you're reading...
China, City-States Politics, economics, headlines, media watch, Military Analysis, national politics, Political Analysis, products, recommendations, security

Two Thoughts: On International Politics (how to play it?) & Economics (how to revive it?)

Dear All,

I. The West and International Politics:

Of the first thought, on the International Politics, which I intend to explore as a part of my PhD, my argument is that, the field (International Politics) is of primarily concern to only ‘the West’. Here there is a further division of who exactly in the ‘west’?

[1] The ‘Co-operative’ States: These are liberalism-minded states,of Scandinavia, Mediterranean, Northern and Central states. These prefer to approach International Politics and Relations as a co-operative business area, through dialogues and peaceful interactions. Note: this does not mean they lack the military power, nah, they just prefer diplomacy to military alternatives.

[2] Only three (or if we count the ‘Little Italy’, we might say four) of the oldest states, suffering from what I refer to as the ‘Persistent Imperial Cultures‘ approach IP/IR with militarism, in the forefront, believing to gain the relative gains you have to crush the ‘opponent’ rather than conduct civilised dialogue. These states are UK (the biggest threat to the International Politics/System/Security), France and at the present, United States (but the latter, US, can change, as the PIC is not fully ingrained in her institutions and mindsets.

In short, only ‘the West’ preoccupies themselves with IP/IR (rather than what everyone else, who focus primarily in International (Political) Economics since the age of Silk Road). And within two camps, these differ in how they approach the field, and with consequences.


If one was in a position to advice the non-western states, especially, the rising China, Turkey, reviving Russia, India and the rest, one will simply advice;

1- never accept the game!

In short, do not be aggravated into playing their game, and all one can do is, build up defensive military capabilities, regional alliances and focus on internal affairs.

2- Do not fall into the ‘cold war trap’, that Soviet fell into, by accepting the role of ‘a challenger’. Do not compete, just go about conducting your affairs peacefully and ignore all ‘hectic over-reaction’ from the west.

II. The Economics

How to revive our economies?

Only one way seems open. Force all national companies and businesses, to;

(a) operate all their functions and activities locally, that within the country, and not outsourced.

(b) those who refuse, will be ‘sanctioned’; meaning, they will be banned from operating any businesses within the borders, or owning any businesses or assets of any kind. In short, they will be cut of completely from having anything to do with the state.

(c) those who accept will be supported, and however, will face strict executive pays watchdogs and scrutiny.

What does this mean?

It means only employing local national not foreigners, and creating only local employments, and controlling excessive pays and bonuses, and others.

Headlines for you:

















About s.s.salim: Geopolitical Analyst

Political & Strategy Defence & Security Intelligence & Communications


22 thoughts on “Two Thoughts: On International Politics (how to play it?) & Economics (how to revive it?)

  1. The economic isolationism and dissolution of international corporations has no more likelihood of success in a global economy than political isolationism would have in the political arena. Your proposal lacks depth and does not display a grasp of economics.

    Posted by David Navarre | November 22, 2011, 4:32 pm
    • hallo david

      I am not claiming an economic isolationism, though it has worked for the west and others for many years (my knowledge of course on that is old, of during undergraduate years and while working in ‘political, economic and military’ analysis. what i am stating is ‘responsible economics’, putting the health and wellbeing of the nation first before corporate profit.

      Posted by s.s.salem: Independent specialist | November 22, 2011, 5:30 pm
      • Actually, you are. “operate all their functions and activities locally, that within the country, and not outsourced.” That means no international corporations would be allowed to exist, since in every country, they would be prohibited from having any functions performed outside of that country.

        Posted by David Navarre | November 22, 2011, 5:56 pm
      • oh, I see where the misunderstanding arises from. What I meant with that statement was simply, manufacturing and making, human resourcing, administrative, accounting, operations, management, factories and key assets, customer services and sales, all to be within the borders, not out sourced to India or third countries for cheaper labour, though, products made here, they can still be traded and sold overseas.

        I was simply referring to, ‘Made In USA’, made in USA, not Vietnam or Laos or whatever. Bringing businesses and jobs back home.

