talent in the US...so must go to india....thats fraud of
course.. and the damages are in the trillions...not to mention
a destroyed nation and bankrupted brain trust.
confirms my suspicions with the banks... they hire minumum
wage and let anyone go that wont fit their few management
spots..... so we get constant newbies and idiots on the front
lines....
that explains a lot...like the 6000 lb ceiling panels in the
big dig..held up with anchor bolts! Im glad I wasnt there
to see the engineering done, whats' left of my already fried
mind would have been boggled into oblivion.
Phil Scott
p***@yahoo.com
2006-07-21 23:45:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Scott
Post by Straydog
title "Singh sounds the alarm over educational failings"
"Manmohan Singh, India's prime minister, could hardly have
been blunter. The Indian educational system is in such
crisis, he said last week, that it threatens the country's
growth. For an outside world that haprbours an image of a
system churning out hard-working, numerate, techno-savy and
English-speaking graduates in their millions, the comments
should come as something of a shock."
"A new report [Higher Education in India: the need for
change, by Pawan Agarwall, Icrier, June 2006] highlights the
waste of human capital inherent in a higher education system
that produces large numbers of graduates who are
unemployable even in sectors afflicted by by severe labour
shortages. 'The overall state of Indian higher education is
dismal and therefore poses a severe constriant on the supply
of qualified manpower,' says Rajiv Kumar, director of the
Indian Council for Research on International Economic
Relations."
"Unemployment of graduates, at 17.2 per cent, in higher than
the overall rate of joblessness in the country. It is
estimated that nearly 40 per cent of graduates are not
productively employed. Many show little aptitude for the
type of work to which they aspire and settle for low-grade
clerical work after enduring long periods of unemployment."
"A recent study cited by the Planning Commission found that
38 per cent of children who have completed four years of
schooling cannot read a small paragraph with short
sentences, while 55 per cent of such children cannot divide
a three-diget number by a single-diget number."
Also included is a bar graph that actually shows,
progressively higher unemployment with progressively higher
levels of education (up to 12 years).''
That was enlightening... sort of looks like US business is
looking to hire the cheapest idiot they can find,,, then make
that work somehow, as long as they can get another quarters
profit or their ten million dollar bonus....and to hell with
everything else.
There are talneted hardwaorking Indians. They make 20% of population.
That still works out to 200 million individuals.
Robert Kolker
2006-07-22 00:56:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@yahoo.com
There are talneted hardwaorking Indians. They make 20% of population.
That still works out to 200 million individuals.
Of the one billion Indians two thirds are adult and participate in the
economy. The rest are too young to count as either hardworking or not. A
young child is economically useless (assuming child labor laws hold). A
certain percentage of the population is too old to function so they
don't count. We can assume that maybe half the population are
functioning adults so your number drops to 100 million individuals which
is not all that bad.

Bob Kolker
minnesotti
2006-07-23 09:34:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Scott
That was enlightening... sort of looks like US business is
looking to hire the cheapest idiot they can find,,, then make
that work somehow, as long as they can get another quarters
profit or their ten million dollar bonus....and to hell with
everything else.
It is well put... I liked the saying "US business is looking to hire
the cheapest idiot they can find".

However, this all is happening because the economical system can bear
it. They hire as unskilled workers as the economy can bear. And the
current economy system can bear 95% of its workers to be unskilled. The
reason is that the previous generations worked hard to develop the
technologies which allow to produce the food, shelter and entertainment
cheaply and in abundant amount. Thus, the today's society does not need
to worry anymore about developing and improving of the sustaining
technologies. The motivation is not there anymore. That's the end of
the Western civilization. (Actually, this is not an end, but the
societal system will be shaken soon and will be restructured in its
essence, which will be accompanied by the sufferings of the masses.)

..
anon
2006-07-23 12:51:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by minnesotti
Post by Phil Scott
That was enlightening... sort of looks like US business is
looking to hire the cheapest idiot they can find,,, then make
that work somehow, as long as they can get another quarters
profit or their ten million dollar bonus....and to hell with
everything else.
It is well put... I liked the saying "US business is looking to hire
the cheapest idiot they can find".
US business is only interested in the latest fad because it leads to
increasing share prices (remember glass companies putting dot com in their
names and reaping substantial share price increases). CEOs are not
interested in company performance as much as manipulating share prices -
whic is the bulk of their compensation.

There was a good article by Coggan (the smart one at FT). He cited some
studies which showed that excessive incentives actually decrease
performance. eg, penalty shooters in football seem to perform worse in front
of home crowd.

The share market is no longer a means of capital formation - it has become
the reason why companies do things a certain way. Analysts dislike employee
costs and do not mind operating costs. So employees get fired and are
replaced by outsourced ones or consultants. The market applauds, regardless
of the long term effects.
Robert Kolker
2006-07-23 14:29:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by anon
The share market is no longer a means of capital formation - it has become
the reason why companies do things a certain way. Analysts dislike employee
costs and do not mind operating costs. So employees get fired and are
replaced by outsourced ones or consultants. The market applauds, regardless
of the long term effects.
I wonder if anyone has asked that if the great consuming middle class is
destroyed in America, who is going to buy the goods and services of the
companies that operate in America? There are industries whose revenues
are consumer driven. Is it not in their interestest to help maintain
buying power at home?

I can understanding firing the deadwood from the job, but firing
everyone in sight?

Bob Kolker
anon
2006-07-23 13:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Kolker
Post by anon
The share market is no longer a means of capital formation - it has
become the reason why companies do things a certain way. Analysts dislike
employee costs and do not mind operating costs. So employees get fired
and are replaced by outsourced ones or consultants. The market applauds,
regardless of the long term effects.
I wonder if anyone has asked that if the great consuming middle class is
destroyed in America, who is going to buy the goods and services of the
companies that operate in America? There are industries whose revenues are
consumer driven. Is it not in their interestest to help maintain buying
power at home?
1. the american system is totally driven by end of month reports. the crap
is left to sort out for the future generations, the next CEO, the next
president, or the next Fed chairman.

2. the markets have figured out that the fed and the govt will not let
consumption decline. that is why you see such dramatic moves in the price of
inelastic raw materials in the futures markets. the market knows it can
extort much more for the oil, cotton, copper, nickel etc - because these are
used in economic activity, and the fed won't let that decline.

The "risk management" approach of mr. greenspan has turned into a debt
machine where the fed will keep pumping the money. and any signs of distress
in the consumption, it will pump more. the only problem is if the banks
won't lend it to you if you don't have the collateral aka land. landowners
win, yet again.

the govt will keep up the pressure on the land via immigration, and the
collateral will keep rising in price, and hence available for more mortgages
and equity extraction.
Robert Kolker
2006-07-23 14:51:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by anon
Post by Robert Kolker
Post by anon
The share market is no longer a means of capital formation - it has
become the reason why companies do things a certain way. Analysts dislike
employee costs and do not mind operating costs. So employees get fired
and are replaced by outsourced ones or consultants. The market applauds,
regardless of the long term effects.
I wonder if anyone has asked that if the great consuming middle class is
destroyed in America, who is going to buy the goods and services of the
companies that operate in America? There are industries whose revenues are
consumer driven. Is it not in their interestest to help maintain buying
power at home?
1. the american system is totally driven by end of month reports. the crap
is left to sort out for the future generations, the next CEO, the next
president, or the next Fed chairman.
Maybe this is a good time for government to assume its proper functions:

Police, courts, and armed forces and nothing else.

A redistributionist government is hand and glove with wasteful, bloated,
nasty mega-corporations. Niether could exist without the other. Perhaps
it is time to remove The Mandate of Heaven from the current system.

Bob Kolker
Old Pif
2006-07-23 15:27:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Kolker
Police, courts, and armed forces and nothing else.
A redistributionist government is hand and glove with wasteful, bloated,
nasty mega-corporations. Niether could exist without the other. Perhaps
it is time to remove The Mandate of Heaven from the current system.
If you look at typical dynamics of any industry - car, IT, airspace
etc., you notice that it consolidates with time meaning that there are
less players in the field and the survivals are bigger. In airspace,
e.g. we would have only one guy (Boeing) if the government artificially
had not created conditions for couple of competitors to survive.

That tells you what would happen if government eliminated itself from
the the game - economy monopolizes with high speed up to a point when
all competitors are dead and only couple of big guys survived and
divide the economy between themselves. It is natural instinct of any
business to eliminate competitors which is contrary to what most of
economists and politicians believe is good for society.
Straydog
2006-07-23 19:59:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Pif
Post by Robert Kolker
Police, courts, and armed forces and nothing else.
A redistributionist government is hand and glove with wasteful, bloated,
nasty mega-corporations. Niether could exist without the other. Perhaps
it is time to remove The Mandate of Heaven from the current system.
If you look at typical dynamics of any industry - car, IT, airspace
etc., you notice that it consolidates with time meaning that there are
less players in the field and the survivals are bigger. In airspace,
e.g. we would have only one guy (Boeing) if the government artificially
had not created conditions for couple of competitors to survive.
That tells you what would happen if government eliminated itself from
the the game - economy monopolizes with high speed up to a point when
all competitors are dead and only couple of big guys survived and
divide the economy between themselves. It is natural instinct of any
business to eliminate competitors which is contrary to what most of
economists and politicians believe is good for society.
Basically, our whole military establishment is a govt-subsidized welfare
program to support defense jobs. If we had true "free markets" I'd bet we
could get the Chinese to make anything we needed (rockets, ammo, guns,
planes) at 1/10 to 1/20th the cost and they would be happy to let the
conveyor belts run off 2X the order, and keep half of it, basically paid
for by US taxpayers. I seem to recall that even Israel, and a few other
countries get some pentagon contracts.

The question as to whether our military materiel is a "sacred cow" (and
thus providing high job security and high pay to a subset of the US
population) to be guaranteed fed from US taxpayers is something I'll leave
to the pro-globalists.

Without having studied govt subsidies in detail, its hard for me to
present an "expert" opinion as to whether they pay for themselves in
spinoff and development, but I think all parties have agreed that the
internet, originally sponsored as a military com network, has mushroomed
into a major cash cow, first for the USA, and now, the rest of the world
(of course we will never get any acknowledgement from the Indians, let
alone appreciation, because they are too lost in their own swelled heads,
fed by considerable business headed their way but in a volume far lower
than for the total volume of other kinds of MNC business flying around
the world)

Bits and pieces of news that I run into indicate that there are plenty of
complaints to spread around about govt subsidies "favoring" a local
business for the purpose of landing a "beachead" in some sector of the
world economy (eg. Euro complaints against Boeing, Boeing's complaints
againd Airbus). Agricultural subsidies are the current baracade at the
Doha WTO talks. I can just see guys in cushy chairs -- at the stroke of a
pen-- sentencing large populations of farmers in poverty to going out of
business while all the transport ships and tankers, and the oil companies
that stoke the boilers for fuel, make off like bandits. All in the name of
validating economist "castles in the sky."

But, they insist on fixing something that isn't broken.
Kamal R. Prasad
2006-07-24 06:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Straydog
Post by Old Pif
Post by Robert Kolker
Police, courts, and armed forces and nothing else.
A redistributionist government is hand and glove with wasteful, bloated,
nasty mega-corporations. Niether could exist without the other. Perhaps
it is time to remove The Mandate of Heaven from the current system.
and perhaps it is also necessary for americans to stop thinking that
wealth originates in the US, and if only we could elect the right
president -he will solve all of our problems.
Post by Straydog
Post by Old Pif
If you look at typical dynamics of any industry - car, IT, airspace
etc., you notice that it consolidates with time meaning that there are
less players in the field and the survivals are bigger. In airspace,
e.g. we would have only one guy (Boeing) if the government artificially
had not created conditions for couple of competitors to survive.
That tells you what would happen if government eliminated itself from
the the game - economy monopolizes with high speed up to a point when
all competitors are dead and only couple of big guys survived and
divide the economy between themselves. It is natural instinct of any
business to eliminate competitors which is contrary to what most of
economists and politicians believe is good for society.
The use of a dominant position to eleminate competitors is prohibited
by US law (Sherman act) since the days of Standard Oil. But the laws
are difficult to implement -more so in a capitalist country, where
capital buys a lot more than anywhere else.
That aside, aerospace is a very capital-intensive process and if a
company with better engrs/design cannot attract capital -it won't be
able to survive. You cannot blame the guy who attracted capital for
that.
Post by Straydog
Basically, our whole military establishment is a govt-subsidized welfare
program to support defense jobs. If we had true "free markets" I'd bet we
could get the Chinese to make anything we needed (rockets, ammo, guns,
planes) at 1/10 to 1/20th the cost and they would be happy to let the
conveyor belts run off 2X the order, and keep half of it, basically paid
for by US taxpayers. I seem to recall that even Israel, and a few other
countries get some pentagon contracts.
and so now do you understand that preventing offshoring to a cheaper
location is a SIMILAR case of taxpayers/consumers paying for the
welfare of greedy pigs demanding $100K+ salaries? All of those high
incomes that american workers consider their birthright have got to be
paid by someone -just as the US taxpayer pays heavily for the military
establishment [this includes engrs working on defence equipment
deisng/manufacturing].
Post by Straydog
The question as to whether our military materiel is a "sacred cow" (and
thus providing high job security and high pay to a subset of the US
population) to be guaranteed fed from US taxpayers is something I'll leave
to the pro-globalists.
or you can leave it to people who believe in curbing wasteful govt
expenditure financed by taxpayers. If there is greater competition,
workers will be forced to lower their expectations towards min wage
[the good old iron law of wages] and that will save taxpayers money and
also keep more americans employed albeit at a lower salary.
Post by Straydog
Without having studied govt subsidies in detail, its hard for me to
present an "expert" opinion as to whether they pay for themselves in
spinoff and development, but I think all parties have agreed that the
internet, originally sponsored as a military com network, has mushroomed
into a major cash cow, first for the USA, and now, the rest of the world
yeah -but defence(DARPA) is just an alias for govt subsidy for
financially unproven research work. You could say the US taxpayer has
bankrolled lots of academic projects which benefited the world around
you.
Post by Straydog
(of course we will never get any acknowledgement from the Indians, let
alone appreciation, because they are too lost in their own swelled heads,
I just did.
Post by Straydog
fed by considerable business headed their way but in a volume far lower
than for the total volume of other kinds of MNC business flying around
the world)
Yeah -as I told you many times before, we aren't much of an export
oreitned country. If MNCs started coming to India, it isn't because
your president took pity on us and allowed them to send some jobs to
India. It is because the govt was arm-twisted by the IMF to open up the
economy. Even after all that, the Indian economy is relatively
insulated from any swings in US consumer's spending.
Post by Straydog
Bits and pieces of news that I run into indicate that there are plenty of
complaints to spread around about govt subsidies "favoring" a local
business for the purpose of landing a "beachead" in some sector of the
world economy (eg. Euro complaints against Boeing, Boeing's complaints
againd Airbus). Agricultural subsidies are the current baracade at the
Doha WTO talks. I can just see guys in cushy chairs -- at the stroke of a
pen-- sentencing large populations of farmers in poverty to going out of
business while all the transport ships and tankers, and the oil companies
that stoke the boilers for fuel, make off like bandits. All in the name of
validating economist "castles in the sky."
The US and EU provide farm subsidies which have caused irepairable
damage to many economies. In India, the govt has to let that subsidized
stuff compete in return for our engrs competing with americans. If you
didn't have subsidy at your end, your engrs will be able to compete
better and so you gain some jobs in engg but lose out on some
agri-products.
Post by Straydog
But, they insist on fixing something that isn't broken.
Its broken as far as poor people are concerned and fixed as far as
transnational businesses are concerned - i.e. the current influx of
mexican immigrants is also tied to the broken system. After NAFTA
allowed for cheaper/subsidized agri-exports from the US to mexico, many
mexican farmers went bankrupt and their erstwhile self-sustained rural
communities went bust thanks to transnat agri-businesses in league with
your politicians. That left those starving mexicans with no other
option but to start gate-crashing the US for work (and the case of
women -as strippers/prostitutes etc). It gave american businesses more
human capital because of which they prospered and as a matter of fact,
the greying population of the USA that can no longer do labour
intensiive work is being helped out by enslaved labour -that has no
rights and always lives in fear of law enforcement. I would add that
mexico suffered a severe drought in the 1990s around the same time -but
the fact that they have had normal weather for many years thereafter
means that you cannot blame it on the weather and their population
couldn't have exploded to justify the gate crashing either.

regards
-kamal
Straydog
2006-07-24 14:05:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
Post by Old Pif
Post by Robert Kolker
Police, courts, and armed forces and nothing else.
A redistributionist government is hand and glove with wasteful, bloated,
nasty mega-corporations. Niether could exist without the other. Perhaps
it is time to remove The Mandate of Heaven from the current system.
and perhaps it is also necessary for americans to stop thinking that
wealth originates in the US,
And, Kamal Prasad needs to open his eyes and see that the US actually is
actually wealthy and the sum of the value of all the US$ and US assets
probably exceeds that of any other country.

and if only we could elect the right
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
president -he will solve all of our problems.
Post by Straydog
Post by Old Pif
If you look at typical dynamics of any industry - car, IT, airspace
etc., you notice that it consolidates with time meaning that there are
less players in the field and the survivals are bigger. In airspace,
e.g. we would have only one guy (Boeing) if the government artificially
had not created conditions for couple of competitors to survive.
That tells you what would happen if government eliminated itself from
the the game - economy monopolizes with high speed up to a point when
all competitors are dead and only couple of big guys survived and
divide the economy between themselves. It is natural instinct of any
business to eliminate competitors which is contrary to what most of
economists and politicians believe is good for society.
The use of a dominant position to eleminate competitors is prohibited
by US law (Sherman act) since the days of Standard Oil. But the laws
are difficult to implement -more so in a capitalist country, where
capital buys a lot more than anywhere else.
eg. India
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
That aside, aerospace is a very capital-intensive process and if a
company with better engrs/design cannot attract capital -it won't be
able to survive. You cannot blame the guy who attracted capital for
that.
Post by Straydog
Basically, our whole military establishment is a govt-subsidized welfare
program to support defense jobs. If we had true "free markets" I'd bet we
could get the Chinese to make anything we needed (rockets, ammo, guns,
planes) at 1/10 to 1/20th the cost and they would be happy to let the
conveyor belts run off 2X the order, and keep half of it, basically paid
for by US taxpayers. I seem to recall that even Israel, and a few other
countries get some pentagon contracts.
and so now do you understand that preventing offshoring to a cheaper
location is a SIMILAR case of taxpayers/consumers paying for the
welfare of greedy pigs demanding $100K+ salaries?
This sentence completely ignores several facts:

First, that offshoring does not always go to a cheaper location (eg.
India & China can't make jet airliners, but Boeing and Airbus do).


Second, "cheaper" only means that the exchang rate favors an arrangement
that presents a lower bill.

Third, there is significant evidence that the cheaper work is also of
lower qualityh (see my BPO failure rate FAQ which keeps getting larger).

All of those high
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
incomes that american workers consider their birthright
And, I'm still waiting for Kamal to face in his own country the high
caste priviledges that comes with Indian birthrights and the shit
priviledges (non-existent) that the "untouchables" had to bear for the
last 3,000 years.

have got to be
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
paid by someone -just as the US taxpayer pays heavily for the military
establishment [this includes engrs working on defence equipment
deisng/manufacturing].
The US exports a significant amount of military goods just like Russia and
China do.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
The question as to whether our military materiel is a "sacred cow" (and
thus providing high job security and high pay to a subset of the US
population) to be guaranteed fed from US taxpayers is something I'll leave
to the pro-globalists.
or you can leave it to people who believe in curbing wasteful govt
expenditure financed by taxpayers. If there is greater competition,
workers will be forced to lower their expectations towards min wage
[the good old iron law of wages] and that will save taxpayers money and
also keep more americans employed albeit at a lower salary.
Post by Straydog
Without having studied govt subsidies in detail, its hard for me to
present an "expert" opinion as to whether they pay for themselves in
spinoff and development, but I think all parties have agreed that the
internet, originally sponsored as a military com network, has mushroomed
into a major cash cow, first for the USA, and now, the rest of the world
yeah -but defence(DARPA) is just an alias for govt subsidy for
financially unproven research work.
Computers and the Internet, plus many other spinoffs, have proven that
govt subs research did pay off.

You could say the US taxpayer has
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
bankrolled lots of academic projects which benefited the world around
you.
Including India.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
(of course we will never get any acknowledgement from the Indians, let
alone appreciation, because they are too lost in their own swelled heads,
I just did.
Thanks. But you still have a swelled head.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
fed by considerable business headed their way but in a volume far lower
than for the total volume of other kinds of MNC business flying around
the world)
Yeah -as I told you many times before, we aren't much of an export
oreitned country.
Oh, but you guys (including TwistyCreek) sure beating the table about how
damed great you are (but never mentioned all the crap still in your
country, but you don't hesitate to talk about US problems [so, fine, I
will talk about Indian problems and you have plenty]).
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
If MNCs started coming to India,
MNCs have been in your country for years already. IBM, Sun, MS, Oracle,
etc.

it isn't because
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
your president took pity on us and allowed them to send some jobs to
India.
No, its because everything you get from us is a pure gift of the exchange
rate.

It is because the govt was arm-twisted by the IMF to open up the
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
economy.
Actually, India is still not open to US selling in India.

Even after all that, the Indian economy is relatively
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
insulated from any swings in US consumer's spending.
Insulated by not open Rupee, not open markets, and I see that you export
more to Pakistan than you import, so you NEED to keep Pakistan healthy or
you will lose that revenue stream. And, in primitive economies like yours,
a dollar goes a lot farther than a Rupee, so you are NOT so insulated as
you think.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
Bits and pieces of news that I run into indicate that there are plenty of
complaints to spread around about govt subsidies "favoring" a local
business for the purpose of landing a "beachead" in some sector of the
world economy (eg. Euro complaints against Boeing, Boeing's complaints
againd Airbus). Agricultural subsidies are the current baracade at the
Doha WTO talks. I can just see guys in cushy chairs -- at the stroke of a
pen-- sentencing large populations of farmers in poverty to going out of
business while all the transport ships and tankers, and the oil companies
that stoke the boilers for fuel, make off like bandits. All in the name of
validating economist "castles in the sky."
The US and EU provide farm subsidies which have caused irepairable
damage to many economies. In India, the govt has to let that subsidized
stuff compete in return for our engrs competing with americans. If you
didn't have subsidy at your end, your engrs will be able to compete
better and so you gain some jobs in engg but lose out on some
agri-products.
Remember my post about our exports? Oh, i see you forgot that too.

So, here it is again:
----------------------
The Economist (I hope you know that periodical) publishes in the back pages of
every issue lots of financial data. In the April 29, 2006 issue on page 101,
is a bar graph showing (title of bar graph) "Trade in commercial services"
with an asterisk which says "Transport, travel, commmunications, financial
and other services" and under the title it says "Top exporters, 2005, $bn"
and guess who is at the top? The USA, exported $350 billion in services.
The next highest exporter is Britain with $180 bil. There were 13 more
countries listed (Germany, France, Japan, Italy, Spain, China [with $80 bil],
Netherlands, _India_ [with $65 bil in services], and the rest with Canada
ending at $50 bil). The source was given as the WTO.


Just in the Tuesday, May 16, issue of the WSJ, front page, is another bar
graph on world wide farm exports. Guess what, US is at the top with $79.6
bil in exports. The whole EU exports $78.4 bil. Others in order down the
list are Canada (40.1), Brazil (30.9), China (24.1), Oz (22.1), Argentina
(17.1), and down through Russia (13.8), and Malaysia (13.1), and India not
even on the list.

---------------------------------
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
But, they insist on fixing something that isn't broken.
Its broken as far as poor people are concerned and fixed as far as
transnational businesses are concerned - i.e. the current influx of
mexican immigrants
How about you learn to focus on the difference between legal immigrants
and illegal immigrants.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
is also tied to the broken system.
Yeah, we need a Berlin Wall accross our border.

After NAFTA
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
allowed for cheaper/subsidized agri-exports from the US to mexico, many
mexican farmers went bankrupt and their erstwhile self-sustained rural
communities went bust thanks to transnat agri-businesses in league with
your politicians.
I think this is untrue. But, then, you Indians have your Indian lobby
which is in league with our politicians, too, who actually work for your
benefit, not ours.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
That left those starving mexicans with no other
option but to start gate-crashing the US for work (and the case of
women -as strippers/prostitutes etc).
Those starving Mexicans were coming up here for decades before NAFTA, so
your explaination is false.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
It gave american businesses more
human capital because of which they prospered and as a matter of fact,
the greying population of the USA that can no longer do labour
intensiive work is being helped out by enslaved labour -that has no
rights and always lives in fear of law enforcement.
The illegals, yes. However, being that 90% of the people here were born
here, the Mexicans really don't contribute that much. They even had a
nationwide strike here which barely affected anyone.

I would add that
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
mexico suffered a severe drought in the 1990s around the same time -but
the fact that they have had normal weather for many years thereafter
means that you cannot blame it on the weather and their population
couldn't have exploded to justify the gate crashing either.
Like I said, they have been coming here since way before NAFTA. You don't
know what you are talking about.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
regards
-kamal
Les Cargill
2006-07-23 23:54:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Kolker
Post by anon
Post by Robert Kolker
Post by anon
The share market is no longer a means of capital formation - it has
become the reason why companies do things a certain way. Analysts
dislike employee costs and do not mind operating costs. So employees
get fired and are replaced by outsourced ones or consultants. The
market applauds, regardless of the long term effects.
I wonder if anyone has asked that if the great consuming middle class
is destroyed in America, who is going to buy the goods and services
of the companies that operate in America? There are industries whose
revenues are consumer driven. Is it not in their interestest to help
maintain buying power at home?
1. the american system is totally driven by end of month reports. the
crap is left to sort out for the future generations, the next CEO, the
next president, or the next Fed chairman.
Police, courts, and armed forces and nothing else.
A redistributionist government is hand and glove with wasteful, bloated,
nasty mega-corporations. Niether could exist without the other. Perhaps
it is time to remove The Mandate of Heaven from the current system.
Bob Kolker
The Mandate of Heaven is a competitive differentiator in electoral
markets. And its implementation has been relatively
ruthlessly made efficient - Section 8 housing instead of
Cabrini Green, workfare, supplemental skills training.

--
Les Cargill
anon
2006-07-25 02:44:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Kolker
A redistributionist government is hand and glove with wasteful, bloated,
nasty mega-corporations. Niether could exist without the other. Perhaps it
is time to remove The Mandate of Heaven from the current system.
IMO, taxation is the most important function of the government.

the tax system of the country tells you how honest the place is.
Kamal R. Prasad
2006-07-26 08:55:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by anon
Post by Robert Kolker
Post by anon
The share market is no longer a means of capital formation - it has
become the reason why companies do things a certain way. Analysts dislike
employee costs and do not mind operating costs. So employees get fired
and are replaced by outsourced ones or consultants. The market applauds,
regardless of the long term effects.
Analysts dislike all input costs. The market applauds growth in
revenue/profits regardless of how a company achieves it. Some companies
make do with fewer -high priced employees, and some make do with lots
of low-priced employees. That is a matter of execution left to company
managers by the stock market and its only the bottom line that counts.
Post by anon
Post by Robert Kolker
I wonder if anyone has asked that if the great consuming middle class is
destroyed in America, who is going to buy the goods and services of the
companies that operate in America? There are industries whose revenues are
consumer driven. Is it not in their interestest to help maintain buying
power at home?
The consuming middle class of america will be replaced by a
less-consuming middle class in 3rd world countries, i.e. each
individual consumes less than the avg american while working a lot
harder -but a lot of consumers on account of huge untapped populations
will compensate for that and provide jobs to a lot more workers. Thanks
to consumers in India, China and many newly emerging markets -american
companies have found a lot more first-time buyers from whoim they can
extract a premium rather than forcing upgrades down the bloated
american consumer's throat.
Post by anon
1. the american system is totally driven by end of month reports. the crap
is left to sort out for the future generations, the next CEO, the next
president, or the next Fed chairman.
A quarterly view is more like it. Some large companies have plans
stretching into decades -coz they have that much insulation from
financial/market crises.
Post by anon
2. the markets have figured out that the fed and the govt will not let
consumption decline. that is why you see such dramatic moves in the price of
inelastic raw materials in the futures markets. the market knows it can
extort much more for the oil, cotton, copper, nickel etc - because these are
used in economic activity, and the fed won't let that decline.
The "risk management" approach of mr. greenspan has turned into a debt
machine where the fed will keep pumping the money. and any signs of distress
in the consumption,
Im glad you realized what is going on. Its really hard to convince
americans that their govt is printing money to keep up consumer
spending without an associated rise in productivity/wealth. For
Straydog, understand from your fellow american:-

Money != Wealth (read in C language as Money is not equal to
Wealth)

Money is a means to carry out trade in goods and servicea -and not a
replacement for wealth. It is like a credit card issues by a credit
card co. The credit card has zero residual value, unless it is honoured
and ONLY valued if swiping it does yield money -whcih can be traded in
lieo uf trade-able goods/services aka wealth.
Post by anon
it will pump more. the only problem is if the banks
won't lend it to you if you don't have the collateral aka land. landowners
win, yet again.
Individuals with a job can take a mortgage and when the Fed increases
liquidity aka money supply, refinancing yields money without having to
work for it -which in turn props up consumer spending and that results
in job creation.
Post by anon
the govt will keep up the pressure on the land via immigration, and the
collateral will keep rising in price, and hence available for more mortgages
and equity extraction.
If immigration is the cause, why do housing prices increase ONLY in
regions where there is economic activity? You will not find
hispanics/H1bs in Montana, Idaho even if they are eligible to work
there and housing costs v less -coz there is no economic activity out
there. Its there in mostly congested areas of west and east coast. Home
prices will rise when liquidity increases, or salaries increase or
productivity increases or people with money to spare zero in to a
particular residential neighbourhood [or all of the above]. From what I
understand, home prices in the US cannot be sustained by productivity
alone and act as a deterrent to employers wishing to setup factories in
the US i.e. the employer will have to pay a lot more to hire comeone in
calif than in India or maybe remote areas of the US.


regards
-kamal
alexy
2006-07-26 12:15:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Analysts dislike all input costs. The market applauds growth in
revenue/profits regardless of how a company achieves it. Some companies
make do with fewer -high priced employees, and some make do with lots
of low-priced employees. That is a matter of execution left to company
managers by the stock market and its only the bottom line that counts.
I disagree somewhat. The market doesn't applaud growth in
revenue/profits -- it anticipates future profits. Thus all the stories
of companies coming out with record earnings and having their share
price drop--the earnings, while at record levels, were below
expectations, indicating that projections for future earnings (which
are the basis for the stock price) need to be revised downward.

And the market very definitely cares how earnings are
achieved--selling off a business unit may create a large current year
profit, but have little or even negative effect on the market price,
while losing money currently on the start-up cost of serving a new
customer may generate large increases in share price if that new
customer is expected to provide significant future profits. And back
to your example of a few high-priced versus many low-priced
employees--it makes a difference to the market price to the extent
that the market (driven largely by the analysts who follow the
company) thinks that one strategy or the other will lead to more
sustainable earnings and earnings growth.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
Kamal R. Prasad
2006-07-26 12:33:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Analysts dislike all input costs. The market applauds growth in
revenue/profits regardless of how a company achieves it. Some companies
make do with fewer -high priced employees, and some make do with lots
of low-priced employees. That is a matter of execution left to company
managers by the stock market and its only the bottom line that counts.
I disagree somewhat. The market doesn't applaud growth in
revenue/profits -- it anticipates future profits. Thus all the stories
of companies coming out with record earnings and having their share
price drop--the earnings, while at record levels, were below
expectations, indicating that projections for future earnings (which
are the basis for the stock price) need to be revised downward.
well -eventually those projections (which anyone can come up with) will
have to be sunstantiated by growth in profits. I am not referring to
absolute profits -but to growth in profits i.e. something profits grew
35% year-over-year .
Post by alexy
And the market very definitely cares how earnings are
achieved--selling off a business unit may create a large current year
profit, but have little or even negative effect on the market price,
while losing money currently on the start-up cost of serving a new
customer may generate large increases in share price if that new
customer is expected to provide significant future profits. And back
My point was about shareholders bothering about workers' compensation
etc..
The BoD will leave it to the CEO who will in turn leave it to the HR to
determine prevailing wages for a given cadre and/or decide s/he wants
to make do with more fresh grads or easier to retain workers instead of
appropriately qualified workers. I don't think any shareholder meeting
is going to bring up the HR's agenda or give a damn about it.
Post by alexy
to your example of a few high-priced versus many low-priced
employees--it makes a difference to the market price to the extent
that the market (driven largely by the analysts who follow the
company) thinks that one strategy or the other will lead to more
sustainable earnings and earnings growth.
you mean they discuss such things in shareholders meetings? Mgmt is
mostly about constraints i.e. we got to get this activity done within
this budgetary alloation and this is the expected profit etc and the
mid-level mgrs will decide on how that budgetary allocation is to be
used.


