This week’s edition of Time Magazine includes a cover story about the world’s next great economic superpower: India (via the News Tab). The cover features a worker from the industry that Americans are most familiar with. She is a representative from the ranks of those much abused call center workers. Similar to Manish’s fine entry, The Anatomy of a genre, I thought I’d take a shot at examing the nuances of this cover picture.
<
p>
The next time a call center worker calls me about signing up with the Dish Network, I am going to pay a lot more attention…and flirt a little.
AK: Thanks! 🙂
Manju:
Let me lay it out for you:
wealth inequality = power inequality. power inequality = differential impact of policies, favoring those who have power and disfavoring those who don’t. differential impact of policies = people displaced from their homes in order to build shopping malls and dams, not able to meet basic needs, famines, impetus for the development of an underclass, etc.
Raj:
I’ve only met one call-center worker in my life–an MSM in Delhi. His work was helpful for him economically, but, as far as I remember, fairly demoralizing. More to the point, he was more of a fashion designer/playwright I think. So why should this person, who was by accident of birth born in India, be forced to work at a call center catering to irate customers in countries like the U.S., being forced to use a fake name to placate the rich countries’ customer service needs, and being given in the end a tiny share of the overall profits of the company that ultimately makes the most money off of his/her work, when someone with a similar life position and social status in a rich country like the U.S. or the U.K. could actually devote more time and energy to pursuing what they want and getting paid a better wage for what they have to do to survive?
That’s hardly an easy question.
Also, while I don’t doubt there might be a diversity of opinions among workers, I would love to hear a source for this before I take it at face value:
To all self-professed free-marketeers: This ideally would not be about rehashing old and tired arguments against socialism but about confronting a real dilemma–the need for more resources but at the same time the simultaneous social and economic problems that many of the policies claiming to generate more resources create.
Personally, I think it’s foolhardy to ignore the vast global disparity in wealth when considering this problem.
More to the point, yes, there are plenty of people much worse off than the call center worker (e.g. garment workers in Bangladesh or construction workers in the UAE or rural farmers in India) who are subjected to the same forces and probably greater exploitation and abuse. If you’re going to be glib, choose some other subject. On the other hand, if any of you want to have a real conversation about globalization, economics, and social disparities, then, as they say, bring it.
oops! sorry for the long comment–i should have broken it up.
-s
You’re right Finkie.
How do you guys pronounce – Iraq – “I-rack” or “ee-raak” – Iran – “eye-ran” or “ee-raan”
Its very easy for desis (and non-desis too) to pronounce it correctly…but very few do.
Saurav – the Free Marketeers do that though. Their argument is that the best way to change the level of development and to address these social problems is via private sector jobs. See Will Easterly’s latest book book for more arguments along these lines.
Tashie:
I believe your concerns are genuine, but it still seems your looking at India from a highly privledged position. Examples:
Because in a poor society, liberal arts is a luxuary as oppossed to direct commercial skills like engineering. But not too worry, as wealth increases in India, the market for artists, scholars, musicians, writers, will inevitable increase. But this is the top of th pyramid, as the late JK Galbraith often pointed out. Liberal arts are big in the USA b/c of the wealth capitalism has created. We can’t impose these standards on developing nations.
I would say it is a very small deal, in comparison to India’s problems over the last 60years: meeting the basic needs of the people. Survival/jobs come first.
3.
But now he has a choice at least. These jobs provide him with a safety net. Most of us have had jobs we hate but do them to survive…doing what you love is often a luxuary of those who live in advanced capatialist societies. In Cuba or Socialist India, there was much less choice.
Most people who have shown genuine concern for call-center workers are a bit detached from reality. I know a lot of guys who work at these call centers. Most of them are planning to move on to bigger-better jobs in a couple of years. In most of the cases, the call-center job is the best paying job that they could get with their present credentials. They’re enjoying life, spending their money on clothes, (junk) food, mobile phone and bikes. None of the guys that I’ve talked to look at the call-center job as a full-time career…its just a stepping stone for a better career.
Many students in US work in restaurants, grocery stores, bookshops and libraries to pay for their college tuition. Do you think that they are being exploited ? I know a lot of middle class people in India who look down upon such jobs(!) and would never let their kids work as waiters and janiotrs. You have to take into acoount the social and cultural factors before passing blanket statements.
This person represents the human cost of socialism. Economic power concentrated in the hands of the governemnt, has killed all incentives to create new business and opportunities. In such a regulated economy, this person is “forced” to do something he dislikes, while someone in a simular position in a rich (ie, economicly free, as these countries wern’t always rich) has more choices. But with recent reforms, he has one more choice he didn’t have 5 years ago. As other industries are created, he’ll have even more. There is a real human cost to anti-capitalism.
Capitalism disperses economic power, socialism concentrates it.
hairy_d and Jai, Thanks for those utterly fun pieces :)!