        Posted by s.s.salem: Independent specialist | November 22, 2011, 7:05 pm
      • So, if I have a company with operations in the US, Canada, France, India and New Zealand, in which country must all my operations occur? Can I have HR operated from Canada, research in the US, marketing in New Zealand, and manufacturing occurring in France and India? Or do I have to duplicate each operations in each country? If I can make my operations more efficient and, thus, prices lower to the consumer, why should I be forced to do things inefficiently, raising my costs and my price to consumers?

        Why should the health and well-being of only one country be more important than the health and well-being of any other country? Why should the health and the well-being of one particular country matter to a company?

        Why do you want to destroy the economy of India, Laos or Vietnam to benefit Western countries?

        Posted by David Navarre | November 22, 2011, 7:34 pm
      • First there is the myth of efficiency through diversification, not a fact!

        Secondly, Why cant all functions be conducted within one borders? The only real answer is over-profit drive (which in itself benefits not the third countries or the employees, but the executives, more recent the debate is on the ”over-expanding and out of control” executives pays over 200 times the lowest averagely paid worker).

        Thirdly, No need to duplicate, but rather one can form ‘strategic alliances’ with local companies (now this is profiting local economies, industries, workforces, entrepreneurship and really make something out of foreign investment), and transfer end products and/or knowledge and training.

        Fourthly, It will not raise costs or prices, another myth, but can be more efficient and more rewarding, I will try and find you an article from the economist, on how a small Brazilian town experimented with exactly what I am talking about at the present, and have seen a boom in businesses and local economic growth–people tend to be loyal to the local ventures rather than big brands.

        Fifth, it is not about the health of one country being more better, after all the western companies rely heavily and critically on the raw materials and resources from the others, meaning, the open trading system will still apply, all that will happen is forcing the companies to come back and operate from within home-bases (in order to boost economies; recreate jobs; training; support vocational programs; youth employment transeferable skills, and so forth, all the benefits one can reap from having a successful MNC operating within own borders).

        Finally, as I have already reiterated I do not wish to see any countries economies destroyed, but rather trying to think out of box, and rather, back to old mercantile school of thoughts that has been serving many countries well for years.

        Oh….I know economics, pretty well!!!! ha. (as a former student, practitioner and small businessperson).

        Posted by s.s.salem: Independent specialist | November 22, 2011, 8:07 pm
  2. I don’t think you understand economics or how to run a company, let alone a multi-national corporation.

    In regards to efficiency, if I operate 10 offices (anywhere in the world), and if I need 80% of a full-time employee in each office to handle payroll, I am going to save money if I have 8 people doing the work instead of having 10 people. It may be most efficient to have those 8 people sit next to each other in the same office instead of in 8 different offices. As the owner of a company, why should I be forced to put one in every office if I don’t need one? Why should some national government make such a decision for me? If all ten of my offices are in the US, will I be forced to do that, or is it only if one of them is located in another country?

    What if I think it’s better to have all of my researchers in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania instead of putting 2 of them in each of my other 9 offices? What if there is some synergy to be obtained by co-locating these people? Would I be prohibited if one of my offices was in Mexico? Or Canada? Or France?

    The savings need not benefit the executives – it’s simply easier for you to demonize those savings if we say they all go to some fat-cat CEO. What if my company does pass along those profits either to employees in profit-sharing or to the mom-and-pop investors who gave me my start-up capital? Small companies and “fair” companies in your model are going to be subject to these rules as well.

    If a company forms a “strategic alliance” to have someone else do the work, it forces both the company contracting out the work and the one performing the work to hire someone to coordinate between the two companies. These two people would be unnecessary (and the efforts of the legal team in setting up the contract would also be unnecessary) if the company were allowed to do the work itself. Additionally, as anyone who has done business with the Chinese knows, once you transfer knowledge, you can’t transfer it back.

    Remember, we aren’t just talking about little ventures in small Brazilian towns, we’re talking about every company, everywhere in the world. If you can no longer put your business operations where is makes the most sense to the company, you’ll be choosing locations based on nationalist bias, not on efficiency.

