Another tidbit on outsourcing
-
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12514[^] What I found particularly interesting was the last paragraph - if it is correct. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12514[^] What I found particularly interesting was the last paragraph - if it is correct. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
Common practice everywhere. In Canada, foreign companies are often offered tax breaks, subsidies and other financial advantages to attract them here.
Maximilien Lincourt "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with backup tapes." ("Computer Networks" by Andrew S Tannenbaum )
-
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12514[^] What I found particularly interesting was the last paragraph - if it is correct. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
Trollslayer wrote: What I found particularly interesting was the last paragraph - if it is correct. I don't know whether it's correct or not, but I feel it's a logical thing to do. Regards, Rohit Sinha Browsy
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person. - Mother Teresa
-
Trollslayer wrote: What I found particularly interesting was the last paragraph - if it is correct. I don't know whether it's correct or not, but I feel it's a logical thing to do. Regards, Rohit Sinha Browsy
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person. - Mother Teresa
Rohit Sinha wrote: I feel it's a logical thing to do. Do you consider it "logical" when US/Western European governments subsidize an industry if it does not outsource and has foreign based competition? All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
-
Rohit Sinha wrote: I feel it's a logical thing to do. Do you consider it "logical" when US/Western European governments subsidize an industry if it does not outsource and has foreign based competition? All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
Doesn't the US and other countries subsidize their agriculture/food industry so that it sells for less that 4-5 times the price that others sell for? It's all about money, right? As long as you stay within the rules and don't do anything unethical, why not? Regards, Rohit Sinha Browsy
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person. - Mother Teresa
-
Doesn't the US and other countries subsidize their agriculture/food industry so that it sells for less that 4-5 times the price that others sell for? It's all about money, right? As long as you stay within the rules and don't do anything unethical, why not? Regards, Rohit Sinha Browsy
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person. - Mother Teresa
Rohit Sinha wrote: Doesn't the US and other countries subsidize their agriculture/food industry... Yes they do, that's why I wrote "when US/Western European governments subsidize" and not "if US/Western European governments were to subsidize". It is a very controversial issue that many foreign countries complain about. I just like to see what the response is when the roles are reversed. Rohit Sinha wrote: and don't do anything unethical And herein lies the problem. All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
-
Doesn't the US and other countries subsidize their agriculture/food industry so that it sells for less that 4-5 times the price that others sell for? It's all about money, right? As long as you stay within the rules and don't do anything unethical, why not? Regards, Rohit Sinha Browsy
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person. - Mother Teresa
Rohit Sinha wrote: don't do anything unethical Subsidizing industries that would otherwise be uncompetitive IS unethical, unless they are industries of vital national importance, such as healthcare. India has enough cheap workers, so why do they need to give additional tax breaks to foreign companies? Stand up and compete on your quality/pricing, not with government intervention. In the same way, we over in the West should not sell on our subsidized crops to Africans who can grow the same crops at a fraction of the cost, and Bush has no business protecting the hugely uncompetitive US steel industry.
-
Rohit Sinha wrote: Doesn't the US and other countries subsidize their agriculture/food industry... Yes they do, that's why I wrote "when US/Western European governments subsidize" and not "if US/Western European governments were to subsidize". It is a very controversial issue that many foreign countries complain about. I just like to see what the response is when the roles are reversed. Rohit Sinha wrote: and don't do anything unethical And herein lies the problem. All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
Mike Mullikin wrote: It is a very controversial issue that many foreign countries complain about. Yes, they do. I won't dwell on whether I agree with them or not, since I suppose you already know my stand on this from my previous post, but then again there is a slight difference. In one case my country for example, is giving incentives to companies in your country to do their trade here, for mutual benefit. In the other case, your country, for example, is giving incentives to companies in your country to let them sell their goods for less. Countries giving tax breaks to foreign companies is also different because if say China is doing it, then India has to do it too, or they'll lose all the work coming to them. It's a question of survival. Mike Mullikin wrote: I just like to see what the response is when the roles are reversed. Unfortunately, my opinions are only mine, and I don't really represent my whole country. But then nor do my politicians, but let that be. Besides, this "seeing the response when the roles are reversed" thing applies to both sides doesn't it? And as I said (or at least I meant to say it, I'm not sure whether I actually did say it ;P ), I'm not sure whether this is done in India or not. Although since the author of the original article said it's done, I suspect it's done in at least a few countries, if not India. And probably India too. I don't really know. Regards, Rohit Sinha Browsy
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person. - Mother Teresa
-
Rohit Sinha wrote: don't do anything unethical Subsidizing industries that would otherwise be uncompetitive IS unethical, unless they are industries of vital national importance, such as healthcare. India has enough cheap workers, so why do they need to give additional tax breaks to foreign companies? Stand up and compete on your quality/pricing, not with government intervention. In the same way, we over in the West should not sell on our subsidized crops to Africans who can grow the same crops at a fraction of the cost, and Bush has no business protecting the hugely uncompetitive US steel industry.
