Iran: The Next Stop?

(Quote)
``The economy of America has been largely incorporated, and within their incorporation the corporate chiefs have captured the technological innovation, accumulated the existing great fortunes as well as much lesser, scattered wealth, and capitalized the future. Within the financial and political boundaries of the corporation, the industrial revolution itself has been concentrated. Corporations command raw materials, and the patents on inventions with which to turn them into finished products. They command the most expensive, and therefore what must be the finest, legal minds in the world, to invent and to refine their defenses and their strategies. They employ man as producer and they make that which he buys as consumer. They clothe him and feed him and invest his money. They make that with which he fights the wars and they finance the ballyhoo of advertisement and the obscurantist bunk of public relations that surround him during the wars and between them.

Their private decisions, responsibly made in the interests of the feudal-like world of private property and income, determine the size and shape of the national economy, the level of employment, the purchasing power of the consumer, the prices that are advertised, the investments that are channeled. Not `Wall Street financiers` or bankers, but large owners and executives in their self-financing corporations hold the keys of economic power. Not the politicians of the visible government, but the chief executives who sit in the political directorate ... hold the power and the means of defending the privileges of their corporate world. If they do not reign, they do govern at many of the vital points of everyday life in America, and no powers effectively and consistently countervail against them, nor have they as corporate-made men developed any effectively restraining conscience . ``(end quote)

(C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite, 1956)

#38 tahmed writes <<< masadi: where are you hiding?? halwa-eating uncle fazloo got your tongue??? >>>>

I was enjoying some time off from this corporate infested world by sleeping.

#34behram1 writes <<<{ Different faces might come but the policies will remain the same unless the whole institutional structure is changed, which is not going to happen anytime soon. }

Now here is where I disagree with you. There is a huge undercurrent amongst people who dislike corporatism. Change of the economic structure is already happening and you will notice it in the upcoming 2006 elections. GOP is the only political party that is inherently an isolationist party. >>>

Here is where you confuse between the two types of conservatives as C. W. Mills pointed out, the ``practical`` and the ``sophisticated``. The practical are the shock troops used by the sophisticated conservatives for support gathering on issues of ``value`` and opposition to unions and the long dead mom and pop ``utopian`` capitalism. Yet the sophisticated conservatives are the ones that define the course of the nation, and the US has not been isolationist post world war 2 regardless of the party in power, and not that it has its tentacles all over the globe, it wont abandon them, the people of Power have too much to lose, (and humanity too much to gain) for them to take this action.

#33 HP writes

<<< What information we have of human rights in Iran? Zippo zilch. So we cannot say that only the US elite is barbarian. The current Iranian elite is as barbarian as the other guy. Iraq’s Sadam was barbarian >>>

Iran`s barbarism (or lack thereof) is severely limited and localized compared to the barbarism of the US elite. Any barbarism that Iran does outside of its borders is well reported and scrutinized so we aren`t missing much there. There is no comparison.

<< History is full of incidents where human life did not count for much. >>

Does not mean we can justify it and keep quiet about it. One thing you are missing is that never before, in the history of the world has the globe become so centralized based upon technology and bureaucratic control and never has there been such huge development gaps within regions of the world as there exist now.

<<< The govt of Iraq under Saddam perhaps had no link but Iraq did. How could you have missed that? >>>

Bush wanted to topple the government of Saddam and he provided 9/11 as justification for that even though nothing linked 9/11 to the govt of Saddam. The other ``links`` which I am quuite unawre of, often brought forward by Fox News, were not as strong as the link of the US to the whole Al-Qaida phenomenon.

#32 tahmed, I was talking about these halwa lovers:

#44 by zeemax

[[#42 by Ramanujan #43 by behram1

[The foreign purchase of Pakistani assets is technically not FDI]

True.

[{India`s progress cannot be stopped. Regardless of the American MNC`s.}]

False. India`s growth is not sustainable because it is based solely on the service sector. That is not enough for a large populous country like India. Only small countries like Singapore, Hong King, UAE can thrive on service alone. China`s growth is sustainable because it is based on large scale manufacturing.]

