Macaca
05-20 06:21 PM
Diplomatically Insulting the Chinese (http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/diplomatically-insulting-the-chinese-5329) By Ted Galen Carpenter | The National Interest
May 2011 is likely to go down as an especially important and intensive period in U.S.-China relations. Leaders of the two countries held the latest annual session of the bilateral Strategic and Economic Dialogue on May 9-10. And this week, eight high-ranking Chinese generals, led by Chen Bingde, chief of the general staff of the People�s Liberation Army, will meet their Pentagon counterparts and then tour selected U.S. military installations.
The conventional wisdom is that these events mark a dramatic improvement in a relationship that has been marked by growing tensions in recent years. That interpretation is partially correct, but there are some worrisome countercurrents that are also important. Despite the improving communication between the two sides, U.S.-China relations remain strained, and there are troublesome issues that will not be easy to ameliorate, much less resolve.
The opening day of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue illustrated both positive and negative trends. On the positive side, the Chinese delegation for the first time included high-level officers of the PLA. Their absence from those meetings in previous years left a noticeable void in the discussions, especially on such crucial issues as nuclear weapons policy and the military uses of space. American officials also viewed the lack of a military contingent in the Chinese delegation as tangible evidence of the PLA�s continuing wariness, if not outright hostility, toward the United States. The presence of those leaders in the latest dialogue was an indication that the cold war that had developed between the PLA and the Pentagon since the collision between a U.S. spy plane and a Chinese jet fighter in 2001 was finally beginning to thaw.
On the other hand, the opening remarks of Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other U.S. officials struck a confrontational tone. They expressed sharp criticism of Beijing�s recent arrests of activists and artists following the pro-democracy uprisings in the Middle East. More broadly, Clinton stated that �We have made very clear, publicly and privately, our concern about human rights.� In an interview in The Atlantic, released during the talks, Clinton was even more caustic, accusing China�s leaders of trying �to stop history,� which she described as �a fool�s errand.�
It was not surprising that the U.S. delegation would raise the human rights issue in the course of the dialogue. But it was not the most constructive and astute diplomacy to highlight during the opening session perhaps the most contentious topic on the agenda. A senior administration official later stated that the discussions on human rights were �very candid,� which was probably an understatement.
The broader context of the opening session was not overly friendly either. While that session was taking place, President Obama conducted a lengthy telephone conversation with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The White House issued a bland statement that the two leaders discussed matters of bilateral and international concern, including the killing of Osama Bin Laden, but the underlying message to the Chinese was anything but subtle. The timing especially sent a signal to PRC leaders that in addition to Washington�s strategic links with its traditional allies in China�s neighborhood (especially Japan), the United States had key options available regarding the other rising regional giant�and Chinese strategic competitor�India. As in the case of the lectures on human rights, highlighting U.S.-India ties at that moment did not help ease bilateral tensions with Beijing.
Even when U.S. officials ostensibly sought to be conciliatory, the attempt often came across as self-serving and borderline condescending. Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner, for example, praised some �very promising changes� in Beijing�s economic policy that had taken place during the previous year, especially on the currency valuation issue. But there were few offers of economic carrots from the U.S. side. The emphasis was always on the concessions Washington expected from Beijing.
The closed-door meetings appeared to be more constructive than the public session, as the participants reached agreement on a number of measures, both minor and significant. In the former category was the announcement of Beijing�s decision to offer twenty thousand scholarships to American students for study in China. In the latter category was a two-pronged agreement, which included both a commitment to conduct regular talks (dubbed �Strategic Security Dialogues�) regarding security problems in East Asia and a �framework for economic cooperation� to address the full range of occasionally contentious bilateral economic and financial issues. In addition, Beijing made commitments to increase the transparency of China�s economy, especially the government�s use of export credits.
Progress on security and economic topics was gratifying and holds considerable potential. But whether the outcome deserves the label �milestone agreement,� as officials contended, remains to be seen. The significance of the accord depends heavily on the subsequent execution, especially on the Chinese side. Nevertheless, the dialogue clearly ended on a high note, and one that was better than anticipated following the U.S. delegation�s brusque comments at the opening session.
Expectations regarding the visit of General Chen and his PLA colleagues are also upbeat. The visit itself is a significant breakthrough. Military-to-military relations have been tense and episodic for years. The most recent disruption occurred in early 2010 when Beijing angrily severed those ties following the Obama administration�s announcement of a multi-billion-dollar arms sale to Taiwan.
Despite the cordial rhetoric accompanying this trip (and the full military honors accorded Chen during a ceremony at Fort Myer), the visit has far more symbolic than substantive importance. The U.S. and Chinese militaries are not about to become best friends. The best that can realistically be expected would be measures to improve communications between forces deployed in the air and on the sea in the Western Pacific region to reduce the danger of accidents or miscalculations. Any breakthrough on larger strategic disagreements will have to be reached between officials at higher pay grades than even General Chen and his American counterparts.
The change in tone in the U.S.-China relationship is welcome, since better cooperation on both economic and strategic issues is important. Trends on both fronts over the past several years have been worrisome. A failure to cooperate on economic matters not only jeopardizes both the U.S. and Chinese economies, it also poses a threat to the global economic recovery. Animosity on security topics creates dangerous tensions in East Asia and undermines progress on such issues as preventing nuclear proliferation.
Nevertheless, while China and the United States have significant interests in common, they also have some clashing concerns in both the economic and strategic arenas. There are bound to be tensions between the United States, the incumbent global economic leader and strategic hegemon, and China, the rapidly rising economic and military power. The critical task for leaders in both countries is to manage those tensions and to keep them under control.
The political and diplomatic dance between such great powers is inevitably a wary, delicate one. But the alternative would be the kind of outright hostility that marked the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, and that would be to no one�s benefit.
China must stop being so secretive about its military rise (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/100088783/china-must-stop-being-so-secretive-about-its-military-rise/) By Peter Foster | Telegraph
Stealth has the smell of success (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME20Ad03.html) By Carlo Kopp | Asia Times
A Rare-Earths Showdown Looms
WTO litigation over China's export limits is inevitable unless Beijing comes to its senses. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576331010793763864.html)
By JAMES BACCHUS | Wall Street Journal
Chinese interests in Pacific nations: mining ventures in PNG (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/19/chinese-interests-in-pacific-nations-mining-ventures-in-png/) By Graeme Smith | UTS and ANU
China-risers should pause for breath (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME20Ad01.html) By Tom Engelhardt | Asia Times
How China Gains from Fukushima (http://the-diplomat.com/2011/05/20/how-china-gains-from-fukushima/) By Saurav Jha | The Diplomat
May 2011 is likely to go down as an especially important and intensive period in U.S.-China relations. Leaders of the two countries held the latest annual session of the bilateral Strategic and Economic Dialogue on May 9-10. And this week, eight high-ranking Chinese generals, led by Chen Bingde, chief of the general staff of the People�s Liberation Army, will meet their Pentagon counterparts and then tour selected U.S. military installations.
The conventional wisdom is that these events mark a dramatic improvement in a relationship that has been marked by growing tensions in recent years. That interpretation is partially correct, but there are some worrisome countercurrents that are also important. Despite the improving communication between the two sides, U.S.-China relations remain strained, and there are troublesome issues that will not be easy to ameliorate, much less resolve.
The opening day of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue illustrated both positive and negative trends. On the positive side, the Chinese delegation for the first time included high-level officers of the PLA. Their absence from those meetings in previous years left a noticeable void in the discussions, especially on such crucial issues as nuclear weapons policy and the military uses of space. American officials also viewed the lack of a military contingent in the Chinese delegation as tangible evidence of the PLA�s continuing wariness, if not outright hostility, toward the United States. The presence of those leaders in the latest dialogue was an indication that the cold war that had developed between the PLA and the Pentagon since the collision between a U.S. spy plane and a Chinese jet fighter in 2001 was finally beginning to thaw.
