Discussion:
Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
(too old to reply)
ZaZona.com
2005-02-15 20:14:15 UTC
Permalink
Bad publicity can have good results when it forces politicians to do the
right thing. In Arizona, ABC TV-15 ran a series called "Lost to India" about
how call center jobs for the state welfare system were being outsourced to
India. The report caused a furor in Arizona that prompted politicians to
propose a bill to limit the outsourcing.

A recent follow-up to the newscast is now online. I highly recommend you
watch the entire series, beginning with the Emmy Award winning show that
aired last year.

Find this videos here:

http://www.zazona.com/shameh1b/MediaClips.htm

2004 4/30 ABC KNXV15 Investigators - "Lost to India"

2004 7/23 ABC KNXV15 Investigators - "Working Conditions"

2005 1/23 ABC KNXV15 Investigators - "Lost to India - Aftermath"

To keep informed on issues like this, sign up for a free email subcription
to the "Job Destruction Newsletter" by going to this page:

http://www.zazona.com/shameh1b/JobDestructionNews.htm

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2005/01/24/daily28.html

January 25, 2005

Bill proposed to prohibit 'offshoring' of state contracts

Mike Sunnucks

The Business Journal

A measure has been put forward at the state Legislature prohibiting the
foreign outsourcing of state government work.

The legislation is sponsored by three conservative Republicans and 18
Democrats.

It prohibits the state from entering into contracts or taking other actions
that results in state government jobs, contract positions or other work
being shipped outside the United States. Similar measures are afoot in other
states and face strong business opposition.

The Arizona bill would not restrict private companies from moving jobs
offshore.

Foreign outsourcing and offshoring of private and public sector jobs has
been a hot political potato in recent years, with U.S. jobs being moved to
cheaper foreign labor markets, namely China and India.

Last year, Gov. Janet Napolitano issued a directive banning foreign
outsourcing in state contracts after it was learned some welfare-related
customer service work was being done offshore by private subcontractors.

Business interests are generally opposed to state prohibitions and
restrictions on foreign outsourcing and offshoring.

The Arizona Chamber of Commerce subtly refers to outsourcing fervor in its
2005 agenda stating that "state tax, regulatory and procurement policies
must recognize the global integration of today's companies and information
systems."

"We believe that the outsourcing issue is misunderstood and it's not as easy
as "job A" is outsourced to India," said state chamber vice president
Farrell Quinlan.

Outsourcing defenders argue the movement of jobs overseas is part of global
economic trends and integrating U.S. and Arizona companies into new markets.
Some business groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers,
also contend that high health care, regulatory, insurance and legal costs in
the United States make foreign markets more affordable.

Critics, including labor unions, counter that its large corporations dumping
American workers for cheaper counterparts in India and China.

Major Arizona employers that have outsourced or offshored jobs include Best
Western International, Intel, IBM, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase/Bank One
and Honeywell International

Sponsors of the Arizona government outsourcing ban include conservative
Republican State Sens. Karen Johnson and Robert Blendu as well as Democratic
state Sens. Victor Soltero, Bill Brotherton and Harry Mitchell and state
Reps. Meg Burton Cahill, Pete Rios and Kyrsten Sinema.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/0202offshorebill02.html

Measure would keep state jobs in U.S.

New law would prevent use of any foreign labor

The Arizona Republic

Feb. 2, 2005 12:00 AM

A bipartisan group of state legislators has introduced a bill to prevent any
state jobs, including those contracted out, from being performed in foreign
countries.

If passed, Senate Bill 1266 would write into law a state directive issued in
April that prevents the use of foreign labor for work done under state
contracts.

The bill's lead sponsor is Democrat Victor Soltero, but a host of other
legislators, including three Republicans, have signed on. It would prevent
any state agency, board, commission or department from "entering into an
agreement or perform any act that results in a state service position being
directly or indirectly established or transferred outside of the United
States."

It goes on to clarify that any state service position applies to work done
by contractors and subcontractors.

In April, John Adler, the state procurement administrator, issued a
directive that prohibits any work performed under state contract from being
done outside the United States. But the directive did not apply to work that
wasn't directly related to the contract, such as payroll services or data
backup in other countries.

State officials could not place a dollar amount on how the policy change
will cost taxpayers but it could increase the cost of some contracts, said
Alan Ecker, spokesman for the state Department of Administration.

"Potentially it will result in increased costs to contracts," he said. "But
it's more important to keep the jobs and work within borders of the U.S."

Business groups have not said whether they will oppose the bill but the
executive director of the Arizona Association for Economic Development said
such bills often have unintended consequences, such as retaliation from
other countries that could hurt U.S. businesses or higher costs to
taxpayers.

"Any legislative solutions of this sort cuts both ways," John Bowers said.
"There are advantages, but invariably there's another side to it."

Soltero, from Tucson, feels strongly that no taxpayer-supported jobs should
be done outside the United States.

"My preference is that they be done in the state, but I don't think anybody
has concerns as long as they are done in the U.S.," he said.

Sen. Robert Blendu, a Republican, signed on to the bill because he considers
it a security issue.

"The business of Arizona belongs in Arizona," he said.

The bill comes on the heels of revelations last year that public phone calls
to a call center providing service on welfare benefits was being routed to
India or Mexico. That work was being done by subcontractor eFunds Corp., a
Scottsdale-based firm that provides customer support to clients.

The uproar led to the state policy change. No other state contracts were
affected by the change.

EFunds is no longer a state subcontractor after the prime contractor was
acquired by another contract, which did not renew the eFunds contract. In
fact, the eFunds work was brought back to the United States in mid-November,
state Department of Economic Security spokeswoman Liz Barker said.

"EFunds is not handling any part of our contract," she said.

Forrester Research Inc. predicted last year that 3.4 million U.S. service
jobs would move offshore by 2015.

A Greater Phoenix Economic Council analysis found that 14.4 percent of
Valley jobs were vulnerable to being moved abroad.

Nationally, about 12.8 percent of service jobs were vulnerable.
straydog
2005-02-15 20:45:49 UTC
Permalink
The news below is more important than many people will realize. Besides
some recent exchanges I had with Kamal Prasad, regarding the job loss from
the USA and the job gain by India, where his arguments (like those of
lobbying and special interest groups) focused exclusively
on the benefits to the employer (lower costs) and totally ignored the
issue of what this does to the flow of revenue into the local (US) economy
(it makes it disapear).

The issue which is important to US citizens (and there is growing awareness
and growing attempts by citizen groups to take back from the US corporations
their power to treat flesh in the USA as a disposable commodity) is how to
preserve their own job markets.

============== no change to below, included for reference and context===
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:14:15 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
Bad publicity can have good results when it forces politicians to do the
right thing. In Arizona, ABC TV-15 ran a series called "Lost to India" about
how call center jobs for the state welfare system were being outsourced to
India. The report caused a furor in Arizona that prompted politicians to
propose a bill to limit the outsourcing.
A recent follow-up to the newscast is now online. I highly recommend you
watch the entire series, beginning with the Emmy Award winning show that
aired last year.
http://www.zazona.com/shameh1b/MediaClips.htm
2004 4/30 ABC KNXV15 Investigators - "Lost to India"
2004 7/23 ABC KNXV15 Investigators - "Working Conditions"
2005 1/23 ABC KNXV15 Investigators - "Lost to India - Aftermath"
To keep informed on issues like this, sign up for a free email subcription
http://www.zazona.com/shameh1b/JobDestructionNews.htm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2005/01/24/daily28.html
January 25, 2005
Bill proposed to prohibit 'offshoring' of state contracts
Mike Sunnucks
The Business Journal
A measure has been put forward at the state Legislature prohibiting the
foreign outsourcing of state government work.
The legislation is sponsored by three conservative Republicans and 18
Democrats.
It prohibits the state from entering into contracts or taking other actions
that results in state government jobs, contract positions or other work
being shipped outside the United States. Similar measures are afoot in other
states and face strong business opposition.
The Arizona bill would not restrict private companies from moving jobs
offshore.
Foreign outsourcing and offshoring of private and public sector jobs has
been a hot political potato in recent years, with U.S. jobs being moved to
cheaper foreign labor markets, namely China and India.
Last year, Gov. Janet Napolitano issued a directive banning foreign
outsourcing in state contracts after it was learned some welfare-related
customer service work was being done offshore by private subcontractors.
Business interests are generally opposed to state prohibitions and
restrictions on foreign outsourcing and offshoring.
The Arizona Chamber of Commerce subtly refers to outsourcing fervor in its
2005 agenda stating that "state tax, regulatory and procurement policies
must recognize the global integration of today's companies and information
systems."
"We believe that the outsourcing issue is misunderstood and it's not as easy
as "job A" is outsourced to India," said state chamber vice president
Farrell Quinlan.
Outsourcing defenders argue the movement of jobs overseas is part of global
economic trends and integrating U.S. and Arizona companies into new markets.
Some business groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers,
also contend that high health care, regulatory, insurance and legal costs in
the United States make foreign markets more affordable.
Critics, including labor unions, counter that its large corporations dumping
American workers for cheaper counterparts in India and China.
Major Arizona employers that have outsourced or offshored jobs include Best
Western International, Intel, IBM, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase/Bank One
and Honeywell International
Sponsors of the Arizona government outsourcing ban include conservative
Republican State Sens. Karen Johnson and Robert Blendu as well as Democratic
state Sens. Victor Soltero, Bill Brotherton and Harry Mitchell and state
Reps. Meg Burton Cahill, Pete Rios and Kyrsten Sinema.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/0202offshorebill02.html
Measure would keep state jobs in U.S.
New law would prevent use of any foreign labor
The Arizona Republic
Feb. 2, 2005 12:00 AM
A bipartisan group of state legislators has introduced a bill to prevent any
state jobs, including those contracted out, from being performed in foreign
countries.
If passed, Senate Bill 1266 would write into law a state directive issued in
April that prevents the use of foreign labor for work done under state
contracts.
The bill's lead sponsor is Democrat Victor Soltero, but a host of other
legislators, including three Republicans, have signed on. It would prevent
any state agency, board, commission or department from "entering into an
agreement or perform any act that results in a state service position being
directly or indirectly established or transferred outside of the United
States."
It goes on to clarify that any state service position applies to work done
by contractors and subcontractors.
In April, John Adler, the state procurement administrator, issued a
directive that prohibits any work performed under state contract from being
done outside the United States. But the directive did not apply to work that
wasn't directly related to the contract, such as payroll services or data
backup in other countries.
State officials could not place a dollar amount on how the policy change
will cost taxpayers but it could increase the cost of some contracts, said
Alan Ecker, spokesman for the state Department of Administration.
"Potentially it will result in increased costs to contracts," he said. "But
it's more important to keep the jobs and work within borders of the U.S."
Business groups have not said whether they will oppose the bill but the
executive director of the Arizona Association for Economic Development said
such bills often have unintended consequences, such as retaliation from
other countries that could hurt U.S. businesses or higher costs to
taxpayers.
"Any legislative solutions of this sort cuts both ways," John Bowers said.
"There are advantages, but invariably there's another side to it."
Soltero, from Tucson, feels strongly that no taxpayer-supported jobs should
be done outside the United States.
"My preference is that they be done in the state, but I don't think anybody
has concerns as long as they are done in the U.S.," he said.
Sen. Robert Blendu, a Republican, signed on to the bill because he considers
it a security issue.
"The business of Arizona belongs in Arizona," he said.
The bill comes on the heels of revelations last year that public phone calls
to a call center providing service on welfare benefits was being routed to
India or Mexico. That work was being done by subcontractor eFunds Corp., a
Scottsdale-based firm that provides customer support to clients.
The uproar led to the state policy change. No other state contracts were
affected by the change.
EFunds is no longer a state subcontractor after the prime contractor was
acquired by another contract, which did not renew the eFunds contract. In
fact, the eFunds work was brought back to the United States in mid-November,
state Department of Economic Security spokeswoman Liz Barker said.
"EFunds is not handling any part of our contract," she said.
Forrester Research Inc. predicted last year that 3.4 million U.S. service
jobs would move offshore by 2015.
A Greater Phoenix Economic Council analysis found that 14.4 percent of
Valley jobs were vulnerable to being moved abroad.
Nationally, about 12.8 percent of service jobs were vulnerable.
BMJ
2005-02-15 21:26:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by straydog
The news below is more important than many people will realize. Besides
some recent exchanges I had with Kamal Prasad, regarding the job loss
from the USA and the job gain by India, where his arguments (like those
of lobbying and special interest groups) focused exclusively on the
benefits to the employer (lower costs) and totally ignored the issue of
what this does to the flow of revenue into the local (US) economy (it
makes it disapear).
The issue which is important to US citizens (and there is growing awareness
and growing attempts by citizen groups to take back from the US corporations
their power to treat flesh in the USA as a disposable commodity) is how
to preserve their own job markets.
But the U. S. is only one country. There was an item on the BBC World
Service earlier today about how Electrolux plans on laying off people
and farming out its manufacturing to either eastern Europe, Asia, or Mexico.

More details at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4268689.stm

<snip>
straydog
2005-02-15 22:11:06 UTC
Permalink
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:26:30 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
Post by straydog
The news below is more important than many people will realize. Besides
some recent exchanges I had with Kamal Prasad, regarding the job loss from
the USA and the job gain by India, where his arguments (like those of
lobbying and special interest groups) focused exclusively on the benefits
to the employer (lower costs) and totally ignored the issue of what this
does to the flow of revenue into the local (US) economy (it makes it
disapear).
The issue which is important to US citizens (and there is growing awareness
and growing attempts by citizen groups to take back from the US corporations
their power to treat flesh in the USA as a disposable commodity) is how to
preserve their own job markets.
But the U. S. is only one country. There was an item on the BBC World
Service earlier today about how Electrolux plans on laying off people and
farming out its manufacturing to either eastern Europe, Asia, or Mexico.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4268689.stm
<snip>
I've had email contact with people both in the UK and Australia and they
are telling me similar stories. Jobs are leaving both of those countries,
also, in large numbers, and its getting harder for people, in general, to
find other jobs. People in OTHER countries will have to monitor their own
situations and react appropriately.

There was an article in the WSJ a few months ago about how employment even
in India and China was being cut back because managers were making things
more "efficient". Sure is fine for the managers, but it hurts people who
are laid off despite being productive and competant.
zach
2005-02-16 06:46:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by straydog
The news below is more important than many people will realize. Besides
some recent exchanges I had with Kamal Prasad, regarding the job loss from
the USA and the job gain by India, where his arguments (like those of
lobbying and special interest groups) focused exclusively
on the benefits to the employer (lower costs) and totally ignored the
issue of what this does to the flow of revenue into the local (US) economy
(it makes it disapear).
The issue which is important to US citizens (and there is growing awareness
and growing attempts by citizen groups to take back from the US corporations
their power to treat flesh in the USA as a disposable commodity) is how to
preserve their own job markets.
What is most irksome about those arguments is that the nations from
which these jobs flow (mostly the West) are the ones whose societies
and people worked hard over multiple generations, some sacrificing
blood for freedom to build societies which allowed these businesses to
flourish. While I am not as liberal as some of you, I still believe
that corporations have some responsibilities to the countries from
which they sprang, and to those governments (and therefore, The People)
that provide them protections from piracy and the like.
BMJ
2005-02-16 06:56:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by straydog
Post by straydog
The news below is more important than many people will realize.
Besides
Post by straydog
some recent exchanges I had with Kamal Prasad, regarding the job loss
from
Post by straydog
the USA and the job gain by India, where his arguments (like those of
lobbying and special interest groups) focused exclusively
on the benefits to the employer (lower costs) and totally ignored the
issue of what this does to the flow of revenue into the local (US)
economy
Post by straydog
(it makes it disapear).
The issue which is important to US citizens (and there is growing
awareness
Post by straydog
and growing attempts by citizen groups to take back from the US
corporations
Post by straydog
their power to treat flesh in the USA as a disposable commodity) is
how to
Post by straydog
preserve their own job markets.
What is most irksome about those arguments is that the nations from
which these jobs flow (mostly the West) are the ones whose societies
and people worked hard over multiple generations, some sacrificing
blood for freedom to build societies which allowed these businesses to
flourish. While I am not as liberal as some of you, I still believe
that corporations have some responsibilities to the countries from
which they sprang, and to those governments (and therefore, The People)
that provide them protections from piracy and the like.
Some corporate R & D has been farmed out to universities. Many of those
universities are funded from taxes, taxes paid by people who find
themselves thrown out of work by those same corporations.

Interesting, isn't it?
Kamal R. Prasad
2005-02-16 15:13:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by straydog
The news below is more important than many people will realize. Besides
some recent exchanges I had with Kamal Prasad, regarding the job loss from
the USA and the job gain by India, where his arguments (like those of
lobbying and special interest groups) focused exclusively
on the benefits to the employer (lower costs) and totally ignored the
issue of what this does to the flow of revenue into the local (US) economy
(it makes it disapear).
Where did I say that it doesn't cause job losses to american citizens?
I didn't say that it benefits the US either. Rather I said it benefits
the employer (which special interest groups wouldn't admit!!) and
since private equity (aka employers' wealth) is not public property
-it cannot be regulated. Not that it is not in public interest to
regulate private equity -but doing that is no different and no more
contentious legally than taking money from billionaires and
distributing it to the needy.
Post by straydog
The issue which is important to US citizens (and there is growing awareness
and growing attempts by citizen groups to take back from the US corporations
their power to treat flesh in the USA as a disposable commodity) is how to
preserve their own job markets.
The USA is a job market which does belong to you. Putting an end to
work permits is within your rights -as is mandating that no foreigner
be employed till americans regardless of their calibre, can find jobs
first. But how do you say the same thing about the job market in
India?? There is not a single piece of legislation enacted by the US
govt that applies to India. (That is my definition of soverignity).
When capital shifts to India, it is out of bounds for legislators in
the US. And the reason why capital can move to India is that it is not
public property but private equity.


regards
-kamal
Post by straydog
============== no change to below, included for reference and context===
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:14:15 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
Bad publicity can have good results when it forces politicians to do the
right thing. In Arizona, ABC TV-15 ran a series called "Lost to India" about
how call center jobs for the state welfare system were being outsourced to
India. The report caused a furor in Arizona that prompted politicians to
propose a bill to limit the outsourcing.
A recent follow-up to the newscast is now online. I highly recommend you
watch the entire series, beginning with the Emmy Award winning show that
aired last year.
http://www.zazona.com/shameh1b/MediaClips.htm
2004 4/30 ABC KNXV15 Investigators - "Lost to India"
2004 7/23 ABC KNXV15 Investigators - "Working Conditions"
2005 1/23 ABC KNXV15 Investigators - "Lost to India - Aftermath"
To keep informed on issues like this, sign up for a free email subcription
http://www.zazona.com/shameh1b/JobDestructionNews.htm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2005/01/24/daily28.html
January 25, 2005
Bill proposed to prohibit 'offshoring' of state contracts
Mike Sunnucks
The Business Journal
A measure has been put forward at the state Legislature prohibiting the
foreign outsourcing of state government work.
The legislation is sponsored by three conservative Republicans and 18
Democrats.
It prohibits the state from entering into contracts or taking other actions
that results in state government jobs, contract positions or other work
being shipped outside the United States. Similar measures are afoot in other
states and face strong business opposition.
The Arizona bill would not restrict private companies from moving jobs
offshore.
Foreign outsourcing and offshoring of private and public sector jobs has
been a hot political potato in recent years, with U.S. jobs being moved to
cheaper foreign labor markets, namely China and India.
Last year, Gov. Janet Napolitano issued a directive banning foreign
outsourcing in state contracts after it was learned some welfare-related
customer service work was being done offshore by private subcontractors.
Business interests are generally opposed to state prohibitions and
restrictions on foreign outsourcing and offshoring.
The Arizona Chamber of Commerce subtly refers to outsourcing fervor in its
2005 agenda stating that "state tax, regulatory and procurement policies
must recognize the global integration of today's companies and information
systems."
"We believe that the outsourcing issue is misunderstood and it's not as easy
as "job A" is outsourced to India," said state chamber vice president
Farrell Quinlan.
Outsourcing defenders argue the movement of jobs overseas is part of global
economic trends and integrating U.S. and Arizona companies into new markets.
Some business groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers,
also contend that high health care, regulatory, insurance and legal costs in
the United States make foreign markets more affordable.
Critics, including labor unions, counter that its large corporations dumping
American workers for cheaper counterparts in India and China.
Major Arizona employers that have outsourced or offshored jobs include Best
Western International, Intel, IBM, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase/Bank One
and Honeywell International
Sponsors of the Arizona government outsourcing ban include conservative
Republican State Sens. Karen Johnson and Robert Blendu as well as Democratic
state Sens. Victor Soltero, Bill Brotherton and Harry Mitchell and state
Reps. Meg Burton Cahill, Pete Rios and Kyrsten Sinema.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/0202offshorebill02.html
Measure would keep state jobs in U.S.
New law would prevent use of any foreign labor
The Arizona Republic
Feb. 2, 2005 12:00 AM
A bipartisan group of state legislators has introduced a bill to prevent any
state jobs, including those contracted out, from being performed in foreign
countries.
If passed, Senate Bill 1266 would write into law a state directive issued in
April that prevents the use of foreign labor for work done under state
contracts.
The bill's lead sponsor is Democrat Victor Soltero, but a host of other
legislators, including three Republicans, have signed on. It would prevent
any state agency, board, commission or department from "entering into an
agreement or perform any act that results in a state service position being
directly or indirectly established or transferred outside of the United
States."
It goes on to clarify that any state service position applies to work done
by contractors and subcontractors.
In April, John Adler, the state procurement administrator, issued a
directive that prohibits any work performed under state contract from being
done outside the United States. But the directive did not apply to work that
wasn't directly related to the contract, such as payroll services or data
backup in other countries.
State officials could not place a dollar amount on how the policy change
will cost taxpayers but it could increase the cost of some contracts, said
Alan Ecker, spokesman for the state Department of Administration.
"Potentially it will result in increased costs to contracts," he said. "But
it's more important to keep the jobs and work within borders of the U.S."
Business groups have not said whether they will oppose the bill but the
executive director of the Arizona Association for Economic Development said
such bills often have unintended consequences, such as retaliation from
other countries that could hurt U.S. businesses or higher costs to
taxpayers.
"Any legislative solutions of this sort cuts both ways," John Bowers said.
"There are advantages, but invariably there's another side to it."
Soltero, from Tucson, feels strongly that no taxpayer-supported jobs should
be done outside the United States.
"My preference is that they be done in the state, but I don't think anybody
has concerns as long as they are done in the U.S.," he said.
Sen. Robert Blendu, a Republican, signed on to the bill because he considers
it a security issue.
"The business of Arizona belongs in Arizona," he said.
The bill comes on the heels of revelations last year that public phone calls
to a call center providing service on welfare benefits was being routed to
India or Mexico. That work was being done by subcontractor eFunds Corp., a
Scottsdale-based firm that provides customer support to clients.
The uproar led to the state policy change. No other state contracts were
affected by the change.
EFunds is no longer a state subcontractor after the prime contractor was
acquired by another contract, which did not renew the eFunds contract. In
fact, the eFunds work was brought back to the United States in mid-November,
state Department of Economic Security spokeswoman Liz Barker said.
"EFunds is not handling any part of our contract," she said.
Forrester Research Inc. predicted last year that 3.4 million U.S. service
jobs would move offshore by 2015.
A Greater Phoenix Economic Council analysis found that 14.4 percent of
Valley jobs were vulnerable to being moved abroad.
Nationally, about 12.8 percent of service jobs were vulnerable.
alexy
2005-02-16 16:23:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
since private equity (aka employers' wealth) is not public property
-it cannot be regulated.
In what universe? Of course it can be regulated! And it is, both
directly and indirectly. Ever hear of the IRS, the SEC, FDIC, etc.?
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Not that it is not in public interest to
regulate private equity -but doing that is no different and no more
contentious legally than taking money from billionaires and
distributing it to the needy.
Which, of course, is also done.

To claim that such regulation and control is impossible is incredibly
naive. Whether and to what extent desirable is a whole other question.
But it is certainly possible.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
zach
2005-02-16 18:58:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
since private equity (aka employers' wealth) is not public property
-it cannot be regulated.
In what universe? Of course it can be regulated! And it is, both
directly and indirectly. Ever hear of the IRS, the SEC, FDIC, etc.?
To add to that, to educate our non-American friend:
"Wealth" is regulated through taxation. Commerce, which is what we are
talking about, really, can also be regulated by the Federal Government,
as outlined in the Constitution, and states can pass whatever
intrastate regulations they make legal. The only thing that cannot be
regulated, by definition, is the underground economy, from which many
people survive just fine.
alexy
2005-02-16 19:46:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by zach
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
since private equity (aka employers' wealth) is not public property
-it cannot be regulated.
In what universe? Of course it can be regulated! And it is, both
directly and indirectly. Ever hear of the IRS, the SEC, FDIC, etc.?
"Wealth" is regulated through taxation.
Only to a limited degree, in property taxes, or when wealth is passed
via gifts or through estates at death.
For the most part, our taxes are based on income and consumption, not
wealth.
Post by zach
Commerce, which is what we are
talking about, really, can also be regulated by the Federal Government,
as outlined in the Constitution
only interstate commerce.
Post by zach
and states can pass whatever
intrastate regulations they make legal.
Kinda broad, don't you think? A state couldn't pass an intrastate
regulation to allow segregated diners.
Post by zach
The only thing that cannot be
regulated, by definition, is the underground economy, from which many
people survive just fine.
Very true.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
zach
2005-02-16 20:00:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by alexy
Post by zach
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
since private equity (aka employers' wealth) is not public
property
Post by alexy
Post by zach
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
-it cannot be regulated.
In what universe? Of course it can be regulated! And it is, both
directly and indirectly. Ever hear of the IRS, the SEC, FDIC, etc.?
"Wealth" is regulated through taxation.
Only to a limited degree, in property taxes, or when wealth is passed
via gifts or through estates at death.
For the most part, our taxes are based on income and consumption, not
wealth.
Well, I would argue that property ownership is part of one's wealth,
and is taxed highly in some states.
Post by alexy
Post by zach
Commerce, which is what we are
talking about, really, can also be regulated by the Federal
Government,
Post by alexy
Post by zach
as outlined in the Constitution
only interstate commerce.
Post by zach
and states can pass whatever
intrastate regulations they make legal.
Kinda broad, don't you think? A state couldn't pass an intrastate
regulation to allow segregated diners.
Ok, so whatever they can make legal that does not violate Federal Law.
Lost
2005-02-18 21:55:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by zach
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
since private equity (aka employers' wealth) is not public property
-it cannot be regulated.
In what universe? Of course it can be regulated! And it is, both
directly and indirectly. Ever hear of the IRS, the SEC, FDIC, etc.?
"Wealth" is regulated through taxation. Commerce, which is what we are
talking about, really, can also be regulated by the Federal Government,
as outlined in the Constitution, and states can pass whatever
intrastate regulations they make legal. The only thing that cannot be
regulated, by definition, is the underground economy, from which many
people survive just fine.
You are assuming that the rich are not aware of this.

Many of them move their wealth offshore to protect it from taxation.
To do so should be make an offense that can result in deportation
or prison time, as technically it is fraud.

But since much wealth is tied up in numbered corporations (which
are entities under the law) you have to regulate the corporation
first, and not the shareholders. This gives the rich insulation
against yet another level of legal prosecution.

For *** sake, the Prime Minister of Canada has his big shipping
corporation registered in another country to avoid paying taxes.
He thinks this is funny that Canadians don't like that.

This is one of the many bankers, lawyers, industrialists who are
running the country and selling it out.
BMJ
2005-02-18 20:57:46 UTC
Permalink
Lost wrote:

<snip>
Post by Lost
You are assuming that the rich are not aware of this.
Many of them move their wealth offshore to protect it from taxation.
To do so should be make an offense that can result in deportation
or prison time, as technically it is fraud.
But since much wealth is tied up in numbered corporations (which
are entities under the law) you have to regulate the corporation
first, and not the shareholders. This gives the rich insulation
against yet another level of legal prosecution.
For *** sake, the Prime Minister of Canada has his big shipping
corporation registered in another country to avoid paying taxes.
He thinks this is funny that Canadians don't like that.
This is one of the many bankers, lawyers, industrialists who are
running the country and selling it out.
But don't forget who it was who inflicted the Free Trade Agreement upon
Canada by promising that prosperity was around the corner.
alexy
2005-02-18 21:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lost
Many of them move their wealth offshore to protect it from taxation.
To do so should be make an offense that can result in deportation
or prison time, as technically it is fraud.
Fraud already is a punishable offense in most jurisdictions. Maybe
instead of trying to get a new law passed, you should explain the
technicalities to a sympathetic prosecutor. I'm sure there are some
that would love the political limelight of a high-profile prosecution
of some fat cats.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
Kamal R. Prasad
2005-02-19 03:39:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lost
Post by zach
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
since private equity (aka employers' wealth) is not public property
-it cannot be regulated.
In what universe? Of course it can be regulated! And it is, both
directly and indirectly. Ever hear of the IRS, the SEC, FDIC, etc.?
"Wealth" is regulated through taxation. Commerce, which is what we are
talking about, really, can also be regulated by the Federal Government,
as outlined in the Constitution, and states can pass whatever
intrastate regulations they make legal. The only thing that cannot be
regulated, by definition, is the underground economy, from which many
people survive just fine.
You are assuming that the rich are not aware of this.
Many of them move their wealth offshore to protect it from taxation.
To do so should be make an offense that can result in deportation
or prison time, as technically it is fraud.
But since much wealth is tied up in numbered corporations (which
are entities under the law) you have to regulate the corporation
first, and not the shareholders. This gives the rich insulation
against yet another level of legal prosecution.
For *** sake, the Prime Minister of Canada has his big shipping
corporation registered in another country to avoid paying taxes.
He thinks this is funny that Canadians don't like that.
This is one of the many bankers, lawyers, industrialists who are
running the country and selling it out.
Alright. Let me give you a canadian example of private equity !-
public property. There was a flight of capital from hong kong
before/immediately after china took over. Seeing this, the canadian
govt started a scheme to attract that capital. Anyone who invests
$300,000 cdn gets landed resident status and the capital (over and
above $300000) does not get taxed on entry. That capital is not public
property and since it did not use the govt infrastructure -it can
never be taxed. If it could be, it won't remain in canada and the govt
would have gone back on its pledge not to tax it.

regards
-kamal
BMJ
2005-02-19 04:05:15 UTC
Permalink
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:

<snip>
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Alright. Let me give you a canadian example of private equity !-
public property. There was a flight of capital from hong kong
before/immediately after china took over. Seeing this, the canadian
govt started a scheme to attract that capital. Anyone who invests
$300,000 cdn gets landed resident status and the capital (over and
above $300000) does not get taxed on entry. That capital is not public
property and since it did not use the govt infrastructure -it can
never be taxed. If it could be, it won't remain in canada and the govt
would have gone back on its pledge not to tax it.
<snip>

I heard that a lot of that money went into real estate in Vancouver. I
used to live there a long time ago and went back there early last
December. I hardly recognized the place because of all the construction.

Buildings tend to change owners rather quickly in a market like that and
the capital involves moves equally as fast.
Kamal R. Prasad
2005-02-17 03:53:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
since private equity (aka employers' wealth) is not public property
-it cannot be regulated.
In what universe? Of course it can be regulated! And it is, both
directly and indirectly. Ever hear of the IRS, the SEC, FDIC, etc.?
Well -you misunderstand me (and I do know of the IRS, SEC, FDIC
etc..).
The capital that goes into starting companies is what I am referring
to. The salary that one earns or the profit companies make by
*deploying* capital can be regulated. But if investors find that their
capital is going to be unsafe (eg in a communist country) or will be
subject to high (unreasonable in their view) taxation after profit
--they are within their rights to withhold the investment. When Hong
Kong became part of China, there was an exodus of capital essentially
because investors didn'ty want the state to prey on their capital. If
you lookup foreign direct investment in the tech sector (which is what
we are talking of), the US receives a ton of investment (the bulk of
it on this planet) from people who are not US citizens (by birth at
least -because US citizenship is essentially a commodity that can be
purchased for $500000). If you can force investors to create jobs in
the US -you might as well force them to redistribute their holdings to
the working class. Why bother about offshoring affecting your job ,
when you can land yourself in the investor class?
Post by alexy
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Not that it is not in public interest to
regulate private equity -but doing that is no different and no more
contentious legally than taking money from billionaires and
distributing it to the needy.
Which, of course, is also done.
To claim that such regulation and control is impossible is incredibly
naive. Whether and to what extent desirable is a whole other question.
But it is certainly possible.
No -it isn't naive unless we are talking of 2 different things. Im
talking of investment and you are talking of profits accruing from
investment. Invested capital accrues profit in part by using the roads
and other govt infrastructur. So the govt is entitled to collect tax
over those profits -which is not to say that the govt has any rights
over the invested capital. Check out what US property laws have to say
about safeguarding FDI.

regards
-kamal
Brian G. Moore
2005-02-16 21:47:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
The news below is more important than many people will realize. Besides
some recent exchanges I had with Kamal Prasad, regarding the job loss from
the USA and the job gain by India, where his arguments (like those of
lobbying and special interest groups) focused exclusively
on the benefits to the employer (lower costs) and totally ignored the
issue of what this does to the flow of revenue into the local (US) economy
(it makes it disapear).
Where did I say that it doesn't cause job losses to american citizens?
I didn't say that it benefits the US either. Rather I said it benefits
the employer (which special interest groups wouldn't admit!!) and
since private equity (aka employers' wealth) is not public property
-it cannot be regulated.
Whoa sheesh!

You've integrated so much of the thinking of the far right that you
probably don't even realize it.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Not that it is not in public interest to
regulate private equity -but doing that is no different and no more
contentious legally than taking money from billionaires and
distributing it to the needy.
Well, we DO do a little of that--redistribution, in that we tax those
making more at a higher rate. And then there's the earned income tax
credit which is an outright giveaway of money. So, arguably we are
doing a certain amount of redistribution right now. The conservatives
will in fact argue that right now we are stealing the rich blind and
giving away money to shiftless, unworthy poor people, and that it has
to stop, tout suite!

There was a time when we did much more of this. Wealthy people were
taxed at significantly higher rates, and capital gains were taxed,
etc. So, we've moved very significantly away from that.
Interestingly, as we have moved in this more regressive direction, the
right has in fact screamed even louder (hm, maybe whined is a better
word--they've really picked up the mantle of victimization in a big
way and made hay out of it).
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
The issue which is important to US citizens (and there is growing awareness
and growing attempts by citizen groups to take back from the US corporations
their power to treat flesh in the USA as a disposable commodity) is how to
preserve their own job markets.
The USA is a job market which does belong to you. Putting an end to
work permits is within your rights -as is mandating that no foreigner
be employed till americans regardless of their calibre, can find jobs
first. But how do you say the same thing about the job market in
India?? There is not a single piece of legislation enacted by the US
govt that applies to India. (That is my definition of soverignity).
When capital shifts to India, it is out of bounds for legislators in
the US. And the reason why capital can move to India is that it is not
public property but private equity.
All true of course. But we can put constraints on moving that capital
in the first place.

You have fallen into the extreme right way of thinking, which is that
ecnomically, doing nothing (as in no government) is always the best
thing to do. If things are less than optimal, it can always be traced
(in the rightwinger's mind) to government regulation or taxes. And
the answer is always to remove trade barriers, taxes, or government
regulations.

When all constaints on the market are removed, and we find ourselves
starving to death, we will be heartened to know that, at least
ideologically we have the "best of all possible worlds."