    Unfortunately, if I operated a call center in India and your proposal insists that I have to operate in the US, then all of those Indians in that call center are suddenly out of work. I’m not creating jobs, I’m just moving them. So, you are choosing between Western economies and the rest. Remember, an unemployed Indian call center employee can’t afford to buy an iPhone, a car from Tata or dinner at a local restaurant.

    In your proposal, a French company would be forced to conduct all of its operations ONLY in France. Your proposal is “chauvinistic” in the classic sense. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauvinism

    Each country then becomes an island. The next step is for each country to ensure the success of its own companies and a temptation to improve the sales of national companies through either tariffs or prohibitions on imports. Trade wars never end well.

    Posted by David Navarre | November 22, 2011, 9:29 pm
    • I see the argument, and I re-affirms the argument in clarity, what I said, and have been saying is ‘quotas’ on jobs creation. meaning I am not focusing on the need to open thousands branches across the world, but I am saying, if you are and Indian, or western MNC, first priority should be, and must be, between 70-80 per cent own nationals employment (creating jobs for the country), and the rest for the local countries workforce.

      Secondly, your argument of inability to buy iphone or tata, or dinner, is the causes of chauvinism in the west, implying without ‘western’ investments and economic injections, these countries will be ‘stagnating’, that is absolute baloney, for example, the data at the present (and BBC Radio 4 had a series on this), shows more ‘immigrants’ from sub-continent of Asia, are going back home; (a) to open own businesses at home (because of lack of ‘equal opportunities’ in Europe, not US, of course, so need to rebuttal; (b) to find new local jobs created by Indians and local entrepreneurs)–so saying that these ’emerging countries’ need western companies to operate within is rather overstretching the argument.

      I am not calling for ”island economies”, defeating the wisdom of free trade, and global interdependencies, not at all, far from it, I am calling for ‘corporate responsibilities’ based on national duty and responsibilities; it is all about creating jobs, first, for home countries, and bringing back the HQ home to pay their fair share of national taxes, not some ‘tax heavens’.

      These are my argument, I am not trying to defeat natural order of creativity and innovation, growth and excellence, productivity and mutual assistance, I am calling for ‘social responsibility’ from companies, first home, then others.

      Posted by s.s.salem: Independent specialist | November 23, 2011, 10:29 am
      • The problem for the Indian in the call center who loses his job because the company has to meet your requirements (even only 70-80% of jobs in the home country instead of 100%) is that he has no job that instant. If several thousand jobs for various companies are lost the same day, there is immediate damage to the economy which will inhibit the creation of jobs to replace those. For example, if Tata can no longer have a prospect of selling cars to those several thousand terminated call center employees and the local restaurant can no longer serve dinner to those several thousand terminated call center employees, each of those businesses hires fewer employees or terminates some that they no longer need. Thus, moving those jobs from India to the US hurts the Indian economy. It’s not about whether they are currently able to create jobs, but, rather, how severely your proposal would instantly reduce jobs.

        The reason your proposal is chauvinistic is that in each country, you are insisting that the companies there place the needs of that country above every other country in which they do business. Why should a company be “responsible” to only one country? Why should Ford be more concerned about the US than India? What is it that you have against India, Laos and Vietnam?

        Referring to your nationalist proposal as “social responsibility” is cloaking an anti-third-world proposal in propagandistic terms.

        I find it interesting that you answer none of the specific questions about how your proposal ought to affect businesses and that you have already scaled it back from 100%.

        Posted by David Navarre | November 23, 2011, 8:38 pm
      • Well let see.

        First, the India, Laos, Vietnam was just models of analogy. I have nothing against any of these countries or any third-world states.