On the other hand, the opening remarks of Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other U.S. officials struck a confrontational tone. They expressed sharp criticism of Beijing�s recent arrests of activists and artists following the pro-democracy uprisings in the Middle East. More broadly, Clinton stated that �We have made very clear, publicly and privately, our concern about human rights.� In an interview in The Atlantic, released during the talks, Clinton was even more caustic, accusing China�s leaders of trying �to stop history,� which she described as �a fool�s errand.�
It was not surprising that the U.S. delegation would raise the human rights issue in the course of the dialogue. But it was not the most constructive and astute diplomacy to highlight during the opening session perhaps the most contentious topic on the agenda. A senior administration official later stated that the discussions on human rights were �very candid,� which was probably an understatement.
The broader context of the opening session was not overly friendly either. While that session was taking place, President Obama conducted a lengthy telephone conversation with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The White House issued a bland statement that the two leaders discussed matters of bilateral and international concern, including the killing of Osama Bin Laden, but the underlying message to the Chinese was anything but subtle. The timing especially sent a signal to PRC leaders that in addition to Washington�s strategic links with its traditional allies in China�s neighborhood (especially Japan), the United States had key options available regarding the other rising regional giant�and Chinese strategic competitor�India. As in the case of the lectures on human rights, highlighting U.S.-India ties at that moment did not help ease bilateral tensions with Beijing.
Even when U.S. officials ostensibly sought to be conciliatory, the attempt often came across as self-serving and borderline condescending. Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner, for example, praised some �very promising changes� in Beijing�s economic policy that had taken place during the previous year, especially on the currency valuation issue. But there were few offers of economic carrots from the U.S. side. The emphasis was always on the concessions Washington expected from Beijing.
The closed-door meetings appeared to be more constructive than the public session, as the participants reached agreement on a number of measures, both minor and significant. In the former category was the announcement of Beijing�s decision to offer twenty thousand scholarships to American students for study in China. In the latter category was a two-pronged agreement, which included both a commitment to conduct regular talks (dubbed �Strategic Security Dialogues�) regarding security problems in East Asia and a �framework for economic cooperation� to address the full range of occasionally contentious bilateral economic and financial issues. In addition, Beijing made commitments to increase the transparency of China�s economy, especially the government�s use of export credits.
Progress on security and economic topics was gratifying and holds considerable potential. But whether the outcome deserves the label �milestone agreement,� as officials contended, remains to be seen. The significance of the accord depends heavily on the subsequent execution, especially on the Chinese side. Nevertheless, the dialogue clearly ended on a high note, and one that was better than anticipated following the U.S. delegation�s brusque comments at the opening session.
Expectations regarding the visit of General Chen and his PLA colleagues are also upbeat. The visit itself is a significant breakthrough. Military-to-military relations have been tense and episodic for years. The most recent disruption occurred in early 2010 when Beijing angrily severed those ties following the Obama administration�s announcement of a multi-billion-dollar arms sale to Taiwan.
Despite the cordial rhetoric accompanying this trip (and the full military honors accorded Chen during a ceremony at Fort Myer), the visit has far more symbolic than substantive importance. The U.S. and Chinese militaries are not about to become best friends. The best that can realistically be expected would be measures to improve communications between forces deployed in the air and on the sea in the Western Pacific region to reduce the danger of accidents or miscalculations. Any breakthrough on larger strategic disagreements will have to be reached between officials at higher pay grades than even General Chen and his American counterparts.
The change in tone in the U.S.-China relationship is welcome, since better cooperation on both economic and strategic issues is important. Trends on both fronts over the past several years have been worrisome. A failure to cooperate on economic matters not only jeopardizes both the U.S. and Chinese economies, it also poses a threat to the global economic recovery. Animosity on security topics creates dangerous tensions in East Asia and undermines progress on such issues as preventing nuclear proliferation.
Nevertheless, while China and the United States have significant interests in common, they also have some clashing concerns in both the economic and strategic arenas. There are bound to be tensions between the United States, the incumbent global economic leader and strategic hegemon, and China, the rapidly rising economic and military power. The critical task for leaders in both countries is to manage those tensions and to keep them under control.
The political and diplomatic dance between such great powers is inevitably a wary, delicate one. But the alternative would be the kind of outright hostility that marked the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, and that would be to no one�s benefit.
China must stop being so secretive about its military rise (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/100088783/china-must-stop-being-so-secretive-about-its-military-rise/) By Peter Foster | Telegraph
Stealth has the smell of success (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME20Ad03.html) By Carlo Kopp | Asia Times
A Rare-Earths Showdown Looms
WTO litigation over China's export limits is inevitable unless Beijing comes to its senses. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576331010793763864.html)
By JAMES BACCHUS | Wall Street Journal
Chinese interests in Pacific nations: mining ventures in PNG (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/19/chinese-interests-in-pacific-nations-mining-ventures-in-png/) By Graeme Smith | UTS and ANU
China-risers should pause for breath (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME20Ad01.html) By Tom Engelhardt | Asia Times
How China Gains from Fukushima (http://the-diplomat.com/2011/05/20/how-china-gains-from-fukushima/) By Saurav Jha | The Diplomat
wallpaper plans more changes in IFRS
alisa
01-03 11:30 PM
But the point is, these cockroaches came to Mumbai from Pakistan are fed by ISI, don't you still realize. In what language do you want to hear?
I don't think so.
I think the current army and civilian leadership in Pakistan does not want to have unfriendly relations with India. Its just that the inertia and the momentum of the past policies is still making an impact today.
I don't think so.
I think the current army and civilian leadership in Pakistan does not want to have unfriendly relations with India. Its just that the inertia and the momentum of the past policies is still making an impact today.
logiclife
05-16 12:14 PM
No need to have Durbin's bill. Just ban Outsourcing, then all jobs will come back and everybody will be happy here in US.
US congress cannot force investors to invest money only in US and get work done only in US.
Its not possible for US Government to ban outsourcing. The only thing they can do is create incentives to limit outsourcing. However, if a company still wants to outsource jobs overseas, Congress cant do ANYTHING about it.
US congress cannot force investors to invest money only in US and get work done only in US.
Its not possible for US Government to ban outsourcing. The only thing they can do is create incentives to limit outsourcing. However, if a company still wants to outsource jobs overseas, Congress cant do ANYTHING about it.
2011 IFRS basis results – Analysis of life insurance pre-tax IFRS operating
shantanup
03-25 08:55 AM
The main reason that I can't get behind lifting of the country quota is exactly this reason. You have a lot of companies run by the same nationality who will only recruit their own people. The staffing companies don't advertise in Indonesia, Germany, Brazil, etc. They only go after their own people. The whole monopolization of visas was used to prevent this type of behaviour.
Did you not think of the would be immigrants of Indian origin not part of this "system" when you came to this conclusion? I am one such. Think how disadvantaged my position is.
Did you not think of the would be immigrants of Indian origin not part of this "system" when you came to this conclusion? I am one such. Think how disadvantaged my position is.
more...
anjans
07-14 02:05 PM
guys, it is very frustrating to be waiting for GC 8yrs from applying! with you there. But As VB says it will come to FY03 levels in Oct so, it is just a few months away.
Also, who gets EB2 vs EB3 is decided on the job requirement. If we believe that we have been able to "fool" the system to get into a higher queue priority, if reflects that we have broken rules and calls for re-auditing all applications.So bringing up something which cannot be substantiated should be avoided.
I realise that a new kid in the block with a 5 yr exp or MS comes to US and applies in 2008 for PERM, at this rate EB3 from 2004-2008 run the risk of syaing put till all the new EB2's clear up as that queue will be serviced fast, but i guess the problem is that people who changed jobs and used previous exp are going to benefit whileas people who joined their first job and stayed there till GC will suffer...unfortunately there is not much that can be done , except fight for visa recapture.
