Iran, Geopolitics and the Bomb
Asif Naqshbandi January 22, 2006
#129 Posted by Behram1 on January 26, 2006 5:21:49 pm
#125 by Netizen on January 26, 2006 9:28am PT
Obviously, it is very difficult for a capitalist society to make a clear distinction between MNC`s and capitalism. I will try it, albeit in a different way. And this apples mainly to the American companies more so than Europeans because of public financing.
For an MNC, the inter-company pricing is where they could easily conceal real cost of their products and avoid paying taxes. They avoid taxes to the host countries because they claim that these are goods-in-progress. Then, when those goods are brought to the US, to be made into finished product, MNCs generally tend to use high figures as cost of supplies, from the foreign land. As such their actual profit on finished goods is decreased considerably. Hence, they pay very little taxes.
Now, all this applies mostly to the physical goods that are being shipped. With IT technologies, etc. since there are no finished goods, this may not apply. So the host country gets mostly nothing from the MNC, except maybe some jobs for their unemployed people. Of course, something is better than nothing. However, the resources of this labor pool could have been well spent in other areas of the economy where the taxing body could collect taxes for the betterment of the country.
Loosing taxes due to the shenanigans of the MNC`s should be a major concern of enlightened developing economies. And it seems that they are not.
However, a mom and pop capitalist pays all the domestic taxes, and are not able to employ the shenanigans of the MNC. A true capitalist must always play within the boundaries of the law. Unfortunately, politicians who make laws are bought out by the MNCs. And those who work for MNCs are better off not understanding the law. In this way, people who have jobs cannot cut the hands that feed them. The rest of the Joe Blows of the society, who know that MNC`s are screwing the country are unable to voice their opinion.
{why is creating jobs an evil?} That is the whole crux of inviting an MNC into the host economy. It is always promoted as let us give them tax holiday`s because they create jobs. And that is what is hogwash.
{almost every country in the world is a signatory of WTO, how are you going to prevent some particular company from coming in?} Yes, being signatories is just the beginning, but disagreements keep popping up and the WTO court has been very active lately.
{if the people of the country doesn`t want what the mnc has to offer, they will reject it by themselves.} Correct, if the people are given free choice. But, most of them are not free to choose. Most developing countries have their political structure so messed up that MNCs can litterally walk in with completed agreements for the despotic rule to sign on the dotted line.
{you can add daewoo, hyundia to that list too. but that happened in a capitalist environment.} That is exactly what I claimed in my argument. South Korean companies did not need MNC`s from the US to grow.
{but behram, who is the chairman of ms board of director?????} Yes, maybe one vote. Whereas, there are many other votes by the other board members who are mostly stooges of other huge share holders such as the mutual funds, etc.
How can these so-called corporatists create wealth? That is what the genesis of this discussion was.
{well if they don`t create wealth} Do you remember Aol buying Time Warner out? What happened to Steve Case? That is exactly what I am saying. Corporatists do not create wealth for any society. They may create wealth for themselves. But the whole society is not well served.
{behram, no one starts a company for charity.} Yes, correct, and that is why I believe in true capitalism.
{you have to make money to stay afloat.} Yes, correct. But, then the management takes over, who are mostly office politicians, (nothing to do with the individual enterprising person who started the business entity), and then they go out for public money to grow. And shortly a MNC is born.
And that is the evil in Corporatism.
{ atleast some families are paying bills due to their GE job.} Of course, but should we whore away the whole country on the whims of an MNC?
Obviously, it is very difficult for a capitalist society to make a clear distinction between MNC`s and capitalism. I will try it, albeit in a different way. And this apples mainly to the American companies more so than Europeans because of public financing.
For an MNC, the inter-company pricing is where they could easily conceal real cost of their products and avoid paying taxes. They avoid taxes to the host countries because they claim that these are goods-in-progress. Then, when those goods are brought to the US, to be made into finished product, MNCs generally tend to use high figures as cost of supplies, from the foreign land. As such their actual profit on finished goods is decreased considerably. Hence, they pay very little taxes.
Now, all this applies mostly to the physical goods that are being shipped. With IT technologies, etc. since there are no finished goods, this may not apply. So the host country gets mostly nothing from the MNC, except maybe some jobs for their unemployed people. Of course, something is better than nothing. However, the resources of this labor pool could have been well spent in other areas of the economy where the taxing body could collect taxes for the betterment of the country.
Loosing taxes due to the shenanigans of the MNC`s should be a major concern of enlightened developing economies. And it seems that they are not.
However, a mom and pop capitalist pays all the domestic taxes, and are not able to employ the shenanigans of the MNC. A true capitalist must always play within the boundaries of the law. Unfortunately, politicians who make laws are bought out by the MNCs. And those who work for MNCs are better off not understanding the law. In this way, people who have jobs cannot cut the hands that feed them. The rest of the Joe Blows of the society, who know that MNC`s are screwing the country are unable to voice their opinion.