Slightly embarassed to share this: I collect fun Sepia M pieces (love humour) for a giggle every now and then. As you would imagine, our friends Spoor (Selected Works) and AC’s pieces are on there…and now I”m going to add these :)…
Brown FOB thanks
I say “i-raak” (short i) and “i-raan” (short i again) What do i-raakis and i-raanis say?
Finkie wanting to say it right…
Sorry, I should have clarified–I meant people who are putting themselves forward as Free Marketeers on this thread. I find a lot of these arguments about “socialism” and “capitalism” absurd because what exists on the ground is what exists on the ground and ultimately it’s about people, institutions, economics, social forces, history, and how they all relate. I’m currently reading a collection of writings by Immanuel Wallerstein, if that gives you a sense of where I’m coming from.
I think that some of the problems with many of the analyses I read from free-market people is that they’re a) overly reductive and model the health of a society and individuals entirely on economic measures (ignoring such things as negative externalities like environmental destruction, etc.); b) the arguments are almost religious. If Marxism is flawed for being millenial, the argument that people like Thomas Friedman is the best inheritor of that vision is fairly apropos; and c) lack a coherent and plausible global theory on why some places are rich and others are poor (related); and d) consume the ideology of the nation-state wholesale (to the point where national gdp growth is assumed to be the best measure of economic growth even though economies may be of different sizes, that states can have differential levels of development, etc.).
What I read in the excerpt to the Easterly book was interesting–I don’t have any problem with a rejection of rich-country aid–I think in many cases (though not all) it would be a good idea since aid is as much a tool of foreign policy and state interests as anything else. What I would be concerned about (though not having read it) is this idea that that though individual places have individual needs (which Easterly seems to acknowledge ibn the excerpt), at least some of those needs might be best served by regulation and tailored and nuanced policy. To argue that the US is a “free market” after you look at the tax code of the U.S. and how it’s used to benefit or disadvantage numerous groups is really unnuanced. You can’t have economic markets without some normative framework–it’s simply impossible. So why not argue about what that normative framework should be and to what extent they should be market-driven, if at all? This is what Amartya Sen does, which is probably why so many people like him.
Finkie – They call it “ee-raak” and “ee-raan”
Brown FOB Ah, Thanks. In the spirit of ‘authentic pronounciation’ (always keeping in mind that that is often a negotiable and debatable thing :)) … I hereby pledge to say ee-raak and ee-raan.
Hail
Ee-raak and Ee-raanMogambo!— Finkie now on FBI Wanted List (shit man, what if I really AM now!)
See, Ennis, this is what I’m talking about.
Manju, capitalism as it exists on the ground today concentrates capital for the purpose of reinvestment and the enlargement of the economy. If it naturally dispersed economic power, there wouldn’t be anti-trust regulations in every rich country.
Furtherk, whether you describe regimes in mass society as socialist, where the power gets concentrated in a bureaucratic elite (i.e. the USSR), or capitalist, where the power gets put in massive concentrations of capital that then influence and to some extent govern the state (i.e. the USA), you still have a vast inequality of power between those who have access to a lot of it and those who don’t. In the U.S. this is currently increasing (or it had been over about 30 years).
More to the point, my argument was about why someone in a wealthy country would have more opportunities and someone in a poor country would have less and how that dynamic leads to perverse results like a call center worker pretending that their name is David and they live in Topeka, Kansas rather than acknowleding that their name is Dheeraj and they live in India or elsewhere. To this you responded:
represents “global inqualities”, “poverty”, “overly restrictive government policies”–all these I could live with as nuanced argumentation. But “the human cost of socialism”? This is just dogma, plain and simple. When you get down to the basics, the reality is this–people without power–and in the current world economic system, that largely means poor people–have extremely limited “choices.” They can’t even choose in which society they want to go work to be exploited! Also, rich doesn’t mean “economically free”–it means rich.
I think it’s facile to suggest that all you need to do is allow for unregulated purchase and sale of goods, and legislate property rights in order to remediate all this.
How do you explain the increase in USA’s Gini Index from 35 to 41 in the last 30 years and the increase in China’s Gini Index from 35 to 45 in the last 15 years? Is Gini Index flawed or did US and Chinese economies in those timeframes become more socialistic ?
http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/20060303-fri.html#anchor0
Saurev:
You object to this:
But not this:
I Guess we have a fundamental philosophical diffence. I don’t believe systems are culturally specific as human nature is universal. I concede that saying the US is free-market is unnuanced, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is on a relative basis. Those of us running business here in the real world know all to well that there is no pure capitalist system, but we can also see the general trends. The same goes for concepts like “free speech” and “democracy”–ideals yes, but they have real, if imperfect, applications.