It is not about ppl, USA values a phd level job vs a MS level job vs a B.S level job, and would rather incentivice them in that order. The fact you qualify for M.S level job today means that you may have to go out take it and recertify your LC.
I dont think EB3 ppl are jealous. But dont react with emotion.
Also, who gets EB2 vs EB3 is decided on the job requirement. If we believe that we have been able to "fool" the system to get into a higher queue priority, if reflects that we have broken rules and calls for re-auditing all applications.So bringing up something which cannot be substantiated should be avoided.
I realise that a new kid in the block with a 5 yr exp or MS comes to US and applies in 2008 for PERM, at this rate EB3 from 2004-2008 run the risk of syaing put till all the new EB2's clear up as that queue will be serviced fast, but i guess the problem is that people who changed jobs and used previous exp are going to benefit whileas people who joined their first job and stayed there till GC will suffer...unfortunately there is not much that can be done , except fight for visa recapture.
It is not about ppl, USA values a phd level job vs a MS level job vs a B.S level job, and would rather incentivice them in that order. The fact you qualify for M.S level job today means that you may have to go out take it and recertify your LC.
I dont think EB3 ppl are jealous. But dont react with emotion.
catopa
07-14 09:11 AM
send the damn letter, nothing happens, and then come back here and vent your frustration again. as you said, buddy, HARD LUCK indeed !!
I cannot believe the nerve that you EB-3 India guys have. You are begging for a GC based on your length of wait!!! laughable at best...........go wait a decade or so more, then come back here and start this useless BS again.
one good thing happens for the EB-2 folks, and the EB-3 community cannot stomach it. pure freaking jealousy.
Sorry but couldn’t ignore this being an EB3-I applicant with more then 10 yeas in US and 7 years in GC processing. I think most of EB3-I are people who got stuck in this queue (specially during 2001/2002) have a master or more and applied in EB3 based on their employers/lawyers advise (My Case).
I think the quoted poster needs to understand the frustration that builds up with people who have been waiting in line for a long time. I don’t think EB3 is jealous but happy for our fellow country men who got the bright side of this mess.
Good luck and god speed to all.
I cannot believe the nerve that you EB-3 India guys have. You are begging for a GC based on your length of wait!!! laughable at best...........go wait a decade or so more, then come back here and start this useless BS again.
one good thing happens for the EB-2 folks, and the EB-3 community cannot stomach it. pure freaking jealousy.
Sorry but couldn’t ignore this being an EB3-I applicant with more then 10 yeas in US and 7 years in GC processing. I think most of EB3-I are people who got stuck in this queue (specially during 2001/2002) have a master or more and applied in EB3 based on their employers/lawyers advise (My Case).
I think the quoted poster needs to understand the frustration that builds up with people who have been waiting in line for a long time. I don’t think EB3 is jealous but happy for our fellow country men who got the bright side of this mess.
Good luck and god speed to all.
more...
vinabath
03-26 09:59 AM
If I make money from a due to a piece of information or knowledge directly obtained from biggerpockets, I'll buy you a beer! :D
Atleast I could sqeeze a beer from you ;)
Atleast I could sqeeze a beer from you ;)
2010 Table 4 Balance Sheet
Macaca
03-06 08:57 PM
Some paras from Lobbying Bill Sparks Populist Uprising -- on Both Sides (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501370.html)
The National Right to Life Committee and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) are locking horns -- not over abortion, but over whether thousands of top executive branch officials should have to disclose the names of people who lobby them.
Driven by the over-the-top, clandestine lobbying of Bush administration officials by now-convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Waxman's House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has unanimously approved the Executive Branch Reform Act. A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that she backs the measure, which would require senior bureaucrats to report quarterly whom they speak to about government actions, and that she expects it to get a vote in the House.
The legislation's advocates are also preparing to fight and they hope eventually to expand reporting to include lobbyists' meetings with lawmakers. Liberal watchdog groups such as Public Citizen, Common Cause and Democracy 21 yearn to give the public a clearer picture of who asks what from government officials all over the nation's capital.
The National Right to Life Committee and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) are locking horns -- not over abortion, but over whether thousands of top executive branch officials should have to disclose the names of people who lobby them.
Driven by the over-the-top, clandestine lobbying of Bush administration officials by now-convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Waxman's House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has unanimously approved the Executive Branch Reform Act. A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that she backs the measure, which would require senior bureaucrats to report quarterly whom they speak to about government actions, and that she expects it to get a vote in the House.
The legislation's advocates are also preparing to fight and they hope eventually to expand reporting to include lobbyists' meetings with lawmakers. Liberal watchdog groups such as Public Citizen, Common Cause and Democracy 21 yearn to give the public a clearer picture of who asks what from government officials all over the nation's capital.
more...
bfadlia
01-09 06:15 PM
The question is about common sense and not who said what... Israel might make mistakes but it has no need to bomb civilians or school compounds deliberately. It is a strong enough country that can wipe out the entire middle-east if it chose to but it does not do so probably because it isn't a failed state with an inferiority complex like most of its neighbors.
a common sense guy like you would have dismissed iraqis claims of abuse in abu gharib.. america is a strong country, it doesn't need to molest prisoners..
how luxurious for you to use ur common sense while victims still suffer after their stories were corobrated by unbiased witnesses
a common sense guy like you would have dismissed iraqis claims of abuse in abu gharib.. america is a strong country, it doesn't need to molest prisoners..
how luxurious for you to use ur common sense while victims still suffer after their stories were corobrated by unbiased witnesses
hair by alance sheet category:
krishna
02-21 12:57 PM
I am pretty sure he has figured out that he will not last in Congress. Hence he has chosen the route of being a TV show host and wants to try and influence policy in washington thro' his rants. He is nothing but a grumpy old man who vents his frustration on immigrants through his rants on TV. It is always good to know how people like him think and can try to influence policy but we should tune him out because what he says is irrelevant.
more...
smidreb
01-08 12:52 PM
Muslims are cowerds. They never come out in open and attack. They take the means of Jihad etc....
No matter how highly educated they are. Their basic nature remains the same. Every Muslim country u name it has a problem with either their neighbouts. They do not belive in harmony an co existance. surprisingly they also fight among themselves.
Read the link below on how mean they are.
http://www.rense.com/general29/FAHD.HTM
Now this article states the Israel - Palestine conflict clearly.
God bless Israel. God has always been with Israel.
Intrestingly the artical also says...
The Muslim faith envisioned by the Prophet in the Koran and recorded by his contemporaries in the Hadith is a religion that practices tolerance towards all races and religions, stresses the extreme importance of literacy and education, and elevates the status of women to unprecedented levels in many societies. This is the gentle, peaceful Muslim faith practiced everywhere in the world, except in Saudi Arabia and the Taliban provinces of Afghanistan and Pakistan
No matter how highly educated they are. Their basic nature remains the same. Every Muslim country u name it has a problem with either their neighbouts. They do not belive in harmony an co existance. surprisingly they also fight among themselves.
Read the link below on how mean they are.
http://www.rense.com/general29/FAHD.HTM
Now this article states the Israel - Palestine conflict clearly.
God bless Israel. God has always been with Israel.
Intrestingly the artical also says...
The Muslim faith envisioned by the Prophet in the Koran and recorded by his contemporaries in the Hadith is a religion that practices tolerance towards all races and religions, stresses the extreme importance of literacy and education, and elevates the status of women to unprecedented levels in many societies. This is the gentle, peaceful Muslim faith practiced everywhere in the world, except in Saudi Arabia and the Taliban provinces of Afghanistan and Pakistan
hot for under Statement of
GCBatman
01-06 12:35 PM
It is very sad but please post it on the relevant site.
Now the killing has gone mad. Apart from killing the innocent civilians, crazy war mongers started bombing schools and killing innocent school kids. Today two schools were bombed and more than 40 children have been massacred.
Its sad to see school children being brutally killed by missles and tanks. I don't understand how people could blow up innocent kids, women and men under the name of self-defence?