{why is creating jobs an evil?} That is the whole crux of inviting an MNC into the host economy. It is always promoted as let us give them tax holiday`s because they create jobs. And that is what is hogwash.
{almost every country in the world is a signatory of WTO, how are you going to prevent some particular company from coming in?} Yes, being signatories is just the beginning, but disagreements keep popping up and the WTO court has been very active lately.
{if the people of the country doesn`t want what the mnc has to offer, they will reject it by themselves.} Correct, if the people are given free choice. But, most of them are not free to choose. Most developing countries have their political structure so messed up that MNCs can litterally walk in with completed agreements for the despotic rule to sign on the dotted line.
{you can add daewoo, hyundia to that list too. but that happened in a capitalist environment.} That is exactly what I claimed in my argument. South Korean companies did not need MNC`s from the US to grow.
{but behram, who is the chairman of ms board of director?????} Yes, maybe one vote. Whereas, there are many other votes by the other board members who are mostly stooges of other huge share holders such as the mutual funds, etc.
How can these so-called corporatists create wealth? That is what the genesis of this discussion was.
{well if they don`t create wealth} Do you remember Aol buying Time Warner out? What happened to Steve Case? That is exactly what I am saying. Corporatists do not create wealth for any society. They may create wealth for themselves. But the whole society is not well served.
{behram, no one starts a company for charity.} Yes, correct, and that is why I believe in true capitalism.
{you have to make money to stay afloat.} Yes, correct. But, then the management takes over, who are mostly office politicians, (nothing to do with the individual enterprising person who started the business entity), and then they go out for public money to grow. And shortly a MNC is born.
And that is the evil in Corporatism.
{ atleast some families are paying bills due to their GE job.} Of course, but should we whore away the whole country on the whims of an MNC?
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#130 Posted by ahmedmadani on January 26, 2006 9:59:55 pm
Paqkistan`s supreme leader is very good manager.
He is in Europe for economic meeting and has become center of attention. He knows how to squeeze good financial arrangement. He put usa in dilemma. He said he will go for Iran gas pipe project and said bluntly it is necessary for economic survival. He said to usa directly if usa does not want to have that then then they should compensate. Egypt and Israel has similar deal to sign peace treaty. USA will have to accept pipeline or will have to compensate pakistan for not building. Great Tactician of practcal economics as economics is concentrated economics. Pakistan has proper man at proper place. Great managerial skills for sure.
He is in Europe for economic meeting and has become center of attention. He knows how to squeeze good financial arrangement. He put usa in dilemma. He said he will go for Iran gas pipe project and said bluntly it is necessary for economic survival. He said to usa directly if usa does not want to have that then then they should compensate. Egypt and Israel has similar deal to sign peace treaty. USA will have to accept pipeline or will have to compensate pakistan for not building. Great Tactician of practcal economics as economics is concentrated economics. Pakistan has proper man at proper place. Great managerial skills for sure.
#131 Posted by ahmedmadani on January 26, 2006 10:00:16 pm
Paqkistan`s supreme leader is very good manager.
He is in Europe for economic meeting and has become center of attention. He knows how to squeeze good financial arrangement. He put usa in dilemma. He said he will go for Iran gas pipe project and said bluntly it is necessary for economic survival. He said to usa directly if usa does not want to have that then then they should compensate. Egypt and Israel has similar deal to sign peace treaty. USA will have to accept pipeline or will have to compensate pakistan for not building. Great Tactician of practcal economics as economics is concentrated economics. Pakistan has proper man at proper place. Great managerial skills for sure.
He is in Europe for economic meeting and has become center of attention. He knows how to squeeze good financial arrangement. He put usa in dilemma. He said he will go for Iran gas pipe project and said bluntly it is necessary for economic survival. He said to usa directly if usa does not want to have that then then they should compensate. Egypt and Israel has similar deal to sign peace treaty. USA will have to accept pipeline or will have to compensate pakistan for not building. Great Tactician of practcal economics as economics is concentrated economics. Pakistan has proper man at proper place. Great managerial skills for sure.
#132 Posted by arjun_m on January 26, 2006 11:51:18 pm
inbred retard tells us MNCs are bad and the reason so few of them are investing in Pakiland is because Pakiland doesn`t want the evil MNCs...yet El-Presidente is begging Microsoft(MNC) to invest in Pakiland..inbred retard tells us MNCs exploit cheap labor and yet El-Presidente offers his countries cheap labor(fact that nobody is interested is another issue)..
Musharraf invites foreign investors
DAVOS, Jan 26: President Pervez Musharraf on Thursday invited the global entrepreneurs to invest in Pakistan, saying its geo-strategic location, booming economy, lucrative incentives and market of 156 million people makes the country an ideal destination for foreign investment.