But -regardless of whether you agree with me or not, the main pt which
I wanted to make and you have snipped is regarding the concept of
wealth. Printing money doesn't result in an increase in
wealth/trade-able goods or services and consequently while the US
Treassury has a charter to work for the benefit of american citizens,
it doesn't have the means to increase wealth for everybody [but can
only increase money supply/liquidity -which is different from
increasing wealth].
So those who believe that they are entitled to a higher std of living
on account of their citizenship ought to re-examine such widely held
notions.

regards
-kamal
Post by alexy
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
alexy
2006-07-26 13:47:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Analysts dislike all input costs. The market applauds growth in
revenue/profits regardless of how a company achieves it. Some companies
make do with fewer -high priced employees, and some make do with lots
of low-priced employees. That is a matter of execution left to company
managers by the stock market and its only the bottom line that counts.
I disagree somewhat. The market doesn't applaud growth in
revenue/profits -- it anticipates future profits. Thus all the stories
of companies coming out with record earnings and having their share
price drop--the earnings, while at record levels, were below
expectations, indicating that projections for future earnings (which
are the basis for the stock price) need to be revised downward.
well -eventually those projections (which anyone can come up with)
To your parenthetical, true, but no one gives a rat's ass about any
projection you or I may do, while a projection done by an analyst of a
major investment house will affect the market.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
will
have to be sunstantiated by growth in profits. I am not referring to
absolute profits -but to growth in profits i.e. something profits grew
35% year-over-year .
Yes, in the sense that if an analyst is consistently projecting 10%
growth and the company's profits consistently grow at 5%, the market
will start to ignore that analyst's work.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by alexy
And the market very definitely cares how earnings are
achieved--selling off a business unit may create a large current year
profit, but have little or even negative effect on the market price,
while losing money currently on the start-up cost of serving a new
customer may generate large increases in share price if that new
customer is expected to provide significant future profits. And back
My point was about shareholders bothering about workers' compensation
etc..
The BoD will leave it to the CEO who will in turn leave it to the HR to
determine prevailing wages for a given cadre and/or decide s/he wants
to make do with more fresh grads or easier to retain workers instead of
appropriately qualified workers. I don't think any shareholder meeting
is going to bring up the HR's agenda or give a damn about it.
Post by alexy
to your example of a few high-priced versus many low-priced
employees--it makes a difference to the market price to the extent
that the market (driven largely by the analysts who follow the
company) thinks that one strategy or the other will lead to more
sustainable earnings and earnings growth.
you mean they discuss such things in shareholders meetings?
Almost never, unless in response to a shareholder proposal. If
discussed at all, it would be in a conference call with analysts. Most
such issues are not significant enough to get attention of analysts.
But take a very labor intensive industry like the airlines, and
analysts will be asking questions about comp issues.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Mgmt is
mostly about constraints i.e. we got to get this activity done within
this budgetary alloation and this is the expected profit etc and the
mid-level mgrs will decide on how that budgetary allocation is to be
used.
True of first-line supervision, and largely up through middle
management, i.e., tactical management. But management is also about
strategic direction.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
But -regardless of whether you agree with me or not, the main pt which
I wanted to make and you have snipped
Snipped only because I like to quote only that portion of a message to
which I am replying, figuring that others can read the original
message.

I had no disagreement with, or at least felt no compulsion to comment
on, the parts of you message that I did not quote.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
Old Pif
2006-07-26 12:40:48 UTC
Permalink
... and when the Fed increases liquidity aka money supply ...
... Home prices will rise when liquidity increases...
Liquidity of what?
Kamal R. Prasad
2006-07-26 13:01:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Pif
... and when the Fed increases liquidity aka money supply ...
... Home prices will rise when liquidity increases...
Liquidity of what?
As stated above, liquidity means money supply. The US treassury can
print as many dollar bills as it likes and flood the country with tons
of money through various means. For housing, the mechanism employed is
to lower interest rates so that you can re-finance your mortgage and
get a ton of extra cash for doing nothing. A popular metaphor for that
is Bernanke raining dollar bills from his helicopter on american home
mortgage owners.

regards
-kamal
Straydog
2006-07-26 20:45:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Pif
... and when the Fed increases liquidity aka money supply ...
... Home prices will rise when liquidity increases...
Liquidity of what?
He said "aka money supply..." but I think that he thinks the Fed just
prints money whenever it feels like, which is untrue. Although
I've explained it many times, the money supply expands primarily through
fractional reserve banking which is explained in any (all that I've seen
anyway) banking book. As I found out, _money_ is a lot more complicated
than how many dollars you have in your left pocket plus how many dollars
you have in your right pocket. And, our whole monetary system is a big
kludge, worldwide. I have the idea that economists have a poorer
understanding of money than the bankers and I also have the idea that if
you study banking and banking data, you'll have a better idea of what
makes the world go around (because it don't go around unless someone comes
up with money, and you need to primarily need to see where the money is
coming from and where it is going to undestand what is going on and the
economists are up on various dream clouds with abstract ideas but the
bankers all just need to have little or big numbers in spreadsheet boxes
just match up with other little or big numbers in other spreadsheets
(Enron accounting to be excluded from legit consideration, but could be a
substantial part of what an honest and honorable person might complain
about). Read Eduard Griffin's book "The Creature from Jekyll Island" (best
book of any that I've read in 20-25 years). And, I'll also confess that
what I've learned about money by reading several books is that I've
learned, primarily, that even after I've read what I've read, I know a lot
less than I thought there was to know. I asked my banker (who is a branch
manager all his 45 years of banking) stuff that he couldn't answer.

I think a lot of people use the word "liquidity" without knowing what it
means and he is one of them. He must think its "cool" to throw words
around that are abstract instead of words (like money supply) that are
easier to understand.

Home price movement? I wonder if KP understands how much market
psychology (alone) drives prices? He seems to be totally unaware of the
India stock market crash of about a month ago. And, last time they printed
its recovery, its recovered only to about half of what it was before the
crash.

Wanna make a lot of money? I think it a lot better to learn how the
thieves and crooks manage to steal money legally than to play the
investor game.
Old Pif
2006-07-26 22:03:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Straydog
I think a lot of people use the word "liquidity" without knowing what it
means and he is one of them. He must think its "cool" to throw words
around that are abstract instead of words (like money supply) that are
easier to understand.
I personally admire the guys who have nerves to play experts in
subjects they don't have any clue. I think this is the prerequisite to
success in the modern world.

Also, this is the computer age. They (Indians) are supposed to have
excellent Internet access. Why on earth he does not put "liquidity"
into bloody Google and get the tons of explanation of what it is: e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity .
Straydog
2006-07-27 00:10:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Pif
Post by Straydog
I think a lot of people use the word "liquidity" without knowing what it
means and he is one of them. He must think its "cool" to throw words
around that are abstract instead of words (like money supply) that are
easier to understand.
I personally admire the guys who have nerves to play experts in
subjects they don't have any clue. I think this is the prerequisite to
success in the modern world.
Its called "the great bluff" and lots of times it "snows" people.
Actually, I've seen some of the greatest bullshit artists completely
"taken in" by guys who are even better bullshit artists. Look how long
Enron got away with their crap.
Post by Old Pif
Also, this is the computer age. They (Indians) are supposed to have
excellent Internet access.
They have to in order to do all those tax returns (eg KPMJ, Deloitte, etc)
charge the US customers $110/hour for tax work, pay an Indian maybe 20
cents...good scam, eh? and Kamal can't figure out where our "fountain of
wealth comes from"?).

Why on earth he does not put "liquidity"
Post by Old Pif
into bloody Google and get the tons of explanation of what it is: e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity .
Yeah, now I just zipped over there and had a look at that page (and all
the many additional links to what I would call "contexts" within which the
word might be used). And, I didn't see "money supply" anywhere on the page.
And, yet I recall his sentence said "...liquidity aka money supply" and do
you know what I think? here's a blank space for you to write
something: ___________
alexy
2006-07-27 04:21:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Pif
Why on earth he does not put "liquidity"
Post by Old Pif
into bloody Google and get the tons of explanation of what it is: e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity .
Yeah, now I just zipped over there and had a look at that page (and all
the many additional links to what I would call "contexts" within which the
word might be used). And, I didn't see "money supply" anywhere on the page.
And, yet I recall his sentence said "...liquidity aka money supply" and do
you know what I think? here's a blank space for you to write
something: ___________
I know just what you mean! I had almost exactly the same experience
with some guy who used "gradient" as a word to mean conflict. Like
you, I couldn't find any context in which it meant that. This guy
actually fell back on claiming poetic license to say that he could use
any word to mean whatever he wanted it to mean, and it didn't matter
if no one else understood it to have the meaning he applied to it.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
alexy
2006-07-27 04:21:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Pif
I personally admire the guys who have nerves to play experts in
subjects they don't have any clue.
Well, I'm sure you find much to admire here, then! <g>
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
alexy
2006-07-27 04:21:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Pif
Also, this is the computer age. They (Indians) are supposed to have
excellent Internet access. Why on earth he does not put "liquidity"
into bloody Google and get the tons of explanation of what it is: e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity .
Some people reject others' observations on word usage, and just prefer
to make up their own word usages.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
Kamal R. Prasad
2006-07-27 06:27:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Pif
Post by Straydog
I think a lot of people use the word "liquidity" without knowing what it
means and he is one of them. He must think its "cool" to throw words
around that are abstract instead of words (like money supply) that are
easier to understand.
liquidity is a widely used alias for money supply.
Post by Old Pif
I personally admire the guys who have nerves to play experts in
subjects they don't have any clue. I think this is the prerequisite to
success in the modern world.
I am not an expert -nor have formal education in econ. My
specialization is Comp Sc & Engg -and I am content with knowing or
claiming to know enough so as to earn my living without breaking any
laws.
Post by Old Pif
Also, this is the computer age. They (Indians) are supposed to have
excellent Internet access.
Americans have better access to the internet -and wikipedia is neither
the last word nor guaranteed to contain all information known to
mankind. It is a volunteer based effort to create a free encyclopedia.
Post by Old Pif
Why on earth he does not put "liquidity"
into bloody Google and get the tons of explanation of what it is: e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity .
That is referring to the liquidity of an asset class like stocks etc..
I am referring to the liquidity available in an economy to trade in
goods, services etc.. A closer definition of what I wanted to convey is
here:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply

For Art, I never claimed the US treassury will print money for
frivolous reasons. I just claimed they have the ability to do so. To
what extent they increase/decrease liquidity (or shall we say money
supply) is a function of monetary policy.

regards
-kamal
Straydog
2006-07-27 09:51:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
I think a lot of people use the word "liquidity" without knowing what it
means and he is one of them. He must think its "cool" to throw words
around that are abstract instead of words (like money supply) that are
easier to understand.
liquidity is a widely used alias for money supply.
Kamal, here is what started it: your sentences that I quote here.

############### quote #####
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
... and when the Fed increases liquidity aka money supply ...
... Home prices will rise when liquidity increases...
Liquidity of what?
He said "aka money supply..." but I think that he thinks the Fed just
prints money whenever it feels like, which is untrue. Although
I've explained it many times, the money supply expands primarily through
fractional reserve banking which is explained in any (all that I've seen
anyway) banking book.

################ end of quote ##############

And, Kamal, those sentences above are what YOU wrote. The rest of us see
this and figure that you know what you wrote and are trying to say
something purposeful.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
I personally admire the guys who have nerves to play experts in
subjects they don't have any clue. I think this is the prerequisite to
success in the modern world.
I am not an expert -nor have formal education in econ. My
specialization is Comp Sc & Engg -and I am content with knowing or
claiming to know enough so as to earn my living without breaking any
laws.
I am neither an expert in economics nor am I an expert in banking, but
I've spent some serious time trying to learn more. I will say that I have
been much less satisfied with what economists tell us than explanations
by bankers about how banks and money work. At least I know that money
supply expands (primarily) by fractional reserve banking which has been in
existence BEFORE the USA even existed!

Kamal, I think your biggest problems are: i) that you don't give enough
time to think critically about what you think about, and ii) you don't
think critically and carefully enough BEFORE you write something. I don't
care if you hate part or all of the USA, but at least have a valid reason
that can be stated accurately instead of based on hot air and demonstrably
false statements. You deny or ignore reality in India, and then talk about
problems in the USA that don't exist (eg. slavery really does exist in
India today but not the USA).

And, you should be more careful about what you claim to know vs what you
actually know. Nobody really gets hurt here on NGs that don't have a lot
of readers, but if you had to make a living by writing for the Washington
Post or the NY Times, you'd be dead now.

Economics and banking are very complicated areas and there are many
controversies in economics and quite a few in banking policy and
procedure, too. I'm not an expert in either area, either, but at least I
read the stuff and read it many times trying to determine the finer
points and try to figure out what the authors are trying to say.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Also, this is the computer age. They (Indians) are supposed to have
excellent Internet access.
Americans have better access to the internet -and wikipedia is neither
the last word nor guaranteed to contain all information known to
mankind. It is a volunteer based effort to create a free encyclopedia.
see below...
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Why on earth he does not put "liquidity"
into bloody Google and get the tons of explanation of what it is: e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity .
That is referring to the liquidity of an asset class like stocks etc..
I am referring to the liquidity available in an economy to trade in
goods, services etc.. A closer definition of what I wanted to convey is
here:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply
I did a copy and paste of both definitions below, and I read substantial
parts of both, and edited the formating of parts in both that pertain to
what we're discussion.

When you say "liquidity..aka money supply" you (see below) are incorrect.
Unless you have some other weird definition of "aka", it means to me "Also
known as" which means the two terms are talking about the same thing.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
For Art, I never claimed the US treassury will print money for
frivolous reasons.
Shall I collect all the sentence you have been writing about this for
more than the last year and put them here? You have been saying
approximately that all along. We just print money. Our money is worthless.
We don't have any "fountain of wealth" (your own words). You portray that
we just don't have ANYthing here and its all archived for anyone to see
for themselves. You can't explain where our skyscrapers, homes, cars,
highways, military, electronics, computers, everything else comes from
but you can sure deny that any of it exists.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
I just claimed they have the ability to do so.
Our glorious government decides, from time to time, to "create" money--to
create spending money it does not have--by increasing the federal debt
limit. This ability is NOT exclusive to the USA. It goes back even to
before the USA existed, in European countries at least. It can actually
print real paper money or mint coins or it can make numbers on paper or
computer memory get bigger with pressing keys on a keyboard. Yes, down the
road, this "more numbers" floats out into our economy and leads to
inflation. But, what also is happening is that "more numbers" floats out
into bank accounts all over our economy and through fractional reserve
banking, that new money gets _multiplied_ by factors that are in equations
in banking books. And, that is given in those wiki formulas that involve
measures like M0, M1, M2, and M3 that you can see below in the wiki
definitions.

To
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
what extent they increase/decrease liquidity (or shall we say money
supply) is a function of monetary policy.
I would refer you to what you yourself quoted as being in the wiki
definitions and then invite you to try again to write what you are
trying to say because from my reading of what is below "liquidity is NOT
money supply"
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
regards
-kamal
Wiki "Liquidity" and "Money Supply" definitions, respectively, are
copied from Wiki and pasted below.

======

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity

Market liquidity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Liquidity)

Market liquidity is a business or economics term that refers to the
ability to quickly buy or sell a particular item without causing a
significant movement in the price. The term is usually shortened to
liquidity.

The essential characteristic of a liquid market is that there are ready
and willing buyers and sellers at all times. An elegant definition of
liquidity is also the probability that the next trade is executed at
a price equal to the last one.

A market is considered deeply liquid if there are ready and willing
buyers and sellers in large quantities. This is related to a deep market,
where orders can not strongly influence prices.

The liquidity of a product can be measured as how often it's bought and
sold. For stocks this is known as the volume of trades ([1]).

Often investments in liquid markets such as the stock exchange are
considered to be more desirable than investments that are considered
relatively illiquid, like real estate. This is because the forced sale
or purchase of an item in an illiquid market may be at a disadvantageous
price. Because assets that have liquid secondary markets are more
advantageous to their owners, buyers of such assets are willing to pay
a higher price for the asset than for comparable assets without a liquid
secondary market. This liquidity discount is the reduced promised yield
or expected return for such assets, like the difference between newly
issued U.S. Treasury bonds compared to off-the-run Treasuries with the
same term remaining until maturity. Buyers know that other investors are
not willing to buy off-the-run so the newly issued bonds have a lower
yield and higher price.

Speculators and market makers contribute to the liquidity of a market.
One of the usual objections to a Tobin tax is precisely that it will
discourage speculation on currencies, which will lessen the liquidity
of foreign exchange markets, increasing their volatility. It is for
this reason that market makers and professional traders are exempted
in the UK from the 0.5% ad valorem tax on share purchases.

The risk of illiquidity need not apply only to individual investments:
whole portfolios are subject to liquidity risk. Financial institutions
and asset managers that oversee portfolios are subject to what is called
"structural" and "contingent" liquidity risk. Structural liquidity risk,
sometimes called funding liquidity risk, is the risk associated with
funding asset portfolios in the normal course of business. Contingent
liquidity risk is the risk associated with finding additional funds
or replacing maturing liabilities under potential, future stressed
market conditions.

When a central bank tries to influence the liquidity (supply) of
money, this process is known as open market operations.

In business, merchants often have liquidation sales, in which inventories
are sold at discount to raise cash or to get rid of inventory more quickly.


=====

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply

Money supply
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent
a worldwide view.
Please improve the article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

Money supply ("monetary aggregates", "money stock"), a macroeconomic concept, is the quantity of money available within the economy to purchase goods, services, and securities.
Contents
1 Introduction
2 Scope
2.1 United States
2.2 United Kingdom
3 Link with inflation
3.1 Monetary exchange equation
3.2 Percentage
4 Money Supply and Cash
5 The Central Bank
5.1 The balance sheets
6 Bank reserves at Central Bank
7 Arguments and criticism
8 United States monetary base
9 United States Money Supply
10 Discontinuance of M3 Publication Data
11 Latest US M3 numbers
12 Controlling money supply by issuing debt
13 ECB Target
14 See also
15 Notes and references
16 External links
16.1 Data
16.2 Articles

[edit]

Introduction

The monetary sector, as opposed to the real sector, concerns the money
market. The same tools of analysis can be applied as to other markets:
supply and demand result in an equilibrium price (the interest rate) and
quantity (of real money balances).

When thinking about the "supply" of money, it is natural to think of the
total of banknotes and coins in an economy. That, however, is incomplete.
In the United States, coins are minted by the United States Mint, part
of the Department of the Treasury, outside of the Federal Reserve.
Banknotes are printed by the Bureau of Engraving & Printing on behalf
of the Federal Reserve as symbolic tokens of electronic
credit-based money that has already been created or more precisely,
issued by private banks[1] through fractional reserve banking.

In this respect, all banknotes in existence are systematically linked to the expansion of the electronic credit-based money supply. However, coinage can be increased or decreased outside this system by Legal Mandate or Legislative Acts. However, at present the coin base is held in check and used as a complementary system rather than a competitive system with private bank issue of electronic credit-based money. The common practice is to include printed and minted money supply in the same metric M0.

The more accurate starting point for the concept of money supply is the total of all electronic credit-based deposit balances in bank (and other financial) accounts (for more precise definitions, see below) plus all the minted coins and printed paper. The M1 money supply is M0, plus the total of (non-paper or coin) deposit balances without any withdrawal resitrictions (restricted accounts that you can't write checks on are put in the next level of liquidity, M2).

The relationship between the M0 and M1 money supplies is the money multiplier - basically, the ratio of cash and coin in people's wallets and bank vaults and ATMs to Total balances in their financial accounts. The gap and lag between the two (M0 and M1 - M0) occurs because of the system of fractional reserve banking.
[edit]

Scope

Because (in principle) money is anything that can be used in settlement of a debt, there are varying measures of money supply. The narrowest (i.e., most restrictive) measures count only those forms of money available for immediate transactions, while broader measures include money held as a store of value.
[edit]

United States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply

U.S. Money Supply from 1959-2006

The most common measures are named M0 (narrowest), M1, M2, and M3. In the United States they are defined by the Federal Reserve as follows:
M0: The total of all physical currency, plus accounts at the central bank which can be exchanged for physical currency.
M1: M0 + the amount in demand accounts ("checking" or "current" accounts).
M2: M1 + most savings accounts, money market accounts, and certificate of deposit accounts (CDs) of under $100,000.
M3: M2 + all other CDs, deposits of eurodollars and repurchase agreements.

As of March 23, 2006, information regarding M3 will no longer be published by the Federal Reserve. The other three money supply measures will continue to be provided in detail. On March 7th, 2006, Congressman Ron Paul introduced H.R. 4892 in an effort to reverse this change.[2]
[edit]

United Kingdom

There are just two official UK measures. M0 is referred to as the "wide monetary base" or "narrow money" and M4 is referred to as "broad money" or simply "the money supply".
M0: Cash outside Bank of England + Banks' operational deposits with Bank of England.
M4: Cash outside banks (ie. in circulation with the public and non-bank firms) + private-sector retail bank and building society deposits + Private-sector wholesale bank and building society deposits and CDs.v
[edit]

Link with inflation
[edit]

Monetary exchange equation

Money supply is important because it is linked to inflation by the "monetary exchange equation":


where:
velocity = the number of times per year that money changes hands (if it is a number it is always simply nominal GDP / money supply)
real GDP = nominal Gross Domestic Product / GDP deflator
GDP deflator = measure of inflation. Money supply may be less than or greater than the demand of money in the economy

In other words, if the money supply grows faster than real GDP growth (described as "unproductive debt expansion"), inflation is likely to follow ("inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon"). This statement must be qualified slightly, due to changes in velocity. While the monetarists presume that velocity is relatively stable, in fact velocity exhibits variability at business-cycle frequencies, so that the velocity equation is not particularly useful as a short run tool. Moreover, in the US, velocity has grown at an average of slightly more than 1% a year between 1959 and 2005.
[edit]

Percentage

(excerpted from "Breaking Monetary Policy into Pieces", May 24 2004, http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc040524.htm)

In terms of percentage changes (to a small approximation, the percentage change in a product, say XY is equal to the sum of the percentage changes %X + %Y). So:
%P + %Y = %M + %V

That equation rearranged gives the "basic inflation identity":
%P = %M + %V - %Y

Inflation (%P) is equal to the rate of money growth (%M), plus the change in velocity (%V), minus the rate of output growth (%Y).
[edit]

Money Supply and Cash

In the U.S., as of July 28, 2005, M1 was about $1.4 trillion, M2 about $6.5 trillion, and M3 about $9.7 trillion. If you split all of the money equally per person in the United States, each person would end up with roughly $30,000 ($9,700,000M/300M). The amount of actual physical cash M0 was $688 billion in 2004, roughly double the $328 billion in cash and cash equivalents on deposit at Citigroup as of the end of that year and roughly $ 2,125 per person in the US.[3]
[edit]

The Central Bank

In the United States the supply of money outside of coins minted by the Mint can ONLY increase if the private banks issue more by loaning into circulation through Fractional Reserve Bank Lending Practices. Subsequently paper notes are increased ONLY as they are printed by the BEP on behalf of the Federal Reserve Fractional Banking System and are swapped at par value by the Federal Reserve Bank with Private Banks for their already issued electronic credits, which are then expunged (some believe retained) from the system by the Federal Reserve Bank. Thus, these printed money tokens (notes) merely replace already issued electronic credits on a one-for-one basis.

The larger definitions of the money supply, M1, M2, and M3, are types of deposit accounts. The first balance sheet item in a bank is usually deposits. Of the money in a bank deposit, depending on reserve requirements, either the whole sum or some fraction of it can immediately be lent out. The borrower can buy an asset and the seller of that asset can place the proceeds in another money supply constituent deposit. The money supply has just increased, because both the original and secondary deposits count as part of the money supply. That money can therefore continue to increase many times over. The Federal Reserve decides the level of "reserves of depository institutions".

Monetary policy has effects on employment and output in the short run, but in the long run, it primarily affects prices.
[edit]

The balance sheets

This is what money supply growth may look like starting with 1 new dollar of deposits. The money is moving from left to right. The Central Bank injects money from its reserve into the economy by buying a government bond from Bank 1 for $1, Bank 1 lends the proceeds to Person 1, who buys an asset from Person 2, who deposits the proceeds at Bank 2, who loans it to Person 3, who buys a service from Person 4, who deposits the proceeds in Bank 1, and the money supply becomes $3.[4]
Central Bank
Assets
Gov. debt (to B1) $1
Liabilities
- -
Bank 1
Assets
Loan (to P1) $1
Liabilities
Deposit (from P4) $1
Person 1
Assets
Investment (to P2) $1
Liabilities
Loan (from B1) $1
Person 2
Assets
Deposit (to B2) $1
Liabilities
- -
Bank 2
Assets
Loan (to P3) $1
Liabilities
Deposit (from P2) $1
[edit]

Bank reserves at Central Bank

When a central bank is "easing", it triggers an increase in money supply by purchasing government securities on the open market thus increasing available funds for private banks to loan through fractional reserve banking (the issue of new money through loans) and thus grows the money supply. When the central bank is "tightening", it slows the process of private bank issue by selling securities on the open market and pulling money (that could be loaned) out of the private banking sector. It reduces or increases the supply of short term government debt, and inversely increases or reduces the supply of lending funds and thereby the ability of private banks to issue new money through debt.

The operative notion of easy money is that the central bank creates new bank reserves (in the US known as "federal funds"), which let the banks lend out more money. These loans get spent, and the proceeds get deposited at other banks. Whatever is not required to be held as reserves is then lent out again, and through the magic of the "money multiplier", loans and bank deposits go up by many times the initial injection of reserves.

However in the 1970s the reserve requirements on deposits started to fall with the emergence of money market funds, which require no reserves. Then in the early 1990s, reserve requirements were dropped to zero on savings deposits, CDs, and Eurocurrency deposits. At present, reserve requirements apply only to "transactions deposits" - essentially checking accounts. The vast majority of funding sources used by Private Banks to create loans have nothing to do with bank reserves and in effect create what is known as "moral hazard" and speculative bubble economies.

These days, commercial and industrial loans are financed by issuing large denomination CDs. Money market deposits are largely used to lend to corporations who issue commercial paper. Consumer loans are also made using savings deposits which are not subject to reserve requirements. These loans can be bunched into securities and sold to somebody else, taking them off of the bank's books.

The point is simple. Commercial, industrial and consumer loans no longer have any link to bank reserves. Since 1995, the volume of such loans has exploded, while bank reserves have declined.

In recent years, the irrelevance of open market operations has also been argued by academic economists renown for their work on the implications of rational expectations, including Robert Lucas, Jr., Thomas Sargent, Neil Wallace, Finn E. Kydland, Edward C. Prescott and Scott Freeman.
[edit]

Arguments and criticism

One of the principal jobs of central banks (such as the Federal Reserve,
the Bank of England and the European Central Bank) is to keep money supply
growth in line with real GDP growth. Central banks do this primarily by
targeting some inter-bank interest rate (in the U.S., this is the federal
funds rate) through open market operations.

A very common criticism of this policy, originating with the creators of
GDP as a measure, is that "real GDP growth" is in fact meaningless, and
since GDP can grow for many reasons including manmade disasters and crises,
is not correlated with any known means of measuring well-being. This use of
the GDP figures is considered by its own creators to be an abuse, and
dangerous. The most common solution proposed by such critics is that
money supply (which determines the value of all financial capital,
ultimately, by diluting it) should be kept in line with some more
ecological and social and human means of measuring well-being. In theory,
money supply would expand when well-being is improving, and contract when
well-being is decreasing, giving all parties in the economy a direct
interest in improving well-being.

This argument must be balanced against what is nearly dogma among
economists: that the control of inflation is the main (or only) job
of a central bank, and that any introduction of non-financial means
of measuring well-being has an inevitable domino effect of increasing
government spending and diluting capital and the rewards of gainfully
employing capital.

Currency integration is thought by some economists -- Robert Mundell,
for example -- to alleviate this problem by ensuring that currencies
become less competitive in the commodity markets, and that a wider
political base be employed in the setting of currency and inflation
and well-being policy. This thinking is in part the basis of the Euro
currency integration in the European Union.