[#47 by zeemax

Because service sector does not produce jobs for large numbers of unskilled/semi skilled people. Got it? ]]




I liked the true/false paradigm. Very stylish. Unfortunately, it lacks in substance. But then what can you expect given that people here at Chowk are prone to blazing away from the hip.

I suggest that you do a bit of reading before posting your opinions.


Let`s take the first post:


[False. India`s growth is not sustainable because it is based solely on the service sector.]


That`s complete BS.

India`s growth is not solely based on the service sector, only largely so.

Also, the manufacturing sector is now poised for rapid growth, with Chidambaram`s budget allocating major resources for the manufacturing sector, as opposed to services (services, he said, would take care of itself), and with the Golden Quadrilateral as well as many parts of the E-W & N-S highway systems getting completed by 2007 end.

Here`s a quote:

[
India`s economic opportunities and perils

Prabhudev Konana

(The writer teaches at the University of Texas, Austin.)



LOOKS LIKE the stars are aligning for India for even greater economic prosperity. This is not, however, coming from the country`s software prowess or IT-enabled services, but from old, traditional manufacturing sectors such as textiles and auto component industries. The promise has profound implications for the masses. However, India can derail its own engine of prosperity by not focussing on the right set of issues.

For starters, the removal of the textile quota and the potential Yuan revaluation are a boon. Garment exports from India to the United States grew by over 60 per cent since early 2005. With the Yuan revaluation, Wal-Mart is expected to increase its textile import from India from $1.5 billion to $5 billion.

Wal-Mart alone can provide a growth rate of 25 per cent to India`s textile sector, so the potential is enormous when other large global retailers flock to the country. The fifth Heimtextil India conference — trade show for home textiles and accessories — last year attracted over 10,000 participants from 96 countries. Without much fanfare, all major retailers, fashion brands and intermediaries such as Li and Fung are establishing or expanding offices in India, matching that of the high-tech sector. Some estimates project textile exports to reach $50 billion by 2010 from the current $15 billion, equalling or surpassing the projection for software exports..... ]


And the next line:

[Because service sector does not produce jobs for large numbers of unskilled/semi skilled people. Got it?]

Actually, it does. Economic gains made by the skilled and semi-skilled workers make their way down to the people who provide goods and services to THEM.


Sadly enough, India`s progress will remain unabated.

Sorry.

prophet tahmed(peace be unto your self-righteous rear): zeemax is actually right...India actually needs manufacturing as well as services...Of course, it`s doing a good deal of manufacturing, just not as much as China...

zeemax: so, your assumptions are that (1) the service sector requires skill, and (2) skills are, and can be expected to remain, in short supply in india. on (1), i will be generous and assume you are thinking of high-skilled service sector only, so agreed.

on (2), i am sure that after you have had a cup of coffee, you will realize what an unrealistic assumption this is.

And, after the second cup of coffee (and perhaps done some google searches), you will i am sure agree that of course it is the service sector that is steadily providing an increasing share of modern economies, at the expense of manufacturing and agriculture.

Then, maybe a third cup of coffee to check on demographic trends, and you will i am certain nod your head in agreement when i say that, with the aging of the work force in europe, us, japan and even in china (thanks in the latter to the one-child policy), the increasing share of labor will come from - the subcontinent, the middle east, and africa.

Having had three cups of coffee, I am certain you will be sizzling hot - and will reach the obvious conclusion - namely that not only did you not know what you were talking about when you predicted a bleak future for india, you in fact were dead, dead wrong. and lest our indian brethren start wetting their pants in delight (as they are wont to do), i would say that the future looks good not just for india but for all other miserable little cesspools in the world - the rest of the subcontinent including pakistan and africa in particular.

Re: #48

Paki and Parsi girls have eyebrows joined in the middle. And they are ugly, too. Ugh!