Brian
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
regards
-kamal
Post by straydog
============== no change to below, included for reference and context===
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:14:15 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
Bad publicity can have good results when it forces politicians to do the
right thing. In Arizona, ABC TV-15 ran a series called "Lost to India" about
how call center jobs for the state welfare system were being outsourced to
India. The report caused a furor in Arizona that prompted politicians to
propose a bill to limit the outsourcing.
A recent follow-up to the newscast is now online. I highly recommend you
watch the entire series, beginning with the Emmy Award winning show that
aired last year.
http://www.zazona.com/shameh1b/MediaClips.htm
2004 4/30 ABC KNXV15 Investigators - "Lost to India"
2004 7/23 ABC KNXV15 Investigators - "Working Conditions"
2005 1/23 ABC KNXV15 Investigators - "Lost to India - Aftermath"
To keep informed on issues like this, sign up for a free email subcription
http://www.zazona.com/shameh1b/JobDestructionNews.htm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2005/01/24/daily28.html
January 25, 2005
Bill proposed to prohibit 'offshoring' of state contracts
Mike Sunnucks
The Business Journal
A measure has been put forward at the state Legislature prohibiting the
foreign outsourcing of state government work.
The legislation is sponsored by three conservative Republicans and 18
Democrats.
It prohibits the state from entering into contracts or taking other actions
that results in state government jobs, contract positions or other work
being shipped outside the United States. Similar measures are afoot in other
states and face strong business opposition.
The Arizona bill would not restrict private companies from moving jobs
offshore.
Foreign outsourcing and offshoring of private and public sector jobs has
been a hot political potato in recent years, with U.S. jobs being moved to
cheaper foreign labor markets, namely China and India.
Last year, Gov. Janet Napolitano issued a directive banning foreign
outsourcing in state contracts after it was learned some welfare-related
customer service work was being done offshore by private subcontractors.
Business interests are generally opposed to state prohibitions and
restrictions on foreign outsourcing and offshoring.
The Arizona Chamber of Commerce subtly refers to outsourcing fervor in its
2005 agenda stating that "state tax, regulatory and procurement policies
must recognize the global integration of today's companies and information
systems."
"We believe that the outsourcing issue is misunderstood and it's not as easy
as "job A" is outsourced to India," said state chamber vice president
Farrell Quinlan.
Outsourcing defenders argue the movement of jobs overseas is part of global
economic trends and integrating U.S. and Arizona companies into new markets.
Some business groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers,
also contend that high health care, regulatory, insurance and legal costs in
the United States make foreign markets more affordable.
Critics, including labor unions, counter that its large corporations dumping
American workers for cheaper counterparts in India and China.
Major Arizona employers that have outsourced or offshored jobs include Best
Western International, Intel, IBM, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase/Bank One
and Honeywell International
Sponsors of the Arizona government outsourcing ban include conservative
Republican State Sens. Karen Johnson and Robert Blendu as well as Democratic
state Sens. Victor Soltero, Bill Brotherton and Harry Mitchell and state
Reps. Meg Burton Cahill, Pete Rios and Kyrsten Sinema.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/0202offshorebill02.html
Measure would keep state jobs in U.S.
New law would prevent use of any foreign labor
The Arizona Republic
Feb. 2, 2005 12:00 AM
A bipartisan group of state legislators has introduced a bill to prevent any
state jobs, including those contracted out, from being performed in foreign
countries.
If passed, Senate Bill 1266 would write into law a state directive issued in
April that prevents the use of foreign labor for work done under state
contracts.
The bill's lead sponsor is Democrat Victor Soltero, but a host of other
legislators, including three Republicans, have signed on. It would prevent
any state agency, board, commission or department from "entering into an
agreement or perform any act that results in a state service position being
directly or indirectly established or transferred outside of the United
States."
It goes on to clarify that any state service position applies to work done
by contractors and subcontractors.
In April, John Adler, the state procurement administrator, issued a
directive that prohibits any work performed under state contract from being
done outside the United States. But the directive did not apply to work that
wasn't directly related to the contract, such as payroll services or data
backup in other countries.
State officials could not place a dollar amount on how the policy change
will cost taxpayers but it could increase the cost of some contracts, said
Alan Ecker, spokesman for the state Department of Administration.
"Potentially it will result in increased costs to contracts," he said. "But
it's more important to keep the jobs and work within borders of the U.S."
Business groups have not said whether they will oppose the bill but the
executive director of the Arizona Association for Economic Development said
such bills often have unintended consequences, such as retaliation from
other countries that could hurt U.S. businesses or higher costs to
taxpayers.
"Any legislative solutions of this sort cuts both ways," John Bowers said.
"There are advantages, but invariably there's another side to it."
Soltero, from Tucson, feels strongly that no taxpayer-supported jobs should
be done outside the United States.
"My preference is that they be done in the state, but I don't think anybody
has concerns as long as they are done in the U.S.," he said.
Sen. Robert Blendu, a Republican, signed on to the bill because he considers
it a security issue.
"The business of Arizona belongs in Arizona," he said.
The bill comes on the heels of revelations last year that public phone calls
to a call center providing service on welfare benefits was being routed to
India or Mexico. That work was being done by subcontractor eFunds Corp., a
Scottsdale-based firm that provides customer support to clients.
The uproar led to the state policy change. No other state contracts were
affected by the change.
EFunds is no longer a state subcontractor after the prime contractor was
acquired by another contract, which did not renew the eFunds contract. In
fact, the eFunds work was brought back to the United States in mid-November,
state Department of Economic Security spokeswoman Liz Barker said.
"EFunds is not handling any part of our contract," she said.
Forrester Research Inc. predicted last year that 3.4 million U.S. service
jobs would move offshore by 2015.
A Greater Phoenix Economic Council analysis found that 14.4 percent of
Valley jobs were vulnerable to being moved abroad.
Nationally, about 12.8 percent of service jobs were vulnerable.
Kamal R. Prasad
2005-02-17 04:10:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
The news below is more important than many people will realize. Besides
some recent exchanges I had with Kamal Prasad, regarding the job loss from
the USA and the job gain by India, where his arguments (like those of
lobbying and special interest groups) focused exclusively
on the benefits to the employer (lower costs) and totally ignored the
issue of what this does to the flow of revenue into the local (US) economy
(it makes it disapear).
Where did I say that it doesn't cause job losses to american citizens?
I didn't say that it benefits the US either. Rather I said it benefits
the employer (which special interest groups wouldn't admit!!) and
since private equity (aka employers' wealth) is not public property
-it cannot be regulated.
Whoa sheesh!
You've integrated so much of the thinking of the far right that you
probably don't even realize it.
No -I have a dislike for the far right in the US. What Im saying is a
universal fact that applies to all countries -no matter what their
ideology is. It applies to leftist India as much as it applies to the
US as it does to communist China. Investor wealth is simply not
something the govt can prey on (either by letting politicians
confiscate it or by re-distributing it to the working class). If
americans think the world stretches from the east coast to the west
coast -that is a misunderstanding. My statements take into account the
situation elsewhere.
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Not that it is not in public interest to
regulate private equity -but doing that is no different and no more
contentious legally than taking money from billionaires and
distributing it to the needy.
Well, we DO do a little of that--redistribution, in that we tax those
making more at a higher rate. And then there's the earned income tax
credit which is an outright giveaway of money. So, arguably we are
doing a certain amount of redistribution right now. The conservatives
will in fact argue that right now we are stealing the rich blind and
giving away money to shiftless, unworthy poor people, and that it has
to stop, tout suite!
We are talking 2 different things. Salaries and profits are earned by
operating in a country and that operation requires the govt to build
infrastructure, maintain law & order etc.. That service is provided by
the govt at a price and that price is collected in the form of taxes.
Capital that is invested (and not earned) doesn't need govt
infrastructre for it to exist in the first place. So it doesn't get
taxed when brought into the US (or any other country). Only the earned
capital is taxed.
Post by Brian G. Moore
There was a time when we did much more of this. Wealthy people were
taxed at significantly higher rates, and capital gains were taxed,
etc. So, we've moved very significantly away from that.
Interestingly, as we have moved in this more regressive direction, the
right has in fact screamed even louder (hm, maybe whined is a better
word--they've really picked up the mantle of victimization in a big
way and made hay out of it).
Bill Clinton did a pretty good job at balancing the budget -but the
neo-cons ruined it. As I read on the wash post, GWB wants to plant a
budgets bomb by spending even more and deferring the recovery to the
next candidate.
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
The issue which is important to US citizens (and there is growing awareness
and growing attempts by citizen groups to take back from the US corporations
their power to treat flesh in the USA as a disposable commodity) is how to
preserve their own job markets.
The USA is a job market which does belong to you. Putting an end to
work permits is within your rights -as is mandating that no foreigner
be employed till americans regardless of their calibre, can find jobs
first. But how do you say the same thing about the job market in
India?? There is not a single piece of legislation enacted by the US
govt that applies to India. (That is my definition of soverignity).
When capital shifts to India, it is out of bounds for legislators in
the US. And the reason why capital can move to India is that it is not
public property but private equity.
All true of course. But we can put constraints on moving that capital
in the first place.
Not if it has its origins outside the US before it entered the US. The
US govt has something called property laws which invite foreign
capital and provide assurances that the capital will not be held
hostage to domestic politics. If you don't provide assurances -the
capital won't enter the US in the first place. Even India at its left
most state didn't confiscate MNCs' wealth. They just asked them to
pack up and leave (which is why IBM, Coke etc.. left India in ~1978
leaving many computer engrs high and dry and they brought about the
computer revolution which cost the US many jobs).
Post by Brian G. Moore
You have fallen into the extreme right way of thinking, which is that
ecnomically, doing nothing (as in no government) is always the best
thing to do. If things are less than optimal, it can always be traced
(in the rightwinger's mind) to government regulation or taxes. And
the answer is always to remove trade barriers, taxes, or government
regulations.
When all constaints on the market are removed, and we find ourselves
starving to death, we will be heartened to know that, at least
ideologically we have the "best of all possible worlds."
I didn't suggest the govt shouldn't do anything. But what I would
suggest the US govt to do is different from what you would suggest. I
would suggest that they devalue the USD so that cost of living comes
down and gets to the same level (or not much different from ) other
countries. When that happens, companies will find it viable to employ
americans instead of Indians without being arm-twisted (which trust me
is not doable anyway).

regards
-kamal
zach
2005-02-17 05:56:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
There was a time when we did much more of this. Wealthy people were
taxed at significantly higher rates, and capital gains were taxed,
etc. So, we've moved very significantly away from that.
Interestingly, as we have moved in this more regressive direction, the
right has in fact screamed even louder (hm, maybe whined is a better
word--they've really picked up the mantle of victimization in a big
way and made hay out of it).
Bill Clinton did a pretty good job at balancing the budget -but the
neo-cons ruined it.
The Gingrich Contract With America is what started to balance the
budget, same with welfare reform. Clinton shifted right and sold these
concepts to the American people. Ditto for his signing of NAFTA.

As I read on the wash post, GWB wants to plant a
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
budgets bomb by spending even more and deferring the recovery to the
next candidate.
Recovery from what? The economy is heating up so much that the Fed is
on an interest rate raising spree, albeit a small one. The Fed's
overzealous monetary policy is what put us into the last recession
anyway. Bush did nothing. Clinton did nothing.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
The issue which is important to US citizens (and there is
growing awareness
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
and growing attempts by citizen groups to take back from the US corporations
their power to treat flesh in the USA as a disposable commodity) is how to
preserve their own job markets.
The USA is a job market which does belong to you. Putting an end to
work permits is within your rights -as is mandating that no
foreigner
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
be employed till americans regardless of their calibre, can find jobs
first. But how do you say the same thing about the job market in
India?? There is not a single piece of legislation enacted by the US
govt that applies to India. (That is my definition of
soverignity).
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
When capital shifts to India, it is out of bounds for legislators in
the US. And the reason why capital can move to India is that it is not
public property but private equity.
All true of course. But we can put constraints on moving that capital
in the first place.
Not if it has its origins outside the US before it entered the US. The
US govt has something called property laws which invite foreign
capital and provide assurances that the capital will not be held
hostage to domestic politics. If you don't provide assurances -the
capital won't enter the US in the first place. Even India at its left
most state didn't confiscate MNCs' wealth. They just asked them to
pack up and leave (which is why IBM, Coke etc.. left India in ~1978
leaving many computer engrs high and dry and they brought about the
computer revolution which cost the US many jobs).
Post by Brian G. Moore
You have fallen into the extreme right way of thinking, which is that
ecnomically, doing nothing (as in no government) is always the best
thing to do. If things are less than optimal, it can always be traced
(in the rightwinger's mind) to government regulation or taxes. And
the answer is always to remove trade barriers, taxes, or government
regulations.
When all constaints on the market are removed, and we find
ourselves
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
starving to death, we will be heartened to know that, at least
ideologically we have the "best of all possible worlds."
I didn't suggest the govt shouldn't do anything. But what I would
suggest the US govt to do is different from what you would suggest. I
would suggest that they devalue the USD so that cost of living comes
down and gets to the same level (or not much different from ) other
countries. When that happens, companies will find it viable to employ
americans instead of Indians without being arm-twisted (which trust me
is not doable anyway).
To do so to _that_ level is impossible, if not flat-out ridiculous.
Kamal R. Prasad
2005-02-18 08:40:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
There was a time when we did much more of this. Wealthy people
were
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
taxed at significantly higher rates, and capital gains were taxed,
etc. So, we've moved very significantly away from that.
Interestingly, as we have moved in this more regressive direction,
the
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
right has in fact screamed even louder (hm, maybe whined is a
better
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
word--they've really picked up the mantle of victimization in a big
way and made hay out of it).
Bill Clinton did a pretty good job at balancing the budget -but the
neo-cons ruined it.
The Gingrich Contract With America is what started to balance the
budget, same with welfare reform. Clinton shifted right and sold these
concepts to the American people. Ditto for his signing of NAFTA.
I will leave it to you to fight it out with your fellow americans as
to which is the better party.
Post by Brian G. Moore
As I read on the wash post, GWB wants to plant a
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
budgets bomb by spending even more and deferring the recovery to the
next candidate.
Recovery from what? The economy is heating up so much that the Fed is
on an interest rate raising spree, albeit a small one. The Fed's
overzealous monetary policy is what put us into the last recession
anyway. Bush did nothing. Clinton did nothing.
No -the US fed wasn't responsible for the downturn. It was irrational
exuberance that got the US into over-capacity and bursting of the
bubble. To burst a bubble , one has to form first and that was formed
by hype (which the fed did deflate). If they hadn't deflated it -the
bubble would have grown larger and hurt more people than it otherwise
did. Thats econ 101 for you:-).
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
The issue which is important to US citizens (and there is
growing awareness
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
and growing attempts by citizen groups to take back from the US
corporations
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
their power to treat flesh in the USA as a disposable commodity)
is how to
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
preserve their own job markets.
The USA is a job market which does belong to you. Putting an end
to
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
work permits is within your rights -as is mandating that no
foreigner
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
be employed till americans regardless of their calibre, can find
jobs
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
first. But how do you say the same thing about the job market in
India?? There is not a single piece of legislation enacted by the
US
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
govt that applies to India. (That is my definition of
soverignity).
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
When capital shifts to India, it is out of bounds for legislators
in
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
the US. And the reason why capital can move to India is that it is
not
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
public property but private equity.
All true of course. But we can put constraints on moving that
capital
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
in the first place.
Not if it has its origins outside the US before it entered the US.
The
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
US govt has something called property laws which invite foreign
capital and provide assurances that the capital will not be held
hostage to domestic politics. If you don't provide assurances -the
capital won't enter the US in the first place. Even India at its left
most state didn't confiscate MNCs' wealth. They just asked them to
pack up and leave (which is why IBM, Coke etc.. left India in ~1978
leaving many computer engrs high and dry and they brought about the
computer revolution which cost the US many jobs).
Post by Brian G. Moore
You have fallen into the extreme right way of thinking, which is
that
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
ecnomically, doing nothing (as in no government) is always the best
thing to do. If things are less than optimal, it can always be
traced
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
(in the rightwinger's mind) to government regulation or taxes. And
the answer is always to remove trade barriers, taxes, or government
regulations.
When all constaints on the market are removed, and we find
ourselves
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
starving to death, we will be heartened to know that, at least
ideologically we have the "best of all possible worlds."
I didn't suggest the govt shouldn't do anything. But what I would
suggest the US govt to do is different from what you would suggest. I
would suggest that they devalue the USD so that cost of living comes
down and gets to the same level (or not much different from ) other
countries. When that happens, companies will find it viable to employ
americans instead of Indians without being arm-twisted (which trust
me
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
is not doable anyway).
To do so to _that_ level is impossible, if not flat-out ridiculous.
Some of the offshoring studies by Gartner and McKinsey indicate a
savings of about 30% via offshoring. The USD is inflated by 80% -but
then offshoring as its own hidden costs (related to distance,
mismanagement etc..). So a change in valuation by 30% vs the Rupee
should help in that only projects that are well managed will be
offshored. Rest will return to say that we just got carried away by
the lure of savings that never quite materialized the way they were
advertised.

regards
-kamal
Lost
2005-02-18 22:06:34 UTC
Permalink
zach wrote:
<snip>
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
I didn't suggest the govt shouldn't do anything. But what I would
suggest the US govt to do is different from what you would suggest. I
would suggest that they devalue the USD so that cost of living comes
down and gets to the same level (or not much different from ) other
countries. When that happens, companies will find it viable to employ
americans instead of Indians without being arm-twisted (which trust
me
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
is not doable anyway).
To do so to _that_ level is impossible, if not flat-out ridiculous.
If the expected depression happens then the same result will occur.

He has one point in that given the current circumstances either we
do this by choice, or the world economy will force the same outcome
on us with much more repercussions.

The ship is already sinking. Only extreme regulation by the government
or a crash will change the course. But since the rich virtually run
the government, and they are too stupid to give up on profit to
maintain economic health, then we are toast.

Other severe events like disaster or world war would of course alter
things too, but those are not good options.
zach
2005-02-18 20:44:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by BMJ
<snip>
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
I didn't suggest the govt shouldn't do anything. But what I would
suggest the US govt to do is different from what you would
suggest. I
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
would suggest that they devalue the USD so that cost of living comes
down and gets to the same level (or not much different from ) other
countries. When that happens, companies will find it viable to employ
americans instead of Indians without being arm-twisted (which trust
me
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
is not doable anyway).
To do so to _that_ level is impossible, if not flat-out ridiculous.
If the expected depression happens then the same result will occur.
He has one point in that given the current circumstances either we
do this by choice, or the world economy will force the same outcome
on us with much more repercussions.
The ship is already sinking. Only extreme regulation by the
government
Post by BMJ
or a crash will change the course. But since the rich virtually run
the government, and they are too stupid to give up on profit to
maintain economic health, then we are toast.
Why are profit and economic health two different things? If not
profitable, then companies fold and even more goods are produced
elsewhere, unless you want the government to force its people to only
buy American. If wealth is not created, then nothing is moving forward.
Do we want to be like France (e.g.), with a double-digit unemployment
rate _and_ massive debt?
Post by BMJ
Other severe events like disaster or world war would of course alter
things too, but those are not good options.
That is not a rosy picture for anybody. We consume and now invest
heavily to keep China's forward economic momentum going. We invest to
keep India's standard of living on the upward slope, though there is no
reason they cannot go through the same producing what they consume
stage like we did, though they have far less natural resources than we
did and still have, so maybe that is not possible on the same scale.
Are they capable of doing that should the world economy collapse? The
few hundred million who live in poverty probably won't care, but those
nearer the to who are benefiting might.
Kamal R. Prasad
2005-02-19 03:57:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
<snip>
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
I didn't suggest the govt shouldn't do anything. But what I would
suggest the US govt to do is different from what you would
suggest. I
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
would suggest that they devalue the USD so that cost of living
comes
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
down and gets to the same level (or not much different from )
other
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
countries. When that happens, companies will find it viable to
employ
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
americans instead of Indians without being arm-twisted (which
trust
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
me
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
is not doable anyway).
To do so to _that_ level is impossible, if not flat-out ridiculous.
If the expected depression happens then the same result will occur.
He has one point in that given the current circumstances either we
do this by choice, or the world economy will force the same outcome
on us with much more repercussions.
Kinda close. When govts participate in the currency market to inflate
currency -it is like insider trading and it does catch up someday.
Inflating a currency is like fooling the world. You can fool some
people all of the time -the whole world for some time, but not the
whole world forever. The easy way is for govts. to stop fooling the
world -so that currency rates are in line with their purchasing power
and that in turn reduces job shifta from countries with stronger
currencies. The hard way is that unemployment shoots up and the bluff
is called, for the dollar to crash vs the rupee. Choose your poison
-but forget about being able to sustain 5x Indian salaries for the
same productivity as in India. And there is no such thing as going up
the value chain to survive or maintaining a lock on any sensitive
technologies. You don't need an H1b visa to acquire grey matter
between your ears. People in India are as capable of doing good engg
work without ever visiting the US.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
The ship is already sinking. Only extreme regulation by the
government
Post by BMJ
or a crash will change the course. But since the rich virtually run
the government, and they are too stupid to give up on profit to
maintain economic health, then we are toast.
The only way you can fix the system is by recognizing what causes job
movements and how to dissuade employers from moving jobs (and not
trying to confiscate their wealth or hoping that overseas workers will
be so stupid that work will automatically return on account of
failures -which is something from Alice's wonderland).
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Why are profit and economic health two different things? If not
Profits accure to corporations -and economic health is what he refers
to the health of the country.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
profitable, then companies fold and even more goods are produced
elsewhere, unless you want the government to force its people to only
buy American. If wealth is not created, then nothing is moving forward.
Do we want to be like France (e.g.), with a double-digit unemployment
rate _and_ massive debt?
Robert Rubin is the Chairman of Citigroup. He earns a $15m salary and
if the dollar remains steady or appreciates -it helps the investment
banking activity of his company. But that doesn't mean it makes
americans competitive in a global job market. The rich have one set of
priorities and the working class another -or shall we say that the
economic interests of the 2 don't necessarily coincide.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
Other severe events like disaster or world war would of course alter
things too, but those are not good options.
That is not a rosy picture for anybody. We consume and now invest
heavily to keep China's forward economic momentum going. We invest to
keep India's standard of living on the upward slope, though there is no
reason they cannot go through the same producing what they consume
stage like we did, though they have far less natural resources than we
No -the US hands out inflated aka counterfeit currency to buy goods
and services from these 2 countries. If they didn't have inflated
currencies -these countries would have greater purchasing power and
engineers in these 2 countries would be proviiding services to the
domestic industry instead.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
did and still have, so maybe that is not possible on the same scale.
Are they capable of doing that should the world economy collapse? The
few hundred million who live in poverty probably won't care, but those
nearer the to who are benefiting might.
During the recession when the sky seemed to be falling on americans
-India was the 2nd fastest economy on this planet (after China) and
offshoring genereates only 2% of the economic activity in India. If
the USD crashes, a lot more Indians will be able to afford hi-tech
goods originating in the US -and that means the call centres providing
services for US customers will now provide services for domestic
customers [and you will have lesser reason to call us parasites].

regards
-kamal
zach
2005-02-19 06:28:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
<snip>
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
I didn't suggest the govt shouldn't do anything. But what I would
suggest the US govt to do is different from what you would
suggest. I
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
would suggest that they devalue the USD so that cost of living
comes
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
down and gets to the same level (or not much different from )
other
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
countries. When that happens, companies will find it viable to
employ
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
americans instead of Indians without being arm-twisted (which
trust
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
me
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
is not doable anyway).
To do so to _that_ level is impossible, if not flat-out
ridiculous.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
If the expected depression happens then the same result will occur.
He has one point in that given the current circumstances either we
do this by choice, or the world economy will force the same outcome
on us with much more repercussions.
Kinda close. When govts participate in the currency market to inflate
currency -it is like insider trading and it does catch up someday.
Inflating a currency is like fooling the world. You can fool some
people all of the time -the whole world for some time, but not the
whole world forever. The easy way is for govts. to stop fooling the
world -so that currency rates are in line with their purchasing power
and that in turn reduces job shifta from countries with stronger
currencies. The hard way is that unemployment shoots up and the bluff
is called, for the dollar to crash vs the rupee. Choose your poison
-but forget about being able to sustain 5x Indian salaries for the
same productivity as in India. And there is no such thing as going up
the value chain to survive or maintaining a lock on any sensitive
technologies. You don't need an H1b visa to acquire grey matter
between your ears. People in India are as capable of doing good engg
work without ever visiting the US.
Well, I've been doing nothing but finding inexcusable errors in some
designs coming directly from our Indian design center. The same error,
basically. When my boss tried to ask "just what is going on over there,
why hasn't someone solved this problem yet," he was basically told on
the sly to shut his mouth. A few hundred thousand dollars worth of
wasted silicon and who knows how much engineering time later... I just
found the same problem on yet _another_ new design. Yet the guy in
charge of directing them here is also an Indian, no doubt protecting
them and getting away with it. What pissed me off is that he attacked
us for not finding the problems sooner. But that's ok, a lot of people
(also non-Indians, incompetance knows no nationality) looked foolish
after this latest incident.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
The ship is already sinking. Only extreme regulation by the
government
Post by BMJ
or a crash will change the course. But since the rich virtually run
the government, and they are too stupid to give up on profit to
maintain economic health, then we are toast.
The only way you can fix the system is by recognizing what causes job
movements and how to dissuade employers from moving jobs (and not
trying to confiscate their wealth or hoping that overseas workers will
be so stupid that work will automatically return on account of
failures -which is something from Alice's wonderland).
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Why are profit and economic health two different things? If not
Profits accure to corporations -and economic health is what he refers
to the health of the country.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
profitable, then companies fold and even more goods are produced
elsewhere, unless you want the government to force its people to only
buy American. If wealth is not created, then nothing is moving forward.
Do we want to be like France (e.g.), with a double-digit
unemployment
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
rate _and_ massive debt?
Robert Rubin is the Chairman of Citigroup. He earns a $15m salary and
if the dollar remains steady or appreciates -it helps the investment
banking activity of his company. But that doesn't mean it makes
americans competitive in a global job market. The rich have one set of
priorities and the working class another -or shall we say that the
economic interests of the 2 don't necessarily coincide.
No disagreement there.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
Other severe events like disaster or world war would of course alter
things too, but those are not good options.
That is not a rosy picture for anybody. We consume and now invest
heavily to keep China's forward economic momentum going. We invest to
keep India's standard of living on the upward slope, though there is no
reason they cannot go through the same producing what they consume
stage like we did, though they have far less natural resources than we
No -the US hands out inflated aka counterfeit currency to buy goods
and services from these 2 countries. If they didn't have inflated
currencies -these countries would have greater purchasing power and
engineers in these 2 countries would be proviiding services to the
domestic industry instead.
I don't buy your reverse fallacy of composition. If engineering job
salaries are cut in half, say, then there will be NO engineers, since
every other job in the country will pay far more. Are you really saying
that just about everybody here is making too much money? How much money
do Indians send back to India each year to support their families? It
may not be as much as the Mexicans send south of the border
comparatively, but I bet it isn't pocket change.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
did and still have, so maybe that is not possible on the same scale.
Are they capable of doing that should the world economy collapse? The
few hundred million who live in poverty probably won't care, but those
nearer the to who are benefiting might.
During the recession when the sky seemed to be falling on americans
-India was the 2nd fastest economy on this planet (after China) and
offshoring genereates only 2% of the economic activity in India.
Perhaps you can educate us on the other 98%?

If
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
the USD crashes, a lot more Indians will be able to afford hi-tech
goods originating in the US
_What_ high tech is still originating in the US? Except for the few
large companies, most semiconductor houses are fabless, and more
non-manufacturing jobs are going overseas at an accelerated rate.

-and that means the call centres providing
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
services for US customers will now provide services for domestic
customers [and you will have lesser reason to call us parasites].
If anyone's calling you "parasites" it isn't me.
Kamal R. Prasad
2005-02-19 13:18:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
<snip>
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
I didn't suggest the govt shouldn't do anything. But what I
would
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
suggest the US govt to do is different from what you would
suggest. I
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
would suggest that they devalue the USD so that cost of
living
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
comes
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
down and gets to the same level (or not much different from )
other
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
countries. When that happens, companies will find it viable
to
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
employ
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
americans instead of Indians without being arm-twisted (which
trust
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
me
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
is not doable anyway).
To do so to _that_ level is impossible, if not flat-out
ridiculous.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
If the expected depression happens then the same result will
occur.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
He has one point in that given the current circumstances either
we
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
do this by choice, or the world economy will force the same
outcome
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
on us with much more repercussions.
Kinda close. When govts participate in the currency market to inflate
currency -it is like insider trading and it does catch up someday.
Inflating a currency is like fooling the world. You can fool some
people all of the time -the whole world for some time, but not the
whole world forever. The easy way is for govts. to stop fooling the
world -so that currency rates are in line with their purchasing power
and that in turn reduces job shifta from countries with stronger
currencies. The hard way is that unemployment shoots up and the bluff
is called, for the dollar to crash vs the rupee. Choose your poison
-but forget about being able to sustain 5x Indian salaries for the
same productivity as in India. And there is no such thing as going up
the value chain to survive or maintaining a lock on any sensitive
technologies. You don't need an H1b visa to acquire grey matter
between your ears. People in India are as capable of doing good engg
work without ever visiting the US.
Well, I've been doing nothing but finding inexcusable errors in some
designs coming directly from our Indian design center. The same error,
basically. When my boss tried to ask "just what is going on over there,
why hasn't someone solved this problem yet," he was basically told on
the sly to shut his mouth. A few hundred thousand dollars worth of
wasted silicon and who knows how much engineering time later... I just
What kind of work gets done at the Indian design centre depends on
both the quality of manpower hired -as well as how well communication
errors are resolved. I worked at IBM India -and the mgmt was extremely
miserly and hired the cheapest manpower with the result that the US
office was seldom happy with the output. That doesn't mean the country
as a whole is incapable of producing good engrs -just that acc to the
law of free market economics, you get what you pay for.
As far as communication problems go, I read an article in ACM's
Queue magazine by a british consultant titled "Pitfalls on the
passage to India" in which he said that the same engr who does a good
job when working onsite fails to deliver the goods offshore because he
does not have the advantage of interacting in person to do a
requirement analysis. When you interact in person, you can read the
body language and get a lot of info v quickly -but speaking over the
telephone doesn't get you much info. And if the US office is already
pissed off with you, then you need do 'window dressing' i.e. your
questions shouldn't make you look stupid -so you minimize the no. of
queries with the result that a lot of issues remain unresolved.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
found the same problem on yet _another_ new design. Yet the guy in
charge of directing them here is also an Indian, no doubt protecting
them and getting away with it. What pissed me off is that he attacked
us for not finding the problems sooner. But that's ok, a lot of people
(also non-Indians, incompetance knows no nationality) looked foolish
after this latest incident.
Im not in a position to defend anyone's incompetence simply because he
is an Indian. But speaking at a broader level -offshoring is going
great guns in India, both in terms of the quantity of work being done
here and the quality of work aka moving higher up the value chain. A
few will fail due to greed and/or mismanagement -but if you look at
the industrial activity today and 5 yrs back -its a world of
difference.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
The ship is already sinking. Only extreme regulation by the
government
Post by BMJ
or a crash will change the course. But since the rich virtually
run
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
the government, and they are too stupid to give up on profit to
maintain economic health, then we are toast.
The only way you can fix the system is by recognizing what causes job
movements and how to dissuade employers from moving jobs (and not
trying to confiscate their wealth or hoping that overseas workers
will
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
be so stupid that work will automatically return on account of
failures -which is something from Alice's wonderland).
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Why are profit and economic health two different things? If not
Profits accure to corporations -and economic health is what he refers
to the health of the country.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
profitable, then companies fold and even more goods are produced
elsewhere, unless you want the government to force its people to
only
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
buy American. If wealth is not created, then nothing is moving
forward.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Do we want to be like France (e.g.), with a double-digit
unemployment
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
rate _and_ massive debt?
Robert Rubin is the Chairman of Citigroup. He earns a $15m salary and
if the dollar remains steady or appreciates -it helps the investment
banking activity of his company. But that doesn't mean it makes
americans competitive in a global job market. The rich have one set
of
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
priorities and the working class another -or shall we say that the
economic interests of the 2 don't necessarily coincide.
No disagreement there.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
Other severe events like disaster or world war would of course
alter
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
things too, but those are not good options.
That is not a rosy picture for anybody. We consume and now invest
heavily to keep China's forward economic momentum going. We invest
to
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
keep India's standard of living on the upward slope, though there
is no
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
reason they cannot go through the same producing what they consume
stage like we did, though they have far less natural resources than
we
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
No -the US hands out inflated aka counterfeit currency to buy goods
and services from these 2 countries. If they didn't have inflated
currencies -these countries would have greater purchasing power and
engineers in these 2 countries would be proviiding services to the
domestic industry instead.
I don't buy your reverse fallacy of composition. If engineering job
salaries are cut in half, say, then there will be NO engineers, since
every other job in the country will pay far more. Are you really saying
that just about everybody here is making too much money? How much money
No -Im not suggesting that engg salaries should be cut in half. You
could be drawing the same dollar amt in salary and yet the difference
in wages could be reduced. 1 USD= 44 Rupees. If the exchange rate
were to be altered to say 1 USD = 30 Rupees, because there is a
floor in salary in terms of cost of living, US employers will end up
paying more dollars/month for the services of an Indian engr than they
presently do. Likewise for the goods imported from china.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
do Indians send back to India each year to support their families? It
may not be as much as the Mexicans send south of the border
comparatively, but I bet it isn't pocket change.
I know some pretty well off Indians who don't send any money to
support their families. Their savings rate is identical to that of
americans -and so you can calculate depending on position and
lifestyle of a person, how much he manages to save. Whether he sends
it to India or not -I cannot say for sure without meeting the guy and
knowing his personal details.Its not necessary that every Indian in
the US is compelled to send money home.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
did and still have, so maybe that is not possible on the same
scale.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Are they capable of doing that should the world economy collapse?
The
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
few hundred million who live in poverty probably won't care, but
those
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
nearer the to who are benefiting might.
During the recession when the sky seemed to be falling on americans
-India was the 2nd fastest economy on this planet (after China) and
offshoring genereates only 2% of the economic activity in India.
Perhaps you can educate us on the other 98%?
65% of India's population depends on farming and that is the biggest
economic activity. No more than 20% of India's population lives in
urban areas and they have the option to work in manufacturing/service
sector. BPO is one of the fastest growing services, but other than
that -there are quite a few like pharma and all kinds of engg. I don't
have a distribution in hand, but am positive that outsourced IT
supports a small urban population.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
If
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
the USD crashes, a lot more Indians will be able to afford hi-tech
goods originating in the US
_What_ high tech is still originating in the US? Except for the few
large companies, most semiconductor houses are fabless, and more
non-manufacturing jobs are going overseas at an accelerated rate.
Most computers are sold in India by american companies. The hw design
might be done in the US -with the manufacturing shunted out to
overseas location. But the best paid and largest group of employees of
american companies happen to he americans. Ford, Chevrolet etc.. are
all doing big business in India. If they prefer not to hire americans
due to the high cost of living, that is a different issue. But the
vendors are really going great guns here.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
-and that means the call centres providing
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
services for US customers will now provide services for domestic
customers [and you will have lesser reason to call us parasites].
If anyone's calling you "parasites" it isn't me.
I didn't mean you -but that is the general attitude of people towards
Indians doing offshored work. In some ways the complaint is valid
because the one paying for the services is an american who would want
to help his fellow american land a job -but the mgmt wouldn't let him.
But if currency distortions were removed -India as a country would be
a big consumer of american goods , and critics will not have a problem
if the american company producing the goods hires many Indians in
return.

regards
-kamal
Brian G. Moore
2005-02-19 20:27:08 UTC
Permalink
All this talk by Kamal about currency & etc---it isnt that hard.

So long are there are people living in squalor on this planet, the
outsourcing of labor will be a problem. After India industrializes to
the point that it's standard of living is substantially improved,
labor will be outsourced somewhere else.

We will only know that this problem is starting to come back into
equilibriuam when we hear about labor being outsourced to sub-Saharan
Africa. My guess is that that will be the last bastion of
low-standard-of-living left behind as the rest of the world
industrializes.

Now, how LONG will it take to get to that point? Hard to tell.

The clear thing is that we--in the US--WILL see our standard of living
decline, and very substantially, either slowly or all at once. All
the forces are pointing in that direction, and I don't see anything
that can clearly be done to stop that. Arguably it has been happening
here since about the early 70s anyhow.

The question is--what will be our response to this? People get very
angry when their expectations are dashed. And remember, people think
in an extrapolatory mode. They look at how much better they did than
their parents and expect the same slope.

Again, arguably, some of the bad stuff to come from this inevitable
downward pressure on our standard of living has already happened--e.g.
we are invading countries pre-emptively now.

I don't know what the answer is.

