When "globalisation" first became mainstream a decade or so back, only a very few warned of its impact on the western world.

I remember getting into a argument with a collegue about 10 years ago who was championing globalisation as a way to raise the living standard of the worlds poor. No doubt it will do that, but the price is a drop in standard of the worlds "rich".  There is only so much money to go around.

Now that a number of "poor" countries have got their act together (china, india, etc), globalisation is ramping up very quickly with 1000's more jobs off-shored day by day.

Seems to me we (and many western countries) are at the tipping point, where the other sectors of the economy which cant be off-shored are unable to take up the slack of job loses in manfacturing and professional services.

Globalisation has just quickened the decline.
We were heading in that direction anyway, it’s to do with the monetary system as a whole.
Fractional reserve banking is a scam and almost every country on earth is being destroyed by it.

Yes another valid reason Australia needed reform in industrial relations in order to compete globally which the Howard Govt delivered and the present Labor Govt rolled back. :o

Now Australia finds itself uncompetitive and lots of businesses are winding down or closing up shop and moving overseas.... :( :(

Labor's fault entirely.....and have they learned from this? :(

NO.......instead they continue to make Australia uncompetitive with the great big new carbon tax, and the great big new mining tax and they champion unions and uncompetitive behaviours such as collective bargaining which is stuffing Australian business and the jobs are disappearing every day that this rabble Govt is in power.  :(

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 1^st, 2012 at 9:14am:

When "globalisation" first became mainstream a decade or so back, only a very few warned of its impact on the western world. I remember getting into a argument with a collegue about 10 years ago who was championing globalisation as a way to raise the living standard of the worlds poor. No doubt it will do that, but the price is a drop in standard of the worlds "rich".  There is only so much money to go around. Now that a number of "poor" countries have got their act together (china, india, etc), globalisation is ramping up very quickly with 1000's more jobs off-shored day by day. Seems to me we (and many western countries) are at the tipping point, where the other sectors of the economy which cant be off-shored are unable to take up the slack of job loses in manfacturing and professional services.

Blue3 collar workers in the West were never tghe worlds rich and Globalization was onluy ever a tactic to drive down blue collar workers and make the rich richer... ::) :P

Screw them, they think they can get richer by offshoring my right to stable secure full time employment and forcing me to work as a casual for Therese Rein Rudd.  But guess what - they have also reached the tipping point where they have lost the moral argument to coerce the unemployed to accept the working conditions they are offering.   :D :D :D

Globalisation and free trade are some of the reasons a very small trading nation like Australia is doing so well.

Australia is a basket case a third world nation, sold out by greed with no domestic job market and juist an elite class living off the revenues of digging up the the nations resources and trying to make the unemployed pay for it through the GST and Carbon Tax.  The Greens are to blame for this.  They are fighting for engineered and entrenched economic inequality and poverty in Australia. 8-) 8-) 8-)

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 1^st, 2012 at 9:43am:

Australia is a basket case a third world nation, sold out by greed with no domestic job market and juist an elite class living off the revenues of digging up the the nations resources and trying to make the unemployed pay for it through the GST and Carbon Tax.  The Greens are to blame for this.  They are fighting for engineered and entrenched economic inequality and poverty in Australia. 8-) 8-) 8-)

There are much worse places to be if your unemployed

adelcrow wrote on Mar 1^st, 2012 at 9:45am:

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 1st, 2012 at 9:43am: Australia is a basket case a third world nation, sold out by greed with no domestic job market and juist an elite class living off the revenues of digging up the the nations resources and trying to make the unemployed pay for it through the GST and Carbon Tax.  The Greens are to blame for this.  They are fighting for engineered and entrenched economic inequality and poverty in Australia. 8-) 8-) 8-) There are much worse places to be if your unemployed

So go live there then because we want all those mining revenues the Greens are keeping for yourselves and their mega bonuses and salaries then. 8-) 8-) 8-)

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 1^st, 2012 at 9:28am:

Globalisation has just quickened the decline. We were heading in that direction anyway, it’s to do with the monetary system as a whole. Fractional reserve banking is a scam and almost every country on earth is being destroyed by it.

Exactly. Globalization is not new. It reached its peak in the late 19th century, declined in WWI, and crashed in the Great Depression.

The global economy then atomised into national economies with competing war plans. After the war, an international gold standard was created which put a check on the excesses of the financial system.