But I guess you guys make up for the lack of quality with quantity. Four wives, four mothers, four mother-in-laws... advanced Paki civilization.


:)


Behram,

You are not doing a good enough job howling at the gate lately. Your masters (and Tahmed is one of them) are going to be angry.

Re: # 46 tahmed32:

{Bahram #43 ha! ha! why does this latest genius from india remind me of dhakka start??}

It is obvious that Indians love to be shoved from behind.

Last night, Nicholas Burns, US Under-Secretary for Political Affairs came on the Charlie Rose Show. It seems that he was in overdrive to promote India, as if he was being married to an Indian women and he was bragging about his in-laws. He was articulate enough, yet he was totally out-of-touch with what the American people want. He did, however, continued to promote GE, Westinghouse, and of course, Boeing as investers in this new global enterprise. He continues to be delusional that what is good for the MNCs is good for the American capitalism. Now this is where the idiots in the administration need to come back to the core values of the GOP, which is America for Americans first.

And then Charlie Rose had a segment with Shabana Azmi. She was suggesting with both sides of her mouth. Of course, she said that, she is for globalization, but she does not want a soap manufacturer to get into those villages where they are already making soap. She want limited globalization, kinda like partial pregnancy. This is what India is all about. They want to be raped, but only on their terms. They love sex, but only when they want to have it. So MNCs has to continue with a boxful of viagra in their pockets. You never know when this ugly looking Indian bride might ask the MNC that she is ready for another round of sex.

O! and the corporatists will definitely go for that. Because they like their ugly brides from India. Nicholas Burns was giving out all the party lines for the MNCs to hear, and maybe for their shareholders to hear. These kinds of talks are so sickening, and of course, it shows up in poll after poll, how G.W.`s poll numbers are dropping like a rock.

[Would you care to provide the assumptions underlying this Zeemax Theory of Sustainable Economic Development??]

Because service sector does not produce jobs for large numbers of unskilled/semi skilled people. Got it?

Bahram #43 ha! ha! why does this latest genius from india remind me of dhakka start??

zeemax writes India`s growth is not sustainable because it is based solely on the service sector. That is not enough for a large populous country like India. Only small countries like Singapore, Hong King, UAE can thrive on service alone. China`s growth is sustainable because it is based on large scale manufacturing.

Chowk never stops being fun!! Would you care to provide the assumptions underlying this Zeemax Theory of Sustainable Economic Development??

#42 by Ramanujan #43 by behram1

[The foreign purchase of Pakistani assets is technically not FDI]

True.

[{India`s progress cannot be stopped. Regardless of the American MNC`s.}]

False. India`s growth is not sustainable because it is based solely on the service sector. That is not enough for a large populous country like India. Only small countries like Singapore, Hong King, UAE can thrive on service alone. China`s growth is sustainable because it is based on large scale manufacturing.

Re: #42 by Ramanujan on March 6, 2006 9:12pm PT

{Okay, I`m all ears.}

{And your point is? }

{Who`s talking about the purchase of ``existing assets``? }

{By whom? }

{So? In that case, most MNCs would go the the way of the dodo. Starting from the British MNCs, MNCs have ALWAYS have had their fingers in many pies out of sheer necessity - raw materials being one. And few American MNCs would survive the process, after losing huge markets, resources etc. }

{You should get together with Mantolives. Have you watched ``Brokeback Mountain``? You guys could get some inspiration from that. }

{And your point is? }

{Whichever way you define it, shareholders of Boeing stand to make good money. And India would be foolish not to take advantage of some soft credit. }

{India would be a loser, but American MNCs would be bigger losers. Which is why this would only happen in your imagination. }

{The jobless rate is the lowest since 2001. I find Americans pretty happy. They seem to be only worried about casualties in Iraq. }

{Not only mine. Also of ALL financial experts all over the globe. }

{Love the Islamic Republic of Pakistan all you want, but stop narrating your dreams about how India`s downfall is imminent because of the MNC`s pulling out. }

{That`s not your only problem. Believe me. Making it the ``Republic of Pakistan`` instead of ``Islamic Republic of Pakistan`` would be a giant strep forward. }

{Stop your voyeur fantasies about getting closer to the railroad tracks. It`s disgusting! }

So, you are getting disgusted by Hindoos squatting on railroad tracks? Is that all you were trying to say? And you took this article on Iran to India`s railroad tracks.