Brian Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
<snip>
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
I didn't suggest the govt shouldn't do anything. But what I
would
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
suggest the US govt to do is different from what you would
suggest. I
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
would suggest that they devalue the USD so that cost of
living
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
comes
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
down and gets to the same level (or not much different from )
other
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
countries. When that happens, companies will find it viable
to
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
employ
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
americans instead of Indians without being arm-twisted (which
trust
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
me
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
is not doable anyway).
To do so to _that_ level is impossible, if not flat-out
ridiculous.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
If the expected depression happens then the same result will
occur.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
He has one point in that given the current circumstances either
we
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
do this by choice, or the world economy will force the same
outcome
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
on us with much more repercussions.
Kinda close. When govts participate in the currency market to inflate
currency -it is like insider trading and it does catch up someday.
Inflating a currency is like fooling the world. You can fool some
people all of the time -the whole world for some time, but not the
whole world forever. The easy way is for govts. to stop fooling the
world -so that currency rates are in line with their purchasing power
and that in turn reduces job shifta from countries with stronger
currencies. The hard way is that unemployment shoots up and the bluff
is called, for the dollar to crash vs the rupee. Choose your poison
-but forget about being able to sustain 5x Indian salaries for the
same productivity as in India. And there is no such thing as going up
the value chain to survive or maintaining a lock on any sensitive
technologies. You don't need an H1b visa to acquire grey matter
between your ears. People in India are as capable of doing good engg
work without ever visiting the US.
Well, I've been doing nothing but finding inexcusable errors in some
designs coming directly from our Indian design center. The same error,
basically. When my boss tried to ask "just what is going on over there,
why hasn't someone solved this problem yet," he was basically told on
the sly to shut his mouth. A few hundred thousand dollars worth of
wasted silicon and who knows how much engineering time later... I just
What kind of work gets done at the Indian design centre depends on
both the quality of manpower hired -as well as how well communication
errors are resolved. I worked at IBM India -and the mgmt was extremely
miserly and hired the cheapest manpower with the result that the US
office was seldom happy with the output. That doesn't mean the country
as a whole is incapable of producing good engrs -just that acc to the
law of free market economics, you get what you pay for.
As far as communication problems go, I read an article in ACM's
Queue magazine by a british consultant titled "Pitfalls on the
passage to India" in which he said that the same engr who does a good
job when working onsite fails to deliver the goods offshore because he
does not have the advantage of interacting in person to do a
requirement analysis. When you interact in person, you can read the
body language and get a lot of info v quickly -but speaking over the
telephone doesn't get you much info. And if the US office is already
pissed off with you, then you need do 'window dressing' i.e. your
questions shouldn't make you look stupid -so you minimize the no. of
queries with the result that a lot of issues remain unresolved.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
found the same problem on yet _another_ new design. Yet the guy in
charge of directing them here is also an Indian, no doubt protecting
them and getting away with it. What pissed me off is that he attacked
us for not finding the problems sooner. But that's ok, a lot of people
(also non-Indians, incompetance knows no nationality) looked foolish
after this latest incident.
Im not in a position to defend anyone's incompetence simply because he
is an Indian. But speaking at a broader level -offshoring is going
great guns in India, both in terms of the quantity of work being done
here and the quality of work aka moving higher up the value chain. A
few will fail due to greed and/or mismanagement -but if you look at
the industrial activity today and 5 yrs back -its a world of
difference.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
The ship is already sinking. Only extreme regulation by the
government
Post by BMJ
or a crash will change the course. But since the rich virtually
run
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
the government, and they are too stupid to give up on profit to
maintain economic health, then we are toast.
The only way you can fix the system is by recognizing what causes job
movements and how to dissuade employers from moving jobs (and not
trying to confiscate their wealth or hoping that overseas workers
will
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
be so stupid that work will automatically return on account of
failures -which is something from Alice's wonderland).
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Why are profit and economic health two different things? If not
Profits accure to corporations -and economic health is what he refers
to the health of the country.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
profitable, then companies fold and even more goods are produced
elsewhere, unless you want the government to force its people to
only
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
buy American. If wealth is not created, then nothing is moving
forward.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Do we want to be like France (e.g.), with a double-digit
unemployment
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
rate _and_ massive debt?
Robert Rubin is the Chairman of Citigroup. He earns a $15m salary and
if the dollar remains steady or appreciates -it helps the investment
banking activity of his company. But that doesn't mean it makes
americans competitive in a global job market. The rich have one set
of
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
priorities and the working class another -or shall we say that the
economic interests of the 2 don't necessarily coincide.
No disagreement there.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
Other severe events like disaster or world war would of course
alter
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
things too, but those are not good options.
That is not a rosy picture for anybody. We consume and now invest
heavily to keep China's forward economic momentum going. We invest
to
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
keep India's standard of living on the upward slope, though there
is no
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
reason they cannot go through the same producing what they consume
stage like we did, though they have far less natural resources than
we
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
No -the US hands out inflated aka counterfeit currency to buy goods
and services from these 2 countries. If they didn't have inflated
currencies -these countries would have greater purchasing power and
engineers in these 2 countries would be proviiding services to the
domestic industry instead.
I don't buy your reverse fallacy of composition. If engineering job
salaries are cut in half, say, then there will be NO engineers, since
every other job in the country will pay far more. Are you really saying
that just about everybody here is making too much money? How much money
No -Im not suggesting that engg salaries should be cut in half. You
could be drawing the same dollar amt in salary and yet the difference
in wages could be reduced. 1 USD= 44 Rupees. If the exchange rate
were to be altered to say 1 USD = 30 Rupees, because there is a
floor in salary in terms of cost of living, US employers will end up
paying more dollars/month for the services of an Indian engr than they
presently do. Likewise for the goods imported from china.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
do Indians send back to India each year to support their families? It
may not be as much as the Mexicans send south of the border
comparatively, but I bet it isn't pocket change.
I know some pretty well off Indians who don't send any money to
support their families. Their savings rate is identical to that of
americans -and so you can calculate depending on position and
lifestyle of a person, how much he manages to save. Whether he sends
it to India or not -I cannot say for sure without meeting the guy and
knowing his personal details.Its not necessary that every Indian in
the US is compelled to send money home.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
did and still have, so maybe that is not possible on the same
scale.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Are they capable of doing that should the world economy collapse?
The
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
few hundred million who live in poverty probably won't care, but
those
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
nearer the to who are benefiting might.
During the recession when the sky seemed to be falling on americans
-India was the 2nd fastest economy on this planet (after China) and
offshoring genereates only 2% of the economic activity in India.
Perhaps you can educate us on the other 98%?
65% of India's population depends on farming and that is the biggest
economic activity. No more than 20% of India's population lives in
urban areas and they have the option to work in manufacturing/service
sector. BPO is one of the fastest growing services, but other than
that -there are quite a few like pharma and all kinds of engg. I don't
have a distribution in hand, but am positive that outsourced IT
supports a small urban population.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
If
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
the USD crashes, a lot more Indians will be able to afford hi-tech
goods originating in the US
_What_ high tech is still originating in the US? Except for the few
large companies, most semiconductor houses are fabless, and more
non-manufacturing jobs are going overseas at an accelerated rate.
Most computers are sold in India by american companies. The hw design
might be done in the US -with the manufacturing shunted out to
overseas location. But the best paid and largest group of employees of
american companies happen to he americans. Ford, Chevrolet etc.. are
all doing big business in India. If they prefer not to hire americans
due to the high cost of living, that is a different issue. But the
vendors are really going great guns here.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
-and that means the call centres providing
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
services for US customers will now provide services for domestic
customers [and you will have lesser reason to call us parasites].
If anyone's calling you "parasites" it isn't me.
I didn't mean you -but that is the general attitude of people towards
Indians doing offshored work. In some ways the complaint is valid
because the one paying for the services is an american who would want
to help his fellow american land a job -but the mgmt wouldn't let him.
But if currency distortions were removed -India as a country would be
a big consumer of american goods , and critics will not have a problem
if the american company producing the goods hires many Indians in
return.
regards
-kamal
straydog
2005-02-20 02:23:39 UTC
Permalink
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 14:27:08 -0600
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
All this talk by Kamal about currency & etc---it isnt that hard.
So long are there are people living in squalor on this planet, the
outsourcing of labor will be a problem. After India industrializes to
the point that it's standard of living is substantially improved,
labor will be outsourced somewhere else.
This sounds like a reasonable extrapolation but the following situations
may also be possible:
1. Continued job loss from the US (our loss in average standard of living
for most people, gains for the few rich) and net influx of money to 3rd
world. End result for the US: become 3rd world.
2. Revolution some decades from now? (aka Russia, ~1917)
3. Borgification of human life (implants, massive intel on citizens [eg.
ChoicePoint]) viz. future like in the Terminator movies (machines out
mowing down people) and others. See footnote 1.
4. Intellectual enlightenment, pursuit of fairness in society. See
footnote 2.
5. Some combination of some of above.
We will only know that this problem is starting to come back into
equilibriuam when we hear about labor being outsourced to sub-Saharan
Africa. My guess is that that will be the last bastion of
low-standard-of-living left behind as the rest of the world
industrializes.
Cheap flesh (if it is educated, skilled, and compliant) may win out if
manchines (automation and nanotech) can't do the work. Nanotech? See
footnote 1.

Low standard of living may be everywhere. Another article in WSJ reported
on a study that employment even in India and China is down. Why? All
factories are becoming more _efficient_. Good for the bottom line. Bad if
you have a society where you _have to_ have money to buy your support
(food, housing) but the managers won't hire enough for money to be widely
circulated.
Now, how LONG will it take to get to that point? Hard to tell.
The clear thing is that we--in the US--WILL see our standard of living
decline, and very substantially, either slowly or all at once. All
the forces are pointing in that direction, and I don't see anything
that can clearly be done to stop that. Arguably it has been happening
here since about the early 70s anyhow.
I think this is approximately correct. A _few_ 9/11s and our stock market
will tank, then depression. Other things could bring on a sudden,
unpredictable bad result. Continued slow job loss...will be paralleled
with a slow decline in standard of living. Lots of voices out there on
this.
The question is--what will be our response to this? People get very
angry when their expectations are dashed. And remember, people think
in an extrapolatory mode. They look at how much better they did than
their parents and expect the same slope.
Again, arguably, some of the bad stuff to come from this inevitable
downward pressure on our standard of living has already happened--e.g.
we are invading countries pre-emptively now.
What's next? Iran, Korea?
I don't know what the answer is.
I don't either, but I think about historical models. The women's movement
has attracted some attention and some reform. The civil rights movement
did, too. There are many grass-roots special interest movements that are
altruistic in nature but are too narrow. Governance is our main problem
(the politicos respond mostly to lobbying from special interests that are
focused on making money for a few people but not in the best interests of
the average citizen). One nice model I like to think about is the Magna
Carta model (in year 1215 the underlings made the king sign a 'great
charter' in which the king had to agree that he had to obey the laws, too
[however, see footnote 2, below]).


Footnote 1: I just saw recently a big newspaper article on the
robotification of our military. Scifi? Remember the robot car races from
what, 1-2 years ago? They all crashed. One day, they may not. But, why is
this a big deal? Burried in the newspaper article was the fact that our
military needs $650 billion (thats "b" as in big ones), right now, to pay
for retirement/pensions for existing servicemen. THAT is what is driving
robotification!!! Not high tech warm-fuzzy "saving lives" or
fancy-schmantzy. Save money in the budget. Next naval ships will be missle
barges. Crew of 20. Radar, computers, and lots of cruise missles.
"Predator" aircrafts are already here.

Footnote 2: Wishing to start from some common and established history of
the Magna Carta, I sellected a website (URL below) from Google and most of
the text under that subject. I made a few comments but otherwise changed
nothing, not even spelling, punctuations, etc., except formating to fit
this page. Someday I will read more about the Magna Carta (I hope).

http://www.infokey.com/hon/magna.htm
========================

The Magna Carta

If we take a more objective view of popular history we might
achieve a very different picture of the reason for the signing of
the Magna Carta.

For instance, who, could answer the following:

Which Prince of France, invaded Britain with his great army,
and was crowned King of England in London?

No, not Duke William of Normandy. Nor is it a trick question.
It happened, and he was King for almost a year and isn't even
mentioned in the Roll Call of English kings.

While you ponder that, here's another example of slanted
history. Let's take a look at, some say, the fiendish Prince John,
the lovely Maid Marion, the equally beautiful Robin Hood, and, not
forgetting, of course, the dastardly Sheriff of Nottingham (boo, hiss, etc)
and the dawn of enlightenment and freedom represented by the Magna Carta.
Never was a buckler more swashed in days of yore.

The Magna Carta is a fact, it really does exist, several of them.
One now rests in the archives of Lincoln Cathedral, and in Salisbury, and
other places. The history of the evolution of the Magna Carta in
Anglo\Norman England has been shrouded by romance but it is often
referred with sufficient vagueness as a sort of " statement of human
rights", "freedom", "liberties" and "equality" document, or a
constitutional forerunner, representative of the freedom from oppression
of the 'the common people'. The U.S constitution may be termed to
have been created by a revolution from oppression and in some ways
modelled after the Magna Carta. But the ancient Magna Carta may
have been a conspiracy to conquer from within, promoted from
outside the country.

Let's take a quick realistic peek at the way things may have
been in a world less tinctured with rose colored glasses.

Many sites on the Web will give you the admirable content
of the Magna Carta. Click on to Alta Vista at "Magna Carta" when
you have time. Lot's of time. But read this first.

Now the reality. History did not treat King John well.
Whichever way we relate to it now, the Magna Carta was born of a
complex revolution, probably resulting from a well planned and
massive French/Scottish invasion of England, which had many
different interests at its essence, religious power, royal
prerogatives, national and international greed, upper class avarice,
avoidance of tax and obligations, and many other vicissitudes of
powerful men. The needs of the common folk, mostly the still landless
Anglo\Saxon, were way down the list, may never have appeared,
even in fine print. And anyway, the persecution of the 'common folk'
or peasantry was more on the backs of the rebellious Norman
Barons who were their liege lords, rather than personally by
King John, or John Lackland, as he was known.

The episode started with Richard the Lion Heart (he couldn't
have been known as Richard 1st because nobody knew whether
there'd be another Richard). Richard sold the three northern
counties of England to the King of Scotland for 10,000 crowns and
took off to the Crusades, a good investment at the time, as the
Knights Templar later proved. He, in his own time, was a bit of a
rake. He had departed the scene, thereby diminishing royal power
and reducing his responsibilities in light of total baronial unrest
and an almost bankrupt country. Nominally he was still King but
most historians agree he would not have been a suitable candidate
as a King of England for a variety of reasons. But he was rightful
heir to the throne, being his father's first born. Fortunately,
most of his reign after his corontation was in abstentia, for
one reason or another.

Richard had a young nephew and presumed heir, Arthur. He also had
a younger brother, Prince John, eventually to be King John. Both
were rapscallion sons of Henry II. John was the same despotic Prince
John who was character assassinated, along with the Sheriff of
Nottingham, and gave us the legendary 'Robin Hood', an Oscar winning
movie, and its many remakes. Robin, incidentally, started the whole
concept of taxation in general, and it, somehow, got all tangled
up with the wonderfulness of the Magna Carta, democracy, motherhood
and apple pie. Robin's socialist theme of taking from the rich or
taxable and giving to the poor, noble though it was, somehow
backfired on us. Now we're all taxed. Hand me the Kleenex, Lizzie.

However, John was not in total accord with the Charter of
Liberties, a proposal presented to his great grandfather, King Henry
1st by the ancestors of the northern barons almost a century before.
Through the following succession of kings John inherited most of his,
Henry's, problems, just as he, himself, passed many unresolved problems
down to his own grandson, Edward 1st.

We could assume we've set the table for the image of King John as
King of England, but that's not totally true. We've got to consider
some of the run up history which set this table. This whole messy
episode started almost two centuries before with King Edward the
Confessor, or maybe his mother Emma, daughter of Duke Richard 1st
(the Frearless) of Normandy. This introduces a clash between the
traditional history of Edward as a saintly Saxon King, and the more
enlightened modern version. Edward, it is true, was part Saxon, son of
Ethelred, but his ambience, his scholarship, his pre-conquest English
court was Norman.

Now we must turn our attention north to Scotland and King
Malcolm Canmore(Great Head). This son of Duncan 1st of Scotland
was sent down to King Edward's Norman court in England, probably
as a hostage, by the Earl of Northumbria after the McBeth affair.
He was returned to Scotland in 1058 to become King. Malcolm had
absorbed Norman and continental scholarship. He had undoubtedly
visited Normandy. He took back with him to Scotland his newly
acquired Norman feudality. He began seeding Norman barons into
Scotland. His second wife Margeret was also a cultured continental
devotee to the Norman style, encouraged Norman migration north,
even though she was a granddaughter of Saxon King Edmund Ironside
for which she is usually noted. The Normanization of Scotland
continued unabated through to Alexander 1st who was brother-in-law of
Henry 1st of England, and married Henry's daughter, Sybilla.
The two Royal houses continued their uncertain liaison. Meanwhile,
the three northern counties of England, swung back and forth,
all in the family squabble. King David of Scotland, son of
Malcolm Canmore, brother in law of Henry 1st, Duke of Normandy and
King of England, also spent his youth in England. He married
Matilda of Huntingdon and became the Earl of Huntingdon.
He acquired many titles and great riches. Ascending the
Scottish throne in 1124 and taking many English Norman nobles
north with him, he finally subdued the men of Moray to the north.
Norman seeding continued voraciously in lowland Scotland. After
Henry of England died in 1135 David was pursuaded by the men of
Galloway to go after the three northern English counties again.
The Battle of the Standard at Northallerton was a disaster and
he retired back to Scotland. Henry II of England demanded homage
from Malcolm IV, son of David, at Chester in 1157, confirmed
the three counties to be English. He took him, Malcolm, off on
a tour of France for a couple of years just to get his mind off
things, particularly the three counties, and establish his own
absolute suzeraignty.

[for those who don't know what a suzeranty is, its like an alliance
whereby one of the parties is subserviant to the other, viz. puppet regimes,
"satellites," client states eg. the flocks around 1st world and other
flocks around 2nd world and the unaligned nations are 3rd world]

However, Malcolm's brother, William (the Lion), who succeeded
him as King of Scotland in 1165, violently disagreed with this
arrangement and re-claimed Cumberland, Westmorland and Northumberland
as his own. This proposal didn't get too far with Henry II in
Normandy, so William appealed to Louis VII of France, from whence
sprang a friendship known as "The Auld Alliance" in Scotland. Now
more confident of his claim, an ill-equipped William of Scotland
tripped off down to Alnwick with an army but also lost out, captured
by Henry II, who then put him through the indignities, and occupied
a few strategic Scottish castles with English troops for the next
fifteen years. In 1189, William's kin and old arch enemy, Henry II died.
His son, Richard the Lion Heart succeeded, became fascinated with the
Crusades, and King William of Scotland loadned or gave him 10.000 marks
to get lost from England. It must be assumed he didn't buy chopped
liver. But the three counties continued to be the big bone of
contention with John of England who succeeded Richard in 1199. After
many minor border sorties between William and John, William died in
1214. The date is significantly one year before the Magna Carta affair
and the three counties was still a hot issue. William's son,
Alexander II of Scotland succeeded and rabidly pursued his father's
claim to the three northern counties. He was son-in-law of King
John of England. He ventured into northern England. Sorely annoyed
at his son-in-law's indiscretion, King John came storming north and
torched the eastern border towns of Berwick, Roxburgh, Coldingham
and Haddington. Somewhat put out, Alexander resurrected The Auld
Alliance with the Dauphin of France and tentatively invaded England
^^^^^^^

[There is significance to this word, too, but not important enough to
explain, now]

again, despite his two daughters being hostage in King John's
custody. Alexander surreptitiously enlisted the aid of, and
organized the northern English baron's, although he didn't display
his hand openly. Thus, under the guise of democracy began the
embarrassment to King John of England known as the Magna Carta.

John's notion had been to take from everybody, particularly
the rich everybodies, and give all to John and England, which only
seemed reasonable at the time.

[I have to 'take' it, then, that this, above, roughly defines a _theif_]

Normans and Anglo Normans had found this to be a very effective
administrative method of money and resource management for centuries.
Without money the nation would wither on the vine, a victim of every
predator in Europe, particularly, France.

At his death, Richard had left John with an empty treasury.
He had not only taken the Scottish King's 10K Merks, but he'd
liberated the English treasury at Winchester. John's domains were
vulnerable. He, John, was notable for establishing the first regulated,
true weight, coin of the realm. The monks of the time, and later,
gave John very bad press, which has prevailed to this day but
for a very different reason than is supposed. At the beginning of his
reign he had approved the election of Grey to be the Archbishop of
Canterbury. The Pope favoured Stephen Langton. John refused to
accept this political appointment. The King of kings, as the pope
was known, closed down the churches in England in retaliation, zap.
This would last six or seven years. No baptisms, no marriages, no
last rites, no church tithes. The church became poor. As it turned
out, the common people were not too unhappy with this state of affairs.
But that's a whole different story and probably the most important
contribution to John's bad press by the monks and prelates, the
principal chroniclers of the day. It was even worse than the tabloids
of today. He was called slothful, warped by his passions, and
flaunted the vices of a sordid King. And John's image is further
darkened in perpetuity with every re-make of Robin Hood and in
every kindergarten play. Nevertheless, he more than survived
in his own time. He turned out to be one of the best general/king
strategists England had known, considering the times and the
situation he had inherited. He united Britain as no predecessor
had done. He actually lived in England, the first Duke of
Normandy to do so since the Norman Conquest. Money problems were
eroding his domains. His resistance in northern France and
Normandy considerably annoyed the King of France.

It was claimed John polished off Arthur, his nephew and the
rightful heir to Richard's throne. Could be. But, the court of
peers in France did not support the accusation that John murdered
Arthur, a fable previously reported as absolute fact by the
chroniclers, but now moderated somewhat, down to a reluctant maybe.
Instead, the crime has been established with Peter de Meuly,
squire of King Richard. No reason for the act is forthcoming.

He, John, ruled England and his domains for the first six or
seven years after his official coronation on April.14 1203,
(succeeded 1199) and controlled the growing turbulence and greed
within his Anglo/Norman barons and tenants-in-chief, particularly
the northern barons. Lord Robert FitzWalter was the leading agitator.
His record was far from clean. He had surrendered Vaudreuil in France
to the French king in 1203 under very suspicious circumstances, a
pivotal action in the loss of John's Normandy interests to Philipe of
France. Unrest was growing. On the continent John continued to fare
less successfully.

John, England's first resident King of the Norman/Angevin l
ine managed a reasonable but uneasy peace as he restored the
treasury, and his reserves. Then his taxes on the Anglo/Norman
barons became more oppressive, or at least, more demanding. He
continued to ruffle the feathers of his tenants-in-chief. John
wanted more action in France to retrive his Norman domains and
got the same reaction from his barons as the much later Henry V
got prior to his Agincourt venture. Duke William, 150 years before
had also had problems with those same barons and he took an army of
40,000 north and wasted the land with a devastating scorched earth
policy, so much so, that the Domesday surveyors, 20 years after
the Conquest, ignored the northern counties as a wasteland. This
conflict between baron and king diminished the crown's
effectiveness as a major continental power. History was about to repeat
itself again, as it did with Henry 1st and his immediate successors.

The first Barons rebellion led by Fitzwalter was in 1212 which
King John handled with relative ease. Fitzwalter fled to France.
Vesci, his cohort, was befriended by the Scottish King William
to the north. Where else?

Distance, it seems, anything beyond fifty miles of London,
promoted ambition, greed, autonomy and power plays amongst
the Anglo/ Norman barons, particularly in northern England,
Ireland and Wales. Remember, however, at the same time, in the
background, John's forceful and annoying movement into France,
and his clever generalship which was ever threatening to the
French King. The reinstated northern Barons arose again in 1215,
still under the same leadership.Fitzwalter had returned, he
and Vesci were now supported by King Alexander of Scotland.

The northern Earls, led again by Lord Robert Fitzwalter,
with Eustace de Vesci and Saire de Quincey and others were
the power hungry instigators of the rebellion, not the common
people, as the Robin Hood legend would have us believe, and as
we shall see. The barons just wanted a bigger piece of their own
domains, pay less taxes. Robin of Loxley, if such a person
existed, probably was a small player fighting to regain his
inconspicuous family seat in Staffordshire the best way he
knew how. He was not even a good supporting actor.

But there were other international players. The pope had
been dealt into the game 150 years before when his predecessor
had given the papal ring to Duke William in his invasion of
England which culminated in the Hastings victory. The pope was
vitally interested. In papal eyes, England was the property
of the Lord Pope. During his rule King John played political
games which would make modern diplomats and senators look like
amateurs. He played barons against barons, nations against nations,
barons against pope, pope against the King of France, the French
King against the Dauphin, his son and heir, even the Germans,
the Swabians, the Flemish, bought in. John trod a fine line of
promises, promises, which, like all good politicians, he never
kept. But he was in command at all times. He played foreward
and rearguard actions against friends, relatives and enemies alike.

John didn't succeed in his next visit to France, mostly
because he couldn't get the support from those Anglo Norman
barons of the north, who were blackmailing him and with good
reason, as we shall see. He was forced to return to England
when battles were going well in France, to deal directly
with the barons uprising. In modern terms we would have called
this a fifth column activity. He returned from France leaving
command to his nephew, the German Emperor Otto who really messed
up on John's behalf.

John was excommunicated from the Church, so, in compromise,
he regained his good standing by giving England to the Church in
Rome, but failed to come through with the contract, had no intention
of doing so. He stalled. To avoid the issue, he invaded Scotland,
received the Scottish King's fealty, and took the King's two sisters
or daughters as hostages, a normal but all important practice of
maintaining power, insurance to keep the tryst. He invaded Ireland,
and forced Anglo/Norman barons, the chiefs and petty kings to
give allegiance. He invaded Wales, took thirty hostages,
stopped off at Chester and attainted a couple of his own unruly
barons. His forays were impeccable. His two main objectives
were to protect his money and the hostages in his royal castles
supervised by trusted men. Hostages were not ill-treated and
many roamed relatively free on their own cognizance but they
were an important polital tool of power in those days.

The Barons in the north had appealed to the French King
Philipe against the progressive abuse. The King of France was
presented with a glorious opportunity (if he hadn't thought of
it and prepared for it two years before, wink, wink, and had
probably made Fitzwalter many promises of glory and riches
while he, Fitzwalter, was in France in exhile). But John
kept up his onslaught of the Barons. He wrecked their estates,
took more hostages, and redistributed the power more evenly.

Finally, John was reluctantly forced to deal with his
rebellious barons at Runnemede outside Windsor Castle in
June 1215. They were headed by the Family Compact. He had
danced this force of 2000 knights around southern England
for a month with promises, promises he would meet them.
They had marched from Northampton, to Bedford, to Stamford,
to Brackery (Brackley), and to Oxford. The force become
desperate, and some were becoming irresolute, supplies low.
The barons delivered their 'Articles of the Barons' (the
extant "Unknown Charter of Liberties") April 27th. May 5th
they arrived in Wallingford and formally renounced their
allegiance to King John. Fitzwalter was unanimously chosen
their leader. Had this been the secret signal to the King
of France that an invasion of England was a feasible
opportunity, and began putting the final touches to his plan?

John finally faced his rebellious Barons. Was John just gaining
time with an appeasement? Was he concerned more about the loyalties
of the many other tenants-in-chief, outside of the influence of this
motely crew, his nobles and knights who were probably, collectively,
much more powerful than the 2000 who were there at Runnemede?

The compromises John offered them were relatively small,
and amounted to a limp olive branch. He'd prepared his
offering, not much different to that which Henry 1st had offered a
century before. The major additional concessions were John's
agreement to release his hostages, ensuring his loss of power,
and to allow virtual rule of England by the 25 surety barons.
The frills included much which merely confirmed the existing
practices of John's, Sheriffs and Serjeants, much of which had
been conceeded by Henry 1st. John, as king of England, couldn't
have been taking the whole thing very seriously, in light of his
post Magna Carta actions. It took four or five days under a tent
to get their agreement. It was sealed June 15th 1215 but it probably
was really argued and agreed four or five days earlier by Stephen
Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury. It became law June 19th In
apparent defeat, John instructed William, Earl of Salisbury to
return all confiscated lands and parks to the Surety barons. The
Magna Carta was born and John shared rule with an oligarchical
committee. The barons had won in principle. At this point, it
should be well to recognize that of the 25 Surety Barons of
the Magna Carta, 22 of them were interrelated by either
blood or marriage.

[I hope it escaped nobody's attention that this is nepostism and thus is
related to career issues since it demonstrates that CV's of merit have not
a chance in hell of beating bloodlines]

Talk about all in the family. But that's not the end of the story.

Pope Innocent annulled and abrogated the Magna Carta and described
it as a conspiracy against, and persecution of, his vassal, King John
of England.

[in the past, the church had enormous power. almost unimaginable]

He ordered Stephen Langton to excommunicate all the baron
signatories to the Magna Carta. On September 24th 1215 Pope Innocent
excommunicated all the rebellious surety Barons again, because
Langton had refused to do so. The baron's attempt to implement the
Magna Carta resulted in armed conflict. The situation became serious
but in John's eyes, not hopeless. Nevertheless, he cautiously
withdrew all his royal regalia and jewels from the monasteries.

Officially, on paper, John acknowledged that England still
belonged to Pope Innocent, leastwise, that was what he privately
smirked. King John was just the Pope's vassal but, importantly,
this relegated his barons down in the pecking order to mere
under-tenants, a very different social and power status, and
essentially, reduced them to being landless. John retired to the
countryside and defended his royal castles beyond, and nominally
complied. He release a few hostages, and readjusted some of his
administrative functions and loyal men.

One would normally assume that a wonderful shroud of peace,
quiet and plentitude would settle gently over the land. John had
been subdued. But, the Surety Baron's had negotiated an
instrument which now legalized what amounted to high treason.
They, the oligarchy, could present John with any concocted grievance
and unless corrected within 40 days, he could virtually lose his throne.
But they still lacked most of the hostages. They still lacked real
power. They were apprehensive about John's loyal tenants in chief,
the real power behind the throne. And John now realized the barons were
not about to relinquish London, where they had taken control. However,
John still had control of most of the rest of England, Wales and
Ireland by trusted barons and tenant's-in-chief. This doesn't reflect
the unanimous displeasure of John's rule, as popular history reports,
certainly not as much as we are led to believe by the Magna Carta,
and its caricature of history. The north was now well controlled.
John's strong ring around London with castles at Norwich, Wisbech,
Cambridge, Nottingham, Oxford, Wallingford, Corfe, Winchester,
Dover and his base at Windsor presented a formidable stance
circling London. Later he fixed his headquarters in Kent.

The conspiracy which started way back in 1203 now
emerged in full force. The Dauphin of France invaded England,
with almost as big an invasion force as the Battle of Hastings,
600 ships, compared to the Hastings invasion of 696 ships. The timing
of this D Day type invasion and its logistics must have been secretly
planned at Rouen for many, many months, possibly a couple of years,
probably way before the Baron's uprising, and may even have started
with John's first Barons uprising in 1212. The French landed at
Stanhope on May 21st 1216, despite the wrath of the Pope. John
had assembled his fleet off the mouth of the Thames, but missed the
Dauphin by that much in a storm. The Dauphin disembarked at Sandwich
and proceeded to London. John offered token resistance and wisely
retreated to Winchester. The French laid siege to Winchester and
Dover on June 14th but John was no dullard hero Harold of Hastings
loss, he had retreated, and was on his way to Windsor ten days
before. He wanted to choose his own ground, his own tactics. Dover
Castle, on the other hand, held out until Oct.14th.

Surprisingly, this later conquest of England has little press
at all in English history.

[Many hundreds of years earlier, the Romans controlled most of the east of
England at least until the Western Roman Empire collapsed, but this is a
digression. The Vikings were there at a later time, but before the French]

Encyclopedia Britannica calls it in
passing merely 'an intervention' during John's reign. London
and much of the home counties were occupied by the Dauphin
and the French army for almost a year and although nominally
still England, it was now French occupied territory with an army of
probably over 35,000 men in place. What happened to this little reported
historical fact? Is it overshadowed by the gloriously democratic
romance of the Magna Carta,

[Ahhhhh, nothing nicer than warm-fuzzy, touchie-feelie, easter bunnies,
and tooth fairys?]

and all the legal scholastic attention it receives, and rightly deserves.
The barons were, after all, supposedly the heroes of English history
who had won the day at Runnemede. The family affair. Why didn't this
invasion rank right up there with Hastings? It was most likely the
fruition of a long term plan by the King of France ( part of The
Auld Alliance?) to invade England, using the conspiracy of the northern
Barons, FitzWalter and his cliche in particular, and their apparently
noble principles, as a distraction, a justification, and another popular
crusade.

In the meantime, here is the answer to the quiz question above.
With great pomp, on June 2nd the Barons and all London citizenry
(the nouveau riche) gathered and formally recognized the French Dauphin,
Prince Louis, at St.Paul's in London as the King of England, crowned
him, and gave him homage with great pomp and celebration. Since
May 24th the Dauphin had despatched his emissaries to the north
and west. He, the Dauphin, now King of England, also claimed
Scotland and Ireland from whom he received fealty from those
delegates, probably with promises of releases of all hostages
taken from Alexander of Scotland and Llewelyn of Wales. After all,
the King of Scotland might get his two daughters back. The French
invasion had been very successful. Theoretically, King John
was now an outlaw in his own country.

However, the Pope, perhaps with some prescience, or perhaps
with precise intelligence reports about the pending invasion of
England by the French, had excommunicated the King of France, the
Dauphin and all their accomplices by name, on May 28th after the
invasion, a sentence of the great conclave of Rome. The French were
about to invade papal territory. The Barons had been excommunicated
previously. King John continued to rampage against the Dauphin's
forces with much success, and the Pope's tacit aproval. On Oct.9th
he visited Lynn and was feasted by the burgers( not hamburgers). He
fell ill with what has been described as dysentery (possibly poisoned ?).
Unwell, he moved north and struggled to Newark Castle. He died
Oct.18th (some say 19th) and was buried in Worcester Cathedral,
robbed of his valuables by the household members in his train.

John's son and heir, ten year old Henry the Third, ascended
the 'throne'. The regent and guardian of the new King was William
Marshall, King John's man, and a half brother whom he had appointed
Earl of Salisbury, Marshall of all his army and of all England,
two years before. This despite his treason after the fall of
Winchester. He had now apparently returned to John's cause.

After John's death, William Marshall, the new protector and
Regent of England, recruited and reinforced the already powerful
royal Anglo/Norman army, with mercenaries and the many friendly
Anglo/Norman barons. He planned to rid England of the Dauphin and
all these ambitious French undesirables. Bear in mind, they were
French, not Norman as he was. Nominally a lawyer, he soon learned the military skills. Marshall ran a vigorous campaign against Prince Louis, the self-proclaimed King of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, and his French army who were still occupying London with our 'heroes', the traitorous Magna Carta Barons, now the acknowledged vassals of the Dauphin and the King of France.

In 1217, William Marshall took Saire de Quincey's Castle of
Montserol. Lord Robert Fitzwalter, the principal instigator of the
barons rebellion, who was still in London, and had now elevated himself
to "Marshall of the Army of God", presumably in competition with Pope
Innocent, or at least, revealing his aspirations to powerful grandeur.
Here is perhaps revealed Fitzwalter's real objectives. He raised an
army of 600 knights and 20,000 French soldiers, and advanced on Marshall.
Fitzwalter, and the Dauphin, the new King of England, and the Count of
Perche his military commander, marched on Montserol. Marshall wisely
retreated to Nottingham.

The Count of Perche, after finding Montserol empty but secure,
moved his force to Lincoln Castle, another royal castle. Marshall,
with reinforcements, now including his own son, William Marshall
jr, and other apprehensive defectors from the Magna Carta barons
who had departed from their surety, promptly advanced on Lincoln
and laid siege. The French army and the traitorous Anglo/Norman
barons were driven back into the Castle. The seige rampaged. Most
of the Magna Carta Barons and 300 other knights were taken prisoner.
There was slaughter enacted by Marshall's superior force, and much
blood letting, some say it flowed in the streets, others say it was
the blood of women and children, depending on which report you read,
but that's how it happens in the reporting of war.

Many of the remnants of the French army were attacked and mauled
on the way back to London from Lincoln by an army which now included
the legions of the "common folk". The Dauphin's worst fears were realized.
The common people, those "poor and oppressed majority" were with
King John, had been all the time. These were the people King John had
been accused of abusing. The Magna Carta Surety Barons were now
landless, without castles, as well as excommunicated, including
Lord Fitzwalter, the Marshall of God, and self appointed governor
of London. William Marshall retook London and the Tower without
resistance, since there wasn't much left of the French army. The
Dauphin and his remnant rag and bobtail army were allowed to
leave England, unarmed, heads bowed, by a pact signed, very significantly
and ironically, at Runnemede in 1217, almost two years after the
Magna Carta signing. This also didn't get much press, either.

Henry III was now undisputed King of England and would
issue his own charters. The excommunicated and abrogated
Magna Carta was history, and the status quo with the church,
whatever that amounted to, would remain for another 150 years
until the advent of Henry VIII, the dissolution of the monasteries
and the Reformation. So endeth a window in popular history
distorted by romance, fiction and religion, but now told with a different pen.

What was it all about? On the one hand, we can say that the
Magna Carta was an appeasement to a ransom by an uneasy family
compact of Anglo/Norman robber barons, supposedly representing
the 'common people', and who didn't succeed in their grand
scheme( or, perhaps, the grand scheme of the Kings of France
and Scotland hatched almost a year before the Magna Carta).
But it was also, perhaps, the ancient culmination of a family
feud between the royal houses of Scotland and England (or Normandy)
and the barons merely their willing agents or accomplices. The common
people, had little participation. On the other hand, with equal force,
we can claim it was a noble expression of the lofty ideals of
man and the basis for democratic principles. At the time, the real
cause had little relevance, except, perhaps, in King John's eyes,
his retrieval of continental territory and status, and his
contribution to English or Norman history. Nevertheless, it
is an important part of our heritage even if the purpose and
motives are oft misquoted and distorted. King John has never
been completely redeemed from his character assignation by the
church but that would make sense. Yet we might also call him
one of the greatest heroes in English history, albeit Anglo/Norman.
If John's brinkmanship had not succeeded, England might now be
French, or even German. WWII might have found Europe totally
capitulated to Hitler. The Magna Carta a heap of smoldering
ashes in a world of fascism.