It was the international financial system that was seen to be the cause - and the cure - of the problems of the 20th century; namely, two world wars.

In 1971, Nixon pulled out of the gold standard. This created a floating currency system again. Then, in the debt crisis of 1981, the IMF changed tack. It needed to plug holes in the debts of developing economies - debts that would bring down the US banks - and to do this it instituted the Washington Consensus.

This "consensus" marked globalization as we understand it today: free trade, privatisation of state industries, floating currencies and monetary policy.

Without it, we wouldn't have cheap Chinese consumer goods and foreign food products, so it has its advantages.

Equally, we wouldn't have an increasingly polarised world with "failed", or client, states - once attached to the two Cold War powers. The War On Terror is a response to globalization.

The first battle in the War On Terror was between Russia and Chechnya, and was a direct response to the breakup of the Soviet Union and its market liberalisation policies.

The US followed - first into Afghanistan, a former Soviet colony, and then the Middle East, a former Cold War battleground. This was a response to the dawning of the US's slow decline and the 2000 recession.

When the money pulls out of shares and goes into US bonds, it's tempting to start a war. Add the investment pulled out of soft tech stocks and into "hard" technology, and you've got a very itchy trigger finger indeed. Up the ante with a new administration looking for a cause, add September 11, and you've got a new world order.

It's not a new world order, just a mad clutch for order in a period of decline.

You can't hold off globalization, but states will always have a lover's tiff with it. On again, off again, it's just the way things are.

People trade, it's what we do as a species. Nationalism, racialism, protectionism and tribalism are nothing more than blind isms that seek to hold off the inevitable.

But how to deal with the stateless global financial system that creates the disorder in the first place?

Ah.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 1^st, 2012 at 9:14am:

When "globalisation" first became mainstream a decade or so back, only a very few warned of its impact on the western world. I remember getting into a argument with a collegue about 10 years ago who was championing globalisation as a way to raise the living standard of the worlds poor. No doubt it will do that, but the price is a drop in standard of the worlds "rich".  There is only so much money to go around. Now that a number of "poor" countries have got their act together (china, india, etc), globalisation is ramping up very quickly with 1000's more jobs off-shored day by day. Seems to me we (and many western countries) are at the tipping point, where the other sectors of the economy which cant be off-shored are unable to take up the slack of job loses in manfacturing and professional services.

When the elites promise something that sounds too good to be true, that's because it is. 
Noble concepts like eradicating poverty, saving children, world peace, ring bells with the masses, so are easily sold on schemes that promise working towards these, even though the architects of those schemes know very well that what will be delivered won't be at all like what was promised.  By the time popular opinion realises it's all been a sham, it's already too late.   :'(

"If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system - there would be a revolution before morning"
-Andrew Jackson

adelcrow wrote on Mar 1^st, 2012 at 9:39am:

Globalisation and free trade are some of the reasons a very small trading nation like Australia is doing so well.

Australia did well because we had a relatively free trade system between similarly westernised countries in europe, north america, NZ, etc.   Nobody off-shored jobs to the UK, yet they were happy to buy our products  exported from the other side of the world.

Globalisation, has allowed free trade to extend into all sorts of disparative economies, causing the whole world to slope toward a average rate of wealth, which is lower than we previously had.

The only way out is a move back to protectionism, but that has many costs and disadvantages as well.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 1^st, 2012 at 11:14am:

Globalisation, has allowed free trade to extend into all sorts of disparative economies, causing the whole world to slope toward a average rate of wealth, which is lower than we previously had.

Yes, but all "globalization" has done is outsource the working classes in the developed world to the developing world. It's about the offshoring of labour.

This does not create an average rate of wealth globally. "Globalization" has resulted in a far greater divide between rich and poor. And it's not me saying this, it's the IMF:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2007/res1010a.htm

Karnal wrote on Mar 1^st, 2012 at 11:37am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 1st, 2012 at 11:14am: Globalisation, has allowed free trade to extend into all sorts of disparative economies, causing the whole world to slope toward a average rate of wealth, which is lower than we previously had. Yes, but all "globalization" has done is outsource the working classes in the developed world to the developing world. It's about the offshoring of labour. This does not create an average rate of wealth globally. "Globalization" has resulted in a far greater divide between rich and poor. And it's not me saying this, it's the IMF: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2007/res1010a.htm

Off-shoring is an excellent idea and I am a big fan of what it brings.
The most successful project I have been a part of involved off-shoring not value add intensive labour processes to India from South Australia which improved any number of company corporate goals.