BTW, I don’t object to your equations above. They are general theories and we can apply them to see if they are accurate and flesh them out if need be. Why deny the use of philosophy to others? After all, the death of one ideology does not mean the death of all.
i don’t know about china, but at least in the US the increase can be attributed at least partially to globalization itself, ie manufacturing/labor/IT/even financial services jobs going to other countries. In fact wall street now uses analysts in india to do basic financial modeling.
so on a global basis, capitalism has dispersed power, but in the US, it has held the wages of labor, IT, etc down, naturally–as they have to come down to international levels while wealth at the top has increased.
But at the end of the day, for the nation of earth–and this should please saurev— capitalism has dispersed the power, and more importantly created more wealth…although it will always keep power unequal as it is in-line w/ the state of nature. Freedom and equality will always be at odds.
That’s an interesting point. Can the world’s Gini Index as a whole decrease when the Gini index within each of the major economies is increasing? Someone must be tracking it, though I guess purchasing power parity and currency fluctuations will muddy the waters. I will try to look it up.
A greater Gini Index means a greater divide between the rich and the poor. The current Economist’s cover story is all about the growing disparity between the rich and the poor. So the Gini index is all right, turn the charts upside down guys 🙂
dipanjan says
i do not understand your point. the increase in the gini index implies greater spread in the inequalities. what’s the source for this?
how is this being positioned – as a saw , a conjecture, an axiom….? i dont see it being substantiated or linked to the discussion.
hehe hairy_d, beat you by 3 minutes.
dipanjan:
As you look it up, I think we have to make adjustments for those countries participating in globalization. The Gini index could be up for the world as a whole, but if we isolate the counties that are economically “free” (i think the WSJ has an index for this)we should see the gini going down for them as a whole.
Also, the gini is imperfect. take an imaginary orwellian society where everyone has equal wages but the means of production and decison making is held by one man. The gini would be 0, ie perfect equality, but the real power is held by one. ecconomic power is more than wage distribution.
I was countering Manju’s assertion Capitalism = dispersion of economic power. Income (and wealth)is a measure of economic power. So its distribution should be a measure of dispersion of economic power. The trend in increasing Gini index within US and China at the time when capitalism and globalization are exapanding seems to argue against Manju’s statement.
My first post has the source URL.
I got two counter arguments –
1) It is possible that as a whole the free world’s gini is decreasing even when it is increasing within the countries. I need to look it up. 2) Economic power is more than just wage distribution. I agree, but what other measures do we have?
Manju:
This is a statement of belief, not an argument. You can assert it a priori and without any openness to changing your belief, but that’s essentially a religious faith at that point.
Concepts have to mean something even if they are ideals–at least in a general sense. If the general sense of the word is completely inapplicable to the phenomena you’re talking about, you can’t just claim it’s the same thing–either the label doesn’t apply or your undersatnding of the label is off. If the U.S. is “free-market” to you then I encourage you to change your understanding of what the label “free-market” means in practice–and recognize how intricately its historically been tied to imperialism, discrimination, state regulation of the labor pool, etc. Similarly, figure out what “capitalism”, “socialism” and all these other terms generally mean before you start excoriating particular systems and lauding others.
You can’t just call a three-sided figure a square just because someone else does, and or, worse yet, call it an “real, but imperfect application.” And you should point out in response that squares have four right angles and many other properties.
There’s a difference between what you’re calling “philosophy” and what I would call “theory” for the purposes of understanding things (as opposed to promoting an ideology or a political platform). Theory is fine–theory is the groundwork of understanding broader pictures of what’s going on, so you don’t miss the forest for the trees. It’s just that it has to correlate to some extent to what’s actually happening on the ground, which I don’t believe your arguments do, to the extent that they’re even specific enough to evaluate. In fact, I think a lot of the generalizations you’re making, as I pointed out above, fall more in the column of ideology than anything else and are largely circular or explain away inconsistencies without ever looking at whether the whole framework of your thinking needs reevaluation.
Hail
MogamboWallerstein!Another counterargument is that the timeframe you’re looking at is too short. There are more here at wpedia. Also, re the second criticism, it doesn’t measure wage distribution–it measures income distribution.
Saurav,
It’s one thing to find fault with something, it’s another to give concrete solutions to the problem.
Assume you are the Finance minister of India (or even the PM). What specific policies (I would like 3-5 examples) would you put in place to fix the problem? Generic solutions like “social justice” won’t cut it. Also, please give solutions that have not been tried in the last sixty years – let’s make new mistakes, not old ones.
M. Nam
Assume you are the Finance minister of India (or even the PM). What specific policies (I would like 3-5 examples) would you put in place to fix the problem?
I would tell him to follow China’s example.
I know some of my liberal friends might gripe about increased income inequality in China, but I would rather have increased income inequality than absolute poverty.
Here is a link on what free markets have done to China: http://povlibrary.worldbank.org/files/12402_SFan-Presentation.pdf
The alleviation of poverty over the last 3 decades in China is mind boggling and the numbers are indeed staggering.