Money supply remains one of the most controversial aspects of economics
itself.
[edit]

United States monetary base

United States monetary base at the end of September 2004.
Monetary base (billions of dollars) (not seasonally adjusted)
Monetary Base
Reserves of depository institutions 46.4
Reserve balances with F.R. Banks 13.0
Vault cash surplus 11.4
Currency[5] 688.2
Sum 759.0
[edit]

United States Money Supply

This table shows the United States money supply as reported by the Fed on Sep 30, 2004.
Money Supply (billions of dollars)
(not seasonally adjusted) [6] [7]
M0 (not seasonally adjusted, not adjusted for changes in reserve requirements)
Currency (The diff between total reserves and the Monetary Base as reported in H.3) [5] 674.4
Bank's total reserves at the Fed 46.1
M0 (Monetary Base) 720.5
M1
Demand Deposits[8] 321.0
Other Checkable Deposits[9] 319.5
M1 (Monetary Base) 1,361.0
M2
Savings deposits[10] 3,472.5
Small-denomination time deposits[11] 795.6
Retail money funds [12] 729.5
M3
Institutional money funds 1,071.6
Large-denomination time deposits[13] 1,018.2
Repurchase agreements[14] 537.3
Eurodollars[15] 322.2
Sum 9,311.7
Comparable numbers (billions of dollars) (not seasonally adjusted)
GDP (seasonally adjusted)[16] 11,643.0
Credit market Debt Outstanding[17] 35,181.7
Derivatives (notional)[18] 79,400.0

The only deposits that have "reserve requirements" are the M1 "checking deposits".
[edit]

Discontinuance of M3 Publication Data

In a press release dated 10 November, 2005, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System announced that it would cease publication of the M3 monetary aggregate.[19] The Board stated that M3 "does not appear to convey any additional information about economic activity that is not already embodied in M2," and that the decision was reached largely because "the costs of collecting the underlying data and publishing M3 outweigh the benefits." It remains to be seen, however, whether this will be perceived as a minor policy change, or as a cover-up for monetary expansion. Central Banks may see this as a reason to limit further increases in their reserves of dollars, and, thus, alternatives to holding the US Dollar, such as gold or the Euro, might be considered.
[edit]

Latest US M3 numbers

According to the last published data from 16 March, 2005, M3 has been growing at an annual rate of over 8.22%.[20] As of 16th March 2006 M3 was $10.34 trillion. One year earlier, on 14th March 2005 the M3 was $9.55 trillion.
[edit]

Controlling money supply by issuing debt

The government can control the growth of M3 through the issuance of new
Government debt instruments. Money which is re-invested back into US
Government debt--such as treasury bonds and treasury bills--ceases to
be part of M3. Thus, if a government wishes to slow the growth of M3,
and thus prevent the economy from overheating, it can raise interest
rates, and, therefore, withdraw money from M3 and transfer it into
Government debt. Between 14, March 2005 and 16, March 2006 total US
National Debt rose by 6.71% from $7.75 trillion to $8.27 trillion.
These figures inform us that the actual issuance of money exceeded
the increase in M3. In March of 2006, the US Congress agreed to raise
the National Debt Ceiling an additional $781 billion and, thus, prevent
a first-ever default on US Treasury notes.[21] As of 15 April, 2006,
The National Debt Ceiling stands at just under $9 trillion.
[edit]

ECB Target

The European Central Bank has set a target rate of 4.5% for M3 growth but has overshot that target by almost double since the inception of the Euro.[22]
[edit]

See also
Bank regulation
Core inflation
Debt levels and flows
Economics
FDIC
Financial capital
Float
Fractional-reserve banking
Full reserve banking
Inflation
M4 money supply
Monetarism
Money market
Money with zero maturity (MZM)
Seignorage
[edit]

Notes and references
^ The term private bank is here used as a bank that is not government owned, not as a bank for high net worth individuals.
^ http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4892:
^ http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=C&annual
^ See, for example, the balance sheet from Citigroup Inc. at http://www.citigroup.com/citigroup/fin/ar.htm
^ a b Currency outside U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve Banks and the vaults of depository institutions.
^ http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H3/20040930/
^ http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/20040930/
^ Demand deposits at domestically chartered commercial banks, U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks, and Edge Act Corporations (excluding those amounts held by depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign banks and official institutions) less cash items in the process of collection and Federal Reserve float.
^ NOW and ATS balances.
^ Savings deposits include money market deposit accounts.
^ Small-denomination time deposits are those issued in amounts of less than $100,000. All IRA and Keogh account balances at commercial banks and thrift institutions are subtracted from small time deposits.
^ IRA and Keogh account balances at money market mutual funds are subtracted from retail money funds.
^ Large-denomination time deposits at domestically chartered commercial banks, U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks, and Edge Act Corporations, excluding those amounts held by depository institutions, the U.S. government, foreign banks and official institutions, and money market mutual funds.
^ RP liabilities of depository institutions, in denominations of $100,000 or more, on U.S. government and federal agency securities, excluding those amounts held by depository institutions, the U.S. government, foreign banks and official institutions, and money market mutual funds.
^ Eurodollars held by U.S. addressees at foreign branches of U.S. banks worldwide and at all banking offices in the United Kingdom and Canada, excluding those amounts held by depository institutions, the U.S. government, foreign banks and official institutions, and by money market mutual funds.
^ http://www.federalreserve.gov/Releases/Z1/Current/accessible/f6.htm
^ http://www.federalreserve.gov/Releases/Z1/Current/accessible/l1.htm
^ http://www.occ.treas.gov/deriv/deriv.htm
^ http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/discm3.htm
^ https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/M3.txt
^ http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20060317/ca_pr_on_wo/us_deeper_in_debt
^ http://www.ecb.int/home/html/index.en.html
[edit]

External links
[edit]

Data
Trailing Five-Year U.S. Money Supply Chart
Trailing Five-Year U.S. Money Supply Rate of Change Chart
Aggregate Reserves Of Depository Institutions And The Monetary Base (H.3)
U.S. M1,M2 Money Supply Historical Table
Money Stock Measures (H.6)
Top 50 Bank Holding Companies by Total Domestic Deposits
Data on Monetary Aggregates in Australia
[edit]

Articles
Do all banks hold reserves, and, if so, where do they hold them? (11/2001)
What effect does a change in the reserve requirement have on the money supply? (08/2001)
St. Louis Fed: Monetary Aggregates
A Brief Economics Primer By John P. Hussman, Ph.D.
Breaking Monetary Policy into Pieces By John P. Hussman, Ph.D.
Why the Federal Reserve is Irrelevant By John P. Hussman, Ph.D. August 2001
Anna J. Schwartz on money supply
Popular History of Money and Economics articles
"What Has Government Done to Our Money?" by Murray N. Rothbard
Peak Behind the curtain? Why is Fed hiding the M3?
Discontinuance of M3 Publication

Categories: Limited geographic scope | Money | Monetary policy
Article Discussion
///////////////////////end//////////////////////////////////
Kamal R. Prasad
2006-07-27 12:56:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Straydog
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
I think a lot of people use the word "liquidity" without knowing what it
means and he is one of them. He must think its "cool" to throw words
around that are abstract instead of words (like money supply) that are
easier to understand.
liquidity is a widely used alias for money supply.
Kamal, here is what started it: your sentences that I quote here.
############### quote #####
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
... and when the Fed increases liquidity aka money supply ...
... Home prices will rise when liquidity increases...
Liquidity of what?
He said "aka money supply..." but I think that he thinks the Fed just
prints money whenever it feels like, which is untrue. Although
I've explained it many times, the money supply expands primarily through
fractional reserve banking which is explained in any (all that I've seen
anyway) banking book.
################ end of quote ##############
And, Kamal, those sentences above are what YOU wrote. The rest of us see
this and figure that you know what you wrote and are trying to say
something purposeful.
Yeah -nothing wrong with what I wrote unless you are confusing
liquidity in an economy with liquidity of an asset class.
Post by Straydog
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
I personally admire the guys who have nerves to play experts in
subjects they don't have any clue. I think this is the prerequisite to
success in the modern world.
I am not an expert -nor have formal education in econ. My
specialization is Comp Sc & Engg -and I am content with knowing or
claiming to know enough so as to earn my living without breaking any
laws.
I am neither an expert in economics nor am I an expert in banking, but
I've spent some serious time trying to learn more. I will say that I have
been much less satisfied with what economists tell us than explanations
by bankers about how banks and money work. At least I know that money
supply expands (primarily) by fractional reserve banking which has been in
existence BEFORE the USA even existed!
I never denied that fractional reserve banking existed before the USA
ever existed.
Post by Straydog
Kamal, I think your biggest problems are: i) that you don't give enough
time to think critically about what you think about, and ii) you don't
think critically and carefully enough BEFORE you write something. I don't
care if you hate part or all of the USA, but at least have a valid reason
that can be stated accurately instead of based on hot air and demonstrably
false statements. You deny or ignore reality in India, and then talk about
problems in the USA that don't exist (eg. slavery really does exist in
India today but not the USA).
I would have to disagree with you on this. In India, slavery in carpet
factories etc is carried out by private parties AGAINST the law.
In the US, slavery is perpetuated with help from the US govt. Your govt
is CONNIVING with businesses to ensure that:-

-lots of people are allowed to work and contribute to the economy
-they remain under RESTRICTED or worse, WITHOUT RIGHTS as mandated by
the United States constitution.

Private parties cannot create legislation -they pay your politicians to
do so. But in India, there is no legislation to facilitate slavery and
it is done unofficially.
As regards terming slavery as exploitation -I would disagree with you
on that. The legislation created by your govt places the status of the
worker in the hands of the employer. When a citizen loses his job, his
status in the US is not subject to the employer's discretion. But if a
work permit holder loses his job. the US constitution REQUIRES one to
leave the country within 24 hrs -barring leniency shown by the govt.
For illegals who form the bulk of your food processing/garbage
collection and numerous low-end jobs -there are ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHTS
and if the employer is a large corp -he can tell the cops this guy is
illegal and have him deported. That would be a case of employee not
doing a satisfactory job and law enforcement discovering with the help
of the employer that concerned person is illegal. [Ask any illegal, he
will tell you he lives in the shadows for fear of law-enforcement]. If
you had legislation penalizing employers for hiring foreigners -but not
for their being present in the US, employers won't be hiring them and
you can keep your country to yourself.
Post by Straydog
And, you should be more careful about what you claim to know vs what you
actually know. Nobody really gets hurt here on NGs that don't have a lot
of readers, but if you had to make a living by writing for the Washington
Post or the NY Times, you'd be dead now.
I don't aspire to write/work for them. If you think Im not telling the
truth, just look into the links I post -which either state facts or
express opinions by your own highly regarded fellow citizens.
Post by Straydog
Economics and banking are very complicated areas and there are many
controversies in economics and quite a few in banking policy and
procedure, too. I'm not an expert in either area, either, but at least I
read the stuff and read it many times trying to determine the finer
points and try to figure out what the authors are trying to say.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Also, this is the computer age. They (Indians) are supposed to have
excellent Internet access.
Americans have better access to the internet -and wikipedia is neither
the last word nor guaranteed to contain all information known to
mankind. It is a volunteer based effort to create a free encyclopedia.
see below...
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Why on earth he does not put "liquidity"
into bloody Google and get the tons of explanation of what it is: e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity .
That is referring to the liquidity of an asset class like stocks etc..
I am referring to the liquidity available in an economy to trade in
goods, services etc.. A closer definition of what I wanted to convey is
here:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply
I did a copy and paste of both definitions below, and I read substantial
parts of both, and edited the formating of parts in both that pertain to
what we're discussion.
When you say "liquidity..aka money supply" you (see below) are incorrect.
Unless you have some other weird definition of "aka", it means to me "Also
known as" which means the two terms are talking about the same thing.
Liquidity as stated on wikipedia talks of liquidity of an asset class.
I am talking of financial liquidity in an economy which is known as
money supply.
Post by Straydog
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
For Art, I never claimed the US treassury will print money for
frivolous reasons.
Shall I collect all the sentence you have been writing about this for
more than the last year and put them here? You have been saying
approximately that all along. We just print money. Our money is worthless.
Understand what I am saying:-

Your govt has a policy to inflate the USD against other currencies
called the strong dollar policy.The purchasing power of the USD is not
in line with the exchange rates. Money printing is done by your govt in
line with their policies -not by mistake -but by following certain
criterion. They can print as much money as they like because it does
not require them to accumulate gold or any other trade-able goods. Do
they press the print button for frivolous reasons? No. Do they do it to
solve short term problems or some such thing? Yes and there are no
checks and balances in your system to prevent that from creating a long
term crisis.
Post by Straydog
We don't have any "fountain of wealth" (your own words). You portray that
we just don't have ANYthing here and its all archived for anyone to see
for themselves. You can't explain where our skyscrapers, homes, cars,
highways, military, electronics, computers, everything else comes from
but you can sure deny that any of it exists.
They all exist -but you can be sure there is no fountain of wealth that
ENTITLES you to a good std of living.
Your govt prints money as and when it likes [not for fun, but by
following their own internally set guidelines] and that only increases
liquidity -not wealth.
Money is a financial instrument to transact in wealth -but in itself
does not represent wealth [unless your govt goes back to the gold std].
Post by Straydog
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
I just claimed they have the ability to do so.
Our glorious government decides, from time to time, to "create" money--to
create spending money it does not have--by increasing the federal debt
limit. This ability is NOT exclusive to the USA. It goes back even to
before the USA existed, in European countries at least. It can actually
print real paper money or mint coins or it can make numbers on paper or
computer memory get bigger with pressing keys on a keyboard. Yes, down the
There are scams and problems and chinks in every system/economy etc..
Your govt is farther down the risky road than anyone else, and the USD
is the most over-valued asset at this pt of time -quote Paul O'Neil.
Post by Straydog
road, this "more numbers" floats out into our economy and leads to
inflation. But, what also is happening is that "more numbers" floats out
into bank accounts all over our economy and through fractional reserve
banking, that new money gets _multiplied_ by factors that are in equations
in banking books. And, that is given in those wiki formulas that involve
measures like M0, M1, M2, and M3 that you can see below in the wiki
definitions.
To
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
what extent they increase/decrease liquidity (or shall we say money
supply) is a function of monetary policy.
I would refer you to what you yourself quoted as being in the wiki
definitions and then invite you to try again to write what you are
trying to say because from my reading of what is below "liquidity is NOT
money supply"
Financial liquidity IS money supply.
The liquidity of an asset class IS NOT money supply.
Regardless, whether you still have doubts about the two meaning the
same thing -understand that increasing money supply does not translate
into an increase in wealth. Likewise, inflating a currency is like
indulging in insider trading. It will come back to haunt you when more
of the world realizes whats going on.

regards
-kamal
alexy
2006-07-27 14:14:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
-lots of people are allowed to work and contribute to the economy
-they remain under RESTRICTED or worse, WITHOUT RIGHTS as mandated by
the United States constitution.
Do you have any examples in mind of rights demanded by the US
Constitution that are denied to the workers to which you refer?
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
As regards terming slavery as exploitation -I would disagree with you
on that.
Well, you and some of the old regulars on acc are very fond of this
statement. And I think the points that could be discussed
rationally--the fact that the H-1B system creates a pro-employer
imbalance in the playing field--are lost in the hyperbole of
"slavery", which Straydog correctly challenges. If you insist on a
name that tries to encapsulate the relationship, "indentured servant"
is much closer than "slave", although even that is a bit of a stretch.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
The legislation created by your govt places the status of the
worker in the hands of the employer.
I agree, and this is the interference in the free market that causes
some depression of wages.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
When a citizen loses his job, his
status in the US is not subject to the employer's discretion. But if a
work permit holder loses his job. the US constitution REQUIRES one to
leave the country within 24 hrs -barring leniency shown by the govt.
Okay, I'm no constitutional scholar, but this one surprises me. Where
in the world does the Constitution make that demand? Here's a link to
a hypertext version of the Constitution. Maybe you can find and
provide a link to the section you are thinking of.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
For illegals who form the bulk of your food processing/garbage
collection and numerous low-end jobs -there are ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHTS
Categorically false. The rights protected under the Constitution and
Bill of Rights are not just for citizens or certain classes of
residents. For example, look at Amendment 8 Cruel and Unusual
Punishment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Pretty simple
language, with no "outs" for treatment of non-citizens.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
and if the employer is a large corp -he can tell the cops this guy is
illegal and have him deported.
What does that have to do with being a large corp. Can't the corner
grocery store or the local lawn service do the same thing?
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
That would be a case of employee not
doing a satisfactory job and law enforcement discovering with the help
of the employer that concerned person is illegal. [Ask any illegal, he
will tell you he lives in the shadows for fear of law-enforcement]. If
you had legislation penalizing employers for hiring foreigners -but not
for their being present in the US, employers won't be hiring them and
you can keep your country to yourself.
True.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Financial liquidity IS money supply.
The liquidity of an asset class IS NOT money supply.
Yes, I've seen that term used that way, although "money supply" is a
MUCH less ambiguous term, as shown my the confusion and feigned
confusion shown here.

It is kinda humorous to see Straydog talk out of the other side of his
mouth here, arguing for standard word usage so others can understand
what you mean! <g>
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
alexy
2006-07-27 14:17:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by alexy
Okay, I'm no constitutional scholar, but this one surprises me. Where
in the world does the Constitution make that demand? Here's a link to
a hypertext version of the Constitution. Maybe you can find and
provide a link to the section you are thinking of.
Whoops. Forgot to paste in the link.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst.html
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
Kamal R. Prasad
2006-07-28 07:18:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
-lots of people are allowed to work and contribute to the economy
-they remain under RESTRICTED or worse, WITHOUT RIGHTS as mandated by
the United States constitution.
Do you have any examples in mind of rights demanded by the US
Constitution that are denied to the workers to which you refer?
depends on whether one can find text of the H1B legislation in the link
provided by you.
If I had to presume that one can see text of legislation passed by US
govt to be part of the statute/constitution, then my examples stated
below do suffice. Here is some legal info from your own govt:-

-H1Bs stay in the US is conditional to being employed
-H1Bs are required to leave the country within 24 hours of being
terminated by employer. If a transfer of visa has been applied for and
is pending, the visa holder need not leave the country.
-Green card is provided in lieu of H1b holder providing services that
satisfactorily contribute to the employer and consequently national
interest.
-Employer can petition the INS to deport an H1B if he is annoyed for
any reason. Employer holds veto over stay of the H1B visa holder. [I
know of one individual whose employer had him deported and his ability
to apply for a H1B visa cancelled for 5 yrs]. In general,office bearers
of the US govt may exercise their discretion to (dis)allow non-resident
individuals entry to the US or terminate stay -without providing valid
reasons.
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
As regards terming slavery as exploitation -I would disagree with you
on that.
Well, you and some of the old regulars on acc are very fond of this
statement. And I think the points that could be discussed
rationally--the fact that the H-1B system creates a pro-employer
imbalance in the playing field--are lost in the hyperbole of
"slavery", which Straydog correctly challenges. If you insist on a
It is akin to slavery for all practical purposes. Ask any H1B who
hasn't read this, and s/he will attest to H1B being slavery in
disguise. Even if I am using hyperboles -not every one will -so if
every H1B attests to it being slavery, then it cannot be an
exagerration. The US govt has created legislation from the ground up to
take away civic rights of an individual enjoyed in his native country
-and that compels one to go through it -all the more so, after having
landed in the US. Till a person lands in the US, he can decide to work
or not to work on an H1B visa. On taking a job, buying immovable
property etc. -one is tied to the US economy and cannot break free from
H1B unless the employer grants him liberation via the green card. Even
many of your highly educated professors in universities practice
slavery. They have gotten legislation enacted specifically barring
students from working outside the campus -coz campus jobs pay less than
min wage [or something close to it, but less than outside]. They get
grants to get work done on research projects -so they are in some sense
of the word, employers. They provide a degree in return for getting the
work done -and those restricted rights ensure that the foreign student
does a good job for wages unacceptable to citizens + a degree cert.
Post by alexy
name that tries to encapsulate the relationship, "indentured servant"
is much closer than "slave", although even that is a bit of a stretch.
Its not the same as being in one's own country -for sure. You can use
any nomenclature you like -and the modus operandi can change over time
depnding on sensitivies and PR constraints- from using whips as 300
yrs back, to legislation suggesting deportation as the H1b does, to
suggesting that if one doesn't submit to slavery in totality - he is a
threat to national security.
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
The legislation created by your govt places the status of the
worker in the hands of the employer.
I agree, and this is the interference in the free market that causes
some depression of wages.
that tying of status to the employer's whims - is the modus operandi
employed to perpetuate slavery.
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
When a citizen loses his job, his
status in the US is not subject to the employer's discretion. But if a
work permit holder loses his job. the US constitution REQUIRES one to
leave the country within 24 hrs -barring leniency shown by the govt.
Okay, I'm no constitutional scholar, but this one surprises me. Where
in the world does the Constitution make that demand? Here's a link to
a hypertext version of the Constitution. Maybe you can find and
provide a link to the section you are thinking of.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
For illegals who form the bulk of your food processing/garbage
collection and numerous low-end jobs -there are ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHTS
Categorically false. The rights protected under the Constitution and
Bill of Rights are not just for citizens or certain classes of
residents. For example, look at Amendment 8 Cruel and Unusual
Punishment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Pretty simple
language, with no "outs" for treatment of non-citizens.
ask any illegal -if he has any rights guaranteed to him or is sure he
cannot be picked up and deported any time the govt decides so? The law
makes it clear that a person illegally present has no legal rights
whatsoever.
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
and if the employer is a large corp -he can tell the cops this guy is
illegal and have him deported.
What does that have to do with being a large corp. Can't the corner
grocery store or the local lawn service do the same thing?
it does have a lot to do with large corporations. To bribe politicians,
who will direct law enforcement to work in one's business interests
-one needs to have deep pockets. Smaller businesses have lesser say in
the functioning of governments. But some small time farmers or business
owners do employ illegals and they probably work at the local level
with law enforcement to remind illegals of their status.
I can even recollect a case of Indian programmers being picked up from
an air force base in Texas, and they were later released (presumably
the politician involved got his due share later on) and the INS officer
in charge used govt letterhead to tell the concerned workers, he is
letting them go (and continue to work) -but they could be charged at
any pt of time. The question that cannot be answered by anyone is -if
the intent in arresting them was because they were illegally present
-why allow them to work? Why not make it conditional to release them if
they agree to stop working and go back to India? The answer is that if
they go back, the benefits of slavery will stop accruing to the
concerned individuals.
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
That would be a case of employee not
doing a satisfactory job and law enforcement discovering with the help
of the employer that concerned person is illegal. [Ask any illegal, he
will tell you he lives in the shadows for fear of law-enforcement]. If
you had legislation penalizing employers for hiring foreigners -but not
for their being present in the US, employers won't be hiring them and
you can keep your country to yourself.
True.
yeah -this is the modus operandi employed to perpetuate slavery for
illegals. As to statement that the govt is finding it difficult to
locate them, thats just a lame excuse. United States is so expensive,
you can find illegals slogging it out on factory floors just to make
ends meet. If the govt raided large businesses, they would be able to
round up 90% illegals in a single day. The reason they wouldn't raid
the businesses is because those illegals contribute to the economy and
the reason why they wouldn't free them and give them equal rights is
because they want the benefits of slavery to continue.
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Financial liquidity IS money supply.
The liquidity of an asset class IS NOT money supply.
Yes, I've seen that term used that way, although "money supply" is a
MUCH less ambiguous term, as shown my the confusion and feigned
confusion shown here.
In addition to being unaware, they are so freaking arrogant -they don't
even realize that Im actually trying to educate them for their own
good.

regards
-kamal
Post by alexy
It is kinda humorous to see Straydog talk out of the other side of his
mouth here, arguing for standard word usage so others can understand
what you mean! <g>
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
alexy
2006-07-28 14:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
-lots of people are allowed to work and contribute to the economy
-they remain under RESTRICTED or worse, WITHOUT RIGHTS as mandated by
the United States constitution.
Do you have any examples in mind of rights demanded by the US
Constitution that are denied to the workers to which you refer?
depends on whether one can find text of the H1B legislation in the link
provided by you.
No. That link was to the constitution. I was wondering what "RIGHTS as
mandated by the United States constitution" they are missing out on.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
If I had to presume that one can see text of legislation passed by US
govt to be part of the statute/constitution
Okay, this might be a case of using a word to mean whatever you want
it to mean, no matter what its meaning to the rest of the world is
(why does that sound familiar?<g>). If you are using "the US
Constitution" as a synonym for "the US legal system", that is flat out
wrong. That's similar to seeing a rusting gutter on a house and
describing it by saying that the house's foundation is rusting.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
-H1Bs stay in the US is conditional to being employed
-H1Bs are required to leave the country within 24 hours of being
terminated by employer. If a transfer of visa has been applied for and
is pending, the visa holder need not leave the country.
-Green card is provided in lieu of H1b holder providing services that
satisfactorily contribute to the employer and consequently national
interest.
-Employer can petition the INS to deport an H1B if he is annoyed for
any reason. Employer holds veto over stay of the H1B visa holder. [I
know of one individual whose employer had him deported and his ability
to apply for a H1B visa cancelled for 5 yrs]. In general,office bearers
of the US govt may exercise their discretion to (dis)allow non-resident
individuals entry to the US or terminate stay -without providing valid
reasons.
None of which is a violation of any rights protected under the US
Constitution, to the best of my knowledge.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
As regards terming slavery as exploitation -I would disagree with you
on that.
Well, you and some of the old regulars on acc are very fond of this
statement. And I think the points that could be discussed
rationally--the fact that the H-1B system creates a pro-employer
imbalance in the playing field--are lost in the hyperbole of
"slavery", which Straydog correctly challenges. If you insist on a
It is akin to slavery for all practical purposes.
Well, look at the WIKI definition for some of those "practical
purposes":

"Slavery is the social and legal designation of specific persons as
property, for the purpose of providing labor and services for the
owner without the right of the slave to refuse, or gain compensation."

Are H-1B's considered property in any reasonable definition of the
word? No.
Can the H-1B refuse to work? Yes. He or she might prefer working under
the terms of H-1B to the alternative, but they can refuse.
Can the H-1B gain compensation from his or her work? Yes.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Ask any H1B who
hasn't read this, and s/he will attest to H1B being slavery in
disguise. Even if I am using hyperboles -not every one will -so if
every H1B attests to it being slavery, then it cannot be an
exagerration.
A few hundred thousand people misusing a word does not change the
meaning of that word. And I bet any one of them who has befriended an
American aware of his history who is descended from slaves is unlikely
to confuse their admittedly undesirable condition with real slavery.

<snip>
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
For illegals who form the bulk of your food processing/garbage
collection and numerous low-end jobs -there are ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHTS
Categorically false. The rights protected under the Constitution and
Bill of Rights are not just for citizens or certain classes of
residents. For example, look at Amendment 8 Cruel and Unusual
Punishment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Pretty simple
language, with no "outs" for treatment of non-citizens.
ask any illegal -if he has any rights guaranteed to him or is sure he
cannot be picked up and deported any time the govt decides so? The law
makes it clear that a person illegally present has no legal rights
whatsoever.
BS. For instance, that illegal has the right to counsel to fight his
deportation. He has the right to due process. He has the right to
continue to speak freely and worship as he pleases. Refusing a person
the right to break laws, even laws about residence and citizenship, is
not the same as denying them all rights.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
Kamal R. Prasad
2006-07-29 07:58:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
-lots of people are allowed to work and contribute to the economy
-they remain under RESTRICTED or worse, WITHOUT RIGHTS as mandated by
the United States constitution.
Do you have any examples in mind of rights demanded by the US
Constitution that are denied to the workers to which you refer?
depends on whether one can find text of the H1B legislation in the link
provided by you.
No. That link was to the constitution. I was wondering what "RIGHTS as
mandated by the United States constitution" they are missing out on.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
If I had to presume that one can see text of legislation passed by US
govt to be part of the statute/constitution
Okay, this might be a case of using a word to mean whatever you want
it to mean, no matter what its meaning to the rest of the world is
(why does that sound familiar?<g>). If you are using "the US
Constitution" as a synonym for "the US legal system", that is flat out
wrong. That's similar to seeing a rusting gutter on a house and
describing it by saying that the house's foundation is rusting.
why doesn't text of legislation enacted by the US govt find its way
into the statute/constitution?
in india -it does.
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
-H1Bs stay in the US is conditional to being employed
-H1Bs are required to leave the country within 24 hours of being
terminated by employer. If a transfer of visa has been applied for and
is pending, the visa holder need not leave the country.
-Green card is provided in lieu of H1b holder providing services that
satisfactorily contribute to the employer and consequently national
interest.
-Employer can petition the INS to deport an H1B if he is annoyed for
any reason. Employer holds veto over stay of the H1B visa holder. [I
know of one individual whose employer had him deported and his ability
to apply for a H1B visa cancelled for 5 yrs]. In general,office bearers
of the US govt may exercise their discretion to (dis)allow non-resident
individuals entry to the US or terminate stay -without providing valid
reasons.
None of which is a violation of any rights protected under the US
Constitution, to the best of my knowledge.
but isn't it a case of living under restricted rights with a sword on
one's head? why should employers have anything to do with where a
person stays, what his status is and why should good-for-nothings have
a veto over the stay or employment of individuals?
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
As regards terming slavery as exploitation -I would disagree with you
on that.
Well, you and some of the old regulars on acc are very fond of this
statement. And I think the points that could be discussed
rationally--the fact that the H-1B system creates a pro-employer
imbalance in the playing field--are lost in the hyperbole of
"slavery", which Straydog correctly challenges. If you insist on a
It is akin to slavery for all practical purposes.
Well, look at the WIKI definition for some of those "practical
"Slavery is the social and legal designation of specific persons as
property, for the purpose of providing labor and services for the
owner without the right of the slave to refuse, or gain compensation."
Are H-1B's considered property in any reasonable definition of the
word? No.
Can the H-1B refuse to work? Yes. He or she might prefer working under
the terms of H-1B to the alternative, but they can refuse.
you need to collect first hand info about how the H1B legislation
affects functioning of H1Bs. There are numerous individuals who put up
with difficult situations just to remain in status. Its not about
emplioyment -but about the fact that you have spent lot of effort to
buy immovable property and if you go out of status -you lose all of
that investment.
Post by alexy
Can the H-1B gain compensation from his or her work? Yes.
Slaves were paid during ancient times for their services and at the v
least provided food, accomodation etc.. -possibly not much different
from unenslaved labour. Meaning farm workers whether indentured or not
-were always paid subsistence wages. Slavery is a tactic that extracts
more work for less pay [as opposed to no pay at all] by taking away
civic rights of individuals.
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Ask any H1B who
hasn't read this, and s/he will attest to H1B being slavery in
disguise. Even if I am using hyperboles -not every one will -so if
every H1B attests to it being slavery, then it cannot be an
exagerration.
A few hundred thousand people misusing a word does not change the
meaning of that word. And I bet any one of them who has befriended an
American aware of his history who is descended from slaves is unlikely
to confuse their admittedly undesirable condition with real slavery.
the tactics employed have changed over 300 yrs -but from an economic
perspective it i8s still the same story. As humans become
sophasticated, the modus operandi also undergoes change either due to
logistics or due to PR constraints. Theft has undergone change. There
are no lockers to break, just passwds to hack. Gambling has gone
online, so has prostitution. The US govt had a slavery tax which was
abolished and that has been replaced by soft money.If opting for a
different modus operandi makes you think its not the same crime -then
Im afraid I would disagree with you.
Post by alexy
<snip>
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
For illegals who form the bulk of your food processing/garbage
collection and numerous low-end jobs -there are ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHTS
Categorically false. The rights protected under the Constitution and
Bill of Rights are not just for citizens or certain classes of
residents. For example, look at Amendment 8 Cruel and Unusual
Punishment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Pretty simple
language, with no "outs" for treatment of non-citizens.
ask any illegal -if he has any rights guaranteed to him or is sure he
cannot be picked up and deported any time the govt decides so? The law
makes it clear that a person illegally present has no legal rights
whatsoever.
BS. For instance, that illegal has the right to counsel to fight his
deportation. He has the right to due process. He has the right to
continue to speak freely and worship as he pleases. Refusing a person
the right to break laws, even laws about residence and citizenship, is
not the same as denying them all rights.
what could happen if the illegal appeals his deportation? The fact that
he is illegal means he has got to be deported. He may not even find a
lawyer on account of the low success rate associated with an air tight
case like his. Im not suggesting he should be given legal status -but
that the thing that got him in the US isn;t his desire to break laws,
but the fact that there was a job waiting for him. Take away the job
-and neither will anyone benefit from their presence nor will they be
able to afford rent and other associated higher costs of living in the
US. Given that they send huge amts back home and that is going to stop
-they themselves will leave and stop coming to the US -regardless of
whether or not you build a wall across the border. Conversely,
regardless of whether there is a wall or not -jobs will compel them to
scale the walls or swim the pacific as long as there are jobs to be
had.