If we agree that it's unethical you're right. But I don't buy the argument that your goods are already cheap, why make them cheaper? Why can't I make them cheaper? Ditto for your food/agri industry. Plus you are arguing on the premise that India does give tax breaks to companies. Have you verified this yet? Regards, Rohit Sinha Browsy
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person. - Mother Teresa
-
Doesn't the US and other countries subsidize their agriculture/food industry so that it sells for less that 4-5 times the price that others sell for? It's all about money, right? As long as you stay within the rules and don't do anything unethical, why not? Regards, Rohit Sinha Browsy
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person. - Mother Teresa
Basically, you're right, though I'm strongly opposed to direct subsidies. (US farm subsidies are less than a sixth of that of the EU, but I still oppose them.) Tax breaks and other incentives, however, generally fall in a different category. If it becomes unethical for a government to give a specific tax break, would it not also be unethical for a government to give the general citizenry a tax reduction? The same would apply to changing depreciation schedules on capital equipment. The irony is that states and local governments give tax breaks (usually property tax wavers) and zoning changes to attract businesses. In some cases, this hasn't panned out while in others it's been a success. They may even do things to attract business like fix up streets and schools, reduce crime, change a community junior college to four year college or a university, etc.. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: It is a very controversial issue that many foreign countries complain about. Yes, they do. I won't dwell on whether I agree with them or not, since I suppose you already know my stand on this from my previous post, but then again there is a slight difference. In one case my country for example, is giving incentives to companies in your country to do their trade here, for mutual benefit. In the other case, your country, for example, is giving incentives to companies in your country to let them sell their goods for less. Countries giving tax breaks to foreign companies is also different because if say China is doing it, then India has to do it too, or they'll lose all the work coming to them. It's a question of survival. Mike Mullikin wrote: I just like to see what the response is when the roles are reversed. Unfortunately, my opinions are only mine, and I don't really represent my whole country. But then nor do my politicians, but let that be. Besides, this "seeing the response when the roles are reversed" thing applies to both sides doesn't it? And as I said (or at least I meant to say it, I'm not sure whether I actually did say it ;P ), I'm not sure whether this is done in India or not. Although since the author of the original article said it's done, I suspect it's done in at least a few countries, if not India. And probably India too. I don't really know. Regards, Rohit Sinha Browsy
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person. - Mother Teresa
Rohit Sinha wrote: but then again there is a slight difference... Rohit Sinha wrote: Countries giving tax breaks to foreign companies is also different because... All shades of the same color if you ask me. Capitalism only works with free markets. Our "subsidies" are equally bad as other's "tax incentives". Rohit Sinha wrote: Besides, this "seeing the response when the roles are reversed" thing applies to both sides doesn't it? Absolutely! You'll notice I'm not crying foul and I'm not defending US subsidies. I truly wish all countries could stop the BS and just let everybody compete fairly. :rose: All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
-
Rohit Sinha wrote: don't do anything unethical Subsidizing industries that would otherwise be uncompetitive IS unethical, unless they are industries of vital national importance, such as healthcare. India has enough cheap workers, so why do they need to give additional tax breaks to foreign companies? Stand up and compete on your quality/pricing, not with government intervention. In the same way, we over in the West should not sell on our subsidized crops to Africans who can grow the same crops at a fraction of the cost, and Bush has no business protecting the hugely uncompetitive US steel industry.