The country’s cheap but skilled manpower and low cost of doing business are the other ingredients of Pakistan’s investor-friendly climate, he added.
The president also pointed to the high profitability and said most of the foreign companies in Pakistan were earning profits between 30 to 60 per cent.
He identified telecom, IT, agro-based industry, engineering, construction, power, oil and gas exploration, fisheries and food-processing as some of the areas which offer vast opportunities for investment with good returns.
Speaking to William H. Gates, chairman software giant Microsoft, who called on him on the margins of the World Economic Forum (WEF) on Thursday, President Musharraf said effective use of information technology was fundamental to Pakistan achieving its strategic economic objectives.
“With its large domestic market and strategic location, Pakistan could be used as a hub for Microsoft initiatives in Central Asia and Afghanistan”, the president said.
William Gates discussed possible areas of Microsoft-Pakistan collaboration and investment in the country’s promising IT sector. —APP
Musharraf invites foreign investors
DAVOS, Jan 26: President Pervez Musharraf on Thursday invited the global entrepreneurs to invest in Pakistan, saying its geo-strategic location, booming economy, lucrative incentives and market of 156 million people makes the country an ideal destination for foreign investment.
The country’s cheap but skilled manpower and low cost of doing business are the other ingredients of Pakistan’s investor-friendly climate, he added.
The president also pointed to the high profitability and said most of the foreign companies in Pakistan were earning profits between 30 to 60 per cent.
He identified telecom, IT, agro-based industry, engineering, construction, power, oil and gas exploration, fisheries and food-processing as some of the areas which offer vast opportunities for investment with good returns.
Speaking to William H. Gates, chairman software giant Microsoft, who called on him on the margins of the World Economic Forum (WEF) on Thursday, President Musharraf said effective use of information technology was fundamental to Pakistan achieving its strategic economic objectives.
“With its large domestic market and strategic location, Pakistan could be used as a hub for Microsoft initiatives in Central Asia and Afghanistan”, the president said.
William Gates discussed possible areas of Microsoft-Pakistan collaboration and investment in the country’s promising IT sector. —APP
#133 Posted by arjun_m on January 26, 2006 11:55:40 pm
Reality 
Pakis
US-India strategic alliance
By Ghayoor Ahmed
HISTORY bears witness to the fact that the United States focused its efforts on building a close relationship with Pakistan only when it deemed it necessary to do so to achieve its limited aims in the region. It did not consider Pakistan important enough to develop long-time relations with.
In contrast, American policymakers have made sustained efforts to develop a cordial and durable relationship with India for the promotion of major US interests in South Asia. This illustrates the dichotomy in America’s attitude towards Pakistan and India.
However, being one of the principal exponents of the non-aligned movement, India preferred to remain politically neutral and in order to attain great power status in the international system it endeavoured to maintain a non-aligned posture. Yet, American policymakers continued to feverishly work to woo India which was seen by them to have strategic possibilities of interest to the United States.
The end of the Cold War, however, brought about a perceptible change in the strategic outlook of India. To all intent and purposes it abandoned its hoary commitments to non-alignment. President Bill Clinton’s visit to India in March 2000 not only opened a new chapter in US-India relations, it was also heralded as a blueprint for future ties between the two countries. Based on the conviction that US interests required strong links with New Delhi, the Bush administration has been exploring ways of creating a strategic partnership with India since 2001.
Consequently, in 2004, the United Sates and India embarked upon a bilateral programme referred to as the Next Steps in the Strategic Partnership (NSSP). Under the aegis of this programme the United States and India agreed to work on a quartet of security issues that included civilian nuclear technology, civilian space technology, high technology trade, and missile defence.
On July 18, 2005, both, the United States and India formally established their strategic partnership in the furtherance of cooperation in a number of areas of mutual interests, including the nuclear field. Many considerations underlay this “new relationship” between the United States and India, which is, however, predicated on their common desire of containing China’s growing military might and its emergence as a political/economic power. China is perceived by both countries as a potential threat to their long-term interests in the region and beyond.
It is generally believed that President Bush, aiming to boost India as a counterbalance against China, has moved closer to accepting it as a nuclear weapon state notwithstanding his rhetoric of a vigorous non-proliferation policy.
It is important to note in this context that while welcoming Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, to the White House on July 18 last year, President Bush described India as a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology, and said that it should acquire the same benefits and advantages as other such states were entitled to. The president also said that he would ask Congress and US allies to revise American laws and international laws to allow nuclear trade with India.
One should not, however, be surprised at Washington’s nuclear cooperation with India which, in fact, dates back to the 1950s when, apart from building the Tarapur nuclear reactor and providing heavy water for its reactors, it also allowed Indian nuclear scientists to study at US nuclear laboratories. Declassified American papers also revealed that, in 1961, the United States had contemplated making India a nuclear power as a counterweight to China. That idea, however, had to be shelved at the time because of some problems in its implementation.