Was the whole episode, in fact, just a religious power
struggle of uncertain merit, clouded and coupled with the
machinations of land hungry Kings? Before making much of the
Magna Carta, we must realize the conditions of treachery, and
counter treachery which were normal for the time and this would
apply to all the players. This synopsis is brief compared to
some that have been written, from very many points of view.

In our Nametrace search, however, the event produced records
which are invaluable. Not only were the 25 Baron sureties for the
Magna Carta named but also many of the lesser 2000 supportive
noble and knight landholders on both sides. It pieces together
a list of Norman magnates which looked remarkably similar to the
Battell Abbey Roll of Duke William's companions at the Battle
of Hastings 150 years before. Nothing much had changed. Normans
had distributed themselves throughout England, Scotland and
Ireland. The Gaels to the north and west of Scotland, and the
Islands were the only race to remain relatively free of their
powerful influence. The Saxons were still landless and a
very minor influence in the affairs of state. In general, they
were still the peasantry, apart from the rich merchant class of
London, those that gave allegiance to the Dauphin, and were
excommunicated along with him. In fact, almost everybody
of note was excommunicated at one time or another. This episode,
like the Domesday Book, the Ragman Rolls, Gerald Cambrensis Annals
(of the Irish invasion by Strongbow in 1172), the Pipe rolls,
and other early extant archives, are very useful in giving us
at the Hall of Names International reflection on the earliest
crude surname development in the vital protection of
Anglo/Norman property rights in all Britain

Thus, the distortions of history are shaped to suit each
generation, each century, each nation. If, however, we are the
product of history and it is more meaningful to us than a
passing interest, our survival (see DNA, this website), then
our real racial background and origins may be very important
in carving our future and those that follow.


Surety Barons for the enforcement of the abrogated
Magna Carta. (All excommunicated by Pope Innocent)

* William d'Albini, Lord of Belvoir Castle.
* Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk.
* Hugh Bigod, Heir to the Earldoms of Norfolk and Suffolk.
* Henry de Bohun, Earl of Hereford.
* Richard de Clare, Earl of Hertford.
* Gilbert de Clare, heir to the earldom of Hertford.
* John FitzRobert, Lord of Warkworth Castle.
* Robert FitzWalter, Lord of Dunmow Castle.
* William de Fortibus, Earl of Albemarle.
* William Hardell, Mayor of the City of London.
* William de Huntingfield, Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk.*
* John de Lacie, Lord of Pontefract Castle.
* William de Lanvallei, Lord of Standway Castle.
* William Malet, Sheriff of Somerset and Dorset.
* Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex and Gloucester.
* William Marshall jr, heir to the earldom of Pembroke.
* Roger de Montbegon, Lord of Hornby Castle.
* Richard de Montfichet, Baron.
* William de Mowbray, Lord of Axholme Castle.
* Richard de Percy, Baron.
* Saire de Quincey, Earl of Winchester.
* Robert de Roos, Lord of Hamlake Castle.
* Geoffrey de Saye, Baron.
* Robert de Vere, heir to the earldom of Oxford.
* Eustace de Vesci, Lord of Alnwick Castle.

Of these 25 signatories, 16 died within 15 years

Following are some of the major feudal supporting Barons of the 2000 force.
They had previously been tenants-in-chief, the King's Common Counsel.

There are two lists. The first, those against the King,
followed by the smaller list, those loyal to the King. We are
sure this latter list is only representative of the majority of
tenants-in-chief who were not committed to the conspiracy. Most
chose 'a wait-and-see' approach on the side lines. You will
see that some families were divided in their allegiances,
some within a family joined one side, other relatives the other.
It was an early form of insurance. A win, win situation.


[this part may have been on another html page, but is omitted here out of
expediency]
Kamal R. Prasad
2005-02-20 15:46:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian G. Moore
All this talk by Kamal about currency & etc---it isnt that hard.
So long are there are people living in squalor on this planet, the
outsourcing of labor will be a problem. After India industrializes to
the point that it's standard of living is substantially improved,
labor will be outsourced somewhere else.
Looks like you do have a problem with understanding me -as do many
other people. It isn;t about std of living -its about inflated
currency. Canada has a weaker currency than the US, but a higher std
of living. It also has a smaller deficit (none if Im right). If std of
living were an issue, then you should be able to live as comfortably
in the US as it takes in USD to live comfortably in India. But that is
not the case because there is no parity in purchasing power between
USD and Indian rupee. You can't keep blaming poor people in other
countries for the cheap tricks of your own govt.
Post by Brian G. Moore
We will only know that this problem is starting to come back into
equilibriuam when we hear about labor being outsourced to sub-Saharan
Africa. My guess is that that will be the last bastion of
low-standard-of-living left behind as the rest of the world
industrializes.
How about E. Europe? They too have a lot of poverty. For that matter,
there is high unemployment and poverty in Germany. But the equivalent
cost of living (for a dismal std of living) means that work won't be
shifting from US to germany.
Post by Brian G. Moore
Now, how LONG will it take to get to that point? Hard to tell.
The clear thing is that we--in the US--WILL see our standard of living
decline, and very substantially, either slowly or all at once. All
the forces are pointing in that direction, and I don't see anything
that can clearly be done to stop that. Arguably it has been happening
here since about the early 70s anyhow.
Std of living in the US has been declining despite a rising dollar
(just check the charts instead of believing me). But a stronger
currency means you can buy better cars, dvd cameras, digital cameras
etc.. even if it means smaller houses, lower savings rate etc..
Post by Brian G. Moore
The question is--what will be our response to this? People get very
angry when their expectations are dashed. And remember, people think
in an extrapolatory mode. They look at how much better they did than
their parents and expect the same slope.
Again, arguably, some of the bad stuff to come from this inevitable
downward pressure on our standard of living has already happened--e.g.
we are invading countries pre-emptively now.
Just because the US has invaded Iraq pre-emptively doesn't mean it has
achieved any goals. it could well be something he wishes he hadn't
done in retrospect. Not everyone who is chasing gold can actually get
his hands on it -and many go crazy to the pt that they end up digging
their own graves.

regards
-kamal
Post by Brian G. Moore
I don't know what the answer is.
Brian Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
<snip>
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
I didn't suggest the govt shouldn't do anything. But what I
would
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
suggest the US govt to do is different from what you would
suggest. I
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
would suggest that they devalue the USD so that cost of
living
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
comes
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
down and gets to the same level (or not much different from )
other
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
countries. When that happens, companies will find it viable
to
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
employ
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
americans instead of Indians without being arm-twisted (which
trust
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
me
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
is not doable anyway).
To do so to _that_ level is impossible, if not flat-out
ridiculous.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
If the expected depression happens then the same result will
occur.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
He has one point in that given the current circumstances either
we
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
do this by choice, or the world economy will force the same
outcome
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
on us with much more repercussions.
Kinda close. When govts participate in the currency market to inflate
currency -it is like insider trading and it does catch up someday.
Inflating a currency is like fooling the world. You can fool some
people all of the time -the whole world for some time, but not the
whole world forever. The easy way is for govts. to stop fooling the
world -so that currency rates are in line with their purchasing power
and that in turn reduces job shifta from countries with stronger
currencies. The hard way is that unemployment shoots up and the bluff
is called, for the dollar to crash vs the rupee. Choose your poison
-but forget about being able to sustain 5x Indian salaries for the
same productivity as in India. And there is no such thing as going up
the value chain to survive or maintaining a lock on any sensitive
technologies. You don't need an H1b visa to acquire grey matter
between your ears. People in India are as capable of doing good engg
work without ever visiting the US.
Well, I've been doing nothing but finding inexcusable errors in some
designs coming directly from our Indian design center. The same error,
basically. When my boss tried to ask "just what is going on over there,
why hasn't someone solved this problem yet," he was basically told on
the sly to shut his mouth. A few hundred thousand dollars worth of
wasted silicon and who knows how much engineering time later... I just
What kind of work gets done at the Indian design centre depends on
both the quality of manpower hired -as well as how well communication
errors are resolved. I worked at IBM India -and the mgmt was extremely
miserly and hired the cheapest manpower with the result that the US
office was seldom happy with the output. That doesn't mean the country
as a whole is incapable of producing good engrs -just that acc to the
law of free market economics, you get what you pay for.
As far as communication problems go, I read an article in ACM's
Queue magazine by a british consultant titled "Pitfalls on the
passage to India" in which he said that the same engr who does a good
job when working onsite fails to deliver the goods offshore because he
does not have the advantage of interacting in person to do a
requirement analysis. When you interact in person, you can read the
body language and get a lot of info v quickly -but speaking over the
telephone doesn't get you much info. And if the US office is already
pissed off with you, then you need do 'window dressing' i.e. your
questions shouldn't make you look stupid -so you minimize the no. of
queries with the result that a lot of issues remain unresolved.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
found the same problem on yet _another_ new design. Yet the guy in
charge of directing them here is also an Indian, no doubt protecting
them and getting away with it. What pissed me off is that he attacked
us for not finding the problems sooner. But that's ok, a lot of people
(also non-Indians, incompetance knows no nationality) looked foolish
after this latest incident.
Im not in a position to defend anyone's incompetence simply because he
is an Indian. But speaking at a broader level -offshoring is going
great guns in India, both in terms of the quantity of work being done
here and the quality of work aka moving higher up the value chain. A
few will fail due to greed and/or mismanagement -but if you look at
the industrial activity today and 5 yrs back -its a world of
difference.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
The ship is already sinking. Only extreme regulation by the
government
Post by BMJ
or a crash will change the course. But since the rich virtually
run
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
the government, and they are too stupid to give up on profit to
maintain economic health, then we are toast.
The only way you can fix the system is by recognizing what causes job
movements and how to dissuade employers from moving jobs (and not
trying to confiscate their wealth or hoping that overseas workers
will
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
be so stupid that work will automatically return on account of
failures -which is something from Alice's wonderland).
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Why are profit and economic health two different things? If not
Profits accure to corporations -and economic health is what he refers
to the health of the country.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
profitable, then companies fold and even more goods are produced
elsewhere, unless you want the government to force its people to
only
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
buy American. If wealth is not created, then nothing is moving
forward.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Do we want to be like France (e.g.), with a double-digit
unemployment
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
rate _and_ massive debt?
Robert Rubin is the Chairman of Citigroup. He earns a $15m salary and
if the dollar remains steady or appreciates -it helps the investment
banking activity of his company. But that doesn't mean it makes
americans competitive in a global job market. The rich have one set
of
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
priorities and the working class another -or shall we say that the
economic interests of the 2 don't necessarily coincide.
No disagreement there.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
Other severe events like disaster or world war would of course
alter
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
things too, but those are not good options.
That is not a rosy picture for anybody. We consume and now invest
heavily to keep China's forward economic momentum going. We invest
to
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
keep India's standard of living on the upward slope, though there
is no
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
reason they cannot go through the same producing what they consume
stage like we did, though they have far less natural resources than
we
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
No -the US hands out inflated aka counterfeit currency to buy goods
and services from these 2 countries. If they didn't have inflated
currencies -these countries would have greater purchasing power and
engineers in these 2 countries would be proviiding services to the
domestic industry instead.
I don't buy your reverse fallacy of composition. If engineering job
salaries are cut in half, say, then there will be NO engineers, since
every other job in the country will pay far more. Are you really saying
that just about everybody here is making too much money? How much money
No -Im not suggesting that engg salaries should be cut in half. You
could be drawing the same dollar amt in salary and yet the difference
in wages could be reduced. 1 USD= 44 Rupees. If the exchange rate
were to be altered to say 1 USD = 30 Rupees, because there is a
floor in salary in terms of cost of living, US employers will end up
paying more dollars/month for the services of an Indian engr than they
presently do. Likewise for the goods imported from china.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
do Indians send back to India each year to support their families? It
may not be as much as the Mexicans send south of the border
comparatively, but I bet it isn't pocket change.
I know some pretty well off Indians who don't send any money to
support their families. Their savings rate is identical to that of
americans -and so you can calculate depending on position and
lifestyle of a person, how much he manages to save. Whether he sends
it to India or not -I cannot say for sure without meeting the guy and
knowing his personal details.Its not necessary that every Indian in
the US is compelled to send money home.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
did and still have, so maybe that is not possible on the same
scale.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Are they capable of doing that should the world economy collapse?
The
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
few hundred million who live in poverty probably won't care, but
those
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
nearer the to who are benefiting might.
During the recession when the sky seemed to be falling on americans
-India was the 2nd fastest economy on this planet (after China) and
offshoring genereates only 2% of the economic activity in India.
Perhaps you can educate us on the other 98%?
65% of India's population depends on farming and that is the biggest
economic activity. No more than 20% of India's population lives in
urban areas and they have the option to work in manufacturing/service
sector. BPO is one of the fastest growing services, but other than
that -there are quite a few like pharma and all kinds of engg. I don't
have a distribution in hand, but am positive that outsourced IT
supports a small urban population.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
If
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
the USD crashes, a lot more Indians will be able to afford hi-tech
goods originating in the US
_What_ high tech is still originating in the US? Except for the few
large companies, most semiconductor houses are fabless, and more
non-manufacturing jobs are going overseas at an accelerated rate.
Most computers are sold in India by american companies. The hw design
might be done in the US -with the manufacturing shunted out to
overseas location. But the best paid and largest group of employees of
american companies happen to he americans. Ford, Chevrolet etc.. are
all doing big business in India. If they prefer not to hire americans
due to the high cost of living, that is a different issue. But the
vendors are really going great guns here.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
-and that means the call centres providing
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
services for US customers will now provide services for domestic
customers [and you will have lesser reason to call us parasites].
If anyone's calling you "parasites" it isn't me.
I didn't mean you -but that is the general attitude of people towards
Indians doing offshored work. In some ways the complaint is valid
because the one paying for the services is an american who would want
to help his fellow american land a job -but the mgmt wouldn't let him.
But if currency distortions were removed -India as a country would be
a big consumer of american goods , and critics will not have a problem
if the american company producing the goods hires many Indians in
return.
regards
-kamal
straydog
2005-02-20 16:43:34 UTC
Permalink
Date: 20 Feb 2005 07:46:59 -0800
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
Post by Brian G. Moore
All this talk by Kamal about currency & etc---it isnt that hard.
So long are there are people living in squalor on this planet, the
outsourcing of labor will be a problem. After India industrializes to
the point that it's standard of living is substantially improved,
labor will be outsourced somewhere else.
Looks like you do have a problem with understanding me -as do many
other people. It isn;t about std of living -its about inflated
currency. Canada has a weaker currency than the US, but a higher std
of living. It also has a smaller deficit (none if Im right). If std of
living were an issue, then you should be able to live as comfortably
in the US as it takes in USD to live comfortably in India. But that is
not the case because there is no parity in purchasing power between
USD and Indian rupee. You can't keep blaming poor people in other
countries for the cheap tricks of your own govt.
Kamal, you don't understand basic human psychology. Everyone (at least
99%, leaving out the "saints") who is poor wants to _get_ status and/or
money. You DON'T need economics "smoke-and-mirrors" to explain why things
are the way they are. Poor countries don't have anything to offer except
flesh and cheap flesh at that. I never blamed "poor people in other
countries" and my own govt -- as far as I'm concerned -- is NOT doing ME
any favors. Technology makes it possible to ship the work to the cheap
flesh and it is corporate executives that make the decision to do this and
they do it for short term gain, period. In the long run, average buying
power in the US will go down (there are already studies showing this), and
right behind that will be average standard of living.

I have no idea why you keep bringing in 'economics' and artificial
factors such as 'inflated currency' as if these things are supposed
to be the _objective_ target. Sometimes I get the impression you might be
slightly sympathetic to the fact that 1-2 percent of US jobs in the USA
have been eliminated but you also "buy into" the propaganda that it is
inevitable that "retraining" is the required answer when, in fact,
economists have NO OTHER answer and there are studies showing that
"retraining" does not work.
Post by Brian G. Moore
We will only know that this problem is starting to come back into
equilibriuam when we hear about labor being outsourced to sub-Saharan
Africa. My guess is that that will be the last bastion of
low-standard-of-living left behind as the rest of the world
industrializes.
How about E. Europe? They too have a lot of poverty. For that matter,
there is high unemployment and poverty in Germany.
High unemployment all over western and eastern Europe, generally lower
standard of living in eastern Europe.

But the equivalent
cost of living (for a dismal std of living) means that work won't be
shifting from US to germany.
This is an oversimplification. Recent articles in the WSJ point out a
number of manufacturing (including high tech) plants are going into
eastern Europe AND former East Germany.

We even have a small flow of retiring US citizens who retire to Mexico
because the cost of living (related to standard of living) is a fair bit
lower and some people will put up with the heat.
Post by Brian G. Moore
Now, how LONG will it take to get to that point? Hard to tell.
The clear thing is that we--in the US--WILL see our standard of living
decline, and very substantially, either slowly or all at once. All
the forces are pointing in that direction, and I don't see anything
that can clearly be done to stop that. Arguably it has been happening
here since about the early 70s anyhow.
Std of living in the US has been declining despite a rising dollar
(just check the charts instead of believing me). But a stronger
currency means you can buy better cars, dvd cameras, digital cameras
etc.. even if it means smaller houses, lower savings rate etc..
OK, but you can't start talking like this without bringing in lots of
other complicating factors like debt. Americans are going deeper into
debt, too, to buy all this junk. And, the big corporations keep
marketing/advertising to promote this. Its burning the candle at both
ends.
Post by Brian G. Moore
Again, arguably, some of the bad stuff to come from this inevitable
downward pressure on our standard of living has already happened--e.g.
we are invading countries pre-emptively now.
Just because the US has invaded Iraq pre-emptively doesn't mean it has
achieved any goals.
Bush in Iraq is surely more about oil control than WMD and whether any
goals have been achieved will have to wait for history to happen. I'm not
unhappy that SH is out and maybe the election is good, but even the final
outcome can't be determined for years. Certainly a large number of
innocent Iraqis have been killed and there are surely a lot of people
there who would have wished the US never came. But, we are just having
"coffee-talk" here.

it could well be something he wishes he hadn't
done in retrospect. Not everyone who is chasing gold can actually get
his hands on it -and many go crazy to the pt that they end up digging
their own graves.
In the same week the US started war on Iraq, there was an article in the
WSJ concerning the history of five previous invasions of Iraq in the past
200 years by European countries. The historians that provided the
background details reported that all five efforts failed with troops
leaving and objectives, in the end, not being achieved. One US objective
in Iraq seems to have been acheived: get SH out of power. But, at least
the White House acknowledged, relatively recently, that things were not
going as well as they would like. US in Kuwait was probably morally good
and that also got SH out of Kuwait (did the Kuwaitis pay the US to do
this?). We also did not do well in Korea, SEA, or Viet Nam.

Iraq? Will need several more years to tell. Unless my govt can come up
with a better reason (than WMD) for going there, then my opinion for
this moment is that we should have never gone over there. Projected
additional debt just for the war is > $200 billion and we've got more
important problems to deal with.
regards
-kamal
Kamal R. Prasad
2005-02-21 09:34:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by straydog
Date: 20 Feb 2005 07:46:59 -0800
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
Post by Brian G. Moore
All this talk by Kamal about currency & etc---it isnt that hard.
So long are there are people living in squalor on this planet, the
outsourcing of labor will be a problem. After India industrializes to
the point that it's standard of living is substantially improved,
labor will be outsourced somewhere else.
Looks like you do have a problem with understanding me -as do many
other people. It isn;t about std of living -its about inflated
currency. Canada has a weaker currency than the US, but a higher std
of living. It also has a smaller deficit (none if Im right). If std of
living were an issue, then you should be able to live as comfortably
in the US as it takes in USD to live comfortably in India. But that is
not the case because there is no parity in purchasing power between
USD and Indian rupee. You can't keep blaming poor people in other
countries for the cheap tricks of your own govt.
Kamal, you don't understand basic human psychology. Everyone (at least
99%, leaving out the "saints") who is poor wants to _get_ status and/or
money. You DON'T need economics "smoke-and-mirrors" to explain why things
are the way they are. Poor countries don't have anything to offer except
flesh and cheap flesh at that. I never blamed "poor people in other
No -cheap flesh is present right in the US too. Its present in many
other developed countries. One doesn't have to go to poor countries
for that till local flesh is exhausted -if that was the case. Many of
the lower-income workers in the US will do anything and everything to
make ends meet. The more the no. of US workers fired to send work to
India, greater is the amt. of cheap flesh available to employers. Why
wouldn't they hire some of the cheap flesh and same themselves
political controversy?
Post by straydog
countries" and my own govt -- as far as I'm concerned -- is NOT doing ME
any favors. Technology makes it possible to ship the work to the cheap
flesh and it is corporate executives that make the decision to do this and
they do it for short term gain, period. In the long run, average buying
power in the US will go down (there are already studies showing this), and
right behind that will be average standard of living.
depends on economic policies in the long run.

to be continued in another post.
regards
-kamal
Post by straydog
I have no idea why you keep bringing in 'economics' and artificial
factors such as 'inflated currency' as if these things are supposed
to be the _objective_ target. Sometimes I get the impression you might be
slightly sympathetic to the fact that 1-2 percent of US jobs in the USA
have been eliminated but you also "buy into" the propaganda that it is
inevitable that "retraining" is the required answer when, in fact,
economists have NO OTHER answer and there are studies showing that
"retraining" does not work.
Post by Brian G. Moore
We will only know that this problem is starting to come back into
equilibriuam when we hear about labor being outsourced to sub-Saharan
Africa. My guess is that that will be the last bastion of
low-standard-of-living left behind as the rest of the world
industrializes.
How about E. Europe? They too have a lot of poverty. For that matter,
there is high unemployment and poverty in Germany.
High unemployment all over western and eastern Europe, generally lower
standard of living in eastern Europe.
But the equivalent
cost of living (for a dismal std of living) means that work won't be
shifting from US to germany.
This is an oversimplification. Recent articles in the WSJ point out a
number of manufacturing (including high tech) plants are going into
eastern Europe AND former East Germany.
We even have a small flow of retiring US citizens who retire to Mexico
because the cost of living (related to standard of living) is a fair bit
lower and some people will put up with the heat.
Post by Brian G. Moore
Now, how LONG will it take to get to that point? Hard to tell.
The clear thing is that we--in the US--WILL see our standard of living
decline, and very substantially, either slowly or all at once. All
the forces are pointing in that direction, and I don't see anything
that can clearly be done to stop that. Arguably it has been happening
here since about the early 70s anyhow.
Std of living in the US has been declining despite a rising dollar
(just check the charts instead of believing me). But a stronger
currency means you can buy better cars, dvd cameras, digital cameras
etc.. even if it means smaller houses, lower savings rate etc..
OK, but you can't start talking like this without bringing in lots of
other complicating factors like debt. Americans are going deeper into
debt, too, to buy all this junk. And, the big corporations keep
marketing/advertising to promote this. Its burning the candle at both
ends.
Post by Brian G. Moore
Again, arguably, some of the bad stuff to come from this inevitable
downward pressure on our standard of living has already happened--e.g.
we are invading countries pre-emptively now.
Just because the US has invaded Iraq pre-emptively doesn't mean it has
achieved any goals.
Bush in Iraq is surely more about oil control than WMD and whether any
goals have been achieved will have to wait for history to happen. I'm not
unhappy that SH is out and maybe the election is good, but even the final
outcome can't be determined for years. Certainly a large number of
innocent Iraqis have been killed and there are surely a lot of people
there who would have wished the US never came. But, we are just having
"coffee-talk" here.
it could well be something he wishes he hadn't
done in retrospect. Not everyone who is chasing gold can actually get
his hands on it -and many go crazy to the pt that they end up digging
their own graves.
In the same week the US started war on Iraq, there was an article in the
WSJ concerning the history of five previous invasions of Iraq in the past
200 years by European countries. The historians that provided the
background details reported that all five efforts failed with troops
leaving and objectives, in the end, not being achieved. One US objective
in Iraq seems to have been acheived: get SH out of power. But, at least
the White House acknowledged, relatively recently, that things were not
going as well as they would like. US in Kuwait was probably morally good
and that also got SH out of Kuwait (did the Kuwaitis pay the US to do
this?). We also did not do well in Korea, SEA, or Viet Nam.
Iraq? Will need several more years to tell. Unless my govt can come up
with a better reason (than WMD) for going there, then my opinion for
this moment is that we should have never gone over there. Projected
additional debt just for the war is > $200 billion and we've got more
important problems to deal with.
regards
-kamal
Brian G. Moore
2005-02-21 10:34:18 UTC
Permalink
On 21 Feb 2005 01:34:40 -0800, ***@acm.org (Kamal R. Prasad) wrote:

..
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
Kamal, you don't understand basic human psychology. Everyone (at least
99%, leaving out the "saints") who is poor wants to _get_ status and/or
money. You DON'T need economics "smoke-and-mirrors" to explain why things
are the way they are. Poor countries don't have anything to offer except
flesh and cheap flesh at that. I never blamed "poor people in other
No -cheap flesh is present right in the US too. Its present in many
other developed countries. One doesn't have to go to poor countries
for that till local flesh is exhausted -if that was the case. Many of
the lower-income workers in the US will do anything and everything to
make ends meet. The more the no. of US workers fired to send work to
India, greater is the amt. of cheap flesh available to employers. Why
wouldn't they hire some of the cheap flesh and same themselves
political controversy?
I don't get this. It sounds like we are back on square one. I
thought you agreed that costs of living were very different in the US
vs. other countries. We *can't* hire, say, desperate unemployed
people living in, say, south central LA, it just costs too damn much,
even to pay them ludicrously low wages. To make enough to minimally
eat, get a dive to live in, and drive to and fro your job costs way
too much in this country vs. other countries.

Now, that is an interesting thought, that only you could have come up
with. We could *export* poor people to India! Ya, that's the ticket.

What I said originally was so long as there are people living in
squalor somewhere AND willing to work for dirt, then labor all over
the world will be at risk. Maybe eventually it behooves us to to a
few things, even tangential perhaps to even up the extremes.


Brian
Little John
2005-02-21 11:21:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian G. Moore
..
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
Kamal, you don't understand basic human psychology. Everyone (at least
99%, leaving out the "saints") who is poor wants to _get_ status and/or
money. You DON'T need economics "smoke-and-mirrors" to explain why things
are the way they are. Poor countries don't have anything to offer except
flesh and cheap flesh at that. I never blamed "poor people in other
No -cheap flesh is present right in the US too. Its present in many
other developed countries. One doesn't have to go to poor countries
for that till local flesh is exhausted -if that was the case. Many of
the lower-income workers in the US will do anything and everything to
make ends meet. The more the no. of US workers fired to send work to
India, greater is the amt. of cheap flesh available to employers. Why
wouldn't they hire some of the cheap flesh and same themselves
political controversy?
I don't get this. It sounds like we are back on square one. I
thought you agreed that costs of living were very different in the US
vs. other countries. We *can't* hire, say, desperate unemployed
people living in, say, south central LA, it just costs too damn much,
even to pay them ludicrously low wages. To make enough to minimally
eat, get a dive to live in, and drive to and fro your job costs way
too much in this country vs. other countries.
Now, that is an interesting thought, that only you could have come up
with. We could *export* poor people to India! Ya, that's the ticket.
What I said originally was so long as there are people living in
squalor somewhere AND willing to work for dirt, then labor all over
the world will be at risk. Maybe eventually it behooves us to to a
few things, even tangential perhaps to even up the extremes.
Kamal is a racist. Don't waste your time with him!
straydog
2005-02-21 17:15:06 UTC
Permalink
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:21:37 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
Post by Brian G. Moore
..
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
Kamal, you don't understand basic human psychology. Everyone (at least
99%, leaving out the "saints") who is poor wants to _get_ status and/or
money. You DON'T need economics "smoke-and-mirrors" to explain why things
are the way they are. Poor countries don't have anything to offer except
flesh and cheap flesh at that. I never blamed "poor people in other
No -cheap flesh is present right in the US too. Its present in many
other developed countries. One doesn't have to go to poor countries
for that till local flesh is exhausted -if that was the case. Many of
the lower-income workers in the US will do anything and everything to
make ends meet. The more the no. of US workers fired to send work to
India, greater is the amt. of cheap flesh available to employers. Why
wouldn't they hire some of the cheap flesh and same themselves
political controversy?
I don't get this. It sounds like we are back on square one. I
thought you agreed that costs of living were very different in the US
vs. other countries. We *can't* hire, say, desperate unemployed
people living in, say, south central LA, it just costs too damn much,
even to pay them ludicrously low wages. To make enough to minimally
eat, get a dive to live in, and drive to and fro your job costs way
too much in this country vs. other countries.
Now, that is an interesting thought, that only you could have come up
with. We could *export* poor people to India! Ya, that's the ticket.
What I said originally was so long as there are people living in
squalor somewhere AND willing to work for dirt, then labor all over
the world will be at risk. Maybe eventually it behooves us to to a
few things, even tangential perhaps to even up the extremes.
Kamal is a racist. Don't waste your time with him!
That's a little too strong, but I'll "buy into" the idea that he doesn't
mind at all (meaning, he likes the idea) all this US money coming into his
country and helping out create jobs there and his excuse for all the woe
that it is causing in the US is that its all primarily i) market, ii)
exchange rates, and iii) the "inflated" US dollar. He might admit that
robber-barron CEOs play some role, too (after all, they are the ones
making the decisions).

Big robber-barron, greedy, selfish corporations don't care how things get
done as long as they can cut costs in the short run. In the long run, they
will just prey upon anything they can prey upon.
Elton Fan
2005-02-22 02:35:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by straydog
Post by Little John
Kamal is a racist. Don't waste your time with him!
That's a little too strong, but I'll "buy into" the idea that he doesn't
mind at all (meaning, he likes the idea) all this US money coming into his
country and helping out create jobs there and his excuse for all the woe
that it is causing in the US is that its all primarily i) market, ii)
exchange rates, and iii) the "inflated" US dollar. He might admit that
robber-barron CEOs play some role, too (after all, they are the ones
making the decisions).
Only Kamal knows if he is a racist. I don't no for sure, but he comes
across as very arrogant and gives one the impression that he believes
he is intellectually superior to anyone in this group. But time and
again, he has shown his ignorance of American politics, as he did with
the last election.
Post by straydog
Big robber-barron, greedy, selfish corporations don't care how things get
done as long as they can cut costs in the short run. In the long run, they
will just prey upon anything they can prey upon.
I'm not even sure if it's working in the short run. My company has
been offshoring programming projects for several years. Inspite of the
efforts of management to cut costs, we have only seen bad quality
projects come back to our shore that need numerous fixes and we are
actually having to hire more and more people inhouse to keep up with
the problems. Profits have not gone up and I hope it bites them in
the ass. Executives made the descision to offshore without knowing a
damn thing about what it's like to build an application. But they are
the ones who get the bonuses (for doing nothing). The magnitude of the
level of detatchment management has with their employees is just
obscene. That's America for you!
straydog
2005-02-22 03:07:31 UTC
Permalink
Date: 21 Feb 2005 18:35:48 -0800
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Kamal probably not a racist.....Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
Post by straydog
Post by Little John
Kamal is a racist. Don't waste your time with him!
That's a little too strong, but I'll "buy into" the idea that he
doesn't
Post by straydog
mind at all (meaning, he likes the idea) all this US money coming
into his
Post by straydog
country and helping out create jobs there and his excuse for all the
woe
Post by straydog
that it is causing in the US is that its all primarily i) market, ii)
exchange rates, and iii) the "inflated" US dollar. He might admit
that
Post by straydog
robber-barron CEOs play some role, too (after all, they are the ones
making the decisions).
Only Kamal knows if he is a racist. I don't no for sure, but he comes
across as very arrogant and gives one the impression that he believes
he is intellectually superior to anyone in this group.
Well, at least he likes to 'throw around' economist-talk as if that proves
his understanding of how life works is better than anyone elses.

But time and
again, he has shown his ignorance of American politics, as he did with
the last election.
I wasn't paying attention at that time. I'm over on sci.research.careers
but sometimes we get crossposting (and sometimes I'll add one or the other
NGs to troll out some discussion and stir up the dust [expose the snot,
too]).

However, I'll tell you that I read a Business Week article maybe 1-2 years
ago where these big corporations pay guys to read stuff on NGs and surf
for "negative" websites and these guys read _our_ skeptical diatribes and
then they are paid to argue against us and wave the "corporate propaganda"
as if its a better truth!!!
Post by straydog
Big robber-barron, greedy, selfish corporations don't care how things
get
Post by straydog
done as long as they can cut costs in the short run. In the long run,
they
Post by straydog
will just prey upon anything they can prey upon.
I'm not even sure if it's working in the short run. My company has
been offshoring programming projects for several years. Inspite of the
efforts of management to cut costs, we have only seen bad quality
projects come back to our shore that need numerous fixes and we are
actually having to hire more and more people inhouse to keep up with
the problems.
I've been reading the computer trade rags (eWeek, inforworld, etc) over
the last few years and the tune that they play is that the results are
variable. Whether the tune they play represents reality or some puffery is
not for me to call. But, they did publish some reports of horror stories.

Profits have not gone up and I hope it bites them in
the ass. Executives made the descision to offshore without knowing a
damn thing about what it's like to build an application.
Executives .... ah....the executive mindset....a subset of the Harvard MBA
mindset; the perception that real life can be seen through a
narrow-bandwidth color filter focused on the green part of the
spectrum. Make the big assumption that all the little assumptions are
valid....etc.

Whose ass its going to bite? My advice is to addopt the "CYA" strategy. I
know a lot of US guys that got laid off and are pretty mad about it. Then,
you can find all these job adverts where they openly say that if you don't
have an H1b or L1 or something, don't even apply.

But they are
the ones who get the bonuses (for doing nothing).
1. You got that right.
2. And, if things don't work out, there are all those underlings to 'take
the heat' (i.e. layoffs, but the suits get the severance & bonuses).

The magnitude of the
level of detatchment management has with their employees is just
obscene. That's America for you!
Yep, its that "winner-take-all" attitude.
B Mickey
2005-02-22 06:37:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
Post by Little John
Kamal is a racist. Don't waste your time with him!
That's a little too strong, but I'll "buy into" the idea that he
doesn't
Post by straydog
mind at all (meaning, he likes the idea) all this US money coming
into his
Post by straydog
country and helping out create jobs there and his excuse for all the
woe
Post by straydog
that it is causing in the US is that its all primarily i) market, ii)
exchange rates, and iii) the "inflated" US dollar. He might admit
that
Post by straydog
robber-barron CEOs play some role, too (after all, they are the ones
making the decisions).
Only Kamal knows if he is a racist. I don't no for sure, but
I'm a black man and I can tell you for sure that Kamal is about as racist as
they get. Trust me - the Indian culture is very unwelcoming to anyone not
like them. I was working up in the bay area when the company for which I
worked started hiring H1-Bs only, claiming that they (Indians) had better
qualifiations and were better educated. Now if that's the case, why did I
have to spend so much of my time teaching then basic programming concepts.
The white people in the company noticed how the Indians did not like a white
person educating them on material they were suppose to know (as if no body
is smarter than the Indians). This was about 5 times as true when it came
to a black person training an Indian.

Just read Kamal's posts. They have the same condescending tone that I
expirienced on the job.
alexy
2005-02-22 14:50:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by B Mickey
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
Post by Little John
Kamal is a racist. Don't waste your time with him!
That's a little too strong, but I'll "buy into" the idea that he
doesn't
Post by straydog
mind at all (meaning, he likes the idea) all this US money coming
into his
Post by straydog
country and helping out create jobs there and his excuse for all the
woe
Post by straydog
that it is causing in the US is that its all primarily i) market, ii)
exchange rates, and iii) the "inflated" US dollar. He might admit
that
Post by straydog
robber-barron CEOs play some role, too (after all, they are the ones
making the decisions).
Only Kamal knows if he is a racist. I don't no for sure, but
I'm a black man and I can tell you for sure that Kamal is about as racist as
they get. Trust me - the Indian culture is very unwelcoming to anyone not
like them. I was working up in the bay area when the company for which I
worked started hiring H1-Bs only, claiming that they (Indians) had better
qualifiations and were better educated. Now if that's the case, why did I
have to spend so much of my time teaching then basic programming concepts.
The white people in the company noticed how the Indians did not like a white
person educating them on material they were suppose to know (as if no body
is smarter than the Indians). This was about 5 times as true when it came
to a black person training an Indian.
Just read Kamal's posts. They have the same condescending tone that I
expirienced on the job.
So the bulk of your assessment of Kamal is based on your experience
with others of his race? And based on that, YOU are calling HIM
racist?!?!