I don't know where the idea came from originally, but lots of people seem to think that companies and governments operate by a code of ethics, that they have consciences, etc. This is a too-simple way of looking at things, driven partly by man's natural tendency to anthropomorphize, and partly by trash journalism and commentary of the day. A company is not a person, nor is a government; neither is any other large group of people. Decisions made by a group of people cannot be said to be evil or immoral in the normal sense; only actions by individuals should be considered this way. The truth: companies operate not by a code of ethics, but by the guidance of other corporate rules. These rules are formed from the pressures of economics, laws, the leadership style in force at the company, history, and a great many other sources. They guide individual decisions by workers at the company, but can't be said to be evil or good-- they just are. They often lead to situations that some people find undesirable, and sometimes this provokes action, but most often not, as long as the company rules don't promote illegal action and the like. Now consider governments: they make laws. Despite what you may've heard recently about certain conventions being broken by certain countries, there is no such thing as "international law"; countries do as they see fit. Sometimes they make agreements, sometimes they break 'em. The main driving forces at the government level are nationalism, security, economics, and the welfare of citizens (if we're lucky). Most of the reasons that governments make decisions with other governments in mind concern borders, trade/economics, and the threat of military action. It's natural for the government of India or of any other country to attempt to maximize its economic potential. These actions aren't immoral just because they may detract from the economic potential of other countries. Even if they were the actions of a single person, they wouldn't (couldn't) be immoral. They're not kicking dogs in the street, clubbing baby seals, or harpooning whales. They're not exterminating ethnic groups. They're just competing economically at the national level, with an offering that's better than that elsewhere (at least to some folks, on paper). They're leeching off a tiny bit of our wealth. They're exerting control in a way within their purview, to achieve desired results. Thank you. Jeff Varszegi
-
Rohit Sinha wrote: but then again there is a slight difference... Rohit Sinha wrote: Countries giving tax breaks to foreign companies is also different because... All shades of the same color if you ask me. Capitalism only works with free markets. Our "subsidies" are equally bad as other's "tax incentives". Rohit Sinha wrote: Besides, this "seeing the response when the roles are reversed" thing applies to both sides doesn't it? Absolutely! You'll notice I'm not crying foul and I'm not defending US subsidies. I truly wish all countries could stop the BS and just let everybody compete fairly. :rose: All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
Mike Mullikin wrote: All shades of the same color if you ask me. Capitalism only works with free markets. I agree. But pure capitalism is yet to arrive, I suppose. Governments are run by politicians, who need votes to stay in office, and will keep doing things to sustain/increase their votebanks. Mike Mullikin wrote: You'll notice I'm not crying foul and I'm not defending US subsidies. Yes, of course. But I mentioned it all the same just to save my ass and make things clear. :-D Regards, Rohit Sinha Browsy
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person. - Mother Teresa
-
Basically, you're right, though I'm strongly opposed to direct subsidies. (US farm subsidies are less than a sixth of that of the EU, but I still oppose them.) Tax breaks and other incentives, however, generally fall in a different category. If it becomes unethical for a government to give a specific tax break, would it not also be unethical for a government to give the general citizenry a tax reduction? The same would apply to changing depreciation schedules on capital equipment. The irony is that states and local governments give tax breaks (usually property tax wavers) and zoning changes to attract businesses. In some cases, this hasn't panned out while in others it's been a success. They may even do things to attract business like fix up streets and schools, reduce crime, change a community junior college to four year college or a university, etc.. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Hmm, yes, governments do sometimes give tax breaks or subsidize industries to boost them sometimes, and sometimes to help them out of a mess. For example, Indian farmers still depend a lot on the monsoons. If it doesn't rain one particular year, or if it rains too much, they are in deep shit. In such cases, it becomes necessary for the government to help them out, or most of them won't be able to have a crop next year, they are so poor. So basically my point is that we must distibguish between tax breaks and subsidies of different types. A subsidy is a subsidy is a subsidy isn't always true, IMO. Regards, Rohit Sinha Browsy
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person. - Mother Teresa
-
Hmm, yes, governments do sometimes give tax breaks or subsidize industries to boost them sometimes, and sometimes to help them out of a mess. For example, Indian farmers still depend a lot on the monsoons. If it doesn't rain one particular year, or if it rains too much, they are in deep shit. In such cases, it becomes necessary for the government to help them out, or most of them won't be able to have a crop next year, they are so poor. So basically my point is that we must distibguish between tax breaks and subsidies of different types. A subsidy is a subsidy is a subsidy isn't always true, IMO. Regards, Rohit Sinha Browsy
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person. - Mother Teresa
Rohit Sinha wrote: A subsidy is a subsidy is a subsidy isn't always true, IMO. That's what I tried to say, only I did it very poorly. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12514[^] What I found particularly interesting was the last paragraph - if it is correct. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
Cities give companies tax breaks for moving some part of the business to within their borders. a few years ago, warren, mi. gave gm a break to move jobs to the tech center. these jobs left southfield, mi. southfield's local government faught the move, but michigan overruled their objection. the move proceded to warren. good for warren, bad for southfield. Josef Wainz Software Developer
-
I don't know where the idea came from originally, but lots of people seem to think that companies and governments operate by a code of ethics, that they have consciences, etc. This is a too-simple way of looking at things, driven partly by man's natural tendency to anthropomorphize, and partly by trash journalism and commentary of the day. A company is not a person, nor is a government; neither is any other large group of people. Decisions made by a group of people cannot be said to be evil or immoral in the normal sense; only actions by individuals should be considered this way. The truth: companies operate not by a code of ethics, but by the guidance of other corporate rules. These rules are formed from the pressures of economics, laws, the leadership style in force at the company, history, and a great many other sources. They guide individual decisions by workers at the company, but can't be said to be evil or good-- they just are. They often lead to situations that some people find undesirable, and sometimes this provokes action, but most often not, as long as the company rules don't promote illegal action and the like. Now consider governments: they make laws. Despite what you may've heard recently about certain conventions being broken by certain countries, there is no such thing as "international law"; countries do as they see fit. Sometimes they make agreements, sometimes they break 'em. The main driving forces at the government level are nationalism, security, economics, and the welfare of citizens (if we're lucky). Most of the reasons that governments make decisions with other governments in mind concern borders, trade/economics, and the threat of military action. It's natural for the government of India or of any other country to attempt to maximize its economic potential. These actions aren't immoral just because they may detract from the economic potential of other countries. Even if they were the actions of a single person, they wouldn't (couldn't) be immoral. They're not kicking dogs in the street, clubbing baby seals, or harpooning whales. They're not exterminating ethnic groups. They're just competing economically at the national level, with an offering that's better than that elsewhere (at least to some folks, on paper). They're leeching off a tiny bit of our wealth. They're exerting control in a way within their purview, to achieve desired results. Thank you. Jeff Varszegi
What a crock of shit. Of course corporations and governments should be judged and held accountable for their decisions (and its rather easy to see that they make many unjustifiable unethical decisions that negatively impact the human race for the sake of a few dollars). Of course there is International Law. What there is NOT is effective means to enforce either national laws on corporate governance or international laws on government conduct. The US govt is hardly a leader in this area, they refuse to accept World Court, WTO or UN decisions that they don't like (or that US corporations pay them to dislike). There is much more to civilized democratic society than market forces, on either a national or a global basis.