Think in these terms -

1) Our aim as a company is to maximise shareholder wealth whilst behaving in a socially responsible manner - thats the whole ethos of being for a company.

2) By offshoring to the developing world we are doing two things.
We are increasing capital into that country - we are helping them raise their standard of living and we end up building first world plants for them to have.
We are also paying them a decent wage relative to their living standards in that country.

We are also doing a duty to our shareholders in saving considerable Operating expense.
In our project we replaced workers in Adelaide on $40,000 per annum with Indian workers on $500 per annum. Multiply by that by several thousand across the globe and you a significant savings.

Think this way -

Developing country gets investment, employment and higher living standard.

Developed country keeps the retained profit disbursement and the higher value processes and competitive priced product.

I am a huge fan of globalisation and market force capitalism.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1^st, 2012 at 12:24pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 1st, 2012 at 11:37am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 1st, 2012 at 11:14am: Globalisation, has allowed free trade to extend into all sorts of disparative economies, causing the whole world to slope toward a average rate of wealth, which is lower than we previously had. Yes, but all "globalization" has done is outsource the working classes in the developed world to the developing world. It's about the offshoring of labour. This does not create an average rate of wealth globally. "Globalization" has resulted in a far greater divide between rich and poor. And it's not me saying this, it's the IMF: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2007/res1010a.htm Off-shoring is an excellent idea and I am a big fan of what it brings. The most successful project I have been a part of involved off-shoring not value add intensive labour processes to India from South Australia which improved any number of company corporate goals. Think in these terms - 1) Our aim as a company is to maximise shareholder wealth whilst behaving in a socially responsible manner - thats the whole ethos of being for a company. 2) By offshoring to the developing world we are doing two things. We are increasing capital into that country - we are helping them raise their standard of living and we end up building first world plants for them to have. We are also paying them a decent wage relative to their living standards in that country. We are also doing a duty to our shareholders in saving considerable Operating expense. In our project we replaced workers in Adelaide on $40,000 per annum with Indian workers on $500 per annum. Multiply by that by several thousand across the globe and you a significant savings. Think this way - Developing country gets investment, employment and higher living standard. Developed country keeps the retained profit disbursement and the higher value processes and competitive priced product. I am a huge fan of globalisation and market force capitalism.

I know you are a troll, and you are full of it with your wage numbers.  but I'll just reply this once:

1) A % of the money that otherwise stayed in the Australian economy is now gone. This is not good for Australia.


2) What if the shareholders arent australian. Therefore Australia loses out totally.

Andre is right on the money when it comes to labour, but he misses the foreign ownership of resources in developing countries.

Water, land, electricity, transport, intellectual property and patents, the list goes on.

Foreign investment does not just create jobs - it buys up resources.

This means the decision-making about things like irrigation, crops, land use, resource distribution, etc, etc, etc - not to mention currency - are made overseas, and in the interest of profit alone.

A US-based company like Monsanto, which owns several nations' water supplies, seed patents and much of the land, can effectively starve a country to death.

Not exactly a higher living standard when your country's crops consist entirely of feed stock for cattle in the US - all exported to produce the developed world's hamburgers.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 1^st, 2012 at 12:30pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1st, 2012 at 12:24pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 1st, 2012 at 11:37am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 1st, 2012 at 11:14am: Globalisation, has allowed free trade to extend into all sorts of disparative economies, causing the whole world to slope toward a average rate of wealth, which is lower than we previously had. Yes, but all "globalization" has done is outsource the working classes in the developed world to the developing world. It's about the offshoring of labour. This does not create an average rate of wealth globally. "Globalization" has resulted in a far greater divide between rich and poor. And it's not me saying this, it's the IMF: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2007/res1010a.htm Off-shoring is an excellent idea and I am a big fan of what it brings. The most successful project I have been a part of involved off-shoring not value add intensive labour processes to India from South Australia which improved any number of company corporate goals. Think in these terms - 1) Our aim as a company is to maximise shareholder wealth whilst behaving in a socially responsible manner - thats the whole ethos of being for a company. 2) By offshoring to the developing world we are doing two things. We are increasing capital into that country - we are helping them raise their standard of living and we end up building first world plants for them to have. We are also paying them a decent wage relative to their living standards in that country. We are also doing a duty to our shareholders in saving considerable Operating expense. In our project we replaced workers in Adelaide on $40,000 per annum with Indian workers on $500 per annum. Multiply by that by several thousand across the globe and you a significant savings. Think this way - Developing country gets investment, employment and higher living standard. Developed country keeps the retained profit disbursement and the higher value processes and competitive priced product. I am a huge fan of globalisation and market force capitalism. I know you are a troll, and you are full of it with your wage numbers.  but I'll just reply this once: 1) A % of the money that otherwise stayed in the Australian economy is now gone. This is not good for Australia. 2) What if the shareholders arent australian. Therefore Australia loses out totally.