LOL!
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
indiaBPOking
2005-02-22 14:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by alexy
Post by B Mickey
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
Post by Little John
Kamal is a racist. Don't waste your time with him!
That's a little too strong, but I'll "buy into" the idea that he
doesn't
Post by straydog
mind at all (meaning, he likes the idea) all this US money coming
into his
Post by straydog
country and helping out create jobs there and his excuse for all the
woe
Post by straydog
that it is causing in the US is that its all primarily i) market, ii)
exchange rates, and iii) the "inflated" US dollar. He might admit
that
Post by straydog
robber-barron CEOs play some role, too (after all, they are the ones
making the decisions).
Only Kamal knows if he is a racist. I don't no for sure, but
I'm a black man and I can tell you for sure that Kamal is about as racist as
they get. Trust me - the Indian culture is very unwelcoming to anyone not
like them. I was working up in the bay area when the company for which I
worked started hiring H1-Bs only, claiming that they (Indians) had better
qualifiations and were better educated. Now if that's the case, why did I
have to spend so much of my time teaching then basic programming concepts.
The white people in the company noticed how the Indians did not like a white
person educating them on material they were suppose to know (as if no body
is smarter than the Indians). This was about 5 times as true when it came
to a black person training an Indian.
Just read Kamal's posts. They have the same condescending tone that I
expirienced on the job.
So the bulk of your assessment of Kamal is based on your experience
with others of his race? And based on that, YOU are calling HIM
racist?!?!
LOL!
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
It is a known fact that when somebody is himself a racist, he will see
everybody else as a racist too.

indiaBPOking.
B Mickey
2005-02-23 05:35:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by indiaBPOking
It is a known fact that when somebody is himself a racist, he will see
everybody else as a racist too.
I've seen your sexist posts and I assume that you are a racist as well.
B Mickey
2005-02-23 05:34:15 UTC
Permalink
a black person training an Indian.
Post by alexy
Post by B Mickey
Just read Kamal's posts. They have the same condescending tone that I
expirienced on the job.
So the bulk of your assessment of Kamal is based on your experience
with others of his race? And based on that, YOU are calling HIM
racist?!?!
LOL!
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
Look son,

I don't know where you are from, but in America (and most of the west), when
a black person makes a claim that something or somebody is racist, it is to
be taken VERY VERY seriously and should not be combated with specious
arguments suggesting that I am the racist. I undrestand racism very well
and I can indentify a racist within one minute of speaking to him or her.

I never made the assessment of Kamal based on his race. I said he comes
from a society where racism is the norm and he does not appear to deviate
from that norm.

Are you trying to say that I am wrong?
alexy
2005-02-23 16:02:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by B Mickey
Look son,
I don't know where you are from, but in America (and most of the west), when
a black person makes a claim that something or somebody is racist, it is to
be taken VERY VERY seriously
Bullshit. Statements should be judged on their merits, not on the race
of the person making the statement. That works both ways.
Post by B Mickey
and should not be combated with specious
arguments suggesting that I am the racist. I undrestand racism very well
and I can indentify a racist within one minute of speaking to him or her.
I'm sure your _experience_ of racism is something that we white folks
can't empathize with, and that fact is, or should be, a source of
shame for our culture. But while your skin color makes your experience
of racism a reasonable assumption, it does not provide a basis for
assuming that you an expert at _understanding_ racism or assuming that
your snap judgements about people are correct.
Post by B Mickey
I never made the assessment of Kamal based on his race. I said he comes
from a society where racism is the norm and he does not appear to deviate
from that norm.
Right. And until you appear to deviate from my preconceived image of
the "norm" for black people, I should assume that you fit that norm?
That sounds like racism to me.
Post by B Mickey
Are you trying to say that I am wrong?
No. I'm only saying I see no reason to assume you are right, nor any
rationale to convince me that you are right.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
straydog
2005-02-23 20:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:02:48 -0500
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Kamal probably not a racist.....Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
Post by B Mickey
and should not be combated with specious
arguments suggesting that I am the racist. I undrestand racism very well
and I can indentify a racist within one minute of speaking to him or her.
I'm sure your _experience_ of racism is something that we white folks
can't empathize with,
A confession of bias, for sure.

and that fact is, or should be, a source of
shame for our culture.
And, what to do about it?
But while your skin color makes your experience
of racism a reasonable assumption,
Technically, this sentence makes little sense. Why does one have to have a
particular, if any, skin color to make reasonable an assumption about
experienced racism?

it does not provide a basis for
assuming that you an expert at _understanding_ racism or assuming that
your snap judgements about people are correct.
Oh, so the subject now is not whether racism exists ....but its
_understanding_ racism? Like... we all know its bad...we don't need to
understand racism.

What's wrong with snap judgements? I've heard both democrats and
republicans talk about each other...in pure "snapjudgementthink."
Post by B Mickey
I never made the assessment of Kamal based on his race. I said he comes
from a society where racism is the norm and he does not appear to deviate
from that norm.
Right. And until you appear to deviate from my preconceived image
i.e. racist you?

of
the "norm" for black people, I should assume that you fit that norm?
That sounds like racism to me.
Uhhhh-huh.
Post by B Mickey
Are you trying to say that I am wrong?
No. I'm only saying I see no reason to assume you are right, nor any
rationale to convince me that you are right.
You can convert yourself to a wooden (oak?) totem pole any time you want
and thus not even have to think about any rationale to convince you that
someone else might be right.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
alexy
2005-02-23 20:40:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by straydog
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:02:48 -0500
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Kamal probably not a racist.....Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
Post by B Mickey
and should not be combated with specious
arguments suggesting that I am the racist. I undrestand racism very well
and I can indentify a racist within one minute of speaking to him or her.
I'm sure your _experience_ of racism is something that we white folks
can't empathize with,
A confession of bias, for sure.
If you see acknowledgement that others have experiences to which I
can't fully relate as a bias, I guess so. I frankly see
acknowledgment of limits of one's experience as a way to defeat or
suppress bias.
Post by straydog
and that fact is, or should be, a source of
shame for our culture.
And, what to do about it?
Good question. We aren't, as a society or as individuals, doing
enough, IMHO.
Post by straydog
But while your skin color makes your experience
of racism a reasonable assumption,
Technically, this sentence makes little sense. Why does one have to have a
particular, if any, skin color to make reasonable an assumption about
experienced racism?
Because I think it FAR more likely for a person of color to have
experienced a great deal of racism than for a WASP to have experienced
that.
Post by straydog
it does not provide a basis for
assuming that you an expert at _understanding_ racism or assuming that
your snap judgements about people are correct.
Oh, so the subject now is not whether racism exists ....but its
_understanding_ racism?
Follow the threaded comments quoted above. I was replying to a comment
"I undrestand racism very well and I can indentify a racist within one
minute of speaking to him or her."
Post by straydog
Like... we all know its bad...we don't need to
understand racism.
What's wrong with snap judgements? I've heard both democrats and
republicans talk about each other...in pure "snapjudgementthink."
And because Democrats and Republicans do it, you think it is okay?
LOL! If you really have to ask what is wrong with snap judgments, you
have my condolences.
Post by straydog
Post by B Mickey
I never made the assessment of Kamal based on his race. I said he comes
from a society where racism is the norm and he does not appear to deviate
from that norm.
Right. And until you appear to deviate from my preconceived image
i.e. racist you?
of
the "norm" for black people, I should assume that you fit that norm?
That sounds like racism to me.
Uhhhh-huh.
Post by B Mickey
Are you trying to say that I am wrong?
No. I'm only saying I see no reason to assume you are right, nor any
rationale to convince me that you are right.
You can convert yourself to a wooden (oak?) totem pole any time you want
and thus not even have to think about any rationale to convince you that
someone else might be right.
So do you think his reasoning is valid? I'll draw an analogy (with the
original parallel points in parentheses for the analogically
challenged): If you know that France (India) has a high incidence of
alcohol abuse (racism), do you assume that a particular Frenchman
(Kamal) is a drunk (racist) unless he gives you reason to think
otherwise?
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
straydog
2005-02-24 02:40:20 UTC
Permalink
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:40:30 -0500
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Kamal probably not a racist.....Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
Post by straydog
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:02:48 -0500
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Kamal probably not a racist.....Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
Post by B Mickey
and should not be combated with specious
arguments suggesting that I am the racist. I undrestand racism very well
and I can indentify a racist within one minute of speaking to him or her.
I'm sure your _experience_ of racism is something that we white folks
can't empathize with,
A confession of bias, for sure.
If you see acknowledgement that others have experiences to which I
can't fully relate as a bias, I guess so.
Even if you say that, it almost can't be true. You could never be able to
fully appreciate other's experiences unless you were the one that got
stepped on.

I frankly see
acknowledgment of limits of one's experience as a way to defeat or
suppress bias.
I've known people who say things like this and they do it NOT becaue they
are acknowledging ANYthing, but to simply look good (i.e. good PR). Like
going to church on Sunday to make up for sinning all week long.
Post by straydog
and that fact is, or should be, a source of
shame for our culture.
And, what to do about it?
Good question.
Thanks.
We aren't, as a society or as individuals, doing
enough, IMHO.
Enough of what? See, ...... gotcha!

Like ..... what do we do about all the deadwood? How about the people who
don't care? How about the people who say/think "If it ain't in my
backyard, then it don't matter"? Then, the ones: "Even if it is in my back
yard, I still don't care."
Post by straydog
But while your skin color makes your experience
of racism a reasonable assumption,
Technically, this sentence makes little sense. Why does one have to have a
particular, if any, skin color to make reasonable an assumption about
experienced racism?
Because I think it FAR more likely for a person of color to have
experienced a great deal of racism than for a WASP to have experienced
that.
ANYbody who is a minority and in a real life context and surrounded by a
majority of something else is very likely to get shit upon. I lost a job
once because I was white and the guy that replaced me was black. I was mad
at the time, but far worse things happened to me later.
Post by straydog
it does not provide a basis for
assuming that you an expert at _understanding_ racism or assuming that
your snap judgements about people are correct.
Oh, so the subject now is not whether racism exists ....but its
_understanding_ racism?
Follow the threaded comments quoted above. I was replying to a comment
"I undrestand racism very well and I can indentify a racist within one
minute of speaking to him or her."
In the context which that sentence came from, I could actually identify
and relate to the guy who said it. I have, in my life, seen all kinds of
"heirarchichal" shit-floats-downhill arrogance and "power-trips" and
"ego trips" and I can see it in lots of contexts and I hate it.
Post by straydog
Like... we all know its bad...we don't need to
understand racism.
What's wrong with snap judgements? I've heard both democrats and
republicans talk about each other...in pure "snapjudgementthink."
And because Democrats and Republicans do it, you think it is okay?
Well, shit, I don't see YOU complaining about all the cows and horses
running out the back door of the barn while you're preocupied with,
comparatively speaking, a little ant on a fencepost in the front of the
barn!
LOL!
Did you ever look in a mirror while you LOL?
If you really have to ask what is wrong with snap judgments, you
have my condolences.
Tell it to the Repubs & Dems. You're in the minority. Condolences for
what? Its the majority decision making mechanism. Corp CEOs, Presidents,
all kinds of big people make them, say them, think them. Give you
condolences to them.
Post by straydog
Post by B Mickey
I never made the assessment of Kamal based on his race. I said he comes
from a society where racism is the norm and he does not appear to deviate
from that norm.
Right. And until you appear to deviate from my preconceived image
i.e. racist you?
What ... no comment? Snotty or serious?
Post by straydog
of
the "norm" for black people, I should assume that you fit that norm?
That sounds like racism to me.
Uhhhh-huh.
ditto
Post by straydog
Post by B Mickey
Are you trying to say that I am wrong?
No. I'm only saying I see no reason to assume you are right, nor any
rationale to convince me that you are right.
You can convert yourself to a wooden (oak?) totem pole any time you want
and thus not even have to think about any rationale to convince you that
someone else might be right.
So do you think his reasoning is valid?
Was Hitler's reasoning valid? Oh...excuse me...he was a badguy, right?
How come most of the German people just followed the guy and did badthings
anyway? What does it have to do with reasoning and valid?

I'll draw an analogy (with the
original parallel points in parentheses for the analogically
challenged): If you know that France (India) has a high incidence of
alcohol abuse
define it, give stats, give stats on comparables
(racism),
define it, give stats, give stats on comparables
do you assume
"assumption" has nothing to do with the problem. The word you should be
tuning in on is: generalization.
that a particular Frenchman
You know, demographers come up, all the time, with "profiles" for X, Y, Z,
etc. And, definitions of "average Frenchmen" "average X" etc.
(Kamal)
I have debated with him, yes.
is a drunk
I never saw drunk typing and mispellings from Kamal...that does not prove
or indicate that he is never drunk.
(racist)
I would have to look over someone's shoulder and follow his actions, not
his words, to decide this. But, then, there might be alternative or hidden
agenda explanations, too.
unless he gives you reason to think
otherwise?
1. I, not he, will be the judge of the issue.
2. His reason (or rationalization) would not necessarily be relevant, but
I might listen to some "fast talk" but not make any promises.
3. I've known far more people who would neither accept his reason nor even
listen to any "fast talk" for explanations, reasons,
rationalizations, or 'hand waving'
alexy
2005-02-24 06:03:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
If you see acknowledgement that others have experiences to which I
can't fully relate as a bias, I guess so.
Even if you say that, it almost can't be true. You could never be able to
fully appreciate other's experiences unless you were the one that got
stepped on.
Exactly. I was beginning to think that the point was missed.
Post by straydog
I frankly see
Post by alexy
acknowledgment of limits of one's experience as a way to defeat or
suppress bias.
I've known people who say things like this and they do it NOT becaue they
are acknowledging ANYthing, but to simply look good (i.e. good PR). Like
going to church on Sunday to make up for sinning all week long.
No! You must be kidding me! You have known hypocrites? I can't believe
it. They are so rare!
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Post by alexy
and that fact is, or should be, a source of
Post by alexy
shame for our culture.
And, what to do about it?
Good question.
Thanks.
Post by alexy
We aren't, as a society or as individuals, doing
enough, IMHO.
Enough of what? See, ...... gotcha!
"gotcha"? Grow up! You really expect me to have a prescription for
ridding our society of racism. Sorry to disappoint!
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Because I think it FAR more likely for a person of color to have
experienced a great deal of racism than for a WASP to have experienced
that.
ANYbody who is a minority and in a real life context and surrounded by a
majority of something else is very likely to get shit upon.
Wow! That's two of my points that have sunk in. I'm on a roll.
Post by straydog
I lost a job
once because I was white and the guy that replaced me was black.
That sounds bad. Would you rather be black in our society?
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Post by alexy
What's wrong with snap judgements? I've heard both democrats and
republicans talk about each other...in pure "snapjudgementthink."
And because Democrats and Republicans do it, you think it is okay?
Well, shit, I don't see YOU complaining about all the cows and horses
running out the back door of the barn while you're preocupied with,
comparatively speaking, a little ant on a fencepost in the front of the
barn!
Post by alexy
LOL!
Did you ever look in a mirror while you LOL?
No. You are the one who asked "What's wrong with snap judgments?" and
gave as justification that you had heard dems and repubs doing it.
That pathetic rationale was the basis of my "LOL".
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
If you really have to ask what is wrong with snap judgments, you
have my condolences.
Tell it to the Repubs & Dems.
When they come on and say "what's wrong with snap judgements", I will.
Post by straydog
You're in the minority. Condolences for what?
Poor choice of words on my part. "Pity" is closer to the mark.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
straydog
2005-02-25 00:34:38 UTC
Permalink
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 01:03:44 -0500
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Kamal probably not a racist.....Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
If you see acknowledgement that others have experiences to which I
can't fully relate as a bias, I guess so.
Even if you say that, it almost can't be true. You could never be able to
fully appreciate other's experiences unless you were the one that got
stepped on.
Exactly. I was beginning to think that the point was missed.
Then you should have written what I wrote, not what you wrote.
Post by straydog
I frankly see
Post by alexy
acknowledgment of limits of one's experience as a way to defeat or
suppress bias.
I've known people who say things like this and they do it NOT becaue they
are acknowledging ANYthing, but to simply look good (i.e. good PR). Like
going to church on Sunday to make up for sinning all week long.
No!
Yeeeesssssssss :-^)
You must be kidding me!
Nah....I'd never kid you (unless someone paid me to)
You have known hypocrites?
Lots of them. "Do as i say, not as I do"
I can't believe
it.
Um....I'd be glad to sell you lessons to help you believe it. But, its
easy if you just try harder.
They are so rare!
Oh, no they are not. How about looking at the titles of books in the
brochure sent out by the American psychological Association (for
therapists, LCSWs, psychiatrists, and psychologists)
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Post by alexy
and that fact is, or should be, a source of
Post by alexy
shame for our culture.
And, what to do about it?
Good question.
Thanks.
Um...where's the 'comeback'?
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
We aren't, as a society or as individuals, doing
enough, IMHO.
Enough of what? See, ...... gotcha!
"gotcha"? Grow up! You really expect me to have a prescription for
ridding our society of racism. Sorry to disappoint!
Well, it was you that said we aren't doing enough and thus you must have
had an idea of "something" that we're not doing enough of. So, what then?
I figured AT LEAST you could come out with a short list. I can, if you ask
me, to come up with a short list of books designed to do more. Heck, I
might even do it even if you don't ask me.
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Because I think it FAR more likely for a person of color to have
experienced a great deal of racism than for a WASP to have experienced
that.
ANYbody who is a minority and in a real life context and surrounded by a
majority of something else is very likely to get shit upon.
Wow! That's two of my points that have sunk in. I'm on a roll.
Nah, you limited problems to people of color (typically used for black
people) and I expanded it to all problems along a majority-minority
gradient. There are lots of other situations that don't even involve race
or color (there is a difference).
Post by straydog
I lost a job
once because I was white and the guy that replaced me was black.
That sounds bad. Would you rather be black in our society?
I've heard the comment made, within the context of such situations, by
white people "__X__ should get his/her face painted black" and it was not
spoken in jest or derision. But, I will acknowledge, also, that I am not
directly answering your question; rather, I am responding to it.
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Post by alexy
What's wrong with snap judgements? I've heard both democrats and
republicans talk about each other...in pure "snapjudgementthink."
And because Democrats and Republicans do it, you think it is okay?
Well, shit, I don't see YOU complaining about all the cows and horses
running out the back door of the barn while you're preocupied with,
comparatively speaking, a little ant on a fencepost in the front of the
barn!
Post by alexy
LOL!
Did you ever look in a mirror while you LOL?
No. You are the one who asked "What's wrong with snap judgments?" and
gave as justification that you had heard dems and repubs doing it.
That pathetic rationale was the basis of my "LOL".
And, pray tell, were you LOL because I spoke the truth and you can't do
anything about it? Or because the rationale I gave was "pathetic" and I
don't see you denying that, for example, repubs and dems do it all the
time.

After all, it sure seems to me that the repubs and dems don't have any
problem with it, and all the people who don't care (thats the whole
population minus the dem fraction and the repub fraction) are not
objecting to it. So, that leaves YOU in the minority (and I'm still not
saying how I feel about it).
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
If you really have to ask what is wrong with snap judgments, you
have my condolences.
Tell it to the Repubs & Dems.
When they come on and say "what's wrong with snap judgements",
When hell freezes over.
I will.
Promise? But, I'll bet you won't if they do come and ask you. And, I'll
bet more that they will never come and ask you and I'll be brash enough to
tell you that you're smart enough (or should be) to tell that they will
never come and ask you.
Post by straydog
You're in the minority. Condolences for what?
Poor choice of words on my part. "Pity" is closer to the mark.
Yeah, closer. "Unfortunate" would be my best choice (for the moment).
alexy
2005-02-25 05:48:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
We aren't, as a society or as individuals, doing
enough, IMHO.
Enough of what? See, ...... gotcha!
"gotcha"? Grow up! You really expect me to have a prescription for
ridding our society of racism. Sorry to disappoint!
Well, it was you that said we aren't doing enough and thus you must have
had an idea of "something" that we're not doing enough of.
No, it is entirely possible to believe that we are not doing enough to
prevent rid our society of racism without knowing what we should be
doing toward that end. I hate to disappoint you so, but I also think
we are not doing enough to cure Alzheimers, prevent global warming,
and eliminate slavery (the real kind, not just people working for
lower wages than they want), but don't know what we should be doing in
each of those areas.
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Because I think it FAR more likely for a person of color to have
experienced a great deal of racism than for a WASP to have experienced
that.
ANYbody who is a minority and in a real life context and surrounded by a
majority of something else is very likely to get shit upon.
Wow! That's two of my points that have sunk in. I'm on a roll.
Nah, you limited problems to people of color (typically used for black
people) and I expanded it to all problems along a majority-minority
gradient. There are lots of other situations that don't even involve race
or color (there is a difference).
Yes, I was making my comment on topic, but I have no problem with your
generalization.
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
Did you ever look in a mirror while you LOL?
No. You are the one who asked "What's wrong with snap judgments?" and
gave as justification that you had heard dems and repubs doing it.
That pathetic rationale was the basis of my "LOL".
And, pray tell, were you LOL because I spoke the truth and you can't do
anything about it? Or because the rationale I gave was "pathetic"
Read the paragraph above. The answer to your question is cleverly
hidden in plain sight.
Post by straydog
and I
don't see you denying that, for example, repubs and dems do it all the
time.
No, I agree. Why would I deny something with which I agree?
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
Kamal R. Prasad
2005-02-25 07:41:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by straydog
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:02:48 -0500
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Kamal probably not a racist.....Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
Post by B Mickey
and should not be combated with specious
arguments suggesting that I am the racist. I undrestand racism very well
and I can indentify a racist within one minute of speaking to him or her.
I can identify a scam artist in one minute of reading his port. When
there is discontent due to unemployment, lots of wanna-be union
leaders talk this way eg. Joel the aussie.
Post by straydog
I'm sure your _experience_ of racism is something that we white folks
can't empathize with,
A confession of bias, for sure.
There are lots of dogmas in India -but none based on skin colour
(melamine content).
Post by straydog
and that fact is, or should be, a source of
shame for our culture.
And, what to do about it?
But while your skin color makes your experience
of racism a reasonable assumption,
Technically, this sentence makes little sense. Why does one have to have a
particular, if any, skin color to make reasonable an assumption about
experienced racism?
because skin colour is the basis of racism in the US (and EU).
Post by straydog
it does not provide a basis for
assuming that you an expert at _understanding_ racism or assuming that
your snap judgements about people are correct.
Oh, so the subject now is not whether racism exists ....but its
_understanding_ racism? Like... we all know its bad...we don't need to
understand racism.
What's wrong with snap judgements? I've heard both democrats and
republicans talk about each other...in pure "snapjudgementthink."
Post by B Mickey
I never made the assessment of Kamal based on his race. I said he comes
from a society where racism is the norm and he does not appear to deviate
from that norm.
Right. And until you appear to deviate from my preconceived image
I come from a society where skin-colour based racism is NOT prevalent.
There are various dogmas some in various stages of removal -but no
matter what the case might be, if it doesn't impact americans -it
shouldn't be a problem. 1 billion people don't need to prove their
credentials to an american to live life the way they like.

regards
-kamal
Max Muir
2005-02-26 00:28:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
I'm sure your _experience_ of racism is something that we white folks
can't empathize with,
A confession of bias, for sure.
There are lots of dogmas in India -but none based on skin colour
(melamine content).
Kamal,

I didn't think you are a racist, but I believe you are wrong about
this,
because:

1. Bollywood loves fair-skinned actors, e.g., Ash, Preity Zinta or
Bipasha.

2. Indian matrimonial ads are full of references to fair and
light-skinned
brides

3. All Indian beauty pageant contestants are all light skinned.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
and that fact is, or should be, a source of
Post by alexy
shame for our culture.
And, what to do about it?
Post by alexy
But while your skin color makes your experience
of racism a reasonable assumption,
Technically, this sentence makes little sense. Why does one have to have a
particular, if any, skin color to make reasonable an assumption about
experienced racism?
because skin colour is the basis of racism in the US (and EU).
Sure, let's look at some examples:

= From: nusrat rizvi
= >"Luckily for all
= > concerned the poor genes inherited from the early English pilgrims
= > was soon overwhelmed by better stocks of other nations.

= ==


= From: ***@ix.netcom.com(Nusrat Rizvi)
= Subject: Re: USA THE ABSOLUTE =WORST= COUNTRY ON EARTH
= Date: 1996/04/02
= Message-ID: <4js54p$***@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>#1/1


= =I find the English to be somewhat lazy and
= =retarted, England to be very dirty as compared to France and Germany

= =but that is one persons opinion.&&&&
= =
= =Nusrat Rizvi
= =friend of the meek, attacker of the pompous


= ==


= From: ***@pipeline.com (Nusrat Rizvi)
= Subject: Re: Slavery and Colonialism
= Date: 1999/09/05
= Message-ID: <7qsr14$***@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>


= =Thats just not possible since all my three kids scored highly on
their
= =SAT and Brits never do. My genes obviously had to overcome all the
= =short comings my children inherited from their English mother for
them
= =to have a better crack at life.


= ==


= From: nusrat rizvi (***@pipeline.com)
= Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
= >She scored 1475 on her SAT, ever heard of any English person
= > scoring anywhere near that. No siree Bob that was her Indian genes
= > at its best like they always do in UK schools too."




==

From: "Neil Ozman" <***@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: The Meek Shall Inherit The Bible
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 20:55:44 +1000
Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
And yet the Brits. tell us they valued human life! Christianity and
Islam
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
breed retarded and inhumane people.
==

Jai Maharaj aka Jay Stevens.
Message-ID: <***@gy068t2KFIonTs>
=>The English work? They'd rather steal, loot and plunder.

==
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
I come from a society where skin-colour based racism is NOT prevalent.
Kamal, if you are an Indian, you are mistaken. India, like all
human societies, suffers from racism.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
There are various dogmas some in various stages of removal -but no
matter what the case might be, if it doesn't impact americans -it
shouldn't be a problem. 1 billion people don't need to prove their
credentials to an american to live life the way they like.
You are correct. The West outsources to the National Socialist
regime in China, for example; a regime that abetts the theft of
a billion dollars a year in stolen intellectual property; a reg-
ime that operates a chain of concentration camps to kill off its
political dissidents; a regime that is carrying out genocide
against the Tibetans and is in permanent occupation of Tibet;
a regime that artificially supresses the value of its own
currency to suck money out of the USA; regime that imposes
a programme of infanticide on its own population, and so on. The
fact is we will deal with any scoundrels, tyrants or bastards if
it makes a buck or pound.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
regards
-kamal
zach
2005-02-26 06:44:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by straydog
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
I'm sure your _experience_ of racism is something that we white
folks
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
can't empathize with,
A confession of bias, for sure.
There are lots of dogmas in India -but none based on skin colour
(melamine content).
Kamal,
I didn't think you are a racist, but I believe you are wrong about
this,
1. Bollywood loves fair-skinned actors, e.g., Ash,
"Ash" hardly even looks Indian. IMO...
Post by straydog
2. Indian matrimonial ads are full of references to fair and
light-skinned
brides
3. All Indian beauty pageant contestants are all light skinned.
A former Indian coworker of mine even said that she wished _she_ were
lighter skinned, which I found amazing since she otherwise seemed to
have a good overall self-esteem and typical Brahmin confidence (and
cheekiness). She also acknowledged the Bollywood preference for fair
skinned actors.
Kamal R. Prasad
2005-02-26 11:12:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by zach
Post by straydog
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
I'm sure your _experience_ of racism is something that we white
folks
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
can't empathize with,
A confession of bias, for sure.
There are lots of dogmas in India -but none based on skin colour
(melamine content).
Kamal,
I didn't think you are a racist, but I believe you are wrong about
this,
1. Bollywood loves fair-skinned actors, e.g., Ash,
What about the numerous dark skinned actresses (and actors)? People
like Rani Mukherjee, Mithun Chakravarthy, rekha, sridevi etc...
Post by zach
"Ash" hardly even looks Indian. IMO...
She is very much Indian and there is nothing unusual about Indians
with her genetic traits. For that matter, have you ever been to India?
Post by zach
Post by straydog
2. Indian matrimonial ads are full of references to fair and
light-skinned
brides
Not exactly. The ad lays out the attributes of the person like height,
weight, colour of skin (dark, fair, wheatish etc..)
Post by zach
Post by straydog
3. All Indian beauty pageant contestants are all light skinned.
What about Sushmita Sen? She is quite dark compared to the avg Indian.
Some are dark, some are fair. But that isn't the point. The point is
that they don't get discriminated/looked down upon - and there is no
racial profiling on account of skin colour. Perception of beauty and
eligibility for marriage are a different aspect.
Post by zach
A former Indian coworker of mine even said that she wished _she_ were
lighter skinned, which I found amazing since she otherwise seemed to
Must be *her* perception of beauty.
Post by zach
have a good overall self-esteem and typical Brahmin confidence (and
cheekiness). She also acknowledged the Bollywood preference for fair
skinned actors.
Confidence level does not have anything to do with caste. How can you
believe that a person of a certain caste/race is automatically in
possession of greater confidence level?

btw -there are lots of people of Indian origin who make statements
that talk in terms of racial superiority on usenet. I have nothing to
say in support of those statements -except that it doesn't reflect the
way things work in India.

regards
-kamal

straydog
2005-02-23 18:19:39 UTC
Permalink
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:50:55 -0500
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Kamal probably not a racist.....Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
Post by B Mickey
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
Post by Little John
Kamal is a racist. Don't waste your time with him!
That's a little too strong, but I'll "buy into" the idea that he
doesn't
Post by straydog
mind at all (meaning, he likes the idea) all this US money coming
into his
Post by straydog
country and helping out create jobs there and his excuse for all the
woe
Post by straydog
that it is causing in the US is that its all primarily i) market, ii)
exchange rates, and iii) the "inflated" US dollar. He might admit
that
Post by straydog
robber-barron CEOs play some role, too (after all, they are the ones
making the decisions).
Only Kamal knows if he is a racist. I don't no for sure, but
I'm a black man and I can tell you for sure that Kamal is about as racist as
they get. Trust me - the Indian culture is very unwelcoming to anyone not
like them. I was working up in the bay area when the company for which I
worked started hiring H1-Bs only, claiming that they (Indians) had better
qualifiations and were better educated. Now if that's the case, why did I
have to spend so much of my time teaching then basic programming concepts.
The white people in the company noticed how the Indians did not like a white
person educating them on material they were suppose to know (as if no body
is smarter than the Indians). This was about 5 times as true when it came
to a black person training an Indian.
Just read Kamal's posts. They have the same condescending tone that I
expirienced on the job.
So the bulk of your assessment of Kamal is based on your experience
with others of his race?
I think it is quite understandable if a person meets several of one "kind"
of people and all of these people display a behavior from which a
generalization can be formed then that person certainly seems, to me, to
have a right to report that generalization.

Does anyone remember the public issue, some years ago, when "trickle-down"
economics was in the news in a big way and someone/some political party
said "the poor are poor by choice"? Seems very similar.

And based on that, YOU are calling HIM
racist?!?!
And, it is pretty well known that rich people (who are in a small
minority) generally consider themselves _free_ to exploit anything and
anybody in society (including poor people as well as anyone between the
rich and the poor) for personal gain and then turn around and say that all
of these targeted people are _free_ to go hungry, to suffer, to be misled?
Like, for example, all the lawyers that got rich on tobacco (which is
still around) and the tobacco companies who knew for decades that
cigarettes were carriers for nicotine (addicting) but lied to everyone
that they knew nothing? And, addicted people are _free_ to quit smoking?
LOL!
Yeah.... I can tell you how 'fair' of a person you are.
alexy
2005-02-23 19:36:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by straydog
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:50:55 -0500
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Kamal probably not a racist.....Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
Post by B Mickey
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
Post by Little John
Kamal is a racist. Don't waste your time with him!
That's a little too strong, but I'll "buy into" the idea that he
doesn't
Post by straydog
mind at all (meaning, he likes the idea) all this US money coming
into his
Post by straydog
country and helping out create jobs there and his excuse for all the
woe
Post by straydog
that it is causing in the US is that its all primarily i) market, ii)
exchange rates, and iii) the "inflated" US dollar. He might admit
that
Post by straydog
robber-barron CEOs play some role, too (after all, they are the ones
making the decisions).
Only Kamal knows if he is a racist. I don't no for sure, but
I'm a black man and I can tell you for sure that Kamal is about as racist as
they get. Trust me - the Indian culture is very unwelcoming to anyone not
like them. I was working up in the bay area when the company for which I
worked started hiring H1-Bs only, claiming that they (Indians) had better
qualifiations and were better educated. Now if that's the case, why did I
have to spend so much of my time teaching then basic programming concepts.
The white people in the company noticed how the Indians did not like a white
person educating them on material they were suppose to know (as if no body
is smarter than the Indians). This was about 5 times as true when it came
to a black person training an Indian.
Just read Kamal's posts. They have the same condescending tone that I
expirienced on the job.
So the bulk of your assessment of Kamal is based on your experience
with others of his race?
I think it is quite understandable if a person meets several of one "kind"
of people and all of these people display a behavior from which a
generalization can be formed then that person certainly seems, to me, to
have a right to report that generalization.
Does anyone remember the public issue, some years ago, when "trickle-down"
economics was in the news in a big way and someone/some political party
said "the poor are poor by choice"? Seems very similar.
And you consider that valid? Or are you agreeing with me that that
kind of reasoning is bullshit?
Post by straydog
And based on that, YOU are calling HIM
racist?!?!
And, it is pretty well known that rich people (who are in a small
minority) generally consider themselves _free_ to exploit anything and
anybody in society (including poor people as well as anyone between the
rich and the poor) for personal gain and then turn around and say that all
of these targeted people are _free_ to go hungry, to suffer, to be misled?
What is the question here? Whether your statement that this is well
known is true?
Post by straydog
Like, for example, all the lawyers that got rich on tobacco (which is
still around) and the tobacco companies who knew for decades that
cigarettes were carriers for nicotine (addicting) but lied to everyone
that they knew nothing? And, addicted people are _free_ to quit smoking?
And the relevance of that to the issue of judging someone based on his
race or culture is what?
Post by straydog
LOL!
Yeah.... I can tell you how 'fair' of a person you are.
How can you tell that? By lawyers getting rich off of tobacco
settlements or the industry hiding known health risks? Your "logic"
leaves a bit to be desired!
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
straydog
2005-02-24 02:14:35 UTC
Permalink
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:36:14 -0500
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Kamal probably not a racist.....Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
Post by straydog
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:50:55 -0500
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Kamal probably not a racist.....Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
Post by B Mickey
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
That's a little too strong, but I'll "buy into" the idea that he
doesn't
Post by straydog
mind at all (meaning, he likes the idea) all this US money coming
into his
Post by straydog
country and helping out create jobs there and his excuse for all the
woe
Post by straydog
that it is causing in the US is that its all primarily i) market, ii)
exchange rates, and iii) the "inflated" US dollar. He might admit
that
Post by straydog
robber-barron CEOs play some role, too (after all, they are the ones
making the decisions).
Only Kamal knows if he is a racist. I don't no for sure, but
I'm a black man and I can tell you for sure that Kamal is about as racist as
they get. Trust me - the Indian culture is very unwelcoming to anyone not
like them. I was working up in the bay area when the company for which I
worked started hiring H1-Bs only, claiming that they (Indians) had better
qualifiations and were better educated. Now if that's the case, why did I
have to spend so much of my time teaching then basic programming concepts.
The white people in the company noticed how the Indians did not like a white
person educating them on material they were suppose to know (as if no body
is smarter than the Indians). This was about 5 times as true when it came
to a black person training an Indian.
Just read Kamal's posts. They have the same condescending tone that I
expirienced on the job.
So the bulk of your assessment of Kamal is based on your experience
with others of his race?
I think it is quite understandable if a person meets several of one "kind"
of people and all of these people display a behavior from which a
generalization can be formed then that person certainly seems, to me, to
have a right to report that generalization.
Does anyone remember the public issue, some years ago, when "trickle-down"
economics was in the news in a big way and someone/some political party
said "the poor are poor by choice"? Seems very similar.
And you consider that valid?
I'm not going to say, but I do have an opinion (depending on how you look
at it)

Or are you agreeing with me that that
kind of reasoning is bullshit?
In a way, yes, and in a way, no. Depends on what you mean by "that kind of
reasoning". However, have you not noticed that "that kind of reasoning"
goes on all the time? And, if there is anything defective, "its not me but
the other guy who is having problems" line of thinking?
Post by straydog
And based on that, YOU are calling HIM
racist?!?!
And, it is pretty well known that rich people (who are in a small
minority) generally consider themselves _free_ to exploit anything and
anybody in society (including poor people as well as anyone between the
rich and the poor) for personal gain and then turn around and say that all
of these targeted people are _free_ to go hungry, to suffer, to be misled?
What is the question here? Whether your statement that this is well
known is true?
The question is: Who gets to write/control the rules and who gets to be
judge/jury/executioner? Sorry that maybe went over your head.
Post by straydog
Like, for example, all the lawyers that got rich on tobacco (which is
still around) and the tobacco companies who knew for decades that
cigarettes were carriers for nicotine (addicting) but lied to everyone
that they knew nothing? And, addicted people are _free_ to quit smoking?
And the relevance of that to the issue of judging someone based on his
race or culture is what?
See answer above.
Post by straydog
LOL!
Yeah.... I can tell you how 'fair' of a person you are.
How can you tell that?
Easy

By lawyers getting rich off of tobacco
settlements or the industry hiding known health risks?
Yes

Your "logic"
leaves a bit to be desired!
Ain't no logic at all. All rationalizations. You should NEVER use the term
"logic" (with or without quotes) in debates (unless you are talking about
math, arithmetic).
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
alexy
2005-02-24 06:02:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
I think it is quite understandable if a person meets several of one "kind"
of people and all of these people display a behavior from which a
generalization can be formed then that person certainly seems, to me, to
have a right to report that generalization.
But then is it right to apply that generalization to an individual
representative of that "kind" of people, as was done here?
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
Does anyone remember the public issue, some years ago, when "trickle-down"
economics was in the news in a big way and someone/some political party
said "the poor are poor by choice"? Seems very similar.
And you consider that valid?
I'm not going to say, but I do have an opinion (depending on how you look
at it)
A man of deep convictions, eh? <g>
Post by straydog
Or are you agreeing with me that that
Post by alexy
kind of reasoning is bullshit?
In a way, yes, and in a way, no. Depends on what you mean by "that kind of
reasoning". However, have you not noticed that "that kind of reasoning"
goes on all the time? And, if there is anything defective, "its not me but
the other guy who is having problems" line of thinking?
Sure.
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
And, it is pretty well known that rich people (who are in a small
minority) generally consider themselves _free_ to exploit anything and
anybody in society (including poor people as well as anyone between the
rich and the poor) for personal gain and then turn around and say that all
of these targeted people are _free_ to go hungry, to suffer, to be misled?
What is the question here? Whether your statement that this is well
known is true?
The question is: Who gets to write/control the rules and who gets to be
judge/jury/executioner? Sorry that maybe went over your head.
<G> Go back and read the sentence in question. It is a simple
declarative sentence, "It is well known". What is claimed to be well
known is that the rich and powerful feel free to exploit. Then this
simple declarative sentence was ended with a question mark. And now
you are saying that it asks who gets to write the rules? I saw no such
question there, but rather a statement of what is. I think you need to
work on expressing your questions a little more clearly.
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
Like, for example, all the lawyers that got rich on tobacco (which is
still around) and the tobacco companies who knew for decades that
cigarettes were carriers for nicotine (addicting) but lied to everyone
that they knew nothing? And, addicted people are _free_ to quit smoking?
And the relevance of that to the issue of judging someone based on his
race or culture is what?
See answer above.
There is no answer above that relates at all to that question.
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
LOL!
Yeah.... I can tell you how 'fair' of a person you are.
How can you tell that?
Easy
By lawyers getting rich off of tobacco
Post by alexy
settlements or the industry hiding known health risks?
Yes
Your "logic"
Post by alexy
leaves a bit to be desired!
Ain't no logic at all.
That's for damn sure!
Post by straydog
All rationalizations. You should NEVER use the term
"logic" (with or without quotes) in debates (unless you are talking about
math, arithmetic).
Sorry, but you don't get to make the rules.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
straydog
2005-02-24 21:48:25 UTC
Permalink
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 01:02:49 -0500
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Kamal probably not a racist.....Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
I think it is quite understandable if a person meets several of one "kind"
of people and all of these people display a behavior from which a
generalization can be formed then that person certainly seems, to me, to
have a right to report that generalization.
But then is it right to apply that generalization to an individual
representative of that "kind" of people, as was done here?
1. I run accross people all the time who don't even MAKE generalizations,
they use "stereotypes" to "someone"
2. Hitler had a right (given to himself by himself) to __fill in the
blank__, and I had/have a right to say he didn't have a right (to give to
himself) to ___fill in the blank___
3. Any representation that I might make regarding whether "...as was done
here?" --according to me-- I shall, for the moment, decline to answer.
4. Would you set yourself up as judge, jury, executioner, censor,
minister of truth, right, morals?
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
Does anyone remember the public issue, some years ago, when "trickle-down"
economics was in the news in a big way and someone/some political party
said "the poor are poor by choice"? Seems very similar.
And you consider that valid?
I'm not going to say, but I do have an opinion (depending on how you look
at it)
A man of deep convictions, eh? <g>
Very deep :-| !
Post by straydog
Or are you agreeing with me that that
Post by alexy
kind of reasoning is bullshit?
In a way, yes, and in a way, no. Depends on what you mean by "that kind of
reasoning". However, have you not noticed that "that kind of reasoning"
goes on all the time? And, if there is anything defective, "its not me but
the other guy who is having problems" line of thinking?
Sure.
Unacceptable answer. You are being a cheapskate. I poured out a
significant observation. You said little. Too little.
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
And, it is pretty well known that rich people (who are in a small
minority) generally consider themselves _free_ to exploit anything and
anybody in society (including poor people as well as anyone between the
rich and the poor) for personal gain and then turn around and say that all
of these targeted people are _free_ to go hungry, to suffer, to be misled?
What is the question here? Whether your statement that this is well
known is true?
The question is: Who gets to write/control the rules and who gets to be
judge/jury/executioner? Sorry that maybe went over your head.
<G> Go back and read the sentence in question. It is a simple
declarative sentence, "It is well known". What is claimed to be well
known is that the rich and powerful feel free to exploit. Then this
simple declarative sentence was ended with a question mark. And now
you are saying that it asks who gets to write the rules? I saw no such
question there, but rather a statement of what is. I think you need to
work on expressing your questions a little more clearly.
I put the question mark there to see if you would focus upon that (a
deliberate punctuation anomaly) rather than the substance of the
paragraph. So, it either went over your head, or you chose to duck the
responsibility for agreeing or disagreeing with it.