It is difficult to believe that while making a decision about a strategic partnership with India that would facilitate its emergence as a powerful entity with considerable political and military clout conferring upon it the status of a regional hegemon, US policymakers would not have taken into account Pakistan’s sensitivities.
Washington is well aware of Pakistan’s serious concerns about the threat to its security, particularly from its eastern neighbour, which leads one to believe that it deliberately ignored this important aspect.
However, it is equally intriguing that policymakers in Pakistan for many years did not know which way the wind was blowing in US corridors of power and, therefore, could not persuade Washington to adopt an even-handed policy towards Pakistan and India. There no point in making hollow noises against the US-India strategic alliance at this stage as it is now a fait accompli.
The US-India strategic partnership may be in consonance with America’s interests but will, however, create serious problems for all countries in the region as they have disputes with their bigger neighbour. It will particularly hurt Pakistan. Political analysts believe that the existing cordial Pakistan-US relationship might come under severe strain and place the present pro-US regime in Pakistan in a quandary if Pakistan’s legitimate concerns about its security are not addressed by the United States in a satisfactory manner.
Having been on the wrong side of history in Afghanistan and Iraq, the containment of China has now commanded President Bush’s attention. He has decided to use India as a conduit for this purpose. He has entered into a long-term strategic partnership with that country, ostensibly, to build closer ties between the two countries in different fields. The scepticism that this ominous development would upset the delicate balance of power between Pakistan and India and undermine the security of the former is well-founded.
A wide body of opinion in Pakistan is of the view that the United States cannot be relied upon as a dependable ally which underlines the need and urgency of evolving a new strategy that would particularly address the security concerns of their country. For obvious reasons, Pakistan cannot abdicate its responsibility for the preservation of its security and national integrity in the aftermath of the recent overtures the United States has made to India.
Unfortunately, however, Pakistan is also suffering from a number of serious political, economic and social problems. Ethnic and regional conflicts have particularly assumed critical proportions and might impinge upon its national security and territorial integrity.
It is, therefore, equally important to put our own house in order by creating national harmony and reconciliation. The need for pragmatism has never been so acutely felt as today.
The writer is a former ambassador.
PakisUS-India strategic alliance
By Ghayoor Ahmed
HISTORY bears witness to the fact that the United States focused its efforts on building a close relationship with Pakistan only when it deemed it necessary to do so to achieve its limited aims in the region. It did not consider Pakistan important enough to develop long-time relations with.
In contrast, American policymakers have made sustained efforts to develop a cordial and durable relationship with India for the promotion of major US interests in South Asia. This illustrates the dichotomy in America’s attitude towards Pakistan and India.
However, being one of the principal exponents of the non-aligned movement, India preferred to remain politically neutral and in order to attain great power status in the international system it endeavoured to maintain a non-aligned posture. Yet, American policymakers continued to feverishly work to woo India which was seen by them to have strategic possibilities of interest to the United States.
The end of the Cold War, however, brought about a perceptible change in the strategic outlook of India. To all intent and purposes it abandoned its hoary commitments to non-alignment. President Bill Clinton’s visit to India in March 2000 not only opened a new chapter in US-India relations, it was also heralded as a blueprint for future ties between the two countries. Based on the conviction that US interests required strong links with New Delhi, the Bush administration has been exploring ways of creating a strategic partnership with India since 2001.
Consequently, in 2004, the United Sates and India embarked upon a bilateral programme referred to as the Next Steps in the Strategic Partnership (NSSP). Under the aegis of this programme the United States and India agreed to work on a quartet of security issues that included civilian nuclear technology, civilian space technology, high technology trade, and missile defence.
On July 18, 2005, both, the United States and India formally established their strategic partnership in the furtherance of cooperation in a number of areas of mutual interests, including the nuclear field. Many considerations underlay this “new relationship” between the United States and India, which is, however, predicated on their common desire of containing China’s growing military might and its emergence as a political/economic power. China is perceived by both countries as a potential threat to their long-term interests in the region and beyond.
It is generally believed that President Bush, aiming to boost India as a counterbalance against China, has moved closer to accepting it as a nuclear weapon state notwithstanding his rhetoric of a vigorous non-proliferation policy.
It is important to note in this context that while welcoming Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, to the White House on July 18 last year, President Bush described India as a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology, and said that it should acquire the same benefits and advantages as other such states were entitled to. The president also said that he would ask Congress and US allies to revise American laws and international laws to allow nuclear trade with India.
One should not, however, be surprised at Washington’s nuclear cooperation with India which, in fact, dates back to the 1950s when, apart from building the Tarapur nuclear reactor and providing heavy water for its reactors, it also allowed Indian nuclear scientists to study at US nuclear laboratories. Declassified American papers also revealed that, in 1961, the United States had contemplated making India a nuclear power as a counterweight to China. That idea, however, had to be shelved at the time because of some problems in its implementation.