regards
-kamal
Post by alexy
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
alexy
2006-07-29 13:25:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by alexy
If you are using "the US
Constitution" as a synonym for "the US legal system", that is flat out
wrong. That's similar to seeing a rusting gutter on a house and
describing it by saying that the house's foundation is rusting.
why doesn't text of legislation enacted by the US govt find its way
into the statute/constitution?
Because in our system, there are major distinctions between the
constitution and statutes. Laws are easily repealed or changed. Not so
with the constitution. The constitution always trumps statute when
there is any conflict. So when you talk about rights protected under
the US Constitution, you are referring to a very specific set of
relatively fixed rights -- not the privileges that may be granted or
taken away relatively easily by legislation (as long as they don't
impinge on those rights).
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
in india -it does.
Interesting. And seems weird to me, but probably no more than our
system seems weird to you if that is what you grew up with.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
-H1Bs stay in the US is conditional to being employed
-H1Bs are required to leave the country within 24 hours of being
terminated by employer. If a transfer of visa has been applied for and
is pending, the visa holder need not leave the country.
-Green card is provided in lieu of H1b holder providing services that
satisfactorily contribute to the employer and consequently national
interest.
-Employer can petition the INS to deport an H1B if he is annoyed for
any reason. Employer holds veto over stay of the H1B visa holder. [I
know of one individual whose employer had him deported and his ability
to apply for a H1B visa cancelled for 5 yrs]. In general,office bearers
of the US govt may exercise their discretion to (dis)allow non-resident
individuals entry to the US or terminate stay -without providing valid
reasons.
None of which is a violation of any rights protected under the US
Constitution, to the best of my knowledge.
but isn't it a case of living under restricted rights with a sword on
one's head? why should employers have anything to do with where a
person stays, what his status is and why should good-for-nothings have
a veto over the stay or employment of individuals?
But there is no _constitutional right_ for visitors to come to the US
and work, so this in no way violates any rights protected under the US
Constitution. The statutes of the US have granted a privilege to
certain noncitizens to stay and work under very specific conditions.
And those who freely accept those conditions to get that privilege and
bitch and moan all they want about how unfair it is, but no-one's
rights have been violated. That's not to say the legislation is
good--it clearly creates a very unbalanced relationship between
employers and these workers, so that market forced of a free market
don't have much chance of working. I'm just saying that is a different
issue from a claim that someone has had some rights taken away from
them (you can't take away a right someone never had).
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
As regards terming slavery as exploitation -I would disagree with you
on that.
Well, you and some of the old regulars on acc are very fond of this
statement. And I think the points that could be discussed
rationally--the fact that the H-1B system creates a pro-employer
imbalance in the playing field--are lost in the hyperbole of
"slavery", which Straydog correctly challenges. If you insist on a
It is akin to slavery for all practical purposes.
Well, look at the WIKI definition for some of those "practical
"Slavery is the social and legal designation of specific persons as
property, for the purpose of providing labor and services for the
owner without the right of the slave to refuse, or gain compensation."
Are H-1B's considered property in any reasonable definition of the
word? No.
Can the H-1B refuse to work? Yes. He or she might prefer working under
the terms of H-1B to the alternative, but they can refuse.
you need to collect first hand info about how the H1B legislation
affects functioning of H1Bs. There are numerous individuals who put up
with difficult situations just to remain in status.
In saying that they put up with difficult situation just to remain in
status, you imply that there was another choice--getting out of the
difficult situation and falling out of status. That is not a choice
available to a true slave.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Its not about
emplioyment -but about the fact that you have spent lot of effort to
buy immovable property and if you go out of status -you lose all of
that investment.
Yeah, life is tough sometimes. Folks who sold all their possessions on
the east coast of the US and moved west in the gold rush included some
who got rich and many others who lost everything. I don't know whether
the second group might have claimed slavery because of their bad
fortune, but folks coming here on an H-1B are not the first group,
some of whom have seen their dreams shattered.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by alexy
Can the H-1B gain compensation from his or her work? Yes.
Slaves were paid during ancient times for their services and at the v
least provided food, accomodation etc.. -possibly not much different
from unenslaved labour. Meaning farm workers whether indentured or not
-were always paid subsistence wages. Slavery is a tactic that extracts
more work for less pay [as opposed to no pay at all] by taking away
civic rights of individuals.
Well, if you are going to make up a new definition of the word, I
won't quibble with your description if you make clear that you are
using a nonstandard definition. Under your revised definition, a union
contract that provides rate concession and productivity increases from
shorter rest breaks constitutes slavery. Not the way most of us would
use the term. I think if you are going to use a nonstandard
definition, you should probably use a different word ("gradient" might
be a good choice<g>) so that people will not get confused thinking you
are using the word in its usual sense.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
Kamal R. Prasad
2006-07-29 14:26:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by alexy
If you are using "the US
Constitution" as a synonym for "the US legal system", that is flat out
wrong. That's similar to seeing a rusting gutter on a house and
describing it by saying that the house's foundation is rusting.
why doesn't text of legislation enacted by the US govt find its way
into the statute/constitution?
Because in our system, there are major distinctions between the
constitution and statutes. Laws are easily repealed or changed. Not so
with the constitution. The constitution always trumps statute when
there is any conflict. So when you talk about rights protected under
the US Constitution, you are referring to a very specific set of
relatively fixed rights -- not the privileges that may be granted or
taken away relatively easily by legislation (as long as they don't
impinge on those rights).
ok.
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
in india -it does.
Interesting. And seems weird to me, but probably no more than our
system seems weird to you if that is what you grew up with.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
-H1Bs stay in the US is conditional to being employed
-H1Bs are required to leave the country within 24 hours of being
terminated by employer. If a transfer of visa has been applied for and
is pending, the visa holder need not leave the country.
-Green card is provided in lieu of H1b holder providing services that
satisfactorily contribute to the employer and consequently national
interest.
-Employer can petition the INS to deport an H1B if he is annoyed for
any reason. Employer holds veto over stay of the H1B visa holder. [I
know of one individual whose employer had him deported and his ability
to apply for a H1B visa cancelled for 5 yrs]. In general,office bearers
of the US govt may exercise their discretion to (dis)allow non-resident
individuals entry to the US or terminate stay -without providing valid
reasons.
None of which is a violation of any rights protected under the US
Constitution, to the best of my knowledge.
but isn't it a case of living under restricted rights with a sword on
one's head? why should employers have anything to do with where a
person stays, what his status is and why should good-for-nothings have
a veto over the stay or employment of individuals?
But there is no _constitutional right_ for visitors to come to the US
and work, so this in no way violates any rights protected under the US
Constitution. The statutes of the US have granted a privilege to
certain noncitizens to stay and work under very specific conditions.
And those who freely accept those conditions to get that privilege and
bitch and moan all they want about how unfair it is, but no-one's
rights have been violated. That's not to say the legislation is
that depends on whether the conditins have been given to them well in
advance of their relocating to the US. Once a person moves, esp if he
is from the working class -he cannot go back coz he doesn't like the
terms. Relocation to another country [even from east to west coast] is
prohibitively expensive if people earn in Rupees in location X and
spend in US dollars in location Y. When you go back to india by dumping
your stuff in a garage sale, its going to take ages to recover that amt
by working in India.
To the best of my knowledge, no H1B knows that the US govt is hand in
glove with employers to create legislation from the ground up that
restricts their rights.
Post by alexy
good--it clearly creates a very unbalanced relationship between
employers and these workers, so that market forced of a free market
don't have much chance of working. I'm just saying that is a different
issue from a claim that someone has had some rights taken away from
them (you can't take away a right someone never had).
H1Bs never had any rights in the US -but they assumed that their civic
rights as they existed in india would be intact when they move to the
US for work. If that isn;t going to be the case, you need to tell them
up front about all of the stuff I mentioned here. When you provide a
fair disclosure, then regardless of what you call it slavery/gradient
etc. -the person cannot point an accusing finger on the govt for taking
away his civic rights.
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
As regards terming slavery as exploitation -I would disagree with you
on that.
Well, you and some of the old regulars on acc are very fond of this
statement. And I think the points that could be discussed
rationally--the fact that the H-1B system creates a pro-employer
imbalance in the playing field--are lost in the hyperbole of
"slavery", which Straydog correctly challenges. If you insist on a
It is akin to slavery for all practical purposes.
Well, look at the WIKI definition for some of those "practical
"Slavery is the social and legal designation of specific persons as
property, for the purpose of providing labor and services for the
owner without the right of the slave to refuse, or gain compensation."
Are H-1B's considered property in any reasonable definition of the
word? No.
Can the H-1B refuse to work? Yes. He or she might prefer working under
the terms of H-1B to the alternative, but they can refuse.
you need to collect first hand info about how the H1B legislation
affects functioning of H1Bs. There are numerous individuals who put up
with difficult situations just to remain in status.
In saying that they put up with difficult situation just to remain in
status, you imply that there was another choice--getting out of the
difficult situation and falling out of status. That is not a choice
available to a true slave.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Its not about
emplioyment -but about the fact that you have spent lot of effort to
buy immovable property and if you go out of status -you lose all of
that investment.
Yeah, life is tough sometimes. Folks who sold all their possessions on
the east coast of the US and moved west in the gold rush included some
who got rich and many others who lost everything. I don't know whether
by difficult circumstances, I don't mean lots of work in office,
deadlines etc.. More oftne than not -the H1B who comes in to the US
works way down the value chain -and the mgr in charge is more
interested in exercizing control than getting work done. In India,
people work about 50-60 hrs or even more despite being free and the no
of working hrs could be less with higher pay in the US. But the
difficult circumstances relate to the H1B's very presence being in the
hands of the visa sponsor or later on in the hands of the green card
sponsor.
Post by alexy
the second group might have claimed slavery because of their bad
fortune, but folks coming here on an H-1B are not the first group,
some of whom have seen their dreams shattered.
My dreams were not shattered and I left Mtl, canada (the last workplace
in NA) on my own and have refused all offers to date for returning to
the US. Because of the nature of work I do, My salary is usually higher
than that of the avg american worker regardless of mkt conditions, but
less than that of the highly priced US consultant I end up replacing.
Post by alexy
From what I understand, bodyshops can no longer afford to hire me.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by alexy
Can the H-1B gain compensation from his or her work? Yes.
Slaves were paid during ancient times for their services and at the v
least provided food, accomodation etc.. -possibly not much different
from unenslaved labour. Meaning farm workers whether indentured or not
-were always paid subsistence wages. Slavery is a tactic that extracts
more work for less pay [as opposed to no pay at all] by taking away
civic rights of individuals.
Well, if you are going to make up a new definition of the word, I
won't quibble with your description if you make clear that you are
using a nonstandard definition. Under your revised definition, a union
contract that provides rate concession and productivity increases from
shorter rest breaks constitutes slavery. Not the way most of us would
if the union workers rights outside office are affected by the
employer's decisions and if the worker could be arrested/deported by
law enforcement without committing a criminal offence -I would
categorize it as slavery -otherwise not. I have come across many
individuals use this term in relation to H1Bs, illegals etc. They don't
have to be Indians or be influenced bymy pov to make this reference.
How could so many people be arriving at the same conclusion if there
was no substance to the allegation?

regards
-kamal
Post by alexy
use the term. I think if you are going to use a nonstandard
definition, you should probably use a different word ("gradient" might
be a good choice<g>) so that people will not get confused thinking you
are using the word in its usual sense.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
alexy
2006-07-28 16:15:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Till a person lands in the US, he can decide to work
or not to work on an H1B visa.
The world's first instance of "slavery" where the "slave" voluntarily
signs up for the job!
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
Kamal R. Prasad
2006-07-29 07:34:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Till a person lands in the US, he can decide to work
or not to work on an H1B visa.
The world's first instance of "slavery" where the "slave" voluntarily
signs up for the job!
The nets they used on africans 300 yrs back have been replaced by an
inflated currency which yields higher disposable income without an
associated increase in productivity. Of course, there are many who will
do any job for subsitence wages -but that doesn't apply to all
individuals. Even hispanics who gate crash could probably land
themselves a job in mexico -but it won;'t yield them the kind of
savings that working illegally in the US does. And before anyone says
-the US is rich and so pays well, let me tell you money != wealth and
the US is the biggest debtor on earth. That aside, there is not enough
info available to H1Bs etc. You need to inform them about how the US
govt connives to take away civic rights -and is more of a profit making
corp and less of a law enforcing entity. if people still insist on
gatecrashing or working on H1B -then I would agree that it is
voluntarily driven by the strength of the mighty dollar.

regards
-kamal
Post by alexy
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
Straydog
2006-07-29 16:23:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Till a person lands in the US, he can decide to work
or not to work on an H1B visa.
The world's first instance of "slavery" where the "slave" voluntarily
signs up for the job!
The nets they used on africans 300 yrs back have been replaced by an
inflated currency
This is misleading as well as not in India's best interest to say this.
You Indians really do want a deflated Rupee because that will draw money
to India like crazy.

which yields higher disposable income without an
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
associated increase in productivity.
I have quoted, and others have quoted, that the USA is the most or second
most competitive economy, and India is very far down the list.

Of course, there are many who will
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
do any job for subsitence wages -but that doesn't apply to all
individuals.
Especially in India as Dalits ("untouchables") probably get less than
subsistence wages.

Even hispanics who gate crash could probably land
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
themselves a job in mexico -but it won;'t yield them the kind of
savings that working illegally in the US does.
And, what is this sentence have to do with your other sentences?
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
And before anyone says
-the US is rich and so pays well, let me tell you money != wealth and
the US is the biggest debtor on earth.
This is also misleading in view of the fact that Japan is the second
biggest debtor and I've told you this dozens of times in the last year,
and I'll bet Europe is the third. And, India's debt keeps increasing, too.
If you have 5% more growth rate than the USA, it can be calculated when
India will be the biggest debtor.

That aside, there is not enough
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
info available to H1Bs etc.
There is an old saying "buyer beware". You have to look out for your own
troubles, don't blame others for you not asking questions before you sign
the document.

You need to inform them about how the US
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
govt connives to take away civic rights
You still have not told us why a foreigner in the USA deserves the same
rights as citizens born in the USA.

-and is more of a profit making
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
corp and less of a law enforcing entity.
And, when are you going to look at all of the sins, injustices, and crimes
going on in India?

if people still insist on
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
gatecrashing or working on H1B -then I would agree that it is
voluntarily driven by the strength of the mighty dollar.
Nobody points a gun at Indians unless it is another Indian pointing a gun
at an Indian "untouchable" (Dalits). And, there are 250 million of them.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
regards
-kamal
Post by alexy
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
Kamal R. Prasad
2006-07-30 14:57:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Straydog
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Till a person lands in the US, he can decide to work
or not to work on an H1B visa.
The world's first instance of "slavery" where the "slave" voluntarily
signs up for the job!
The nets they used on africans 300 yrs back have been replaced by an
inflated currency
This is misleading as well as not in India's best interest to say this.
You Indians really do want a deflated Rupee because that will draw money
to India like crazy.
No -nobody in India wants the Rupee to be devalued. We are less of an
export oriented country, and with higher consumer spending [more like
the west and less like East Asia]. Further, an appreciating rupee will
not dent exports [engg exports i.e. those required educated personnel
have a better chance of surviving exchange-rate arbitrages] India is
the world's largest importer/consumer of gold and an appreciation will
cause Indians to buy gold bricks en masse.

http://www.golddrivers.com/News/News2005/20051006%20india's%20gold%20demand%20to%20rise%2033%25.htm

[snip nonsense]
Post by Straydog
You need to inform them about how the US
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
govt connives to take away civic rights
You still have not told us why a foreigner in the USA deserves the same
rights as citizens born in the USA.
because they are as human as you are. People who call themselves
americans are just humans who managed to reach the american landmass at
an earlier pt of time by way of human migration. If americans want to
collect royalty and/or enslave newcomers -it indicates a desire to get
a free ride -but not a divine right handed down to them. Here is some
scientific evidence for you to conclude that you or your ancestors
didn't fall from the heavens with an american passport -but are a
result of human migration like the ones you [or those holding placards
telling them to go away] despise.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1018_051018_human_origins.html
[snip]

regards
-kamal
Straydog
2006-07-30 17:41:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Till a person lands in the US, he can decide to work
or not to work on an H1B visa.
The world's first instance of "slavery" where the "slave" voluntarily
signs up for the job!
The nets they used on africans 300 yrs back have been replaced by an
inflated currency
This is misleading as well as not in India's best interest to say this.
You Indians really do want a deflated Rupee because that will draw money
to India like crazy.
No -nobody in India wants the Rupee to be devalued.
You don't want it apprecitated or you will lose business. China doesn't
want Yuan to go up or it will lose business. Yeah...you want it to be
devalued.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
We are less of an
export oriented country,
You are exporting services like mad, and you are importing USD and other
currencies like mad.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
and with higher consumer spending [more like
the west and less like East Asia].
And, you are getting your own package of debt, too.

Further, an appreciating rupee will
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
not dent exports
Not true.

[engg exports i.e. those required educated personnel
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
have a better chance of surviving exchange-rate arbitrages] India is
the world's largest importer/consumer of gold and an appreciation will
cause Indians to buy gold bricks en masse.
http://www.golddrivers.com/News/News2005/20051006%20india's%20gold%20
demand%20to%20rise%2033%25.htm

Defective link: 404

But, I think your sentence is patently false and for several technical
reasons. First, widespread buying of gold is unlikely unless gold is legal
tender in India. Second, only if you have serious inflation or debasement
of the Rupee might Indians buy up gold. Third, gold is likely to be bought
in India only if the market value of gold goes up substantially. You give
zero reasons for your sentence and the link doesn't work,
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
[snip nonsense]
Nah, you just want to "snip" issues you don't want to deal with.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
You need to inform them about how the US
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
govt connives to take away civic rights
You still have not told us why a foreigner in the USA deserves the same
rights as citizens born in the USA.
because they are as human as you are.
This totally ignores national interests, history, politics, and the fact
that humans from another land and educational background (or lack thereof)
and poor or non-existent ability to speak the native langues will place a
substantial burden on local services. It also totally ignores the fact
that many if not most countries do not make it easy to become citizens and
obtain citizens rights.

It also totally ignores the fact that in your own country, your society
still extensively discriminates against Dalits ("untouchables") in terms
of them being "as human as you are."

People who call themselves
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
americans are just humans who managed to reach the american landmass at
an earlier pt of time by way of human migration.
So what?

If americans want to
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
collect royalty and/or enslave newcomers -it indicates a desire to get
a free ride -but not a divine right handed down to them.
And, above and in other posts by you, you just want to give yourself the
right to take anything, anywhere, anytime and to declaire anythinig you
want. Sorry, no go.

Here is some
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
scientific evidence for you to conclude that you or your ancestors
didn't fall from the heavens with an american passport -but are a
result of human migration like the ones you [or those holding placards
telling them to go away] despise.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1018_051018_human_origins.html
[snip]
Irrelevant. But, your own country and society has its own high
priviledge caste system which has been around 3,000 years, handing out
birthrights to the vast majority of your people, irrespective of whether
those birthrights are earned or deserved. And, the "untouchables" (Dalits)
don't get ANY rights, except to get kicked around by higher caste Indians.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
regards
-kamal
Kamal R. Prasad
2006-07-31 09:05:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Straydog
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Till a person lands in the US, he can decide to work
or not to work on an H1B visa.
The world's first instance of "slavery" where the "slave" voluntarily
signs up for the job!
The nets they used on africans 300 yrs back have been replaced by an
inflated currency
This is misleading as well as not in India's best interest to say this.
You Indians really do want a deflated Rupee because that will draw money
to India like crazy.
No -nobody in India wants the Rupee to be devalued.
You don't want it apprecitated or you will lose business. China doesn't
want Yuan to go up or it will lose business.
No -I want it to appreciate so that purchasing power in India will
increase.
We won't be losing business for some segments because some people work
higher up the value chain. If one can compete with americans on an H1B
visa [where the american cost of living does apply] -then it should be
possible to retain one's job even after the rupee appreciates to the
fullest extent.
Post by Straydog
Yeah...you want it to be
devalued.
No -there is no national mandate to devalue the rupee. There has always
been a mandate to improve std of living, purchasing power etc, in India
-not the other way round. The ones who want the Rupee devalued vs the
USD are people within your own country aka backers of the strong dollar
policy instituted by YOUR govt.
Post by Straydog
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
We are less of an
export oriented country,
You are exporting services like mad, and you are importing USD and other
currencies like mad.
we are -but it forms a small percentage of our country's GDP. USD and
other currencies do not mean much. As I told you many times before,
money or currency is not the same as wealth. What we buy with the
earnings aka USD/other currencies is what amounts to real wealth. There
is no better way to keep money to yourself than to stop buying services
from India. If the US stops buying goods and services, then the whole
pt behind inflating the USD will be lost.
Post by Straydog
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
and with higher consumer spending [more like
the west and less like East Asia].
And, you are getting your own package of debt, too.
not relevant.
Post by Straydog
Further, an appreciating rupee will
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
not dent exports
Not true.
it won't -if its mostly higher up the value chain. .
Post by Straydog
[engg exports i.e. those required educated personnel
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
have a better chance of surviving exchange-rate arbitrages] India is
the world's largest importer/consumer of gold and an appreciation will
cause Indians to buy gold bricks en masse.
http://www.golddrivers.com/News/News2005/20051006%20india's%20gold%20
demand%20to%20rise%2033%25.htm
Defective link: 404
thats coz you didn't type the entire link. look on the 2nd page of
golddrivers.com and you will find a link to India's consumption.
Post by Straydog
But, I think your sentence is patently false and for several technical
reasons. First, widespread buying of gold is unlikely unless gold is legal
tender in India. Second, only if you have serious inflation or debasement
it is 100% legal to buy and import gold into India. Your 2nd pt is not
relevant.
Post by Straydog
of the Rupee might Indians buy up gold. Third, gold is likely to be bought
in India only if the market value of gold goes up substantially. You give
zero reasons for your sentence and the link doesn't work,
No -Indians love gold just for the heck of it. Its not without reason
that John Maynard Keynes referred to it as the barbaric relic or why
Columbus set sail in search of Indian gold.
Post by Straydog
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
[snip nonsense]
Nah, you just want to "snip" issues you don't want to deal with.
no -because you and your pissing matches bore me.
Post by Straydog
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
You need to inform them about how the US
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
govt connives to take away civic rights
You still have not told us why a foreigner in the USA deserves the same
rights as citizens born in the USA.
because they are as human as you are.
This totally ignores national interests, history, politics, and the fact
that humans from another land and educational background (or lack thereof)
and poor or non-existent ability to speak the native langues will place a
substantial burden on local services. It also totally ignores the fact
that many if not most countries do not make it easy to become citizens and
obtain citizens rights.
I believe hispanics are more than willing to pay taxes. Regardless, if
you do not want them in your country -just take away the thing that
benefits you most -their employment. Don't give me or anyone lame
excuses that the govt cannot locate them. The govt sure can -it just
doesn't want them to stop working for the benefit of american
businesses and consumers.
Post by Straydog
It also totally ignores the fact that in your own country, your society
still extensively discriminates against Dalits ("untouchables") in terms
of them being "as human as you are."
it doesn't. I told you the statute gives 100% rights to all individuals
in the country. No exceptions apply. Any violation is an offence which
is supposed to invite prosecution -but may not because vested interests
subvert the law.
Post by Straydog
People who call themselves
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
americans are just humans who managed to reach the american landmass at
an earlier pt of time by way of human migration.
So what?
so the notion of things aka natural resources belonging to you doesn't
hold true. There is nothing that belongs to the master race by way of
divine right -as advocated by minute men or anything else.
Post by Straydog
If americans want to
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
collect royalty and/or enslave newcomers -it indicates a desire to get
a free ride -but not a divine right handed down to them.
And, above and in other posts by you, you just want to give yourself the
right to take anything, anywhere, anytime and to declaire anythinig you
want. Sorry, no go.
No -I do not want anything from you. Im saying that you are under no
obligation to issue work permits or provide employment to foreigners.
If you feel like doing so, and refuse to provide them equal rights
after bringing them on board -then it indicates a desire to exploit
them.
Post by Straydog
Here is some
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
scientific evidence for you to conclude that you or your ancestors
didn't fall from the heavens with an american passport -but are a
result of human migration like the ones you [or those holding placards
telling them to go away] despise.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1018_051018_human_origins.html
[snip]
Irrelevant.
Its highly relevant for good-for-nothings who want a free ride based on
their citizenship or racial features. I want all rednecks to know that
the people they look down upon -either for being poor or for being dark
or anything else, have descended from the same set of biological
parents as they have. There is scientific evidence to confirm the same.
Post by Straydog
But, your own country and society has its own high
priviledge caste system which has been around 3,000 years, handing out
birthrights to the vast majority of your people, irrespective of whether
those birthrights are earned or deserved. And, the "untouchables" (Dalits)
don't get ANY rights, except to get kicked around by higher caste Indians.
Look again at what the law states in India and tell me if that is still
the case. Baloney will not invite a reply from me.

regards
-kamal
Straydog
2006-07-31 12:29:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Till a person lands in the US, he can decide to work
or not to work on an H1B visa.
The world's first instance of "slavery" where the "slave" voluntarily
signs up for the job!
The nets they used on africans 300 yrs back have been replaced by an
inflated currency
This is misleading as well as not in India's best interest to say this.
You Indians really do want a deflated Rupee because that will draw money
to India like crazy.
No -nobody in India wants the Rupee to be devalued.
You don't want it apprecitated or you will lose business. China doesn't
want Yuan to go up or it will lose business.
No -I want it to appreciate so that purchasing power in India will
increase.
Makes no sense since it is an economic fact and a historical fact that low
value currency allows a poor country to gain exports which in turn brings
in money. Just what India wants.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
We won't be losing business for some segments because some people work
higher up the value chain.
This is irrelevant to YOUR argument. Every country, even poor ones, has
its own segment of rich people.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
If one can compete with americans on an H1B
visa [where the american cost of living does apply] -then it should be
possible to retain one's job even after the rupee appreciates to the
fullest extent.
You are going to have all your own schedules of costs, inside India, that
will be irrelevant to the exchange rate. All you have to do is "grow" your
own economy, just like we did.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
Yeah...you want it to be
devalued.
No -there is no national mandate to devalue the rupee.
The historical fact is that the Rupee has been falling in value for more
than ten years, and even in the last year it has fallen some more.

And, your exports to Pakistan have been increasing recently too. All good
for India.

There has always
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
been a mandate to improve std of living, purchasing power etc, in India
-not the other way round. The ones who want the Rupee devalued vs the
USD are people within your own country aka backers of the strong dollar
policy instituted by YOUR govt.
Not true. It is a historical fact that China, on its own (i.e. not with
what the USA wants), devalued its own currency. I have the curves that
were published in the newspapers. And, then, within just a few years,
exports from China went into the stratosphere. And, the US has been
complaining to China for recent years to appreciate the Yuan and we have
yet to see it happen.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
We are less of an
export oriented country,
You are exporting services like mad, and you are importing USD and other
currencies like mad.
we are -but it forms a small percentage of our country's GDP. USD and
other currencies do not mean much.
On the contrary: Your big IT companies are buying up real estate here just
like US is setting up centers in India (eg. IBM, and all the rest), and
all those Indian IT companies can now send over Indians on L-1 visas and
pay them Rupee wages and charge US level fees and get rich.

As I told you many times before,
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
money or currency is not the same as wealth.
On the contrary: the USA economy is still expanding, building nice homes,
building nice office skyscrapers, still have the largest military, and
we're sending tons of money to all 3rd world countries--including India--
causing them to grow at those 8-10% growth rates, and improve their own
standards of living.

What we buy with the
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
earnings aka USD/other currencies is what amounts to real wealth.
All those other currencies (much less than the flow of USD), are also
coming from countries that have inflation, too.

There
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
is no better way to keep money to yourself than to stop buying services
from India.
I'd love to stop buying from India, but I don't have anything here in the
USA to stop buying except ashtrays in Walmart. But all of our CEOs like to
buy services from India, and tons of products from China.

If the US stops buying goods and services, then the whole
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
pt behind inflating the USD will be lost.
Not true. It is a fact of banking economics that banks--through fractional
reserve banking--make the money. All countries in modern times use banks
that use fractional reserve banking to make loans, charge interest, and
pay less interest to depositors so as to have money to pay the bank staff
and bank costs. Its in the history books. Read it yourself.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
and with higher consumer spending [more like
the west and less like East Asia].
And, you are getting your own package of debt, too.
not relevant.
Oh? US debt is a subject for debate, but Indian debt is not? You are a
hypocrit.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
Further, an appreciating rupee will
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
not dent exports
Not true.
it won't -if its mostly higher up the value chain. .
Fact: Higher USD means it hurts our exports. Its true for any country.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
But, I think your sentence is patently false and for several technical
reasons. First, widespread buying of gold is unlikely unless gold is legal
tender in India. Second, only if you have serious inflation or debasement
it is 100% legal to buy and import gold into India.
Irrelevant to the argument.

Your 2nd pt is not
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
relevant.
Yes it is...
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
of the Rupee might Indians buy up gold.
...otherwise why would Indians suddenly buy up gold.

Third, gold is likely to be bought
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
in India only if the market value of gold goes up substantially. You give
zero reasons for your sentence and the link doesn't work,
No -Indians love gold just for the heck of it.
Oh, sure, just like our CEOs love gold (they don't) as much as they love
big paychecks (full of USD) just like Indians and everyone else in the
world loves USD. Most women prefer diamonds, too.

Gold is not legal tender in the USA. Can you buy hamburgers or citars in
India without converting gold to currency?

Its not without reason
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
that John Maynard Keynes referred to it as the barbaric relic or why
Columbus set sail in search of Indian gold.
That's all in the past. And, not everyone likes Keynes.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
[snip nonsense]
Nah, you just want to "snip" issues you don't want to deal with.
no -because you and your pissing matches bore me.
That's funny, because at least 60-70% of what you write is pure piss.

Besides, you are historically wrong more often than right.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
You need to inform them about how the US
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
govt connives to take away civic rights
You still have not told us why a foreigner in the USA deserves the same
rights as citizens born in the USA.
because they are as human as you are.
This totally ignores national interests, history, politics, and the fact
that humans from another land and educational background (or lack thereof)
and poor or non-existent ability to speak the native langues will place a
substantial burden on local services. It also totally ignores the fact
that many if not most countries do not make it easy to become citizens and
obtain citizens rights.
I believe hispanics are more than willing to pay taxes.
Impossible. I know of no one who is more than willing to pay taxes, and it
is not in anyone's financial intereste to pay taxes. In fact, tax dodging
is a big business.

Regardless, if
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
you do not want them in your country -just take away the thing that
benefits you most -their employment.
I have no control over CEOs and bosses.

Don't give me or anyone lame
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
excuses that the govt cannot locate them.
Govt doesn't care. Doesn't have enough police. Would cost more than saved.

The govt sure can -it just
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
doesn't want them to stop working for the benefit of american
businesses and consumers.
Your own government can't even stop the armed revolt going on in eastern
India. Could not prevent the bombings in Mumbai couple weeks ago.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
It also totally ignores the fact that in your own country, your society
still extensively discriminates against Dalits ("untouchables") in terms
of them being "as human as you are."
it doesn't. I told you the statute gives 100% rights to all individuals
in the country.
Your laws are not enforced. And, Pratap Tambay's discussions with you
months ago proved it.

Not to mention all your child slavery in your rug factories. Illegal, but
it all still goes on.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
No exceptions apply. Any violation is an offence which
is supposed to invite prosecution -but may not because vested interests
subvert the law.
Your whole country runs on bribes.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
People who call themselves
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
americans are just humans who managed to reach the american landmass at
an earlier pt of time by way of human migration.
So what?
so the notion of things aka natural resources belonging to you doesn't
hold true.
Then it was OK for the British to take over India back last century.

There is nothing that belongs to the master race by way of
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
divine right -as advocated by minute men or anything else.
Good, lets send the British back into India.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
If americans want to
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
collect royalty and/or enslave newcomers -it indicates a desire to get
a free ride -but not a divine right handed down to them.
And, above and in other posts by you, you just want to give yourself the
right to take anything, anywhere, anytime and to declaire anythinig you
want. Sorry, no go.
No -I do not want anything from you.
Yeah, you do. You guys all want to steal our jobs.

Im saying that you are under no
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
obligation to issue work permits or provide employment to foreigners.
We've got some 7% of the people in the USA, here now, who are here
illegally and as far as anyone is concerned, they don't seem to need work
permits.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
If you feel like doing so, and refuse to provide them equal rights
I have nothing against foreigners who want to come and become citizens
through the established processes, or otherwise obey our laws. Your idea
of "equal rights" is just give you anything you want without satisfying
our laws.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
after bringing them on board -then it indicates a desire to exploit
them.
Not me, but I'll give you credit for using the right word--"exploit"--this
time.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
Here is some
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
scientific evidence for you to conclude that you or your ancestors
didn't fall from the heavens with an american passport -but are a
result of human migration like the ones you [or those holding placards
telling them to go away] despise.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1018_051018_human_origins.html
[snip]
Irrelevant.
Its highly relevant for good-for-nothings who want a free ride based on
their citizenship or racial features.
Just like high priviledge high caste Hindus.

I want all rednecks to know that
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
the people they look down upon -either for being poor or for being dark
or anything else, have descended from the same set of biological
parents as they have. There is scientific evidence to confirm the same.
I never said this was not true.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
But, your own country and society has its own high
priviledge caste system which has been around 3,000 years, handing out
birthrights to the vast majority of your people, irrespective of whether
those birthrights are earned or deserved. And, the "untouchables" (Dalits)
don't get ANY rights, except to get kicked around by higher caste Indians.
Look again at what the law states in India and tell me if that is still
the case. Baloney will not invite a reply from me.
Your law is worthless if it is not enforced. And, even Pratap Tambay
(another Indian) and Arhunhat Roy (another Indian) say that too. See
again, below.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
regards
-kamal
India: Government Brutality, Injustice, and
Questionable Democracy.

A sellection of quotes from the book "An Ordinary Person's Guide to
Empire" by Arundhati Roy (the author of The God of Small Things, on the
NYT best seller list for 49 weeks, and she lives in New
Delhi); ISBN 0896087271, c 2004.

Parts of the book criticise US foreign policy, and other parts criticise
Indian foreign and domestic policy. All of the chapters were originally
given as speeches or were published as articles in major printed media.
The book contains hundreds of sources for details about which statements
were made. The book gives substantial detail about the internal political
and social components of modern India and India's problems and changes
while undergoing modernisation. At one point the author identifies fascist
themes in some government policy and especially in connection with
globalization. The book is easy to read and contains a great deal of
information about the political situation in India, today. If you are a
corporate goon-parasite, then all this doesn't matter. If you care about
democracy, ethics, morals, and people, then read on.

Quotes:

page 12
"According to the State, when victims refuse to be victims, they become
terrorists and are dealt with as such. They're either killed or arrested
under POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act). In states like Orissa, Bihar,
and Jharkhand, which are rich in mineral resources and, therefore,
vulneralble to ruthless corporations on the hunt, hundreds of villagers,
including minors, have been arrested under POTA and are being held in jail
without trial. Some states have special police battalions for
'anti-development' activity. This is quite apart from the other use that
POTA is being put to--terrorizing Muslims, particularly in states
like Jammu and Kashmir and Gujarat. The space for genuine nonviolent civil
disobediance is atrophying. In the era of corporate globalization, poverty
is a crime, and protesting against further impoverishment is terrorism. In
teh era of the War on Terror, poverty is being slyly conflated with
terrorism." I have sellected just a few passages to show the message that
this book offers and that it is important to everyone, not just India or
Indians.