This world has gone crazy and there's no one questioning about this in-human atrocities committed against fellow human being.
Lets us pray for those who are going thru this hardship, and for an immediate end to this war crime.
How many more innocent civilians including children they are planning to kill?. All these so called peace loving nations blocking the UN from making a cease-fire resolution. Looks like so called freedom lovers want more innocent lives.
When Mumbai was attacked by terrorists, whole world was united and supported the victim(India). Now the same world is against the victim and encouraging more killing by not stopping the attrocities.
Now the killing has gone mad. Apart from killing the innocent civilians, crazy war mongers started bombing schools and killing innocent school kids. Today two schools were bombed and more than 40 children have been massacred.
Its sad to see school children being brutally killed by missles and tanks. I don't understand how people could blow up innocent kids, women and men under the name of self-defence?
This world has gone crazy and there's no one questioning about this in-human atrocities committed against fellow human being.
Lets us pray for those who are going thru this hardship, and for an immediate end to this war crime.
How many more innocent civilians including children they are planning to kill?. All these so called peace loving nations blocking the UN from making a cease-fire resolution. Looks like so called freedom lovers want more innocent lives.
When Mumbai was attacked by terrorists, whole world was united and supported the victim(India). Now the same world is against the victim and encouraging more killing by not stopping the attrocities.
more...
house Skills training IAS / IFRS
Macaca
05-01 05:56 PM
In growing Chinese dominance, a wake-up call for America (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-growing-chinese-dominance-a-wake-up-call-for-america/2011/04/27/AF7i3zGF_story.html) By Arvind Subramanian | The Washington Post
The world’s two economic superpowers will meet soon for the third installment of their Strategic and Economic Dialogue. Beyond the specifics, the real issue for the United States and the world is China’s looming economic dominance. President Obama’s State of the Union address, after President Hu Jintao’s visit in January, showed the level of anxiety that policymakers feel about China as a potential rival and perhaps a threat, with growing economic, military and political power, including its bankrolling of American debt. But judging from the reaction to the president’s speech, that threat is not viewed as imminent. The same was said, some pointed out, of the rise of Russia and Japan, 40 and 20 years ago, respectively, and those threats turned out to be false alarms.
But what if the threat is actually greater than policymakers suppose?
According to the International Monetary Fund, for example, total U.S. gross domestic product in 2010 was $14.7 trillion, more than twice China’s $5.8 trillion, making the average American about 11 times more affluent than the average Chinese. Goldman Sachs does not forecast the Chinese economy overtaking that of the United States until 2025 at the earliest. Americans also draw satisfaction from their unmatched strengths of an open society, an entrepreneurial culture, and world-class universities and research institutions.
But these beliefs may be overly sanguine. The underlying numbers that contribute to them are a little misleading because they are based on converting the value of goods and services around the world into dollars at market exchange rates.
It has long been recognized that using the market exchange rate to value goods and services is misleading about the real costs of living in different countries. Several goods and services that are not traded across borders (medical care, retail services, construction, etc.) are cheaper in poorer countries because labor is abundant. Using the market exchange rate to compare living standards across countries understates the benefits that citizens in poor countries enjoy from having access to these goods and services. Estimates of purchasing power parity take account of these differing costs and are an alternative, and for some purposes a better, way of computing and comparing standards of living and economic output across countries.
My calculations (explained in greater detail on the Peterson Institute Web site) show that the Chinese economy in 2010, adjusted for purchasing power, was worth about $14.8 trillion, surpassing that of the United States. And, on this basis, the average American is “only” four times as wealthy as the average Chinese, not 11 times as rich, as the conventional numbers suggest.
The different approaches to valuing economic output and resources are not just of theoretical interest. They have real-world significance, especially in the balance of power and economic dominance. The conventional numbers would suggest that the United States has three times the capability of China to mobilize real military resources in the event of a conflict. The numbers based on purchasing-power parity suggest that conventional estimates considerably exaggerate U.S. capability. To the extent that the service of soldiers and other domestically produced goods and services constitute real military resources, the purchasing-power parity numbers must also be taken into account.
The economic advantage China is gaining will only widen in the future because China’s gross domestic product growth rate will be substantially and consistently greater than that of the United States for the near future. By 2030, I expect the Chinese economy to be twice as large as that of the United States (in purchasing-power parity dollars).
Moreover, China’s lead will not be confined to GDP. China is already the world’s largest exporter of goods. By 2030, China’s trade volume will be twice that of the United States. And, of course, China is also a net creditor to the United States.
The combination of economic size, trade and creditor status will confer on China a kind of economic dominance that the United States enjoyed for about five to six decades after World War II and that Britain enjoyed at the peak of empire in the late 19th century.
This will matter in two important ways. America’s ability to influence China will be seriously diminished, which is already evident in China’s unwillingness to change its exchange rate policy despite U.S. urging. And the open trading and financial system that the United States fashioned after World War II will be increasingly China’s to sustain or undermine.
The new numbers, the underlying realities they represent and the future they portend must serve as a wake-up call for America to get its fiscal house in order and quickly find new sources of economic dynamism if it is not to cede its preeminence to a rising, perhaps already risen, China.
Arvind Subramanian is a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute and the author of a forthcoming book on China’s economic dominance
America vs China: A reality check (http://businessstandard.com/india/news/arvind-subramanian-america-vs-chinareality-check/434188/) By Arvind Subramanian | Business Standard
The Chinese Are Coming! (http://the-diplomat.com/2011/05/01/the-chinese-are-coming/) By Douglas H. Paal | The Diploma
Do American Students Study Too Hard?
A new documentary argues that kids these days memorize too many facts. Go figure. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703655404576292752313629990.html)
By JAMES FREEMAN | Wall Street Journal
Eyeing the White House After Service in China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/us/politics/01huntsman.html) By MICHAEL WINES | New York Times
At Microsoft, future growth rides on research, innovation (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article1983686.ece) By G. ANANTHAKRISHNAN | Hindu
Financial crisis? What financial crisis? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/financial-crisis-what-financial-crisis/2011/04/26/AFhB2oNF_story.html) By Steven Pearlstein | The Washington Post
The free-trade trade (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-free-trade-trade/2011/04/28/AF3TsXNF_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Running in the red: How the U.S., on the road to surplus, detoured to massive debt (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/running-in-the-red-how-the-us-on-the-road-to-surplus-detoured-to-massive-debt/2011/04/28/AFFU7rNF_story.html) By Lori Montgomery | The Washington Post
The world’s two economic superpowers will meet soon for the third installment of their Strategic and Economic Dialogue. Beyond the specifics, the real issue for the United States and the world is China’s looming economic dominance. President Obama’s State of the Union address, after President Hu Jintao’s visit in January, showed the level of anxiety that policymakers feel about China as a potential rival and perhaps a threat, with growing economic, military and political power, including its bankrolling of American debt. But judging from the reaction to the president’s speech, that threat is not viewed as imminent. The same was said, some pointed out, of the rise of Russia and Japan, 40 and 20 years ago, respectively, and those threats turned out to be false alarms.
But what if the threat is actually greater than policymakers suppose?
According to the International Monetary Fund, for example, total U.S. gross domestic product in 2010 was $14.7 trillion, more than twice China’s $5.8 trillion, making the average American about 11 times more affluent than the average Chinese. Goldman Sachs does not forecast the Chinese economy overtaking that of the United States until 2025 at the earliest. Americans also draw satisfaction from their unmatched strengths of an open society, an entrepreneurial culture, and world-class universities and research institutions.
But these beliefs may be overly sanguine. The underlying numbers that contribute to them are a little misleading because they are based on converting the value of goods and services around the world into dollars at market exchange rates.
It has long been recognized that using the market exchange rate to value goods and services is misleading about the real costs of living in different countries. Several goods and services that are not traded across borders (medical care, retail services, construction, etc.) are cheaper in poorer countries because labor is abundant. Using the market exchange rate to compare living standards across countries understates the benefits that citizens in poor countries enjoy from having access to these goods and services. Estimates of purchasing power parity take account of these differing costs and are an alternative, and for some purposes a better, way of computing and comparing standards of living and economic output across countries.
