Non Linear Thinking will indicate - that the free global movement of people and goods should fall below our future projections and expectations. Though this is contrary to the efforts of every economic decision maker and Governments - it is most likely because our current linear approach and systems are not equipped to include the “new dynamics and changing environments’ within free trade. With more countries entering the free market based on adoption of democracy ; we need concepts that go beyond attempting to create closed group trade areas like EEC or NAFTA .

It is important to acknowledge that our economic logic and trade skills are limited and attuned only to expand trade. More often than not in todays ever changing environment. there is also a need to “cut back”. For this there is no “preparedness” in our system because there is rarely a “basis” - or methodology that has been predetermined.

OPEC is an example. Their economics have been in shambles till they were able to “increase their revenue based on a reduction”. This is a Non Linear strategy which the world can only counter ( as it did in the 70’s and 80’s) through a “reduction” in its own consumption. Unfortunately having beaten the cartel in the 80’s, the developing economies once again fell into the trap of ‘cheap energy’ with falling prices of oil. The linear approach to increasing consumption just because of lower costs has again reversed the situation. The final solution in this Non Linear era is to reduce consumption so as to reduce costs, not increase production of crude oil to reduce costs!!! ( The Republican Linear logic that will now be promoted. )

Output based systems have helped evolve “one way” skills. These are not appropriate for the long term .The aspirations of globalisation are noble and correct but - FIRST our systems require to promote “relative equalization”. With the increasing dominance of democracy and increase in the numbers entering the free trade systems, we will be required to ‘reduce somewhere in order for new entrants to have a relatively ‘equal opportunity’ to participate in global trade. The assumption that the current high consumption economies will continue their linear growth in their own consumption is not sustainable. Assuming that the citizens in developing economies can also be a theoretical potential on a similar per capita consumption as the developed world is unrealistic.

Amongst “unequals”, free trade can only bring about increasing disparity and tensions if attempts are made to integrate them. When Industry and production is shifted from a developed economy to a low wage, low cost region for manufacture and reimport - this freedom is currently based on the Democratic principles of free trade. Today - we are reaching relative saturation of this formula – as it is now becoming unfair and undemocratic to the workers and citizens “within’ the developed economy who lost their jobs.

In low income countries, the lack of basic infrastructure, poor employment opportunity permits exploitation of workers which inturn promotes the typical urban slums with unhygienic living conditions for the workers with negligible health care. To the worker in the poor country it would appear that a living income is an acceptable economic barter - that should not be the intended plan of globalisation.

Is it fair and democratic to the citizen of the developed world who have lost their jobs?The developed economies have progressed to a stage where workers are paid a fair minimum wage (bviously high from global standards).They receive medical benefits to live in security and dignity protected by legislation that also considers the protection of the environment based on increasing levels of civic socio-economic standards.

These achievements after decades of development paradoxically become the disadvantage - because of the continued use of linear and “old logic and definitions” for democracy, economics and free trade.While society is the loser – the few corporate entities are the only beneficiaries. The Relative Saturation of our inputs start to become evident when the beneficiaries start to narrow. While the promotion of free trade areas and pacts are clearly desirable; the issue is one of “inequality”. In today's Non Linear era, only “relative equals” can trade as partners and economically integrate using correct Democratic ideology and economic principles.

The key change in the Non Linear era requires the global community to accept that Globalisation is NOT likely to be created through global products BUT services. Though the trend is self indicative; we should need to incorporate Non Linear Thinking. Global brands, in a Non Linear era would have to change their “content and form” to adapt to local needs. They would in effect lose their global identity. It is important to observe that the growth of Global products has been a result of the services sector. Education, music, sports, are able to create a lifestyle or image that now has a greater power to integrate consumers - than the product alone through quality or price.

Global Free Trade is no longer sustainable only the basis of lower cost!

Non Linear Thinking will identify the need to change our definitions and parameters for globalisation almost in synch with the “rapidity” of change in technology. Shorter life cycle of products, obsolescence of technology indicate that we must start to define our economic systems in terms of their “Lack of changeability"- whereas we continue to seek durability. Our instinctive effort and struggle to retain our markets - must redeploy the same energy – to help us change.

The continuous linear savings that the Consumption economies have made through sourcing lower cost produce will in the future start to shrink - because the share of production within the total product cost is continually falling. Pre and Post production Intangible costs at the consumption end now keep increasing. At some point despite the lower labour costs, the current result of shorter product life cycles and the continuous need for “niche” branding will tilt the scales. Finally, the ease of localized inventory management will make it economical to manufacture nearest to the point of consumption.

