M D Nalapat, China Daily 03/13/2013 page10
Each human being is different from any other , having a mix of strengths and weaknesses that are unique . In the same way , societies differ from each other , having evolved out of different historical circumstances .
For example , in the 19th century , the British Empire was a source of pride in the United Kingdom , being a small island that took control of more than half the planet and converted its resources to its advantage . India 's view on the same empire is different , for it saw its share in the global economy fall from 24 percent to less than 1 percent from 1820, when the British began to establish themselves in India , to 1947, the year they left .Similarly , the Opium Wars were a source of immense profit for UK merchants , helping huge conglomerates dominate business in Asia and elsewhere . However , for the Chinese people ,the Opium Wars were a source of immense pain and the cause of social disintegration that was only reversed in 1949, when the Communist Party of China founded New China .The reality is that the European experience of colonialism has almost always been a zero-sum game , in which the other side lost heavily in order to ensure gains for the colonizing power .Which is why it is not reasonable for the West to demand that the rest of the world accept its version of history and economic and political doctrines . The circumstances in each non-Western country are very different from those in the West , which is why imposing a Western model would result in a less than optimal outcome .If China has made such great progress , especially since the 1980s, it is because the CPC rejected copying Western commercial institutions , creating instead a model that had a natural fit with Chinese experience and needs . Strangely , while admitting that the Chinese economic model has worked in China , where a purely Western version may have failed , some Western powers constantly criticize China for not adopting a fully Western model of democracy .Western powers ensured their dominance in the two previous centuries by control of territory .These days , they seek the same outcome by seeking to make other societies believe that following the advice given by them is the best course .In South America in the 1970s, much misery was caused precisely because governments there strictly followed the orders of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund , both of which were , and still are , dominated by the West , with only a United States or an European Union national heading these so-called international organizations .Indeed , to the West , international means the West . The so-called international relations programs taught in the West , which are unfortunately so popular with affluent students in China and India , teach subjects solely through the prism of Western interests . Those passing out of such programs subconsciously begin to act and think in ways that promote Western interests , rather than that of their own countries . This is hardly surprising .When the West refers to the international community , it refers only to itself . The views of people in China , India and other large non-Western countries are regarded as not having any worth . In the same way , "international media " refers only to the Western media and to their West-centric viewpoint , ignoring the views of the rest of the world .Even globalization is taken to mean easier access to Western products , services and people in other markets rather than a genuinely international free flow across borders . The European Union in particular has made entry into its own markets as difficult as possible for companies based in Asia , while constantly putting pressure on this continent to open up markets to the EU . Rather than a Western zero - sum approach , what the world needs is an Asian win-win approach , which is why the rest of the world needs to avoid falling into the trap of judging their own interests solely in the terms set for them by the West . Each country has the right to its own perspective and the right to craft its own path to progress .India provides an example of a country whose leadership uncritically accepted Western systems when more local solutions were required . Although a democracy , the legal and administrative system in India is largely what it was during British rule . The Indian Penal Code and the Indian Police Act , for example , have not changed for more than a century . Democracy is good for making decisions taking different groups ' interests into consideration , but India has developed at a slow pace . In 1949, the Indian economy was twice as big as China 's . Today , it is less than a third the size .It costs millions of dollars to fight a parliamentary election in India and in the US , thereby ensuring that only those with access to money will be elected , the poor are effectively excluded .While Western-style democracy may suit Western countries , other countries need to ensure that systems are created that meet local needs . A one-size-fits-all approach makes no sense ,except for the West , because if other countries slavishly follow the Western model they will be handicapped from competing with the West .During the 1997 financial crisis in Asia , which was caused by Western currency speculators ,India and China both escaped as both refused to adopt the measures that Western governments were urging them to do . In contrast , countries such as Thailand , which faithfully implemented Western prescriptions , suffered badly . Western prescriptions are good - but only for the West .Non-Western countries should take care to ensure that their national policies do not get framed in a way that helps outside powers at the expense of their national interests .Democracy implies diversity , not the total adherence to the concepts and models that Western countries promote as universal , but which are really to their advantage . Each country has not only the right but the duty to ensure that diversity is protected and that models suited to their own people and their own history get adopted .Confidence in one 's own people is essential to make the sort of immense progress that China has achieved over the past three decades . Such confidence cannot be transplanted from the outside . It has to develop from within a country and its unique people .