And, actually, since you asked for a clarification (what is the question,
you asked) and got me to rephrase it (Who writes the rules) and thus
brings us to the "parallel" _issue_ of who gets to make generalizations
(eg. who is a racist? He is a racist!).
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
Like, for example, all the lawyers that got rich on tobacco (which is
still around) and the tobacco companies who knew for decades that
cigarettes were carriers for nicotine (addicting) but lied to everyone
that they knew nothing? And, addicted people are _free_ to quit smoking?
And the relevance of that to the issue of judging someone based on his
race or culture is what?
See answer above.
There is no answer above that relates at all to that question.
See answer above above.
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
LOL!
Yeah.... I can tell you how 'fair' of a person you are.
How can you tell that?
Easy
Your obligated to put something here even if you can't think of something.
Post by straydog
By lawyers getting rich off of tobacco
Post by alexy
settlements or the industry hiding known health risks?
Yes
Your "logic"
Post by alexy
leaves a bit to be desired!
Ain't no logic at all.
That's for damn sure!
Logic not needed, logic not appropriate. Most of the world does not
operate on logic. That's for even more damned sure!
Post by straydog
All rationalizations. You should NEVER use the term
"logic" (with or without quotes) in debates (unless you are talking about
math, arithmetic).
Sorry, but you don't get to make the rules.
I make all the rules that involve everything I control in my life.
You do NOT get to say "you don't get to make the rules."
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
alexy
2005-02-25 00:04:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by straydog
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 01:02:49 -0500
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Kamal probably not a racist.....Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
I think it is quite understandable if a person meets several of one "kind"
of people and all of these people display a behavior from which a
generalization can be formed then that person certainly seems, to me, to
have a right to report that generalization.
But then is it right to apply that generalization to an individual
representative of that "kind" of people, as was done here?
1. I run accross people all the time who don't even MAKE generalizations,
they use "stereotypes" to "someone"
Come on, Art, concentrate real hard on the question, which is "is it
correct to apply generalizations based on a group someone belongs to
to a particular person?" Note that I changed wording from "right" to
"correct", which was the meaning of "right" that I thought was clear
in the question, but which seems to have confused you.
Is your answer 1 intended to say that it is correct to apply such
generalizations, or that it is not?
Post by straydog
2. Hitler had a right (given to himself by himself) to __fill in the
blank__, and I had/have a right to say he didn't have a right (to give to
himself) to ___fill in the blank___
Wrong sense of "right". Having a right is not the same as being right.
I have a right to say that 2+2=5, but I would not be right to say
that, at least in any conventional number system.
Post by straydog
3. Any representation that I might make regarding whether "...as was done
here?" --according to me-- I shall, for the moment, decline to answer.
Why? Is it confusing to you that someone said that Kamal comes from a
culture that is racist, has shown no counter tendencies, so is racist?
Before you continue to weasel out on this, I'll remind you of what you
have already said on the topic, in particular, when someone said
"Kamal is a racist. Don't waste your time with him!", you responded
with "That's a little too strong".
Post by straydog
4. Would you set yourself up as judge, jury, executioner, censor,
minister of truth, right, morals?
No, but like you did above, I'll say so if I think such a claim is
being made without sufficient evidence.
Post by straydog
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
Does anyone remember the public issue, some years ago, when "trickle-down"
economics was in the news in a big way and someone/some political party
said "the poor are poor by choice"? Seems very similar.
And you consider that valid?
I'm not going to say, but I do have an opinion (depending on how you look
at it)
A man of deep convictions, eh? <g>
Very deep :-| !
Post by straydog
Or are you agreeing with me that that
Post by alexy
kind of reasoning is bullshit?
In a way, yes, and in a way, no. Depends on what you mean by "that kind of
reasoning". However, have you not noticed that "that kind of reasoning"
goes on all the time? And, if there is anything defective, "its not me but
the other guy who is having problems" line of thinking?
Sure.
Unacceptable answer.
Why? You asked if I noticed, and I said yes. I guess if I were you I
would have evaded the question and listed 4 irrelevant points, as you
did above. But I'd rather come clean with a straight-up answer. Sorry
if that makes you uncomfortable.
Post by straydog
You are being a cheapskate. I poured out a
significant observation.
You call that a significant observation? LOL!
Post by straydog
You said little. Too little.
I answered the question that was asked. Try it sometime!
Post by straydog
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
And, it is pretty well known that rich people (who are in a small
minority) generally consider themselves _free_ to exploit anything and
anybody in society (including poor people as well as anyone between the
rich and the poor) for personal gain and then turn around and say that all
of these targeted people are _free_ to go hungry, to suffer, to be misled?
What is the question here? Whether your statement that this is well
known is true?
The question is: Who gets to write/control the rules and who gets to be
judge/jury/executioner? Sorry that maybe went over your head.
<G> Go back and read the sentence in question. It is a simple
declarative sentence, "It is well known". What is claimed to be well
known is that the rich and powerful feel free to exploit. Then this
simple declarative sentence was ended with a question mark. And now
you are saying that it asks who gets to write the rules? I saw no such
question there, but rather a statement of what is. I think you need to
work on expressing your questions a little more clearly.
I put the question mark there to see if you would focus upon that (a
deliberate punctuation anomaly) rather than the substance of the
paragraph. So, it either went over your head, or you chose to duck the
responsibility for agreeing or disagreeing with it.
And, actually, since you asked for a clarification (what is the question,
you asked) and got me to rephrase it (Who writes the rules) and thus
brings us to the "parallel" _issue_ of who gets to make generalizations
(eg. who is a racist? He is a racist!).
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
Like, for example, all the lawyers that got rich on tobacco (which is
still around) and the tobacco companies who knew for decades that
cigarettes were carriers for nicotine (addicting) but lied to everyone
that they knew nothing? And, addicted people are _free_ to quit smoking?
And the relevance of that to the issue of judging someone based on his
race or culture is what?
See answer above.
There is no answer above that relates at all to that question.
See answer above above.
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
LOL!
Yeah.... I can tell you how 'fair' of a person you are.
How can you tell that?
Easy
Your obligated to put something here even if you can't think of something.
Post by straydog
By lawyers getting rich off of tobacco
Post by alexy
settlements or the industry hiding known health risks?
Yes
Your "logic"
Post by alexy
leaves a bit to be desired!
Ain't no logic at all.
That's for damn sure!
Logic not needed, logic not appropriate. Most of the world does not
operate on logic. That's for even more damned sure!
Post by straydog
All rationalizations. You should NEVER use the term
"logic" (with or without quotes) in debates (unless you are talking about
math, arithmetic).
Sorry, but you don't get to make the rules.
I make all the rules that involve everything I control in my life.
You do NOT get to say "you don't get to make the rules."
But I just did. Or did you miss that?
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
straydog
2005-02-25 01:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:04:57 -0500
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Kamal probably not a racist.....Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
Post by straydog
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 01:02:49 -0500
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Kamal probably not a racist.....Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
I think it is quite understandable if a person meets several of one "kind"
of people and all of these people display a behavior from which a
generalization can be formed then that person certainly seems, to me, to
have a right to report that generalization.
But then is it right to apply that generalization to an individual
representative of that "kind" of people, as was done here?
1. I run accross people all the time who don't even MAKE generalizations,
they use "stereotypes" to "someone"
Come on, Art, concentrate real hard on the question, which is "is it
correct
^^^^^^^
Alex, concentrate real hard on the concept of "absolute truth" and
"monopoly on truth" and tell me if it was _correct_ for the Roman Empire
(how about Alexander-the-Great, too) to murder, maim, cause pain, destroy,
tax, extract tribute, and subjugate millions.

to apply generalizations based on a group someone belongs to
to a particular person?" Note that I changed wording from "right" to
"correct", which was the meaning of "right" that I thought was clear
in the question, but which seems to have confused you.
Is your answer 1 intended to say that it is correct to apply such
generalizations, or that it is not?
I'll wait for the next round of responses from you, then I'll give you MY
thoughts on this. OK?
Post by straydog
2. Hitler had a right (given to himself by himself) to __fill in the
blank__, and I had/have a right to say he didn't have a right (to give to
himself) to ___fill in the blank___
Wrong sense of "right". Having a right is not the same as being right.
Ah...matter of semantics and meaning and word usage, but not that
different in the context. "Rights" are like "assumptions" and vice versa.
"I have a right to X" is an assertion that I assume I can freely do X and
philosophers can much more finely granulate that expression.

The only way Hitler (and the German people who _freely_ followed him) was
stopped was with a greater and better military strength. All through
history, maybe _more_ innocent people than guilty people were done away
with, enslaved, etc. Will good ever win over evil?
I have a right to say that 2+2=5, but I would not be right to say
that, at least in any conventional number system.
Oh, I don't know...the likes of Kenneth Lay, Bernard Ebbers, and many
others thought it was OK for 2+2+5. Lots of them might get to walk and
keep their "5s", too.
Post by straydog
3. Any representation that I might make regarding whether "...as was done
here?" --according to me-- I shall, for the moment, decline to answer.
Why? Is it confusing to you that someone said that Kamal comes from a
culture that is racist, has shown no counter tendencies, so is racist?
This is where we began our discusion but neither you nor him have
presented anything to say he is not a racist but there were unqualified
comments about his racist culture. Do you think there is no racism in the
USA? Have you heard of the book with the title "Tribes" by a guy with the
name Kotkin? I have the book and read it cover to cover. Would you like me
to give you a synopsis of reality (from the book)? And, by the way, the
book cites quite a few references. Ask me if I think the author is a
racist or is prejudiced/biased.
Before you continue to weasel out on this, I'll remind you of what you
have already said on the topic, in particular, when someone said
"Kamal is a racist. Don't waste your time with him!", you responded
with "That's a little too strong".
And? Your first sentence above seems to me to definitely be a snap
judgement on your part. Or, would you have prefered me to say "That's a
lot too strong"? Especially since I've seen zero good evidence either way
but I'll report that I disagree with quite a bit of what Kamal says.
Post by straydog
4. Would you set yourself up as judge, jury, executioner, censor,
minister of truth, right, morals?
No, but like you did above, I'll say so if I think such a claim is
being made without sufficient evidence.
...according to you, yes, you'll "say so" and as the rest of the zillion
tons of this planet continues to rotate on its axis in spite of you.
Post by straydog
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
Does anyone remember the public issue, some years ago, when "trickle-down"
economics was in the news in a big way and someone/some political party
said "the poor are poor by choice"? Seems very similar.
And you consider that valid?
I'm not going to say, but I do have an opinion (depending on how you look
at it)
A man of deep convictions, eh? <g>
Very deep :-| !
<g>
Post by straydog
Post by straydog
Or are you agreeing with me that that
Post by alexy
kind of reasoning is bullshit?
In a way, yes, and in a way, no. Depends on what you mean by "that kind of
reasoning". However, have you not noticed that "that kind of reasoning"
goes on all the time? And, if there is anything defective, "its not me but
the other guy who is having problems" line of thinking?
Sure.
Unacceptable answer.
Why? You asked if I noticed, and I said yes.
Basically, both you and I engage in rationalizations in which we perceive
our own thoughts as more "correct" (or...___fill in the blank__) than the
other guy. I have the feeling that this causes the majority of the worlds
problems. Buuut, much of our exchange feels to me like you prefer to
consider your own rationalizations more valid than mine. Buuuuut, then,
that's your perogative.

I guess if I were you I
would have evaded the question and listed 4 irrelevant points, as you
did above.
They were relevant to me. They were responses. They may not have been
answers to your questions. I've been on newsgroups since '92 and this
phenomenon is very common amongst debaters with conflicting
ideas/thoughts.

But I'd rather come clean with a straight-up answer. Sorry
if that makes you uncomfortable.
You may not agree, but I've found, at least to my satisfaction, fairly big
gaps in you various lines of thinking.
Post by straydog
You are being a cheapskate. I poured out a
significant observation.
You call that a significant observation? LOL!
Please enjoy the entertainment in any fashion you are most comfortable
with. I'm enjoying this, too. :-)
Post by straydog
You said little. Too little.
I answered the question that was asked. Try it sometime!
Are you an amateur politician, or practising to become a real one, or
both, or neither?


(deleted)
Post by straydog
Post by straydog
The question is: Who gets to write/control the rules and who gets to be
judge/jury/executioner? Sorry that maybe went over your head.
<G> Go back and read the sentence in question. It is a simple
declarative sentence, "It is well known". What is claimed to be well
known is that the rich and powerful feel free to exploit. Then this
simple declarative sentence was ended with a question mark. And now
you are saying that it asks who gets to write the rules? I saw no such
question there, but rather a statement of what is. I think you need to
work on expressing your questions a little more clearly.
I put the question mark there to see if you would focus upon that (a
deliberate punctuation anomaly) rather than the substance of the
paragraph. So, it either went over your head, or you chose to duck the
responsibility for agreeing or disagreeing with it.
And, actually, since you asked for a clarification (what is the question,
you asked) and got me to rephrase it (Who writes the rules) and thus
brings us to the "parallel" _issue_ of who gets to make generalizations
(eg. who is a racist? He is a racist!).
Passages where we got no responses from you were deleted.
Post by straydog
I make all the rules that involve everything I control in my life.
You do NOT get to say "you don't get to make the rules."
But I just did. Or did you miss that?
And, I just proved that you don't get to make the rules regarding
everything I control in my life.

Or, OK, how about you prove to me that "if you [meaning me] don't get to
make the rules" then who does? You? Someone else (eg. the rich who lobby
the politicos to make laws favorable to them)? Or, coming back to the
original question: Who gets to _say_ whether someone is a racist? And how
do we decide if what is said is true, untrue, partly true? And, what do we
do about it (you already said you didn't have any "ideas" but you also
said "we are not doing enough" ).

So, I say, "Put up or shut up"
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
alexy
2005-02-25 02:20:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
I make all the rules that involve everything I control in my life.
You do NOT get to say "you don't get to make the rules."
But I just did. Or did you miss that?
And, I just proved that you don't get to make the rules regarding
everything I control in my life.
Are you able to discern the difference? You made a statement above
about what I was not allowed to say, and I pointed out that I said it,
thus showing that you were wrong when you said that I did not get to
say that.

You on the other hand proved something that was never in contention,
the fact (which I never contradicted) that I don't get to make the
rules regarding everything you control in your life.

See, you were claiming to be able to say what I could or could not
say, and I was never claiming to be able to say what you could or
could not say.
Post by straydog
Or, OK, how about you prove to me that "if you [meaning me] don't get to
make the rules" then who does?
Art, you need to get some serious help with language. A question
cannot be "proved"
Post by straydog
You? Someone else (eg. the rich who lobby
the politicos to make laws favorable to them)? Or, coming back to the
original question: Who gets to _say_ whether someone is a racist?
Anyone can say that anyone else is. Anyone can also question the
rationale for or validity of such a claim.
Post by straydog
And how
do we decide if what is said is true, untrue, partly true?
We don't. We decide if there is enough evidence for us to believe it,
but that doesn't make it true or false.
Post by straydog
And, what do we
do about it (you already said you didn't have any "ideas" but you also
said "we are not doing enough" ).
No, you are confused. I never said any such thing about deciding
whether Kamal is a racist or not.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
Kamal R. Prasad
2005-02-25 08:08:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 01:02:49 -0500
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Kamal probably not a racist.....Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
Post by straydog
I think it is quite understandable if a person meets several of one "kind"
of people and all of these people display a behavior from which a
generalization can be formed then that person certainly seems, to me, to
have a right to report that generalization.
But then is it right to apply that generalization to an individual
representative of that "kind" of people, as was done here?
1. I run accross people all the time who don't even MAKE generalizations,
they use "stereotypes" to "someone"
Come on, Art, concentrate real hard on the question, which is "is it
correct to apply generalizations based on a group someone belongs to
to a particular person?" Note that I changed wording from "right" to
"correct", which was the meaning of "right" that I thought was clear
in the question, but which seems to have confused you.
Is your answer 1 intended to say that it is correct to apply such
generalizations, or that it is not?
Post by straydog
2. Hitler had a right (given to himself by himself) to __fill in the
blank__, and I had/have a right to say he didn't have a right (to give to
himself) to ___fill in the blank___
Wrong sense of "right". Having a right is not the same as being right.
I have a right to say that 2+2=5, but I would not be right to say
that, at least in any conventional number system.
Post by straydog
3. Any representation that I might make regarding whether "...as was done
here?" --according to me-- I shall, for the moment, decline to answer.
Why? Is it confusing to you that someone said that Kamal comes from a
culture that is racist, has shown no counter tendencies, so is racist?
There are lots of countries that have institutionalized some form of
discrimination or the other. India is probably not at the top of the
list. Does the entire country of 1 billion people really owe some
morons on usenet an explanation on where it stands wrt discriminatory
laws and do I really need to prove my credentials to anyone that I am
not as bad as the country's reputation suggests -that too when I am
sitting in my own country? Even if it was possible to sue me in a US
court of law over my personality traits -that would require me to
practice racist behaviour WITHIN the US -which I clearly am not.
There is quite a bit of racist behaviour -not in India -but in US at
airports, and many other places to the pt of being instituionalized.
But for a person who has made up his mind that he wants to be in his
home country away from the US -that behaviour is inconsequential and
not relevant.
Post by alexy
Before you continue to weasel out on this, I'll remind you of what you
have already said on the topic, in particular, when someone said
"Kamal is a racist. Don't waste your time with him!", you responded
with "That's a little too strong".
Doesn't matter to me if you(art) agree with that idiot's conclusions.
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
4. Would you set yourself up as judge, jury, executioner, censor,
minister of truth, right, morals?
No, but like you did above, I'll say so if I think such a claim is
being made without sufficient evidence.
Im not particularly interested in public speaking or standing for
election -so what others think of me is NOT important to me.

regards
-kamal
straydog
2005-02-25 14:26:50 UTC
Permalink
Date: 25 Feb 2005 00:08:25 -0800
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Kamal probably not a racist.....Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
deleted
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
3. Any representation that I might make regarding whether "...as was done
here?" --according to me-- I shall, for the moment, decline to answer.
Why? Is it confusing to you that someone said that Kamal comes from a
culture that is racist, has shown no counter tendencies, so is racist?
There are lots of countries that have institutionalized some form of
discrimination or the other.
I would agree with that.
India is probably not at the top of the
list.
The use of the word "probably" is wise, but if you are Indian and want to
say something that puts India in a better "light," then the problem is
conflict of interest. If we got 100 people, all from 100 different
countries and let them tell us their experiences, then it might be a
useful finding.

Does the entire country of 1 billion people really owe some
morons on usenet an explanation on where it stands wrt discriminatory
laws and do I really need to prove my credentials to anyone that I am
not as bad as the country's reputation suggests -that too when I am
sitting in my own country?
The world is full of morons and since the people on usenet come from the
same population, what makes you think you should expect a better
reception?

Even if it was possible to sue me in a US
court of law over my personality traits -that would require me to
practice racist behaviour WITHIN the US -which I clearly am not.
There is a lot of confusion about what is legal and not legal regarding
racism. If a black person refuses to invite a white person to the black
person's party, does that mean the black person is racist? Or, if the
white person refused to go, does that mean the white person is racist?
There is quite a bit of racist behaviour -not in India -but in US at
airports, and many other places to the pt of being instituionalized.
We've got a lot of problems in the USA besides racism. A lot.
But for a person who has made up his mind that he wants to be in his
home country away from the US -that behaviour is inconsequential and
not relevant.
Right.
Post by alexy
Before you continue to weasel out on this, I'll remind you of what you
have already said on the topic, in particular, when someone said
"Kamal is a racist. Don't waste your time with him!", you responded
with "That's a little too strong".
Doesn't matter to me if you(art) agree with that idiot's conclusions.
Ahhhhh...a racist and a name-caller in the same thread?
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
4. Would you set yourself up as judge, jury, executioner, censor,
minister of truth, right, morals?
No, but like you did above, I'll say so if I think such a claim is
being made without sufficient evidence.
Im not particularly interested in public speaking or standing for
election -so what others think of me is NOT important to me.
Most of my recollection from the debating between you and I is that you
were making noise about how good offshoring jobs from the USA to India
was good for the USA and you based that on an economic argument. I neither
liked the idea that offshoring was good for the USA nor did I accept the
economic argument on which it was based. What I thought of you, compared
to your noise, is a separate matter. However, I'll agree that offshoring
of jobs from the USA to India is good for India.
zach
2005-02-25 17:39:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by straydog
Date: 25 Feb 2005 00:08:25 -0800
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Kamal probably not a racist.....Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
deleted
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
3. Any representation that I might make regarding whether "...as was done
here?" --according to me-- I shall, for the moment, decline to answer.
Why? Is it confusing to you that someone said that Kamal comes from a
culture that is racist, has shown no counter tendencies, so is racist?
There are lots of countries that have institutionalized some form of
discrimination or the other.
I would agree with that.
India is probably not at the top of the
list.
The use of the word "probably" is wise, but if you are Indian and want to
say something that puts India in a better "light," then the problem is
conflict of interest. If we got 100 people, all from 100 different
countries and let them tell us their experiences, then it might be a
useful finding.
Discrimination was intsitutionalized at the beginning into Indian
"democracy", much like it was when the US started. Many people aren't
even eligible for their affirmitave action programs because of their
background. India is indeed at the top of the list, but they are making
great effort to improve. It will probably take at least another
generation at least to change the hearts of the people.
straydog
2005-02-25 19:42:12 UTC
Permalink
Date: 25 Feb 2005 09:39:31 -0800
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: What country discriminates the most? ...was: Re: Kamal probably
not a racist.....Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
Post by straydog
Date: 25 Feb 2005 00:08:25 -0800
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Kamal probably not a racist.....Re: Jobs Lost to India
Aftermath
Post by straydog
deleted
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
3. Any representation that I might make regarding whether "...as
was done
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
here?" --according to me-- I shall, for the moment, decline to
answer.
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Why? Is it confusing to you that someone said that Kamal comes
from a
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
culture that is racist, has shown no counter tendencies, so is
racist?
Post by straydog
There are lots of countries that have institutionalized some form
of
Post by straydog
discrimination or the other.
I would agree with that.
India is probably not at the top of the
list.
The use of the word "probably" is wise, but if you are Indian and
want to
Post by straydog
say something that puts India in a better "light," then the problem
is
Post by straydog
conflict of interest. If we got 100 people, all from 100 different
countries and let them tell us their experiences, then it might be a
useful finding.
Discrimination was intsitutionalized at the beginning into Indian
"democracy", much like it was when the US started. Many people aren't
even eligible for their affirmitave action programs because of their
background. India is indeed at the top of the list, but they are making
great effort to improve. It will probably take at least another
generation at least to change the hearts of the people.
In addition to any comments anyone might wish to make on discrimination
issues, there is the issue of corruption. There is at least one
organization that makes some kind of assessment of the various levels of
corruption in the world and for some 50-75 countries. I don't recall the
details or the name of the organization, but I do recall the trends that
the countries that came up high in corruption were almost always 3rd world
countries or early developing countries. Countries that were generally low
in corruption were mostly central & northern West European contries. The
corruption in the USA was higher than all if not most of these.

Corruption is also a mechanism by which discrimination can take place. If
you don't have the money to pay the piper, then you don't get to call the
tune.

"Democracy" needs to be evaluated, also, in terms of how many votes get
placed as a direct or indirect result of funds available for campaigning.
If votes can be influenced with money, then is it democracy?
zach
2005-02-25 20:45:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by straydog
In addition to any comments anyone might wish to make on
discrimination
Post by straydog
issues, there is the issue of corruption. There is at least one
organization that makes some kind of assessment of the various levels of
corruption in the world and for some 50-75 countries. I don't recall the
details or the name of the organization, but I do recall the trends that
the countries that came up high in corruption were almost always 3rd world
countries or early developing countries. Countries that were
generally low
Post by straydog
in corruption were mostly central & northern West European contries. The
corruption in the USA was higher than all if not most of these.
Not really: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1412217.stm

The corruption index, as I recall reading from TI's website a few years
ago, includes things that we normally consider innocuous, like
transparency of funding sources. The common citizen has less to worry
about that than my friend at work who had to bribe the cops to get her
marriage license. Or my uncle and aunt who had to pay a *huge* bribe to
Turkish officials to get their belongings through customs, even though
they were going to live there for at least two years while he taught
Philosophy at university.

Still, all things being equal, I'd say we don't rank too bad on the
list, especially given our diverse society.
Kamal R. Prasad
2005-02-26 07:10:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZaZona.com
Post by straydog
Date: 25 Feb 2005 00:08:25 -0800
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Kamal probably not a racist.....Re: Jobs Lost to India
Aftermath
Post by straydog
deleted
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
3. Any representation that I might make regarding whether "...as
was done
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
here?" --according to me-- I shall, for the moment, decline to
answer.
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Why? Is it confusing to you that someone said that Kamal comes
from a
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
culture that is racist, has shown no counter tendencies, so is
racist?
Post by straydog
There are lots of countries that have institutionalized some form
of
Post by straydog
discrimination or the other.
I would agree with that.
India is probably not at the top of the
list.
The use of the word "probably" is wise, but if you are Indian and
want to
Post by straydog
say something that puts India in a better "light," then the problem
is
Post by straydog
conflict of interest. If we got 100 people, all from 100 different
countries and let them tell us their experiences, then it might be a
useful finding.
Discrimination was intsitutionalized at the beginning into Indian
"democracy", much like it was when the US started. Many people aren't
even eligible for their affirmitave action programs because of their
Affirmative action is a bandage to cure consequences of
discrimination. A country can be non-discriminatory with no
affirmative action in place.
Post by ZaZona.com
background. India is indeed at the top of the list, but they are making
great effort to improve. It will probably take at least another
generation at least to change the hearts of the people.
I find your moral rectitude amusing. That said, affirmative action is
more of a political football. Politicians use it to capture votes
-rather than reduce discrimination. With or without affirmative
action, we are moving from a caste-based society to a class-based
society.

regards
-kamal
Kamal R. Prasad
2005-02-26 06:57:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by straydog
Date: 25 Feb 2005 00:08:25 -0800
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Kamal probably not a racist.....Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
deleted
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
3. Any representation that I might make regarding whether "...as was done
here?" --according to me-- I shall, for the moment, decline to answer.
Why? Is it confusing to you that someone said that Kamal comes from a
culture that is racist, has shown no counter tendencies, so is racist?
There are lots of countries that have institutionalized some form of
discrimination or the other.
I would agree with that.
India is probably not at the top of the
list.
The use of the word "probably" is wise, but if you are Indian and want to
say something that puts India in a better "light," then the problem is
conflict of interest. If we got 100 people, all from 100 different
countries and let them tell us their experiences, then it might be a
useful finding.
The civil code is similar to that of western countries. And the
country has attracted lots of political refugees -meaning the
countries to the west and east of India are rather intolerant and
their minority/out-of-favour populace has settled in India in
significant numbers. If it is home to so many unwanted people on this
planet -it couldn't be on the top of discriminatory countries' list.
Post by straydog
Does the entire country of 1 billion people really owe some
morons on usenet an explanation on where it stands wrt discriminatory
laws and do I really need to prove my credentials to anyone that I am
not as bad as the country's reputation suggests -that too when I am
sitting in my own country?
The world is full of morons and since the people on usenet come from the
same population, what makes you think you should expect a better
reception?
Just think -do these 1 billion people need to pass a litmus test
conducted by some usenet posters for them to carry on with their
lives?
Post by straydog
Even if it was possible to sue me in a US
court of law over my personality traits -that would require me to
practice racist behaviour WITHIN the US -which I clearly am not.
There is a lot of confusion about what is legal and not legal regarding
racism. If a black person refuses to invite a white person to the black
person's party, does that mean the black person is racist? Or, if the
white person refused to go, does that mean the white person is racist?
The laws enacted by the US govt don't apply in any form to people in
India. Its not a question of whether or not one is on the right or
wrong side of US anti-discrimination laws simply because those laws
don't mean anything to people here [or anywhere else outside the 50
(+2) states].
Post by straydog
There is quite a bit of racist behaviour -not in India -but in US at
airports, and many other places to the pt of being instituionalized.
We've got a lot of problems in the USA besides racism. A lot.
Yeah -but what I meant is that skin-colour based attitudes are more
prevalent in western countries than in India.
Post by straydog
But for a person who has made up his mind that he wants to be in his
home country away from the US -that behaviour is inconsequential and
not relevant.
Right.
Post by alexy
Before you continue to weasel out on this, I'll remind you of what you
have already said on the topic, in particular, when someone said
"Kamal is a racist. Don't waste your time with him!", you responded
with "That's a little too strong".
Doesn't matter to me if you(art) agree with that idiot's conclusions.
Ahhhhh...a racist and a name-caller in the same thread?
I just said that your (or anyone else) pronouncing me guilty means
nothing to me.
Post by straydog
Post by alexy
Post by straydog
4. Would you set yourself up as judge, jury, executioner, censor,
minister of truth, right, morals?
No, but like you did above, I'll say so if I think such a claim is
being made without sufficient evidence.
Im not particularly interested in public speaking or standing for
election -so what others think of me is NOT important to me.
Most of my recollection from the debating between you and I is that you
were making noise about how good offshoring jobs from the USA to India
was good for the USA and you based that on an economic argument. I neither
No -you misinterpreted what I said. I know offshoring causes lots of
pain to the working class. The cost of living is v high in the US and
even a single month of jobloss means a lot more hardship than it does
to people in a country like India. A few mths of work in a year is
sufficient to meet one's yearly expenses in India. So I haven't
suggested that you deserve to lose those jobs or that there is a
hidden benefit to losing such jobs. There simply isn't.
What I meant is that regardless of whether it causes pain or not to
you, the employer has full rights to decide whether or not to offshore
work. You cannot compel an employer to hire an american if he is
convinced he can get a better return on investment outside the US.
The capital that goes into hiring people is a risk the investor takes.
The product developed may or may not sell, but he cannot tell the
employees to return their salaries if it doesn't sell or if it doesn't
yield adequate returns. Nor will the govt reimburse him for the lost
capital. So if you have a moral right to those jobs, it is as good as
saying you have a moral right to the invested money -which simply
isn't true.
Post by straydog
liked the idea that offshoring was good for the USA nor did I accept the
economic argument on which it was based. What I thought of you, compared
to your noise, is a separate matter. However, I'll agree that offshoring
of jobs from the USA to India is good for India.
Yeah -it is good for India. But no one is sadistic here meaning people
work to earn a living but don't necessarily want to see someone else
thrown out because of that. It should be possible for americans to
look for jobs in India (at Indian salaries) -and there is no
expectation of a quid pro quo.

regards
-kamal
Max Muir
2005-02-24 18:20:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by alexy
Your "logic"
Post by alexy
leaves a bit to be desired!
Ain't no logic at all. All rationalizations. You should NEVER use the term
"logic" (with or without quotes) in debates (unless you are talking about
math, arithmetic).
Are you sure?

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

For example, http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/compos.htm

Composition

Definition

Because the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued
that the whole has that property. That whole may be either an object
composed of different parts, or it may be a collection or set of
individual members.

