1. The Chinese and American governments are different. The Chinese government believes in a communist economy (which will be changing into capitalist) while all of us here in America have always been a capitalist economy.
2. My mom has felt the effect of outsourcing. Due to her job at Ernst and Young, her business trip expense reimburse is outsourced to a team in India. Because of this, her reimbursement is never timely or done properly.
3. When I buy something at a big-box retailer, I don't read the label to find the country of origin therefor it does not influence my purchasing decision.
4. I agree that it is a win-win situation because both countries get something out of this arrangement. It creates more jobs in China but Americans are losing jobs because of it. It's cheaper for the owner of the company to outsource at least one of the plants to China since the Chinese work for less and always do a dependable job. This makes it easier to keep their other plants that are back in America open since the company is now saving more money. However, our economy in America is currently struggling, so I think that at least for awhile, our American jobs should stay in America. Therefor, I do not agree with outsourcing.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Friday, November 12, 2010
Containment-Lite Review
1. The main point of this article is to further explain how containment can, will, and is affecting China.
2. The title of this article is referring to what has been triggered in the last year by a sudden increase to China's claims to all of the South China Sea.
3. I honestly did find this article a little bit confusing. I agree with the point by the author that stated "Obama doesn't isn't trying to contain China, but he didn't just spend three days in India to improve his yoga" because it really opened up the conversation and went into detail about containment.
2. The title of this article is referring to what has been triggered in the last year by a sudden increase to China's claims to all of the South China Sea.
3. I honestly did find this article a little bit confusing. I agree with the point by the author that stated "Obama doesn't isn't trying to contain China, but he didn't just spend three days in India to improve his yoga" because it really opened up the conversation and went into detail about containment.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Outsourcing
Outsource: to obtain goods or services from an outside source
Here's a list of American owned companies in South Asia:
Here's a list of American owned companies in South Asia:
- Agilent
- Agro Tech
- American Express
- Amway
- Avaya
- Caltex
- Caterpillar
- CB Richard Ellis
- Cisco
- Citigroup
- Coca Cola
- Cognizant
- Colgate Palmolive
- CSC
- Cummins
- Discovery
- Dupont
- EDS
- Eli Lilly
- Emerson Electric
- EXL
- Federal Express
- Ford
- Franklin Templeton
- GE
- General Motors
- Gillette
- Honeywell India I
- BM
- Intel
- Johnson & Johnson
- JPMorgan
- Kellogg India
- Kimberly Clark
- Kodak
- McDonalds
- Metlife India
- Microsoft
- Morgan Stanley
- New York Life
- Ogilvy and Mather
- Oracle
- Pepsico
- Pfizer
- Pizza Hut
- Sun Microsystems
- Texas
- Tecumseh
- Timex
- Tyco
- UPS India
- Visteon
- Whirlpool
- Xerox Modicorp
My reflection on http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/opinion/03friedman.html?_r=2&src=me&ref=homepage is that globalization is being taken literally to new heights providing 3G access on the top of Mount Everest. However, it's possible that even with all of the hype about China, India, and globalization it could be under hyped.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Interactive Assignment
Density: The Earth's population has jumped from 2 million people to 6.3 million people since 1930. The highest populated countires being India, China, Indonesia, and central Europe.
Why isn't the United States one of the most populated?
Growth: By 2050, the total number of people expected to be on the Earth is 9 billion. However, in the developing countries that have large populations, their resources could decrease and not be able to reproduce fast enough to meet the demands of all the people that will be there.
Why don't we all join together as a community to better our planet by planting more trees and protecting our oceans and coral reefs? Would that be enough? Why or why not?
Cities: By 2030, 60% of the population will be living in cities compared to 37% 30 years ago; there are many pros and cons to living that lifestyle.
If all the of the population are becoming more urban, what impact will that have in rural areas?
Water: Out of the 70% of water that covers our planets, only 2.5 of it is freshwater, and that's vital to all human beings. Many countries are considered to be short of water. Even with new technology, the amount of plentiful freshwater may not be fully replaced.
If many countries don't have the amount of freshwater they need to survive, shouldn't the countries that have plenty of it help them out? How can they help?
Air: Pollution has risen 30% in the last 200 years as a result of an increase in harmful industrial fumes. The World has been producing more dangerous gases than the Earth can convert back into oxygen, which is an issue because all of us humans need air to survive.
If everybody is trying to be "Eco-friendly" now, why isn't there a way to eliminate the fumes that are hurtful and replace them with something better?
Climate: Climatologists blame air pollution and fossil fuel emissions for global warming. They predict that over the next 100 years, surface temperatures will increase up to 11 degrees Fahrenheit, causing a possible reduction of lakes and rivers, severe flooding, and the extinction of some plant and animal species.
If the temperature increase won't be for awhile, shouldn't we try to figure out how we might be able to stop the destruction of our resources and species?
Forests: Due to aggressive logging and agricultural clearing, a large portion of forests have been lost. 40% of forests are presently in danger when half of our land used to be covered with forests.
Do you think that the policy of replacing the number of trees a person(s) cuts down would apply here? Why or why not?
Land: The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization altered half of the land we use into four main uses.
What do you think the other half is being used for?