Wednesday, 13 March 2013
Monday, 11 March 2013
Budget spares Super Rich (Sunday Guardian)
 |
ROOTS OF POWER
|
 | 
alaniappan Chidambaram believes officialdom in India to be 100% honest, which is why he has loaded the Income-Tax Department with powers that have made a mockery of the 1991-96 reforms allegedly midwifed by Manmohan Singh. In his latest budget, the Union Finance Minister has granted his men still more authority to take away the liberty and the property of those whom they choose for such treatment. "The taxman is watching," claimed the Finance Minister, even as the Income-Tax Department gladdened the hearts of newspaper proprietors across India by commissioning advertisements touting the superb services that the money collected from taxpayers was providing for them. Aaykar Bhavan is apparently located in a different country, for in India, the roads are awful, the piped water unsafe, and state schools and health facilities behind the times even for the 19th century.
If Chidambaram's earlier tax on withdrawals over Rs 10,000 was a joke passed off as serious policy, then clearly he has not lost his sense of humour, coming up with a 10% surcharge on annual income above Rs 1 cr, "to make super-rich pay a higher share" of the total tax pickings. It is a debatable point whether a yearly income of Rs 1 cr qualifies an individual to be labelled as "super rich", except perhaps in some corner of the Andaman Islands. What is more pertinent is that the Finance Minister has in fact spared the super rich entirely while levying this surcharge. The reason is that the bulk of the moneys got by the affluent come from dividends and capital gains, neither of which gets taxed. According to tax rules, just 12 months qualify as "long-term", thereby ensuring exemption from capital gains tax. Thus an individual holding shares for 12 months and a day can sell all of them at a huge profit, and in the process pay zero income-tax. The same exemption applies to dividend income. On paper, this concession is meant for the "retail" investor, but the reality is that the concession (of zero tax on dividend income) benefits almost entirely the actual super rich of the land.
Chidambaram may be forgiven for not knowing that the Super Rich get most of their takings via the dividend and capital gains route. After all, each day so many files reach his table that he scarcely has the time to think. And what of our politicians and their cohort of obliging officials? The bulk of them are "poor farmers", holding vast tracts of agricultural land on which again they pay zero tax, or hold their financial assets in hard cash, thereby once again avoiding income-tax. It is only the salary man, who will have to pick up the tab for Chidambaram's populist gesture, not the Super Rich. Indeed, if the Finance Minister was to really force those of sufficient means contribute to national development, all he has to do is to get every official and politician to contribute a year's bribe to the exchequer. The sum deposited ought to be more than enough to more than halve the fiscal deficit. The more powers that are given to such a venal force, the greater their pickings. Is it that the Finance Minister is unaware of this fact, or is it that he is too much a part of the system to deny himself the pleasure of adding to black money in the country by empowering those to whom the taking of a bribe is second nature?
And finally, what about those favourites of Manmohan Singh, the FIIs? These have been given a licence to speculate at will in India, boost commodity prices and distort trades, and thereafter take back billions of dollars each year in the form of their profits, cloaked under different heads. While in other countries, such entities pay billion-dollar fines for their misdemeanours, in India they are given unlimited access to both North and South Blocks as well as Mint Road. Were this loophole of zero tax on FII outflows to get plugged, it would have an immediate and beneficial impact on the Current Account Deficit. But for that, the Finance Minister will need to go after the real Fat Cats, and not play his usual jokes on public opinion.
|
http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/budget-spares-super-rich
Saturday, 9 March 2013
Send William Hague to Golan (PO)
M D Nalapat
Friday, March 08, 2013 - From the first weeks of the NATO-GCC campaign in 2011 to overthrow Muammar Kaddafy,this columnist warned that success would lead to an intensification of terror threats in Europe,principally France. While Mali has shown the correctness of this forecast, it needs to be remembered that the more potent threat will come from within France,from the activation of sleeper cells within that country. The NATO-facilitated victory of Wahabbi-Salafist groups in Libya has energized ideological cousins across North Africa,almost all of whom regard France as their primary European target.