Absurd comment about trolling. I have my opinions and voice them, agree, disagree with them - whichever, I care little.

Anyway -

The core fundamentals of a company are to look after the shareholder and behave in a responsible manner.
Now I was obviously referring to Australian listed entities owned principally by Australian shareholders.
That retained profit disbursement will still be distributed in Australia as it always has been.

Also, the argument as well would be that additional funding would come into Australia this way because the outsourcing project (if run correctly) would have decreased OpEx, increased revenue and given a higher retained profit for disbursement to S/H's.

Also given the profit is also reported as higher because of the strategic change, there will be additional corporation tax paid in Australia on the Head Office entity.

I always see the out-sourcing scenario as win-win both for the developed and developing country.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1^st, 2012 at 3:57pm:

Absurd comment about trolling. I have my opinions and voice them, agree, disagree with them - whichever, I care little. Anyway - The core fundamentals of a company are to look after the shareholder and behave in a responsible manner. Now I was obviously referring to Australian listed entities owned principally by Australian shareholders. That retained profit disbursement will still be distributed in Australia as it always has been. Also, the argument as well would be that additional funding would come into Australia this way because the outsourcing project (if run correctly) would have decreased OpEx, increased revenue and given a higher retained profit for disbursement to S/H's. Also given the profit is also reported as higher because of the strategic change, there will be additional corporation tax paid in Australia on the Head Office entity. I always see the out-sourcing scenario as win-win both for the developed and developing country.

As usual, you gloss over the issue without looking at the detail

1) I doubt many companies fit your profile of "Australian listed entities owned principally by Australian shareholders.". 

2) When all competitors also off-shore, then profit margins slip away to what they were before.

In the end, Australia loses.  Loss of money in the economy, and loss of skills in the workforce.  Increased cost of welfare for all tax payers.

Karnal wrote on Mar 1^st, 2012 at 12:47pm:

Not exactly a higher living standard when your country's crops consist entirely of feed stock for cattle in the US - all exported to produce the developed world's hamburgers.

its the irish potato famine all over again

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 1^st, 2012 at 4:18pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1st, 2012 at 3:57pm: Absurd comment about trolling. I have my opinions and voice them, agree, disagree with them - whichever, I care little. Anyway - The core fundamentals of a company are to look after the shareholder and behave in a responsible manner. Now I was obviously referring to Australian listed entities owned principally by Australian shareholders. That retained profit disbursement will still be distributed in Australia as it always has been. Also, the argument as well would be that additional funding would come into Australia this way because the outsourcing project (if run correctly) would have decreased OpEx, increased revenue and given a higher retained profit for disbursement to S/H's. Also given the profit is also reported as higher because of the strategic change, there will be additional corporation tax paid in Australia on the Head Office entity. I always see the out-sourcing scenario as win-win both for the developed and developing country. As usual, you gloss over the issue without looking at the detail 1) I doubt many companies fit your profile of "Australian listed entities owned principally by Australian shareholders.".  2) When all competitors also off-shore, then profit margins slip away to what they were before. In the end, Australia loses.  Loss of money in the economy, and loss of skills in the workforce.  Increased cost of welfare for all tax payers.

The positions, in my experience, that go offshore are non-skilled manual labour positions.

Take my example - it was a Pharmaceutical company.
All of the R&D and the high value add portion of the drug making remained in Australia.

The labour intensive portion - the vials, the mass production portions went to India.

With respect to the people who did these roles, you could train a chimp to do it.

The people who unfortunately were retrenched in SA were not highly skilled workers - there was no skills drain to Australia.

Australia is a developed country and needs to move further along the supply chain for skills/demands.

That's just how it is.

As regards the companies I am talking about - you can't say foreign companies because they won't be distributing shareholder funds within Australia in the first place - offshoring or not.