Free market economy is the only way to reduce poverty in impoverished 3rd world nations. Of course they are going to be losers, like when people are displaced because of massive public work projects/dams, of course they are going to be unemployed people in certain sectors (like when the state run enterprises are privatized and workers are laid off to make the enterprises more competitive), and also they are going to be more homeless people in the cities when there is a population shift from the rural to the urban areas and in the absence of a social network which existed in the villages in the terms of cheap land, straw hut, neighbors, they are obviously going to see more people out on the streets and urban poverty in urban areas, and yes, because of China/India joining the WTO, medicines are going to be beyond the reach of its poorest denizens, all the above are true and a lot more.
However, if 400 million people can be taken out of poverty in 2 decades, I would rather suffer all the above, then to have 400 million people continue living in wretched poverty. Some people are always going to feel nostalgia for the good old days. Good old days when everybody rode a bicycle to work and you didnt get to the see the massive income inequalities which have now of course engulfed China and India. Give me inequalities over absolute poverty anyday! I look forward to the day when India has the same problem of income ‘inequalities’ that China faces.
So proposal to India: Become like China
Proposal to China: Divert some of the 50 billion plus dollars spent on the military to help the poor/displaced/unemployed as a result of the free market ecomonic system or maybe the Chinese leaders could divest some of the bizillions of dollars they have stolen as bribes and kickbacks and stowed away in banks and off shore investments from Hong Kong to California.
Here is another repory from United Nations Development Program on China, which states that
A special investigation into rural poverty was carried out in 1978. 6 By that time, according to the World Bank’s estimate, there were 260 million rural people living in income poverty, which meant that one-third of the rural population lived under the poverty line. 7 The astonishing reality of the rural poverty situation created a sense of crisis within the new leadership and finally became the logic of reform in 1978. After 1978, the reduction can be grouped into three different periods. Between 1978 and 1985, tremendous progress was made in the reduction of income poverty. The incidence of poverty rapidly declined in China as Table 2 indicates. All figures estimated by the World Bank in this table are based on the national poverty line, which can be translated into 60¢ a day per capita in 1985 PPP$.8 Accordingly, between 1978 and 1985, total population living below the national poverty line declined from 260 million to 97 million, and the incidence of poverty declined from 33% to 9.2%. During the same period, the number of rural poor decreased to 96 million while the urban poor population decreased to less than 1 million. The declining trend of poverty incidence, if measured by the international standard–$1 a day per capita in 1985 PPP$, is also very clear. It dropped from about 60% in 1978 to less than 40% in 1985 9 (see Note: “The debate about income poverty line, the numbers and percentages of the poor of China”). As for human poverty reduction, the main indicators such as infant mortality rate, under-five mortality rate and longevity in this period continued to improve in accordance with earlier trends, although the pace of improvement has slowed down. For example, infant mortality per 1,000 live births continued to decline from 52 in the late 1970s to 50 in the mid-1985. 10 Nevertheless, China’s progress in poverty reduction was not sustained during the second half of the 1980s and early 1990s. There were signs that income poverty had increased in 1989 and 1990 as Table 2 shows. The rural poor increased to 103 million in 1989 from 86 million in 1988, and the incidence of poverty rose to 12.3% from 10.4%. Urban poverty rose from 0.2% in 1988 to 0.4% in 1990. The reverse progress in income poverty reduction was matched by a slight increase in human poverty. The increase in adult illiteracy rate was an example. The adult illiteracy rate rose from 23.5% in 1982 to 26.8% in 1987, 11 and it is reported that more than 2 million new adult illiterates were added each year during the late 1980s 12 Of the 3 million school-aged children who did not enrol in school, 83% were girls. 13 In addition, in the poor areas, access to basic preventive health services stagnated during the second half of the 1980s. A 1989 survey conducted by the Ministry of Public Health in 300 poor counties revealed that infant mortality averaged 68 per 1000 –almost 50% greater than the national average–and exceeded 100 per 1000 in 38 of these counties. More than 80% of infant deaths occurred at home or en route to medical facilities. 14 Female infant mortality has also been rising, from the 1988 nationwide fertility survey, suggested by the observation of the rising sex ratios for children born in the 1980s. After 1992, progress in both income and human poverty reduction resumed, although not as rapidly as during the period of 1978-85. The number of poor people moving above the poverty line rose to 5 million a year, compared with only 2.5 million in the late 1980s and the early 1990s. By mid 1996, the number of people below the poverty line (530 yuan at current prices) had fallen to 65 million from 94 million in 1991. The infant morality rate, at 36.4 per 1,000 live births, declined by 7.7% between 1990 and 1995. 15 During the same period, the number of malnourished children under age five declined from 21% to 16%.16 Adult illiteracy rates also improved, decreasing from 22% to 19%.17
Also, China’s official estimates of income poverty show an extraordinary drop from 260 million poor in 1978 to 42 million in 1998. Using a higher poverty line, the World Bank estimated that in 1998 the poor numbered more than 100 million – still a dramatic reduction.