        Secondly, again your focus is on over-exaggeration, the losses of jobs affecting severely their lives (there has been over 2 millions in UK who have lost their jobs since 2008, and still survive). Again over-emphasising the consumerism aspects of non-existence consumer behaviour in India, based on your statements, it seems you are applying the American or western models of consumerism on India (which most of who do not share such ”excesses in spending”; restaurants, find me a data of Indians and restaurants (they only have small cafes for pipe-smoking, game-playing, news listening, debates and chats–social gathering, so I do not know where your restaurant arguments come from, only logic is, based on erroneous generalisation based on observed trend of Indian Curries restaurants in west; and on tata, the car sector is small part of the company, which is Indian owned, and is generally within heavy industry of steel and others, and also, these can be sold to other Asian states, as these are already done, and they are affordable to many in India itself, and also, there more effective ways of transport for most, again not a consumer society, do not generalise)

        Thirdly, what have I left untouched, oh yes, ‘corporate social responsibility’, see today Guardian newspaper, they have a piece on Virgin boss defending ‘his venture’, as his own efforts, but the truth of the matter, most of the successful western corporations get extraordinary support and benefits from their local governments (that from us the tax-payers); hence, the need to pay back to societies, is not about shareholders, it is about stakeholders, from governments, public, customers, the ‘little’ shareholders and so forth. This is the logic and demand for a forced social responsibilities of corporations.

        Well, I hope I have answered all your enquiries back.

        Posted by s.s.salem: Independent specialist | November 24, 2011, 9:59 am
  3. Did you learn about India from Rudyard Kipling? “Amount of money spent by Indian on foods outside home has been assessed to have more than doubled over the last ten years to nearly $5Billion a year.” http://www.streetdirectory.com/food_editorials/cuisines/asian_food/growth_in_indian_food_industry.html, sourced from http://www.rncos.com/Report/IM068.htm

    The roads in India are swarmed with personal cars. Indians do buy personal vehicles, despite your image of them as non-materialistic. It doesn’t matter how much of Tata’s revenue comes from auto sales. The fact that they would sell fewer cars is what’s important. Every dollar you steal from their economy by moving the jobs out of India is a dollar that is not spent in their economy.

    Regardless of what that terminated call center employee won’t be spending their money on, the fact remains that if they are unemployed, they have no money to spend on anything, whether it is an iPhone, a car from Tata, a meal at a restaurant or whatever you have them spending it on currently. The average Indian might not buy any of those things, but the ones whose jobs you would be taking away in order to provide jobs in the UK or US would have spent their money that way.

    Tata itself represents a significant problem for your proposal. They have operations in India, the UK, Korea and many other countries. Which ones are you going to force them to move and into which country to meet your 70-80% quota?

    If the job losses in India, Laos or Vietnam wouldn’t significantly effect those economies, then they certainly won’t have a significant effect in the Western economies you’re insisting they owe the jobs to. If the impact is insiginificant, why bother with this proposal in the first place?

    Posted by David Navarre | November 24, 2011, 7:20 pm
  4. I re-read your post and it is even more draconian than I remembered.

    Your last point, “(c) those who accept will be supported, and however, will face strict executive pays watchdogs and scrutiny.” So, in your model, government will enforce strict guidelines on executive pay and conduct scrutiny. Not sure whether they are only scrutinizing executive pay, but even that is ominous. If the government determines who is paid too much, we are likely to have an excessive number of government employees whose only job is checking how much executives are paid (that is, producing nothing except reports on executive pay or testimony in court on executive pay). It is also likely that other methods of compensating executives would be invented that would be more opaque to the government and to shareholders. This leaves out the likelihood of bribery or “campaign contribution” style bribery.

    When I look at “(a) operate all their functions and activities locally, that within the country, and not outsourced.” and realize that according to “(b) those who refuse, will be ‘sanctioned’; meaning, they will be banned from operating any businesses within the borders, or owning any businesses or assets of any kind. In short, they will be cut of completely from having anything to do with the state.” I realize you are stating that any business which does not comply will be shut down. So, if half of my employees are in Mexico, I either close those factories or I face being shut down completely. Sorry, but your plan sounds even more crazy when revisited.

    Let’s go back to looking at Tata. Tata has operations in multiple countries. Do they have to split the company into different companies for each country (avoiding your sanctions and removing any benefit you’d expected) or do they need to move all those jobs into one country? Which country?

    Posted by David Navarre | November 28, 2011, 10:41 pm
    • In the end it really does not matter, as the myths of Market-Rule, economics and corporate interdependencies as critical to global affairs or even welfare is pure rubbish, but only ‘unit’ to suffer is— the home-state; as it has been shown throughout the so-called age of ‘capital’.