In the Developed economies, the initial phase of import provides huge savings to a consumption based economy through lower costs to the consumer. This first creates an environment where the cost of essentials start to decrease vis-a-vis the “high growth of incomes”. In the 1970's and 1980's this created the inflation that accompanied the consumer spending boom. Today - falling costs contribute to “low inflation”. Technology and import sourcing reduces the “manufacturing jobs”, in every sphere of production, specially in the developed economies.

BUT - there is still a value that is missing. The huge margins in saved costs when importing from lowest cost manufacturing location has helped few products such as “electronics”. In other areas most of the benefits have been “absorbed” by the new added - values and costs. This has offset a lot of potential consumer savings in the West.

Today the “New added - values” that absorb most of the costs are in marketing, advertising, retail and legal costs which now constitute the majority in total cost of any product or service. With increased imports from lower cost locations - the “added savings ” were absorbed by these new services. This created the employment demand of the 70's and early 80's, created by growth in the services sector. Unfortunately, these suffer the consequences of a recession. Jobs are the first to go. With the increase of added - value in the post manufacturing phase - the employment volatility and effect has increased on the consumption side.

The disadvantage - in a recession in the Non Linear era is that any fall in product demand removes more jobs than it did in the past and effects more parts of the economy than before.
This is an inherent ill-effect of consumption-based economies.

Perhaps this should be explained.

Normally and in the past, a drop in product demand would mainly effect the producer, as PRODUCTION took the majority impact within the cost. So 100 units less at 100 Dollars per unit meant a loss of 10000 Dollars to the total trade. In the past almost 60 - 70 per unit or 6000 - 7000 Dollars was the manufacturing value returned to the producer. The majority of the loss in the linear era was thus concentrated at one point leading to structured closure or restructuring of the manufacturing plant.

Today the production point receives a smaller share of say 3000 in the 10000 dollars of product value recovered. When the added value vanishes today in the importing country there is a loss of 6000 that is suffered after the point of production. So while the producer has obviously lost his added value the MAIN loss is in the “Consuming” economies. This amount is further fragmented and spread over the “services” that absorb the majority of costs. This is a chain effect - over advertising, marketing, distribution, retail and legal service businesses. Even a small percentage drop in numbers in this Non Linear era within a ‘developed economy’ has a disastrous effect . However, boom times provide equal benefit - when a small growth provides wide spread employment. These are the Non Linear economics of this era.

The consumption economies are Non Linear as they have “fickle” incomes because they are based on the erstwhile “intangibles” that drive their commerce. YET Linear theories remain the priority and they continue to be dependent on continuous growth in trade as the minimal need for survival. The “effect” of small fluctuations are thus greater than before. Frequent upheavals become inevitable.

Non Linear Thinking also identifies other reasons for the reducing potential for export production from the low labour cost environments. Manufacturing countries using Child labour, Animal testing, with Human rights violation, poor environment management, or using toxic raw materials, are all targets of protest. Products from such countries should start to be refused under “human value” trade sanctions, a category that will emerge as a new component within free trade. Consumers in the developing World will increasingly influence Brand owners to stop purchase from lowest cost source, because the savings from low labour cost countries are a very small percentage relative to final price. The human value perception could be much greater and would justify an “added - cost” of manufacture.

Non Linear Logic could thus forecast an increase in manufacture nearer to the point of consumption for a number of reasons; leading to a drop in global trade in products. This will be a beneficial reversal for the developed economies - and must mean an increase in purchase of services and only low investment sweat shop products from the populous countries.

MORE REASONS: Unfortunately continuous disasters, shortages, crises will ultimately provide society with the “correct valuation” for natural products, only after we have suffered great “economic losses” from environmental damage, oil spills, waste dumping and the exhaustion of natural resources. These are all indicators that globalisation of trade based on goods will no longer be sustainable.

Linear economic and valuation formulae have never considered the cost of “renewability” of a natural product, to be a part of the cost of a natural resource. The erroneous valuation method has always considered only the cost of “acquisition”. The availability is taken for granted as nature's eternal free gift to mankind.

We should forecast that the “cost” of transport of crude oil could be a significantly higher based on the cost of risk than what is conveniently perceived today?

When transporting oil - it will at some point be necessary to add value of the cost of renewability - in event of a spill. This disaster scenario can no longer be considered a “rarity” - conveniently covered by an insurance. The cost has by experience been far greater than our simplistic linear logic - and there is no fund that has been provided for this within our “economic systems”.

