South Asian Socialism

#196 by hamidm2
......``every time i meet one of these guys i am amazed and , yes, in some cases overawed, by their intellect, integrity and energy`` .....
...........................

That`s very normal & one expected of you.

Whosoever & whensoever anyone has camped or decamped near Taxila & Jhelum has hammered these lessons so well that now its part of their DNA`s.

Heck, it sounds like a joke but it isn`t, they have paid homage even to, of all people in the world, the sardars.

Never being even at the lowest rung of any totem pole you`re doing right to be ``overawed, by their intellect, integrity and energy`` .....

Your attempts at humour sometimes do get serious.

hamidm #197 you dont need to drag into islam into every damn thing. where is oak talking about hazrat omar or religion or anything?? get a life!!

Re: # 199

thamed,

...... is profile says that he is a scholar of `` islam and social justice`` ....... wht does that tell you ?......... you don`t have to be a genius to figure out where he and masadi are coming from ............ but if it makes you feel any better i will take off hazrats omar`s name off the list of charlatans :)

...... somtimes i wonder if we will ever be able to reform islam with apologists like you defending it all the way ............ it is quite hopeless, really ....

oak #193 On your point (1), first a clarification: ``needle in a haystack`` (as you put it) is an incorrect analogy given what you are trying to say here. ``drop in the bucket`` is more appropriate. second, you are wrong in what you are trying to say - the fact is that remittances by immigrants are today a very significant source of ``foreign aid`` to developing countries. They are greater in magnitude than ODA (Official Development Assistance, which includes bilateral as well as multilateral aid) and they come with no political strings attached and in the form of grants rather than loans !!. Third world bureaucrats kow-tow to ``foreign donors``, but treat like dirt the poor Abduls (whose remittances are of far greater value than that of the agencies these ``foreign donors`` represent) when they visit their home countries.

You may google and check up the numbers that support what I have written above if you wish. I am writing from the numbers I remember seeing sometime back of ODA vs remittances.

Your point (2) is invalid too. What used to be called the ``brain drain`` 30 years ago has in fact proved over time to be a ``brain gain`` for developing countries. The reason for this: simply getting an MBBS from a developing country, or even a PhD from a western country does not change a person`s brain. They need to spend years and decades living and working in the western environment before they finally get it. Some live out their lives and die in the west and still dont get it.

Your point (3) is invalid too (sorry. but you really need to start thinking and stop repeating conventional wisdom of third world ``intellectuals``): the reality is that jobs with multinational agencies, or even export-oriented domestic firms, far from promoting ``unethical work codes`` are highly prized in developing countries.

Anyway, thanks for writing. I am sorry I have to side with this good-for-nothing, pompous, deceiving, spiteful little creap like Arjun #195 on this one - but you are dead wrong on all three points. But I think you will learn if you consider what I have written above with an open mind.

Re: # 198

tahmed32

(A) Firstly you should remember that as with any branch of knowledge one should fit an explanation to the trends not the trends to the explanation. So the trend is that income disparity is increasing. This is a fact as I tried to show in #193 even if you do not accept the latter part of the post. At the risk of repeating myself:

> There are continuing trends increasing and continuing to enforce economic disparity as pointed out in the UN Human Development Report of 2005. 2.5 billion people .......< etc etc.

So immigration in and of itself is not reversing this trend. This ought to be accepted between us and this is why it is, as you would put it, ``a drop in the bucket``.

(B) You state regarding foreign remittances:

>The fact is that remittances by immigrants are today a very significant source of ``foreign aid`` to developing countries. They are greater in magnitude than ODA (Official Development Assistance, which includes bilateral as well as multilateral aid) and they come with no political strings attached and in the form of grants rather than loans !!.<

I agree with you that remittances are greater than governmental aid. But this infact demonstrates the paltry nature of foreign aid moreso than the significance of remittances. The UN aims for aid target of 0.7% of GDP. However, we find America giving out aid of 0.1% of GDP and even that selectively and with strings attatched. Only 4 countries meet the target. I agree that remittances are of benefit to any developing country -for example some $300 mn - $400 mn USD are sent back to Pakistan every month. However, this is not enough to reverse the trend of economic disparity. For example, in a seperate discussion with Zeemax we had established that Pak maybe losing upto $1 bn USD / month on an import vs. export basis. As Zeemax put it, this was tantamount `to selling the family silver`. So the disparity is enforced & continuing.