Now that Libya has - in effect - become a congeries of principalities, each controlled by armed gangs, cash and other forms of assistance have begun flowing from that country to cells across the region, preparing for the activation of sleeper cells within France itself at a suitable point in time. Just as errors in US policy towards Afghanistan led to 9/11, so too will Nicholas Sarkozy’s folly in North Africa lead to a similar result in France. During the conflict with Kaddafy’s forces,it was surreal to watch US,French and other MATO Special Forces train and assist the Wahabbi-Salafist fighters on the ground in their offensives. During none of these operations does there seem to have been the most cursory realization that these regional elements are implacably opposed to the West and to any sort of civilisation that they see as having been influenced by Europe and its cultural offshoots
While Tony Blair distinguished himself for being a poodle of the US,the present Prime Minister of the UK,David Cameron,seems to have less lofty ambitions,being satisfied to trot along besides France in the Libyan operation. Those who assumed NATO’s military planners to be rational were convinced that events in Benghazi - which took away the life of a US diplomat by the same elements whom he had earlier helped to weaponize - would reduce the chances of a fresh misadventure,this time in Syria. Unfortunately,UK Foreign Secretary William Hague is making it explicit that commonsense or learning from past errors is not a desired virtue in the Cameron team. Hague would like weapons to be given by NATO to the armed fighters active in Syria,the “Good Boys”, so that they can take on the “Bad Boys” ie the Assad regime.
While both Ankara as well as Doha seek regime change in Damascus,much of that can be explained by the desire of both capitals to ensure the replacement of a (Shia) Alwaite dynasty with rulers who are Wahabbi. It has been claimed that President Recip Erdogan has taken Turkey back to the Ottoman period.While he has cetainly turned his back on Kemalist social doctrine,the Turkey being fashioned by Erdogan has little in common with the relaxed ethos of the Ottoman period. Instead,what is being created is a Wahabbi Lite state,which brings Turkey closer to Saudi Arabia and Qatar in the philosophy and theology which it follows. It is this adherence to Wahabbism,albeit in a camouflaged way,that has impelled Erdogan to risk the stability of his country in a effort to oust the Assad family from power in Damascus,and to ensure that they meet the same fate as Kaddafy did.
The “Syrian Government in Exile” represents only its paymasters in Qatar,Saudi Arabia and other GCC capitals. Those manning its imaginary branches have zero inluence within the fighters taking on regime elements in Syria. Indeed,these fighters have contempt for the exiles and others raising cash in their name. It takes a remarkably obtuse individual to fail to recognize that all - repeat all - the fighting in Syria is now being carried out by groups indistinguishable from those that attacked the US consulate in Benghazi some months back, and that to separate them into “moderate” and “extremist” factions is to indulge in fantasy. The weapons that William Hague is so insistent be supplied to the “freedom fighters” in Syria will get turned against NATO targets as soon as the Assad regime falls,if it does. The reality is that the entirety of the minority communities in Syria ( Druze,Christian and Shia) back the Assad regime against the Salafist-Wahabbi groups targetting the regime, as do the bulk of the country’s Sunni population,few of whom are eager to see Libya repeated in Libya. Had NATO not pulled out all except clandestine operators from Syria,this fact would have been evident to the alliance.
The problem with relying on clandestine channels is that these usually have an agenda,and send only that information up the chain which supports their cause,distorting and concealing inconvenient facts. The excessive reliance by NATO on clandestine channels (including the secret services of regional allies) has helped to create a skewed picture of the ground reality in Libya,thereby giving an opportunity for Friends of the GCC such as William Hague to promote the cause of this West Asian alliance in the guise of boosting British interests. In actuality,a “liberated” Syria will be for the UK what “free” Libya is for France,a security threat. Should the Assad regime fall - and this is unlikely,unless NATO boosts its support to Libyan levels - it is the UK that will be in the sights of the fighters active there,many of whom indeed are citizens of that monarchy,albeit of South Asian origin.
The kidnapping of nearly two dozen UN peacekeepers in the Golan Heights by Hague’s allies has given a chance to the Foreign Secretary to show his mettle. Now that he has emerged as a champion of the very groups that have carried out this kidnapping,t is incumbent on the part of Hague to go at once to the Golan and negotiate the safe release of the peacekeepers. Of course,he may end up the way that US diplomat in Benghazi did,who so faithfully implemented the Susan Rice-Hillary Clinton NGO model of regime change in Libya. However,despite such a risk,if William Hague truly believes the nonsense that he is spouting,it is time that he packed up and left for the Golan Heights.