My calculations (explained in greater detail on the Peterson Institute Web site) show that the Chinese economy in 2010, adjusted for purchasing power, was worth about $14.8 trillion, surpassing that of the United States. And, on this basis, the average American is “only” four times as wealthy as the average Chinese, not 11 times as rich, as the conventional numbers suggest.
The different approaches to valuing economic output and resources are not just of theoretical interest. They have real-world significance, especially in the balance of power and economic dominance. The conventional numbers would suggest that the United States has three times the capability of China to mobilize real military resources in the event of a conflict. The numbers based on purchasing-power parity suggest that conventional estimates considerably exaggerate U.S. capability. To the extent that the service of soldiers and other domestically produced goods and services constitute real military resources, the purchasing-power parity numbers must also be taken into account.
The economic advantage China is gaining will only widen in the future because China’s gross domestic product growth rate will be substantially and consistently greater than that of the United States for the near future. By 2030, I expect the Chinese economy to be twice as large as that of the United States (in purchasing-power parity dollars).
Moreover, China’s lead will not be confined to GDP. China is already the world’s largest exporter of goods. By 2030, China’s trade volume will be twice that of the United States. And, of course, China is also a net creditor to the United States.
The combination of economic size, trade and creditor status will confer on China a kind of economic dominance that the United States enjoyed for about five to six decades after World War II and that Britain enjoyed at the peak of empire in the late 19th century.
This will matter in two important ways. America’s ability to influence China will be seriously diminished, which is already evident in China’s unwillingness to change its exchange rate policy despite U.S. urging. And the open trading and financial system that the United States fashioned after World War II will be increasingly China’s to sustain or undermine.
The new numbers, the underlying realities they represent and the future they portend must serve as a wake-up call for America to get its fiscal house in order and quickly find new sources of economic dynamism if it is not to cede its preeminence to a rising, perhaps already risen, China.
Arvind Subramanian is a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute and the author of a forthcoming book on China’s economic dominance
America vs China: A reality check (http://businessstandard.com/india/news/arvind-subramanian-america-vs-chinareality-check/434188/) By Arvind Subramanian | Business Standard
The Chinese Are Coming! (http://the-diplomat.com/2011/05/01/the-chinese-are-coming/) By Douglas H. Paal | The Diploma
Do American Students Study Too Hard?
A new documentary argues that kids these days memorize too many facts. Go figure. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703655404576292752313629990.html)
By JAMES FREEMAN | Wall Street Journal
Eyeing the White House After Service in China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/us/politics/01huntsman.html) By MICHAEL WINES | New York Times
At Microsoft, future growth rides on research, innovation (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article1983686.ece) By G. ANANTHAKRISHNAN | Hindu
Financial crisis? What financial crisis? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/financial-crisis-what-financial-crisis/2011/04/26/AFhB2oNF_story.html) By Steven Pearlstein | The Washington Post
The free-trade trade (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-free-trade-trade/2011/04/28/AF3TsXNF_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Running in the red: How the U.S., on the road to surplus, detoured to massive debt (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/running-in-the-red-how-the-us-on-the-road-to-surplus-detoured-to-massive-debt/2011/04/28/AFFU7rNF_story.html) By Lori Montgomery | The Washington Post
tattoo the alance sheet,
lfwf
08-05 07:03 PM
I have seen you post before, and with this post you lost some of my respect. You need to be rational and coherent if you want to debate the issue. Not emotional and silly.
Come on!, give me a break. You guys are now worried that EB3 will spoil your (what I still consider, ill gotten) party by PD porting. You now come up with arguments about what is EB2.
If EB2 is ill gotten, so is EB3. Lets all go home? Personally I am not in IT so if all IT is so fraudulent, I'm happy to see you all leave and finally get my GC :-)
First argument: "EB2 requires advanced degree"
If that is the case, there is no one who is eligible for Eb2, as "Advanced degrees" is not a degree that is offered by any university in US. Mostly the ones I know offer, Masters and PHD and likes. No one says I am offering "advanced degree". ;)
Further more, advanced degree is subjective. Bachelors is advanced compared to Diploma, which is advanced compared to 10th passed, which is advanced compared someone who failed 10th.
This is the stupidest argument I have ever heard. In the US the Bachelors degree is the considered the basic or primary degree for thsoe that attend regular college. Anything above that is treated as "advanced". This rgument makes you truly truly look quite farcical.
Second: It is not fair to allow EB3s to port.
It is in the law. that part is not grounds for a lawsuit. If you still want to complain, then complain about the fact that AC21 allows you to jump jobs without even getting your GC.
The law allows porting. the difinition of "equivelant' in work experience comes from a regulation/memo. Do some reasrch before posting.
Third (these are my own points)
When people got their F1, they said there are here without immigrant intention. Why is USCIS giving them H1 and then also accepting GCs for them. Come to think of it, OPT is not required by any university for granting the degree, so why are F1s even allowed to work??
Are you drunk today? When you get an F1 you have "non immigrant intent". the law recognizes that you can "change intent". If you tried getting an H1 or GC within 6 mnths of entering on a F1, USCIS would create a huge problem for you. This is also the basis for the ability to chnage jobs after a GC. that you can change your "intent" after a reasonable time. otherwise the Gc would be worthless.
The point I am trying to make is that if you try to open one can of worms, everyone else has a Costo or a Sams club to go to and buy a boat load of cans of worms to open - that is going to put you in a bad situation.
I have no cans of worms. I have "very advanced" degress and a job that no bachelors could ever do, even with 100 years experience - and that is by law.
So I don't care for such arguments. You sound very scared on the other hand. What are you hiding?
If I read correctly, every EB3 here thinks that most EB2 is fraud. Sounds like Numbers USA and PG talk to me. I'd like to remind you that thsoe folks whose language you are now talking, are even more opposed to EB3. take some time and read what they have to say about EB3 in the context of "best and brightest". I suggest seriously thinking before posting.
Come on!, give me a break. You guys are now worried that EB3 will spoil your (what I still consider, ill gotten) party by PD porting. You now come up with arguments about what is EB2.
If EB2 is ill gotten, so is EB3. Lets all go home? Personally I am not in IT so if all IT is so fraudulent, I'm happy to see you all leave and finally get my GC :-)
First argument: "EB2 requires advanced degree"
If that is the case, there is no one who is eligible for Eb2, as "Advanced degrees" is not a degree that is offered by any university in US. Mostly the ones I know offer, Masters and PHD and likes. No one says I am offering "advanced degree". ;)
Further more, advanced degree is subjective. Bachelors is advanced compared to Diploma, which is advanced compared to 10th passed, which is advanced compared someone who failed 10th.
This is the stupidest argument I have ever heard. In the US the Bachelors degree is the considered the basic or primary degree for thsoe that attend regular college. Anything above that is treated as "advanced". This rgument makes you truly truly look quite farcical.
Second: It is not fair to allow EB3s to port.
It is in the law. that part is not grounds for a lawsuit. If you still want to complain, then complain about the fact that AC21 allows you to jump jobs without even getting your GC.
The law allows porting. the difinition of "equivelant' in work experience comes from a regulation/memo. Do some reasrch before posting.
Third (these are my own points)
When people got their F1, they said there are here without immigrant intention. Why is USCIS giving them H1 and then also accepting GCs for them. Come to think of it, OPT is not required by any university for granting the degree, so why are F1s even allowed to work??
Are you drunk today? When you get an F1 you have "non immigrant intent". the law recognizes that you can "change intent". If you tried getting an H1 or GC within 6 mnths of entering on a F1, USCIS would create a huge problem for you. This is also the basis for the ability to chnage jobs after a GC. that you can change your "intent" after a reasonable time. otherwise the Gc would be worthless.
