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

[insur]

Two things the Bobs don't have, the ability to speak clear English and the ability to give an honest answer instead of the face-saving one he thinks you want to hear....

We had a native inexperienced (aka blagger PM) running the last project and he was trusted with ramping up the dev team.

He had no experience in hiring and went with the CVs that were put in front of him, 90% of which were from Indian devs.
He hired a team full of Indian devs; personally I had no issues with this as I am not bothered about an individuals ethnicity, so long as
they are a good dev and the project is successful.

I found the Indian devs to be highly educated on paper (BSCs, MSCs, MBAs) and highly motivated and comitted. Throughout the
project the comittment remained and they tried their best to keep the project on track.

However, as time passed there were so many issues regarding inaccurate reporting, honesty and communication that the project ultimately failed.

They would time and again refuse to accept they had missed a deadline or wrongly implemented a use case. Most of them were highy decorated with qualifications yet were all under the age of 30. They had little or no experience in full life cycle project development.

They appeared to be more code hackers than principled software design engineers.

By the end the company was so sick of the bickering amongst the Indian devs they no longer hire them. I have been to meetings
and seen Indian CVs put to one side simply based on the Indian name. This is not because the management are in any way racist but simply
becuase of their past experiences in having hired them.

To my mind this trend of hiring Indian devs may be short lived unless Indian devs can raise their game and be more software engineer than
bickering code hacker.

[DodgyAgent]

Nope. A government can coerce in many other ways, it doesn't need to be physical at all. In fact every political party vying to be the next in power coerces you to vote for them through the power of lying. As man is a inherently weak animal he believes in those tales of wonder and voila, you have been coerced into believing them. This is in much the same way that you have been coerced by your peers to believe in what you're saying here.

And then you go on to say that we should submit ourselves to a democratically unaccountable superstate!

[Robinho]

My point...

The initiation of force is not generally conductive to human progress.

[doodab]

Looks it's obvious where you are struggling here. Capitalism and market forces are not coercive. Capitalism is based upon voluntary interactions, nobody is ever forced to do anything. You can buy something, or you can not buy something, you work somewhere or you can not work somewhere, you can sign a contract, or you can not sign a contract. Market forces merely define what voluntary interactions are common, prosperous and prevalent etc based upon the desires of humans.

A coercive government or gang rape is the result of coercive actions. Ie You must comply with my demands or i will inflict physical force upon you.

Is that clear?

And your point is what? That we could all live in happy happy joy joy land if only people weren't human?

One point you seem to be missing is that an individual chooses to coerce, the behaviour isn't forced upon them. Another fact you seem to have missed is that however coercive a government is people can, and do, choose not to comply with it's demands. You seem to be in outright denial of the fact that there are many situations where market forces result in an asymmetry of power (and hence a lack of individual choice) as great as anything you'll find in the annals of totalitarian government.

[Robinho]

This is in much the same way that you have been coerced by your peers to believe in what you're saying here.

And the point i have made that you disagree with is....?

*long wait*

[darmstadt]

A coercive government or gang rape is the result of coercive actions. Ie You must comply with my demands or i will inflict physical force upon you.

Is that clear?

Nope. A government can coerce in many other ways, it doesn't need to be physical at all. In fact every political party vying to be the next in power coerces you to vote for them through the power of lying. As man is a inherently weak animal he believes in those tales of wonder and voila, you have been coerced into believing them. This is in much the same way that you have been coerced by your peers to believe in what you're saying here.

[Robinho]

It's something coercive that arises as the result of voluntary interactions of people. Does the fact you don't like it mean that it's impossible?

Looks it's obvious where you are struggling here. Capitalism and market forces are not coercive. Capitalism is based upon voluntary interactions, nobody is ever forced to do anything. You can buy something, or you can not buy something, you work somewhere or you can not work somewhere, you can sign a contract, or you can not sign a contract. Market forces merely define what voluntary interactions are common, prosperous and prevalent etc based upon the desires of humans.

A coercive government or gang rape is the result of coercive actions. Ie You must comply with my demands or i will inflict physical force upon you.

Is that clear?

[doodab]

So if 2 people voluntarily agree to rape a girl, that is a voluntary interaction of humans right?

It's something coercive that arises as the result of voluntary interactions of people. The voluntary agreement clearly precedes the coercive act.

Does the fact you don't like it mean that it's impossible?

BTW I might point out that a theory of economics that relies on everyone in the world agreeing on everything and being on their best behaviour isn't *terribly* useful.

[Robinho]

So if 2 people voluntarily agree to rape a girl, that is a voluntary interaction of humans right?

[doodab]

And so are governments coercive or otherwise, and all other social structures. That something arises as a result of the voulantary interactions of humans doesn't automatically make it good or desirable, hence the evolution of social structures to regulate those same voluntary interactions, which may themselves be neither good or desirable. They are however unavoidable.

If government didn't exist it would evolve. You are advocating an impossible, unobtainable state of affairs.

A coercive government is voluntary.

Is your English really so bad that you think that's what I said?

[doodab]

Where did i do this?

In order for a coercive government to become coercive, at some point, it has to have used coercion and therefore ceases to be voluntary. The big glaring clue is in the name.

So there you have it, a coercive government is simply a voluntary government that uses coercion. Ergo a coercive government has evolved out of voluntary interactions.

A coercive government is voluntary.

Laughing at your own stupidity now?

[Robinho]

I think doodab's done a runner sas, but i don't think it's out of compassion.

Paul Krugman

A coercive government is voluntary.

I've been treated to some gems today.

[sasguru]

If it were voluntary, how could it use coercion? Anyway, assuming it can, you've just explained how something coercive can be the result of voluntary interactions, which a few posts back you were declaring to be 'very stupid'.

Are you stupid robbie?

Aw leave the guy alone. Clearly single, not very bright, stuck in a 3 month rolling dead-end rut, only prospects are downwards or to work in his family takeout.
If he really believes in the crap he spouts then just humour him, it's important to his fragile self-esteem.

[Robinho]

Paul ******* Krugman.

[darmstadt]