Sunday, 3 March 2013
It’s time for a Pope from outside Europe (Sunday Times)
|
 | 
Pope Benedict XVI embraces Cardinal Angelo Sodano as he leaves the Vatican on Thursday for the papal summer residence at Castel Gandolfo in Italy. REUTERS
he Roman Catholic Church has several achievements to its credit, not the least being the way in which it has populated the globe with schools, colleges and hospitals. This columnist has been among the many to have benefitted from such philanthropy. The Jesuits, although not wildly popular with several segments of the church, shepherded hundreds of young students in Bombay's Campion School, ensuring an education that combined games and fun with study. To this day, memories arise of Brother Franco, always jovial as he escorted his young charges in the school bus, or the regal Father E.J. More, whose numerous attempts to appear the disciplinarian would fall to pieces when he shared a smile and a joke with a parent. To those educated by its institutions or cured of illnesses by the same, the Catholic Church has always been a benign and welcome presence within the India mosaic. However, one facet of the church constantly pushes itself into the foreground of consciousness, and this is its near-total identification with a single continent, Europe.
It would seem that good as well as bad people are distributed across the globe. While the bad may be, even a brief acquaintance with the Litany of Saints reveals that almost all the noble and virtuous human beings celebrated within its chants are European, while almost all the few that are not are of European ancestry. It would seem that this small but significant continent, which has played such a decisive role in world affairs at least for the past four centuries, has something in its atmosphere or perhaps in its drinking water sources which impel human beings to sainthood in a way absent from Asia, Africa or South America. Still, it seems a trifle odd that almost all those who have been canonised by the Catholic Church hail from the very continent which it has made home. While the Patriarchate of Antioch is the oldest established church in Christendom, this institution has for more than a millennium enjoyed only a fraction of the awe and acceptance of the Roman Catholic Church. These days, thanks to NATO-backed "freedom fighters," who look askance at any other than fellow Salafis, Christians in Damascus (the home of the Patriarchate) are looking at an uncertain future, much as their co-religionists are in Egypt.
While Europe enjoys a near monopoly in the creation of saints, it has thus far had a 100% share in the selection of Popes. From its inception, the Papacy has been a European — indeed, a largely Italian — institution, albeit one which takes care of the faithful throughout the globe. Thus far there has not been a Pope from outside Europe, although the last time around, there were suggestions that a Cardinal from Argentina or another from Canada (both of good, solid European stock) may get selected. As it turned out, the honour went to Cardinal Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict. Once again, princes of the Church from the underdeveloped world, such as the scholastic and very able Cardinal Ivan Dias from Mumbai, receded into the background. However, now that Pope Benedict has done the unthinkable and resigned (in a manner that both Atal Behari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh declined to do, despite their obvious physical infirmities), is it possible that the next Pope may not only not be European, but not even of European stock? Indeed, among the names are Cardinals from Africa, a continent which before long will establish the same scorching pace as Asia is revealing in this era.
The very word "Catholic" implies a universality that the highest rungs of the Church have thus far not demonstrated. Should history get made and a Prince of the Church from Nigeria or India or the Philippines get anointed as the successor to the wise Benedict, the latter has made it clear that he will be around to provide counsel, that too within walking distance of the new Pontiff. Indeed, the creation of the institution of Pope Emeritus seems tailor-made for providing precisely the counsel and direction that a former Pope steeped in the traditional culture of the Church could impart to a successor from afar. Could this have been the design of Pope Benedict when he announced his retirement? If so, it is a masterstroke worthy of the majestic institution that he has been a part of since his youth.
|
http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/its-time-for-a-pope-from-outside-europe
Friday, 1 March 2013
Yahoo! gets a “yahoo” of a CEO (PO)
M D Nalapat
Friday, March 01, 2013 - It was not accidental that almost all the world’s internet-based giants were set up in the US. The country has for long had a liberal ethos. This is despite decades of what may be termed “Nixonism-Reaganism” ie a trigger-happy penal system which regards incarceration as the first - and best - option even for petty offences and a mindset within the policymaking class that equates wealth with quality. The consequence of Nixonism has been a steep rise in the prison population of the US, which for long has been greater even than that of China or the USSR in its Brezhnevite period of stasis, with several states imposing mandatory prison terms, several enactments of which are an affront to human rights which - naturally - the myriad “human rights” organisations obsessively focussing on the underdeveloped world ignore.