***
page 13:
"Vast parts of the country are already more or less beyond the control of
the Indian state--Kashmir, the North East, large parts of Madhya Pradesh,
Chhattisgarh, and Jharkhand."
***
"The real issue is that the privatization of essential infrastructure is
essentially undemocratic. The real issue is the towering mass of
incriminating evidence against big dams. The real issue is the fact that
over the last fifty years in India alone big dams have displaced more
than 33 million people.... The real issue is the fact that the Supreme
Court of India ordered the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam to
proceed even though it is aware that it violates the fundamental rights to
life and livelihood of the citizens of India."

I should point out that dam construction and other Army Corps of Engineer
projects in the USA have been seriously criticised by environmentalists in
the USA at least as far back as 50 years ago. Many dam construction
projects in the USA have been declared failures and Jared Diamond, in his
book "Collapse" mentioned at least one US dam that was blown up to restore
water flows back to their original nature without loss of non-existent
benefits but with the restoration of the fishing industry in the area.

page 45:
"Never mind that forty years ago, the CIA, under President John F.
Kennedy, orchestrated a regime change in Baghdad. In 1963, after a
succesful coup, the Ba'ath party came to power in Iraq. Using lists
provided by the CIA, the new Ba'ath regime systematically eliminated
hundreds of doctors, teachers, lawyers, and political figures known to be
leftists [reference given]. An entire intellectual community was
slaughtered. (The same technique was used to massacre hundreds of
thousands of people in Indonesia and East Timor.[reference given])....In
1980...[the US said] 'We see no fundamental incompatibility of
interests between the United States and Iraq [reference given].'"

page 55:
"In South Africa, after three hundred years of brutal domination of the
black majority by a white minority through colonialism and apartheid, a
nonracial, multi-party democracy came to power in 1994. It was a
phenomenal acheivement. Within two years of coming to power, the African
National Congress had genuflected with no caveats to the Market God. Its
massive program of structural adjustment, privatization, and
liberalization has only increased the hideous disparities between the
rich and the poor. Official unemployment among blacks has increased from
forty percent to fifty percent since the end of Apartheid [reference
given]. The corporatization of basic services-- electricity, water, and
housing-- has meant that ten million South Africans, almost a quarter of
the population, have been disconnected from water and electricity
[reference given]."

Now how does propaganda work?

page 57:
"...Clear Channel Communications is the largest radio station owner in the
country. It runs more than twelve hundred channels, which together
account for nine percent fo the market [reference given]. When hundreds of
thousands of American citizens took to the streets to protest against
the war on Iraq, Clear Channel orgaized pro-war patriotic "Rallies for
America" across the country [reference given]. It used its radio stations
to advertise the events and then sent correspondents to cover them as
though they were breaking news."

It should be noted that consolidation in the broadcast radio and TV
business continues, today. Same for the book publishing business. Soon,
only a few entities will control all media.

page 71:

This deals with Hindu nationalism. Many passages in the book talk about
this with parallels with the development of Nazi power in Germany in the
1930s.

"On August 15, 2003, Independence Day he [Cheif Minister of Gujarat,
Narendra Modi] hoisted the Indian flag before thousands of cheering
people. In a gesture of menacing symbolism, he wore the black RSS
cap--which proclaims him as a member of the Hindu nationalist guild that
has not been shy of admiring Hitler and his methods [reference
given]."

"One hundred and thirty million Muslims--not to mention the other
minorities, Dalits, Christians, Sikhs, Adivasis--live in India under the
shaddow of Hindu nationalism."

page 85:

Additional text documenting thousands of people killed and hundreds of
thousands of people displaced by Indian police.

page 91:

"Gandhi's Salt March was not just political theater. When, in a simple act
of defiance, thousands of Indians marched to the sea and made their own
salt, they broke the salt tax laws."

page 97:

"The U.S. government used the lies and disinformation generated around the
September 11 attacks to invade no just one country, but two.... The Indian
government uses the same strategy not with other countries, but against
its own people. Over the last decade the number of people who have been
killed by the police and security forces runs into the thousands. Recently
several Bombay policemen spoke openly to the press about how many
'gangsters' they had eliminated on 'orders' from their senior officers
[reference given]. Andhra Pradesh chalks up an average of about two
hundred 'extremists' in 'encounter' deaths a year [reference given]. In
Kashmir in a situation that almost amounts to war, an estimated eighty
thousand people have been killed since 1989. Thousands have simply
'disappeared' [reference given]. According to the records of the
Association of Parents of Disappeared People (APDP), more than three
thousand people were killed in 2003, of which four hundred and sixty-
three were soldiers [reference given]."

The text goes on to say things are getting worse.

page 102:

"Fourty-seven percent of India's children below three suffer from
malnutrition, forty-six percent are stunted [reference given]."

page 103:
"Today, an average rural family eats about one hundred killograms [about
220 lbs.] less food in a year than it did in the early 1990s [refernce
given]."

"But in urban India, wherever you go--shops, restaurants, railway
stations, airports...--you have TV monitors in which election promises
have already come true. India's Shining, Feeling Good."

page 104:

The thing that is happening is that much infrastructure (eg. water
supplies, electricity, transport, telecommunications, health services,
education, etc, that the government was "supposed to hold in trust for the
people it represents, assets that have been built and maintained with
public money over decades--are sold by the state to private corporations."
Guess where that leads?

The book ends with a short glossary of terms, names, etc., that define or
explain political parties, important people, important historical
events, and a long list of information sources (21 pages), and an index.

If you want to see how globalization is affecting the so-called
"developing countries" this is one good book to start with.
Straydog
2006-07-27 19:50:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
I think a lot of people use the word "liquidity" without knowing what it
means and he is one of them. He must think its "cool" to throw words
around that are abstract instead of words (like money supply) that are
easier to understand.
liquidity is a widely used alias for money supply.
Kamal, here is what started it: your sentences that I quote here.
############### quote #####
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
... and when the Fed increases liquidity aka money supply ...
... Home prices will rise when liquidity increases...
Liquidity of what?
He said "aka money supply..." but I think that he thinks the Fed just
prints money whenever it feels like, which is untrue. Although
I've explained it many times, the money supply expands primarily through
fractional reserve banking which is explained in any (all that I've seen
anyway) banking book.
################ end of quote ##############
And, Kamal, those sentences above are what YOU wrote. The rest of us see
this and figure that you know what you wrote and are trying to say
something purposeful.
Yeah -nothing wrong with what I wrote unless you are confusing
liquidity in an economy with liquidity of an asset class.
"liquidity aka money supply" is wrong. Liquidity in the wiki definition
carried a lot of contextual meanings.

You have stated so many times that the US govt prints money all over the
place as if it is a bad thing and it hurts the world. See below...
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
I personally admire the guys who have nerves to play experts in
subjects they don't have any clue. I think this is the prerequisite to
success in the modern world.
I am not an expert -nor have formal education in econ. My
specialization is Comp Sc & Engg -and I am content with knowing or
claiming to know enough so as to earn my living without breaking any
laws.
I am neither an expert in economics nor am I an expert in banking, but
I've spent some serious time trying to learn more. I will say that I have
been much less satisfied with what economists tell us than explanations
by bankers about how banks and money work. At least I know that money
supply expands (primarily) by fractional reserve banking which has been in
existence BEFORE the USA even existed!
I never denied that fractional reserve banking existed before the USA
ever existed.
How about you think about something else besides fractional reserve
banking. How about checks and credit cards. Did you know they had checks
and credit back in ancient Greek days (in Durant's volume 2)? When
ordinary citizens or anyone who has a credit card or a checking account
uses the credit card or writes a check, they are creating money, too. At
least temporarily. How many billions of dollars created by credit cards
and checks? See those M numbers the fed releases. When a guy buys
something with a check and tells the seller "don't deposit the check for
30 days" hes creating money at least temporarily. Multiply that by tens of
millions of people and you will have billions of dollars worth of
_real_ transactions based on money that does not exist. Not backed by
anything. Its a big "float" and you've got all of this in India, too, and
its growing. And, its very complicated.

How about you think about stock. A company prints share certificates and
sells that piece of paper to you for dollars. They got real money, and you
got a piece of paper. After that its like an antique auction. If other
people want that antique paper, they will buy it from you for more than
you paid for it, or in a crash, you'll get much less money. How much money
was lost in the India stock market crash a month ago? Who was invested in
it? They took a bath. And, I don't mean with water. And, what happens? The
company gets the money to build a building in an IPO. After that,
shareholders migh make money or lose money. Just remember, with that piece
of paper, you cannot go down to that company and take out a window, or
some bricks, or some inventory, or furniture.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
Kamal, I think your biggest problems are: i) that you don't give enough
time to think critically about what you think about, and ii) you don't
think critically and carefully enough BEFORE you write something. I don't
care if you hate part or all of the USA, but at least have a valid reason
that can be stated accurately instead of based on hot air and demonstrably
false statements. You deny or ignore reality in India, and then talk about
problems in the USA that don't exist (eg. slavery really does exist in
India today but not the USA).
I would have to disagree with you on this. In India, slavery in carpet
factories etc is carried out by private parties AGAINST the law.
In the US, slavery
Two very different kinds of slavery and in the second case it is
technically wrong to call it slavery. In the rug factories, the kids are
all locked up at night and can't go away no matter what. All those H1Bs,
etc., are being exploited, legally, for sure but every one of them does
not have a chain on his leg and locked to a chair or a table. They can
quit any time but then they are obligated to leave if they don't want to
be illegal. And, we've got some maybe 6% of people in the USA here
illegally. Mostly Hispanic.

is perpetuated with help from the US govt. Your govt
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
is CONNIVING with businesses to ensure that:-
Our businesses lobby our govt all the time for favors, subsidies, laws,
tricks, and in all of the powerful countries in the world the same thing
goes on.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
-lots of people are allowed to work and contribute to the economy
-they remain under RESTRICTED or worse, WITHOUT RIGHTS as mandated by
the United States constitution.
I have no idea why you think an alien should come here under any
circumstance and become a citizen with full rights the very moment they
come off the boat. But, I can tell you that many aliens do come here and
have gotten on our welfare rolls and gotten benefits without being
citizens and most of our own citizens can't do this.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Private parties cannot create legislation -they pay your politicians to
do so. But in India, there is no legislation to facilitate slavery and
it is done unofficially.
Hah. There is no legislation to facilitate illegal aliens here, either.
They just come and float around. We don't have enough police to find them,
but our laws are changing and in some communities they are telling police
to look for illegal aliens and prosecute them.

For Indian rug factories, the owners are probably making more money
because all they do with the kids is feed them cheap food and lock them up
in some shed at night and don't pay them any money. At least the H1Bs get
some money.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
As regards terming slavery as exploitation -I would disagree with you
on that. The legislation created by your govt places the status of the
worker in the hands of the employer. When a citizen loses his job, his
status in the US is not subject to the employer's discretion. But if a
work permit holder loses his job. the US constitution REQUIRES one to
leave the country within 24 hrs -barring leniency shown by the govt.
You have to understand there is another side to these funny laws and I
sympathize with this side. A guy comes over here because an employer wants
him (because he is cheap, not better) and the guy coming says he wants to
work, but if the law does not lock the guy to the employer, then the guy
gets into this country with expanded rights and the employer gets cheated.
All that paperwork, maybe some fees, and the employer gets nothing. There
has to be some "lock" on the arrangement. And, all of this is very very
controversial from all of the sides that I've heard about. Lots of
disagreement.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
For illegals who form the bulk of your food processing/garbage
collection and numerous low-end jobs -there are ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHTS
I can tell you that just one block from my wife's office in town, and
going accross the whole town of 6,000 people there are 3,000 mostly
guatemalans (hispanics) and I'm told that 90% of them are illegal. They
dump their kids (they are called "anchor babies" because if they have a
kid born here, then they can still be illegal, but they can't be deported)
into our schools where taxpayers are paying the bill. Whether the pay that
these illegals get gets reported to the government is unknown because I
don't follow them around with a gun and tell them to show me their boss
and then maybe the boss shows me fake books. Its a big mess.

What rights do they have? Well, they could vote if they produced fake
documents and not discovered. I know a local policeman says they get into
knife fights and so it needs an extra few police to handle that. The
hospital emergency rooms give them free service if they walk in (I can't
do that). The illegal ones all just move from one job to another. I see
lots of them (I saw a bunch last sunday, working on bricks and cement on a
sidewalk project. They were probably geting $9-10/hr cash, no deductions,
no benefits, no taxes, no IRS, all speaking Spanish to each other and who
hired them is making fake documents to show the IRS if they ever get
audited). Or, maybe they work 1/4 of a year to get their "quarters" in
with social security so if they stay here all their lives, then they get
social security retirement back in Mexico and they didn't pay in all that
was required of them. I think its not so bad RIGHTS.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
and if the employer is a large corp -he can tell the cops this guy is
illegal and have him deported. That would be a case of employee not
doing a satisfactory job and law enforcement discovering with the help
of the employer that concerned person is illegal. [Ask any illegal, he
will tell you he lives in the shadows for fear of law-enforcement].
You have to show me statistics on how many actually are found and
deported. Its a very small number. Even the Chinese come here on student
visas, I've heard, then they jump the visa. Get lost in Chinatown.

Some even come on visitor and tourist visas. So they enter the country
legally, maybe stay illegally, but at least they enter legally.

If
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
you had legislation penalizing employers for hiring foreigners -but not
for their being present in the US, employers won't be hiring them and
you can keep your country to yourself.
We get tons of arguments every day in our newspapers and the congress is
arguing all the time about this.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
And, you should be more careful about what you claim to know vs what you
actually know. Nobody really gets hurt here on NGs that don't have a lot
of readers, but if you had to make a living by writing for the Washington
Post or the NY Times, you'd be dead now.
I don't aspire to write/work for them. If you think Im not telling the
truth, just look into the links I post -which either state facts or
express opinions by your own highly regarded fellow citizens.
I've looked at some of them. We have a lot of "highly regarded" fellow
citizens, like W, who I have a very low regard for.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
Economics and banking are very complicated areas and there are many
controversies in economics and quite a few in banking policy and
procedure, too. I'm not an expert in either area, either, but at least I
read the stuff and read it many times trying to determine the finer
points and try to figure out what the authors are trying to say.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Also, this is the computer age. They (Indians) are supposed to have
excellent Internet access.
Americans have better access to the internet -and wikipedia is neither
the last word nor guaranteed to contain all information known to
mankind. It is a volunteer based effort to create a free encyclopedia.
see below...
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Why on earth he does not put "liquidity"
into bloody Google and get the tons of explanation of what it is: e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity .
That is referring to the liquidity of an asset class like stocks etc..
I am referring to the liquidity available in an economy to trade in
goods, services etc.. A closer definition of what I wanted to convey is
here:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply
I did a copy and paste of both definitions below, and I read substantial
parts of both, and edited the formating of parts in both that pertain to
what we're discussion.
When you say "liquidity..aka money supply" you (see below) are incorrect.
Unless you have some other weird definition of "aka", it means to me "Also
known as" which means the two terms are talking about the same thing.
Liquidity as stated on wikipedia talks of liquidity of an asset class.
I am talking of financial liquidity in an economy which is known as
money supply.
So you said liquidity aka money supply (which is wrong) and then you said
if liquidity goes up, then house prices would go up. I think that, too is
wrong. House prices can go up if there is mass psychology where people
think house prices are going up just like share prices for some company
goes up. We had a couple of periods like this in the past. The stock
market went into a bubble around 2000. In Japan, in the 1990s they had a
big real estate bubble, too. You had your India Sensex bubble a month ago.
What kept it from getting worse is that the exchange was shut down. Same
in Russia. Their stock market cratered at the same time. It was in the
newspapers.

If you want to say that a jump in money supply causes inflation, then
fine, I'll go along with that. But liquidity...I think the wiki definition
was OK. Assets can be illiquid or liquid. You can always ALWAYS take
illiquid assets to a bank and put them up for collateral for a liquid
load, so its not an issue. We've got tons of home equity loans in the USA
for people with illiquid real estate assets and the bank takes equity from
the owners and loans them real (liquid) money. Why are you confused about
this?
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
For Art, I never claimed the US treassury will print money for
frivolous reasons.
Shall I collect all the sentence you have been writing about this for
more than the last year and put them here? You have been saying
approximately that all along. We just print money. Our money is worthless.
Understand what I am saying:-
Your govt has a policy to inflate the USD against other currencies
called the strong dollar policy. The purchasing power of the USD is not
in line with the exchange rates.
You should look at China's pegged Yuan and ask them about their weak
currency policy. And, look at your own Rupee which is not yet fully
convertible. And, you should look at your own country which has not opened
up your markets yet (I've read a bunch of articles on the failed WTO talks
and your country was named as one that wanted us to lower tariffs on
imported farm products but did NOT want to open Indian markets to the
world). So, don't point your finger at us.

Money printing is done by your govt in
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
line with their policies -not by mistake -but by following certain
criterion.
Yeah, I've acknowledged that Bush & congress can spend money that the govt
doesn't have. But, you don't understand, yet, how all the other mechanisms
(fractional reserve banking, credit cards, check books, etc) that people
can spend money that doesn't exist and all that plays a roll in expanding
our money supply, too. not just our government. And, all I'm reading is
that all of this is spreading like wildfire in India and China, so look in
the mirror before you point your finger.

They can print as much money as they like because it does
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
not require them to accumulate gold or any other trade-able goods.
Why don't you understand that FDI works both ways? European companies and
Canadian companies are being bought with USD every day. Europeans and
Canadians are buying US companies every day with USD.

Do
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
they press the print button for frivolous reasons? No. Do they do it to
solve short term problems or some such thing? Yes and there are no
checks and balances in your system to prevent that from creating a long
term crisis.
Tell me this: Do you think there is no inflation anywhere but the USA?

Tell me this: Did you know that in India you guys just raised interest
rates? Do you know why this happened?
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
We don't have any "fountain of wealth" (your own words). You portray that
we just don't have ANYthing here and its all archived for anyone to see
for themselves. You can't explain where our skyscrapers, homes, cars,
highways, military, electronics, computers, everything else comes from
but you can sure deny that any of it exists.
They all exist -but you can be sure there is no fountain of wealth that
ENTITLES you to a good std of living.
Then how come we are living a generally fine standard of living and why
are we getting millions of illegal aliens breaking laws to come here to
live?
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Your govt prints money as and when it likes [not for fun, but by
following their own internally set guidelines] and that only increases
liquidity -not wealth.
Money is a financial instrument to transact in wealth -but in itself
does not represent wealth [unless your govt goes back to the gold std].
You are just pressing a button on yourself that starts a robot voice that
says this. You are not learning anything about modern finance. And, you
are failing to undestand that the same thing is happening in India and
China. How do you get 8-9% growth rates per year in India and China? Is it
in your newspapers that 60,000 tons of gold is being mined somewhere and
brought to wherever your country has its gold? Silver? Is that in your
newspapers? I think there is not enough gold in the world to back up all
the currency.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
I just claimed they have the ability to do so.
Our glorious government decides, from time to time, to "create" money--to
create spending money it does not have--by increasing the federal debt
limit. This ability is NOT exclusive to the USA. It goes back even to
before the USA existed, in European countries at least. It can actually
print real paper money or mint coins or it can make numbers on paper or
computer memory get bigger with pressing keys on a keyboard. Yes, down the
There are scams and problems and chinks in every system/economy etc..
Your govt is farther down the risky road than anyone else, and the USD
is the most over-valued asset at this pt of time -quote Paul O'Neil.
And, for every Paul O'Neil there is another guy who says "not to worry".
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
road, this "more numbers" floats out into our economy and leads to
inflation. But, what also is happening is that "more numbers" floats out
into bank accounts all over our economy and through fractional reserve
banking, that new money gets _multiplied_ by factors that are in equations
in banking books. And, that is given in those wiki formulas that involve
measures like M0, M1, M2, and M3 that you can see below in the wiki
definitions.
To
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
what extent they increase/decrease liquidity (or shall we say money
supply) is a function of monetary policy.
I would refer you to what you yourself quoted as being in the wiki
definitions and then invite you to try again to write what you are
trying to say because from my reading of what is below "liquidity is NOT
money supply"
Financial liquidity IS money supply.
The liquidity of an asset class IS NOT money supply.
Regardless, whether you still have doubts about the two meaning the
same thing -understand that increasing money supply does not translate
into an increase in wealth. Likewise, inflating a currency is like
indulging in insider trading. It will come back to haunt you when more
of the world realizes whats going on.
You are not reading the wiki definition.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
regards
-kamal
Straydog
2006-07-26 20:49:15 UTC
Permalink
Kamal (from farther below) seems to neither read, nor think, nor remember.
I have posted the following many times with zero acknowledgement from him)
-----

Quotes from the "Financial Times" Thursday, May 11, 2006, page 4:
article title: "Nations close on competitive US"
by Francis Williams in Geneva

Quotes:

"The US is still the world's most competitive economy...the IMD business
school says in its latest competitiveness rankings."

The sidebar lists the top economies:

1. US
2. Hong Kong
3. Singapore
4. Iceland
5. Denmark
6. Australia
7. Canada
8. Switzerland
9. Luxembourg
10. Finland

Farther down the list: UK at 21, Germany at 26, France 35, Italy near the
bottom at 56. In the last year, China went from 31 to 19, India from 39 to
29, still very far down the list. Economies that went down: Taiwan (18
from 11) and S Korea (38 from 29).

"The IMD scorecard uses 312 criteria" over a very broad range of factors.


----
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by anon
Post by Robert Kolker
Post by anon
The share market is no longer a means of capital formation - it has
become the reason why companies do things a certain way. Analysts dislike
employee costs and do not mind operating costs. So employees get fired
and are replaced by outsourced ones or consultants. The market applauds,
regardless of the long term effects.
Analysts dislike all input costs. The market applauds growth in
revenue/profits regardless of how a company achieves it. Some companies
make do with fewer -high priced employees, and some make do with lots
of low-priced employees. That is a matter of execution left to company
managers by the stock market and its only the bottom line that counts.
Post by anon
Post by Robert Kolker
I wonder if anyone has asked that if the great consuming middle class is
destroyed in America, who is going to buy the goods and services of the
companies that operate in America? There are industries whose revenues are
consumer driven. Is it not in their interestest to help maintain buying
power at home?
The consuming middle class of america will be replaced by a
less-consuming middle class in 3rd world countries, i.e. each
individual consumes less than the avg american while working a lot
harder -but a lot of consumers on account of huge untapped populations
will compensate for that and provide jobs to a lot more workers. Thanks
to consumers in India, China and many newly emerging markets -american
companies have found a lot more first-time buyers from whoim they can
extract a premium rather than forcing upgrades down the bloated
american consumer's throat.
Post by anon
1. the american system is totally driven by end of month reports. the crap
is left to sort out for the future generations, the next CEO, the next
president, or the next Fed chairman.
A quarterly view is more like it. Some large companies have plans
stretching into decades -coz they have that much insulation from
financial/market crises.
Post by anon
2. the markets have figured out that the fed and the govt will not let
consumption decline. that is why you see such dramatic moves in the price of
inelastic raw materials in the futures markets. the market knows it can
extort much more for the oil, cotton, copper, nickel etc - because these are
used in economic activity, and the fed won't let that decline.
The "risk management" approach of mr. greenspan has turned into a debt
machine where the fed will keep pumping the money. and any signs of distress
in the consumption,
Im glad you realized what is going on. Its really hard to convince
americans that their govt is printing money to keep up consumer
spending without an associated rise in productivity/wealth. For
Straydog, understand from your fellow american:-
Money != Wealth (read in C language as Money is not equal to
Wealth)
Money is a means to carry out trade in goods and servicea -and not a
replacement for wealth. It is like a credit card issues by a credit
card co. The credit card has zero residual value, unless it is honoured
and ONLY valued if swiping it does yield money -whcih can be traded in
lieo uf trade-able goods/services aka wealth.
Post by anon
it will pump more. the only problem is if the banks
won't lend it to you if you don't have the collateral aka land. landowners
win, yet again.
Individuals with a job can take a mortgage and when the Fed increases
liquidity aka money supply, refinancing yields money without having to
work for it -which in turn props up consumer spending and that results
in job creation.
Post by anon
the govt will keep up the pressure on the land via immigration, and the
collateral will keep rising in price, and hence available for more mortgages
and equity extraction.
If immigration is the cause, why do housing prices increase ONLY in
regions where there is economic activity? You will not find
hispanics/H1bs in Montana, Idaho even if they are eligible to work
there and housing costs v less -coz there is no economic activity out
there. Its there in mostly congested areas of west and east coast. Home
prices will rise when liquidity increases, or salaries increase or
productivity increases or people with money to spare zero in to a
particular residential neighbourhood [or all of the above]. From what I
understand, home prices in the US cannot be sustained by productivity
alone and act as a deterrent to employers wishing to setup factories in
the US i.e. the employer will have to pay a lot more to hire comeone in
calif than in India or maybe remote areas of the US.
regards
-kamal
aj
2006-07-26 23:05:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Straydog
article title: "Nations close on competitive US"
by Francis Williams in Geneva
"The US is still the world's most competitive economy...the IMD business
school says in its latest competitiveness rankings."
With typical American flair the Financial Times got it wrong.

?According to the The Global Competitiveness Report 2005-2006, released
on Wednesday by the World Economic Forum, Finland remains the most
competitive economy in the world and tops the rankings for the third
consecutive year. The United States is in second position, followed by
Sweden, Denmark, Taiwan and Singapore, respectively."
Old Pif
2006-07-26 23:12:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by aj
?According to the The Global Competitiveness Report 2005-2006, released
on Wednesday by the World Economic Forum, Finland remains the most
competitive economy in the world and tops the rankings for the third
consecutive year. The United States is in second position, followed by
Sweden, Denmark, Taiwan and Singapore, respectively."
I also thought that Sweden must be around. They are pretty dynamic.
They also show an example of very positive role of government
participation.

But the point was that India is not even close.
aj
2006-07-28 04:53:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Pif
Post by aj
?According to the The Global Competitiveness Report 2005-2006, released
on Wednesday by the World Economic Forum, Finland remains the most
competitive economy in the world and tops the rankings for the third
consecutive year. The United States is in second position, followed by
Sweden, Denmark, Taiwan and Singapore, respectively."
I also thought that Sweden must be around. They are pretty dynamic.
They also show an example of very positive role of government
participation.
But the point was that India is not even close.
India came in at # 50. However, that is a starting point
Straydog
2006-07-27 00:15:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by aj
Post by Straydog
article title: "Nations close on competitive US"
by Francis Williams in Geneva
"The US is still the world's most competitive economy...the IMD business
school says in its latest competitiveness rankings."
With typical American flair the Financial Times got it wrong.
?According to the The Global Competitiveness Report 2005-2006, released on
Wednesday by the World Economic Forum, Finland remains the most competitive
economy in the world and tops the rankings for the third consecutive year.
The United States is in second position, followed by Sweden, Denmark, Taiwan
and Singapore, respectively."
OK, so we can have two or more studies on competitiveness. Still how about
telling us where India ranked in THAT report.
aj
2006-07-28 04:53:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Straydog
Post by aj
Post by Straydog
article title: "Nations close on competitive US"
by Francis Williams in Geneva
"The US is still the world's most competitive economy...the IMD
business school says in its latest competitiveness rankings."
With typical American flair the Financial Times got it wrong.
?According to the The Global Competitiveness Report 2005-2006,
released on Wednesday by the World Economic Forum, Finland remains the
most competitive economy in the world and tops the rankings for the
third consecutive year. The United States is in second position,
followed by Sweden, Denmark, Taiwan and Singapore, respectively."
OK, so we can have two or more studies on competitiveness. Still how
about telling us where India ranked in THAT report.
# 50.
alexy
2006-07-27 04:21:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by aj
Post by Straydog
article title: "Nations close on competitive US"
by Francis Williams in Geneva
"The US is still the world's most competitive economy...the IMD business
school says in its latest competitiveness rankings."
With typical American flair the Financial Times got it wrong.
There are at least a couple of things wrong with your statement:
1) The Financial Times never writes with "American flair" (It is
English)
2) They didn't get it wrong at all. In fact, they got it absolutely
right, as you can see if you look online at the IMD Business School
ratings on which they are reporting.
Post by aj
?According to the The Global Competitiveness Report 2005-2006, released
on Wednesday by the World Economic Forum, Finland remains the most
competitive economy in the world and tops the rankings for the third
consecutive year. The United States is in second position, followed by
Sweden, Denmark, Taiwan and Singapore, respectively."
Interesting that two different studies with different methodologies
came up with such similar results. Unless you view such surveys with
"typical American flair" and exaggerated sense of the precision they
offer, these two surveys tend to support each other rather than
contradict,
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
aj
2006-07-28 04:57:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by alexy
Post by aj
Post by Straydog
article title: "Nations close on competitive US"
by Francis Williams in Geneva
"The US is still the world's most competitive economy...the IMD business
school says in its latest competitiveness rankings."
With typical American flair the Financial Times got it wrong.
1) The Financial Times never writes with "American flair" (It is
English)
Oops! I stand corrected.
Straydog
2006-07-28 12:22:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by aj
Post by alexy
Post by aj
Post by Straydog
article title: "Nations close on competitive US"
by Francis Williams in Geneva
"The US is still the world's most competitive economy...the IMD business
school says in its latest competitiveness rankings."
With typical American flair the Financial Times got it wrong.
1) The Financial Times never writes with "American flair" (It is
English)
Oops! I stand corrected.
It does, however, have a US office, but since I've been reading it for
months now, I can say it has an European/British "flair".

I would compare it with the WSJ in quality. I don't much care for the pink
color of the paper, though.
aj
2006-07-26 23:08:11 UTC
Permalink
Straydog wrote:
Check out how finland became # 1 in Competativeness

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4031805.stm
Straydog
2006-07-27 00:55:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by aj
Check out how finland became # 1 in Competativeness
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4031805.stm
I actually read all of that page and it really did NOT explain how Finland
became #1 in competitiveness because at no place in the article did it
explain what went into the survey/study that led to Finland becomeing #1.

You may want to go back and re read the article yourself. What the article
did do was to allow a spokesperson for Finland present _an_ explanation
based on a critical contribution from Finland's educational system.

You will also find, near the end of the article, an acknowledgement that
Finland's unemployment is worse than the UKs, a factor that counts against
quality of life in Finland.
aj
2006-07-28 04:55:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Straydog
Post by aj
Check out how finland became # 1 in Competativeness
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4031805.stm
I actually read all of that page and it really did NOT explain how
Finland became #1 in competitiveness because at no place in the article
did it explain what went into the survey/study that led to Finland
becomeing #1.
Real Investment in education, Free education for the gifted.
Straydog
2006-07-28 12:20:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by aj
Post by Straydog
Post by aj
Check out how finland became # 1 in Competativeness
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4031805.stm
I actually read all of that page and it really did NOT explain how Finland
became #1 in competitiveness because at no place in the article did it
explain what went into the survey/study that led to Finland becomeing #1.
Real Investment in education, Free education for the gifted.
No, that page said that the competitiveness report essentially endorsed
the educational system. It did not _prove_ anything. It did not show cause
and effect.

Please bear in mind that I am not trying to discredit the competitiveness
report and I am not trying to discredit the Finish school system. In
general, European schools have good reputations and the Europeans have
traditionally taken their schooling seriously, but there is also a
juvenile delinquent problem in Europe just as there is in Russia, the USA,
and now even in Japan.