For those, who are too lazy to check all the links here are some nice comparison charts on the poor in India and China on page 3-7 of this report.
I hope you got my drift…
Let’s see if India can implement a few of China’s major policies…
No freedom of movement. Chinese cannot just move randomly from one place to another. Villagers cannot just come into Shanghai. They need a permit. They cannot just squat on pavements and build slums. If they do, they will be put to death.
No workers’ unions. Anybody organizing themselves are put to death.
No strikes. If you strike, you go to prison and come back with only one kidney. Illegal Organ trade is big in Chinese prisons (with the West being the biggest customer).
Govt’s final authority over private property. If the Government wants to build a freeway over your house/farm, you move out. Quickly. Quietly.
And I have not even touched on democracy, free press etc.
Tell me, which of the above policies can be implemented in India?
First we were told to become like Europe/Russia (linguistic states/Socialist). Then we were told to open up our markets like America. Now we are being told to become like China.
My Proposal to India: Become like Bharat. Reduce State role to a minimal in all aspects except defence/law enforcement(maybe Infrastructure). Change foreign policy to be geared towards India’s interests. Take advantage of the ancient cultural traditions of its people. Gradually dismantle linguistic states and move towards geographically-similiar states. Treat all equally before the law (nobody gets any special priviledges).
Do this for just two generations, and see the difference.
M. Nam
Moornam:
The report gives both Chinese official figures and World Bank figures on China. You can ignore the Chinese official estimates, but even going by World Bank numbers, China has made tremendous progress in reducing poverty.
Some things India can learn from China:
(1) Invest in the infrastructure. The Chinese made massive investments on their infrastrucute in the 70’s. China would have attracted half the manufacturing base of the US in the 90’s if the Chinese had not made massive investments in the infrastructure in the late 70’s to the 80’s. India is trying to liberalize the economy with a 4rth world standard infrastructure.
No workers’ unions. Anybody organizing themselves are put to death.
(2) I am not advocating shooting down of Union organizers. India will however benefit from more flexible labor markets, which do exist in China. Its impossible to fire workers in India and India will never become the destination of choice for foreign manufacturers unless the labor laws are liberalized and the lenghty process of ‘charge sheet, going to labor courts and showing ’cause’ to fire employees is streamlined and made more employer friendly.
(3) In China it takes on average 2 days to get a power connection for a new factory. In India it will take a few months for to get electricity approved for a new factory. In China, you bribe one official, and you get all the permits/approvals you need to legally set up a business, get power water and all the other approvals you need from various government agencies. In India it takes months because you have to bribe every single government official in every single department. Setting up a business in India is a hassle.
AMFD #280:
Agree with all. India is taking baby-steps in that direction. Golden Quad is almost complete. Strking Toyota workers were given a thrashing of a lifetime. Many Chief-Ministers have one-window permits for new ventures.
However, due to coalition politics, the tail is wagging the dog. Communists have gained a larger-than-life image, and they are trying their best to hamper whatever their own parters do.
I believe it’s going to be ok. Statist policies can survive only when information is controlled and rationed. With TV/Internet/Cellphones, you cannot stop information from flowing. Commies will come around.
M. Nam
there’s a pig flying somewhere.
Make your own flying-pig.
Oink.
Well, China does have a 10-15 year headstart on India in economic reform. So it’s premature to decide India’s fate vis-a-vis china.
Saurev:
I wrote:
You wrote:
Yes it is a statement of belief. I didn’t offer arguments to this philossophical position, as I would then be taking the discussion to another realm (threadjacking). But your position is also a belief as you offerrd no evidence either. You spend a lot of time dismissing those who disagree with you as dogmatic rather than adressing their arguments. This thread alone has many examples of the positive developments of free market reforms in india, but the best you’ve done is offer some anecdotal evidence (you spoke to a call center worker who didn’t like his job) and some vague general references to capitalism being tied to imperialism and racism.
See, this is what I’m talking about. I put forth a theory and I’m “promoting an ideology” but you do the same and you are trying to “understanding things.” Never mind that all your theories just happen to promote one particular side of the debate. But no, you’re no being ideological.
Saurev, I am “on the ground” (as you like to say) on this issue. I can tell you that one cannot have a pracitcal conversation with business people in India w/o the words “free market” or even “democracy” being used virtually all the time. Since independence, the heavy hand of government that has sought to control almost every aspect of economic life, even implementing soviet style 5 yr plans. As india sheds this “socialistic pattern of development” how can word like “economic liberlization” not accurately discribe wha’t going on “on the ground.”