(C) Regarding:

>Your point (2) is invalid too. What used to be called the ``brain drain`` 30 years ago has in fact proved over time to be a ``brain gain`` for developing countries.<

Really? For example, a recent paper by F Mullan in NEJM `The Metrics of the Physician Brain Drain` (2005) established that in terms of, physicians a brain drain is continuing. Some 60,000 Indian & 12,800 Pakistani trained physicians have ended up in the quartet of US, UK, Canada & Australia. When migration of physicians from these countries does occur, it is most likely to one of the other of these countries. So Pakistan has lost over 10% of its total physican workforce, with similar figures throught the rest of the region. This is simply unsustainable and tells us a great deal about why the Pak health service is near to collapse.

(C2) Regarding the brain gain hypothess - this is a theory which has been speculated and possibly does apply in some select industries e.g. IT in India. Granted. No serious authority, however, makes the claim, as you seem to, that this is the predominant trend amongst all industries. What is said is that there is hope, there is a potential for a brain gain to reverse the brain drain. It needs to happen but has not happened yet.

Incidentally even supporters of the `brain gain` hypothesis states that a period of `brain drain` must exist. (See: http://www.ccis-ucsd.org/PUBLICATIONS/wrkg47.PDF). The question is that how long does that period last. For Pak physicians, and most other industries the period shows no signs of abating.

The `brain gain` model may be a way out, but it is not predominant, or even mirror the facts on the ground. There is a large amount of work yet to do before the trend reverses. The take home message: the brain drain is still a dangerous phenomena.

(D) As regards your dispute with me of global corporations increasing/decreasing disparity, this is a genuine disagreement between us. I have referred you to my reference on this matter. I am not going to repeat it because it is long and you would be best served reading the original source. If you can, however, point towards a genuine critique of such a world-view feel free to do so.

With Regards

Musa

green with envy,

....... i will be the first one to agree that in the last ten years or so executive compensation in america did get out of hand a little............ also, a number of charlatans and thieves like ken lay, bernie ebers and dennis kozlowski became the poster boys for human avarice and venality ......... but by and large, most executives are honorable folks who dedicate their life to their company (and careers)....... every time i meet one of these guys i am amazed and , yes, insome cases overawed, by their intellect, integrity and energy .......

.............. just as it is hard for an average man in the street to understand how michael jordan can fly in the air to dunk the ball, it is impossible for mortal humans to fathom what it takes to run a fortune 1000 company ....... and if we are willing to pay ten million a year for someone to stand at the line, drooling at the mouth and shoot a ball through the hoop, then 20m is a small price to pay someone whose decisions effect the livelihood of thousands of people ............... i think most of the preople bitchin on this board about greedy ``corporatists`` are simply green with envy .........slackers !

..... and besides, why would the best and brightest put up with the clowns at the sec, the fools in congress, idiotic board members and joe sixpack, when they can go and join a private equity firm which doesn`t have to tell you guys diddly ............. a lot of them are ......


P.s. masadi still does not understand productivity and i don`t have the time ...... we need some sophomore interns on the chowk who can explain these simple things to the pea-brained commies and the brain-dead islamists ....... i think arjun would be a good candiadate - sign him up!

#193 by oak on May 17, 2006 6:05am PT


(2) As regards immigration itself: a constant brain drain crises within the 3rd world offsets and in all likelyhood considerably over-rides any marginal reduction in disparity brought about by immigration.


That is the biggest lie propagated by the socialists and the commies(namely, YOU)..

Absent a system to utilize their skills in their home country, immigration of more educated people is actually a brain-gain...The immigrants pick up skills and experience that they can use back in the home country when the home country gets its act together..Prime example: India, China and Taiwan..

A decade ago there were hardly any people going back to India..now the IT boom is being sustained by people who came to the US as immigrants and gained valuable experience(and $$)..

Dude..we tried your system..The one that was supposed to make everyone equal and reduce disparities or whatever...It didn`t work.

Re: # 195

Arjun:

This Wikipedia link was the best expression of what works.

Anil

Re: # 195

arjun,

``Dude..we tried your system..`` ....... you are wrong - we have never tried the system oak is talking about ........ he is talking about the time of hazrat omar who would walk around the slums of mecca in the middle of the night with a sack of potatoes and a bucket full of fermented camel`s milk for the children - nobody went to bed hungry in his time ...... the traditiion continued under ali but he cut back on the fermented milk, the people revolted, and the rest is history ....... the system lasted six or seven years ...