It is difficult to believe that while making a decision about a strategic partnership with India that would facilitate its emergence as a powerful entity with considerable political and military clout conferring upon it the status of a regional hegemon, US policymakers would not have taken into account Pakistan’s sensitivities.
Washington is well aware of Pakistan’s serious concerns about the threat to its security, particularly from its eastern neighbour, which leads one to believe that it deliberately ignored this important aspect.
However, it is equally intriguing that policymakers in Pakistan for many years did not know which way the wind was blowing in US corridors of power and, therefore, could not persuade Washington to adopt an even-handed policy towards Pakistan and India. There no point in making hollow noises against the US-India strategic alliance at this stage as it is now a fait accompli.
The US-India strategic partnership may be in consonance with America’s interests but will, however, create serious problems for all countries in the region as they have disputes with their bigger neighbour. It will particularly hurt Pakistan. Political analysts believe that the existing cordial Pakistan-US relationship might come under severe strain and place the present pro-US regime in Pakistan in a quandary if Pakistan’s legitimate concerns about its security are not addressed by the United States in a satisfactory manner.
Having been on the wrong side of history in Afghanistan and Iraq, the containment of China has now commanded President Bush’s attention. He has decided to use India as a conduit for this purpose. He has entered into a long-term strategic partnership with that country, ostensibly, to build closer ties between the two countries in different fields. The scepticism that this ominous development would upset the delicate balance of power between Pakistan and India and undermine the security of the former is well-founded.
A wide body of opinion in Pakistan is of the view that the United States cannot be relied upon as a dependable ally which underlines the need and urgency of evolving a new strategy that would particularly address the security concerns of their country. For obvious reasons, Pakistan cannot abdicate its responsibility for the preservation of its security and national integrity in the aftermath of the recent overtures the United States has made to India.
Unfortunately, however, Pakistan is also suffering from a number of serious political, economic and social problems. Ethnic and regional conflicts have particularly assumed critical proportions and might impinge upon its national security and territorial integrity.
It is, therefore, equally important to put our own house in order by creating national harmony and reconciliation. The need for pragmatism has never been so acutely felt as today.
The writer is a former ambassador.
#134 Posted by discoverer on January 27, 2006 4:03:05 am
Why indians why,why don`t you accept your true identity, amrica is coming to your country because you invented kamasutra
#135 Posted by Behram1 on January 27, 2006 5:46:28 am
Cost of labor in India, to code-coolies is less than American babies diaper costs, yet factoid junkie is proud of what MNC has brought to India. It is hard for turd brains to understand the destructive forces of MNC`s, since all he is used to is cut & paste technology.
#136 Posted by arjun_m on January 27, 2006 7:35:21 am
#135 by behram1 on January 27, 2006 5:46am PT
cost of labor in Pakiland is lower than that in India...you`re BEGGING american companies like Microsoft to come to PAkiland but they won`t because 1) The poor quality of labour as a direct result of the madrassah education 2) Pakiland`s reputation as a jihadi hotbed...
cost of labor in Pakiland is lower than that in India...you`re BEGGING american companies like Microsoft to come to PAkiland but they won`t because 1) The poor quality of labour as a direct result of the madrassah education 2) Pakiland`s reputation as a jihadi hotbed...
#137 Posted by arjun_m on January 27, 2006 7:37:47 am
Inbred retard Behram is the perfect example of the paki education system...and explains why Indians in the US, on an average, make 40% more than Pakis..and why a bunch of pakis have been busted for jihad in the US..and why pakis are analy probed everytime they land at a US airport..
#138 Posted by Salim_Chauhan on January 27, 2006 8:10:12 am
#126, Tahmed Sahib,
LOL.
That is the best that Michael Jackson has looked since he was a little boy. :)
LOL.
That is the best that Michael Jackson has looked since he was a little boy. :)
#140 Posted by Behram1 on January 27, 2006 9:25:00 am
Obviously turd brains are incapable of understanding the difference between requesting foreign investors and schmoozing like a whore in front of MNC`s. It is real hard for these factoid junkies, who squat on railroad tracks, to understand the true meaning of MNC`s investing. No matter how much hindoo chicks want white sugar daddies, the MNC`s will not deliver benefit to the locals. Just look at Jamshedpur, where Tatas have successfully tried to maintain business relationships based on equality and magnanimity. However, those who like to be banged galore have something else coming to them.
Alas, for turd brains, this is all too advanced to comprehend.
{ 2) Pakiland`s reputation as a jihadi hotbed...} Not really. This is sooooo yesterday. Only factoid junkie would claim that. Why would Pakistan`s Prime Minister be invited to the White House? Why was King of Saudi Arabia invited to G.W. Bush`s ranch? Very few foreign heads of state are ever invited to the President`s ranch. And where did Indian PM visited last?