During the 1980s,the kultur of Reaganism spread across the world, being embraced by both Margaret Thatcher in the UK as well as by Deng Xiaoping and his successor Jiang Zemin in China. This philosophy of financial elitism has been directly responsible for the waves of speculative trading that have devastated commodity markets and reduced hundreds of millions of the vulnerable to poverty. More than any desire for that much-misused concept, “democracy”, it was the high price of bread and other staples of existence that brought hundreds of thousands of Egyptians to Tahrir Square. President Mohammad Morsi needs to thank the billionaire speculators of London, New York, Chicago and Frankfurt for his good fortune in rising from irrelevance to great power, for it is the depredations of such loathsome elements which caused the conditions for the unrest which led to the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak. A by-product of their activities has been a sharp fall in the security of the State of Israel, which for more than three decades had the loyal ( to the dictates of Washington) former military officer Mubarak at the helm of its most important neighbour
However, the dark side of the Internet Startup boom in the US has been the excoriation of those who sought to ensure that the World Wide Web remained a free ( or at the least, a low cost) resource for the globe. Some such idealists have even been driven to suicide because of persecution by authorities eager to protect the monopolies of those who seek only to squueze as much personal wealth as possible through the internet. Bill Gates of Microsoft and Steve Jobs of Apple became billionaires. Both spent huge amounts of money on litigation designed to prevent competitors from placing lower-cost substitutes into markets that Apple and Microsoft saw as their own.
Such buttressing of monopolistic power through the use of the legal system has been facilitated by the tendency of judges in that country to favour their own citizens in lawsuits involving foreigners, especially if the aliens come from countries other than “the Pale of Civilisation”. In the case of Apple, it has filed several lawsuits against Samsung and got several judgments in its favour in US courts, the collective impact of which is to prevent the Korean company from challenging the market dominanance of the US corporate. Now it has to contend with a new threat, that of Huawei, which too has climbed up the technology ladder and created smartphones that are the rival of its competitors. Whether it be smartphones or pharmaceuticals, the self-proclaimed backers of “free trade” within the NATO bloc find their emotions curdling as soon as a competitor arrives at their doorstep. Globalisation is good, but only if it is one way: to help 5% of the globe continue to exercise domination over the remaining 95%.
Because Microsoft, Apple and other technology giants in the US now rely on the courts and on the police across the world rather than on innovation to continue their monopolies, there has been a change in their work culture. No longer are they vessels for the nurturing of innovators and super-creative people. Instead, managements have sought to grind down such attiributes and replace them with uniformity, with a uniform dress code and work timings that are as inflexible as those in a US prison. Fortunately for the US, the country which could have challenged it in creativity - in a way that China, with its regimentation, cannot - is led by individuals fully committed to the “5%” world ie in ensuring that domestic policy gets skewed not to benefit domestic industries but their NATO-based competitors. Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi have since 2004 drained away any threat posed by Corporate India to NATO-based entities. This hobbling of domestic enterprise has been accomplished by high interest rates, huge increases in regulation and a police culture in matters of financial management, except of course where they impact the foreign financial entities that annually take away billions each year from India through speculation and guises such as “royalty payments”. The same Reserve Bank of India that has driven so much of Corporate India to sickness because of higher interest rates has been blind towards such speculators, indeed even encouraging them to operate at the very time when President Obama is levying hundreds of billions of dollars of fines on them for doing precisely what they are guilty of in India
Unfortunately, freedom of speech on the internet is almost as absent in India as it is in China, while browsing speeds still mimic the bullock cart age rather than that of the automobile, not to spesk of aircraft. The Nixonian style of Mayer and other tech CEOs in the US has given an opportunity for competitors from countries that respect the rights of citizens, including their freedom to express their views and to set up businesses. The internet can be a way of creating a trillion-dollar industry in India, given the country’s human resources. However, restrictive governance is ensuring that despite the Marissa Mayers, the US tech industry continues to dominate the globe.
http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=198094
Friday, March 01, 2013 - It was not accidental that almost all the world’s internet-based giants were set up in the US. The country has for long had a liberal ethos. This is despite decades of what may be termed “Nixonism-Reaganism” ie a trigger-happy penal system which regards incarceration as the first - and best - option even for petty offences and a mindset within the policymaking class that equates wealth with quality. The consequence of Nixonism has been a steep rise in the prison population of the US, which for long has been greater even than that of China or the USSR in its Brezhnevite period of stasis, with several states imposing mandatory prison terms, several enactments of which are an affront to human rights which - naturally - the myriad “human rights” organisations obsessively focussing on the underdeveloped world ignore.