............... that`s why i think it is a bad idea for the usda to distribute cheese to people who are already obese - what happens if they can`t do it next year ?........ we will have a riot in the bronx when masadi, oak and their pals show up for their weekly ration ......

Sure CEO pay is a problem...but that doesn`t mean the whole system is broken..Unlike Pakistan, Americans have a right to vote and they vote with their wallets...Why don`t you run for office on a platform of limiting CEO pay and see how many votes you get..

behram #186 In support of your contention (and I quote) but individuals, and only individual`s capitalism is good for the world, and corporatists are the evil you provide the following example One specific example is this new immigration issue that is being discussed in the country.

In fact this example proves the opposite. Namely that corporations, in promoting immigration to the US, is reducing income disparities at the global level . While Joe Jobless in the US may be (as you point out) unhappy about this, and so consider the ``corporatists`` (is this really a word, or did you just invent it?) to be evil. But Jose Lawnmowerez is happy since he now has money in his pocket. And at the global level, reductions in the north-south divide are good for the children of both Joe Jobless and of Jose Lawnmowerez since this leads to a more stable and just world.

And you wont find any american politician making this argument since his constituency is Joe Jobless, and not unborn generations in mexico (or pakistan for that matter). And that is why the lengthy quote from a US politician provided by SR #185 does not touch on this aspect either.

In other words, as confucius said, be careful what you wish for. What Joe Jobless wishes for is not necessarily good for his kids.

Re: # 192 by tahmed32 on May 17, 2006 4:46am PT

{In fact this example proves the opposite. Namely that corporations, in promoting immigration to the US, is reducing income disparities at the global level.}

I don`t see how this is possible? Why would out bound immigration be required in the first place? In 1986, Ronald Regan granted amnesty to 3 million immigrants due to the pressure of the farming community. Farmers were losing workers to the industrial america, and population had moved to the cities, hence they needed some more hands. Hence, they (the corporation) made sure that they brought in more help.

No brains were coming in from south of the border. Then, the industrialists (corporatists) got bolder and worked up the same game plan. But this time their slogan was that US needs more engineers. Hence, all those H1-B visa holders. Atleast this time around with the educated force it was somewhat legal.

And then all those human smugglers that were shipping in plane loads of people illegally.

But, in the process, the middle class got shafted.

Yes, this is a new lingo regarding ``corporatists`` (is this really a word, or did you just invent it?).

{But Jose Lawnmowerez is happy since he now has money in his pocket. And at the global level, reductions in the north-south divide are good for the children of both Joe Jobless and of Jose Lawnmowerez since this leads to a more stable and just world. }

Academically this maybe true. But, if you look at Mexico, it is the same crap as it was back in 1986, when the general amnesty was given. With that amnesty, it was also agreed upon that the US would make every effort to upgrade the Mexican standard of living, so that we may not have this huge inflow of illegals, but it did not.

Why? Some would argue that during the Clinton administration nothing was done to fulfill the requirement of the deal between the Republicans with the majority Democratic Congress of 1986.

{And you wont find any american politician making this argument since his constituency is Joe Jobless, and not unborn generations in mexico (or pakistan for that matter). And that is why the lengthy quote from a US politician provided by SR #185 does not touch on this aspect either. }

Actually, if you watch Lou Dobbs on CNN that is exactly what his claim to fame is, that Americans are loosing jobs due to outsourcing. Nowadays, Newt Gingrich is talking about the lack of adequate engineers, etc.

And regarding illegals, the politicians are talking about ``breaking the law``, ``english language``, ``rasing the american flags``, and ``assimilation``. Incidentally, all of these issues that the anglo-Americans do not like, and are saying about illegals, fit exactly on almost all recently arrived immigrants.

{In other words, as confucius said, be careful what you wish for. What Joe Jobless wishes for is not necessarily good for his kids.}

Joe Jobless wants a job and to raise his standard of living. He does not want a hand out from any government. He does not want a stressed out family. He does not want him and his wife to sleep on separate beds. He does not want his family to be destroyed due to the shenanigans of the corporation, whether it is in auto, pharma, or farming.