It is real hard for turd brains to notice the dynamics of modern economic forces.
US homeland security forces have noticed those dark and ugly creatures who call themselves Indians. It is hard for humans to understand these creatures.
Once again, muslims will shine and hindoos will remain a subset of muslims.
#141 Posted by Behram1 on January 27, 2006 9:34:40 am
Race to the bottom. And that is what IT India is all about.
http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/060127/b3969427.html?.v=1
Can Latin America Challenge India?
CLOSER TO HOME. Three years ago, Softtek bought General Electric`s (NYSE:GE - News) Mexico-based IT operations, absorbing nearly 1,000 engineers. As a result, Softtek became the multinational`s main nearshore solution for IT work in Latin America, performing support and maintenance for GE`s commercial finance and energy groups. Since then, Softtek`s revenues have been growing 40% annually and hit $146 million in 2005, with more than half of the business from U.S. clients.
Now, Softtek has 3,500 employees, mostly engineers, making it the largest IT outsourcer in Latin America. Softtek, based in Monterrey, Mexico, has offices in the U.S., Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Puerto Rico, Venezuela, and Spain.
Why go to Mexico, where labor costs are higher than in India? Because the efficiency gains from working close to the U.S. and in the same time zone mean nearshoring in Mexico costs about the same as offshoring in India, says Trevino. Up to 95% of work can be performed off-site, in Mexico, compared to just 60% to 65% for clients working with Indian providers, she adds.
NONNUCLEAR NEIGHBOR. GE still outsources 90% of its IT work to India, sending just 6% to Mexico, says Steve Morrison, GE`s London-based head of Global IT outsourcing. But, he notes, as India`s costs rise, Mexico will look better and better. ``If things continue as they are, India eventually will be charging the same unit cost as Mexico,`` he says. That`s why Indian companies have been hustling to find ways to perform a higher percentage of the work off-site in India, he says.
Morrison points to another advantage Mexico has over India: Due to U.S. legislative restrictions, certain kinds of projects involving sensitive aviation and energy technology are more likely to go to Mexico than to India, a nuclear-power nation.
Argentina, which boasts one of the best-educated workforces in Latin America, also is aggressively promoting software development centers. That effort was helped by a major 2002 currency devaluation that made Argentina super-cost-competitive and drove down the cost of engineers to less than $12,000 a year. The industry has been growing two to three times as fast as the overall economy and this year will have revenues of about $1.6 billion.
``Economies in acute crisis have one major advantage: You can start a new company with a smaller investment and find highly skilled and motivated people very easily,`` says Carlos Pallotti, Datastream Systems` managing director for Latin America and president of Argentina`s Association of Information Technology Companies.
#142 Posted by Behram1 on January 27, 2006 9:39:16 am
Just to highlight, one more time, for turd brain Indians.
From Post 141:
Morrison points to another advantage Mexico has over India: Due to U.S. legislative restrictions, certain kinds of projects involving sensitive aviation and energy technology are more likely to go to Mexico than to India, a nuclear-power nation.
#143 Posted by arjun_m on January 27, 2006 11:09:50 am
#140 by behram1 on January 27, 2006 9:25am PT
Not really. This is sooooo yesterday.
Paki territory was bombed less than 2 weeks ago and the paki government says it didn`t know about it in advance or approve it...
How does the saudi king being invited to crawford or Mexico`s miniscule potential in IT say anything positive about Pakiland?
Not really. This is sooooo yesterday.
Paki territory was bombed less than 2 weeks ago and the paki government says it didn`t know about it in advance or approve it...
How does the saudi king being invited to crawford or Mexico`s miniscule potential in IT say anything positive about Pakiland?
| Reality | Pakis |
| |
#144 Posted by arjun_m on January 27, 2006 11:17:53 am
hello inbred retard..read this, from a paki newspaper, before the vultures finish what`s left of your brain..or you get shipped to gitmo(or back to karachi)
Reality Pakis
US-India strategic alliance
By Ghayoor Ahmed
HISTORY bears witness to the fact that the United States focused its efforts on building a close relationship with Pakistan only when it deemed it necessary to do so to achieve its limited aims in the region. It did not consider Pakistan important enough to develop long-time relations with.
In contrast, American policymakers have made sustained efforts to develop a cordial and durable relationship with India for the promotion of major US interests in South Asia. This illustrates the dichotomy in America’s attitude towards Pakistan and India.
However, being one of the principal exponents of the non-aligned movement, India preferred to remain politically neutral and in order to attain great power status in the international system it endeavoured to maintain a non-aligned posture. Yet, American policymakers continued to feverishly work to woo India which was seen by them to have strategic possibilities of interest to the United States.