While it appears that World trade is getting globalized - it is necessary to consider that technology is reducing distance, and increasing incomes continuously in populous regions. This offers us the opportunity of greater volumes in a smaller geography. Information and services will thus have a greater value than product - as only they can be instantly adapted and “transported” safely . Raw material and Goods must become increasingly expensive to transport because of increased costs of fuel and environment care. Regions can then again come full circle as in the past and focus on the development of regional technologies and raw materials for local consumption.

This is a global opportunity for human input by all - but having regional significance in terms of product and goods.

So, in the future we would be “glocalised” by using local products based on global technologies that provide the support and services. For managers of the future we must have the expertise and acceptance - to go “Back to future” - taking with us our new information technologies.

^top

Redefining Employment Laws for Sustainable Globalisation

Paradoxically rapid Linear growth has helped create a society, where despite a relatively fair minimum wage structure, and reasonable infrastructural benefits where the majority can live as equals; the developed economies are now prone to ‘high impact unemployment conditions’ whenever unemployment crosses even 5%. The continued use of ‘free trade principles’ that created the growth in the past now threatens stability in the Non Linear era.

Development of a relatively good quality of life and living standards for industrial workers in the developed World should have been considered to be an achievement that deserves some preservation and protection. Non Linear logic would reveal that the ability to shift production on the basis of “lowest cost” to any country or location should no longer be perceived as a right based on the democratic principles of free trade.

In the future when a corporate shifts its industry base from a “developed environment” to an unregulated poor economic environment; Non Linear logic should also consider the move as an exploitation of the displaced citizens in its home country. The developed economies are consumption driven, and hence low cost imports trigger economic growth. In developing economies like India the income levels are too low for any import to create a growth within the economy and promote employment. We therefore cannot have the same approach to free trade. Even export led industrial manufacturing investments are unable to create employment as todays technology requires less than 10 persons per Million dollars of Investment. It would thus be almost impossible to create employment for a few million to create a “national” difference in India. In this Non Linear era jobs will have to be created for local services and local product requirements. International free trade in industrial products can be a source of income if the product is ‘home grown’. But as jobworker industrial products can no longer be considered a source of employment for countries like India. Low Investment sweat shop labour based products are the only ones that create some impact.

Intellectuals, economists and researchers should infact research the effect of the loss of say 10,000 manufacturing jobs from say North America to the gain in economic terms and employment created in the low wage countries. In the developed economy there is a greater economic “chain” effect from services within a developed infrastructure. The huge “multiple” loss in value through services must far exceed the linear savings, or the benefit to the new supply source. In the linear era the “savings” in products cost continued to decrease prices in proportion to the decrease in costs. Today “labour content” remains a constantly falling value based on automation that keeps increasing productivity. Unfortunately all calculations are based on linear logic.

Democratic values must insure that through economics systems must seek to pitch “Relative equals” against one another. For the developing economies the maximum benefit will in future occurs where the product technology is totally dedicated to the local consumer and where the production facility is located near the point of consumption. In almost every country there is now a fluctuating cycle of unemployment which becomes the “ticking time bomb” that creates unrest and losses. The “cost” to society in todays time of violence, is enormous. The losses caused by the reaction and after effects of unemployment are perhaps greater than the symptom or savings to the creator of the unemployment. ( see India Centric Issues: "Labour - Hire and Fire" )

• As per linear logic, the “greatest” management turnaround skills in the developed economies seem to be based on the sacking of people - to lower costs.
• The ability to hire and fire is seen as the epitome of Free trade, and economics. Experts had evolved a linear theory for reducing costs and the verdict was out. The theory showed that society would ultimately benefit with this freedom. The linear logic and benefit is based on the assumption of continuous Utopian growth, and a just economic order.
• But - a recession throws out all the fundamentals of an economic theory.
• While we must perhaps still accept this as a democratic right without reserve, we need to categorically acknowledge that today - it is not working for the people, and above all cannot work in a highly populous, poor country which has no social benefits and infrastructure.

Non Linear Thinking can tread on toes, and attempt to look at this in the context of correcting democratic values because of “Relative Saturation”.

There are “few technologies or investments” that can absorb 10000 or 30000 jobs that are being dumped by some of the erstwhile infallible big corporates. These super stars of our past were always assumed to be the protectors of our future. While some have not been able to forecast or changing technologies or the increasing shift towards services; the common feature is the inability to identify with the consumer and his basic application needs. Laying off employees is today considered the natural democratic right in developed economies. In a Non Linear environment it can force a regression in free trade as we know it. In this Non Linear era increasing fluctuations, poor forecastability and rapid change will force societies to demand a return to protectionism and one can expect an even greater loss through trade wars, hidden tariffs, and economic tensions that mark a quick return to old errors. Defense spending cuts that are being planned and implemented by the developed economies could be reversed because of changed “political scenarios” brought about by deterioration in global trade relationships. The cause would be the failing of our economic systems. The arms trade that has formed a hidden but ‘critical backbone’ to international trade is an example where the short term revenue gain has been negligible compared to the cost of containing terrorism , local insurgency and civil wars. What is happening here is that instead of “change” creating the paradox. We are creating paradoxes, and the increase in recurrence and frequency can only lead to self - created “Chaos”.

^top

What should be our Employment Laws within Free Trade?

First the change in perception that relieving jobs is a Democratic right! Democracy must mean freedom to choose, but compulsorily the better choice for society not self! Individual rights of a business cannot be above society in the short term . ( see "Redefining Democracy for Sustainability")

BUT it should be accepted that this would not acceptable to free trade supporters per se as it would appear to bring forth a“socialistic” thought process. This thus needs to be considered in hard economic and management terms. We should accept and convince ourselves that after years of adding 1000’s jobs every year, an institution or corporate should not be permitted to suddenly decide that they have 30,000 Extra. This is not a tough “management” decision. It is an “autocratic” license to jeopardize the career and future of families and the local economy – showing that management has poor skills and little regard for planning. This is “bad management” and must be seen as such by all of us. But the right to retrench and replace must remain because history and experience have shown that guaranteed employment breeds inefficiency as in the public sector of India, erstwhile Soviet Union etc. etc. Our solutions therefore cannot be based on “this” or “that”.

“This” approach means removing protection for the community and society and
“That” approach breeds inefficiency, corruption and huge economic losses.

There has to be a another way!

We must give companies the “right to replace” as a fundamental right anytime they want. Replacement is the “correct” democratic principle that retains human values, and democratic rights - and provides the incentive to be efficient. The “right to fire and retrench” must thus be based on further controls that retains some responsibility on management.

As a “first option”, Industry must “replace” and can opt for “lower cost”, “younger”, replacements. While we must retain the “democratic” right to fire, we must add responsibility - which is the missing Human Value in our current democratic definition. There must therefore be the natural right to scale down employee strength based on changing markets. But – this must be restricted on an annual basis - perhaps matching the employment cycle during growth. This should be perfectly acceptable - because the COST to society and economy of a sudden “offload” is far greater than the saving to the company. Governments would easily afford to support this with fiscal and tax incentives.

The additional and delayed cost would thus be the real responsibility of “bad management”.

In a Non Linear era expected to be consistently turbulent - dumping debt, goods, assets will not be considered prudent in financial management ( though very efficiently done for profit ). Yet “people” as a resource is expected to be dumped because it is democratic. This is not sustainable for the future. A fair 2nd Stage “growth” towards correction should thus be to allow a maximum retrenchable percentage in any ONE YEAR related to the average total employment of last 3/4 years. A fast employment growth should permit an equal pace of retrenchment. Non Linear Thinking will reveal that in a democracy the “impact” of a recession is the real “creator” of a longer recession. The reasoning is economic not philosophical or socialist. If the economic impact can be reduced - then the cost and benefits will be better to the entire community and economy.

In a Non Linear era, democracy and laws have to be “upgraded” to place “human resource” above other resources and bring in critical changes.

• The larger “percentage” of those that have to be removed, must be replaced by people as per “choice of employer”.
• Any further percentage of “job” cuts must be limited to a fair value of the total on an annual and staggered basis.

In this way even though there would be a “COST” - the cost can be an investment in the form of -

• Training new recruits, graduates. ( In the chapter on "Education", we have seen that this will help the future economy and the “new students” by giving them opportunity despite recessions.) This should be a true corporate responsibility that will give huge profit to both the economy and the corporate in the future.
• Increasing research staff in a recession to develop better products to improve profits in better times.
• Improving efficiency in customer service, maintenance, design, software, data processing, while sales are low.

The ideal is NOT to add social costs and ideology but democratic principles, given credence to Human Resources and being “conscious” of the need to control the urge to add and subtract people as an “inanimate” resource. There could be ancillary benefits to this policy for Industry. This must lead to savings and better profits, because it will “LIMIT” the ability and bad practice to jump on the industrial “me-too” bandwagon. Today any product having a good demand leads to indiscriminate expansion, hiring, based on “poor management perception” because of the freedom to fire when demand reduces. This is not fair on employees who cannot be expected to forecast the business acumen of entrepreneurs or corporates.