You really need to critically read those sentences and critically evaluate
exactly what they said and just because they put one thing in the same
sentence with another thing and make it _sound_ like something more than
it is, then it is not.
Les Cargill
2006-07-27 00:06:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by anon
Post by Robert Kolker
Post by anon
The share market is no longer a means of capital formation - it has
become the reason why companies do things a certain way. Analysts dislike
employee costs and do not mind operating costs. So employees get fired
and are replaced by outsourced ones or consultants. The market applauds,
regardless of the long term effects.
Analysts dislike all input costs. The market applauds growth in
revenue/profits regardless of how a company achieves it. Some companies
make do with fewer -high priced employees, and some make do with lots
of low-priced employees. That is a matter of execution left to company
managers by the stock market and its only the bottom line that counts.
Analysts like to see sector-leading numbers - whatever
that happens to mean. And this entire discussion ignores
the analyses that Drucker did in the 70s/80s/90s - that
compensation is a declining component of production cost.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by anon
Post by Robert Kolker
I wonder if anyone has asked that if the great consuming middle class is
destroyed in America, who is going to buy the goods and services of the
companies that operate in America? There are industries whose revenues are
consumer driven. Is it not in their interestest to help maintain buying
power at home?
The consuming middle class of america will be replaced by a
less-consuming middle class in 3rd world countries, i.e. each
individual consumes less than the avg american while working a lot
harder -but a lot of consumers on account of huge untapped populations
will compensate for that and provide jobs to a lot more workers.
That seems unlikely. We're already seeing what, 33% growth rates?
in and among the ofshoring companies. That means you'll have, as
the mean moves to the median, increased wages. Then the cycle
we see in the US will execute there, only faster.

And there's a *strong* possibility that American
consumers are reaching satiety.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Thanks
to consumers in India, China and many newly emerging markets -american
companies have found a lot more first-time buyers from whoim they can
extract a premium rather than forcing upgrades down the bloated
american consumer's throat.
We'll see. That won't necessarily work without a strong
consumer credit system. Given the distribution of
property "over there", I don't know how that
can work the same.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by anon
1. the american system is totally driven by end of month reports. the crap
is left to sort out for the future generations, the next CEO, the next
president, or the next Fed chairman.
A quarterly view is more like it. Some large companies have plans
stretching into decades -coz they have that much insulation from
financial/market crises.
Very few, though. Increasingly, employment in America is
going to be with privately held firms, mainly
to avoid the cost of being public. Those
sorts of firms have much more latitude.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by anon
2. the markets have figured out that the fed and the govt will not let
consumption decline. that is why you see such dramatic moves in the price of
inelastic raw materials in the futures markets. the market knows it can
extort much more for the oil, cotton, copper, nickel etc - because these are
used in economic activity, and the fed won't let that decline.
The "risk management" approach of mr. greenspan has turned into a debt
machine where the fed will keep pumping the money. and any signs of distress
in the consumption,
Im glad you realized what is going on. Its really hard to convince
americans that their govt is printing money to keep up consumer
spending without an associated rise in productivity/wealth.
That's *partially* true - the conversion of home equity into
consumption, and the credit card bloat are those things. But
there have been productivity increases.

Much of the "printing money" is just a return flow for
bootstrapping China's consumer goods production base.
That'll taper off soon, if it hasn't already. It's
a short drop from WalMart buying stuff to financing
its production as well.

Do not assume all Americans think the debt is a good
thing - it's artificially made establishing production
in the U.S. very difficult. But it's hardly
pernicious. And we're beginning to see interest
rates rise.

<snip>
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Individuals with a job can take a mortgage and when the Fed increases
liquidity aka money supply, refinancing yields money without having to
work for it -which in turn props up consumer spending and that results
in job creation.
Right. In a recession, that's the plan - although the job
numbers never have been all that overwhelmingly positive.

Still, the equities markets have seen considerable flows
to them as well, still.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by anon
the govt will keep up the pressure on the land via immigration, and the
collateral will keep rising in price, and hence available for more mortgages
and equity extraction.
If immigration is the cause, why do housing prices increase ONLY in
regions where there is economic activity? You will not find
hispanics/H1bs in Montana, Idaho even if they are eligible to work
there and housing costs v less -coz there is no economic activity out
there. Its there in mostly congested areas of west and east coast. Home
prices will rise when liquidity increases, or salaries increase or
productivity increases or people with money to spare zero in to a
particular residential neighbourhood [or all of the above]. From what I
understand, home prices in the US cannot be sustained by productivity
alone and act as a deterrent to employers wishing to setup factories in
the US i.e. the employer will have to pay a lot more to hire comeone in
calif than in India or maybe remote areas of the US.
But much of the runup in home prices is sheer
speculation, fueled by cheap and easy refinancing.

Wages have, for the last two cycles, lagged home
price increases by several years.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
regards
-kamal
--
Les Cargill
minnesotti
2006-07-23 14:31:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Kolker
I wonder if anyone has asked that if the great consuming middle class is
destroyed in America, who is going to buy the goods and services of the
companies that operate in America? T
The economy is operated by the greed of the upper class ("fatcats").
Since the last 10-15-20 years, they discovered that thatr did not need
anymore the local consuming middle class anymore to drive the economy.
The manufacturing and development can be outsourced to the cheap
countries such as China. The fatcats will receive their luxury stuff
anyway (made in China and by innumerous locals). What they need is the
servant class in America who will build houses for them and plumb their
toilets. And teach. And provide banking services, and lawer services.
Oh, and medical services. That's it. The massive consumer middle class
is not needed anymore. The most of the Americans are not needed anymore
by the American economy. Go and order a coffin for yerself while you
still have money.
aj
2006-07-23 17:56:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Kolker
I wonder if anyone has asked that if the great consuming middle class is
destroyed in America, who is going to buy the goods and services of the
companies that operate in America? There are industries whose revenues
are consumer driven. Is it not in their interestest to help maintain
buying power at home?
I can understanding firing the deadwood from the job, but firing
everyone in sight?
Bob Kolker
That is why the Corporations have to go overseas so they can cater to an
American Consumer who by enlarge no longer has a middle class income.
Les Cargill
2006-07-23 23:50:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Kolker
Post by anon
The share market is no longer a means of capital formation - it has
become the reason why companies do things a certain way. Analysts
dislike employee costs and do not mind operating costs. So employees
get fired and are replaced by outsourced ones or consultants. The
market applauds, regardless of the long term effects.
I wonder if anyone has asked that if the great consuming middle class is
destroyed in America, who is going to buy the goods and services of the
companies that operate in America? There are industries whose revenues
are consumer driven. Is it not in their interestest to help maintain
buying power at home?
If a person is steering a corprate entity, they are probably right
to consider developing markets as more important than established
markets. The American consumer is probably quite saturated, these
days.
Post by Robert Kolker
I can understanding firing the deadwood from the job, but firing
everyone in sight?
Bob Kolker
You assume a reliable mechanism for telling one from the other.

--
Les Cargill
BMJ
2006-07-23 14:33:02 UTC
Permalink
anon wrote:

<snip>
Post by anon
US business is only interested in the latest fad because it leads to
increasing share prices (remember glass companies putting dot com in their
names and reaping substantial share price increases). CEOs are not
interested in company performance as much as manipulating share prices -
whic is the bulk of their compensation.
There was a good article by Coggan (the smart one at FT). He cited some
studies which showed that excessive incentives actually decrease
performance. eg, penalty shooters in football seem to perform worse in front
of home crowd.
The share market is no longer a means of capital formation - it has become
the reason why companies do things a certain way. Analysts dislike employee
costs and do not mind operating costs. So employees get fired and are
replaced by outsourced ones or consultants. The market applauds, regardless
of the long term effects.
I saw that yesterday when I went to buy something in an
automotive/hardware store. I came across an item that I considered
buying but there was no price on it or on the shelf where it was kept.
I spent what must have been ten minutes trying to find a staff member
who could help me, except I couldn't find anyone.

I finally cornered someone coming out of the store's stock room and was
told to go to some sort of customer assistance desk. When I got
there, the young lady who was there told me to wait and wandered off. A
few minutes later, some kid came along, acting as if he'd just gotten
out of bed after a hard night's partying. He finally was able to answer
my question, but had no idea what I wanted or what the item was until I
explained it to him.

I complained about the situation to the cashier as I thought that, by
coincidence, everyone who would have normally been on the store floor
had taken a lunch break. Her answer? "Oh we're *so* busy." The place
wasn't any busier than it was on any other day that I've been there.

When I was younger, a customer in a situation like mine was considered
lost, along with the corresponding revenue that the customer would have
provided. I used to work in a machine shop warehouse and helped sell
bearings, roller chain, and bolts. To behave like those kids did, and
to have a customer dissatisfied, would have been personally embarrassing
for me as I would have failed in my duty. Nowadays, the kids that are
hired have no idea what they're selling, haven't a clue about how to
deal with customers, and have a "So what?" attitude if someone leaves a
store unhappy.

Yet, the stock of the company that ran the store is over $100 a share
and has been so for several months. How it got there and managed to
stay at that level is beyond me.

Unfortunately, what I encountered yesterday is only too typical of the
retail sector and, yet, financial analysts are baffled as to why it's
doing badly. Common sense in dealing with clientele is, evidently, in
short supply.
minnesotti
2006-07-23 15:04:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by BMJ
When I was younger, a customer in a situation like mine was considered
lost, along with the corresponding revenue that the customer would have
provided.
TINES ! (This is a new economy, stupid !) :-)

The times changed. The retail sector now sells cheap stuff... much
cheaper than it used to be 20 years ago. (It is made in China etc.) It
is a no big deal for the store if they lose you as customer. They do
not make much money on you, anyway. If you choose not to come to them
anymore, there will always be another sucker who will bring his money
to them. And, it is cheaper to hire a kiddie who cannot tell his/her
left from right. They will sell stuff to the customers anyway, but they
cost way cheaper to employ than a proper staff.

..
BMJ
2006-07-23 15:33:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by minnesotti
Post by BMJ
When I was younger, a customer in a situation like mine was considered
lost, along with the corresponding revenue that the customer would have
provided.
TINES ! (This is a new economy, stupid !) :-)
The times changed. The retail sector now sells cheap stuff... much
cheaper than it used to be 20 years ago. (It is made in China etc.) It
is a no big deal for the store if they lose you as customer. They do
not make much money on you, anyway. If you choose not to come to them
anymore, there will always be another sucker who will bring his money
to them. And, it is cheaper to hire a kiddie who cannot tell his/her
left from right. They will sell stuff to the customers anyway, but they
cost way cheaper to employ than a proper staff.
I agree with that, but what I experienced is a clear contradiction to
the you-are-a-valued-customer blather that the public is bombarded with.

Two major department store chains went under because they adopted the
"Who cares?" policy. They preferred to chase after the yuppie dollar,
only to find that they completely alienated their customer base, who
took their dollars elsewhere.

Another department store chain adopted a similar approach and was taken
over by foreign interests a few months ago.

It never ceases to amaze me how stores can deliberately shoot themselves
in the foot like that and hope to beat the odds, despite the
high-profile failures that I just mentioned. Evidently, the MBA types
who run these places have no idea of how retailing actually works.
Post by minnesotti
..
aj
2006-07-23 17:54:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by minnesotti
Post by Phil Scott
That was enlightening... sort of looks like US business is
looking to hire the cheapest idiot they can find,,, then make
that work somehow, as long as they can get another quarters
profit or their ten million dollar bonus....and to hell with
everything else.
It is well put... I liked the saying "US business is looking to hire
the cheapest idiot they can find".
Saying that without considering the the chronic plight of the US
educational system is telling
Post by minnesotti
However, this all is happening because the economical system can bear
it. They hire as unskilled workers as the economy can bear. And the
current economy system can bear 95% of its workers to be unskilled. The
reason is that the previous generations worked hard to develop the
technologies which allow to produce the food, shelter and entertainment
cheaply and in abundant amount. Thus, the today's society does not need
to worry anymore about developing and improving of the sustaining
technologies. The motivation is not there anymore. That's the end of
the Western civilization. (Actually, this is not an end, but the
societal system will be shaken soon and will be restructured in its
essence, which will be accompanied by the sufferings of the masses.)
..
BroTher zAchary
2006-07-23 21:06:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by minnesotti
Post by Phil Scott
That was enlightening... sort of looks like US business is
looking to hire the cheapest idiot they can find,,, then make
that work somehow, as long as they can get another quarters
profit or their ten million dollar bonus....and to hell with
everything else.
It is well put... I liked the saying "US business is looking to hire
the cheapest idiot they can find".
However, this all is happening because the economical system can bear
it. They hire as unskilled workers as the economy can bear. And the
current economy system can bear 95% of its workers to be unskilled. The
reason is that the previous generations worked hard to develop the
technologies which allow to produce the food, shelter and entertainment
cheaply and in abundant amount. Thus, the today's society does not need
to worry anymore about developing and improving of the sustaining
technologies.
Maybe they don't need to be.
Post by minnesotti
That's the end of
the Western civilization. (Actually, this is not an end, but the
societal system will be shaken soon and will be restructured in its
essence, which will be accompanied by the sufferings of the masses.)
Yeah, you guys have been saying that for two centuries, now. We're
still waiting.
Straydog
2006-07-23 22:13:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by BroTher zAchary
Post by minnesotti
Post by Phil Scott
That was enlightening... sort of looks like US business is
looking to hire the cheapest idiot they can find,,, then make
that work somehow, as long as they can get another quarters
profit or their ten million dollar bonus....and to hell with
everything else.
It is well put... I liked the saying "US business is looking to hire
the cheapest idiot they can find".
However, this all is happening because the economical system can bear
it. They hire as unskilled workers as the economy can bear. And the
current economy system can bear 95% of its workers to be unskilled. The
reason is that the previous generations worked hard to develop the
technologies which allow to produce the food, shelter and entertainment
cheaply and in abundant amount. Thus, the today's society does not need
to worry anymore about developing and improving of the sustaining
technologies.
Maybe they don't need to be.
Post by minnesotti
That's the end of
the Western civilization. (Actually, this is not an end, but the
societal system will be shaken soon and will be restructured in its
essence, which will be accompanied by the sufferings of the masses.)
Yeah, you guys have been saying that for two centuries, now. We're
still waiting.
Well, I'm taking a middle-ground position. I'm very interested in any
historical literature describing "declines" and speculating about causes.
However, in vol 8 of Durant (a few pages back from where I am now, a
little more than halfway through the volume), there is some description of
what Spain was like in the century after massive amounts of gold were
imported from (south) American (primarily) as it was taken from the Incas
and gold mines established and manned/managed by the Spainiads (and to
some degree the Portugese were in there, too), and yes, there was a
decline in Spanish society. Most if not a very large part of the lower
classes (poor, and middle class) did leave spain because of a vast
enrichment of the wealthy class because the gold brought in somehow
spoiled the rich. Also, that gold did distort the economics between Spain
and England and France and since Spain had all this money to spend in
England and France, a lot of people just migrated to where the jobs were.
At least that is my recollection of what Durant wrote. I don't think it
was a particularly good analysis, and I don't know if there are beter
writings about this but I'm certainly planning to look. Durant never got
into much economics and banking in his 10 vol set (this is where Griffin
[I've talked about before] did a much better job explaining the
relationship between wars and how wars are financed [as well as why they
are financed]).

Yes, there is a literature on declines and some of it is predictive. Some
is retrospective. But, also, I have noticed that authors of opinions can
come up with any kind of conclusion or prediction they want. So,
absolutely, I would not take an overall stand on the question. However, I,
too, can pick and chose from available data and observations and make
conclusions and pronouncements. But, my most primary bias is based on
all those few guys in cushy chairs who write off tens of thousands of
employees in one country and hire a like number in another country just
because its cheaper and ask that old question about "net gains" and "net
losses" to the society that loses those jobs. Again, that's my bias.
Someone else might not care.
aj
2006-07-23 17:52:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Scott
Whelll.... now the truth comes out.
You can only say that without being informed about the state of US
education.
Straydog
2006-07-20 23:30:04 UTC
Permalink
Financial Times, Thurs, July 20, page 9.

title: "Up to the job? How India and China risk being stifled by a skills
squeeze" authors: Jo johnson and Richard McGregor

Quotes:

First paragraph:

"When Ishmael Chawla advertises for software developers in New Delhi, he
braces himself for rejection. 'More than half our candidates don't show up
for a scheduled interview,' says Mr. Chawla, 33, who manages the Indian
operations of Live-Career, a San Francisco-based provider of online career
counseling. 'Even then we probably have one qualified person for every 20
we interview--and by qualified, I essentially mean 'trainable'"

Approximately one third of the article says nearly the same thing about
China. They are getting caught, too, in a lack of qualified candidates for
jobs, too. Most of the article talks about examples.

"While 3m [million] students graduate from Indian universities each
year...only about 25 per cent of engineering graduates and 10-15 per cent
of general college graduates are considered suitable for direct employment
in the offshore information technology and [BPO] industries [according to
a NASSCOM study]." "The lobby group has warned that the Indian IT sector
faces a shortfall of 500,000 professionals by 2010...."

"With the industry as a whole struggling with annual employee turnover
rates approaching 40 per cent, wage inflation is rising." The article
quoted "13.5 per cent last year" and expects it to become 20 per cent this
year. The article goes on to quote Infosys as boosting pay by "12.5 per
cent" to hold back turnoever.

More BPO failure cited:

"Last month, Apple Computer and Powergen, the UK utility, announced the
closure of their Indian support activities. More closures are likely to
follow as opportunities for labor cost arbitrage become ever more scarce."

"Even in a traditional business like construction, the squeeze is on, as a
result of debt-fuelled housing boom and breakneck development of mall
complexes. Large building companies report chronic shortages of skilled
foremen and supervisors."

"'Skills shortages are not just starting to pinch--they're biting in a
massive way,' says Kanwarjit Chawla, chairman of the New Delhi-based
Chawla Techno Construct. Struggling to serve its clients, the group
decided to offer all its skilled foremen and supervisors a 60 per cent pay
rise to retain their services."

The rest of the articles gives still further examples and quotes both
Indians and Chinese.
Old Pif
2006-07-20 23:54:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Straydog
Financial Times, Thurs, July 20, page 9.
title: "Up to the job? How India and China risk being stifled by a skills
squeeze" authors: Jo johnson and Richard McGregor
..................................................................................................................
Post by Straydog
The rest of the articles gives still further examples and quotes both
Indians and Chinese.
I suspected something like that judging by those I have met here.
However, is it really a thing to celebrate? If the outsourcing pressure
from this side continue to rise or even stays at the same level they
catch up with education. The western universities respond to the market
demand usually with the delay about 4-5 years. Why the Indian
universities would not? All that is to say that the fact they are bad
now does not mean to do nothing to keep the US job market healthy.
Straydog
2006-07-21 00:20:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Pif
Post by Straydog
Financial Times, Thurs, July 20, page 9.
title: "Up to the job? How India and China risk being stifled by a skills
squeeze" authors: Jo johnson and Richard McGregor
..................................................................................................................
Post by Straydog
The rest of the articles gives still further examples and quotes both
Indians and Chinese.
I suspected something like that judging by those I have met here.
However, is it really a thing to celebrate? If the outsourcing pressure
from this side continue to rise or even stays at the same level they
catch up with education. The western universities respond to the market
demand usually with the delay about 4-5 years. Why the Indian
universities would not?
The more I read about India from the sources I'm reading, the more I see
Indian culture splitting into a very small progressive-modern population
and a very large and backwards. Can you imaging anything like a crash
program in India to wipe out "backwardness" in 4-5 years? Do you really
think they can turn a switch on the wall and have to room light up in
100-200 miliseconds? See below....

All that is to say that the fact they are bad
Post by Old Pif
now does not mean to do nothing to keep the US job market healthy.
Our biggest fears are what our own CEOs and politicos will do to us.
They'll sell the rest of us down the river.

And, remember this one that I found a while back and posted:
-------------------------
From ***@panix.com Mon May 15 13:16:35 2006
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 13:16:32 -0400
From: Straydog <***@panix.com>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
soc.culture.indian, sci.research.careers
Subject: Overeducated, underemployed....in China!!!!


from "The Week" May 19, 2006, page 9, a quote:

"More than half of chinese students who graduate from college this year
will be doomed to unemployment, the Labor Ministry said this week. The
number of grads has been steadily climbing in the past few years, even as
job creation slows. In the second half of this year, 4.1 million people
will finish university, but there are jobs for only 1.7 million of them.
India, another emerging giant, may soon face a similar shortage. 'The
outlines of an Asian employment crisis are already taking shape.' said
Ifzal Ali, cheif economist of the Asian Developement Bank/ 'Asia's succes
will sooner or later be eclipsed by the pressures of a huge reserve army
of unemployed.'"


---
Old Pif
2006-07-21 02:26:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Straydog
The more I read about India from the sources I'm reading, the more I see
Indian culture splitting into a very small progressive-modern population
and a very large and backwards. Can you imaging anything like a crash
program in India to wipe out "backwardness" in 4-5 years? Do you really
think they can turn a switch on the wall and have to room light up in
100-200 milliseconds? See below....
I hope that they start building the local consumers and by that their
economy reorient inward which should relive pressure from the West. But
as far as education is concerned the change is related to that very
small progressive layer you are talking about. And so the task is much
smaller in scope and therefore manageable. Especially having in mind
that the opportunities drive them.
Straydog
2006-07-21 11:45:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Pif
Post by Straydog
The more I read about India from the sources I'm reading, the more I see
Indian culture splitting into a very small progressive-modern population
and a very large and backwards. Can you imaging anything like a crash
program in India to wipe out "backwardness" in 4-5 years? Do you really
think they can turn a switch on the wall and have to room light up in
100-200 milliseconds? See below....
I hope that they start building the local consumers and by that their
economy reorient inward which should relive pressure from the West. But
as far as education is concerned the change is related to that very
small progressive layer you are talking about. And so the task is much
smaller in scope and therefore manageable. Especially having in mind
that the opportunities drive them.
And, if it were not for the exchange rate being favorable to them, the
fact that many studies show them to be much more difficult to do business
with would mean that they are going to be left behind in a cloud of dust
by the rest of the world.

Then, we've got Kamal who can not understand that, whatever he fails to
understand about our money, we've got all these big cities, lots of cars,
a modern standard of living, internet, TV, cellphones, computers and its
all for real. But he is saying it doesn't exist OR it can't exist.

Crazy, eh?
Straydog
2006-07-21 00:30:38 UTC
Permalink
WSJ, July 12, 2006, front page, lower right corner:

title: "States and Towns Attempt to Draw the Line on Illegal Immigration"
by Miriam Jordan

Third paragraph:

"This year, more than 500 pieces of immigration-related legislation have
been introduced in state legislatures, and 57 of them have been enacted in
27 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In
April, Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue, a Republican, signed into law a bill
that will restrict public health benefits and certain employment rights
for illegal immigrants, starting next year. On Monday, Colorado
legislators passed similar measures."

The article goes into substantial detail, including laws making it
possible to litigate against employers (headed by those greedy-selfish
parasite CEOs) of illegal aliens, and that people are tired of paying
taxes that get spent on benefits being paid out to illegals. I've even
heard from some other people that sometimes the illegals can get benefits
in the US but legal citizens of the US who pay the taxes that get spent
delivering those benefits to the illegals cannot get those benefits.
minnesotti
2006-07-23 09:27:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Straydog
Financial Times, Thurs, July 20, 2006, page 9
title "Singh sounds the alarm over educational failings"
"Manmohan Singh, India's prime minister, could hardly have been blunter.
The Indian educational system is in such crisis, he said last week, that
it threatens the country's growth. For an outside world that haprbours an
image of a system churning out hard-working, numerate, techno-savy and
English-speaking graduates in their millions, the comments should come as
something of a shock."
There is a universal principle: "90% of everything is crap". This is an
explanation of how the image of the Indian "hard-working, numerate,
techno-savy and English-speaking graduates in millions" combines with
the claims of the Indian educational system in crisis.

..
aj
2006-07-23 17:51:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Straydog
Financial Times, Thurs, July 20, 2006, page 9
title "Singh sounds the alarm over educational failings"
"Manmohan Singh, India's prime minister, could hardly have been blunter.
The Indian educational system is in such crisis, he said last week, that
it threatens the country's growth.
To bad he was not listening to the politicians in the US who for decades
have bewailed the plight of the US educational system.

The alarm bells have been ringing in the US for the last 40 years and it
got politicians of every stripe elected. Never mind the US student SAT
scores are among the lowest in the Industrial world, despite all this
verbiage the US economy keeps on steaming along.

So anyone wanting to make anything significant about Indian education is
motivated by pure malice.
Straydog
2006-07-21 01:16:55 UTC
Permalink
Front Page, WSJ, July 19, 2006, lower right corner.

"Global Growth, Weak Dollar Unleash a Wave of U.S. Exports"
by Mark Whitehouse

All kinds of good news, expansion, trade deficit down, details,
statistics.

---and a bonus just for those who don't know anything-----


The Economist (I hope you know that periodical) publishes in the back pages of
every issue lots of financial data. In the April 29, 2006 issue on page 101,
is a bar graph showing (title of bar graph) "Trade in commercial services"
with an asterisk which says "Transport, travel, commmunications, financial
and other services" and under the title it says "Top exporters, 2005, $bn"
and guess who is at the top? The USA, exported $350 billion in services.
The next highest exporter is Britain with $180 bil. There were 13 more
countries listed (Germany, France, Japan, Italy, Spain, China [with $80 bil],
Netherlands, _India_ [with $65 bil in services], and the rest with Canada
ending at $50 bil). The source was given as the WTO.


Just in the Tuesday, May 16, issue of the WSJ, front page, is another bar
graph on world wide farm exports. Guess what, US is at the top with $79.6
bil in exports. The whole EU exports $78.4 bil. Others in order down the
list are Canada (40.1), Brazil (30.9), China (24.1), Oz (22.1), Argentina
(17.1), and down through Russia (13.8), and Malaysia (13.1), and India not
even on the list.


---- and another one -----


Quotes from the "Financial Times" Thursday, May 11, 2006, page 4:
article title: "Nations close on competitive US"
by Francis Williams in Geneva

Quotes:

"The US is still the world's most competitive economy...the IMD business
school says in its latest competitiveness rankings."

The sidebar lists the top economies:

1. US
2. Hong Kong
3. Singapore
4. Iceland
5. Denmark
6. Australia
7. Canada
8. Switzerland
9. Luxembourg
10. Finland

Farther down the list: UK at 21, Germany at 26, France 35, Italy near the
bottom at 56. In the last year, China went from 31 to 19, India from 39 to
29, still very far down the list. Economies that went down: Taiwan (18
from 11) and S Korea (38 from 29).

"The IMD scorecard uses 312 criteria" over a very broad range of factors.
r***@comcast.net
2006-07-21 07:21:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Straydog
Front Page, WSJ, July 19, 2006, lower right corner.
"Global Growth, Weak Dollar Unleash a Wave of U.S. Exports"
by Mark Whitehouse
All kinds of good news, expansion, trade deficit down, details,
statistics.
---and a bonus just for those who don't know anything-----
The Economist (I hope you know that periodical) publishes in the back pages of
every issue lots of financial data. In the April 29, 2006 issue on page 101,
is a bar graph showing (title of bar graph) "Trade in commercial services"
with an asterisk which says "Transport, travel, commmunications, financial
and other services" and under the title it says "Top exporters, 2005, $bn"
and guess who is at the top? The USA, exported $350 billion in services.
The next highest exporter is Britain with $180 bil. There were 13 more
countries listed (Germany, France, Japan, Italy, Spain, China [with $80 bil],
Netherlands, _India_ [with $65 bil in services], and the rest with Canada
ending at $50 bil). The source was given as the WTO.
Just in the Tuesday, May 16, issue of the WSJ, front page, is another bar
graph on world wide farm exports. Guess what, US is at the top with $79.6
bil in exports. The whole EU exports $78.4 bil. Others in order down the
list are Canada (40.1), Brazil (30.9), China (24.1), Oz (22.1), Argentina
(17.1), and down through Russia (13.8), and Malaysia (13.1), and India not
even on the list.
---- and another one -----
article title: "Nations close on competitive US"
by Francis Williams in Geneva
"The US is still the world's most competitive economy...the IMD business
school says in its latest competitiveness rankings."
1. US
2. Hong Kong
3. Singapore
4. Iceland
5. Denmark
6. Australia
7. Canada
8. Switzerland
9. Luxembourg
10. Finland
Farther down the list: UK at 21, Germany at 26, France 35, Italy near the
bottom at 56. In the last year, China went from 31 to 19, India from 39 to
29, still very far down the list. Economies that went down: Taiwan (18
from 11) and S Korea (38 from 29).
"The IMD scorecard uses 312 criteria" over a very broad range of factors.
And still the trade deficit grew.

________________
I am human; nothing in humanity is alien to me.
Terence
minnesotti
2006-07-21 03:21:26 UTC
Permalink
Lately, when I am coming to read s.r.c., I thought occurs to my mind:

When there is a gap in conversation and people have nothing to say,
people are divided into two categories. The first category thinks: "I
have nothing to say ! Quick ! I have to say something !" and the other
category of people: "I have nothing to say. I will keep quiet".
Old Pif
2006-07-21 04:13:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by minnesotti
When there is a gap in conversation and people have nothing to say,
people are divided into two categories. The first category thinks: "I
have nothing to say ! Quick ! I have to say something !" and the other
category of people: "I have nothing to say. I will keep quiet".
In principle, statistical analysis of discussion topics is an
interesting subject. I am thinking of teaming with a physiologist (my
wife?) and wright an article about that.

An interesting phenomenon is that after short period after original
posting the discussion behaves like a tree, each branch most often
having very little in common with the original posting .

Another thing is that every new group has something like stable
attractor of topics and no matter from what the discussion starts the
end belongs to one of the stable themes. A classical example of that is
the Goodwin law which is a universal attractor for any discussion. For
our group the stable topics are Indian supremacy, stupid management and
the decline of the Western civilization.

Usenet is a Klondike for studies in human relations.
Kamal R. Prasad
2006-07-21 09:32:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Pif
end belongs to one of the stable themes. A classical example of that is
the Goodwin law which is a universal attractor for any discussion. For
our group the stable topics are Indian supremacy, stupid management and
the decline of the Western civilization.
...not to mention false ideas of the origin of wealth, intellect and
everything good as inherently belonging to the master race. Did anyone
from India ever suggest that Indians are superior? I would only go so
far as to suggest that comparable manpower can be found in India, and
it costs a lot less to hire a person of a given calibre in India than
in the US.

regards
-kamal
Straydog
2006-07-21 11:47:47 UTC
Permalink
India: Government Brutality, Injustice, and
Questionable Democracy.

A sellection of quotes from the book "An Ordinary Person's Guide to
Empire" by Arundhati Roy (the author of The God of Small Things, on the
NYT best seller list for 49 weeks, and she lives in New
Delhi); ISBN 0896087271, c 2004.

Parts of the book criticise US foreign policy, and other parts criticise
Indian foreign and domestic policy. All of the chapters were originally
given as speeches or were published as articles in major printed media.
The book contains hundreds of sources for details about which statements
were made. The book gives substantial detail about the internal political
and social components of modern India and India's problems and changes
while undergoing modernisation. At one point the author identifies fascist
themes in some government policy and especially in connection with
globalization. The book is easy to read and contains a great deal of
information about the political situation in India, today. If you are a
corporate goon-parasite, then all this doesn't matter. If you care about
democracy, ethics, morals, and people, then read on.

Quotes:

page 12
"According to the State, when victims refuse to be victims, they become
terrorists and are dealt with as such. They're either killed or arrested
under POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act). In states like Orissa, Bihar,
and Jharkhand, which are rich in mineral resources and, therefore,
vulneralble to ruthless corporations on the hunt, hundreds of villagers,
including minors, have been arrested under POTA and are being held in jail
without trial. Some states have special police battalions for
'anti-development' activity. This is quite apart from the other use that
POTA is being put to--terrorizing Muslims, particularly in states
like Jammu and Kashmir and Gujarat. The space for genuine nonviolent civil
disobediance is atrophying. In the era of corporate globalization, poverty
is a crime, and protesting against further impoverishment is terrorism. In
teh era of the War on Terror, poverty is being slyly conflated with
terrorism." I have sellected just a few passages to show the message that
this book offers and that it is important to everyone, not just India or
Indians.

***
page 13:
"Vast parts of the country are already more or less beyond the control of
the Indian state--Kashmir, the North East, large parts of Madhya Pradesh,
Chhattisgarh, and Jharkhand."
***
"The real issue is that the privatization of essential infrastructure is
essentially undemocratic. The real issue is the towering mass of
incriminating evidence against big dams. The real issue is the fact that
over the last fifty years in India alone big dams have displaced more
than 33 million people.... The real issue is the fact that the Supreme
Court of India ordered the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam to
proceed even though it is aware that it violates the fundamental rights to
life and livelihood of the citizens of India."