Habitats: Since the population keeps growing dramatically, habitats are being lost because our main source of food is animals. If this keeps up, our coral reefs and some other major habitats could disappear as soon as the next 20 years.
Would developing a way to protect the animals and plants while giving us the food we need be the only option to solve this problem?
Why isn't the United States one of the most populated?
Growth: By 2050, the total number of people expected to be on the Earth is 9 billion. However, in the developing countries that have large populations, their resources could decrease and not be able to reproduce fast enough to meet the demands of all the people that will be there.
Why don't we all join together as a community to better our planet by planting more trees and protecting our oceans and coral reefs? Would that be enough? Why or why not?
Cities: By 2030, 60% of the population will be living in cities compared to 37% 30 years ago; there are many pros and cons to living that lifestyle.
If all the of the population are becoming more urban, what impact will that have in rural areas?
Water: Out of the 70% of water that covers our planets, only 2.5 of it is freshwater, and that's vital to all human beings. Many countries are considered to be short of water. Even with new technology, the amount of plentiful freshwater may not be fully replaced.
If many countries don't have the amount of freshwater they need to survive, shouldn't the countries that have plenty of it help them out? How can they help?
Air: Pollution has risen 30% in the last 200 years as a result of an increase in harmful industrial fumes. The World has been producing more dangerous gases than the Earth can convert back into oxygen, which is an issue because all of us humans need air to survive.
If everybody is trying to be "Eco-friendly" now, why isn't there a way to eliminate the fumes that are hurtful and replace them with something better?
Climate: Climatologists blame air pollution and fossil fuel emissions for global warming. They predict that over the next 100 years, surface temperatures will increase up to 11 degrees Fahrenheit, causing a possible reduction of lakes and rivers, severe flooding, and the extinction of some plant and animal species.
If the temperature increase won't be for awhile, shouldn't we try to figure out how we might be able to stop the destruction of our resources and species?
Forests: Due to aggressive logging and agricultural clearing, a large portion of forests have been lost. 40% of forests are presently in danger when half of our land used to be covered with forests.
Do you think that the policy of replacing the number of trees a person(s) cuts down would apply here? Why or why not?
Land: The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization altered half of the land we use into four main uses.
What do you think the other half is being used for?
Habitats: Since the population keeps growing dramatically, habitats are being lost because our main source of food is animals. If this keeps up, our coral reefs and some other major habitats could disappear as soon as the next 20 years.
Would developing a way to protect the animals and plants while giving us the food we need be the only option to solve this problem?
China VS. India
China and India both have the largest populations in the World at 1.35 billion and 1.21 billion people. But who cares right? What am I going to do with that piece of information? Use it to better understand the current status of our World. If the number of people every year rises in a bulk, it could impact the Earth's finite resources and could lead to disaster, not only for wildlife and ecosystems but also for human populations. Every year the link between population growth and environmental decrease becomes harder to ignore. I do think it's wrong for government to force families to have small families because it's a free country and I think that people should have as many kids as they want. If they only want one child, fine. Six, go right ahead. It should be their decision. If the government really wants to control their population, they could set a limit saying, maybe no more than 4 children per family, or something like that so the people get to decide their future and the government can keep control of their population; creating a win-win situation.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in the News
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is very serious. People are dying everyday over there and it never lightens up. All the fighting is, in a sense, normal to the people of these countries; which is very sad. Major violence is occurring and there seriously needs to be stopped. Also, if some action isn't taken, then the economic growth over the past two years could decline at an alarming rate. This isn't a good situation all around. I researched a news article over how the Palestinians and the Israelis need to come to peace with each other. I discovered that both sides have no plan to negotiate, but naturally they still don't want the constant fighting to continue. Neither one of them is doing themselves a favor by not taking any action to settle this dispute, because time is just ticking away. The leaders of these two countries have some tough decisions to make about what needs to be done, but if they don't do it quickly they may lose their only chance of ending it for a long time.This article I read was fairly neutral, and it doesn't seem like there is anything missing from it.
Baskin, Gershon. (2010, October 11) Chronicles of peace or epitaphs of failure. The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved from: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=191027
Baskin, Gershon. (2010, October 11) Chronicles of peace or epitaphs of failure. The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved from: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=191027
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Sunni vs. Shiite
The believers of a Sunni and the believers of a Shiite have been fighting for a staggering 1,400 years. It wouldn't be such a strange thing if the people actually knew what they were fighting over, but most of them don't. So the question remains, Sunni or Shiite? It all goes back to simply who they were following, as in usually their whole family stands on one side. People have had the ideas of "location", "different families", "different religions", but nobody knows for sure. It's believed that Iraq and Iran are the main Shiite nations and the rest of the Muslim world is mainly Sunni. So if they still don't know why they are fighting with each other, what do they think the difference is between a Sunni and a Shiite? People's responses didn't really vary from "I should know", and others just admitting "I don't know". If some had anything to say, they would just take a stab in the dark. The only question everybody seemed to know the answer to was which branch the Al Qaeda leaders follow; Sunni. I think it is important to know the difference so you could accurately stand up for your faith. It's also necessary to know who your enemies are and understand them better. Besides, if the Muslims' whole reason for being is based on their beliefs, they deserve to know what they actually believe in. It doesn't seem like that's going to happen any time soon though, but it would create more peace and make things easier for everybody if they did.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)