Great. A pharmaceutical company - what an example. An industry where about 20% is spent on R&D, 50% on marketing, bugger all on manufacturing, and the rest on lobbying agencies and governments.

An industry where lawyers are employed around the clock to keep patents going for another 20 years; where research doctors are gainfully employed to propose imaginary illnesses for those patents, where governments are schmoozed to allow medicine prices to remain high, doctors are schmoozed to prescribe them, and where all the low-skilled Indians who work to make those "vials" are priced out of the market for any life-saving medicines they might need because the medicines they produce are bound for the developing world where the profit margins are.

What's it called? "Maximizing shareholder wealth whilst behaving in a socially responsible manner."

What a relief.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1^st, 2012 at 3:57pm:

Also, the argument as well would be that additional funding would come into Australia this way because the outsourcing project (if run correctly) would have decreased OpEx, increased revenue and given a higher retained profit for disbursement to S/H's.

A working class argument if I ever heard one, mate.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 1^st, 2012 at 4:20pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 1st, 2012 at 12:47pm: Not exactly a higher living standard when your country's crops consist entirely of feed stock for cattle in the US - all exported to produce the developed world's hamburgers. its the irish potato famine all over again

You're right, Jolly. Globalization author, Michel Chossudovsky, argues:

"As The IMF-World Bank structural adjustment program (SAP) was imposed on sub-Saharan Africa. The recurrent famines of the 1980s and 1990s are in large part the consequence of IMF-World Bank "economic medicine".

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8877

Chossudovsky believes famine in Africa is largely due to global commodity speculation - the futures markets - which artificially inflate the price of grain.

As we know, however, famine in Africa is also the result of civil war. In Somalia, civil war is the result of the politics of oil. Companies like Shell have long employed mercenaries, facilitated ethnic rivalry and contributed handsomely to the war chests of various factions. It's how you do business.

And its how you create an exodus of farmers and rural refugees and create a famine. For Chossudovsky, the dependency on foreign investment (the IMF's SAP policies) is exactly what causes famines.

Karnal - Your synopsis over the Pharma world shows a fair amount of wariness where it is not necessarily required.

I could go into any number of non-profit reasons as to why we as a company rigorously defended our patents - ensuring patient safety from mickey mouse drugs, integrity of completing the required R&D work on the product, refining the product for better patient outcomes without needing to cut corners due to cheaper imitation drugs etc.

I could also go into why the price of varying drugs is higher than others - based upon manufacture, research cost, lead time in the supply chain etc.

But you keep your healthy suspicion of Pharma if it works for you.

Manufacturing - small amount of investment?
I think you're having a laugh son. Our supply chain alone for manufacturing touched on $450m - and we were nowhere near in the league of the likes of Pfizer, GSK, AstraZeneca, Barr, Teva etc.

Karnal wrote on Mar 1^st, 2012 at 9:11pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1st, 2012 at 3:57pm: Also, the argument as well would be that additional funding would come into Australia this way because the outsourcing project (if run correctly) would have decreased OpEx, increased revenue and given a higher retained profit for disbursement to S/H's. A working class argument if I ever heard one, mate.

It's an economic rationality argument.
Since when were they split into class?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2012 at 11:15am:

Who do you work for ?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2012 at 11:23am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2nd, 2012 at 11:15am: Who do you work for ?

I don't work in Pharma anymore. It was an example from my prior workplace.
I was based in London.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2012 at 11:24am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 2nd, 2012 at 11:23am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2nd, 2012 at 11:15am: Who do you work for ? I don't work in Pharma anymore. It was an example from my prior workplace. I was based in London.

So who do you work for now ?  Locust Offshoring ?
;D

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2012 at 11:26am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2nd, 2012 at 11:24am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 2nd, 2012 at 11:23am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2nd, 2012 at 11:15am: Who do you work for ? I don't work in Pharma anymore. It was an example from my prior workplace. I was based in London. So who do you work for now ?  Locust Offshoring ? ;D

No I am not and never have been in offshoring.
That was a supply chain restructure project I worked on - off-shoring was just a part of it.

I work for an energy company now.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2012 at 11:32am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 2nd, 2012 at 11:26am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2nd, 2012 at 11:24am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 2nd, 2012 at 11:23am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2nd, 2012 at 11:15am: Who do you work for ? I don't work in Pharma anymore. It was an example from my prior workplace. I was based in London. So who do you work for now ?  Locust Offshoring ? ;D No I am not and never have been in offshoring. That was a supply chain restructure project I worked on - off-shoring was just a part of it. I work for an energy company now.