Re: #41 by behram1


[Maybe this could help you to understand what FDI actually should mean ]

Okay, I`m all ears.


[{The privatization strategy in Pakistan is driven by the ideologically-based conviction that all units in the public sector, whether profitable or not, strategic or non-strategic, should be sold to any bidder whether a foreigner or a Pakistani. This conviction is also driven by the desire to show higher levels of foreign direct investment (FDI) and give a boost to sagging foreign exchange reserves. The foreign purchase of Pakistani assets is technically not FDI because there is no addition to the capital stock of the country. ]


And your point is?


[Investment by definition means creation of new capital stock for enhancing production with the latest technology and management. This point was highlighted by Mohsin Khan, director, International Monetary Fund (whose theology is privatization), at a recent seminar in Islamabad. He stressed that the foreign purchase of existing assets cannot be treated as FDI because not only is there no addition in capital stock but there is also no change in existing technology. The government should, therefore, deduct privatization proceeds from FDI figures.} ]


Who`s talking about the purchase of ``existing assets``?


[http://dawn.com/2006/03/06/ed.htm#4

Although the above cut & paste was written for Pakistan`s sale of assets, it clearly shows that FDI investments is clearly misrepresented. ]

By whom?


[Now commenting on your post: if the US wre to pull back from the world market that would be approximately 25% of the global economy being removed. The EU is also already raising some high trade barriers of its own. ]

So? In that case, most MNCs would go the the way of the dodo. Starting from the British MNCs, MNCs have ALWAYS have had their fingers in many pies out of sheer necessity - raw materials being one. And few American MNCs would survive the process, after losing huge markets, resources etc.


[{India`s progress cannot be stopped. Regardless of the American MNC`s.} Heaven`s forbid, who wants to stop India`s progress, because there has been none.]


You should get together with Mantolives. Have you watched ``Brokeback Mountain``? You guys could get some inspiration from that.


[You must have missed all those documentary shown on American TV about India Inc. Did you see the one that Coca Cola bottling plant, in some village in South India, had drained all of that village`s irrigation water. The State government stepped in to stop Coke`s bottling plant. ]

And your point is?


[{If MNC`s do decide to move out of India and China, thus losing vast markets for their products, there STILL would be investors worldwide wanting to invest in India to make money.} Sure, and who might those investors be? You might have missed that Boeing was funding India to buy Boeing aircrafts, kinda like what mortgage companies do. And yes, please don`t forget the mortgage insurance in the process. And this MNC investment, you would not call an FDI or would you? ]

Whichever way you define it, shareholders of Boeing stand to make good money. And India would be foolish not to take advantage of some soft credit.


[{And even if there is no FDI, China would be the VASTLY bigger loser, since India`s industry did not grow on FDI, but based on individual entrepreneurial efforts. } Yes, so in a way you agree that India would be a loser, just not as much as China. But, who was suggesting anything about India or China being a loser or not. ]

India would be a loser, but American MNCs would be bigger losers. Which is why this would only happen in your imagination.


[I was just suggesting that people in the US are tired of MNC`s shenanigans and waking up to this fact, and the politicians would be working overtime to tow their line in the upcoming 2006 midterm elections. ]

The jobless rate is the lowest since 2001. I find Americans pretty happy. They seem to be only worried about casualties in Iraq.


[{So in short, India is going to move ahead, and your beloved Pakistan, primarily because of it`s ideology, will be falling behind. As will China. }

Yes, of course, and that is your opinion.]

Not only mine. Also of ALL financial experts all over the globe.