The end of the Cold War, however, brought about a perceptible change in the strategic outlook of India. To all intent and purposes it abandoned its hoary commitments to non-alignment. President Bill Clinton’s visit to India in March 2000 not only opened a new chapter in US-India relations, it was also heralded as a blueprint for future ties between the two countries. Based on the conviction that US interests required strong links with New Delhi, the Bush administration has been exploring ways of creating a strategic partnership with India since 2001.
Consequently, in 2004, the United Sates and India embarked upon a bilateral programme referred to as the Next Steps in the Strategic Partnership (NSSP). Under the aegis of this programme the United States and India agreed to work on a quartet of security issues that included civilian nuclear technology, civilian space technology, high technology trade, and missile defence.
On July 18, 2005, both, the United States and India formally established their strategic partnership in the furtherance of cooperation in a number of areas of mutual interests, including the nuclear field. Many considerations underlay this “new relationship” between the United States and India, which is, however, predicated on their common desire of containing China’s growing military might and its emergence as a political/economic power. China is perceived by both countries as a potential threat to their long-term interests in the region and beyond.
It is generally believed that President Bush, aiming to boost India as a counterbalance against China, has moved closer to accepting it as a nuclear weapon state notwithstanding his rhetoric of a vigorous non-proliferation policy.
It is important to note in this context that while welcoming Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, to the White House on July 18 last year, President Bush described India as a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology, and said that it should acquire the same benefits and advantages as other such states were entitled to. The president also said that he would ask Congress and US allies to revise American laws and international laws to allow nuclear trade with India.
One should not, however, be surprised at Washington’s nuclear cooperation with India which, in fact, dates back to the 1950s when, apart from building the Tarapur nuclear reactor and providing heavy water for its reactors, it also allowed Indian nuclear scientists to study at US nuclear laboratories. Declassified American papers also revealed that, in 1961, the United States had contemplated making India a nuclear power as a counterweight to China. That idea, however, had to be shelved at the time because of some problems in its implementation.
It is difficult to believe that while making a decision about a strategic partnership with India that would facilitate its emergence as a powerful entity with considerable political and military clout conferring upon it the status of a regional hegemon, US policymakers would not have taken into account Pakistan’s sensitivities.
Washington is well aware of Pakistan’s serious concerns about the threat to its security, particularly from its eastern neighbour, which leads one to believe that it deliberately ignored this important aspect.
However, it is equally intriguing that policymakers in Pakistan for many years did not know which way the wind was blowing in US corridors of power and, therefore, could not persuade Washington to adopt an even-handed policy towards Pakistan and India. There no point in making hollow noises against the US-India strategic alliance at this stage as it is now a fait accompli.
The US-India strategic partnership may be in consonance with America’s interests but will, however, create serious problems for all countries in the region as they have disputes with their bigger neighbour. It will particularly hurt Pakistan. Political analysts believe that the existing cordial Pakistan-US relationship might come under severe strain and place the present pro-US regime in Pakistan in a quandary if Pakistan’s legitimate concerns about its security are not addressed by the United States in a satisfactory manner.
Having been on the wrong side of history in Afghanistan and Iraq, the containment of China has now commanded President Bush’s attention. He has decided to use India as a conduit for this purpose. He has entered into a long-term strategic partnership with that country, ostensibly, to build closer ties between the two countries in different fields. The scepticism that this ominous development would upset the delicate balance of power between Pakistan and India and undermine the security of the former is well-founded.
A wide body of opinion in Pakistan is of the view that the United States cannot be relied upon as a dependable ally which underlines the need and urgency of evolving a new strategy that would particularly address the security concerns of their country. For obvious reasons, Pakistan cannot abdicate its responsibility for the preservation of its security and national integrity in the aftermath of the recent overtures the United States has made to India.
Unfortunately, however, Pakistan is also suffering from a number of serious political, economic and social problems. Ethnic and regional conflicts have particularly assumed critical proportions and might impinge upon its national security and territorial integrity.
It is, therefore, equally important to put our own house in order by creating national harmony and reconciliation. The need for pragmatism has never been so acutely felt as today.
The writer is a former ambassador.
Reality
PakisUS-India strategic alliance
By Ghayoor Ahmed
HISTORY bears witness to the fact that the United States focused its efforts on building a close relationship with Pakistan only when it deemed it necessary to do so to achieve its limited aims in the region. It did not consider Pakistan important enough to develop long-time relations with.
In contrast, American policymakers have made sustained efforts to develop a cordial and durable relationship with India for the promotion of major US interests in South Asia. This illustrates the dichotomy in America’s attitude towards Pakistan and India.
However, being one of the principal exponents of the non-aligned movement, India preferred to remain politically neutral and in order to attain great power status in the international system it endeavoured to maintain a non-aligned posture. Yet, American policymakers continued to feverishly work to woo India which was seen by them to have strategic possibilities of interest to the United States.