The point I am trying to make is that if you try to open one can of worms, everyone else has a Costo or a Sams club to go to and buy a boat load of cans of worms to open - that is going to put you in a bad situation.
I have no cans of worms. I have "very advanced" degress and a job that no bachelors could ever do, even with 100 years experience - and that is by law.
So I don't care for such arguments. You sound very scared on the other hand. What are you hiding?
If I read correctly, every EB3 here thinks that most EB2 is fraud. Sounds like Numbers USA and PG talk to me. I'd like to remind you that thsoe folks whose language you are now talking, are even more opposed to EB3. take some time and read what they have to say about EB3 in the context of "best and brightest". I suggest seriously thinking before posting.
more...
pictures gaap ifrs in account term Home
thakurrajiv
03-26 10:13 AM
These banks, Mortgage companies and realtors - The whole nexus of sharks have made refinance almost impossible since last week.. Any body else noticed that? What happened is as soon as FED cut down the rate this nexus dramatically reduces the price 10 - 15%. If you go to zillow, you would find at least 10% reduction published for almost every home with comparison to 5 days before... Something is cooking up.. I do not know what it may be...At least for VA, MD, DC based homes I see this pattern. It looks like, lenders do not want to invite refinances.. and that is scary. Even most sites shows the list of properties with less value under " property sold last in 6 months" and make the properties disappeared which wer sold with reasonable price. I noticed this pattern for many bank alerts as well. So now the real picture you can get from is the county database only to fight these sharks. Are they trying to divert all to government loans (FHA?)... watch out.
I posted a few messages in another thread on macroeconomic issues. As you found out, a lot of people don't understand the severity of credit crunch. If you have lot of cash, yes you have a big advantage, go and invest. Even if you get it wrong for next 5 years, you will be ok.
But for people who want to do this on borrowed money, credit crunch will hit you. The credit crunch will get worse. Whole mortgage industry will change, things will tighten. This just means something has to give up, which is house price.
If you are already not in a house, wait as you might be able to buy at much lower prices. Jump into RE as investment now only if you have enough cash to sustain upto 30% drop in home prices !!
I posted a few messages in another thread on macroeconomic issues. As you found out, a lot of people don't understand the severity of credit crunch. If you have lot of cash, yes you have a big advantage, go and invest. Even if you get it wrong for next 5 years, you will be ok.
But for people who want to do this on borrowed money, credit crunch will hit you. The credit crunch will get worse. Whole mortgage industry will change, things will tighten. This just means something has to give up, which is house price.
If you are already not in a house, wait as you might be able to buy at much lower prices. Jump into RE as investment now only if you have enough cash to sustain upto 30% drop in home prices !!
dresses IFRS basis results – Analysis of asset management pre-tax IFRS operating
Macaca
12-30 06:23 PM
India-China Relations: It’s the economy, and no one’s stupid (http://idsa.in/system/files/IB_IndiaChinaRelations.pdf) By Joe Thomas Karackattu | Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses
The recent visit by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao clearly had a productive focus - SinoIndian economic ties have been re-enforced, and there has been an effort to re-balance the trading relationship. This Brief uses irony to communicate five propositions (i.e. the intended meaning of these five statements is the opposite of what is stated), that can be found in several discourses on Sino-Indian ties. It evaluates these propositions in the light of the tangible and intangible gains from Premier Wen Jiabao’s second official visit to India.
1. Obama’s visit had more substance for India
How do you weigh a visit by a foreign Head of State or Government – one that prods a relationship in an incremental way versus one that promises a turnaround from a low baseline? The political and strategic dimension of the India-US partnership received an immense boost with Obama’s visit, and so did the economy. However, with Wen Jiaobao’s visit, India and China have prepared the ground for what hopefully shapes up to be a balanced economic and a healthy political partnership. If Premier Wen has second-placed talk of India and China being rivals – surely the political gains are waiting to be realized. Incidentally, the MoUs signed during Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit are worth $16 billion (against $10 billion worth of agreements signed during the Obama visit).
Re-balancing of the Indian deficit (roughly USD 20 billion) from its trade with China has been promised through enhanced trade facilitation in the pharma and IT/Engineering sectors, a proposed CEO’s forum, more openness to Indian agro products, greater presence in Chinese trade fairs, and the desire for a strategic economic partnership. The present focus on infrastructure financing in India through Chinese banks is demonstrative of a ‘win-win’ situation for both sides. China’s consumer price index (CPI) 1 , a key measure of inflation, hit a two-year high of 5.1 per cent year-on-year in November 2010. Meanwhile, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC; the equivalent of the RBI in India) raised banks’ reserve requirement ratio (the deposits mandated to be withheld) for the sixth time in 2010 as a sterilization measure to prevent excess money supply from adding to inflation. Under such circumstances, Chinese banks have been foraying into lending operations elsewhere as well (Industrial and Commercial Bank of China’s (ICBC) commercial property loan in summer 2010 to a group led by private-equity firm, the Carlyle Group, in the United States is a case in point)
Policy Focus: The push for horizontal investments from China i.e. market seeking FDI through local production seems to have received less attention. This is an area which needs to be explored fully to address employment generation in India, and for Chinese firms to have a visible household presence in India (similar to Korean and Japanese consumer durables, for instance).
2. China has not changed. It cannot be trusted. Politically, there seems to be no progress on resolving the border dispute, and in the economic sphere there seems to be an in-built incongruence in the growth trajectories of the two countries.
The 1962 war was the reflection of the variance in India and China’s diplomatic, ideological and political approach to bilateral ties and international affairs. Those were the years running up to the Sino-Soviet split, the US engagement in Korea, Taiwan, and the second Indochina war (all involving China), and the domestic misfortune of the Great Leap forward. China had real and perceived fears of India’s oscillation between the United States and the Soviet Union. However, today China is placed in different circumstances, both as a political power and as an economic power. It is now more deeply entrenched in the economic architecture of the world. China’s concern to develop its Western regions coupled with diminishing incentives to foreign investors on the East Coast implies a patient and consistent effort at domestic restructuring in China. The stimulus measures and other construction projects need to be absorbed, the idea of “soft infrastructure” over “hard infrastructure” i.e. transparency and corruption-control has to be pushed through, and inequity needs to be tackled both between cities and rural areas, and between provinces in China. That is a long-drawn process of reforming social security and healthcare in China, apart from administrative reforms relating to land and labour rights (hukou system).
Intuitively, the prospects of relying on Europe and the United States as consumer markets for China over the long term are dicey (imagine how long an economy growing at 8 to 10 per cent could rely on markets that grow at between 2 and 3 per cent?). The present incongruence in the growth trajectories of India and China is ascribed to the market-first approach in China versus the business-first approach in India’s liberalization of its economy. Almost as a visible consequence, China is a larger trading nation even as the private sector there is yet to benefit from lenient financial intermediation (the State plays a big role even today). India on the other hand has a promising private sector and vibrant secondary markets even as its integration into the international economy is hindered by relatively higher tariff barriers in the country. The absence of overlap in the key growthdrivers of both countries (Industry versus Services in China and India, respectively) actually presents the most important reason for India to work with China, and for China to work with India.
The economic imperatives for China to engage with the larger Asian region are borne out by the trends in consumption expenditures in this region. China presently is mired in the need to revive consumption expenditure internally, in order to offset the export-dependent economic engine of its growth. The Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2010, the flagship annual statistical data book of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), indicates the role that Asia stands to play as an alternate consumer market in the long term. The resilience of the middle class in Asia during the 2008-09 recession is highlighted by an estimated USD 4.3 trillion in annual expenditures during the crisis (ADB 2010). This was nearly a third of the private consumption in OECD countries, and is projected to account for 43 per cent of the worldwide consumption in 2030.