You speak like an expert on off-shoring though.  Which really means your talking out your arse..... which sounds very similar to the predicament Andrey Hicks finds himself at Locust....

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced it has charged Andrey C. Hicks of Boston, Mass., and Locust Offshore Management, LLC, his investment advisory firm, with misleading prospective investors about their supposed quantitative hedge fund and diverting investor money to the money manager’s personal bank account. The SEC also announced that Judge Richard Stearns of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts has issued a temporary restraining order that, among other things, freezes the assets of the money manager, his advisory firm, and the hedge fund.

The SEC alleges that Hicks and his advisory firm made numerous misrepresentations when soliciting individuals to invest in a purported hedge fund Hicks controlled called Locust Offshore Fund, Ltd. According to the SEC’s Complaint, Hicks and his advisory firm falsely represented to potential investors that:

Hicks obtained undergraduate and graduate degrees from Harvard University;
Hicks worked for Barclays Capital, where he “grew his book nearly two-fold and expanded his group’s assets under management to roughly $16 [billion]”;
Ernst & Young served as the fund’s auditor;
Credit Suisse served as the fund’s prime broker and custodian; and
the fund was a business company incorporated under the laws of the British Virgin Islands.


Sounds exactly like you!

Yes - how many working class economic rationalists who have worked in London and the US called Andrey (sic) Hicks are there?

Have you met Andrey (sic) Hicks in your travels, Andrei?

ive said it before and ill say it again, hicks must work or live some really strange hours if he's operating internationally.

aka he's full of sh!t.

Quote:

Sounds exactly like you!

nah. he's not smart enough to get into harvard.

barnaby joe wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2012 at 11:48am:

Quote: Sounds exactly like you! nah. he's not smart enough to get into harvard.

you mean he's not smart enough to lie about being at harvard.

;D

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2012 at 11:50am:

barnaby joe wrote on Mar 2nd, 2012 at 11:48am: Quote: Sounds exactly like you! nah. he's not smart enough to get into harvard. you mean he's not smart enough to lie about being at harvard. ;D

oh sh!t, i just read the entire thing. yeah, you're right - it could be him.

wonder if somebody could track down 'lisa' as well.

Karnal wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2012 at 11:43am:

Yes - how many working class economic rationalists who have worked in London and the US called Andrey (sic) Hicks are there? Have you met Andrey (sic) Hicks in your travels, Andrei?

I have not had the pleasure no.
Neither have I ever been to Boston.

I am sure though this gentleman is a very interesting and intelligent guy.

My name is Afrikaans though - he is Eastern European I believe.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2012 at 1:11pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 2nd, 2012 at 11:43am: Yes - how many working class economic rationalists who have worked in London and the US called Andrey (sic) Hicks are there? Have you met Andrey (sic) Hicks in your travels, Andrei? I have not had the pleasure no. Neither have I ever been to Boston. I am sure though this gentleman is a very interesting and intelligent guy. My name is Afrikaans though - he is Eastern European I believe.

If this guys is not you, he certainly acts and behaves like you.

In other words, if it quacks like a duck, its a duck.

If you wish to think I went to Harvard and worked for Barclays Capital.

Then I am perfectly happy for you to run with that.

I'd be happy if both were on my CV.

PS - This guy would have to be a good 10-15 years older than me looking at the resume there.

How on earth do you know how he acts and behaves from a resume??

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2012 at 1:58pm:

If you wish to think I went to Harvard and worked for Barclays Capital. Then I am perfectly happy for you to run with that. I'd be happy if both were on my CV. PS - This guy would have to be a good 10-15 years older than me looking at the resume there.

epic fail.

he's 27. and he lied about his credentials.


See the similarity. ?

I care very little whether you believe me or not on credentials.

I merely hold my opinions on here and you can agree or disagree with them if you like.

Whether you do or not is purely up to you and I care little.


27.
He is in fact younger than me then.

Time to come clean Andrei... or should I say Andrey ?

No more charades.
;D

You'll probably get internet access in your minimum security farm.


Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2012 at 2:17pm:

I care very little whether you believe me or not on credentials. I merely hold my opinions on here and you can agree or disagree with them if you like. Whether you do or not is purely up to you and I care little. 27. He is in fact younger than me then.

It's a gated community, Jolly. Why don't you stick to the subject?

The subject is globalization and why it works.

