Better to trade with India than ignore the inevitable 2948

ÊBetter to trade with India than ignore the inevitable

All 3 messages in topic - view as tree

Groups: alt.computer.consultants, alt.politics.economics, sci.econ, sci.research.careers, soc.culture.british

Not yet rated Rating: Ê show options

Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived. This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Mar 22, 7:26Êpm).

HEIKO D. WIJNHOLDS TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST Mar 13, 2006

It's official -- India is now recognized as an important trading partner and ally of the U.S. in the fight against terrorism.

President Bush made it official with his visit, which culminated in a nuclear agreement subject to approval by Congress.

The Virginia Economic Development Partnership is organizing its second trade mission to India for next month. Last year, then-Gov. Mark R. Warner led the first VEDP mission to this country.

These developments herald a significant turnaround in our relations with India. But since that nation decided to open its markets to the world, the disappearance of its former ally the Soviet Union and the person attacks of Sept. 11, its ties with the U.S have improved remarkably.

Outsourcing's bad reputation One of the most controversial aspects of this growing trade with India has been outsourcing. The stereotypical image is one of customer-service representatives in India with distinctive accents answering toll-free calls from U.S.-based customers.

It's true that some jobs have been lost to outsourcing, although relatively few, if U.S. government data are accurate. However, this is cold comfort for those affected. There are also fears, probably justified, that more and more jobs requiring higher skills are being outsourced.

This practice also leads to an increase in imports to replace the products previously made in the U.S. This in turn tends to an increase our trade deficit with the countries concerned, including India. Some of the affected industrial areas in the U.S. suffer a major economic decline as a result, for instance, Danville with the closing of the Dan River Inc. textile factory.

Such drawbacks lead to rising calls for protecting local industries and jobs. Certainly, in the short run, sheltering domestic firms from foreign compebreastion tends to save jobs and even businesses. It also limits imports. It's no wonder that such measures are politically popular in certain circles, including those most affected.

Bound by treaties In my opinion, we must guard against being carried away by the emotional appeals of such protectionist arguments. After all, our system is one that is based on the principle of free, open and compebreastive markets both at home and abroad. Moreover, we are bound by international treaty commitments in the pursuit of free trade, through, for example, the World Trade Organization.

(liar, our system is what we want it to be. there is nothing, repeat nothing in our consbreastution that says what you say. in fact it says the opposite. we have the right to regulate every thing including trade. in fact our governments job is collect duties on imported goods and services. liar, our consbreastution prohibits our government from entering into agreements that over turn our sovereignty, and our governments obligations to ensure our prosperity.

free marketeers(conservatives-libertarians-neo-liberals)have declared victory, the American worker now is forced to go deeply into debt at a reduced standard of living to borrow money that used to be ours to buy the goods and services that we used to make.

buggy whips are a sunset industry, but the modern conservative-libertarian-neo-liberal have conned us into thinking food, clothing, transportation, telecommunications, t.v., radios, the everyday goods and services we use are sunset industries, so why are we letting others create this value for themselves to sell to us? because in the long run part time no value creating jobs means we will no longer be able to generate the standard of living that will allow us to pay our bills.

the modern conservative-libertarian-neo-liberal have conned americans into thinking they can live way beyond there means, make nothing, and have the world wait at there hands and feet forever.

the modern conservative-libertarian-neo-liberal have conned americans into subsidizing free trade. we pay for the ports to unload the goods that travel our hiways to market, that eventually end up in the landfills that we have to pay for all of the costs buttociated with these "FREE LOADER GOODS". while the free markateer pay's nothing to sell them here, while we lose our middle clbutt society because of them.)

The benefits of maintaining a free-trade policy with other nations are clear. For the consumer, they include lower prices, greater variety, better quality and improved service.

