[logic]

Anyone interested in discussing Economic Times Editorials. plz join in.

[logic]

Let us start with the discussion with yesterday's editorial. We can discuss the article "Learning globalisation from football".

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...ow/1627650.cms

its really an excellent article........

[archbishop]

Originally Posted by logic

Anyone interested in discussing Economic Times Editorials. plz join in.

Sure dude. Its a grt idea. I was lukin fwd to go for such a thread. U did it. Will certainly contribute here.

[logic]

Here's the complete article.....

FOOTBALL is not only the world's most popular sport, but also probably its most globalised profession. It is inconceivable that Brazilian, Cameroonian, or Japanese doctors, computer scientists, blue-collar workers, or bank tellers could move from one country to another as easily as Brazilian, Cameroonian, or Japanese football players do.

Football provides a glimpse of how true globalisation of labour would work. In football, as in other occupations, restrictions on labour mobility came entirely from the demand side. No limits were ever imposed on players' movements, except by Communist countries. But the demand side was heavily regulated, owing to a rule that clubs could field no more than two foreign players in any single game.
The Bosman ruling, named after a Belgian player who successfully challenged the rule's application to players from other European Union countries, eroded the limit, which collapsed altogether under the onslaught of the richest European clubs' demand for a free hand in hiring the best players, wherever they might be found.

So wherever globalisation and full commercialisation reign supreme, there is an unmistakable concentration of quality and success. Consider the number of clubs that have qualified for the European Champions' League top eight slots. If we look at five-year periods between 1967 and 1986, the number of different teams that qualified for the quarterfinals varied between 28 and 30. In the next two fiveyear periods, however, the number fell to 26, and in the most recent period (2000-2004 ), there were only 21. The bottom line is simple: fewer and fewer clubs are making it into the European elite.
National leagues are similar. Since the English Premier League was started in 1992, only one championship was not won by Manchester United, Arsenal, or Chelsea. In Italy, all but two Serie A championships since 1991 have been won by either Juventus or AC Milan. In Spain, all but three championships since 1985 have been won by either Real Madrid or Barcelona.

The reason for this concentration at the top is obvious: the richest clubs are now able to attract the best players in the world. Yet this has arguably been accompanied by improved quality in the game itself, owing to what economists call "increasing returns to scale." When Ronaldinho and Messi, or Kaka and Shevchenko, play together, their combined "output" (number of goals) is greater than the sum of goals that each would score if he played in a different club with less talented co-players .

Free mobility of labour in other areas would probably produce the same effect. If doctors, computer specialists, or engineers (let alone the proverbial Polish plumbers!) were allowed to move freely, the concentration of talent in the richest countries would most likely increase. Inequality in the distribution of talent across countries would rise, even if total world output of goods and services, and their average quality , improved, as with football today.
But, while we see inequality and exclusion in club-level football, the opposite is true for competitions between national teams. The average winning margin among the top eight World Cup national teams has steadily decreased, from more than two goals in the 1950s, to about 1.5 goals in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, and only 0.88 goals in the 2002 World Cup.

There are again two reasons for this. First, free movement has meant that good players from small leagues improve much more than they would had they stayed home. A good Danish or Bulgarian player improves much faster if he joins Manchester United or Barcelona.
Second, that improvement in quality was "captured" by national teams thanks to FIFA's rule requiring players to play only for their national team. Eto'o can play for any Spanish, Italian, or English club, but in the national competitions, he can play only for Cameroon. In other words, FIFA has introduced an institutional rule that allows small countries (in the football sense) to capture some of the benefits of today's higher-quality game, thereby partly reversing the "leg drain."

The same rule could be applied to other activities. Free movement of skilled labour could be accompanied by binding international requirements that migrants from poor countries spend, say, one year in five working in their countries of origin. They would bring home skills, technology, and connections that are as valuable as the skills that Eto'o , Essien, or Messi bring back to Cameroon, Ghana, or Argentina. Job placement would remain a problem, but the principle is sound: the world should learn from its most popular sport.


(The author is an economist with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace)
(C): Project Syndicate, 2006

[logic]

The article throws light on what could happen as a result of globalization and freedom on movement of labour. Globalization will increase in inequality of talent among the various countries though it would also increase the total output of the world as a whole.

[c_mon_chatty]

Originally Posted by logic

Here's the complete article.....

FOOTBALL is not only the world's most popular sport, but also probably its most globalised profession. It is inconceivable that Brazilian, Cameroonian, or Japanese doctors, computer scientists, blue-collar workers, or bank tellers could move from one country to another as easily as Brazilian, Cameroonian, or Japanese football players do.

Football provides a glimpse of how true globalisation of labour would work. In football, as in other occupations, restrictions on labour mobility came entirely from the demand side. No limits were ever imposed on players' movements, except by Communist countries. But the demand side was heavily regulated, owing to a rule that clubs could field no more than two foreign players in any single game.
The Bosman ruling, named after a Belgian player who successfully challenged the rule's application to players from other European Union countries, eroded the limit, which collapsed altogether under the onslaught of the richest European clubs' demand for a free hand in hiring the best players, wherever they might be found.

