lets welcome more indian nationals into the country to work in tech business

[sasguru]

Sorry Cojak, do you have an intelligent point to make, are you able to counter any of the things i've said, or are you just throwing insults?

Oh look you're throwing insults.

That's because you can't counter any of my points.

The reason you can't is because you're ignorant.

And that is why, whilst you think you are laughing at me, you are in fact laughing at your own ignorance.

By all means prove me wrong though. It would be very easy really because if i'm as off base as you believe i am, it would be simple to pick a point i've made and completely destroy it. Though i think i'll be waiting a long time for even an attempt.

Your rehashing of basic CSE economics and your belief in economic "laws", as if it were a hard science, is what makes you the biggest cretin on CUK.
But as a poorly educated Portuguese working class 1st/2nd gen immigrant, you will not rise very far, so your bollox is irrelevant.

[sasguru]

You've got to remember: Indians are born with bribery engrained within them, .

Wow they have bribery embedded in their DNA. Who knew that?

[eek]

Wow they have bribery embedded in their DNA. Who knew that?

I always thought bribery was an updation once they saw how that country worked(?).

[original PM]

screw all of this rubbish

the biggest problem is that a few people at the top (CIO has mates etc) will get paid large bonuses for reducing costs by giving away UK jobs...

just think about that and then compare it to the current recession we are in which was caused mainly by the banks giving large bonuses to a few people whilst not giving a damn about the rest of the population.

the problem is still that people making decision at the top level are doing it purely for themselves and not for the companies they work for or the country they live in..

[NotAllThere]

Your rehashing of basic CSE economics...

Showing your age there...

[Robinho]

If any of you fancy de-cretining yourself in the field of Austrian School economics, here's a few nice books you can read...

Prices and Production, Hayek....

http://mises.org/books/hayekcollection.pdf

How an Economy Grows, and Why it Crashes, P.Schiff....

How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes: Two Tales of the Economy: Amazon.co.uk: Peter D. Schiff, Andrew J. Schiff: Books

You can even listen to this on youtube, thought the narrator lacks quite a bit of charisma....

Additionally anything by...

Milton Friedman
Thomas Woods
Robert P Murphy
Murray Rothbard
Adam Smith

is good value.

Or you could just continue to flounder around in your own ignorance i guess.

[eek]

If any of you fancy de-cretining yourself in the field of Austrian School economics, here's a few nice books you can read...

Austrian school was discredited 20 odd years ago.

The first problem is that it can’t explain unemployment — it thinks that it can explain unemployment, but is deluding itself. The Austrian view is that unemployment in a slump results from the difficulty of “adaptation of the structure of production” — workers are unemployed as resources are painfully transferred out of an overblown investment-goods sector back into production of consumption goods.

But this immediately raises the question, why isn’t there similar unemployment during the boom, as workers are transferred into investment goods production?

Secondly is that it is at its core a barter model of the economy. Money is a medium of exchange and nothing more (although granted this is a problem it also shares with neoclassical economics). Money is not a store of value. One of Keynes' key insights was that people may demand money for its own sake, not merely to conduct transactions, but also as a precaution against future uncertainty. This is expressed in the GT as liquidity preference.

Finally (because I can't be bothered to add another 15 counter arguments) Austrians often seem to observe one thing and if their theory tells them something else, they ignore reality and continue believing in our theory.

Although that last bit does also explain something else.

[DodgyAgent]

If any of you fancy de-cretining yourself in the field of Austrian School economics, here's a few nice books you can read...

Prices and Production, Hayek....

http://mises.org/books/hayekcollection.pdf

How an Economy Grows, and Why it Crashes, P.Schiff....

How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes: Two Tales of the Economy: Amazon.co.uk: Peter D. Schiff, Andrew J. Schiff: Books

You can even listen to this on youtube, thought the narrator lacks quite a bit of charisma....

Additionally anything by...

Milton Friedman
Thomas Woods
Robert P Murphy
Murray Rothbard
Adam Smith

is good value.

Or you could just continue to flounder around in your own ignorance i guess.

May I suggest you buy and read a copy of this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Win-Frie.../dp/0091906814

[Robinho]

Secondly is that it is at its core a barter model of the economy. Money is a medium of exchange and nothing more (although granted this is a problem it also shares with neoclassical economics). Money is not a store of value. One of Keynes' key insights was that people may demand money for its own sake, not merely to conduct transactions, but also as a precaution against future uncertainty. This is expressed in the GT as liquidity preference.

I think you're getting it the wrong way round dear.

Austrians often back a gold or other standard, ie, money is a commodity. Or even competing currencies (Hayek).

Keynsians like to print money and effectively destroy saving in order to "stoke demand".

Keynesianism is also the economic theory widely discredited.

So maybe you have it the wrong way round.

[Robinho]

The first problem is that it can’t explain unemployment — it thinks that it can explain unemployment, but is deluding itself. The Austrian view is that unemployment in a slump results from the difficulty of “adaptation of the structure of production” — workers are unemployed as resources are painfully transferred out of an overblown investment-goods sector back into production of consumption goods.

But this immediately raises the question, why isn’t there similar unemployment during the boom, as workers are transferred into investment goods production?

As for this, are you claiming there are the same levels of unemployment during a boom than during a recession?

That doesn't sound consistent with reality.