India wants to outsource callcenters to the US

Bagalute · 08-23-2010, 03:21 AM

you gotta appreciate the irony...blessed be the free markets, where poverty evenly spreads over the globe (except for the lucky upper 1%).

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/0f6d8f76-a...44feabdc0.html

1300 Class · 08-23-2010, 05:05 AM

But you see thats part of the grand scheme of international trade and economic growth. Its a good thing. As costs of production in the less developed world increase (due to living standards improving, wages rising etc) it means the international order is made more even.

On a purely national side of things, it means that the argument for outsourcing jobs is basically nullified.

Bagalute · 08-23-2010, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Australian Lord

But you see thats part of the grand scheme of international trade and economic growth. Its a good thing. As costs of production in the less developed world increase (due to living standards improving, wages rising etc) it means the international order is made more even.

In the grand scheme of things...which means that on a smaller scale, let's say the perspective of any rich first world nation, you become poorer (relatively).

1300 Class · 08-23-2010, 04:33 PM

No because wealth (which is a flexible term) is not some fixed or set amount and everyone can only get so much of that finite pie. Wealth and its creation is not finite.

Brooklyn Red Leg · 08-23-2010, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bagalute

you gotta appreciate the irony...blessed be the free markets, where poverty evenly spreads over the globe (except for the lucky upper 1%).

Has nothing whatsoever to do with a Free Market. Again, for people who apparently cannot understand, Corporatism =/= Capitalism. The current interventionist economy is not a Free Market. The only places you SEE a Free Market are in the 'black' and 'grey' markets (drugs, prostitution, certain whole foods like milk etc). And even then prices are distorted because of fiat currency.

blubberismanly · 08-23-2010, 05:30 PM

And I thought it was the US that outsources labor to third world countries...

Brooklyn Red Leg · 08-23-2010, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blubberismanly

And I thought it was the US that outsources labor to third world countries...

Get ready to be a 3rd World Country.

Bagalute · 08-24-2010, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Australian Lord

No because wealth (which is a flexible term) is not some fixed or set amount and everyone can only get so much of that finite pie. Wealth and its creation is not finite.

Have a look at history, wherever markets have become deregulated (not 100% free, alright), be it on a national or international scale:

Thatcherism: The upper poor got richer, the lower poor got poorer
Reagan era: Same thing
Globalization during the second half of the 20th century: same thing

So yes, some of the former have-nots manage to get themselves a slice of the pie, while others have to watch as even the crumbs are swept away before their eyes. Those who already had much before however manage to increase the size of their slice every year (-> Matthew Effect). Let them eat cake, indeed!

1300 Class · 08-24-2010, 05:17 AM

I raise your Thatcher & Reagan with a Hawke, Keating and Howard. Since the 1980s the Australian economy has become more deregulated and "freer" than ever before and we pretty much the only western nation to not enter recession in the GFC. Yes there were bumps along the road, but there always is.

Thatcher is an interesting example and there are many local modifiers. Transitioning from industrial to the post industrial economy is never easy and it was tough in Britain as the long so decline in British industry and manufacturing came to its conclusion. By 1979, Britain was a broken nation, economically, socially and nearly politically.

Thatcher did a great deal of good for Britain, the move to an entrepreneurial society cannot be understated, yet I feel that her greatest failing was being too ideological and not seeking compromise when it would have been perhaps been in the national interest to do so. The revenues from the North Sea oil is somewhat of a cliché, but I still feel that it is worthy of note. Thatcher could have created an wealth fund as the Norwegians did, ditto with the vast amounts of income generated from the privatisation receipts. Instead, it went on unemployment benefit when a more interventionist approach in transport and work programs would have been of far greater use in the long term.

Reagan was dealing with similar issues, though not as severe. American exceptional-ism prevented a similar scenario from presenting itself.

08-23-2010, 03:21 AM	#1
Bagalute Master Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Germany Posts: 1,120	India wants to outsource callcenters to the US you gotta appreciate the irony...blessed be the free markets, where poverty evenly spreads over the globe (except for the lucky upper 1%). http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/0f6d8f76-a...44feabdc0.html

08-23-2010, 05:30 PM	#6
blubberismanly Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 424	And I thought it was the US that outsources labor to third world countries... __________________ DO NOT send PM's. This account is inactive.

08-24-2010, 05:17 AM	#9
1300 Class Smug Annoying Centrist Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 5,946	I raise your Thatcher & Reagan with a Hawke, Keating and Howard. Since the 1980s the Australian economy has become more deregulated and "freer" than ever before and we pretty much the only western nation to not enter recession in the GFC. Yes there were bumps along the road, but there always is. Thatcher is an interesting example and there are many local modifiers. Transitioning from industrial to the post industrial economy is never easy and it was tough in Britain as the long so decline in British industry and manufacturing came to its conclusion. By 1979, Britain was a broken nation, economically, socially and nearly politically. Thatcher did a great deal of good for Britain, the move to an entrepreneurial society cannot be understated, yet I feel that her greatest failing was being too ideological and not seeking compromise when it would have been perhaps been in the national interest to do so. The revenues from the North Sea oil is somewhat of a cliché, but I still feel that it is worthy of note. Thatcher could have created an wealth fund as the Norwegians did, ditto with the vast amounts of income generated from the privatisation receipts. Instead, it went on unemployment benefit when a more interventionist approach in transport and work programs would have been of far greater use in the long term. Reagan was dealing with similar issues, though not as severe. American exceptional-ism prevented a similar scenario from presenting itself. Last edited by 1300 Class : 08-24-2010 at 05:27 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-23-2010, 05:05 AM	#2
1300 Class Smug Annoying Centrist Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 5,946	But you see thats part of the grand scheme of international trade and economic growth. Its a good thing. As costs of production in the less developed world increase (due to living standards improving, wages rising etc) it means the international order is made more even. On a purely national side of things, it means that the argument for outsourcing jobs is basically nullified.

08-23-2010, 04:33 PM	#4
1300 Class Smug Annoying Centrist Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 5,946	No because wealth (which is a flexible term) is not some fixed or set amount and everyone can only get so much of that finite pie. Wealth and its creation is not finite.