During the 1980s,the kultur of Reaganism spread across the world, being embraced by both Margaret Thatcher in the UK as well as by Deng Xiaoping and his successor Jiang Zemin in China. This philosophy of financial elitism has been directly responsible for the waves of speculative trading that have devastated commodity markets and reduced hundreds of millions of the vulnerable to poverty. More than any desire for that much-misused concept, “democracy”, it was the high price of bread and other staples of existence that brought hundreds of thousands of Egyptians to Tahrir Square. President Mohammad Morsi needs to thank the billionaire speculators of London, New York, Chicago and Frankfurt for his good fortune in rising from irrelevance to great power, for it is the depredations of such loathsome elements which caused the conditions for the unrest which led to the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak. A by-product of their activities has been a sharp fall in the security of the State of Israel, which for more than three decades had the loyal ( to the dictates of Washington) former military officer Mubarak at the helm of its most important neighbour
However, the dark side of the Internet Startup boom in the US has been the excoriation of those who sought to ensure that the World Wide Web remained a free ( or at the least, a low cost) resource for the globe. Some such idealists have even been driven to suicide because of persecution by authorities eager to protect the monopolies of those who seek only to squueze as much personal wealth as possible through the internet. Bill Gates of Microsoft and Steve Jobs of Apple became billionaires. Both spent huge amounts of money on litigation designed to prevent competitors from placing lower-cost substitutes into markets that Apple and Microsoft saw as their own.
Such buttressing of monopolistic power through the use of the legal system has been facilitated by the tendency of judges in that country to favour their own citizens in lawsuits involving foreigners, especially if the aliens come from countries other than “the Pale of Civilisation”. In the case of Apple, it has filed several lawsuits against Samsung and got several judgments in its favour in US courts, the collective impact of which is to prevent the Korean company from challenging the market dominanance of the US corporate. Now it has to contend with a new threat, that of Huawei, which too has climbed up the technology ladder and created smartphones that are the rival of its competitors. Whether it be smartphones or pharmaceuticals, the self-proclaimed backers of “free trade” within the NATO bloc find their emotions curdling as soon as a competitor arrives at their doorstep. Globalisation is good, but only if it is one way: to help 5% of the globe continue to exercise domination over the remaining 95%.
Because Microsoft, Apple and other technology giants in the US now rely on the courts and on the police across the world rather than on innovation to continue their monopolies, there has been a change in their work culture. No longer are they vessels for the nurturing of innovators and super-creative people. Instead, managements have sought to grind down such attiributes and replace them with uniformity, with a uniform dress code and work timings that are as inflexible as those in a US prison. Fortunately for the US, the country which could have challenged it in creativity - in a way that China, with its regimentation, cannot - is led by individuals fully committed to the “5%” world ie in ensuring that domestic policy gets skewed not to benefit domestic industries but their NATO-based competitors. Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi have since 2004 drained away any threat posed by Corporate India to NATO-based entities. This hobbling of domestic enterprise has been accomplished by high interest rates, huge increases in regulation and a police culture in matters of financial management, except of course where they impact the foreign financial entities that annually take away billions each year from India through speculation and guises such as “royalty payments”. The same Reserve Bank of India that has driven so much of Corporate India to sickness because of higher interest rates has been blind towards such speculators, indeed even encouraging them to operate at the very time when President Obama is levying hundreds of billions of dollars of fines on them for doing precisely what they are guilty of in India
Unfortunately, freedom of speech on the internet is almost as absent in India as it is in China, while browsing speeds still mimic the bullock cart age rather than that of the automobile, not to spesk of aircraft. The Nixonian style of Mayer and other tech CEOs in the US has given an opportunity for competitors from countries that respect the rights of citizens, including their freedom to express their views and to set up businesses. The internet can be a way of creating a trillion-dollar industry in India, given the country’s human resources. However, restrictive governance is ensuring that despite the Marissa Mayers, the US tech industry continues to dominate the globe.
http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=198094
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)