-
What a crock of shit. Of course corporations and governments should be judged and held accountable for their decisions (and its rather easy to see that they make many unjustifiable unethical decisions that negatively impact the human race for the sake of a few dollars). Of course there is International Law. What there is NOT is effective means to enforce either national laws on corporate governance or international laws on government conduct. The US govt is hardly a leader in this area, they refuse to accept World Court, WTO or UN decisions that they don't like (or that US corporations pay them to dislike). There is much more to civilized democratic society than market forces, on either a national or a global basis.
What a crock of sh*t. I never said that governments aren't accountable for their actions; they are, but not because they're held to a code of ethics. Their decisions aren't ethical or unethical just because you think so. There's no having an argument with someone such as yourself-- each of your statements contains its own justification, eh? Where did you get the notion I was talking about democratic society? Did the word "democratic" appear anywhere in my post, or any indication that I was specifically talking about democracies? Sounds like I touched a nerve. You must've lost your job to outsourcing recently, eh? What's the big deal? You'll notice, if you calm down a bit, that you managed to swear at me and make an ass of yourself, but you never even attempted to refute the main statement of my post-- that the actions of a group can't be understood in an ethical context. It's very simple; maybe you should go read my post again instead of scanning it and flaming away. Thank you. Jeff Varszegi
-
What a crock of sh*t. I never said that governments aren't accountable for their actions; they are, but not because they're held to a code of ethics. Their decisions aren't ethical or unethical just because you think so. There's no having an argument with someone such as yourself-- each of your statements contains its own justification, eh? Where did you get the notion I was talking about democratic society? Did the word "democratic" appear anywhere in my post, or any indication that I was specifically talking about democracies? Sounds like I touched a nerve. You must've lost your job to outsourcing recently, eh? What's the big deal? You'll notice, if you calm down a bit, that you managed to swear at me and make an ass of yourself, but you never even attempted to refute the main statement of my post-- that the actions of a group can't be understood in an ethical context. It's very simple; maybe you should go read my post again instead of scanning it and flaming away. Thank you. Jeff Varszegi
Jeff, if you consider "what a crock of shit" to be swearing, then so be it. I disagree with you on so many points and levels that it really doesn't seem worth continuing the discussion. So intrinsic good or bad, right or wrong for individuals, but as soon as there are two or more people in a group, corporation or government. The mob rules huh ! :doh: What ever the group does is justifiable. X| X| X| Your attempts to imply that i either didn't read or didn't understand your original arguments (or am too simple to 'understand' them, seeing as how rarified your level of enlightenment and discourse has become). Will just be ignored. :|
-
Jeff, if you consider "what a crock of shit" to be swearing, then so be it. I disagree with you on so many points and levels that it really doesn't seem worth continuing the discussion. So intrinsic good or bad, right or wrong for individuals, but as soon as there are two or more people in a group, corporation or government. The mob rules huh ! :doh: What ever the group does is justifiable. X| X| X| Your attempts to imply that i either didn't read or didn't understand your original arguments (or am too simple to 'understand' them, seeing as how rarified your level of enlightenment and discourse has become). Will just be ignored. :|
All right, we can just drop it. I'm sorta disappointed, and I still feel like you're misreading me; for instance, I'd never say things like "whatever the group does is justifiable". Plenty of other smart people (yes, I'm smart, but I never rubbed that in anyone's face, just like I never called you stupid) agree with my views. I was pissed not because you disagreed with me, but because of how you did it. If you meant for me to feel attacked, you succeeded. I'm not crying in my milk, but your tone was offensive. Regards, Jeff Varszegi