Examples:
(i) The brick wall is six feet tall. Thus, the bricks in the wall are
six
feet tall.
(ii) Germany is a militant country. Thus, each German is militant.
(iii) Conventional bombs did more damage in W.W. II than nuclear
bombs. Thus, a conventional bomb is more dangerous than a
nuclear bomb. (From Copi, p. 118)

Regards,
Max
alexy
2005-02-24 18:33:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max Muir
Post by alexy
Your "logic"
Post by alexy
leaves a bit to be desired!
Ain't no logic at all. All rationalizations. You should NEVER use the
term
Post by alexy
"logic" (with or without quotes) in debates (unless you are talking
about
Post by alexy
math, arithmetic).
Are you sure?
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
For example, http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/compos.htm
Composition
Definition
Because the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued
that the whole has that property. That whole may be either an object
composed of different parts, or it may be a collection or set of
individual members.
(i) The brick wall is six feet tall. Thus, the bricks in the wall are
six
feet tall.
(ii) Germany is a militant country. Thus, each German is militant.
(iii) Conventional bombs did more damage in W.W. II than nuclear
bombs. Thus, a conventional bomb is more dangerous than a
nuclear bomb. (From Copi, p. 118)
Regards,
Max
Yes, but your argument is logical, thus makes no sense to the target
audience. You should have used, as proof of the appropriateness of
using logic, comments about the economic plight of Scottish sheep
herders. Gotta learn how these minds work. <g>
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
BMJ
2005-02-24 18:38:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max Muir
Post by alexy
Your "logic"
Post by alexy
leaves a bit to be desired!
Ain't no logic at all. All rationalizations. You should NEVER use the
term
Post by alexy
"logic" (with or without quotes) in debates (unless you are talking
about
Post by alexy
math, arithmetic).
Are you sure?
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
For example, http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/compos.htm
Composition
Definition
Because the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued
that the whole has that property. That whole may be either an object
composed of different parts, or it may be a collection or set of
individual members.
(i) The brick wall is six feet tall. Thus, the bricks in the wall are
six
feet tall.
(ii) Germany is a militant country. Thus, each German is militant.
(iii) Conventional bombs did more damage in W.W. II than nuclear
bombs. Thus, a conventional bomb is more dangerous than a
nuclear bomb. (From Copi, p. 118)
Regards,
Max
Most of this thread reminds me of:

http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/argument.htm
alexy
2005-02-24 18:49:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by BMJ
http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/argument.htm
ROTFL!
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
straydog
2005-02-25 01:23:09 UTC
Permalink
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:49:17 -0500
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Kamal probably not a racist.....Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
Post by BMJ
http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/argument.htm
Sometimes I ask myself, philosophically....

What is the meaning of life?
What is the purpose of the universe?
What is the nature of reality?

There are some permutations there, too, if any of you geniuses want to
test your factorials (I am not a genius).

However, after reading (and generating a few of my own) newsgroup threads
(both trivial and violent) for over a decade, I keep coming back to these
similarities:

1. Newsgroup discussions remind me of the bar scene in the movie "Star
Wars"

2. I have not read the book "Ship of Fools" (by Cathrine Porter?), but
there is something in that title that causes a glimmer of recognition.
And, now, I'm looking for a copy (Yard sale, 50 cents, someday).

3. I did read the play "Waiting for Godot" by Samuel Beckett and the
resemblance to newsgroups threads is remarkable and even more remarkable
if you read "Casebook on Waiting for Godot: The impact of Beckett's
modern classic - reviews, reflections & interpretations" edited by Ruby
Cohn. Neither of these books are for people who already know everything
and have no questions about anything. Oh, yes, I saw the play on
television when I was a kid and I thought it was insane. However, I
thought, for sure, that the people who made it possible for me to see it
surely were sane. Thus, a paradox. Many decades later and after reading
both the play and the casebook, I can only say that these people are not
only geniuses but very creative. This is priceless.

Remember, folks, newsgroup posts should be either educational or
entertaining or both. I am also very tollerant of humor.

Hackers, would you please stay outta my root directory.
BMJ
2005-02-25 02:12:00 UTC
Permalink
straydog wrote:

<snip>
Post by straydog
Sometimes I ask myself, philosophically....
What is the meaning of life?
What is the purpose of the universe?
What is the nature of reality?
Ah, but what is the Ultimate Answer and why was the Earth destroyed by
the Vogons to make way for a hyperspace bypass?

<snip>
alexy
2005-02-24 18:41:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max Muir
Post by alexy
Your "logic"
Post by alexy
leaves a bit to be desired!
Ain't no logic at all. All rationalizations. You should NEVER use the
term
Post by alexy
"logic" (with or without quotes) in debates (unless you are talking
about
Post by alexy
math, arithmetic).
Are you sure?
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
For example, http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/compos.htm
Composition
Definition
Because the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued
that the whole has that property. That whole may be either an object
composed of different parts, or it may be a collection or set of
individual members.
(i) The brick wall is six feet tall. Thus, the bricks in the wall are
six
feet tall.
(ii) Germany is a militant country. Thus, each German is militant.
(iii) Conventional bombs did more damage in W.W. II than nuclear
bombs. Thus, a conventional bomb is more dangerous than a
nuclear bomb. (From Copi, p. 118)
Regards,
Max
One more thought: Is your logical argument for the use of logic in
this argument any more valid (I started to say "logical", but that is
just TOO circular!) than Art's illogical appeal for omitting logic
from debate? <G>
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
B Mickey
2005-02-22 06:38:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by straydog
Post by Little John
Kamal is a racist. Don't waste your time with him!
That's a little too strong,
Trust me, the term "Racist" describes him very well.
Kamal R. Prasad
2005-02-23 07:05:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by straydog
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:21:37 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
Post by Brian G. Moore
..
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
Kamal, you don't understand basic human psychology. Everyone (at least
99%, leaving out the "saints") who is poor wants to _get_ status and/or
money. You DON'T need economics "smoke-and-mirrors" to explain why things
are the way they are. Poor countries don't have anything to offer except
flesh and cheap flesh at that. I never blamed "poor people in other
No -cheap flesh is present right in the US too. Its present in many
other developed countries. One doesn't have to go to poor countries
for that till local flesh is exhausted -if that was the case. Many of
the lower-income workers in the US will do anything and everything to
make ends meet. The more the no. of US workers fired to send work to
India, greater is the amt. of cheap flesh available to employers. Why
wouldn't they hire some of the cheap flesh and same themselves
political controversy?
I don't get this. It sounds like we are back on square one. I
thought you agreed that costs of living were very different in the US
vs. other countries. We *can't* hire, say, desperate unemployed
people living in, say, south central LA, it just costs too damn much,
even to pay them ludicrously low wages. To make enough to minimally
eat, get a dive to live in, and drive to and fro your job costs way
too much in this country vs. other countries.
Now, that is an interesting thought, that only you could have come up
with. We could *export* poor people to India! Ya, that's the ticket.
What I said originally was so long as there are people living in
squalor somewhere AND willing to work for dirt, then labor all over
the world will be at risk. Maybe eventually it behooves us to to a
few things, even tangential perhaps to even up the extremes.
Kamal is a racist. Don't waste your time with him!
That's a little too strong, but I'll "buy into" the idea that he doesn't
mind at all (meaning, he likes the idea) all this US money coming into his
I must have told you in the past that private equity is not public
property. No matter whether the money invested in the US belongs to a
foreigner, a naturalized american like George Soros or a US citizen
like Bill Gates, Larry Ellison etc. -that money does NOT belong to you
or your fellow americans. If they find it viable to invest in
generating jobs in the US -they will. Else, forget about arm-twisting
them or blaming people elsewhere about offering more value for money
sitting in their own country.
Post by straydog
country and helping out create jobs there and his excuse for all the woe
that it is causing in the US is that its all primarily i) market, ii)
exchange rates, and iii) the "inflated" US dollar. He might admit that
robber-barron CEOs play some role, too (after all, they are the ones
making the decisions).
The CEO is just an employee who is supposed to look after the
shareholders' interest. If shareholders want him to reduce expenses by
sending work overseas -he will do as they ask. Otherwise he will lose
his job. There are of course, many things in the play -like him
wanting to send work overseas to improve the bottomline and thus earn
a better bonus or for that matter -that reduce costs to overcome the
costly mistakes he made. If you have a problem with companies wanting
to fire americans and get work done elsewhere for less, you should be
attacking the shareholders for that.
Post by straydog
Big robber-barron, greedy, selfish corporations don't care how things get
done as long as they can cut costs in the short run. In the long run, they
will just prey upon anything they can prey upon.
Yeah -but how can you compel them to invest for the sake of altruism?

regards
-kamal
straydog
2005-02-23 18:07:12 UTC
Permalink
Date: 22 Feb 2005 23:05:39 -0800
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Kamal probably not a racist.....Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
Post by straydog
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:21:37 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
Post by Brian G. Moore
..
Post by straydog
Kamal, you don't understand basic human psychology. Everyone (at least
99%, leaving out the "saints") who is poor wants to _get_ status and/or
money. You DON'T need economics "smoke-and-mirrors" to explain why things
are the way they are. Poor countries don't have anything to offer except
flesh and cheap flesh at that. I never blamed "poor people in other
deleted
Post by straydog
Post by Brian G. Moore
Now, that is an interesting thought, that only you could have come up
with. We could *export* poor people to India! Ya, that's the ticket.
What I said originally was so long as there are people living in
squalor somewhere AND willing to work for dirt, then labor all over
the world will be at risk. Maybe eventually it behooves us to to a
few things, even tangential perhaps to even up the extremes.
Kamal is a racist. Don't waste your time with him!
That's a little too strong, but I'll "buy into" the idea that he doesn't
mind at all (meaning, he likes the idea) all this US money coming into his
I must have told you in the past that private equity is not public
property. No matter whether the money invested in the US belongs to a
foreigner, a naturalized american like George Soros or a US citizen
like Bill Gates, Larry Ellison etc. -that money does NOT belong to you
or your fellow americans. If they find it viable to invest in
generating jobs in the US -they will. Else, forget about arm-twisting
them or blaming people elsewhere about offering more value for money
sitting in their own country.
This is a very sleazy, beat-around-the-bush, smoke-and-mirrors argument
that very neatly avoids the issue that a very small number of very rich
and powerful (with decision-making authority) CONTROLs what happens to
money flow and they almost ALWAYS consider human flesh as disposable when
it suits them. Revolutions, revolts, and rebelions are possible when
conditions (such as laid-off US people [regardless of their recent or
original origin] being replaced by, for example, Indians in India]) get
bad enough. All over the world are voices asking for fairness and I, for
one, reject the notion that "private equity" is answerable to no one.
There are many examples of laws put on our books to increase fairness.
Or...how would you like it if a stronger military power just walked into
India and declared "OK, you're all the 'private equity' of us, now"?
Post by straydog
country and helping out create jobs there and his excuse for all the woe
that it is causing in the US is that its all primarily i) market, ii)
exchange rates, and iii) the "inflated" US dollar. He might admit that
robber-barron CEOs play some role, too (after all, they are the ones
making the decisions).
The CEO is just an employee who is supposed to look after the
shareholders' interest.
Most of the time they serve their own interests, are over paid,
over-pampered, and over-protected from all hazards of real life, and
over-severancepaid.

If shareholders want him to reduce expenses by
sending work overseas -he will do as they ask.
Ahhhhahahahaha.....give me a couple of examples.

At most, the BOD might make recommendations. eg. Carly Fioria got free
wheel for five years and now 42 mil total give away package for leaving.
Where were the shareholders?

Otherwise he will lose
his job. There are of course, many things in the play -like him
wanting to send work overseas to improve the bottomline and thus earn
a better bonus or for that matter -that reduce costs to overcome the
costly mistakes he made.
Yeah...I'd like some of them to cut their package by enough millions that
they could keep thousands of employees.

If you have a problem with companies wanting
to fire americans and get work done elsewhere for less, you should be
attacking the shareholders for that.
Nah... give bad publicity to the corporations. Also, we need some nice new
strong unions, nice new laws for jailtime for CEOs that think they are
_kings_. Laws that forbid CEOs from robbing their company, clients, and
employees. And, some of this is happening in the regulated insurance
business in the USA (I know some of this).
Post by straydog
Big robber-barron, greedy, selfish corporations don't care how things get
done as long as they can cut costs in the short run. In the long run, they
will just prey upon anything they can prey upon.
Yeah -but how can you compel them to invest for the sake of altruism?
Good publicity, popularity, good business, happy employees hired in the
country where the company has its main offices and in proportion to the
business it does in that country.
regards
-kamal
straydog
2005-02-21 17:27:00 UTC
Permalink
Date: 21 Feb 2005 01:34:40 -0800
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
Post by straydog
Date: 20 Feb 2005 07:46:59 -0800
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
Post by Brian G. Moore
All this talk by Kamal about currency & etc---it isnt that hard.
So long are there are people living in squalor on this planet, the
outsourcing of labor will be a problem. After India industrializes to
the point that it's standard of living is substantially improved,
labor will be outsourced somewhere else.
Looks like you do have a problem with understanding me -as do many
other people. It isn;t about std of living -its about inflated
currency. Canada has a weaker currency than the US, but a higher std
of living. It also has a smaller deficit (none if Im right). If std of
living were an issue, then you should be able to live as comfortably
in the US as it takes in USD to live comfortably in India. But that is
not the case because there is no parity in purchasing power between
USD and Indian rupee. You can't keep blaming poor people in other
countries for the cheap tricks of your own govt.
Kamal, you don't understand basic human psychology. Everyone (at least
99%, leaving out the "saints") who is poor wants to _get_ status and/or
money. You DON'T need economics "smoke-and-mirrors" to explain why things
are the way they are. Poor countries don't have anything to offer except
flesh and cheap flesh at that. I never blamed "poor people in other
No -cheap flesh is present right in the US too.
In absolute quantity, there is 4-5 times as many in India. What is the
population of India these days? 1+ billion people compared to our 300
million? And, with India now graduating a lot of BS level people?

Cheap flesh in the USA can't afford to go to college any more.

Its present in many
other developed countries. One doesn't have to go to poor countries
for that till local flesh is exhausted -if that was the case. Many of
the lower-income workers in the US will do anything and everything to
make ends meet. The more the no. of US workers fired to send work to
India, greater is the amt. of cheap flesh available to employers. Why
wouldn't they hire some of the cheap flesh and same themselves
political controversy?
1. The robber-barron CEOs (and lobbyists) all want to get the work done
cheap and out of sight (so they don't have to look at poverty in the eye).

2. The major Indian (and India-located US companies) have already set up
shops and tied into the (growing) infrastructure. Its part of the
executive mindset, now, to offshore. Venture capitalists (also called
vulture capitalists) even demand that new US companies have plans and
actions to offshore as much as possible.

3. US corps will be reluctant to hire laid off US former IT workers
because these guys are all very mad and would probably hack their
employers to make life difficult if they got hired. Easier to have a
contract and make the Indian bosses just hand over work in exchange for
low amounts of money and not have problems.

4. The few US guys who were laid off and still could get IT jobs all tell
me they are not getting as much money any more and they are really mad.
Post by straydog
countries" and my own govt -- as far as I'm concerned -- is NOT doing ME
any favors. Technology makes it possible to ship the work to the cheap
flesh and it is corporate executives that make the decision to do this and
they do it for short term gain, period. In the long run, average buying
power in the US will go down (there are already studies showing this), and
right behind that will be average standard of living.
depends on economic policies in the long run.
Man does not live by bread alone. There are many factors besides economic
policies and if Bush is officially not interested in oil, then it was a
non-economic policy driving the decision to go to war.
to be continued in another post.
I'll be here....waiting.
regards
-kamal
Kamal R. Prasad
2005-02-23 06:06:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
Date: 20 Feb 2005 07:46:59 -0800
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
Post by Brian G. Moore
All this talk by Kamal about currency & etc---it isnt that hard.
So long are there are people living in squalor on this planet, the
outsourcing of labor will be a problem. After India industrializes to
the point that it's standard of living is substantially improved,
labor will be outsourced somewhere else.
Looks like you do have a problem with understanding me -as do many
other people. It isn;t about std of living -its about inflated
currency. Canada has a weaker currency than the US, but a higher std
of living. It also has a smaller deficit (none if Im right). If std of
living were an issue, then you should be able to live as comfortably
in the US as it takes in USD to live comfortably in India. But that is
not the case because there is no parity in purchasing power between
USD and Indian rupee. You can't keep blaming poor people in other
countries for the cheap tricks of your own govt.
Kamal, you don't understand basic human psychology. Everyone (at least
99%, leaving out the "saints") who is poor wants to _get_ status and/or
money. You DON'T need economics "smoke-and-mirrors" to explain why things
are the way they are. Poor countries don't have anything to offer except
flesh and cheap flesh at that. I never blamed "poor people in other
No -cheap flesh is present right in the US too. Its present in many
other developed countries. One doesn't have to go to poor countries
for that till local flesh is exhausted -if that was the case. Many of
the lower-income workers in the US will do anything and everything to
make ends meet. The more the no. of US workers fired to send work to
India, greater is the amt. of cheap flesh available to employers. Why
wouldn't they hire some of the cheap flesh and same themselves
political controversy?
Post by straydog
countries" and my own govt -- as far as I'm concerned -- is NOT doing ME
any favors. Technology makes it possible to ship the work to the cheap
flesh and it is corporate executives that make the decision to do this and
they do it for short term gain, period. In the long run, average buying
power in the US will go down (there are already studies showing this), and
right behind that will be average standard of living.
depends on economic policies in the long run.
to be continued in another post.
regards
-kamal
Post by straydog
I have no idea why you keep bringing in 'economics' and artificial
factors such as 'inflated currency' as if these things are supposed
Its not artificial -simply because you fail to see/acknowledge the
reality.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
to be the _objective_ target. Sometimes I get the impression you might be
slightly sympathetic
No -I am not sympathetic. I am agnostic -meaning I do not have the
means to distinguish people on the basis of nationality/race as good
or evil or to say that an american deserves to lose his job to an
Indian (or for that matter has a god given right to a job). If
americans are convinced that they have a moral right to kill civilians
in Iraq -it is an indication that extremism has affected their
sensibilities.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
to the fact that 1-2 percent of US jobs in the USA
Post by straydog
have been eliminated but you also "buy into" the propaganda that it is
If it was just 1-2 percent, you can stop crying over it. As I see it,
there is a tectonic shift in engg jobs from US to other countries.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
inevitable that "retraining" is the required answer when, in fact,
economists have NO OTHER answer and there are studies showing that
"retraining" does not work.
It does not work when trying to compete with people based in other
countries. But it can help when competing against work permit holders,
meaning americans (not all but many) have some catching up to do with
ref to their overseas counterparts.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
Post by Brian G. Moore
We will only know that this problem is starting to come back into
equilibriuam when we hear about labor being outsourced to sub-Saharan
Africa. My guess is that that will be the last bastion of
low-standard-of-living left behind as the rest of the world
industrializes.
How about E. Europe? They too have a lot of poverty. For that matter,
there is high unemployment and poverty in Germany.
High unemployment all over western and eastern Europe, generally lower
standard of living in eastern Europe.
Germany has a high cost of living -because of which employers will not
bother to take advantage of its high unemployment and move work from
US to Germany. (That in effect means moving work from a cheaper
location to a costlier location).
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
But the equivalent
cost of living (for a dismal std of living) means that work won't be
shifting from US to germany.
This is an oversimplification. Recent articles in the WSJ point out a
number of manufacturing (including high tech) plants are going into
eastern Europe AND former East Germany.
To some extent -but it is less for a country like Germany which has a
high cost of living. There are actually a lot of factors that affect
movement besides currency. Do they have the right manpower, the roads,
electricity, distance, communication, tarrifs etc..so that after the
plant has been shifted -it will improve the company's bottomline. So
while Germany may not be the cheapest location to offshore work to
-some other factors aid in moving the work to Germany and not Africa.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
We even have a small flow of retiring US citizens who retire to Mexico
because the cost of living (related to standard of living) is a fair bit
lower and some people will put up with the heat.
Yeah -but have you wondered why the US has such a high cost of living?
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
Post by Brian G. Moore
Now, how LONG will it take to get to that point? Hard to tell.
The clear thing is that we--in the US--WILL see our standard of living
decline, and very substantially, either slowly or all at once. All
the forces are pointing in that direction, and I don't see anything
that can clearly be done to stop that. Arguably it has been happening
here since about the early 70s anyhow.
Std of living in the US has been declining despite a rising dollar
(just check the charts instead of believing me). But a stronger
currency means you can buy better cars, dvd cameras, digital cameras
etc.. even if it means smaller houses, lower savings rate etc..
OK, but you can't start talking like this without bringing in lots of
other complicating factors like debt. Americans are going deeper into
debt, too, to buy all this junk. And, the big corporations keep
marketing/advertising to promote this. Its burning the candle at both
ends.
Im not saying that you should be buying junk. Im saying that vested
interests within have landed you into this situation. Do a google
search on "strong dollar policy". You will see numerous statements
from people holding public posts within the US govt.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
Post by Brian G. Moore
Again, arguably, some of the bad stuff to come from this inevitable
downward pressure on our standard of living has already happened--e.g.
we are invading countries pre-emptively now.
Just because the US has invaded Iraq pre-emptively doesn't mean it has
achieved any goals.
Bush in Iraq is surely more about oil control than WMD and whether any
goals have been achieved will have to wait for history to happen. I'm not
unhappy that SH is out and maybe the election is good, but even the final
outcome can't be determined for years. Certainly a large number of
innocent Iraqis have been killed and there are surely a lot of people
there who would have wished the US never came. But, we are just having
"coffee-talk" here.
I don't have anything positive to say about SH. But if you look at the
past 100-200 yrs of human history, the white man has acquired a
reputation of being a colonizer who wants to prey on coloured
people('s wealth). For those who contribute to the insurgency either
physically or mentally, GWB is first a white man, then an american and
then an individual elected as pres. in the US -who has agreed to the
plans of lobby groups. So, for the sake of dispelling racial
stereotypes -you need to change course and leave them alone to their
ethnic disputes.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
it could well be something he wishes he hadn't
done in retrospect. Not everyone who is chasing gold can actually get
his hands on it -and many go crazy to the pt that they end up digging
their own graves.
In the same week the US started war on Iraq, there was an article in the
WSJ concerning the history of five previous invasions of Iraq in the past
200 years by European countries. The historians that provided the
background details reported that all five efforts failed with troops
leaving and objectives, in the end, not being achieved. One US objective
in Iraq seems to have been acheived: get SH out of power. But, at least
If they execute him -he will have been taken out of power for good.
Otherwise, the US has a proxy guerilla war to tackle as a first step
to keep him from returning to power. Meaning -as long as you want a
puppet govt to remain in Iraq -the US taxpayer will have to finance
its security.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
the White House acknowledged, relatively recently, that things were not
going as well as they would like. US in Kuwait was probably morally good
and that also got SH out of Kuwait (did the Kuwaitis pay the US to do
this?). We also did not do well in Korea, SEA, or Viet Nam.
Yeah -besides that wherever americans go, they make a geopolitical
mess of it, adversely affecting the lives of countless innocent
civilians.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by straydog
Iraq? Will need several more years to tell. Unless my govt can come up
with a better reason (than WMD) for going there, then my opinion for
this moment is that we should have never gone over there. Projected
additional debt just for the war is > $200 billion and we've got more
important problems to deal with.
that -and the fact that recruitment is down for the US army. As I
heard on CNN a 4 star general said that the wheels of the US army are
about to come off thanks to Donald Rumsfield.

regards
-kamal
BMJ
2005-02-20 16:45:16 UTC
Permalink
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:

<snip>
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Looks like you do have a problem with understanding me -as do many
other people. It isn;t about std of living -its about inflated
currency. Canada has a weaker currency than the US, but a higher std
of living. It also has a smaller deficit (none if Im right).
I live in Canada and it isn't as you say it is.

1. The U. S. dollar is dropping with respect to other currencies,
especially the euro.

2. Canada's dollar is rising with respect to the greenback.

3. Higher standard of living is a matter of perspective. Some segments
of the Canadian population are doing quite well, while others are having
a hard time.

4. Smaller population = smaller deficit. Canada's population is 10%
that of the U. S. Coincidence?


If std of
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
living were an issue, then you should be able to live as comfortably
in the US as it takes in USD to live comfortably in India. But that is
not the case because there is no parity in purchasing power between
USD and Indian rupee. You can't keep blaming poor people in other
countries for the cheap tricks of your own govt.
<snip>
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
How about E. Europe? They too have a lot of poverty. For that matter,
there is high unemployment and poverty in Germany. But the equivalent
cost of living (for a dismal std of living) means that work won't be
shifting from US to germany.
Eastern Europe *is* a desired location for relocating work. A good
portion of the population is well-educated. Many of those same
countries are in NATO, so English would be a common language.

<snip>
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Std of living in the US has been declining despite a rising dollar
(just check the charts instead of believing me). But a stronger
currency means you can buy better cars, dvd cameras, digital cameras
etc.. even if it means smaller houses, lower savings rate etc..
A stronger currency also means that a country's exports become more
expensive. A stronger currency means tourists would prefer to go
elsewhere because it would be cheaper to travel there. A stronger
currency means that a country's revenues from external sources can decrease.

<snip>
Kamal R. Prasad
2005-02-23 06:21:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by BMJ
<snip>
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Looks like you do have a problem with understanding me -as do many
other people. It isn;t about std of living -its about inflated
currency. Canada has a weaker currency than the US, but a higher std
of living. It also has a smaller deficit (none if Im right).
I live in Canada and it isn't as you say it is.
1. The U. S. dollar is dropping with respect to other currencies,
especially the euro.
It is dropping wrt the Indian Rupee too. But that is NOW -and a result
of bad economic health.
Post by BMJ
2. Canada's dollar is rising with respect to the greenback.
Yeah -not surprising, but it wasn't the case a few yrs back.
Post by BMJ
3. Higher standard of living is a matter of perspective. Some segments
of the Canadian population are doing quite well, while others are having
a hard time.
Yeah -but if you look at affordability of a middle class person, can
he afford more than his US counterpart? Housing takes away a large
chunk of one's income in the US. Healthcare without a job is hell for
americans. We don't have much of healthcare in India either -but
medical costs are v low in India. You actually don't get reimbursement
from insurance co. for medical treatment that doesn't require
hospitalization -because the expenses are so trivial.
Post by BMJ
4. Smaller population = smaller deficit. Canada's population is 10%
that of the U. S. Coincidence?
No. During the clinton years, the US had a huge surplus and lots of
foreigners making a beeline for the US. After the US economy went into
recession -the population decreased and lots of people left the US
-and the deficit kept rising. Deficits have more to do with economic
mismanagement than population growth/density.
Post by BMJ
If std of
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
living were an issue, then you should be able to live as comfortably
in the US as it takes in USD to live comfortably in India. But that is
not the case because there is no parity in purchasing power between
USD and Indian rupee. You can't keep blaming poor people in other
countries for the cheap tricks of your own govt.
<snip>
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
How about E. Europe? They too have a lot of poverty. For that matter,
there is high unemployment and poverty in Germany. But the equivalent
cost of living (for a dismal std of living) means that work won't be
shifting from US to germany.
Eastern Europe *is* a desired location for relocating work. A good
portion of the population is well-educated. Many of those same
countries are in NATO, so English would be a common language.
It is -because it is still a cheaper location than its western
counterparts. But if I had to give you an example -when france changed
from francs(?) to Euros -their cost of living in dollar terms got
re-adjusted. The USD has/d parity with the Euro -so cost of living
across the atlantic remains the same and that mitigates job shifts.
Post by BMJ
<snip>
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Std of living in the US has been declining despite a rising dollar
(just check the charts instead of believing me). But a stronger
currency means you can buy better cars, dvd cameras, digital cameras
etc.. even if it means smaller houses, lower savings rate etc..
A stronger currency also means that a country's exports become more
expensive. A stronger currency means tourists would prefer to go
elsewhere because it would be cheaper to travel there. A stronger
currency means that a country's revenues from external sources can decrease.
Yes -and the reason why tourists prefer to go elsewhere is also the
reason why it costs more to hire people in that country (with a strong
currency). Someone known to me in montreal told me that after the
french switched to Euros -their summer travel plans went into a
disarray. The country is the same, the poverty & unemployment is the
same -and yet the relative cost of living has gotten adjusted to make
it as expensive to visit/stay as Canada.

regards
-kamal
BMJ
2005-02-23 06:54:56 UTC
Permalink
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:

<snip>
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
1. The U. S. dollar is dropping with respect to other currencies,
especially the euro.
It is dropping wrt the Indian Rupee too. But that is NOW -and a result
of bad economic health.
Not necessarily. South Korea sold large numbers of U. S. dollars in the
past two days. The oil price rose by 4% earlier today. These factors
will undermine any country's currency.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
2. Canada's dollar is rising with respect to the greenback.
Yeah -not surprising, but it wasn't the case a few yrs back.
Actually not even that far. Try two years ago when it was around $0.60
U. S. Now it's about a third higher.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
3. Higher standard of living is a matter of perspective. Some segments
of the Canadian population are doing quite well, while others are having
a hard time.
Yeah -but if you look at affordability of a middle class person, can
he afford more than his US counterpart?
I'd say it's about equal.

Housing takes away a large
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
chunk of one's income in the US.
It does in Canada, too.

Healthcare without a job is hell for
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
americans.
Do you think it's any better in Canada? OK, our health care costs are
less than in many countries, it's not free. In Saskatchewan, basic
coverage is paid through a provincial sales tax (at least it was that
way when I lived there over 20 years ago), while here in Alberta, it
costs me $60 CDN a month for both basic and extended coverage, but that
also includes a large portion of my dental expenses.

We don't have much of healthcare in India either -but
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
medical costs are v low in India. You actually don't get reimbursement
from insurance co. for medical treatment that doesn't require
hospitalization -because the expenses are so trivial.
There are certain things I have to pay completely out of pocket.
Eyeglasses aren't covered, for example. They're not cheap.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
4. Smaller population = smaller deficit. Canada's population is 10%
that of the U. S. Coincidence?
No. During the clinton years, the US had a huge surplus and lots of
foreigners making a beeline for the US. After the US economy went into
recession -the population decreased and lots of people left the US
-and the deficit kept rising. Deficits have more to do with economic
mismanagement than population growth/density.
Not necessarily. How do you think FDR paid for the American
contribution to WW II?
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
If std of
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
living were an issue, then you should be able to live as comfortably
in the US as it takes in USD to live comfortably in India. But that is
not the case because there is no parity in purchasing power between
USD and Indian rupee. You can't keep blaming poor people in other
countries for the cheap tricks of your own govt.
<snip>
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
How about E. Europe? They too have a lot of poverty. For that matter,
there is high unemployment and poverty in Germany. But the equivalent
cost of living (for a dismal std of living) means that work won't be
shifting from US to germany.
Eastern Europe *is* a desired location for relocating work. A good
portion of the population is well-educated. Many of those same
countries are in NATO, so English would be a common language.
It is -because it is still a cheaper location than its western
counterparts.
True, but the economies of many former Warsaw Pact countries had to be
completely rebuilt, so that adds to the overall expense. Still, eastern
Europe is reasonably cheap compared with the west.


But if I had to give you an example -when france changed
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
from francs(?) to Euros -their cost of living in dollar terms got
re-adjusted. The USD has/d parity with the Euro -so cost of living
across the atlantic remains the same and that mitigates job shifts.
They're not at par any more. In fact, there's been discussion that some
countries might possibly be considering basing their currencies on the
Euro instead of the greenback.

<snip>
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
A stronger currency also means that a country's exports become more
expensive. A stronger currency means tourists would prefer to go
elsewhere because it would be cheaper to travel there. A stronger
currency means that a country's revenues from external sources can decrease.
Yes -and the reason why tourists prefer to go elsewhere is also the
reason why it costs more to hire people in that country (with a strong
currency). Someone known to me in montreal told me that after the
french switched to Euros -their summer travel plans went into a
disarray. The country is the same, the poverty & unemployment is the
same -and yet the relative cost of living has gotten adjusted to make
it as expensive to visit/stay as Canada.
regards
-kamal
But that's bound to change. About fifteen years ago, cross-border
shopping trips by Canadians to the U. S. were of serious concern to some
businesses here. The exchange rate was favourable to Canadians wanting
to buy things such as VCRs. That's not so popular now.
Brian G. Moore
2005-02-20 19:07:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
All this talk by Kamal about currency & etc---it isnt that hard.
So long are there are people living in squalor on this planet, the
outsourcing of labor will be a problem. After India industrializes to
the point that it's standard of living is substantially improved,
labor will be outsourced somewhere else.
Looks like you do have a problem with understanding me -as do many
other people. It isn;t about std of living -its about inflated
currency. Canada has a weaker currency than the US, but a higher std
of living. It also has a smaller deficit (none if Im right). If std of
living were an issue, then you should be able to live as comfortably
in the US as it takes in USD to live comfortably in India. But that is
not the case because there is no parity in purchasing power between
USD and Indian rupee. You can't keep blaming poor people in other
countries for the cheap tricks of your own govt.
You're entirely wrong as to the gist of my post.

What I'm getting at is something more like this: WE--in the US--saw
our standard of living greatly increase in the prewar period, such
that the disparity between us and abroad became greater. WE should
have seen that ultimately, as economies globalized and transportation
became cheaper, that it would put out labor market at risk. Where
ever there is someone willing (and eager) to work for like 50 cents a
day, there will be strong downward pressure on wages.

Your arguments about currencies and such are valid, but, in my view,
only a layer over this underlying reality. If I'm making circa $100
day, and there is someone who can do my job for ~ $.10/day (4 orders
of magnitude difference), changes in currency valuations--unless they
are catastrophic--will just be perturbations on that core reality.

In my view, we--in the west, in the US--should have taken a more
global view about industrialization, especially post WWII.

I'm not blaming the people in poor countries. Just the opposite, I'm
blaming US for being so selfish and not seeing that what goes on in
the rest of the globe ultimately effects us. If I'm saying anything
to you, I guess it would be a similar warning. India is making great
strides now, yes. But if you move far enough you will eventually be
at risk in the same way we are. Where that risk will come from, who
knows. But there are still billions of desparately poor people on
this planet, so it can go on a long time before it starts to level
off.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
We will only know that this problem is starting to come back into
equilibriuam when we hear about labor being outsourced to sub-Saharan
Africa. My guess is that that will be the last bastion of
low-standard-of-living left behind as the rest of the world
industrializes.
How about E. Europe? They too have a lot of poverty. For that matter,
there is high unemployment and poverty in Germany. But the equivalent
cost of living (for a dismal std of living) means that work won't be
shifting from US to germany.
Well, I'm not so sure of that. I wasn't talking details anyhow. And
it is possible to have high levels of poverty without having rock
bottom labor costs (just look at US inner cities for example).
Obviously in the details it is complicated. What I'm saying is that
the fundamental, underlying cause is the disparity in standards of
living globally, thats all.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
Now, how LONG will it take to get to that point? Hard to tell.
The clear thing is that we--in the US--WILL see our standard of living
decline, and very substantially, either slowly or all at once. All
the forces are pointing in that direction, and I don't see anything
that can clearly be done to stop that. Arguably it has been happening
here since about the early 70s anyhow.
Std of living in the US has been declining despite a rising dollar
(just check the charts instead of believing me). But a stronger
currency means you can buy better cars, dvd cameras, digital cameras
etc.. even if it means smaller houses, lower savings rate etc..
You are right on on that one. The only silver lining in our lives
since the 70s has been the availability of incredibly cheap
electronics. I won't buy into it on cars though. Better, maybe. But
much, much more expensive. Arguably, the high cost of cars (and gas)
is one of the structural problems holding back the US labor market.
If I could live without a car I might be able to do with almost 25%
less in income. It is that bad.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
The question is--what will be our response to this? People get very
angry when their expectations are dashed. And remember, people think
in an extrapolatory mode. They look at how much better they did than
their parents and expect the same slope.
Again, arguably, some of the bad stuff to come from this inevitable
downward pressure on our standard of living has already happened--e.g.
we are invading countries pre-emptively now.
Just because the US has invaded Iraq pre-emptively doesn't mean it has
achieved any goals. it could well be something he wishes he hadn't
done in retrospect. Not everyone who is chasing gold can actually get
his hands on it -and many go crazy to the pt that they end up digging
their own graves.
Again, you have me just backward.

My point was that when people see their standard of living
decline--even relative to what they exptected--they get angry. I'm
suggesting that our military adventures could be seen as an irrational
extension of that common-worker angst. I'm not saying it is right,
just suggesting that it is a part of the problem.