I gave clear example of how it can work and why off-shoring can be a good thing.

Putting up some dude's name from Boston may be interesting to some but not I.
I care not if I am called a troll, someone in Boston or whatever, it's water off a duck's back.

However it would be better if you even attempted to show why my argument in favour of market capitalist based headcount re-alignment is incorrect - as opposed to the other nonsense which does not interest me.

You might need to define headcount realignment, mate. Some of us working class types might not know what you mean.

Karnal wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2012 at 2:36pm:

You might need to define headcount realignment, mate. Some of us working class types might not know what you mean.

Aligning your company's headcount to best suit the operating needs of the structure.

Eg - You may elect to move your manufacturing base from Adelaide to Bangalore and instead of having 5,000 baselevel workers in Adelaide you would have them in India.

Headcount alignment is one of the best forms of streamlining OpEx without having an impact upon the top line revenue.
Increasing productivity margins, increasing gross margin returns and delivering wealth to shareholders whilst at the same time doing the right thing ethically by your employees and community.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2012 at 2:42pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 2nd, 2012 at 2:36pm: You might need to define headcount realignment, mate. Some of us working class types might not know what you mean. Aligning your company's headcount to best suit the operating needs of the structure. Eg - You may elect to move your manufacturing base from Adelaide to Bangalore and instead of having 5,000 baselevel workers in Adelaide you would have them in India. Headcount alignment is one of the best forms of streamlining OpEx without having an impact upon the top line revenue. Increasing productivity margins, increasing gross margin returns and delivering wealth to shareholders whilst at the same time doing the right thing ethically by your employees and community.

I see. You're saying globalization works for "streamlining OpEx without having an impact upon the top line revenue". Thanks, mate.

Does it have any other benefits?

Karnal wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2012 at 2:49pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2nd, 2012 at 2:42pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 2nd, 2012 at 2:36pm: You might need to define headcount realignment, mate. Some of us working class types might not know what you mean. Aligning your company's headcount to best suit the operating needs of the structure. Eg - You may elect to move your manufacturing base from Adelaide to Bangalore and instead of having 5,000 baselevel workers in Adelaide you would have them in India. Headcount alignment is one of the best forms of streamlining OpEx without having an impact upon the top line revenue. Increasing productivity margins, increasing gross margin returns and delivering wealth to shareholders whilst at the same time doing the right thing ethically by your employees and community. I see. You're saying globalization works for "streamlining OpEx without having an impact upon the top line revenue". Thanks, mate. Does it have any other benefits?

+ Increases standard of living and investment into the developing world.

+ Increases quality of products to the consumer by opening up markets to competition from overseas

+ Drives down prices or forces companies to differentiate their products to be successful

+ Increases the flow of capital across international boundaries to better serve shareholders and everyday people

There are tonnes of reasons why globalisation is a good thing.

Would you prefer we headed back to the closed shop days of the 1970s?

No! I just thought there must be some benefits other than streamlining OpEx.

What about people though, Andrei? If we're increasing the flow of capital accross international borders to better serve shareholders and ordinary people, shouldn't we liberalize migration as well?

For example - your company has to go all the way over to India to get access to cheap people. Couldn't we just as easily bring them over here?

Karnal wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2012 at 3:12pm:

No! I just thought there must be some benefits other than streamlining OpEx. What about people though, Andrei? If we're increasing the flow of capital accross international borders to better serve shareholders and ordinary people, shouldn't we liberalize migration as well? For example - your company has to go all the way over to India to get access to cheap people. Couldn't we just as easily bring them over here?

I am actually in favour of loosening immigration on skilled workers.
I like the fact that as a UK citizen I can now work anywhere without hindrance across the European Union - its a mini-exercise of what we could do globally.

Obviously we would restrict this to skilled workforce.

Don't mistake though lower labour costs as exploitation.

In our project the Indian on $500 per year was still being paid over 8 times his cost of living.
In fact a higher cost of living ratio than the retrenched worker in South Australia on $40,000 per annum.

It's about saving costs whilst still ensuring the worker is justly remunerated for his role.

You couldn't bring the Indian to Adelaide and pay him $500. It would be ethically wrong.

All true, AH. But wouldn't it be better to keep the skilled workers over there where they don't cost as much?

Wouldn't it keep the headcount ratio down if highly skilled people like yourself you were kept, say, in Africa?