Another angle to look at all this is the failure of the latest round of WTO and their trade negotiations at Doha.

Respectfully submitted,

Re: # 192

tahmad32

>Namely that corporations, in promoting immigration to the US, is reducing income disparities at the global level .<

What you are talking about is a needle in a haystack, even if true. (1) There are continuing trends increasing and continuing to enforce economic disparity as pointed out in the UN Human Development Report of 2005. 2.5 billion people recieve less than 5% of the world income, whereas 54% of global income goes to the richest 10%. 53/73 countries, comprising some 80% of global population are recorded where income disparity has increased. A summary of the report can be found at: http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/inequal/2005/10compendium.pdf

(2) As regards immigration itself: a constant brain drain crises within the 3rd world offsets and in all likelyhood considerably over-rides any marginal reduction in disparity brought about by immigration. (3) Further, global corporations re-inforce disparity by monopolising supply industries of off-shore production facilities hence enforcing unsustainable tax breaks, unethical work codes etc. I have already referred to Naomi Klein`s exposition in this matter.

#189 Anil

``Digital Reasearch (DR)... no one hears... Microsoft everyone.... IBM went to DR for the operating system... DR founder and his wife chose hang gliding that day... the rest is history... is that how you want to be?``

There are many versions of that fateful day, one being that Kildall wasn`t told who the secret customer of CP/M was and hence didn`t want to sign the non-disclosure agreement. In any case, Gary Kildall did a double take when he found out that MS-DOS was reverse-engineered from CP/M but Bill bought him out.

I think this ``what could have been`` story is over-rated. The business brilliance of Bill Gates shown through when he negotiated with IBM to be allowed to sell MS-DOS to others. Even a decade later IBM still hadn`t figured out that ``it`s the OS, stupid``.

Re: # 190
Tvarad:

It is Gary Kildall`s wife, an attorney, who refused to sign the famous NDA that IBM wanted DR to sign. This alongwith what I wrote earlier was narrated by Gary Kildall himself in a small gathering in Silicon Valley a few years ago.

Bill Gates got the license from Seattle Computer (??) for $50,000 and did the deal with IBM. Later he gave options in Microsoft to the founder of Seattle Computer... who is now a billionaire as well.

Anil

#184 Pardesi writes <<< On the positive side - people regroup very quickly, they are fair to each other and they take their sense of responsibility to the world and each other very seriously. >>>

Which world are you living in? The world of the small town wild west where power and control was tiny and diverse,the people`s guns were as big as the sheriffs as against now when power, wealth and ownership has become ultra concentrated and the control, including mind control, desire control, aspiration control on people is all encompassing and bureaucratized? The mass society in the US is effectively controlled through a media and such levels of propaganda never seen before in human history while most decisions of national and global consequence are made inspite of them by a tiny elite that have a social profile quite alike regardless of party affiliation. Wealth is what defines the political economy of the US and if people were such movers and shakers the top 1% would never be able to command greater wealth than the rest of the 99% combined, neither would the class structure be intergenerationally permanent, nor would two parties with little difference, both circumscribed by wealth and corporate power, define the political scene, nor would wars be conducted with such ease or jobs relocated by the millions or health care and food security denied to the many, or corporate welfare and deficit spending that benefits the corporations pushed to the max while high gas prices forced on the masses. Get real, the people in the US are like cattle, prodded in whatever direction the corporate elite want them to go.

tahmed writes <<< is the cultural ethos of a people along with their system of governance that ultimately determines the overall productivity-level of a society. >>>

Nonsense once again, what do you know of the cultural ethos? and what culture defines the America of today, an America in which social tradition has been colonized by corporate nonsense that is forced on people from every direction, families have been dismantled to be replaced by the company for whom the person lives and spends the best, most alert hours of thier lives, and for whom he dies in many wars conducted for just such greed. Corporate greed and shenanigans and their rule in the political directorate by fact and proxy determines the size of the national economy, built upon the backs of the poor to whom they deny basic necessities like health care and nutrition and decent education because it would cut into their profits and ensure that their stranglehold on the people exists no more. Given its wealth this country is a disgrace not only among the developed nations in how it behaves but among the world at large. As a factor of its GNI, it has disgraceful numbers all across the board, regarding the poverty that exists here, compared to even the poorest of the poor nations. F this cultural ethos and shame on shameless idolators like you for worshipping it.