I should point out that dam construction and other Army Corps of Engineer
projects in the USA have been seriously criticised by environmentalists in
the USA at least as far back as 50 years ago. Many dam construction
projects in the USA have been declared failures and Jared Diamond, in his
book "Collapse" mentioned at least one US dam that was blown up to restore
water flows back to their original nature without loss of non-existent
benefits but with the restoration of the fishing industry in the area.

page 45:
"Never mind that forty years ago, the CIA, under President John F.
Kennedy, orchestrated a regime change in Baghdad. In 1963, after a
succesful coup, the Ba'ath party came to power in Iraq. Using lists
provided by the CIA, the new Ba'ath regime systematically eliminated
hundreds of doctors, teachers, lawyers, and political figures known to be
leftists [reference given]. An entire intellectual community was
slaughtered. (The same technique was used to massacre hundreds of
thousands of people in Indonesia and East Timor.[reference given])....In
1980...[the US said] 'We see no fundamental incompatibility of
interests between the United States and Iraq [reference given].'"

page 55:
"In South Africa, after three hundred years of brutal domination of the
black majority by a white minority through colonialism and apartheid, a
nonracial, multi-party democracy came to power in 1994. It was a
phenomenal acheivement. Within two years of coming to power, the African
National Congress had genuflected with no caveats to the Market God. Its
massive program of structural adjustment, privatization, and
liberalization has only increased the hideous disparities between the
rich and the poor. Official unemployment among blacks has increased from
forty percent to fifty percent since the end of Apartheid [reference
given]. The corporatization of basic services-- electricity, water, and
housing-- has meant that ten million South Africans, almost a quarter of
the population, have been disconnected from water and electricity
[reference given]."

Now how does propaganda work?

page 57:
"...Clear Channel Communications is the largest radio station owner in the
country. It runs more than twelve hundred channels, which together
account for nine percent fo the market [reference given]. When hundreds of
thousands of American citizens took to the streets to protest against
the war on Iraq, Clear Channel orgaized pro-war patriotic "Rallies for
America" across the country [reference given]. It used its radio stations
to advertise the events and then sent correspondents to cover them as
though they were breaking news."

It should be noted that consolidation in the broadcast radio and TV
business continues, today. Same for the book publishing business. Soon,
only a few entities will control all media.

page 71:

This deals with Hindu nationalism. Many passages in the book talk about
this with parallels with the development of Nazi power in Germany in the
1930s.

"On August 15, 2003, Independence Day he [Cheif Minister of Gujarat,
Narendra Modi] hoisted the Indian flag before thousands of cheering
people. In a gesture of menacing symbolism, he wore the black RSS
cap--which proclaims him as a member of the Hindu nationalist guild that
has not been shy of admiring Hitler and his methods [reference
given]."

"One hundred and thirty million Muslims--not to mention the other
minorities, Dalits, Christians, Sikhs, Adivasis--live in India under the
shaddow of Hindu nationalism."

page 85:

Additional text documenting thousands of people killed and hundreds of
thousands of people displaced by Indian police.

page 91:

"Gandhi's Salt March was not just political theater. When, in a simple act
of defiance, thousands of Indians marched to the sea and made their own
salt, they broke the salt tax laws."

page 97:

"The U.S. government used the lies and disinformation generated around the
September 11 attacks to invade no just one country, but two.... The Indian
government uses the same strategy not with other countries, but against
its own people. Over the last decade the number of people who have been
killed by the police and security forces runs into the thousands. Recently
several Bombay policemen spoke openly to the press about how many
'gangsters' they had eliminated on 'orders' from their senior officers
[reference given]. Andhra Pradesh chalks up an average of about two
hundred 'extremists' in 'encounter' deaths a year [reference given]. In
Kashmir in a situation that almost amounts to war, an estimated eighty
thousand people have been killed since 1989. Thousands have simply
'disappeared' [reference given]. According to the records of the
Association of Parents of Disappeared People (APDP), more than three
thousand people were killed in 2003, of which four hundred and sixty-
three were soldiers [reference given]."

The text goes on to say things are getting worse.

page 102:

"Fourty-seven percent of India's children below three suffer from
malnutrition, forty-six percent are stunted [reference given]."

page 103:
"Today, an average rural family eats about one hundred killograms [about
220 lbs.] less food in a year than it did in the early 1990s [refernce
given]."

"But in urban India, wherever you go--shops, restaurants, railway
stations, airports...--you have TV monitors in which election promises
have already come true. India's Shining, Feeling Good."

page 104:

The thing that is happening is that much infrastructure (eg. water
supplies, electricity, transport, telecommunications, health services,
education, etc, that the government was "supposed to hold in trust for the
people it represents, assets that have been built and maintained with
public money over decades--are sold by the state to private corporations."
Guess where that leads?

The book ends with a short glossary of terms, names, etc., that define or
explain political parties, important people, important historical
events, and a long list of information sources (21 pages), and an index.

If you want to see how globalization is affecting the so-called
"developing countries" this is one good book to start with.
m***@yahoo.com
2006-07-21 13:42:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Straydog
India: Government Brutality, Injustice, and
Questionable Democracy.
Naa India don't have democracy but democraZy.. 300 million low caste
dalits had concrete evidence to convinence UN....
Post by Straydog
A sellection of quotes from the book "An Ordinary Person's Guide to
Empire" by Arundhati Roy (the author of The God of Small Things, on the
NYT best seller list for 49 weeks, and she lives in New
Delhi); ISBN 0896087271, c 2004.
Parts of the book criticise US foreign policy, and other parts criticise
Indian foreign and domestic policy. All of the chapters were originally
given as speeches or were published as articles in major printed media.
The book contains hundreds of sources for details about which statements
were made. The book gives substantial detail about the internal political
and social components of modern India and India's problems and changes
while undergoing modernisation. At one point the author identifies fascist
themes in some government policy and especially in connection with
globalization. The book is easy to read and contains a great deal of
information about the political situation in India, today. If you are a
corporate goon-parasite, then all this doesn't matter. If you care about
democracy, ethics, morals, and people, then read on.
page 12
"According to the State, when victims refuse to be victims, they become
terrorists and are dealt with as such. They're either killed or arrested
under POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act). In states like Orissa, Bihar,
and Jharkhand, which are rich in mineral resources and, therefore,
vulneralble to ruthless corporations on the hunt, hundreds of villagers,
including minors, have been arrested under POTA and are being held in jail
without trial. Some states have special police battalions for
'anti-development' activity. This is quite apart from the other use that
POTA is being put to--terrorizing Muslims, particularly in states
like Jammu and Kashmir and Gujarat. The space for genuine nonviolent civil
disobediance is atrophying. In the era of corporate globalization, poverty
is a crime, and protesting against further impoverishment is terrorism. In
teh era of the War on Terror, poverty is being slyly conflated with
terrorism." I have sellected just a few passages to show the message that
this book offers and that it is important to everyone, not just India or
Indians.
***
"Vast parts of the country are already more or less beyond the control of
the Indian state--Kashmir, the North East, large parts of Madhya Pradesh,
Chhattisgarh, and Jharkhand."
***
"The real issue is that the privatization of essential infrastructure is
essentially undemocratic. The real issue is the towering mass of
incriminating evidence against big dams. The real issue is the fact that
over the last fifty years in India alone big dams have displaced more
than 33 million people.... The real issue is the fact that the Supreme
Court of India ordered the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam to
proceed even though it is aware that it violates the fundamental rights to
life and livelihood of the citizens of India."
I should point out that dam construction and other Army Corps of Engineer
projects in the USA have been seriously criticised by environmentalists in
the USA at least as far back as 50 years ago. Many dam construction
projects in the USA have been declared failures and Jared Diamond, in his
book "Collapse" mentioned at least one US dam that was blown up to restore
water flows back to their original nature without loss of non-existent
benefits but with the restoration of the fishing industry in the area.
"Never mind that forty years ago, the CIA, under President John F.
Kennedy, orchestrated a regime change in Baghdad. In 1963, after a
succesful coup, the Ba'ath party came to power in Iraq. Using lists
provided by the CIA, the new Ba'ath regime systematically eliminated
hundreds of doctors, teachers, lawyers, and political figures known to be
leftists [reference given]. An entire intellectual community was
slaughtered. (The same technique was used to massacre hundreds of
thousands of people in Indonesia and East Timor.[reference given])....In
1980...[the US said] 'We see no fundamental incompatibility of
interests between the United States and Iraq [reference given].'"
"In South Africa, after three hundred years of brutal domination of the
black majority by a white minority through colonialism and apartheid, a
nonracial, multi-party democracy came to power in 1994. It was a
phenomenal acheivement. Within two years of coming to power, the African
National Congress had genuflected with no caveats to the Market God. Its
massive program of structural adjustment, privatization, and
liberalization has only increased the hideous disparities between the
rich and the poor. Official unemployment among blacks has increased from
forty percent to fifty percent since the end of Apartheid [reference
given]. The corporatization of basic services-- electricity, water, and
housing-- has meant that ten million South Africans, almost a quarter of
the population, have been disconnected from water and electricity
[reference given]."
Now how does propaganda work?
"...Clear Channel Communications is the largest radio station owner in the
country. It runs more than twelve hundred channels, which together
account for nine percent fo the market [reference given]. When hundreds of
thousands of American citizens took to the streets to protest against
the war on Iraq, Clear Channel orgaized pro-war patriotic "Rallies for
America" across the country [reference given]. It used its radio stations
to advertise the events and then sent correspondents to cover them as
though they were breaking news."
It should be noted that consolidation in the broadcast radio and TV
business continues, today. Same for the book publishing business. Soon,
only a few entities will control all media.
This deals with Hindu nationalism. Many passages in the book talk about
this with parallels with the development of Nazi power in Germany in the
1930s.
"On August 15, 2003, Independence Day he [Cheif Minister of Gujarat,
Narendra Modi] hoisted the Indian flag before thousands of cheering
people. In a gesture of menacing symbolism, he wore the black RSS
cap--which proclaims him as a member of the Hindu nationalist guild that
has not been shy of admiring Hitler and his methods [reference
given]."
"One hundred and thirty million Muslims--not to mention the other
minorities, Dalits, Christians, Sikhs, Adivasis--live in India under the
shaddow of Hindu nationalism."
Additional text documenting thousands of people killed and hundreds of
thousands of people displaced by Indian police.
"Gandhi's Salt March was not just political theater. When, in a simple act
of defiance, thousands of Indians marched to the sea and made their own
salt, they broke the salt tax laws."
"The U.S. government used the lies and disinformation generated around the
September 11 attacks to invade no just one country, but two.... The Indian
government uses the same strategy not with other countries, but against
its own people. Over the last decade the number of people who have been
killed by the police and security forces runs into the thousands. Recently
several Bombay policemen spoke openly to the press about how many
'gangsters' they had eliminated on 'orders' from their senior officers
[reference given]. Andhra Pradesh chalks up an average of about two
hundred 'extremists' in 'encounter' deaths a year [reference given]. In
Kashmir in a situation that almost amounts to war, an estimated eighty
thousand people have been killed since 1989. Thousands have simply
'disappeared' [reference given]. According to the records of the
Association of Parents of Disappeared People (APDP), more than three
thousand people were killed in 2003, of which four hundred and sixty-
three were soldiers [reference given]."
The text goes on to say things are getting worse.
"Fourty-seven percent of India's children below three suffer from
malnutrition, forty-six percent are stunted [reference given]."
"Today, an average rural family eats about one hundred killograms [about
220 lbs.] less food in a year than it did in the early 1990s [refernce
given]."
"But in urban India, wherever you go--shops, restaurants, railway
stations, airports...--you have TV monitors in which election promises
have already come true. India's Shining, Feeling Good."
The thing that is happening is that much infrastructure (eg. water
supplies, electricity, transport, telecommunications, health services,
education, etc, that the government was "supposed to hold in trust for the
people it represents, assets that have been built and maintained with
public money over decades--are sold by the state to private corporations."
Guess where that leads?
The book ends with a short glossary of terms, names, etc., that define or
explain political parties, important people, important historical
events, and a long list of information sources (21 pages), and an index.
If you want to see how globalization is affecting the so-called
"developing countries" this is one good book to start with.
Kamal R. Prasad
2006-08-09 09:54:34 UTC
Permalink
I won't deny anything of what Arundhati has written. But since you keep
talking of dalits as an excuse for the US to continue its practice of
slavery, you may want to look at another view of Indian society wrt
caste system.

http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/jun/15franc.htm

The author Francois Gautier is a french man who was inspired by Indian
culture and hinduism, and settled down in India. The caste system did
empower upper caste people at one pt of time. The Indian constitution
doesn't follow the same path -and this is one of your own fellow
europeans confirming that statement.

regards
-kamal
Post by Straydog
India: Government Brutality, Injustice, and
Questionable Democracy.
A sellection of quotes from the book "An Ordinary Person's Guide to
Empire" by Arundhati Roy (the author of The God of Small Things, on the
NYT best seller list for 49 weeks, and she lives in New
Delhi); ISBN 0896087271, c 2004.
Parts of the book criticise US foreign policy, and other parts criticise
Indian foreign and domestic policy. All of the chapters were originally
given as speeches or were published as articles in major printed media.
The book contains hundreds of sources for details about which statements
were made. The book gives substantial detail about the internal political
and social components of modern India and India's problems and changes
while undergoing modernisation. At one point the author identifies fascist
themes in some government policy and especially in connection with
globalization. The book is easy to read and contains a great deal of
information about the political situation in India, today. If you are a
corporate goon-parasite, then all this doesn't matter. If you care about
democracy, ethics, morals, and people, then read on.
page 12
"According to the State, when victims refuse to be victims, they become
terrorists and are dealt with as such. They're either killed or arrested
under POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act). In states like Orissa, Bihar,
and Jharkhand, which are rich in mineral resources and, therefore,
vulneralble to ruthless corporations on the hunt, hundreds of villagers,
including minors, have been arrested under POTA and are being held in jail
without trial. Some states have special police battalions for
'anti-development' activity. This is quite apart from the other use that
POTA is being put to--terrorizing Muslims, particularly in states
like Jammu and Kashmir and Gujarat. The space for genuine nonviolent civil
disobediance is atrophying. In the era of corporate globalization, poverty
is a crime, and protesting against further impoverishment is terrorism. In
teh era of the War on Terror, poverty is being slyly conflated with
terrorism." I have sellected just a few passages to show the message that
this book offers and that it is important to everyone, not just India or
Indians.
***
"Vast parts of the country are already more or less beyond the control of
the Indian state--Kashmir, the North East, large parts of Madhya Pradesh,
Chhattisgarh, and Jharkhand."
***
"The real issue is that the privatization of essential infrastructure is
essentially undemocratic. The real issue is the towering mass of
incriminating evidence against big dams. The real issue is the fact that
over the last fifty years in India alone big dams have displaced more
than 33 million people.... The real issue is the fact that the Supreme
Court of India ordered the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam to
proceed even though it is aware that it violates the fundamental rights to
life and livelihood of the citizens of India."
I should point out that dam construction and other Army Corps of Engineer
projects in the USA have been seriously criticised by environmentalists in
the USA at least as far back as 50 years ago. Many dam construction
projects in the USA have been declared failures and Jared Diamond, in his
book "Collapse" mentioned at least one US dam that was blown up to restore
water flows back to their original nature without loss of non-existent
benefits but with the restoration of the fishing industry in the area.
"Never mind that forty years ago, the CIA, under President John F.
Kennedy, orchestrated a regime change in Baghdad. In 1963, after a
succesful coup, the Ba'ath party came to power in Iraq. Using lists
provided by the CIA, the new Ba'ath regime systematically eliminated
hundreds of doctors, teachers, lawyers, and political figures known to be
leftists [reference given]. An entire intellectual community was
slaughtered. (The same technique was used to massacre hundreds of
thousands of people in Indonesia and East Timor.[reference given])....In
1980...[the US said] 'We see no fundamental incompatibility of
interests between the United States and Iraq [reference given].'"
"In South Africa, after three hundred years of brutal domination of the
black majority by a white minority through colonialism and apartheid, a
nonracial, multi-party democracy came to power in 1994. It was a
phenomenal acheivement. Within two years of coming to power, the African
National Congress had genuflected with no caveats to the Market God. Its
massive program of structural adjustment, privatization, and
liberalization has only increased the hideous disparities between the
rich and the poor. Official unemployment among blacks has increased from
forty percent to fifty percent since the end of Apartheid [reference
given]. The corporatization of basic services-- electricity, water, and
housing-- has meant that ten million South Africans, almost a quarter of
the population, have been disconnected from water and electricity
[reference given]."
Now how does propaganda work?
"...Clear Channel Communications is the largest radio station owner in the
country. It runs more than twelve hundred channels, which together
account for nine percent fo the market [reference given]. When hundreds of
thousands of American citizens took to the streets to protest against
the war on Iraq, Clear Channel orgaized pro-war patriotic "Rallies for
America" across the country [reference given]. It used its radio stations
to advertise the events and then sent correspondents to cover them as
though they were breaking news."
It should be noted that consolidation in the broadcast radio and TV
business continues, today. Same for the book publishing business. Soon,
only a few entities will control all media.
This deals with Hindu nationalism. Many passages in the book talk about
this with parallels with the development of Nazi power in Germany in the
1930s.
"On August 15, 2003, Independence Day he [Cheif Minister of Gujarat,
Narendra Modi] hoisted the Indian flag before thousands of cheering
people. In a gesture of menacing symbolism, he wore the black RSS
cap--which proclaims him as a member of the Hindu nationalist guild that
has not been shy of admiring Hitler and his methods [reference
given]."
"One hundred and thirty million Muslims--not to mention the other
minorities, Dalits, Christians, Sikhs, Adivasis--live in India under the
shaddow of Hindu nationalism."
Additional text documenting thousands of people killed and hundreds of
thousands of people displaced by Indian police.
"Gandhi's Salt March was not just political theater. When, in a simple act
of defiance, thousands of Indians marched to the sea and made their own
salt, they broke the salt tax laws."
"The U.S. government used the lies and disinformation generated around the
September 11 attacks to invade no just one country, but two.... The Indian
government uses the same strategy not with other countries, but against
its own people. Over the last decade the number of people who have been
killed by the police and security forces runs into the thousands. Recently
several Bombay policemen spoke openly to the press about how many
'gangsters' they had eliminated on 'orders' from their senior officers
[reference given]. Andhra Pradesh chalks up an average of about two
hundred 'extremists' in 'encounter' deaths a year [reference given]. In
Kashmir in a situation that almost amounts to war, an estimated eighty
thousand people have been killed since 1989. Thousands have simply
'disappeared' [reference given]. According to the records of the
Association of Parents of Disappeared People (APDP), more than three
thousand people were killed in 2003, of which four hundred and sixty-
three were soldiers [reference given]."
The text goes on to say things are getting worse.
"Fourty-seven percent of India's children below three suffer from
malnutrition, forty-six percent are stunted [reference given]."
"Today, an average rural family eats about one hundred killograms [about
220 lbs.] less food in a year than it did in the early 1990s [refernce
given]."
"But in urban India, wherever you go--shops, restaurants, railway
stations, airports...--you have TV monitors in which election promises
have already come true. India's Shining, Feeling Good."
The thing that is happening is that much infrastructure (eg. water
supplies, electricity, transport, telecommunications, health services,
education, etc, that the government was "supposed to hold in trust for the
people it represents, assets that have been built and maintained with
public money over decades--are sold by the state to private corporations."
Guess where that leads?
The book ends with a short glossary of terms, names, etc., that define or
explain political parties, important people, important historical
events, and a long list of information sources (21 pages), and an index.
If you want to see how globalization is affecting the so-called
"developing countries" this is one good book to start with.
Straydog
2006-08-09 13:58:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
I won't deny anything of what Arundhati has written. But since you keep
talking of dalits as an excuse for the US to continue its practice of
slavery,
Well, we've been over this before and the fact is that the slavery is in
Indian rug factories, today, and there is no slavery in the USA. As
another matter of fact, it was only recently that child labor was outlawed
you your country. So, in fact, it is YOUR country that has a long way to
go yet.

you may want to look at another view of Indian society wrt
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
caste system.
http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/jun/15franc.htm
Yeah, I actually looked. title: "Anti-Brahminsim Has to Go" but the
article also very clearly stated that this subject is hard to get
published. According to the author, your media stonewalls on the topic.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
The author Francois Gautier is a french man who was inspired by Indian
culture and hinduism, and settled down in India. The caste system did
empower upper caste people at one pt of time.
I have read about many of the protests against your "reservations" by the
higher castes. Its just fine with me if you want to have a few decades of
social upheaval just like we did with "civil rights" and "affirmative
action". Maybe someday some good will come out of it and maybe there will
be more justice in India for more people. Right now, I think even black
people today are in a much better situation in the USA than Dalits in
India.

The Indian constitution
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
doesn't follow the same path -and this is one of your own fellow
europeans confirming that statement.
He is not one of my "own fellow Europeans" because I am not European. I
was born and raised in the USA and I'm still here. But he is just one
voice talking about India dealing with its own problems.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
regards
-kamal
Post by Straydog
India: Government Brutality, Injustice, and
Questionable Democracy.
A sellection of quotes from the book "An Ordinary Person's Guide to
Empire" by Arundhati Roy (the author of The God of Small Things, on the
NYT best seller list for 49 weeks, and she lives in New
Delhi); ISBN 0896087271, c 2004.
Parts of the book criticise US foreign policy, and other parts criticise
Indian foreign and domestic policy. All of the chapters were originally
given as speeches or were published as articles in major printed media.
The book contains hundreds of sources for details about which statements
were made. The book gives substantial detail about the internal political
and social components of modern India and India's problems and changes
while undergoing modernisation. At one point the author identifies fascist
themes in some government policy and especially in connection with
globalization. The book is easy to read and contains a great deal of
information about the political situation in India, today. If you are a
corporate goon-parasite, then all this doesn't matter. If you care about
democracy, ethics, morals, and people, then read on.
page 12
"According to the State, when victims refuse to be victims, they become
terrorists and are dealt with as such. They're either killed or arrested
under POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act). In states like Orissa, Bihar,
and Jharkhand, which are rich in mineral resources and, therefore,
vulneralble to ruthless corporations on the hunt, hundreds of villagers,
including minors, have been arrested under POTA and are being held in jail
without trial. Some states have special police battalions for
'anti-development' activity. This is quite apart from the other use that
POTA is being put to--terrorizing Muslims, particularly in states
like Jammu and Kashmir and Gujarat. The space for genuine nonviolent civil
disobediance is atrophying. In the era of corporate globalization, poverty
is a crime, and protesting against further impoverishment is terrorism. In
teh era of the War on Terror, poverty is being slyly conflated with
terrorism." I have sellected just a few passages to show the message that
this book offers and that it is important to everyone, not just India or
Indians.
***
"Vast parts of the country are already more or less beyond the control of
the Indian state--Kashmir, the North East, large parts of Madhya Pradesh,
Chhattisgarh, and Jharkhand."
***
"The real issue is that the privatization of essential infrastructure is
essentially undemocratic. The real issue is the towering mass of
incriminating evidence against big dams. The real issue is the fact that
over the last fifty years in India alone big dams have displaced more
than 33 million people.... The real issue is the fact that the Supreme
Court of India ordered the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam to
proceed even though it is aware that it violates the fundamental rights to
life and livelihood of the citizens of India."
I should point out that dam construction and other Army Corps of Engineer
projects in the USA have been seriously criticised by environmentalists in
the USA at least as far back as 50 years ago. Many dam construction
projects in the USA have been declared failures and Jared Diamond, in his
book "Collapse" mentioned at least one US dam that was blown up to restore
water flows back to their original nature without loss of non-existent
benefits but with the restoration of the fishing industry in the area.
"Never mind that forty years ago, the CIA, under President John F.
Kennedy, orchestrated a regime change in Baghdad. In 1963, after a
succesful coup, the Ba'ath party came to power in Iraq. Using lists
provided by the CIA, the new Ba'ath regime systematically eliminated
hundreds of doctors, teachers, lawyers, and political figures known to be
leftists [reference given]. An entire intellectual community was
slaughtered. (The same technique was used to massacre hundreds of
thousands of people in Indonesia and East Timor.[reference given])....In
1980...[the US said] 'We see no fundamental incompatibility of
interests between the United States and Iraq [reference given].'"
"In South Africa, after three hundred years of brutal domination of the
black majority by a white minority through colonialism and apartheid, a
nonracial, multi-party democracy came to power in 1994. It was a
phenomenal acheivement. Within two years of coming to power, the African
National Congress had genuflected with no caveats to the Market God. Its
massive program of structural adjustment, privatization, and
liberalization has only increased the hideous disparities between the
rich and the poor. Official unemployment among blacks has increased from
forty percent to fifty percent since the end of Apartheid [reference
given]. The corporatization of basic services-- electricity, water, and
housing-- has meant that ten million South Africans, almost a quarter of
the population, have been disconnected from water and electricity
[reference given]."
Now how does propaganda work?
"...Clear Channel Communications is the largest radio station owner in the
country. It runs more than twelve hundred channels, which together
account for nine percent fo the market [reference given]. When hundreds of
thousands of American citizens took to the streets to protest against
the war on Iraq, Clear Channel orgaized pro-war patriotic "Rallies for
America" across the country [reference given]. It used its radio stations
to advertise the events and then sent correspondents to cover them as
though they were breaking news."
It should be noted that consolidation in the broadcast radio and TV
business continues, today. Same for the book publishing business. Soon,
only a few entities will control all media.
This deals with Hindu nationalism. Many passages in the book talk about
this with parallels with the development of Nazi power in Germany in the
1930s.
"On August 15, 2003, Independence Day he [Cheif Minister of Gujarat,
Narendra Modi] hoisted the Indian flag before thousands of cheering
people. In a gesture of menacing symbolism, he wore the black RSS
cap--which proclaims him as a member of the Hindu nationalist guild that
has not been shy of admiring Hitler and his methods [reference
given]."
"One hundred and thirty million Muslims--not to mention the other
minorities, Dalits, Christians, Sikhs, Adivasis--live in India under the
shaddow of Hindu nationalism."
Additional text documenting thousands of people killed and hundreds of
thousands of people displaced by Indian police.
"Gandhi's Salt March was not just political theater. When, in a simple act
of defiance, thousands of Indians marched to the sea and made their own
salt, they broke the salt tax laws."
"The U.S. government used the lies and disinformation generated around the
September 11 attacks to invade no just one country, but two.... The Indian
government uses the same strategy not with other countries, but against
its own people. Over the last decade the number of people who have been
killed by the police and security forces runs into the thousands. Recently
several Bombay policemen spoke openly to the press about how many
'gangsters' they had eliminated on 'orders' from their senior officers
[reference given]. Andhra Pradesh chalks up an average of about two
hundred 'extremists' in 'encounter' deaths a year [reference given]. In
Kashmir in a situation that almost amounts to war, an estimated eighty
thousand people have been killed since 1989. Thousands have simply
'disappeared' [reference given]. According to the records of the
Association of Parents of Disappeared People (APDP), more than three
thousand people were killed in 2003, of which four hundred and sixty-
three were soldiers [reference given]."
The text goes on to say things are getting worse.
"Fourty-seven percent of India's children below three suffer from
malnutrition, forty-six percent are stunted [reference given]."
"Today, an average rural family eats about one hundred killograms [about
220 lbs.] less food in a year than it did in the early 1990s [refernce
given]."
"But in urban India, wherever you go--shops, restaurants, railway
stations, airports...--you have TV monitors in which election promises
have already come true. India's Shining, Feeling Good."
The thing that is happening is that much infrastructure (eg. water
supplies, electricity, transport, telecommunications, health services,
education, etc, that the government was "supposed to hold in trust for the
people it represents, assets that have been built and maintained with
public money over decades--are sold by the state to private corporations."
Guess where that leads?
The book ends with a short glossary of terms, names, etc., that define or
explain political parties, important people, important historical
events, and a long list of information sources (21 pages), and an index.
If you want to see how globalization is affecting the so-called
"developing countries" this is one good book to start with.
me
2006-08-09 14:21:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Straydog
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
I won't deny anything of what Arundhati has written. But since you keep
talking of dalits as an excuse for the US to continue its practice of
slavery,
Well, we've been over this before and the fact is that the slavery is in
Indian rug factories, today, and there is no slavery in the USA. As
another matter of fact, it was only recently that child labor was outlawed
you your country.
Child labor is not necessarily slavery any more than adult labor is
necessarily slavery.
Post by Straydog
So, in fact, it is YOUR country that has a long way to
go yet.
Sure, but how? When (Chief Minister) Chandrababu Naidu threatened to
prosecute parents who sent their children to work rather than to school, he
got an adverse reaction from those parents and their supporters and was
forced to back down. Governments can't enforce child labor laws in an
environment where it looks like vote blocs will unseat any government that
tries to enforce the law.
Post by Straydog
I have read about many of the protests against your "reservations" by the
higher castes. Its just fine with me if you want to have a few decades of
social upheaval just like we did with "civil rights" and "affirmative
action". Maybe someday some good will come out of it and maybe there will
be more justice in India for more people. Right now, I think even black
people today are in a much better situation in the USA than Dalits in
India.
How about the situation of whites? Have there been any observations or
claims that affirmative action for blacks caused some whites to become
cottonpickers or servants in black households?
Straydog
2006-08-09 22:07:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by me
Post by Straydog
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
I won't deny anything of what Arundhati has written. But since you keep
talking of dalits as an excuse for the US to continue its practice of
slavery,
Well, we've been over this before and the fact is that the slavery is in
Indian rug factories, today, and there is no slavery in the USA. As
another matter of fact, it was only recently that child labor was outlawed
you your country.
Child labor is not necessarily slavery any more than adult labor is
necessarily slavery.
Child labor, in all advanced societies, is considered bad for the child
and exploitation by the boss/owner/parents who force or need the child to
work for them. Adult labor, by definition, is labor which is paid for.
Slavery is, by definition, involuntary labor without pay and without
freedom to leave, move, or change labor.
Post by me
Post by Straydog
So, in fact, it is YOUR country that has a long way to
go yet.
Sure, but how? When (Chief Minister) Chandrababu Naidu threatened to
prosecute parents who sent their children to work rather than to school, he
got an adverse reaction from those parents and their supporters and was
forced to back down. Governments can't enforce child labor laws in an
environment where it looks like vote blocs will unseat any government that
tries to enforce the law.
Your country will have to look at itself and compare itself with whatever
goals it wants to set (whether by wisdom, democracy, power influence,
corruption, or whatever) and compare itself with other countries and what
they do and why. Kamal continues to insist that slavery exists in the USA
without talking about comparable conditions in India. I do not deny that
exploitation exists in the USA, but I will suggest that there is much less
of it than in India.
Post by me
Post by Straydog
I have read about many of the protests against your "reservations" by the
higher castes. Its just fine with me if you want to have a few decades of
social upheaval just like we did with "civil rights" and "affirmative
action". Maybe someday some good will come out of it and maybe there will
be more justice in India for more people. Right now, I think even black
people today are in a much better situation in the USA than Dalits in
India.
How about the situation of whites? Have there been any observations or
claims that affirmative action for blacks caused some whites to become
cottonpickers or servants in black households?
As a matter of fact, in the history books, there are records of blacks
also owning slaves. There are records clearly showing that whites were
slaves in the 20th century under other whites (and not in the USA). And,
there are records clearly showing that in the 20th century, there were
peoples "slightly darker" than _whites_ who were slaves of others who
were "slightly darker" than _whites_ and they also were not in the USA,
and I'll wonder if you know enough to guess what I'm talking about.
me
2006-08-09 22:19:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Straydog
Post by me
Child labor is not necessarily slavery any more than adult labor is
necessarily slavery.
Child labor, in all advanced societies, is considered bad for the child
and exploitation by the boss/owner/parents who force or need the child to
work for them. Adult labor, by definition, is labor which is paid for.
Both child and adult labor can be paid for and both children and adults can
be enslaved.
Post by Straydog
Slavery is, by definition, involuntary labor without pay and without
freedom to leave, move, or change labor.
Then, children who are paid and are not denied the freedom to leave or
change labor are not slaves.
Post by Straydog
Kamal continues to insist that slavery exists in the USA
without talking about comparable conditions in India.
Which are the supposed slaves in the US?
Post by Straydog
Post by me
How about the situation of whites? Have there been any observations or
claims that affirmative action for blacks caused some whites to become
cottonpickers or servants in black households?
As a matter of fact, in the history books,
How about currently? Are any white ministers' or schoolteachers'
grandchildren cottonpickers or maids/ errand boys in middle class black
households?
Post by Straydog
there are records of blacks
also owning slaves. There are records clearly showing that whites were
slaves in the 20th century under other whites (and not in the USA). And,
there are records clearly showing that in the 20th century, there were
peoples "slightly darker" than _whites_ who were slaves of others who
were "slightly darker" than _whites_ and they also were not in the USA,
and I'll wonder if you know enough to guess what I'm talking about.
There were lords and lieges in India. Where are there records of 20th
century marketplaces in India where slaves were bought, sold or bartered,
where husbands, wives and children were sundered forever because they were
bought by different purchasers?
Straydog
2006-08-09 23:00:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by me
Post by Straydog
Post by me
Child labor is not necessarily slavery any more than adult labor is
necessarily slavery.
Child labor, in all advanced societies, is considered bad for the child
and exploitation by the boss/owner/parents who force or need the child to
work for them. Adult labor, by definition, is labor which is paid for.
Both child and adult labor can be paid for
How is this phrase different from what I said?

and both children and adults can
Post by me
be enslaved.
How is this different from what I said?
Post by me
Post by Straydog
Slavery is, by definition, involuntary labor without pay and without
freedom to leave, move, or change labor.
Then, children who are paid and are not denied the freedom to leave
Go ask the parents or guardians who tell them they have to work or suffer
consequences.

or
Post by me
change labor are not slaves.
As I said, child labor, in all advanced societies, is considered bad for
the child.
Post by me
Post by Straydog
Kamal continues to insist that slavery exists in the USA
without talking about comparable conditions in India.
Which are the supposed slaves in the US?
Ask him to explain it to you. He considers the H1B visa guys as slaves. I
say they are not, but I will also say they are exploited. He seems to
think there was never any slavery anywhere, anytime except in the USA. He
has made hundreds of posts over the last year to this extent. Just read
the archives. Judge for yourself.
Post by me
Post by Straydog
Post by me
How about the situation of whites? Have there been any observations or
claims that affirmative action for blacks caused some whites to become
cottonpickers or servants in black households?
As a matter of fact, in the history books,
How about currently? Are any white ministers' or schoolteachers'
grandchildren cottonpickers or maids/ errand boys in middle class black
households?
In what capacity? As slaves? Very very little in the USA as I read in our
media, but the police sometimes discover what is called "trafficking" of
people, meaning they are brought in illegally and kept locked up in a room
and thus against their will in the USA. Usually they are women from
foreign countries brought in under a promise of a job, but then becomes
someone's sex slave. This gets into the newspapers when they are caught.
It also happens to males who are brought in as cheap labor, and they are
also kept locked up at night, sometimes in chains, and made to work, and
paid little or nothing. Its also in our media. Usually Mexicans/Hispanics,
but can also be Asians. This also gets into some of our media.