      Posted by s.s.salem: Independent specialist | November 29, 2011, 10:41 am
      • Really? You think that economics is a myth? Or is it that the idea the economics has a role in global affairs is a myth? You honestly think that having multi-national corporations, such as Tata, harms the home-state more than it helps? I heartily recommend that you go back and read Marx. He bases his entire analysis on economic determinism – that is, the political system is determined by the economic system. While I think he’s wrong about the workability and inevitability of socialism and communism, I think he’s spot on in regards to economics shaping political systems.

        I still have no idea why you feel that any particular state is more deserving of the profits that a company generates than any other state.

        So, I ask again, what exactly would Tata be required to do in your proposed system? If you don’t like examining Tata, then how about Ford Motor Company? It also has operations around the world. What is Ford supposed to do to avoid the sanctions and being “banned from operating any businesses within the borders, or owning any businesses or assets of any kind”?

        Posted by David Navarre | November 29, 2011, 2:52 pm
      • excellent enquiries, and examples in annotations. Let see;

        1. the Tata-Ford, both have their ‘functions’, or main bases at home-countries, India-US, and both higher greater numbers of their employees from within these states, even for international ‘strategic units’, or divisions or whatever one might wish and want to call it.

        The others, majority of the big corporations from the western countries, about 75-80 per cent have their main offices and functional services abroad, tax-haven states, of Jersey, Carribean, Switzerland etc, and they hire ‘cheaper labour’ from ‘third countries’ not out of the good of ‘ethical economics’, of sharing and empowering in wealth and the likes, but rather in the simple mathematics of ‘profits’ and great dividends returns.

        2. Marx, I do not read the guy, I think he over-analysed the role of ‘production’, and by the way, his argument is not based on economics, but historical aspects of ‘master-slave’ of who owns the ‘capital’ and who works for it?

        I hope I have helped.

        Posted by s.s.salem: Independent specialist | November 29, 2011, 4:26 pm
      • I suggest you check page 42 of Ford’s 3rd Quarter Earnings report (http://corporate.ford.com/doc/ir_20111026a_2011_3q_financial_results.pdf) and notice that more than half of Ford’s employees work outside North America.

        Tata Motors has about 63% of it’s employees in India, 37% abroad. Tata Chemical is similar with about a third of it’s employees abroad. Are those treated as separate companies or as part of the Tata Group?

        Posted by David Navarre | November 29, 2011, 5:43 pm
      • First before going far in, I question all data and statistics (I am a criticalist); for example, NIE might say homegrown terrorism is on the rise and shows 43 arrests in 2010, for most they will take it and accept it, I am not those. I question the number 43, how many were first arrested under anti-terror bill, and at what stage of their plots, and the role of security services in entraping or even architecting ‘fake plots’, and what were the charges for each, as one might found some were on immigration issues, others ‘honour killing’ etc, and finally, how many of those were really ‘homegrown inspired and wannabe terrorists’? (the answer I found out when conducting such a review was 1. was arrested and charged with truly ‘terror intentions’).

        Now that part done and said, let see what you have.

        I believe the problem or our crisis, rather, is based on initial mis-reading and misunderstanding. You keep saying abroad, I did not say they should not operate or conduct their businesses abroad, but rather, here is the important stuff, they can choose (a) to operate abroad with majority of staff from home countries as employees, or (b) they can choose to operate at home with staff from home, or legal migrants. It is all based on how much employment opportunities these companies create for the home-state. I really do not care how many sub-companies they have across the world, as long as they operate in the ‘logic of colonialism’, home-staffs 7-1 or to be moderate, 6-1 to the rests, non-home countries staff members. It is all on job creation, not profit, not growth, not sustainability, not creativity or whatever else one might bring up. The important thing for me, and for most state, is that these businesses create jobs for the country and economy.

        Posted by s.s.salem: Independent specialist | November 29, 2011, 7:22 pm
      • Oh, that’s right. I forgot that you don’t like facts and that anyone using facts is deluding themselves. So, when Ford says that more than half of their employees are employed abroad, they might be lying, so we should ignore them. If we ignore all facts, it’s only a theoretical exercise. That doesn’t sound like what you contend you do in your consulting.