The end of the Cold War, however, brought about a perceptible change in the strategic outlook of India. To all intent and purposes it abandoned its hoary commitments to non-alignment. President Bill Clinton’s visit to India in March 2000 not only opened a new chapter in US-India relations, it was also heralded as a blueprint for future ties between the two countries. Based on the conviction that US interests required strong links with New Delhi, the Bush administration has been exploring ways of creating a strategic partnership with India since 2001.
Consequently, in 2004, the United Sates and India embarked upon a bilateral programme referred to as the Next Steps in the Strategic Partnership (NSSP). Under the aegis of this programme the United States and India agreed to work on a quartet of security issues that included civilian nuclear technology, civilian space technology, high technology trade, and missile defence.
On July 18, 2005, both, the United States and India formally established their strategic partnership in the furtherance of cooperation in a number of areas of mutual interests, including the nuclear field. Many considerations underlay this “new relationship” between the United States and India, which is, however, predicated on their common desire of containing China’s growing military might and its emergence as a political/economic power. China is perceived by both countries as a potential threat to their long-term interests in the region and beyond.
It is generally believed that President Bush, aiming to boost India as a counterbalance against China, has moved closer to accepting it as a nuclear weapon state notwithstanding his rhetoric of a vigorous non-proliferation policy.
It is important to note in this context that while welcoming Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, to the White House on July 18 last year, President Bush described India as a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology, and said that it should acquire the same benefits and advantages as other such states were entitled to. The president also said that he would ask Congress and US allies to revise American laws and international laws to allow nuclear trade with India.
One should not, however, be surprised at Washington’s nuclear cooperation with India which, in fact, dates back to the 1950s when, apart from building the Tarapur nuclear reactor and providing heavy water for its reactors, it also allowed Indian nuclear scientists to study at US nuclear laboratories. Declassified American papers also revealed that, in 1961, the United States had contemplated making India a nuclear power as a counterweight to China. That idea, however, had to be shelved at the time because of some problems in its implementation.
It is difficult to believe that while making a decision about a strategic partnership with India that would facilitate its emergence as a powerful entity with considerable political and military clout conferring upon it the status of a regional hegemon, US policymakers would not have taken into account Pakistan’s sensitivities.
Washington is well aware of Pakistan’s serious concerns about the threat to its security, particularly from its eastern neighbour, which leads one to believe that it deliberately ignored this important aspect.
However, it is equally intriguing that policymakers in Pakistan for many years did not know which way the wind was blowing in US corridors of power and, therefore, could not persuade Washington to adopt an even-handed policy towards Pakistan and India. There no point in making hollow noises against the US-India strategic alliance at this stage as it is now a fait accompli.
The US-India strategic partnership may be in consonance with America’s interests but will, however, create serious problems for all countries in the region as they have disputes with their bigger neighbour. It will particularly hurt Pakistan. Political analysts believe that the existing cordial Pakistan-US relationship might come under severe strain and place the present pro-US regime in Pakistan in a quandary if Pakistan’s legitimate concerns about its security are not addressed by the United States in a satisfactory manner.
Having been on the wrong side of history in Afghanistan and Iraq, the containment of China has now commanded President Bush’s attention. He has decided to use India as a conduit for this purpose. He has entered into a long-term strategic partnership with that country, ostensibly, to build closer ties between the two countries in different fields. The scepticism that this ominous development would upset the delicate balance of power between Pakistan and India and undermine the security of the former is well-founded.
A wide body of opinion in Pakistan is of the view that the United States cannot be relied upon as a dependable ally which underlines the need and urgency of evolving a new strategy that would particularly address the security concerns of their country. For obvious reasons, Pakistan cannot abdicate its responsibility for the preservation of its security and national integrity in the aftermath of the recent overtures the United States has made to India.
Unfortunately, however, Pakistan is also suffering from a number of serious political, economic and social problems. Ethnic and regional conflicts have particularly assumed critical proportions and might impinge upon its national security and territorial integrity.
It is, therefore, equally important to put our own house in order by creating national harmony and reconciliation. The need for pragmatism has never been so acutely felt as today.
The writer is a former ambassador.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- tahir: Re: # 32 Blow-J In... Translation of a (Love)
- tahir: Re: # 29 Quin "The... Translation of a (Love)
- tahir: Re: # 27 Naqsh "Tahir,... Translation of a (Love)
- quin: Asif, thanks for clarifying... Translation of a (Love)
- pakistan3: Re: # 362 tahmed32, It takes... Dhokha and Being a
- tahmed32: and i once had... Dhokha and Being a
- tahmed32: pakistan: ok, you got... Dhokha and Being a
- pakistan3: Re: # 359 unlike you,... Dhokha and Being a