There are also a few stories I've heard/read when Asians pay lots of money
to some guy in Asia to be taken to the USA, then a hundred of them are
loaded onto boats, the boats go out ten miles and they take machine guns
and just shoot all of these guys who think they are going to the USA. They
dump the bodies overboard, and the guys in charge come back to start the
cycle all over. Then, we have these "mail order brides" schemes that some
guys set up, get young girls from Asia (too poor, too ignorant to know
what is going on but they have ideas of a bright future) and set them up
with men in the USA who promise to marry them if they will marry the men.
All they get are exchange of one picture each and one letter each, and it
happens. What happens to the girls is anyone's guess. I think its all a
bad idea.

See below.
Post by me
Post by Straydog
there are records of blacks
also owning slaves. There are records clearly showing that whites were
slaves in the 20th century under other whites (and not in the USA). And,
there are records clearly showing that in the 20th century, there were
peoples "slightly darker" than _whites_ who were slaves of others who
were "slightly darker" than _whites_ and they also were not in the USA,
and I'll wonder if you know enough to guess what I'm talking about.
There were lords and lieges in India. Where are there records of 20th
century marketplaces in India where slaves were bought, sold or bartered,
where husbands, wives and children were sundered forever because they were
bought by different purchasers?
There are many examples. White prisoners of war by Nazi Germany became
slaves in German munitions factories during WWII. When Japan invaded and
treated brutally Chinese and Korean prisoners of war, many became slaves
of the Japanese and some Chinese and Korean women became sex slaves for
the Japanese soldiers. There is some very intense bitterness in both China
and Korea over this, and more bitterness that Japanese school textbooks
either don't mention this or give it much much less attention than Germany
does about its Nazi past.

There is a deep history of slavery going back thousands of years. I have
not read it extensively, but I think there might be no culture that did
not use, at one time or the other, slaves of their own kind or another
kind, one way or the other. In today's contexts, people in advanced
societies might be considered "enslaved" in a way because of
written contracts they sign in connection with purchases that are made
under voluntary conditions but in the haste of poor judgement, they sign
their names on dotted lines without fully appreciating what they are
getting into. There are many things in the modern world that are totally
legal, but questionable in terms of morals and ethics.

Some additional references (FYI):

Below are two sets of references to slavery in India; first, two books,
and second--farther below--a sample of Google results on the term "slavery
in India":

From the book "Atlas of World Population History" by Colin McEvedy and
Richard Jones (1978, reprinted 1980, Penguin): from pages 210-218 covers
slave trade. The legend of figure 3.5 contains the sentence "The east
coast route...which reached as far south as Mozambique, was probably the
most profitable: from its northern terminus at Oman there was considerable
re-export trade to Iran and India."

From the book "Slavery: A World History" by Milton Meltzer
(c 1993): Today there is extensive child labor slavery in the India rug
industry. The book also pointed out something that makes the laws
irrelevant: the law against slavery is on the books in India, but it is
not enforced and there is plenty of selling of children into servitude
today.


Sample of Google search results:

News results for slavery in india - View today's top stories
Terms of forced employment and slavery - Ha'aretz - Apr 14, 2006


Human Trafficking & Modern-day Slavery in India
2004 A Report on Debt Bondage, Carpet-Making, and Child Slavery in India ...
1996 THE SMALL HANDS OF SLAVERY - Bonded Child Labor In India ...
gvnet.com/humantrafficking/India.htm - 41k - Cached - Similar pages

The Small Hands of Slavery: Bonded Child Labour in India
Slavery in India dates back at least 1500 years.31 Various forms of debt
bondage ... Agricultural bondage is the oldest form of slavery known in
India: ...
www.hrw.org/reports/1996/India3.htm - 486k - Cached - Similar pages

Child hierodulic servitude (temple slavery) in India and Nepal
in India and Nepal. Hierodulic child prostitution is a generic term which
the ... Historically, these girls served as hierodules, or sacred temple
slaves or ...
www.anti-slaverysociety.addr.com/hieroras.htm - 22k - Cached - Similar pages

Slavery Abolition Act 1833 (UK)
It was the provisions of the Indian Penal Code 1860 which effectively abolished slavery in India by making the
enslavement of human beings a criminal ...
www.anti-slaverysociety.addr.com/huk-1833act.htm - 31k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.anti-slaverysociety.addr.com ]

Slavery in the Modern World
Child "carpet slaves" in India. Kidnapped from their villages when they are
as young as five years old, between 200000 and 300000 children are held
captive ...
www.infoplease.com/spot/slavery1.html - 23k - Cached - Similar pages

Seven Children
Seven Children Freed from Slavery in India (by Samuel Grumiau). Brussels/New
Delhi, 26 March 1999 (ICFTU Online):. Tuesday, 16 March 1999 marked the
end of ...
www.corrystuart.com/slavechildren7.html - 14k - Cached - Similar pages
me
2006-08-10 00:48:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Straydog
Go ask the parents or guardians who tell them they have to work or suffer
consequences.
I've come across quite a few children earning wages; I once spanked one of
them for eating half my fruitcake from the refrigerator. I don't know of
any such parents or guardians but they presumably exist somewhere.
Post by Straydog
As I said, child labor, in all advanced societies, is considered bad for
the child.
That it is bad doesn't, in itself, make it slavery.
Post by Straydog
Post by me
Post by Straydog
Kamal continues to insist that slavery exists in the USA
without talking about comparable conditions in India.
Which are the supposed slaves in the US?
Ask him to explain it to you. He considers the H1B visa guys as slaves.
Bah! They're free to return to India to find other jobs without having their
feet amputated like Kunta Kinte.
Post by Straydog
Post by me
How about currently? Are any white ministers' or schoolteachers'
grandchildren cottonpickers or maids/ errand boys in middle class black
households?
In what capacity? As slaves?
As paid laborers earning an hourly wage.
Post by Straydog
Below are two sets of references to slavery in India; first, two books,
and second--farther below--a sample of Google results on the term "slavery
From the book "Atlas of World Population History" by Colin McEvedy and
Richard Jones (1978, reprinted 1980, Penguin): from pages 210-218 covers
slave trade. The legend of figure 3.5 contains the sentence "The east
coast route...which reached as far south as Mozambique, was probably the
most profitable: from its northern terminus at Oman there was considerable
re-export trade to Iran and India."
That looks like the slave trade operated by Muslims, not an Indian
institution in particular.
Post by Straydog
From the book "Slavery: A World History" by Milton Meltzer
(c 1993): Today there is extensive child labor slavery in the India rug
industry. The book also pointed out something that makes the laws
irrelevant: the law against slavery is on the books in India, but it is
not enforced and there is plenty of selling of children into servitude
today.
You might find this interesting reading.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JQP/is_2001_August/ai_77711999
Post by Straydog
News results for slavery in india - View today's top stories
Terms of forced employment and slavery - Ha'aretz - Apr 14, 2006
Human Trafficking & Modern-day Slavery in India
2004 A Report on Debt Bondage, Carpet-Making, and Child Slavery in India
... 1996 THE SMALL HANDS OF SLAVERY - Bonded Child Labor In India ...
gvnet.com/humantrafficking/India.htm - 41k - Cached - Similar pages
The Small Hands of Slavery: Bonded Child Labour in India
Slavery in India dates back at least 1500 years.31 Various forms of debt
bondage ... Agricultural bondage is the oldest form of slavery known in
India: ...
www.hrw.org/reports/1996/India3.htm - 486k - Cached - Similar pages
BTW, the most precise term, which is unfortunately obsolete, would be "the
oldest form of naifty". I know of people who sold themselves into bondage
for a fixed number of years in order to raise money to pay their sisters'
dowries. Curiously, they didn't raise money by getting married and using
the dowry that came with their wife in order to pay their sister's dowry;
to do this was against their principles as per their customs or at any rato
said the lawyer who was telling me about these people.
Post by Straydog
Child hierodulic servitude (temple slavery) in India and Nepal
in India and Nepal. Hierodulic child prostitution is a generic term which
the ... Historically, these girls served as hierodules, or sacred temple
slaves or ...
www.anti-slaverysociety.addr.com/hieroras.htm - 22k - Cached - Similar pages
A canard that has been making the rounds. There were no hierodules in
temples. There was child prostitution, though.
Post by Straydog
Slavery Abolition Act 1833 (UK)
It was the provisions of the Indian Penal Code 1860 which effectively
abolished slavery in India by making the enslavement of human beings a
criminal ... www.anti-slaverysociety.addr.com/huk-1833act.htm - 31k -
Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.anti-slaverysociety.addr.com ]
Ah, but which Indians had been slavers before 1860? As a rule, workers and
Indian masters had feudal relations, not master-slave relations, AFAIK.

BTW, have you heard of apprenticeship?
http://www.trinicenter.com/kwame/2001/oct/
Post by Straydog
Slavery in the Modern World
Child "carpet slaves" in India. Kidnapped from their villages when they
are as young as five years old, between 200000 and 300000 children are
held captive ...
www.infoplease.com/spot/slavery1.html - 23k - Cached - Similar pages
Seven Children
Seven Children Freed from Slavery in India (by Samuel Grumiau).
Brussels/New Delhi, 26 March 1999 (ICFTU Online):. Tuesday, 16 March 1999
marked the end of ...
www.corrystuart.com/slavechildren7.html - 14k - Cached - Similar pages
BroTher zAchary
2006-08-10 00:16:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Straydog
Post by me
Post by Straydog
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
I won't deny anything of what Arundhati has written. But since you keep
talking of dalits as an excuse for the US to continue its practice of
slavery,
Well, we've been over this before and the fact is that the slavery is in
Indian rug factories, today, and there is no slavery in the USA. As
another matter of fact, it was only recently that child labor was outlawed
you your country.
Child labor is not necessarily slavery any more than adult labor is
necessarily slavery.
Child labor, in all advanced societies, is considered bad for the child
and exploitation by the boss/owner/parents who force or need the child to
work for them.
I assume you mean forced labor in which the children are overworked,
underpaid, lackadaisical (or lack of) safety environments, and their
wages confiscated, even, by parents. By today's absurd definitions,
were I a child today, I would not have been able to hold many of the
part time jobs (most of which were labor: yard work, trash clean-up,
using a chainsaw to but wood, splitting it by hand, etc.), and I
suspect you would not have either.
Straydog
2006-08-10 00:59:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by BroTher zAchary
Post by Straydog
Post by me
Post by Straydog
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
I won't deny anything of what Arundhati has written. But since you keep
talking of dalits as an excuse for the US to continue its practice of
slavery,
Well, we've been over this before and the fact is that the slavery is in
Indian rug factories, today, and there is no slavery in the USA. As
another matter of fact, it was only recently that child labor was outlawed
you your country.
Child labor is not necessarily slavery any more than adult labor is
necessarily slavery.
Child labor, in all advanced societies, is considered bad for the child
and exploitation by the boss/owner/parents who force or need the child to
work for them.
I assume you mean forced labor in which the children are overworked,
underpaid, lackadaisical (or lack of) safety environments, and their
wages confiscated, even, by parents. By today's absurd definitions,
were I a child today, I would not have been able to hold many of the
part time jobs (most of which were labor: yard work, trash clean-up,
using a chainsaw to but wood, splitting it by hand, etc.), and I
suspect you would not have either.
All depends on some details: i) did/were you working under any exceptions
to the rules (of which there are some, even today), ii) were you actually
being paid by someone other than your parents, iii) who arranged the work
you or your parents or a third party, iv) if the work was part time, it
does not count (I'm talking about child work conditions from the 1800s and
before, which were like adult working conditions in the same era, which
were 10-14 hour days, 7 days a week), and v) in India, the stories are
that the child labor (paid for, arranged by parents) is along the same
line. And, I'll leave out the workplace hazards & dangers. And, I have no
idea if they have any disability over there for injuries etc to children,
but the books I've been reading say that child injuries on the jobs left
them sometimes with permanent problems. Also left out: they don't get any
education while they are working 10-14/day & 7d/wk.
Kamal R. Prasad
2006-08-10 05:23:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by me
Post by Straydog
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
I won't deny anything of what Arundhati has written. But since you keep
talking of dalits as an excuse for the US to continue its practice of
slavery,
Well, we've been over this before and the fact is that the slavery is in
Indian rug factories, today, and there is no slavery in the USA. As
The slavery in Indian rug factories is against the law -and requires
better enforcement.
Slavery in the USA is supported implicitly by the law. Your politicians
receive money for ensuring that there is a steady stream of manpower on
restricted rights. If americans have a heterogenity of opinion about
doing away with illegals, H1Bs and numerous other workers on restricted
rights -it is because they are not willing to disown the benefits of
slavery in entirety.
Post by me
Post by Straydog
another matter of fact, it was only recently that child labor was outlawed
you your country.
Indentured labour was outlawed maybe 50 yrs back -but recently, the
govt came out with specific legislation to prosecute individuals hiring
child labour in specific circumstances. Labour when free, is labour and
not slavery. You need to understand the difference between child labour
and child slavery.
Post by me
Child labor is not necessarily slavery any more than adult labor is
necessarily slavery.
it boils down to whether the govt has restricted civic rights of
individuals or not. Whether the labour is below age 12 or 18 is not
relevant to the case.
Post by me
Post by Straydog
So, in fact, it is YOUR country that has a long way to
go yet.
Sure, but how? When (Chief Minister) Chandrababu Naidu threatened to
prosecute parents who sent their children to work rather than to school, he
got an adverse reaction from those parents and their supporters and was
forced to back down. Governments can't enforce child labor laws in an
environment where it looks like vote blocs will unseat any government that
tries to enforce the law.
yeah -people send their children to work because they are poor, not
because they dislike them or because they are lesser humans or because
the govt is conniving with businesses to perpetuate slavery i.e. hold
them back against their will. I have even seen a shop keeper tell a kid
working in a shop that if he doesn't work properly -he will tell his
father about it. You can find lots of children working in India -doing
mostly menial work in return for money. To change that, you need better
employment oppurtunities for their guardians.
Post by me
Post by Straydog
I have read about many of the protests against your "reservations" by the
higher castes. Its just fine with me if you want to have a few decades of
social upheaval just like we did with "civil rights" and "affirmative
action". Maybe someday some good will come out of it and maybe there will
reservations are not a means to bring civil rights to lower caste
people. They are a ploy to get votes by pitting lower caste people
against upper caste people. The folks who advocate it are either
politicians who want votes -or people who want to benefit from the same
i.e. get a free ride on the basis of 3000 yrs of exploitation. They
will talk of 3000 yrs back because the current situation does not
justify that compensation. And americans will talk of it so that they
can justify their own version of slavery.
Post by me
Post by Straydog
be more justice in India for more people. Right now, I think even black
people today are in a much better situation in the USA than Dalits in
India.
looks like a drastic statement. I saw Larry Kind LIve discuss the fact
that blacks are being turned away from voting booths, or their votes
not fully accounted for -either by a dysfunctional voting mechanism or
by keeping too few personnel so that they keep standing in line till
midnight and then walk away due to time out.
Post by me
How about the situation of whites? Have there been any observations or
claims that affirmative action for blacks caused some whites to become
cottonpickers or servants in black households?
Nope. Its pretty much a given that skin colour determines economic
status in the US barring a few exceptions like athletes, movie stars
etc.

regards
-kamal
me
2006-08-10 11:59:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Straydog
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
I won't deny anything of what Arundhati has written. But since you
keep talking of dalits as an excuse for the US to continue its
practice of slavery,
Well, we've been over this before and the fact is that the slavery is
in Indian rug factories, today, and there is no slavery in the USA. As
The slavery in Indian rug factories is against the law -and requires
better enforcement.
Slavery in the USA is supported implicitly by the law. Your politicians
receive money for ensuring that there is a steady stream of manpower on
restricted rights. If americans have a heterogenity of opinion about
doing away with illegals, H1Bs and numerous other workers on restricted
rights -it is because they are not willing to disown the benefits of
slavery in entirety.
Restricted rights is not slavery. H1Bs are free to return to India.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Nope. Its pretty much a given that skin colour determines economic
status in the US barring a few exceptions like athletes, movie stars
etc.
An American coworker, an amateur sociologist, once told me that Americans
recognize 3 skin colors - green, white and black [; those with much money
being green people].
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
regards
-kamal
Straydog
2006-08-10 12:23:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by me
Post by Straydog
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
I won't deny anything of what Arundhati has written. But since you keep
talking of dalits as an excuse for the US to continue its practice of
slavery,
Well, we've been over this before and the fact is that the slavery is in
Indian rug factories, today, and there is no slavery in the USA. As
The slavery in Indian rug factories is against the law -and requires
better enforcement.
Sometime, if ever, decades and decades from now.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Slavery in the USA is supported implicitly by the law.
There is no de facto slavery in the USA.

Your politicians
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
receive money for ensuring that there is a steady stream of manpower on
restricted rights.
And, a lot of it comes from Indian lobbyists who are happy to see all that
USD coming into India. And, it helps them keep Indian wages down, too.

If americans have a heterogenity of opinion about
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
doing away with illegals, H1Bs and numerous other workers on restricted
rights -it is because they are not willing to disown the benefits of
slavery in entirety.
And, we don't have very good enforcement of anti-illegal laws, either.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by me
Post by Straydog
another matter of fact, it was only recently that child labor was outlawed
you your country.
Indentured labour was outlawed maybe 50 yrs back -but recently, the
govt came out with specific legislation to prosecute individuals hiring
child labour in specific circumstances.
All that I read, there is no enforcement.

Labour when free, is labour and
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
not slavery. You need to understand the difference between child labour
and child slavery.
You need to understand that probably the children in India, besides being
malnourished, are NOT getting the money that they work for. AND, child
labor is not in the child's interest.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by me
Child labor is not necessarily slavery any more than adult labor is
necessarily slavery.
it boils down to whether the govt has restricted civic rights of
individuals or not. Whether the labour is below age 12 or 18 is not
relevant to the case.
It boils down to whether the govt looks the other way instead of looking
for crimes to prosecute. Bribery and corruption is rampant in India.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by me
Post by Straydog
So, in fact, it is YOUR country that has a long way to
go yet.
Sure, but how? When (Chief Minister) Chandrababu Naidu threatened to
prosecute parents who sent their children to work rather than to school, he
got an adverse reaction from those parents and their supporters and was
forced to back down. Governments can't enforce child labor laws in an
environment where it looks like vote blocs will unseat any government that
tries to enforce the law.
yeah -people send their children to work because they are poor, not
because they dislike them or because they are lesser humans or because
the govt is conniving with businesses to perpetuate slavery i.e. hold
them back against their will.
And, so, a big fraction of the country does not want to change.

I have even seen a shop keeper tell a kid
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
working in a shop that if he doesn't work properly -he will tell his
father about it. You can find lots of children working in India -doing
mostly menial work in return for money. To change that, you need better
employment oppurtunities for their guardians.
YOU can tell them that.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by me
Post by Straydog
I have read about many of the protests against your "reservations" by the
higher castes. Its just fine with me if you want to have a few decades of
social upheaval just like we did with "civil rights" and "affirmative
action". Maybe someday some good will come out of it and maybe there will
reservations are not a means to bring civil rights to lower caste
people. They are a ploy to get votes by pitting lower caste people
against upper caste people.
Oh, you can always come up with a different distraction to change the
subject.

The folks who advocate it are either
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
politicians who want votes -or people who want to benefit from the same
i.e. get a free ride on the basis of 3000 yrs of exploitation.
And, other people in the country want to sweep a lot of dust under the rug
instead of changing a wrong to a right.

They
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
will talk of 3000 yrs back because the current situation does not
justify that compensation. And americans will talk of it so that they
can justify their own version of slavery.
All your own idea of keeping poor people poor.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by me
Post by Straydog
be more justice in India for more people. Right now, I think even black
people today are in a much better situation in the USA than Dalits in
India.
looks like a drastic statement. I saw Larry Kind LIve discuss the fact
that blacks are being turned away from voting booths, or their votes
not fully accounted for -either by a dysfunctional voting mechanism or
by keeping too few personnel so that they keep standing in line till
midnight and then walk away due to time out.
How many Dalits in India vote? Why?
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by me
How about the situation of whites? Have there been any observations or
claims that affirmative action for blacks caused some whites to become
cottonpickers or servants in black households?
Nope. Its pretty much a given that skin colour determines economic
status in the US barring a few exceptions like athletes, movie stars
etc.
I happen to have a personal friend who worked all his life, now retired,
in one of the welfare agencies in the USA and he told me, quite frankly,
that his agency had data that actually more white people were on welfare
than black people.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
regards
-kamal
V***@tcq.net
2006-08-10 04:10:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Straydog
India: Government Brutality, Injustice, and
Questionable Democracy.
A sellection of quotes from the book "An Ordinary Person's Guide to
Empire" by Arundhati Roy (the author of The God of Small Things, on the
NYT best seller list for 49 weeks, and she lives in New
Delhi); ISBN 0896087271, c 2004.
Parts of the book criticise US foreign policy, and other parts criticise
Indian foreign and domestic policy. All of the chapters were originally
given as speeches or were published as articles in major printed media.
The book contains hundreds of sources for details about which statements
were made. The book gives substantial detail about the internal political
and social components of modern India and India's problems and changes
while undergoing modernisation. At one point the author identifies fascist
themes in some government policy and especially in connection with
globalization. The book is easy to read and contains a great deal of
information about the political situation in India, today. If you are a
corporate goon-parasite, then all this doesn't matter. If you care about
democracy, ethics, morals, and people, then read on.
page 12
"According to the State, when victims refuse to be victims, they become
terrorists and are dealt with as such. They're either killed or arrested
under POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act). In states like Orissa, Bihar,
and Jharkhand, which are rich in mineral resources and, therefore,
vulneralble to ruthless corporations on the hunt, hundreds of villagers,
including minors, have been arrested under POTA and are being held in jail
without trial. Some states have special police battalions for
'anti-development' activity. This is quite apart from the other use that
POTA is being put to--terrorizing Muslims, particularly in states
like Jammu and Kashmir and Gujarat. The space for genuine nonviolent civil
disobediance is atrophying. In the era of corporate globalization, poverty
is a crime, and protesting against further impoverishment is terrorism. In
teh era of the War on Terror, poverty is being slyly conflated with
terrorism." I have sellected just a few passages to show the message that
this book offers and that it is important to everyone, not just India or
Indians.
***
"Vast parts of the country are already more or less beyond the control of
the Indian state--Kashmir, the North East, large parts of Madhya Pradesh,
Chhattisgarh, and Jharkhand."
***
"The real issue is that the privatization of essential infrastructure is
essentially undemocratic. The real issue is the towering mass of
incriminating evidence against big dams. The real issue is the fact that
over the last fifty years in India alone big dams have displaced more
than 33 million people.... The real issue is the fact that the Supreme
Court of India ordered the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam to
proceed even though it is aware that it violates the fundamental rights to
life and livelihood of the citizens of India."
I should point out that dam construction and other Army Corps of Engineer
projects in the USA have been seriously criticised by environmentalists in
the USA at least as far back as 50 years ago. Many dam construction
projects in the USA have been declared failures and Jared Diamond, in his
book "Collapse" mentioned at least one US dam that was blown up to restore
water flows back to their original nature without loss of non-existent
benefits but with the restoration of the fishing industry in the area.
"Never mind that forty years ago, the CIA, under President John F.
Kennedy, orchestrated a regime change in Baghdad. In 1963, after a
succesful coup, the Ba'ath party came to power in Iraq. Using lists
provided by the CIA, the new Ba'ath regime systematically eliminated
hundreds of doctors, teachers, lawyers, and political figures known to be
leftists [reference given]. An entire intellectual community was
slaughtered. (The same technique was used to massacre hundreds of
thousands of people in Indonesia and East Timor.[reference given])....In
1980...[the US said] 'We see no fundamental incompatibility of
interests between the United States and Iraq [reference given].'"
"In South Africa, after three hundred years of brutal domination of the
black majority by a white minority through colonialism and apartheid, a
nonracial, multi-party democracy came to power in 1994. It was a
phenomenal acheivement. Within two years of coming to power, the African
National Congress had genuflected with no caveats to the Market God. Its
massive program of structural adjustment, privatization, and
liberalization has only increased the hideous disparities between the
rich and the poor. Official unemployment among blacks has increased from
forty percent to fifty percent since the end of Apartheid [reference
given]. The corporatization of basic services-- electricity, water, and
housing-- has meant that ten million South Africans, almost a quarter of
the population, have been disconnected from water and electricity
[reference given]."
Now how does propaganda work?
"...Clear Channel Communications is the largest radio station owner in the
country. It runs more than twelve hundred channels, which together
account for nine percent fo the market [reference given]. When hundreds of
thousands of American citizens took to the streets to protest against
the war on Iraq, Clear Channel orgaized pro-war patriotic "Rallies for
America" across the country [reference given]. It used its radio stations
to advertise the events and then sent correspondents to cover them as
though they were breaking news."
It should be noted that consolidation in the broadcast radio and TV
business continues, today. Same for the book publishing business. Soon,
only a few entities will control all media.
This deals with Hindu nationalism. Many passages in the book talk about
this with parallels with the development of Nazi power in Germany in the
1930s.
"On August 15, 2003, Independence Day he [Cheif Minister of Gujarat,
Narendra Modi] hoisted the Indian flag before thousands of cheering
people. In a gesture of menacing symbolism, he wore the black RSS
cap--which proclaims him as a member of the Hindu nationalist guild that
has not been shy of admiring Hitler and his methods [reference
given]."
"One hundred and thirty million Muslims--not to mention the other
minorities, Dalits, Christians, Sikhs, Adivasis--live in India under the
shaddow of Hindu nationalism."
Additional text documenting thousands of people killed and hundreds of
thousands of people displaced by Indian police.
"Gandhi's Salt March was not just political theater. When, in a simple act
of defiance, thousands of Indians marched to the sea and made their own
salt, they broke the salt tax laws."
"The U.S. government used the lies and disinformation generated around the
September 11 attacks to invade no just one country, but two.... The Indian
government uses the same strategy not with other countries, but against
its own people. Over the last decade the number of people who have been
killed by the police and security forces runs into the thousands. Recently
several Bombay policemen spoke openly to the press about how many
'gangsters' they had eliminated on 'orders' from their senior officers
[reference given]. Andhra Pradesh chalks up an average of about two
hundred 'extremists' in 'encounter' deaths a year [reference given]. In
Kashmir in a situation that almost amounts to war, an estimated eighty
thousand people have been killed since 1989. Thousands have simply
'disappeared' [reference given]. According to the records of the
Association of Parents of Disappeared People (APDP), more than three
thousand people were killed in 2003, of which four hundred and sixty-
three were soldiers [reference given]."
The text goes on to say things are getting worse.
"Fourty-seven percent of India's children below three suffer from
malnutrition, forty-six percent are stunted [reference given]."
"Today, an average rural family eats about one hundred killograms [about
220 lbs.] less food in a year than it did in the early 1990s [refernce
given]."
"But in urban India, wherever you go--shops, restaurants, railway
stations, airports...--you have TV monitors in which election promises
have already come true. India's Shining, Feeling Good."
The thing that is happening is that much infrastructure (eg. water
supplies, electricity, transport, telecommunications, health services,
education, etc, that the government was "supposed to hold in trust for the
people it represents, assets that have been built and maintained with
public money over decades--are sold by the state to private corporations."
Guess where that leads?
The book ends with a short glossary of terms, names, etc., that define or
explain political parties, important people, important historical
events, and a long list of information sources (21 pages), and an index.
If you want to see how globalization is affecting the so-called
"developing countries" this is one good book to start with.
thanks straydog for all of this good info. i to have posted that a
free market is not natural, and that it is enforced by brutal
coersion(brute force for the benefit of a few).
it is the neo-liberal way, they are not to be confused by american
liberalism, these cretins are a mixture of
aristocrats/fascists/totalitarians/imperialists/racists, they are
hiding in huge numbers(almost all members) in the republicon party, and
to some extent about 1/3rd of the democratic party. globalism is not
natural, it destroys democracy, and it undermines a countries
constitution, and soveirnity. turning almost all decisions over to
corporations. but some form of trade is to some extent natural.
Maulana Sattian
2006-07-21 05:12:24 UTC
Permalink
28 or 228 of jero percent is still jero...

here is original 100 percent Indian invented, manufactured and
promoted vehicle.

Loading Image...
Post by TwistyCreek
Sunday, 16 July , 2006, 12:09
New Delhi: Passenger car exports from India jumped by 27.97 per cent in the first quarter of the fiscal 2006-07 on the back of impressive figures from Korean car major Hyundai Motors along with car market leader Maruti Udyog and Tata Motors.
Overall auto exports from the country also registered a healthy growth of 27.32 per cent at 2,47,847 units during the quarter, which also witnessed overseas shipments of motorcycles registering a whopping 45.30 per cent jump while that of scooters, fell by 42.89 per cent.
According to figures released by the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM), passenger car exports from India in the April-June period this fiscal stood at 49,132 units as against 38,393 units in the corresponding fiscal previous year.
Infy's silver jubilee smash: A special
Leading the export pack was Hyundai Motor India Ltd, which clocked a total of 30,842 units during the quarter as against 24,372 units in the same quarter a year ago, up 26.54 per cent.
Maruti Udyog also managed to improve its exports performance by 12.93 per cent at 7,544 units in the quarter as against 6,680 units in the corresponding period previous year. Tata Motors also increased its shipments to 4,865 units from 3,292.
http://samachar.com/openbin/redirect_new.vs?H/20060716/walletwatch_business/1,http://sify.com/finance/fullstory.php?id=14250589&headline=Car~exports~surge~28%,~bikes~zoom~45%
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...