        You suggest that they “(a) to operate abroad with majority of staff from home countries as employees, or (b) they can choose to operate at home with staff from home, or legal migrants.”

        So, let’s suppose that there exists a company that currently employs too many locals in it, then they have to terminate the local employees and either move the jobs back “home” or move employees from “home” to the jobs. In either case, you’re sacrificing local employees for “home” employees. That is, you’re negatively affecting the local country’s economy in favor of the home country’s economy. Why are you punishing them in times of economic hardship?

        Also, regardless of whether it is one job or a million jobs, it will cost the company money to either move the job or move the person. They wouldn’t have this cost if they could keep things as they are. Why, in tough economic times, due you want to raise costs for companies?

        Certainly if a company is currently hiring unskilled labor in a less expensive location, they aren’t going to ship replacement employees from the home country. So, they have to move the jobs back “home”, build a new building for those employees to work in and hire new employees. All of that costs money as well, though not as much as moving the unskilled laborers to the existing site. If you raise the costs for the company, any sensible businessman is going to consider raising prices to offset those costs. Why, in tough economic times, do you want to raise prices?

        Posted by David Navarre | November 29, 2011, 8:24 pm
      • Great points as usual, you are even starting to making me questioning my own self, trust me, YOU ARE THE FIRST TO HAVE COME SUCH CLOSE.haha.

        Anyway, first I don not hate data and figures, I say ”question these critically”, if you have a statistics in front of you, find the source, the influence of the source, the way collected, by who for who and at what cost, and interests, and end-results, and so forth, many questions (again, hence, criticalists). I do not consult my clients until I see every possible answers & questions have been settled first (intel community they refer to the method as ACH–analysis of competing hypothesis).

        Anyway, you know why the west are in the shit at the present, because we do not make anymore (maufacture), two, we do not work anymore (outsource), three, we own too much worthless, and temporal value-based ‘commodities’, that in short period these lose their competitive advantages.

        What I am calling for is a rethink in over-liberalisation, ‘free-markets’, the same that brought down reaganomics and thatcher-nomics, and today, if one want to peek into the present from past, examine this period of 80s and you will get everything there.

        It is times for Keynes economics, of ‘hybrid-approach’, a mix of free-economics and managed-economics. that is my position.

        Posted by s.s.salem: Independent specialist | November 29, 2011, 8:44 pm
  5. Managed-economics? Really? Would you agree with the following statement? “I want everyone to keep the property he has acquired for himself according to the principle: benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual. But the state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people.”

    I’ve never read Keynes, so am learning as I research for this discussion. It appears from what I’m seeing that Reaganomics and Keynesian economics are opposing theories. My impression was that Reaganomics replaced the 1970s Keynesian model for the role of government in the US economy and that the US economy expanded under Reagan. If this is the case, it would seem to be an example of when excessive control of the economy was replaced by limited control and the economy improved. Am I wrong about what happened?

    Am I correct in thinking you want more control of companies by governments and less by corporate leaders? Why is that a good thing?

    Posted by David Navarre | November 29, 2011, 10:10 pm
    • Reaganomics is the epitome of ‘free market’, where liberal theories of economics went to extreme, and failed dismally in the nineties, but was revived, the practises not theory, under the Bush Jnr, and it was these new revived practises that contributed to the economic crises we are all facing now.

      Again, you are over-interpreting, I have not stated the need to bestowed upon the state the ‘rights of private properties’, but what I am merely stating, from a strategist point of view, the state as a responsible party for the wellbeing of the nation, and formulator of its ‘national strategy’ (which means political, soci, econ etc) needs to regain control of the economics, especially in impacting the local economies, this is essentially what Keynesian calls for, responsible ‘flexible’ management of economics, with corporate leaders, hence, you have special presidents and parliaments ‘conferences and sessions’ with business leaders.

      I hope you continue to read the Keynesian economics, there are good food for thoughts there.

      Posted by s.s.salem: Independent specialist | November 30, 2011, 6:48 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: