> these countries were always agrarian economies that had enourmous GDP numbers due to their sheer population numbers which supported a minuscule wealthy landed elite, nothing comparable to industrialised and service based economies.
Nothing different than a service based economy where a huge percentage of people live paycheck to paycheck and supports wealthy billionaires.
What are you trying to prove? Because what you say has not meaning and point whatsoever. We could even argue that certain technologies advantage were reached by China before the west and people like Marco Polo have made their fortune trading them (without going there and start wars for example). Does that make them a "agrarian economy"? They were doing trades with Europe and Asia before America was even discovered (and to that extent before Jesus was born). Unless you've any evidence of what you just said, you just made an empty argument.
> this is a view of economics which put the center of economic productivity in raw workhours
I never talked about this, you're playing a movie in your head and that is the output of your own imagination.
The point I was making is in contradiction to the previous post that mentions how globalism made the west poorer while enriching other countries.
The reason is that with the previous era (colonialist) the west lived above their mean because of the exploitation that was perpetrated elsewhere (Africa and Asia). Now that these countries have added values in their economy which resulted in uplifting their own citizen to a better living standard is creating some trouble in the west.
So was the right thing to engage in wars in Asia and colonize 2/3 of the world?
You've no idea of what these actions have done long term for the countries. Those things are pretty relevant since India form example gained his independence around 70 years ago, not 4 century
or probably the first world was stealing their assets (natural resources) while exporting disgrace (weapons, drugs)?
You should read a bit more so you'd know for example what the opium wars have done to China and what the colonialism has done to India (both perpetrated by the same first world country)
Historically India and China were always the wealthiest (up to the second industrial revolution) regions out there (as in the concept of India and China as we know now are post world war II)
What we are actually seeing today is a rebalancing of wealth that is pretty much needed so that in the US a person would need to have just 1 vacation instead of 3, while in India someone can put some food in their table and allow their kids to go to college.
I'm talking about the first, doesn't seems to hard to understand isn't it?
To me the move is like: "well now I've no way to do by business because my engineering and the core team is under bomb shelter, so lets ban the Russian customers because I'm pissed"
They can do that if they're happy with it, I'm with you on this.
Well you won't know without knowing the difference. Just say that we've a different order but for ordinary people probably make no difference.
You born after that so did I. Is like saying that the world is better place now because Napoleon invaded Europe. Well, you won't know what would be if he didn't so your argument has no logic (and, in addition you have no idea how life was during that time)
Is risk management 101, I'm sorry if you don't understand but I don't have time to explain it to you.
If 100% of your business is based in a country that has been threatened to be invaded many times and also had been attacked 8 years ago and you still think is ok go have 100% of your engineering and core business there then is your problem.
You don't know what Risk management? Business continuity?
Is the same reason why you don't deploy your DB in one PC in your basement and hope that nothing happened. If you get flooded and you didn't have a plan to recover is your sole responsibility.
Yes that's how business works. Have you seen Microsoft being hit by this for example?
From a business and operational point of view is just a silly move to have your business in one country, especially when you claim to be a "US business"
To me look like that of US here you've only a pool of directors, is more a Ukrainian company to me. Many Ukrainian companies have been hit as well, but they're not multinational businesses and don't use HN to voice their concern.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not justifying the war or anything. But from a business point of view, if I were the CEO I would've opened another office somewhere else and transfer know how from the Ukraine branch given that the situation with Russia has been tense for a decade now.
Classic American company delocalizing everything and now crying because all the engineering is based in Ukraine.
You put all the eggs in one basket and now you complain that they broke? Ukraine is in a conflict with Russia not from yesterday, it has been years from the Crimea case.
The CEO of this company never had a thought about de-risking his over reliance on Ukrainian talent to run his company? Or was just too cheap to keep the location there and pocket the difference in added value created by these talents?
They're just lazy