Policy Focus: India and China have a real chance of promoting mutual economic growth and development if their economic ties are not ‘securitized’, and the issue of tariff (from India’s side) and non-tariff barriers (China’s side) and protectionism (both countries) is addressed. The CEO’s forum, for one, could initiate linkages with Chinese Universities to develop internship programmes drawing on China’s younger generation of graduates to visit Indian companies desirous of expanding operations in China.
As for border talks, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Premier Zhou Enlai agreed in the past to have mid-level bureaucrats handle talks for mediating the border issues (Hoffmann 1990: 32). Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Premier Wen Jiabao have reached an understanding to have foreign ministers of the two countries deal with the vexed problem. Certainly, the level of engagement has been upgraded specifically vis-�-vis the border issue.
Another important point to note is that, as per the Pew Research Centre’s Global Attitudes Project (October 2010), in 2009 46 per cent of Indians expressed a positive view of China, compared with just 34 per cent in 2010. The Chinese Ambassador to India may think that the fragility in India-China relations emerges from over-reaction to issues concerning China in India. However, the same report qualifies that only 3 per cent of Indians surveyed consider China as the greatest threat for India, whereas, despite a sanctioned media, more Chinese have negative opinion on India (only about one-third of Chinese respondents (32 per cent) have a favourable opinion).
So where does the fragility come from? Does it arise from the ‘looseness’ of a democratic apparatus to shape public opinion? But Chinese public opinion is negative despite the regimented approach to the dissemination of information. Clearly, even if it is not the final word, these perceptions reveal how both countries need to do more to genuinely take forward the elationship at the level of ordinary citizens. The leadership in both countries has to find ways to shape debates within their countries to soft-land negotiated outcomes, if there is a genuine and concerted effort to resolve the border issue, and other contentious issues that may arise.
Policy Focus: There is a need to cultivate individual perceptions of the other, at the level of citizens. This exercise could be executed at the level of greater tourist facilitation measures or exposure to popular culture through mass media. More Indian television programmes, dubbed in Chinese, should be promoted in China (currently only a few such programmes are broadcast in China). Surprisingly, Chinese programming (similar to NHK, DW-Asia or Russia Today) is not even on offer on most satellite networks in India. Events such as the ‘Festival of India in China’ or the ‘Festival of China in India’ should be promoted on a wider scale to involve citizen participation beyond the diplomatic corps.
The recent visit by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao clearly had a productive focus - SinoIndian economic ties have been re-enforced, and there has been an effort to re-balance the trading relationship. This Brief uses irony to communicate five propositions (i.e. the intended meaning of these five statements is the opposite of what is stated), that can be found in several discourses on Sino-Indian ties. It evaluates these propositions in the light of the tangible and intangible gains from Premier Wen Jiabao’s second official visit to India.
1. Obama’s visit had more substance for India
How do you weigh a visit by a foreign Head of State or Government – one that prods a relationship in an incremental way versus one that promises a turnaround from a low baseline? The political and strategic dimension of the India-US partnership received an immense boost with Obama’s visit, and so did the economy. However, with Wen Jiaobao’s visit, India and China have prepared the ground for what hopefully shapes up to be a balanced economic and a healthy political partnership. If Premier Wen has second-placed talk of India and China being rivals – surely the political gains are waiting to be realized. Incidentally, the MoUs signed during Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit are worth $16 billion (against $10 billion worth of agreements signed during the Obama visit).
Re-balancing of the Indian deficit (roughly USD 20 billion) from its trade with China has been promised through enhanced trade facilitation in the pharma and IT/Engineering sectors, a proposed CEO’s forum, more openness to Indian agro products, greater presence in Chinese trade fairs, and the desire for a strategic economic partnership. The present focus on infrastructure financing in India through Chinese banks is demonstrative of a ‘win-win’ situation for both sides. China’s consumer price index (CPI) 1 , a key measure of inflation, hit a two-year high of 5.1 per cent year-on-year in November 2010. Meanwhile, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC; the equivalent of the RBI in India) raised banks’ reserve requirement ratio (the deposits mandated to be withheld) for the sixth time in 2010 as a sterilization measure to prevent excess money supply from adding to inflation. Under such circumstances, Chinese banks have been foraying into lending operations elsewhere as well (Industrial and Commercial Bank of China’s (ICBC) commercial property loan in summer 2010 to a group led by private-equity firm, the Carlyle Group, in the United States is a case in point)
Policy Focus: The push for horizontal investments from China i.e. market seeking FDI through local production seems to have received less attention. This is an area which needs to be explored fully to address employment generation in India, and for Chinese firms to have a visible household presence in India (similar to Korean and Japanese consumer durables, for instance).
2. China has not changed. It cannot be trusted. Politically, there seems to be no progress on resolving the border dispute, and in the economic sphere there seems to be an in-built incongruence in the growth trajectories of the two countries.
The 1962 war was the reflection of the variance in India and China’s diplomatic, ideological and political approach to bilateral ties and international affairs. Those were the years running up to the Sino-Soviet split, the US engagement in Korea, Taiwan, and the second Indochina war (all involving China), and the domestic misfortune of the Great Leap forward. China had real and perceived fears of India’s oscillation between the United States and the Soviet Union. However, today China is placed in different circumstances, both as a political power and as an economic power. It is now more deeply entrenched in the economic architecture of the world. China’s concern to develop its Western regions coupled with diminishing incentives to foreign investors on the East Coast implies a patient and consistent effort at domestic restructuring in China. The stimulus measures and other construction projects need to be absorbed, the idea of “soft infrastructure” over “hard infrastructure” i.e. transparency and corruption-control has to be pushed through, and inequity needs to be tackled both between cities and rural areas, and between provinces in China. That is a long-drawn process of reforming social security and healthcare in China, apart from administrative reforms relating to land and labour rights (hukou system).
Intuitively, the prospects of relying on Europe and the United States as consumer markets for China over the long term are dicey (imagine how long an economy growing at 8 to 10 per cent could rely on markets that grow at between 2 and 3 per cent?). The present incongruence in the growth trajectories of India and China is ascribed to the market-first approach in China versus the business-first approach in India’s liberalization of its economy. Almost as a visible consequence, China is a larger trading nation even as the private sector there is yet to benefit from lenient financial intermediation (the State plays a big role even today). India on the other hand has a promising private sector and vibrant secondary markets even as its integration into the international economy is hindered by relatively higher tariff barriers in the country. The absence of overlap in the key growthdrivers of both countries (Industry versus Services in China and India, respectively) actually presents the most important reason for India to work with China, and for China to work with India.
The economic imperatives for China to engage with the larger Asian region are borne out by the trends in consumption expenditures in this region. China presently is mired in the need to revive consumption expenditure internally, in order to offset the export-dependent economic engine of its growth. The Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2010, the flagship annual statistical data book of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), indicates the role that Asia stands to play as an alternate consumer market in the long term. The resilience of the middle class in Asia during the 2008-09 recession is highlighted by an estimated USD 4.3 trillion in annual expenditures during the crisis (ADB 2010). This was nearly a third of the private consumption in OECD countries, and is projected to account for 43 per cent of the worldwide consumption in 2030.
Policy Focus: India and China have a real chance of promoting mutual economic growth and development if their economic ties are not ‘securitized’, and the issue of tariff (from India’s side) and non-tariff barriers (China’s side) and protectionism (both countries) is addressed. The CEO’s forum, for one, could initiate linkages with Chinese Universities to develop internship programmes drawing on China’s younger generation of graduates to visit Indian companies desirous of expanding operations in China.
As for border talks, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Premier Zhou Enlai agreed in the past to have mid-level bureaucrats handle talks for mediating the border issues (Hoffmann 1990: 32). Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Premier Wen Jiabao have reached an understanding to have foreign ministers of the two countries deal with the vexed problem. Certainly, the level of engagement has been upgraded specifically vis-�-vis the border issue.