I leave yo with a specific example. The automobile industry in india which is heavily regulated, taxed, licensed, and generally controlled by govt (b/c they deem it a luxuary item). There are prohibitive duties on imports (though corrupt govt officials are able to get around them.)
Happily, there haas been a flourishing cottage industry where farmers-turned-capitalists build and sell rudemantary vehicles that technically are not allowed to run on public roads, but law enforcement turns the other wasy. I guess india is a natural libertarian society, as MoorNam has therorized.
Anyway, given this context and history, try having a converstion with real businesspeople about reforming the automotive industry w/o bringing up terms like “free market” or “capitalism.” Imperfect as they are, like the term democracy (and india is an imperfect dmocracy too–which is one of its grat selling points especially compared to china), they accurately describe what is going on “on the ground” otherwise, practical businesspeole would not be using them.
Take advantage of the ancient cultural traditions of its people. Gradually dismantle linguistic states and move towards geographically-similiar states.
Why dismantle linguistic states??.. Also the two lines are quite contradictory.. 🙂
Manju,
Please note spelling of name.
So basically, your argument is that social systems don’t exist with distinct properties that stem from factors beyond basic commonalities to human beings, which is a trite argument that capitalist ideologues have used for decades, and your argument for why you won’t defend it is that you don’t want to threadjack, when you have already broadened the discussion from talking about call-center workers to talking about “Capitalism”, “socialism”, and many other things. This line of argument is hardly compelling, particularly given that you often impose the ideas in threads with little to no concern about whether you’re “threadjacking.”
Fair enough. You’ll notice, though, that I’m actually looking to find an argument that’s cogent enough to disagree wiuth on the facts that other people haven’t already (e.g. like how they pointed out to you that a central feature of the current global economic system is growing inequality). Failing that, I offered you arguments that critiqued the way you argue–think of it as metacritique. If I were to dismiss you, I would have just ignored you. Rather, I took up what you said and addressed it in what I thouhgt was the best way–which was to take apart your logic rather than concede to the mass of claims you make and then offer refutations one by one. I don’t have time for that–go to grad school.
I offered some questions about what important questions are (e.g. how to increase standard of living without destroying people’s lives), made references to some common and fairly universally accepted problems (the forced cultural assimilation of Indian call center workers to the traditions of Western societies), provided you with the author that’s currently providing my way of looking at the world, and critiqued the logic behind your argumentation as overly general. I also responded in depth to what Ennis said, to the extent that I could, having not read the book but only the excerpt.
Great. So now that you’ve relegated yourself to the framework of national economics, not global, ignored the possibility of other analyses (e.g. India is a semiperipheral capitalism country on the rise), ignored the context of global history (i.e. the Soviet Union no longer exists and there’s a global realignment going on), ignored the massive amoung ot poverty that contineus to exist in India, ignored the tradeoffs in all societies between loosening social welfare controls and expanding capitalist practices, and completely restricted your understanding to what you’ve gathered from “business people in INdia,” I completely understand where you’re coming from.
rolls eyes
Happily, there haas been a flourishing cottage industry where farmers-turned-capitalists build and sell rudemantary vehicles that technically are not allowed to run on public roads, but law enforcement turns the other wasy. I guess india is a natural libertarian society, as MoorNam has therorized.
I do applaud that you’ve finally started mentioning some specifics, rather than relying on platitudes about socialism and capitalism to make your points. I don’t know enough about this to argue it with you, but ona cursory glance, it seems like the auto industry in India is
Since when are “practical businesspeople” the arbiters of straightforward discourse? In fact, it seems like it would be in their best interests to delude themselves and everyone else as much as possible in order to make as large a profit as possible without threatening their class position. In any case 1) you’re not talking to them here, so I don’t see why you should feel free to impose the terms of their conversation on us without clarifying specifically what you mean (as you finally have) and 2) I don’t buy that all “practical businesspeople” talk this way:
Here’s what a “real business[person]” in India told me about the U.S.: “Why is the U.S. eliminating its factories? It’s making a tremendous mistake.” His argument was that it’s a bad idea for a country to deindustrialize. You can agree or disagree, but I managed to have this conversation with him, as well conversations about his support for the BJP and other items without ever getting into a discussion about “the free market” or “capitalism.” Similarly, I’ve had conversations with Hindutvaites, with garment workers in Bangladesh, with the former minister of planning for Bangladesh, etc. Try expanding the range of people you talk to, and you might find that the terms in which you talk seem to be of less use.