This would ensure maximum shareholder profit and more efficient production standards for all, surely. After all, you could still get ten times the average African income and afford a nice walled compound somewhere.   

To some extent your point is valid and workable if the living and working conditions of that society were attractive to the mainstream skilled worker.

But unfortunately that isn't the case. The higher skilled workforce do not want to live in the developing world by and large, and that's just what we have to live with for now.

It makes sense to have the unskilled manual labour where it can be found easier in the developing world and then work to have the higher skilled processes in the developed world.

In the project I gave as the example as well, we kept principal higher skilled R&D in the developed world along with the ancillary services such as legal, finance, marketing etc.

Also bear in mind for areas like Pharma there is a regulatory need to keep the front end R&D in a more controlled, developed society and business world.

It's fine to produce the mass production vials etc in India but the front end work, if we produced that in India the controls it would have to come through to get into Australia and pass the TGA/FDA submissions would be extreme in itself.
Where the work is done in Australia it becomes a much easier "pass".

India doesn't have the reputation or the established controls as yet to be able to make it an easy sell.
It's much the same for all other industries.

China for example. I was once told our VP of APAC toured a site in China one time and saw box upon box of Sanofi-Aventis labelled product being manufactured and ready for shipping.
Problem was, having come from Sanofi recently, he knew full well they weren't in China and had been investigating the fact mickey-mouse drugs were being made, then labelled Sanofi and being sold half price.

The Chinese authorities turn a blind eye to it. Hence the fact you wouldn't want wholesale operations in these countries yet because they do not have mature control regulations to enable you to submit easily across the world.

For product manufactured in the United States with FDA approval gets cleared by the TGA in Australia almost immediately on arrival.

You try and manufacting drugs in China and bringing it in through the same timeframe.

So your point can hold water if the societies were the same, they are not.

You make good points, and it's interesting to think of this froma business angle. A pharmaceutical company is a great example.

What you're saying, essentially, is that capital will follow the cheap labour. In most industries it would follow low regulations as well, but you're saying pharma companies require regulations and decent production standards to be resellable in the developed world.

I'd like to know more about access to markets in the developing world. This, it seems to me, is the benefit to business alongside cheap labour. Also, less regulations and standards, so companies can get away withwhat amounts to murder in the developed world.

Take the new asbestos industry in India for cheap housing - led by a Canadian company. Asbestos workers in India use no protective equiptment whatsoever. They'll all be dead in twenty years.

This access to markets AND cheap labour with no regulations attached must be a goldmine for businesses in the developed world.

Well yes, it depends on both the industry and the company I would imagine.

One of the plus sides of moving the manufacturing to India from South Australia in our project was that whilst labour was cheaper - we also found that the red tape in India was minimal if it existed at all on dismissals etc.

From a business perspective if you have a poor lazy worker in India, you basically walk up to him and tell him to f off. Done, he's gone.

As you'd know, in Australia (particularly given our workers were all AMWU on the floor) you go through what? 3 months at best of a process to remove him/her.

Is it ethical? Borderline. I'd say its just easier.

I personally think we need somewhere between the two of Australia and India.
India - the worker has about the same rights as my dad's dog, probably less.
Australia - it's incredibly hard to remove a poor worker.

One of the many incidents that probably pushed some of the US guys (who decide the outsource) was a worker who basically filled vials of morphine related drugs with the incorrect dosage.
This can kill people.

He was dismissed, given only 12 months back he had also been throwing out re-usable vials costing the company about $50k.

The AMWU come bulldozing in demanding he be re-instated and that incident 1 was unrelated to incident 2 and given 12 months had passed it was incorrect to put on a report etc etc etc

Now American employers - who hate Unions with a passion anyway - see all this and think what?
You've got a sh*thouse employee and we can't fire him because a Union tells us not and then threaten to pull all their workers off the floor for periods of time??

Then there is India where we can just get rid of him and send him up the road that second?

Of course its a plus point.

BUT, I also still stand by the view companies have a moral obligation to behave in a responsible manner.
Thus we have an Ethics and Compliance policy - where workers will be treated with both respect and just cause if you like.

Most US listed entities (and I have worked for only US companies for a decade now) have an ethics committee which is also stated in their 10-K submissions on their compliance of standards of behavior.

It is on this, that they should be judged.

Karnal wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 9:29am:

This access to markets AND cheap labour with no regulations attached must be a goldmine for businesses in the developed world.

On this point though, in general, this is probably the case yes.