Brian
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
regards
-kamal
Post by Brian G. Moore
I don't know what the answer is.
Brian Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
<snip>
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
I didn't suggest the govt shouldn't do anything. But what I
would
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
suggest the US govt to do is different from what you would
suggest. I
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
would suggest that they devalue the USD so that cost of
living
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
comes
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
down and gets to the same level (or not much different from )
other
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
countries. When that happens, companies will find it viable
to
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
employ
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
americans instead of Indians without being arm-twisted (which
trust
Post by BMJ
Post by zach
me
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
is not doable anyway).
To do so to _that_ level is impossible, if not flat-out
ridiculous.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
If the expected depression happens then the same result will
occur.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
He has one point in that given the current circumstances either
we
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
do this by choice, or the world economy will force the same
outcome
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
on us with much more repercussions.
Kinda close. When govts participate in the currency market to inflate
currency -it is like insider trading and it does catch up someday.
Inflating a currency is like fooling the world. You can fool some
people all of the time -the whole world for some time, but not the
whole world forever. The easy way is for govts. to stop fooling the
world -so that currency rates are in line with their purchasing power
and that in turn reduces job shifta from countries with stronger
currencies. The hard way is that unemployment shoots up and the bluff
is called, for the dollar to crash vs the rupee. Choose your poison
-but forget about being able to sustain 5x Indian salaries for the
same productivity as in India. And there is no such thing as going up
the value chain to survive or maintaining a lock on any sensitive
technologies. You don't need an H1b visa to acquire grey matter
between your ears. People in India are as capable of doing good engg
work without ever visiting the US.
Well, I've been doing nothing but finding inexcusable errors in some
designs coming directly from our Indian design center. The same error,
basically. When my boss tried to ask "just what is going on over there,
why hasn't someone solved this problem yet," he was basically told on
the sly to shut his mouth. A few hundred thousand dollars worth of
wasted silicon and who knows how much engineering time later... I just
What kind of work gets done at the Indian design centre depends on
both the quality of manpower hired -as well as how well communication
errors are resolved. I worked at IBM India -and the mgmt was extremely
miserly and hired the cheapest manpower with the result that the US
office was seldom happy with the output. That doesn't mean the country
as a whole is incapable of producing good engrs -just that acc to the
law of free market economics, you get what you pay for.
As far as communication problems go, I read an article in ACM's
Queue magazine by a british consultant titled "Pitfalls on the
passage to India" in which he said that the same engr who does a good
job when working onsite fails to deliver the goods offshore because he
does not have the advantage of interacting in person to do a
requirement analysis. When you interact in person, you can read the
body language and get a lot of info v quickly -but speaking over the
telephone doesn't get you much info. And if the US office is already
pissed off with you, then you need do 'window dressing' i.e. your
questions shouldn't make you look stupid -so you minimize the no. of
queries with the result that a lot of issues remain unresolved.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
found the same problem on yet _another_ new design. Yet the guy in
charge of directing them here is also an Indian, no doubt protecting
them and getting away with it. What pissed me off is that he attacked
us for not finding the problems sooner. But that's ok, a lot of people
(also non-Indians, incompetance knows no nationality) looked foolish
after this latest incident.
Im not in a position to defend anyone's incompetence simply because he
is an Indian. But speaking at a broader level -offshoring is going
great guns in India, both in terms of the quantity of work being done
here and the quality of work aka moving higher up the value chain. A
few will fail due to greed and/or mismanagement -but if you look at
the industrial activity today and 5 yrs back -its a world of
difference.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
The ship is already sinking. Only extreme regulation by the
government
Post by BMJ
or a crash will change the course. But since the rich virtually
run
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
the government, and they are too stupid to give up on profit to
maintain economic health, then we are toast.
The only way you can fix the system is by recognizing what causes job
movements and how to dissuade employers from moving jobs (and not
trying to confiscate their wealth or hoping that overseas workers
will
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
be so stupid that work will automatically return on account of
failures -which is something from Alice's wonderland).
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Why are profit and economic health two different things? If not
Profits accure to corporations -and economic health is what he refers
to the health of the country.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
profitable, then companies fold and even more goods are produced
elsewhere, unless you want the government to force its people to
only
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
buy American. If wealth is not created, then nothing is moving
forward.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Do we want to be like France (e.g.), with a double-digit
unemployment
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
rate _and_ massive debt?
Robert Rubin is the Chairman of Citigroup. He earns a $15m salary and
if the dollar remains steady or appreciates -it helps the investment
banking activity of his company. But that doesn't mean it makes
americans competitive in a global job market. The rich have one set
of
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
priorities and the working class another -or shall we say that the
economic interests of the 2 don't necessarily coincide.
No disagreement there.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
Other severe events like disaster or world war would of course
alter
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by BMJ
things too, but those are not good options.
That is not a rosy picture for anybody. We consume and now invest
heavily to keep China's forward economic momentum going. We invest
to
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
keep India's standard of living on the upward slope, though there
is no
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
reason they cannot go through the same producing what they consume
stage like we did, though they have far less natural resources than
we
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
No -the US hands out inflated aka counterfeit currency to buy goods
and services from these 2 countries. If they didn't have inflated
currencies -these countries would have greater purchasing power and
engineers in these 2 countries would be proviiding services to the
domestic industry instead.
I don't buy your reverse fallacy of composition. If engineering job
salaries are cut in half, say, then there will be NO engineers, since
every other job in the country will pay far more. Are you really saying
that just about everybody here is making too much money? How much money
No -Im not suggesting that engg salaries should be cut in half. You
could be drawing the same dollar amt in salary and yet the difference
in wages could be reduced. 1 USD= 44 Rupees. If the exchange rate
were to be altered to say 1 USD = 30 Rupees, because there is a
floor in salary in terms of cost of living, US employers will end up
paying more dollars/month for the services of an Indian engr than they
presently do. Likewise for the goods imported from china.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
do Indians send back to India each year to support their families? It
may not be as much as the Mexicans send south of the border
comparatively, but I bet it isn't pocket change.
I know some pretty well off Indians who don't send any money to
support their families. Their savings rate is identical to that of
americans -and so you can calculate depending on position and
lifestyle of a person, how much he manages to save. Whether he sends
it to India or not -I cannot say for sure without meeting the guy and
knowing his personal details.Its not necessary that every Indian in
the US is compelled to send money home.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
did and still have, so maybe that is not possible on the same
scale.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Are they capable of doing that should the world economy collapse?
The
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
few hundred million who live in poverty probably won't care, but
those
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
nearer the to who are benefiting might.
During the recession when the sky seemed to be falling on americans
-India was the 2nd fastest economy on this planet (after China) and
offshoring genereates only 2% of the economic activity in India.
Perhaps you can educate us on the other 98%?
65% of India's population depends on farming and that is the biggest
economic activity. No more than 20% of India's population lives in
urban areas and they have the option to work in manufacturing/service
sector. BPO is one of the fastest growing services, but other than
that -there are quite a few like pharma and all kinds of engg. I don't
have a distribution in hand, but am positive that outsourced IT
supports a small urban population.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
If
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
the USD crashes, a lot more Indians will be able to afford hi-tech
goods originating in the US
_What_ high tech is still originating in the US? Except for the few
large companies, most semiconductor houses are fabless, and more
non-manufacturing jobs are going overseas at an accelerated rate.
Most computers are sold in India by american companies. The hw design
might be done in the US -with the manufacturing shunted out to
overseas location. But the best paid and largest group of employees of
american companies happen to he americans. Ford, Chevrolet etc.. are
all doing big business in India. If they prefer not to hire americans
due to the high cost of living, that is a different issue. But the
vendors are really going great guns here.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
-and that means the call centres providing
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
services for US customers will now provide services for domestic
customers [and you will have lesser reason to call us parasites].
If anyone's calling you "parasites" it isn't me.
I didn't mean you -but that is the general attitude of people towards
Indians doing offshored work. In some ways the complaint is valid
because the one paying for the services is an american who would want
to help his fellow american land a job -but the mgmt wouldn't let him.
But if currency distortions were removed -India as a country would be
a big consumer of american goods , and critics will not have a problem
if the american company producing the goods hires many Indians in
return.
regards
-kamal
zach
2005-02-20 22:07:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
All this talk by Kamal about currency & etc---it isnt that hard.
So long are there are people living in squalor on this planet, the
outsourcing of labor will be a problem. After India
industrializes to
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
the point that it's standard of living is substantially improved,
labor will be outsourced somewhere else.
Looks like you do have a problem with understanding me -as do many
other people. It isn;t about std of living -its about inflated
currency. Canada has a weaker currency than the US, but a higher std
of living. It also has a smaller deficit (none if Im right). If std of
living were an issue, then you should be able to live as comfortably
in the US as it takes in USD to live comfortably in India. But that is
not the case because there is no parity in purchasing power between
USD and Indian rupee. You can't keep blaming poor people in other
countries for the cheap tricks of your own govt.
You're entirely wrong as to the gist of my post.
What I'm getting at is something more like this: WE--in the US--saw
our standard of living greatly increase in the prewar period, such
that the disparity between us and abroad became greater. WE should
have seen that ultimately, as economies globalized and transportation
became cheaper, that it would put out labor market at risk. Where
ever there is someone willing (and eager) to work for like 50 cents a
day, there will be strong downward pressure on wages.
Your arguments about currencies and such are valid, but, in my view,
only a layer over this underlying reality. If I'm making circa $100
day, and there is someone who can do my job for ~ $.10/day (4 orders
of magnitude difference), changes in currency valuations--unless they
are catastrophic--will just be perturbations on that core reality.
In my view, we--in the west, in the US--should have taken a more
global view about industrialization, especially post WWII.
I'm not blaming the people in poor countries. Just the opposite, I'm
blaming US for being so selfish and not seeing that what goes on in
the rest of the globe ultimately effects us. If I'm saying anything
to you, I guess it would be a similar warning. India is making great
strides now, yes. But if you move far enough you will eventually be
at risk in the same way we are. Where that risk will come from, who
knows. But there are still billions of desparately poor people on
this planet, so it can go on a long time before it starts to level
off.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
We will only know that this problem is starting to come back into
equilibriuam when we hear about labor being outsourced to
sub-Saharan
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
Africa. My guess is that that will be the last bastion of
low-standard-of-living left behind as the rest of the world
industrializes.
How about E. Europe? They too have a lot of poverty. For that
matter,
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
there is high unemployment and poverty in Germany. But the
equivalent
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
cost of living (for a dismal std of living) means that work won't be
shifting from US to germany.
Well, I'm not so sure of that. I wasn't talking details anyhow. And
it is possible to have high levels of poverty without having rock
bottom labor costs (just look at US inner cities for example).
Obviously in the details it is complicated. What I'm saying is that
the fundamental, underlying cause is the disparity in standards of
living globally, thats all.
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
Now, how LONG will it take to get to that point? Hard to tell.
The clear thing is that we--in the US--WILL see our standard of living
decline, and very substantially, either slowly or all at once.
All
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
the forces are pointing in that direction, and I don't see
anything
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
that can clearly be done to stop that. Arguably it has been happening
here since about the early 70s anyhow.
Std of living in the US has been declining despite a rising dollar
(just check the charts instead of believing me). But a stronger
currency means you can buy better cars, dvd cameras, digital cameras
etc.. even if it means smaller houses, lower savings rate etc..
You are right on on that one. The only silver lining in our lives
since the 70s has been the availability of incredibly cheap
electronics. I won't buy into it on cars though. Better, maybe.
But
Post by Brian G. Moore
much, much more expensive. Arguably, the high cost of cars (and gas)
is one of the structural problems holding back the US labor market.
If I could live without a car I might be able to do with almost 25%
less in income. It is that bad.
Your expectations are too high. You could probably do just as well, as
would most people, with a $10,000 Kia than you would with a $20,000
mid-sized car, or a $30,000 (on up) SUV. If you wanted the 4x4
capability, you can very easily pick up (no pun intended) a good,
reliable truck for $3-4K, or an olde 4WD Subaru for that price or less.
Americans are so spoiled...
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
The question is--what will be our response to this? People get very
angry when their expectations are dashed. And remember, people think
in an extrapolatory mode. They look at how much better they did than
their parents and expect the same slope.
Again, arguably, some of the bad stuff to come from this
inevitable
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
downward pressure on our standard of living has already
happened--e.g.
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
we are invading countries pre-emptively now.
Just because the US has invaded Iraq pre-emptively doesn't mean it has
achieved any goals. it could well be something he wishes he hadn't
done in retrospect. Not everyone who is chasing gold can actually get
his hands on it -and many go crazy to the pt that they end up
digging
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
their own graves.
Again, you have me just backward.
My point was that when people see their standard of living
decline--even relative to what they exptected--they get angry. I'm
suggesting that our military adventures could be seen as an
irrational
Post by Brian G. Moore
extension of that common-worker angst. I'm not saying it is right,
just suggesting that it is a part of the problem.
Our "military adventures"... you make it sound like they just happened
out of a vacuum. The broad support among red stater (more correcly, red
_county_) working class folks is because many republicans and also many
democrats alike are fed up with the sanctimonious, elitist, racist,
morally bankrupt, hypocritical do-nothings of the Left. And the
pendulum is going to swing a lot farther right before it stabilizes.
"common-worker angst" give me a break. My "common-worker" friends are
doing better than they ever have, and have _no_ fear of their jobs
being offshored.
Brian G. Moore
2005-02-21 00:33:03 UTC
Permalink
On 20 Feb 2005 14:07:53 -0800, "zach" <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

...
Post by zach
Post by Brian G. Moore
You are right on on that one. The only silver lining in our lives
since the 70s has been the availability of incredibly cheap
electronics. I won't buy into it on cars though. Better, maybe.
But
Post by Brian G. Moore
much, much more expensive. Arguably, the high cost of cars (and gas)
is one of the structural problems holding back the US labor market.
If I could live without a car I might be able to do with almost 25%
less in income. It is that bad.
Your expectations are too high. You could probably do just as well, as
would most people, with a $10,000 Kia than you would with a $20,000
mid-sized car, or a $30,000 (on up) SUV. If you wanted the 4x4
capability, you can very easily pick up (no pun intended) a good,
reliable truck for $3-4K, or an olde 4WD Subaru for that price or less.
Americans are so spoiled...
I'm sorry I have to call bullshit on this one. Both of my cars are
over 10 years old. I have never bought a new car in my life, or even
one that was less than about 8 years old or had less than about 90,000
miles on it.

But it is still a problem. The repairs. It is six of one, half a
dozen of the other. Where I live, I absolutely need a car for my job.
This is South Dakota! There is basically no bus service. [Even if
there were, I've tried that route. I rode buses exclusively when I
lived in LA in graduate school. I remember one time clocking it took
90 minutes to go 6 miles. And you can't do work on the bus, not at
rush hour. That is a fallacy. You are not ever sitting down, you are
jammed up against a bunch of other people.]

The repairs required to keep my old car working have been horrible,
and worse than that, erratic and unpredictable. There was one 12
month period we added up the bills and it came to over $2400 dollars.
You don't want to know the details.

Now, you are going to give me one of those --- "Oh, Americans are
soooo spoiled" (and wusses as well?)

You can argue all you want about the details. Sure I probably should
be trying to do more of my own repairs [that's another story--I tried
that for several years and while having a few successes, in many cases
wound up making the situation worse], but given the fact that I am
working like 70-80 hrs per week on a job that pays less than the
national avg. household income--eventually it all comes around to bite
you eventually.

My point is that we have a structural problem in this country. Even if
you WANT to try and live frugrally, it is very, very hard.

Brian Moore
R. Martin
2005-02-21 04:15:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian G. Moore
...
Post by zach
Post by Brian G. Moore
You are right on on that one. The only silver lining in our lives
since the 70s has been the availability of incredibly cheap
electronics. I won't buy into it on cars though. Better, maybe.
But
Post by Brian G. Moore
much, much more expensive. Arguably, the high cost of cars (and gas)
is one of the structural problems holding back the US labor market.
If I could live without a car I might be able to do with almost 25%
less in income. It is that bad.
Your expectations are too high. You could probably do just as well, as
would most people, with a $10,000 Kia than you would with a $20,000
mid-sized car, or a $30,000 (on up) SUV. If you wanted the 4x4
capability, you can very easily pick up (no pun intended) a good,
reliable truck for $3-4K, or an olde 4WD Subaru for that price or less.
Americans are so spoiled...
I'm sorry I have to call bullshit on this one. Both of my cars are
over 10 years old. I have never bought a new car in my life, or even
one that was less than about 8 years old or had less than about 90,000
miles on it.
But it is still a problem. The repairs. It is six of one, half a
dozen of the other. Where I live, I absolutely need a car for my job.
This is South Dakota! There is basically no bus service. [Even if
there were, I've tried that route. I rode buses exclusively when I
lived in LA in graduate school. I remember one time clocking it took
90 minutes to go 6 miles. And you can't do work on the bus, not at
rush hour. That is a fallacy. You are not ever sitting down, you are
jammed up against a bunch of other people.]
The repairs required to keep my old car working have been horrible,
and worse than that, erratic and unpredictable. There was one 12
month period we added up the bills and it came to over $2400 dollars.
You don't want to know the details.
Now, you are going to give me one of those --- "Oh, Americans are
soooo spoiled" (and wusses as well?)
You can argue all you want about the details. Sure I probably should
be trying to do more of my own repairs [that's another story--I tried
that for several years and while having a few successes, in many cases
wound up making the situation worse], but given the fact that I am
working like 70-80 hrs per week on a job that pays less than the
national avg. household income--eventually it all comes around to bite
you eventually.
My point is that we have a structural problem in this country. Even if
you WANT to try and live frugrally, it is very, very hard.
Brian Moore
Very true. My mother (who grew up poor in a poor rural area in the
Depression, and knows how to live poor) has been saying that for years.

Cheers,
Russell
--
All too often the study of data requires care.
zach
2005-02-21 05:41:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian G. Moore
...
Post by zach
Post by Brian G. Moore
You are right on on that one. The only silver lining in our lives
since the 70s has been the availability of incredibly cheap
electronics. I won't buy into it on cars though. Better, maybe.
But
Post by Brian G. Moore
much, much more expensive. Arguably, the high cost of cars (and gas)
is one of the structural problems holding back the US labor
market.
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by zach
Post by Brian G. Moore
If I could live without a car I might be able to do with almost 25%
less in income. It is that bad.
Your expectations are too high. You could probably do just as well, as
would most people, with a $10,000 Kia than you would with a $20,000
mid-sized car, or a $30,000 (on up) SUV. If you wanted the 4x4
capability, you can very easily pick up (no pun intended) a good,
reliable truck for $3-4K, or an olde 4WD Subaru for that price or less.
Americans are so spoiled...
I'm sorry I have to call bullshit on this one. Both of my cars are
over 10 years old. I have never bought a new car in my life, or even
one that was less than about 8 years old or had less than about 90,000
miles on it.
But it is still a problem. The repairs. It is six of one, half a
dozen of the other. Where I live, I absolutely need a car for my job.
This is South Dakota! There is basically no bus service. [Even if
there were, I've tried that route. I rode buses exclusively when I
lived in LA in graduate school. I remember one time clocking it took
90 minutes to go 6 miles. And you can't do work on the bus, not at
rush hour. That is a fallacy. You are not ever sitting down, you are
jammed up against a bunch of other people.]
The repairs required to keep my old car working have been horrible,
and worse than that, erratic and unpredictable. There was one 12
month period we added up the bills and it came to over $2400 dollars.
You don't want to know the details.
Now, you are going to give me one of those --- "Oh, Americans are
soooo spoiled" (and wusses as well?)
I live in the Bay Area (Silicon Valley), where driving a BMW is cliche,
not a status symbol. People here are _extremely_ spoiled.

As for your car repairs... that is too bad, it sounds like buying new,
new/used, or leasing might be a more economical choice for you. As for
limping along on bailing wire and duct tape, I hear you, been there,
done that, while commuting long miles and it wasn't fun to keep
breaking down. My mom, however, spend $800 (well, I bought the majority
of it because it was an emergency purchase) on an '83 Honda with a
rebuilt motor on which she put 100,000 miles before it gave up the
ghost. She's currently on a 1972 Toyota pickup she got for $1200 that
she's put a few dozen thousand miles on already. Had to get her exhaust
manifold replaced (gave her the money for that, and she got someone to
do it for $60 labour... but cost $350 for that ancient an OEM part
*ouch*), and then her muffler, and a wiring problem fixed, but that is
less $1800 invested thus far for a vehicle she's driven a lot for two
years.

As for vehicle inflation, I do agree. I am debating whether or not to
give my truck to my mom later in the year when I pay it off, but to get
something comparable (Toyota 4x4 truck) would cost me $20K on the low
end, and I don't relish making payments again. Bad enough trying to add
to my savings paying Bay Area rents. However, I could probably buy
something less (I do _use_ my truck as a truck, unlike most people here
in the Bay Area who probably never even engage their 4WD, nor haul
anything in the bed).
Brian G. Moore
2005-02-21 00:39:15 UTC
Permalink
On 20 Feb 2005 14:07:53 -0800, "zach" <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

...
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
Again, you have me just backward.
My point was that when people see their standard of living
decline--even relative to what they exptected--they get angry. I'm
suggesting that our military adventures could be seen as an
irrational
Post by Brian G. Moore
extension of that common-worker angst. I'm not saying it is right,
just suggesting that it is a part of the problem.
Our "military adventures"... you make it sound like they just happened
out of a vacuum. The broad support among red stater (more correcly, red
_county_) working class folks is because many republicans and also many
democrats alike are fed up with the sanctimonious, elitist, racist,
morally bankrupt, hypocritical do-nothings of the Left. And the
pendulum is going to swing a lot farther right before it stabilizes.
"common-worker angst" give me a break. My "common-worker" friends are
doing better than they ever have, and have _no_ fear of their jobs
being offshored.
Look.

YOU GUYS ARE IN POWER NOW.

All *I* hear from you is sancitmonious, towering condescension towards
US (the liberals).

I will not defend any of the crazy stuff we did in the past, but you
guys gotta listen to yourselves sometimes. If you want to hear holier
than thou and elitist, it is YOU GUYS right now. You set youselves up
as more patriotic, more moral, and more Christian than us. Just think
how that would make you feel if you were at the end of it.

Sure we were idiots (and continue to be). But, now that you are in
power, across the board, you might consider, just out of sense of
self-preservation, a bit of temperance in your triumpalism.
Personally, I like it when I see it because it just empowers US.
The ONE thing that keeps me motivated politially now is the
condescending insulting crap from the right right now. And they don't
even know they are doing it.

I honestly think that they see us as less than human. They certainly
don't think we REALLY believe in the things that are important to us.
They think we get up everyday and our one overriding thought is "gee,
what could I do to hurt the US today?"

Get a grip.

Brian Moore
zach
2005-02-21 05:31:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian G. Moore
...
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
Again, you have me just backward.
My point was that when people see their standard of living
decline--even relative to what they exptected--they get angry.
I'm
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
suggesting that our military adventures could be seen as an
irrational
Post by Brian G. Moore
extension of that common-worker angst. I'm not saying it is right,
just suggesting that it is a part of the problem.
Our "military adventures"... you make it sound like they just happened
out of a vacuum. The broad support among red stater (more correcly, red
_county_) working class folks is because many republicans and also many
democrats alike are fed up with the sanctimonious, elitist, racist,
morally bankrupt, hypocritical do-nothings of the Left. And the
pendulum is going to swing a lot farther right before it stabilizes.
"common-worker angst" give me a break. My "common-worker" friends are
doing better than they ever have, and have _no_ fear of their jobs
being offshored.
Look.
YOU GUYS ARE IN POWER NOW.
All *I* hear from you is sancitmonious, towering condescension
towards
Post by Brian G. Moore
US (the liberals).
I will not defend any of the crazy stuff we did in the past, but you
guys gotta listen to yourselves sometimes. If you want to hear holier
than thou and elitist, it is YOU GUYS right now. You set youselves up
as more patriotic, more moral, and more Christian than us. Just think
how that would make you feel if you were at the end of it.
Sure we were idiots (and continue to be). But, now that you are in
power, across the board, you might consider, just out of sense of
self-preservation, a bit of temperance in your triumpalism.
Triumphilism? It will be everything within our power to see that Bush
doesn't continue to give away the bank.
Kamal R. Prasad
2005-02-23 06:49:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
All this talk by Kamal about currency & etc---it isnt that hard.
So long are there are people living in squalor on this planet, the
outsourcing of labor will be a problem. After India industrializes to
the point that it's standard of living is substantially improved,
labor will be outsourced somewhere else.
Looks like you do have a problem with understanding me -as do many
other people. It isn;t about std of living -its about inflated
currency. Canada has a weaker currency than the US, but a higher std
of living. It also has a smaller deficit (none if Im right). If std of
living were an issue, then you should be able to live as comfortably
in the US as it takes in USD to live comfortably in India. But that is
not the case because there is no parity in purchasing power between
USD and Indian rupee. You can't keep blaming poor people in other
countries for the cheap tricks of your own govt.
You're entirely wrong as to the gist of my post.
What I'm getting at is something more like this: WE--in the US--saw
our standard of living greatly increase in the prewar period, such
that the disparity between us and abroad became greater. WE should
have seen that ultimately, as economies globalized and transportation
became cheaper, that it would put out labor market at risk. Where
ever there is someone willing (and eager) to work for like 50 cents a
day, there will be strong downward pressure on wages.
Your arguments about currencies and such are valid, but, in my view,
only a layer over this underlying reality. If I'm making circa $100
day, and there is someone who can do my job for ~ $.10/day (4 orders
of magnitude difference), changes in currency valuations--unless they
are catastrophic--will just be perturbations on that core reality.
Can you name even one person who would be capable of working and
surviving in the US on his Indian salary? If not, that explains why
you cannot compete for jobs with people overseas. The cost of living
makes it impossible -forget about the compromises you are willing to
make in terms of std of living.
Post by Brian G. Moore
In my view, we--in the west, in the US--should have taken a more
global view about industrialization, especially post WWII.
I'm not blaming the people in poor countries. Just the opposite, I'm
blaming US for being so selfish and not seeing that what goes on in
the rest of the globe ultimately effects us. If I'm saying anything
to you, I guess it would be a similar warning. India is making great
strides now, yes. But if you move far enough you will eventually be
It is/has been making great strides in science and technology -but
that has no bearing on poverty alleviation. It is a country where
extreme poverty, corruption, cold-blooded mafia etc.. AND education,
scientific research, heavy engg. work etc.. co-exist.
Post by Brian G. Moore
at risk in the same way we are. Where that risk will come from, who
knows. But there are still billions of desparately poor people on
this planet, so it can go on a long time before it starts to level
off.
There is tremendous depth to India's terrain -meaning blore is one
place where inflation and cost of living is shooting up to meet the
US, but it is just a 50 sqkm dot on the radar of the 7th largest
country on earth. By moving work to other towns, we should be able to
compete with sub-saharan africa in cost terms for quite some time to
come:-). Not just that, it is a highly diversified economy -meaning no
single economic activity can bring about the collapse of the entire
economy.
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
We will only know that this problem is starting to come back into
equilibriuam when we hear about labor being outsourced to sub-Saharan
Africa. My guess is that that will be the last bastion of
low-standard-of-living left behind as the rest of the world
industrializes.
How about E. Europe? They too have a lot of poverty. For that matter,
there is high unemployment and poverty in Germany. But the equivalent
cost of living (for a dismal std of living) means that work won't be
shifting from US to germany.
Well, I'm not so sure of that. I wasn't talking details anyhow. And
it is possible to have high levels of poverty without having rock
bottom labor costs (just look at US inner cities for example).
Obviously in the details it is complicated. What I'm saying is that
the fundamental, underlying cause is the disparity in standards of
living globally, thats all.
I just want to let you know that std. of living does contribute to
cost of living, but that is one of the several factors doing so. Japan
has a highest cost of living because it has a high population density.
So do many other e. asian countries when compared to India. (Our
population is huge because we have a large landmass). One of the
companies I read of on news.com is countering offshoring by doing work
in semi-rural areas of the US because the cities are too congested and
expensive to live in. You could get a better apt in a semi-rural area
for a lower price. That is better std of living at a lower cost of
living to you:-).
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
Now, how LONG will it take to get to that point? Hard to tell.
The clear thing is that we--in the US--WILL see our standard of living
decline, and very substantially, either slowly or all at once. All
the forces are pointing in that direction, and I don't see anything
that can clearly be done to stop that. Arguably it has been happening
here since about the early 70s anyhow.
Std of living in the US has been declining despite a rising dollar
(just check the charts instead of believing me). But a stronger
currency means you can buy better cars, dvd cameras, digital cameras
etc.. even if it means smaller houses, lower savings rate etc..
You are right on on that one. The only silver lining in our lives
since the 70s has been the availability of incredibly cheap
electronics. I won't buy into it on cars though. Better, maybe. But
much, much more expensive. Arguably, the high cost of cars (and gas)
is one of the structural problems holding back the US labor market.
If I could live without a car I might be able to do with almost 25%
less in income. It is that bad.
I believe housing is the biggest drain on one's salary -esp if you are
in one of the work centres in the US like silicon valley, boston etc..
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
The question is--what will be our response to this? People get very
angry when their expectations are dashed. And remember, people think
in an extrapolatory mode. They look at how much better they did than
their parents and expect the same slope.
Again, arguably, some of the bad stuff to come from this inevitable
downward pressure on our standard of living has already happened--e.g.
we are invading countries pre-emptively now.
Just because the US has invaded Iraq pre-emptively doesn't mean it has
achieved any goals. it could well be something he wishes he hadn't
done in retrospect. Not everyone who is chasing gold can actually get
his hands on it -and many go crazy to the pt that they end up digging
their own graves.
Again, you have me just backward.
My point was that when people see their standard of living
decline--even relative to what they exptected--they get angry. I'm
suggesting that our military adventures could be seen as an irrational
extension of that common-worker angst. I'm not saying it is right,
just suggesting that it is a part of the problem.
It is a result of greed affecting one's sensibilities. Iraq has the
2nd largest oil deposits in the world -and most of it lying during
saddam's regime. The greed to get hold of the oil (not by citizens but
by corporations) is what landed you in that situation. I mean, the
american taxpayer is a net loser in this whole venture and but for the
politics of fear -would not have agreed to it. The only ones gaining
it are the Halliburtons, Chev Texaco etc..

regards
-kamal
zach
2005-02-23 07:07:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
It is a result of greed affecting one's sensibilities. Iraq has the
2nd largest oil deposits in the world -and most of it lying during
saddam's regime. The greed to get hold of the oil (not by citizens but
by corporations) is what landed you in that situation. I mean, the
american taxpayer is a net loser in this whole venture and but for the
politics of fear -would not have agreed to it.
Fear isn't what got us into this. You misunderstand the American mind.
Hubris would be closer than fear, which still isn't quite it, but it is
probably as much as you will understand.
Brian G. Moore
2005-02-23 12:47:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by zach
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
It is a result of greed affecting one's sensibilities. Iraq has the
2nd largest oil deposits in the world -and most of it lying during
saddam's regime. The greed to get hold of the oil (not by citizens
but
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
by corporations) is what landed you in that situation. I mean, the
american taxpayer is a net loser in this whole venture and but for
the
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
politics of fear -would not have agreed to it.
Fear isn't what got us into this. You misunderstand the American mind.
Hubris would be closer than fear, which still isn't quite it, but it is
probably as much as you will understand.
I was just about to say this too. I am quite left wing, but I don't
buy into this "oil greed" as the underlying reason for our invasion of
Iraq at all.

Right now, the right in this country sees itself as triumphant,
invincible, the highest standard of moral and Christian ethics and
patriotism possible in the universe. And they are lording it over
everyone else.

Hubris comes much closer to the underlying reason than greed.

Brian Moore
Brian G. Moore
2005-02-20 19:09:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kamal R. Prasad
Post by Brian G. Moore
All this talk by Kamal about currency & etc---it isnt that hard.
So long are there are people living in squalor on this planet, the
outsourcing of labor will be a problem. After India industrializes to
the point that it's standard of living is substantially improved,
labor will be outsourced somewhere else.
Looks like you do have a problem with understanding me -as do many
other people. It isn;t about std of living -its about inflated
currency. Canada has a weaker currency than the US, but a higher std
of living. It also has a smaller deficit (none if Im right). If std of
living were an issue, then you should be able to live as comfortably
in the US as it takes in USD to live comfortably in India. But that is
not the case because there is no parity in purchasing power between
USD and Indian rupee. You can't keep blaming poor people in other
countries for the cheap tricks of your own govt.
I forgot to comment about this Canada thing.

If (and I emphasize if) Canada is doing better than we are, my gut
feeling is that it is a demographic thing. A huge difference between
Canada and the US is that Canada doesn't have the large inner city
ghettoes.

Brian
BMJ
2005-02-20 19:24:53 UTC
Permalink
Brian G. Moore wrote:

<snip>
Post by Brian G. Moore
I forgot to comment about this Canada thing.
If (and I emphasize if) Canada is doing better than we are, my gut
feeling is that it is a demographic thing. A huge difference between
Canada and the US is that Canada doesn't have the large inner city
ghettoes.
Brian
I've lived in a number of cities in western Canada and each had their
seedier areas. I can't comment how those would compare with the ghettos
that some cities elsewhere might have.
Brian G. Moore
2005-02-21 00:40:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by BMJ
<snip>
Post by Brian G. Moore
I forgot to comment about this Canada thing.
If (and I emphasize if) Canada is doing better than we are, my gut
feeling is that it is a demographic thing. A huge difference between
Canada and the US is that Canada doesn't have the large inner city
ghettoes.
Brian
I've lived in a number of cities in western Canada and each had their
seedier areas. I can't comment how those would compare with the ghettos
that some cities elsewhere might have.
Nope, doesnt compare.

Canada has, per capita, about 1/10 th the number of murders than the
US. That is taking figures pre-late 90s boom. The US's murder rate
went down significantly as jobs were more plentiful for a while, but
now we're getting back to where we were.
zach
2005-02-21 00:50:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by BMJ
<snip>
Post by Brian G. Moore
I forgot to comment about this Canada thing.
If (and I emphasize if) Canada is doing better than we are, my gut
feeling is that it is a demographic thing. A huge difference between
Canada and the US is that Canada doesn't have the large inner city
ghettoes.
Brian
I've lived in a number of cities in western Canada and each had their
seedier areas. I can't comment how those would compare with the ghettos
that some cities elsewhere might have.
Nope, doesnt compare.
Canada has, per capita, about 1/10 th the number of murders than the
US. That is taking figures pre-late 90s boom. The US's murder rate
went down significantly as jobs were more plentiful for a while, but
now we're getting back to where we were.
The murder rate has been on a downward slope for decades. Maybe the
correlation is somehwere else.
BMJ
2005-02-21 01:08:42 UTC
Permalink
Brian G. Moore wrote:

<snip>
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by BMJ
I've lived in a number of cities in western Canada and each had their
seedier areas. I can't comment how those would compare with the ghettos
that some cities elsewhere might have.
Nope, doesnt compare.
Canada has, per capita, about 1/10 th the number of murders than the
US.
Canada, having 10% the population of the U. S. would, of course, have
fewer murders. We also have different gun laws up here, even before
mandatory firearm registration came into effect.

That is taking figures pre-late 90s boom. The US's murder rate
Post by Brian G. Moore
went down significantly as jobs were more plentiful for a while, but
now we're getting back to where we were.
The type and rate of crime would depend upon where one is. Vancouver is
the largest west coast seaport in Canada, so infractions related to that
would be far higher than, say, on the prairies.
Brian G. Moore
2005-02-21 01:15:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by BMJ
<snip>
Post by Brian G. Moore
Post by BMJ
I've lived in a number of cities in western Canada and each had their
seedier areas. I can't comment how those would compare with the ghettos
that some cities elsewhere might have.
Nope, doesnt compare.
Canada has, per capita, about 1/10 th the number of murders than the
US.
Canada, having 10% the population of the U. S. would, of course, have
fewer murders.
Hence, the word "per capita."
Post by BMJ
We also have different gun laws up here, even before
mandatory firearm registration came into effect.
That is taking figures pre-late 90s boom. The US's murder rate
Post by Brian G. Moore
went down significantly as jobs were more plentiful for a while, but
now we're getting back to where we were.
The type and rate of crime would depend upon where one is. Vancouver is
the largest west coast seaport in Canada, so infractions related to that
would be far higher than, say, on the prairies.
My argument was not based solely on murder rates anyhow.
leslie
2005-02-20 23:14:00 UTC
Permalink
straydog (***@sdf.lonestar.org) wrote:
:
: We even have a small flow of retiring US citizens who retire to Mexico
: because the cost of living (related to standard of living) is a fair bit
: lower and some people will put up with the heat.
:

The Ajijic/Lake Chapala area has mild weather:

http://www.chapala.com/chapala/temp.html
Average Temperature

http://www.chapala.com/
chapala.com " Your Window to Mexico "

http://joelandsue.com/pages/index.php?page_id=1
Lake Chapala, Mexico Real Estate Resource - Lake Chapala Real Estate &
more! Joel and Sue buyers agents.

For those wanting a country where English is the official language,
there's Belize, where a person can live well on $ 450 US per month:

http://www.belizeretire.com/
Belize Retirement Guide


--Jerry Leslie
Note: ***@jrlvax.houston.rr.com is invalid for email
leslie
2005-02-16 07:03:49 UTC
Permalink
zach (***@gmail.com) wrote:
:
: What is most irksome about those arguments is that the nations from
: which these jobs flow (mostly the West) are the ones whose societies
: and people worked hard over multiple generations, some sacrificing
: blood for freedom to build societies which allowed these businesses to
: flourish. While I am not as liberal as some of you, I still believe
: that corporations have some responsibilities to the countries from
: which they sprang, and to those governments (and therefore, The People)
: that provide them protections from piracy and the like.
:

The history of U.S. corporations is filled with examples of treasonous
behavior; e.g.:

http://www.wvculture.org/history/journal_wvh/wvh55-6.html
Senator Harley M. Kilgore and Japan's World War II Business Practices

Today U.S. corporations "shortage shout" about lack of students in
sciences, engineering, and math, while offshoring tech jobs, thus
discouraging students from majoring in those areas:

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/050215_nd.htm
VDARE.com: 02/15/05 - Why Americans Don't Study Science--It Doesn't Pay


--Jerry Leslie
Note: ***@jrlvax.houston.rr.com is invalid for email
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...