(liar, free trade theories were crafted very poorly before the beginnings of the industrial revolution. moving the means of production was almost impossible. europe was imperial, and just about every european country had some sort of empire putting it somewhat on a equal basis with other european powers. that theory was unsound even for that situation, today its unworkable. Êlets face it, free market economics is a cult. i can promise you anything. i can say its inevitable. i can tell you once the messiah comes and strikes down all barriers we will all be rich. that's the promise. Êthe world has been in the grip of con artists, snake oil salesmen, and

just plain hucksterism before, this is nothing new, and they all make butturances, and promises of the golden time of human beings. Êthey tell you there will be some pain, but the promises will out weigh the pain. Êbut they have been saying this for over 30 years now, and they are the

economists that get almost 100% of the air time, and printed media. Êthere are no good outcomes to this type of economics. Êwe have a 30 year's plus of empirical evidence to show it is not working.)

Look at the long term The opportunities presented by this policy are often overlooked, possibly because they are more noticeable over the long term. As we increase trade with India, its economy benefits, creating more and better-paying jobs. This, in turn, leads to a larger potential market for U.S. products and services. Eventually, more Indian firms will be able to invest more money into our economy as they prosper from U.S. trade.

(liar, have you seen the trade figures lately? DFI, or as i call it "BUYING THE COUNTRY ON THE CHEAP OUT FROM UNDERNEATH IDIOTS' is what you are implying. there are little or no made in the u.s.a. products any more. so what will they be buying, the stuff they make from outsourcing with a multi-national stamp on the product? i don't think so! most innovation comes from the factory floor. it allowed the factory worker to move up the food chain, build up equity, and created value for the economy. Êso if you remove the factory, our innovation will collapse no matter how well trained we are. )

It is ironic that India itself is one of the best examples of what happens to a country when it relies excessively on protectionism. For many years after attaining independence, it chose self-reliance over international trade. This policy isolated it from the mainstream of global trade, and it cost the country dearly in terms of lost economic-growth opportunities. This became evident when India reversed course, started to open its economy to the world and began to experience significant economic growth.

(india has to do what india deems its best interest are, and so do we. india is still a closed economy as far as we are concerned, almost every country we free trade with has one way free trade, we lose, there aristocracy, and ours wins.)

Prohibiting or limiting U.S. firms to outsource to India or elsewhere will not stop their foreign compebreastors from doing so. Unless we are prepared to close our borders to all foreign compebreastion, such firms will eventually cease to exist, causing even greater job losses.

(i would never prohibit, and the free market fanatics know this, they frame it on there terms. but we must not allow abuse of our own sovereign economy. if you want to do business here, you pay a fee for selling in a first world economy, no fee's means we will collapse under a pile of debt. most of the wealth in this country resides in the hands of a few that have it locked up in the fortune 500. the fortune 500 employee's less than 8% of the working population in this country. the fortune 500 are the most active when it comes to free trade, so who cares if they disappear, and why do they employ so few if what you say is true liar.)

The last time the U.S. and other major industrialized countries tried to close the borders, they had to deal with the Great Depression.

(BIG TIME LIAR ALERT! the borders were wide open even after the start of the great depression, they were partially closed only after we all but collapsed. that partial closure was so successful that the original gatt was based on it, fair, and almost free trade, but never full blown free trade because we had over 130 years of it, and its was rife with depressions, and wars, its unworkable.)

The best way to deal with the negative effects of outsourcing is to insure improved training and education for our workers. This will give them better skills enabling them to hold more productive jobs at compebreastive wages.

(liar, the modern conservative-libertarian-neo-liberal want's to ramp up the schools to start innovation again, but the scam here(and they know it)that most innovations come from the factory floor allowing the worker to move up the food chain. the freer the trade, the lower our percentage of world wide patents has become. the freer the trade the more the schools have declined. if you innovate who is to say that that innovation must stay here, just look at the back of a IPOD, where is it made.)

Dr. Heiko D. Wijnholds is a professor of marketing at Virginia Commonwealth University's School of Business. His main areas of research and teaching are international marketing, marketing research and related public-policy issues. He was born in the Netherlands and lived and worked in South Africa as a professor and as a newspaper business columnist before immigrating to the U.S. Contact him at