Overseas Call Centers Target Of Anti-Outsourcing Bill

[Faeries]

---

Nothing good can come out from a socialist stand.... They will be subsidizing these companies to make them competitive with other companies around the world, unless they would totally shut out from trading with the outside world, then that would result to communism.

Why should it care with the economies like the Philippines? As consumers to their products, we provide jobs for their people as well as they have provided us jobs to support their companies. It's a win-win situation. But their legislators are attacking at the wrong target. It's their labor and business regulations that have priced the employees so high that made their companies seek other countries to lower their costs. In that way, they can provide products that can still be globally competitive. When businesses are forced to be kept at home country where production would be expensive, they are just destroying themselves... No business can survive without profit. And if ever, they will subsidize these companies to avoid destruction, then they will just incur massive debts as a nation... Every product sold this way is a penalty to the taxpayers of their nation.

Who said that they will shut-down from trading?

Anyway base on what I've read and see on the net and TV there is a move in the US for people be more thrifty and conscious of their spending.

Isn't it amazing we will still be buying Nike shoes and IZOD shirt even if they are not made in the Philippines or in China or even if they cost at a higher price. People will still buy them even if their price are outrageous. LV bags have outrageous prices but still people buy them.

Goods that are sold in the philippines from the US are not even considered as important or needed goods. US in someways is even more self sufficient than the Philippines.

Yeah US is getting Selfish, and we have to deal with it. They want it all. So let's just be prepared for it. PAX Britannica was characterized by a Protectionist Economic Policy. Opening other state's market while keeping theirs intact.

[emow]

For what purpose is it to adopt a protectionist policy?

[sngbm87]

Call Center jobs will not go away. Corps will just circumvent the laws and start sister corps or inc. in other countries that will allow them to do so. Or other companies from other countries will outsource them still or take the market.

The clients or consumers of these companies that create the need for low cost low liability csr agents and sales agents on the phone will not go away.

Call Center Jobs will not go away....maybe just where the company is stationed or HQ. Or the name of the company will change.

[gareb]

a protectionist policy adopted by the US will only hurt their consumers.. It is a counterproductive measure of trying to spur job growth in their area... Why do you think US companies outsource a lot of their jobs? Is it because they don't like the US geography? Is it because they don't like US climate? Or is it because there are just damn too many laws affecting their production?

A protectionist policy only destroys the market by producing artificial rise of prices by forcing the local people to consume products/services that would otherwise be at a lesser value if it were produced in a more economic friendly environment. Another step towards complete socialism for the US....

unknown to many, the US has always been into "protectionism" even while advocating for everybody else to open up our economies and remove our tarriffs, subsidies, and regulations.

ever heard of the US corn subsidies, the bone of contention in all recent talks in the WTO?

again, hypocrisy.

[emow]

unknown to many, the US has always been into "protectionism" even while advocating for everybody else to open up our economies and remove our tarriffs, subsidies, and regulations.

ever heard of the US corn subsidies, the bone of contention in all recent talks in the WTO?

again, hypocrisy.

that's my point, US is moving towards complete socialism by adopting more protectionist policies... It is absurd to make prices artificially low by subsidizing their local farmers, subsidies which are at the expense of all tax payers regardless they buy their products or not...

[gareb]

that's my point, US is moving towards complete socialism by adopting more protectionist policies... It is absurd to make prices artificially low by subsidizing their local farmers, subsidies which are at the expense of all tax payers regardless they buy their products or not...

take note that these subsidies are not a recent phenomena hence it would be incorrect to label this as a move towards "socialism", a laughable label for the arch neo-liberal economy of our time.

we should see this in a two-fold perspective; economic and political. the US wants to prop up its economy against the ravages of an open market, while at the same time advocating to open up other markets worldwide. it wants to preserve its "position of strength", economically, so that it can have enough political leverage against everybody.

this is why the democratizing effects of trade liberalization is only good on paper, especially if your players pull the rug from underneath you by saying one thing and doing another. in effect, it does not level the playing field, but prostitutes itself to one who can best wield it as a weapon against everybody else.

while protectionist policies might have a negative effect on over-all trade. the kind of protectionism advocated by the developing countries now is but a response to the already rigged market of cheap, subsidized imports, and ruinous, unfettered capital transfers. at the end of the day, everyone is just trying to save their own economies.

the question is whose economy deserves to be saved.