Moornam, what did I find fault with exactly, other than the logic and argumentation that was being used to defend particular positions? Here is what I did say that sums up a lot of my point:
1) Massive popular education about birth control and HIV 2) Demands from rich countries for basic public health funding with no strings attached (e.g. anti-abortion measures) which would be shared with other poor countries. Utilization of its own funding for the same. 3) Broad literacy and education programs. 4) The encouragement of conversations wtih businesspeople, members of the urban poor, and especially members of the rural poor as to what their needs are. I don’t think anyone should be setting policy without identifying what needs to happen. 5) A look at whether the overcentralization of the Indian state has contineud to persist and, if so, how best to devolve it to the states or in some other way, if necessary. 6) An equitable solution to Pakistan that might require, if necessary, an autonomous or UN-administered Kashmir. At minimum, demilitarization. 7) A regulated flow of labor from Bangladesh that would be binationally administered with significant representation from the migrant population. 8) Adoption of stricter environmental standards (perhaps done in a way so that they can be used as leverage against wealthier states for items like #2). 9) The creation of practices which will significantly incorporate input from people affected by private or public projects to avoid other Enron-like disasters and ensure adequate compensation and accountability to them. 10) Pursuit of green technologies to somewhat offset the need for fossil fuels. 11) Promote education and other means of sending both high and low skill labor abroad–and step in to protect their rights abroad. 12) The development of a women’s rights program to encourage literacy, schooling, job-market entry when desired.
What actors (state, private, individual) would udnerstake all these goals depends on a closer look, but these seem to me to be not outrageous claims to make upon a society in the process of economically growing in the current global context. But there’s no perfect solution–these are just some ideas from someone far away.
MoorNam:
I see no reason to dismantle linguistic states. At least each language is given (maybe it’s only lipservice of course) pride of place and priority in its state. Each state (or in the case of the Hindi belt several states) is a cultural zone where the language and culture of that state is celebrated and preserved (hopefully). If you do away with them and make ‘geographic zones’ I think there is potential that Hindi and/or English may gradually erode or reduce the presence of regional languages. Anyway India is like Europe in terms of diversity, with many different ‘nations’ within it, largely (not completely) corresponding to language identity; since for better or worse these various ‘nations’ are forced/compelled to remain together under the Indian Republic, the least concession to their latent ‘nationhood’ should be recognition in the form of distinct linguistic states.
Saurav:
After all this, I still don’t know what your objection is to the call centers, besides the fact that they use american names and you once spoke to someone who didn’t like his job.
We seem to have come across a real solution to the problem of poverty. India is one of the fastest growing economies and millions have now escaped poverty, even to the point where people are acknowledging India’s potential to be an economic giant.
Naturally, people want to continue these market oriented reforms, more outsoucing, more deregualtion, etc. What exactly is you’re objection? What do you pose as an alternative?
Saurav,
Thanks for your points.
1) Massive popular education about birth control and HIV
Birth Control happening since the early seventies. The Hindu/Sikh/Christian rate of birth have fallen to acceptable levels. The Muslim birth-rate is still the same as in midieval Arabia. So who do you think needs preaching?
HIV – strides are being made. Many informercials on TV. Many NGO’s working on the issue.
2) Demands from rich countries for basic public health funding with no strings attached
Wrong method for a right cause. The only demand that can be made is to open up their markets for competition.
3) Broad literacy and education programs.
Happening since the 1950’s. Failed miserably because of the same classic reason: The Government(as everywhere) is inefficient, corrupt and does not deliver. Solution: Privatise education. Even in states like Kerala which have 100% literacy, anybody with half-a-brain has to leave the state in order to eat.
4) The encouragement of conversations wtih businesspeople, members of the urban poor, and especially members of the rural poor as to what their needs are. I don’t think anyone should be setting policy without identifying what needs to happen.
The market is the best place to have this conversation.
5) A look at whether the overcentralization of the Indian state has contineud to persist and, if so, how best to devolve it to the states or in some other way, if necessary.
I think I will start a Saurav fan club!!
6) An equitable solution to Pakistan that might require, if necessary, an autonomous or UN-administered Kashmir. At minimum, demilitarization.
No. Kashmir (including PoK), is India’s. There are no ifs ands or buts about it.
7) A regulated flow of labor from Bangladesh that would be binationally administered with significant representation from the migrant population.
No. When there are millions of Indians unemployed, why bring outsiders in to make the problem worse?
8) Adoption of stricter environmental standards (perhaps done in a way so that they can be used as leverage against wealthier states for items like #2).
Agreed. The air in Indian cities in unbreathable.
9) The creation of practices which will significantly incorporate input from people affected by private or public projects to avoid other Enron-like disasters and ensure adequate compensation and accountability to them.
Already exist.
10) Pursuit of green technologies to somewhat offset the need for fossil fuels.
Already happening, thanks to the marketplace.
11) Promote education and other means of sending both high and low skill labor abroad–and step in to protect their rights abroad.
Translation: Lobby for more H1’s. Hail Saurav fan club!!
12) The development of a women’s rights program to encourage literacy, schooling, job-market entry when desired.
Already exists. The %age of women in Indian workforce has increased exponentially, especially since the call-centers opened up.
M. Nam
Saurav:
“7) A regulated flow of labor from Bangladesh that would be binationally administered with significant representation from the migrant population.”