[However, I do love my Pakistan, and nowhere did I compare it with India or China. Do you love your India? ]

Love the Islamic Republic of Pakistan all you want, but stop narrating your dreams about how India`s downfall is imminent because of the MNC`s pulling out.


[{Sorry to burst your bubble.} Of course there was no bubble to burst. I know Pakistan has a lot of work to do on its own. And we could do it, if we can ever get those paindoos in Islamabad start thinking about Pakistan first. ]

That`s not your only problem. Believe me. Making it the ``Republic of Pakistan`` instead of ``Islamic Republic of Pakistan`` would be a giant strep forward.



[{But dream on. And keep howling from your assigned post in the doghouse near the gates of the residence your Islamic masters.} Wouldn`t you love it if I was closer to the railroad tracks where your Hindoos were having their early morning bowel movements? ]

Stop your voyeur fantasies about getting closer to the railroad tracks. It`s disgusting!

Re:#36 by Ramanujan on March 6, 2006 5:18pm PT

Maybe this could help you to understand what FDI actually should mean

{The privatization strategy in Pakistan is driven by the ideologically-based conviction that all units in the public sector, whether profitable or not, strategic or non-strategic, should be sold to any bidder whether a foreigner or a Pakistani. This conviction is also driven by the desire to show higher levels of foreign direct investment (FDI) and give a boost to sagging foreign exchange reserves. The foreign purchase of Pakistani assets is technically not FDI because there is no addition to the capital stock of the country.

Investment by definition means creation of new capital stock for enhancing production with the latest technology and management. This point was highlighted by Mohsin Khan, director, International Monetary Fund (whose theology is privatization), at a recent seminar in Islamabad. He stressed that the foreign purchase of existing assets cannot be treated as FDI because not only is there no addition in capital stock but there is also no change in existing technology. The government should, therefore, deduct privatization proceeds from FDI figures.}

http://dawn.com/2006/03/06/ed.htm#4

Although the above cut & paste was written for Pakistan`s sale of assets, it clearly shows that FDI investments is clearly misrepresented.

Now commenting on your post: if the US wre to pull back from the world market that would be approximately 25% of the global economy being removed. The EU is also already raising some high trade barriers of its own.

{India`s progress cannot be stopped. Regardless of the American MNC`s.} Heaven`s forbid, who wants to stop India`s progress, because there has been none. You must have missed all those documentary shown on American TV about India Inc. Did you see the one that Coca Cola bottling plant, in some village in South India, had drained all of that village`s irrigation water. The State government stepped in to stop Coke`s bottling plant.

{If MNC`s do decide to move out of India and China, thus losing vast markets for their products, there STILL would be investors worldwide wanting to invest in India to make money.} Sure, and who might those investors be? You might have missed that Boeing was funding India to buy Boeing aircrafts, kinda like what mortgage companies do. And yes, please don`t forget the mortgage insurance in the process. And this MNC investment, you would not call an FDI or would you?

{And even if there is no FDI, China would be the VASTLY bigger loser, since India`s industry did not grow on FDI, but based on individual entrepreneurial efforts. } Yes, so in a way you agree that India would be a loser, just not as much as China. But, who was suggesting anything about India or China being a loser or not.

I was just suggesting that people in the US are tired of MNC`s shenanigans and waking up to this fact, and the politicians would be working overtime to tow their line in the upcoming 2006 midterm elections.

{So in short, India is going to move ahead, and your beloved Pakistan, primarily because of it`s ideology, will be falling behind. As will China. }

Yes, of course, and that is your opinion. However, I do love my Pakistan, and nowhere did I compare it with India or China. Do you love your India?

{Sorry to burst your bubble.} Of course there was no bubble to burst. I know Pakistan has a lot of work to do on its own. And we could do it, if we can ever get those paindoos in Islamabad start thinking about Pakistan first.

{But dream on. And keep howling from your assigned post in the doghouse near the gates of the residence your Islamic masters.} Wouldn`t you love it if I was closer to the railroad tracks where your Hindoos were having their early morning bowel movements?