[pigrah]

and I always take for granted CC opportunities ..AWOL ngadto, AWOL ngari...

Reality catches up and bites u in the ass

[emow]

take note that these subsidies are not a recent phenomena hence it would be incorrect to label this as a move towards "socialism", a laughable label for the arch neo-liberal economy of our time.

we should see this in a two-fold perspective; economic and political. the US wants to prop up its economy against the ravages of an open market, while at the same time advocating to open up other markets worldwide. it wants to preserve its "position of strength", economically, so that it can have enough political leverage against everybody.

this is why the democratizing effects of trade liberalization is only good on paper, especially if your players pull the rug from underneath you by saying one thing and doing another. in effect, it does not level the playing field, but prostitutes itself to one who can best wield it as a weapon against everybody else.

while protectionist policies might have a negative effect on over-all trade. the kind of protectionism advocated by the developing countries now is but a response to the already rigged market of cheap, subsidized imports, and ruinous, unfettered capital transfers. at the end of the day, everyone is just trying to save their own economies.

the question is whose economy deserves to be saved.

the move towards socialism in the US is fairly constant ever since their Republic has been established. But there are those that strongly oppose it ever since... At the turn of the 20th century, the move towards socialism has gained ground under the guise of capitalism, but its actually corporatism rather than capitalism.

Protectionism has never been good in the long term. It undermines civil liberties and decreases the standard of living. As you have seen the effect on the US, their economy has been declining since 1930's... I am not an economist therefore i could not articulately point out the dangers of protectionist policy... but i could refer you to Bastiat's economic Sophisms so as to enlighten on the subject matter..

Protectionism feel free to read his other works...its a good read.

[gareb]

the move towards socialism in the US is fairly constant ever since their Republic has been established. But there are those that strongly oppose it ever since... At the turn of the 20th century, the move towards socialism has gained ground under the guise of capitalism, but its actually corporatism rather than capitalism.

Protectionism has never been good in the long term. It undermines civil liberties and decreases the standard of living. As you have seen the effect on the US, their economy has been declining since 1930's... I am not an economist therefore i could not articulately point out the dangers of protectionist policy... but i could refer you to Bastiat's economic Sophisms so as to enlighten on the subject matter..

Protectionism feel free to read his other works...its a good read.

if we see how the US frames its economy and political structure. "conservative capitalist corporatism" instead of "socialism", would be a closer fit, as there has never been any instance in its history that it favored social ownership of production or resources. with its deeply corporate culture, i do not think that is an economic avenue that they are willing, or able, to take.

stagnation is a long term effect of protectionism. if you raise your walls high, your neighbors would eventually raise theirs as well. however without it, a new player entering the world economic arena of big players will get crushed like an eggshell under an elephant's heel.

at the end of the day, the usefulness and merits of protectionism is on the reasons why it is being used at the first place.

[emow]

Redistribution of wealth from one for another's benefit has been the name of the game, and serves the interest of a select few. That is what has become of the United States. There are many shades of socialism embedded into the thousands of laws their legislators have produced, allying government with lobbyists either directly or indirectly.

In capitalism, the competitors won't naturally come in the same industry as advancements of technology has made the usage of any particular product so vast that no one can ever predict what new forms can come out of it. The mighty businesses will always be on the look out to stomp competition by improving their products and lowering the price as much as possible to stay relevant with consumers. Any new competition that is not viable in the market will be irrelevant and fades away by its own merit and not by "unnatural" causes...

But with government regulations in the market, it has protected some industries while preventing new competitions to challenge them. Let's take US for example, they have priced their employees so high that it increased the production costs making them globally uncompetitive... Companies will always seek profit for its survival.