WHY? Why should the migrants get significant representation? And Bangladesh denies that there’s a serious issue of their nationals living/working in India anyway so would they be willing for ‘binational administration’ of the situation? This is not meant to be a trolling question but is your concern from them (migrants) due to the fact that they are fellow Bengalis?
Saurav,
I am in agreement with some of the points presented by you. Most of them are already happening in India. The delivery systems are still bad but the government, hopefully, will iron out the kinks in time. I will go along with the free-marketeers to suggest promotion of entrepreneurship and private enterprise. This will lead to empowerment of common people on the ground rather than concentrating power in the hands of government babus.
“6) An equitable solution to Pakistan that might require, if necessary, an autonomous or UN-administered Kashmir. At minimum, demilitarization. 7) A regulated flow of labor from Bangladesh that would be binationally administered with significant representation from the migrant population.”
Response: WTF?
It is quite OK for many people to identify themselves as South Asians. I have no problems with that. Whatever helps them sleep peacefully in night is fine. In fact, I understand the need to find a common ground that binds people.
Having said that can I also request you to not insult the intelligence of people who consider their identity to be Indian and not South Asian by uttering such moronic propositions? This is suitable for archiving in the satirical “South Asian Bleeding Hearts Association”, also known as SABHA website.
We are doing fine without our long lost brothers and sisters from across the brothers. Thank you very much! We do not need them in our grand scheme of things. In fact, all that we, the Indians, want is to be left alone. If our mythical bros and sisters let us live in peace for five years continuously, we can consider their proposal for more cooperation. In the meantime, they can suck on whatever is available in their countries for sucking. We have our own hell and they have theirs, as per their wishes and not ours. Let us leave it at that.
The intent of my response is not to convey that hating Pakistan/Bangladesh/any other country is a necessary or even sufficient condition for being Indian. Please do not misunderstand.
Regards,
Glib to the end, I see. Here’s what I said, in trying to raise an issue, not say “call centers are good” or “call centers are bad”:
and I leave you here…
Oh you Indian naionalists 🙂
Pakistan’s security problem is inherently India’s and vice versa. This comes out of the reality not that they’re South Asian, but that they’re the two of the largest and most powerful states in the region. To ask someone to ignore a military conflict with nuclear arms is absurd. You might come up with a better solution, but, short of Pakistan failing as a state (which would be worse), it’s going to require some compromise on both sides. Plus ther’s the whole matter of the people who live there actually having a say.
wrt Bangladesh, I think I do focus on them because I know the place better, but the argument would probably apply to any large and growing national economy that’s next to a smaller economy with a surplus labor supply. Basically, they’re going to find their way across, so you should treat them decently–i.e. migrants have human rights. What I’ve heard from people in the past (describing Bangladeshis as “pests”) smacks of the way Americans talk about Mexicans, which is probably not where you want to head.
and having stirred this hornet’s nest accidentally, I’m now going to take my leave of you while you argue you about who has what birth rates and why some people are more deserving of money than others.
Oh you deluded socialists striving for the elusive united world :),
When India and Pakistan will talk peace, the compromise will not involve your proposal. I can assure you of that. No political group in India has the balls for that. I will leave it here and not flog a dead horse. We all know where this debate will lead to.
Regards,
The Muslim birth-rate is still the same as in medieval Arabia
Are there any government stats on the Muslim birth rate in India?
Sourav:
Yes – if not for us Indian nationalists, there wouldn’t be an ‘India’. But then , of course, being the progressive post-modernist intellectual you are, you could always argue ‘India’ is an artificial entity and would be better off broken up into a thousand smaller nation states etc.
While it is true that India and Pakistan are two of the biggest and most powerful states in your beloved ‘South Asian’ region, it is also true that India is vastly more powerful, richer and bigger than Pakistan. And the gulf between the two will only expand faster as India’s economy maintains its present rate of growth.
That in itself is the ‘solution’. It would be very difficult for a small country like Pakistan to compete with a much bigger and powerful enemy like India. And Pakistan will eventually give up and have no choice but to forget Kashmir , if it hasn’t already.
Further, India is a democracy and if the people of India have anything to do with it, India will never again part with even an inch of its territory. And as long as the majority of the people of India want India to hold on to Kashmir, India will hold on to Kashmir. Because, what counts in India is what majority of the people India want – not just what the majority in the valley of Kashmir want. Hope that is clear.
Also – it is my belief that just because the current inhabitants of Kashmir nicely ethnic cleansed the non-Islamic members of their states, it does not make Kashmir any less a part of India.
WHAT WHAT? Gaurav, is that you???
Of course to become stronger the relation between employer and employee to become a big call center company as well as the reputation. Giving more benefits and some privileged to employee to maintain the strong relationship between employer and employee. Also is key to become grower the call center company.