So wherever globalisation and full commercialisation reign supreme, there is an unmistakable concentration of quality and success. Consider the number of clubs that have qualified for the European Champions' League top eight slots. If we look at five-year periods between 1967 and 1986, the number of different teams that qualified for the quarterfinals varied between 28 and 30. In the next two fiveyear periods, however, the number fell to 26, and in the most recent period (2000-2004 ), there were only 21. The bottom line is simple: fewer and fewer clubs are making it into the European elite.
National leagues are similar. Since the English Premier League was started in 1992, only one championship was not won by Manchester United, Arsenal, or Chelsea. In Italy, all but two Serie A championships since 1991 have been won by either Juventus or AC Milan. In Spain, all but three championships since 1985 have been won by either Real Madrid or Barcelona.

The reason for this concentration at the top is obvious: the richest clubs are now able to attract the best players in the world. Yet this has arguably been accompanied by improved quality in the game itself, owing to what economists call "increasing returns to scale." When Ronaldinho and Messi, or Kaka and Shevchenko, play together, their combined "output" (number of goals) is greater than the sum of goals that each would score if he played in a different club with less talented co-players .

Free mobility of labour in other areas would probably produce the same effect. If doctors, computer specialists, or engineers (let alone the proverbial Polish plumbers!) were allowed to move freely, the concentration of talent in the richest countries would most likely increase. Inequality in the distribution of talent across countries would rise, even if total world output of goods and services, and their average quality , improved, as with football today.
But, while we see inequality and exclusion in club-level football, the opposite is true for competitions between national teams. The average winning margin among the top eight World Cup national teams has steadily decreased, from more than two goals in the 1950s, to about 1.5 goals in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, and only 0.88 goals in the 2002 World Cup.

There are again two reasons for this. First, free movement has meant that good players from small leagues improve much more than they would had they stayed home. A good Danish or Bulgarian player improves much faster if he joins Manchester United or Barcelona.
Second, that improvement in quality was "captured" by national teams thanks to FIFA's rule requiring players to play only for their national team. Eto'o can play for any Spanish, Italian, or English club, but in the national competitions, he can play only for Cameroon. In other words, FIFA has introduced an institutional rule that allows small countries (in the football sense) to capture some of the benefits of today's higher-quality game, thereby partly reversing the "leg drain."

The same rule could be applied to other activities. Free movement of skilled labour could be accompanied by binding international requirements that migrants from poor countries spend, say, one year in five working in their countries of origin. They would bring home skills, technology, and connections that are as valuable as the skills that Eto'o , Essien, or Messi bring back to Cameroon, Ghana, or Argentina. Job placement would remain a problem, but the principle is sound: the world should learn from its most popular sport.


(The author is an economist with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace)
(C): Project Syndicate, 2006

hey posse,
tis s tiya... wel 1stly i would like to giv u a big pie of applaud to start such an imp thread that was realy req. , i ll def b a permanent member n ll discuss daily esp the diff "terms" used.
in ur post i hav markd my difficuties wid red , plz clear them. besides, tell me isnt tis fb wc( im a bit ignorant bout tis game) like the others, as they hav riten"no more than two foreign players in any single game.isnt it b/w the natinal teams den how inter nat. teams - olz clear my concept vere im wrong
tiya

[logic]

This refers to club football. Besides international football, there is also club football. Many countries have a football league in which various clubs participate. These clubs can hire players from any country. For example, English captain David Beckham plays for Real Madrid, which a Spanish club.

The phrase u were refering to, means that there is restriction on clubs to play a max. of 2 foreign players so as to promote the native players.

[archbishop]

This article is a great comparison between the football teams and the peoples of the world who are in conflict especially over labour mobility.

Its euphoric to see that there could be laws that could help the developing countries to make use of the brain drain.

but it is arguable to note that while football is governed by an international agency, corporates and people are not. Hence the suggestion sounds a bit chimerical.

i personally feel that the conditions rite now are such that countries like india are at the losing end even while its diaspora is thriving. the gain may just be in the form of incresing P. transfers but the loss of a single bright brain is enormous.

yet it is the theory of free markets that will come to india's rescue. An analogy could be made wid football. Few quite know where trinidad and tobago are on the world map. But the fact that such an inconspicuous nation has made it to the world cup squad is enough to make money flow in T&T for football.

Similarly it is the bright brains of India here and abroad who have made it possible for multinationals to take note of India and pour money here.

Its a brilliant analogy and certainly worth a look.

[aman2645]

Primary capital market sets

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...ow/1632250.cms

REVIEW
the article is about the booming primary market we have seen for last 3 years.the author says that it is booming because secondary markets are also scaling new heights.also FIIs and mutual funds have also played a vital role in the booming primary market.
but there is no regulatory body to save investors.we have seen in 2006 all ipos floated were trading well below there price bands even before the black fridays and mondays .the issue are of late being priced more than their valuations and the investors have to bear the brunt.
also we are now seeing more and more issues coming out which are related to different segments.no longer are only cemnt,petroluem,textile only being floated.the new age stocks include multiplxes,advertising agencies and all.
also the author says that primary market can be used to accumulate welath if foreign bodies are allowed judiously to invest and accumulate profits.
the author states that one reason for over-subscription of these issues in the past has been the strong interests shown by MFs,FIIs,and banks.they would apply at higher priceband to earn rich returns in the bullish rally of the funds on listing.
the average size of the IPOs have also changed.previously an issue would have been roughly of about 100 cr but now many issues range in 1000cr.the most recent being RPL ipo.

[ishacool]

hi friends
i need help whenever i try to read an editorial i find it boring and i stop reading it or sometimes i skip some lines which sometimes happen to be important.so plssssssssssssss help me.

isha.