Another important point to note is that, as per the Pew Research Centre’s Global Attitudes Project (October 2010), in 2009 46 per cent of Indians expressed a positive view of China, compared with just 34 per cent in 2010. The Chinese Ambassador to India may think that the fragility in India-China relations emerges from over-reaction to issues concerning China in India. However, the same report qualifies that only 3 per cent of Indians surveyed consider China as the greatest threat for India, whereas, despite a sanctioned media, more Chinese have negative opinion on India (only about one-third of Chinese respondents (32 per cent) have a favourable opinion).
So where does the fragility come from? Does it arise from the ‘looseness’ of a democratic apparatus to shape public opinion? But Chinese public opinion is negative despite the regimented approach to the dissemination of information. Clearly, even if it is not the final word, these perceptions reveal how both countries need to do more to genuinely take forward the elationship at the level of ordinary citizens. The leadership in both countries has to find ways to shape debates within their countries to soft-land negotiated outcomes, if there is a genuine and concerted effort to resolve the border issue, and other contentious issues that may arise.
Policy Focus: There is a need to cultivate individual perceptions of the other, at the level of citizens. This exercise could be executed at the level of greater tourist facilitation measures or exposure to popular culture through mass media. More Indian television programmes, dubbed in Chinese, should be promoted in China (currently only a few such programmes are broadcast in China). Surprisingly, Chinese programming (similar to NHK, DW-Asia or Russia Today) is not even on offer on most satellite networks in India. Events such as the ‘Festival of India in China’ or the ‘Festival of China in India’ should be promoted on a wider scale to involve citizen participation beyond the diplomatic corps.
more...
makeup gaa gaap
Macaca
05-25 08:17 PM
Cleaning Up Congress (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/24/AR2007052402118.html) The House gives lobbying reform a boost, but the battle is far from over, Friday, May 25, 2007
IT WASN'T EASY, it wasn't pretty and the battle isn't over, but the House managed yesterday to pass a credible ethics bill that would require lobbyists to disclose the bundles of campaign checks they round up for lawmakers. The lopsided 382 to 37 vote belied the ferocious behind-the-scenes opposition to the bundling provision. Few lawmakers were willing to cast a public vote to oppose letting their constituents know what the lawmakers themselves are already keenly aware of: just how much they are indebted to which lobbyists. In private, however, many Democrats fought to prevent the vote. It was only the steadfastness of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) and Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) that brought the measure to the floor. House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) served a key role in offsetting the opposition of some members of the Congressional Black Caucus.
It's critical now that the bundling provision not be killed in the quiet of a conference committee. The Senate version of lobbying reform contains a slightly different bundling provision, which can easily be reconciled with the House measure.
Other provisions of the bill approved by the House yesterday would provide for more frequent and detailed disclosure, including lobbyists' contributions to lawmakers' charities. To win support for the bundling amendment, reformers had to abandon their effort to double, from one year to two, the cooling-off period for lawmakers and staff who leave the Hill for lobbying jobs. The Senate-passed lobbying bill includes this effort to slow the revolving door. That, too, should be part of the final package. In addition, the work of the House will not be complete until a credible ethics process is in place, one that includes an independent office to assess and investigate allegations of unethical conduct. A Pelosi-appointed task force is expected to come up with a proposal soon. That will be the Democratic majority's next test.
IT WASN'T EASY, it wasn't pretty and the battle isn't over, but the House managed yesterday to pass a credible ethics bill that would require lobbyists to disclose the bundles of campaign checks they round up for lawmakers. The lopsided 382 to 37 vote belied the ferocious behind-the-scenes opposition to the bundling provision. Few lawmakers were willing to cast a public vote to oppose letting their constituents know what the lawmakers themselves are already keenly aware of: just how much they are indebted to which lobbyists. In private, however, many Democrats fought to prevent the vote. It was only the steadfastness of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) and Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) that brought the measure to the floor. House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) served a key role in offsetting the opposition of some members of the Congressional Black Caucus.
It's critical now that the bundling provision not be killed in the quiet of a conference committee. The Senate version of lobbying reform contains a slightly different bundling provision, which can easily be reconciled with the House measure.
Other provisions of the bill approved by the House yesterday would provide for more frequent and detailed disclosure, including lobbyists' contributions to lawmakers' charities. To win support for the bundling amendment, reformers had to abandon their effort to double, from one year to two, the cooling-off period for lawmakers and staff who leave the Hill for lobbying jobs. The Senate-passed lobbying bill includes this effort to slow the revolving door. That, too, should be part of the final package. In addition, the work of the House will not be complete until a credible ethics process is in place, one that includes an independent office to assess and investigate allegations of unethical conduct. A Pelosi-appointed task force is expected to come up with a proposal soon. That will be the Democratic majority's next test.
girlfriend IFRS NEWS | Ενημερωτικό Δελτίο
nogc_noproblem
08-07 12:30 PM
Thanks for the compliments.
H1B, Labor, I140, I485, EAD, AP, PD, RD, ND, VB, RFE – Sucks man, had enough.
In fact I am so relaxed and laughed many times for the past 2 days. I read so many jokes and picked the good ones, I really enjoyed doing this.
Thanks for all those for their encouragement, positive comments and yes, Green dots.
If the trend continues, I think very soon I can beat Pappu in terms of number of green dots (Ssssssss!!! don’t let Pappu know about this till then, ok :))
nogc_noproblem , u r 5 star *****
H1B, Labor, I140, I485, EAD, AP, PD, RD, ND, VB, RFE – Sucks man, had enough.
In fact I am so relaxed and laughed many times for the past 2 days. I read so many jokes and picked the good ones, I really enjoyed doing this.
Thanks for all those for their encouragement, positive comments and yes, Green dots.
If the trend continues, I think very soon I can beat Pappu in terms of number of green dots (Ssssssss!!! don’t let Pappu know about this till then, ok :))
nogc_noproblem , u r 5 star *****
hairstyles or IFRS, has been put off
cagedcactus
04-07 05:43 PM
I wonder if big names like Mircrosoft and others are aware of this. I am sure they will have a huge loss if this bill went through. May be it is time Bill Gates dropped his gloves and fight for us too.
rbharol
11-14 09:39 PM
If he keeps doing this, soon people will know what he is up to and will stop taking him seriously....
damialok
03-31 01:50 PM
Example: $ 500,000/- purchase price (3000 sq ft single family home)
Land cost: 80,000/- ( defined by county - assessment record)
Construction cost: 1,40,000/- (If you do home work you can easily
derive current construction cost)
Let's say you give the order to somebody to construct: Add his 25%
profit which is reasonable)
I am currently looking to build my home in SF Bay Area and these figures dont look that encouraging. Here is what I have got and this is due to severe crunch in construction industry.
Land: $600,000 (it was listed for $850K 12 months back, thats after 25% drop)
Construction Cost: $190/sqft (It was $280~$350 2 years back) - for 3000sqft - $570,000
City Permits and Architectural fees - $120,000
A grand total of $1.3 Million. But this if if you were to build it, the run-of-the-mill tract home builders can get it much cheaper, say around $1million.
Again these figures vary by region but generally give a picture of cost breakdown in California.
Land - 46%
Construction- 44%
Permits - 10%
Land cost: 80,000/- ( defined by county - assessment record)
Construction cost: 1,40,000/- (If you do home work you can easily
derive current construction cost)
Let's say you give the order to somebody to construct: Add his 25%
profit which is reasonable)
I am currently looking to build my home in SF Bay Area and these figures dont look that encouraging. Here is what I have got and this is due to severe crunch in construction industry.
Land: $600,000 (it was listed for $850K 12 months back, thats after 25% drop)
Construction Cost: $190/sqft (It was $280~$350 2 years back) - for 3000sqft - $570,000
City Permits and Architectural fees - $120,000
A grand total of $1.3 Million. But this if if you were to build it, the run-of-the-mill tract home builders can get it much cheaper, say around $1million.
Again these figures vary by region but generally give a picture of cost breakdown in California.
Land - 46%
Construction- 44%
Permits - 10%
0 comments:
Post a Comment