These Non Linear systems should be considered as “additions” to our democratic values - NOT as a reduction in democracy and free trade. It is earnestly hoped that this process is not branded “socialist or leftist” because those in the Hierarchy and therefore controllers of Economics and Information are easily convinced of the dangers of meddling with free enterprise. For their benefit NLT must also forecast specific advantages. Today big companies pay more than smaller companies. This can be “reversed” in the future where upheavals will be more frequent. If large companies adopt correct “values” they would probably need to pay less because of their strength, coverage of health costs and relatively secure employment. In a Non Linear era small companies would have to pay more in the form of “entrepreneurial wages” to those willing to take the risk of taking employment with a small company - and survive amidst uncertainty.

In India, China, Soviet Union -the millions of unproductive labour employed by public sector - are all facing the dilemma of an “exit policy”. Overseas investors are increasing their pressure on the Governments to allow freedom to hire and fire! Linear logic cannot be applicable in countries where 20 - 30 million are unemployed and 100’s of millions have low incomes. The political chaos and mayhem that can be created by unemployment would prevent commercial activity itself -negating the logic of economic freedom and the democratic rights of hire and fire.

The FIRST critical need is to change the diseased attitude of state owned and public sector workers that they cannot be fired. So replacement must be the FIRST right given to all in industry. To reduce the chaos of sudden and further unemployment - a further ability for a percentage reduction can be given on annual basis according to some norm to retain equilibrium and correct the current ills of low productivity. Salaries of less than 1000 US $ per annum, cannot be crippling - if productivity is even marginally improved.

It is unfortunate that in the search for the “perfect solution” attempting appeasement of Unions on one side and foreign investors on the other - the dithering of governments continues and investment inflows suffer bringing no benefit to either. Unfortunately the search for a solution is based on retention of control, not economic logic.

NLT can help evolve solutions that do not create confrontation.

In any solution design correction is painful - and impractical if it ONLY asks for a change in ideology. Usually it is never implemented and written off to “philosophical banter”.

NLT will provide solutions that are democratic, but always involuntarily integrated with economic logic for effective results.

In all matters of policy our decision makers must look for signs of “Relative Saturation” where democratic principles no longer protect the “larger unit”. This indicates the need to enlarge the democratic principles.

^top

INDIA CENTRIC ISSUES

Countries like India that are uncompetitive due to their recent emergence in the Global markets have been disadvantaged by decades of poor government policy on protectionism For free markets to develop trade partners must at first identify areas where there is relative equality in “one”or more economic sector or product group. These are sectors where the ‘developing country has some “global competitiveness and hence equality”. These have to be thrown open to free trade internally within the country first. This experience and development will “create” the guidelines for the future addition of more areas - leading to the final integration.

• In a Non Linear era we can no longer expect to keep increasing customers and markets based on past experience. Different products and technologies are needed to match different living standards. This is largely ignored when linear logic is applied to economic growth within the quest for globalisation. Many transnationals would have experienced the need to drastically alter their original plans and adapt and reposition their products ‘lower down’ to be able to address the mass consumption products for ASIAN markets.
• Currently our Linear systems within technology and commerce always seem to aspire towards the goal of equalizing the per capita consumption of global products.

Developing countries need to be informed of their priorities. Their “FIRST” focus for manufacturing, and globalisation must be based on utilization of “human resource” alone - with minimal investment in export based manufacturing and capital goods. There should be minimal diversion of capital to manufacturing - because maximum capital is to be retained for infrastructure like Power, Road, Water Resources etc. In a Non Linear era, creating industry through increased debt is a trap and cannot be sustained because of the “decreasing” share of ex-factory cost within a faster obsolescence of technology. The focus must shift to services, and reduce the dependence on products for global trade. The need for foreign exchange as seen in India can be ideally met by the huge availability of Human-Hours - with the minimal need for additional scarce capital and infrastructure to be exclusively used for export production.

Though the Software Industry is booming it is not based on ‘design or intent’ as it is the creative spirit of free markets and the success of the overseas Indian professional community. BUT for the country to take advantage of this “new” opportunity there is first the urgent need for honesty to acknowledge that there is no available resource or Industrial technology that can provide “employment” for current and future “Indian” levels of manpower availability. Planning by negation becomes necessary. The limited funds that are available for infrastructure cannot be diverted from “local needs”. Though the software industry needs its own infrastructure ( which is again woefully short) its needs are miniscule compared to the returns they generate IF compared to the infrastructural needs for an export manufacturing industry If foreign exchange is the need than Indian should “first” use its existing resource of “man-power” to provide a return in foreign exchange.

“China” has managed to create huge export surplus in its ‘first stage’ of export led growth using their manpower for relatively “low - tech” manufacture. But China has the 'PARADOXICAL advantage' of being able to prioritize its need by Economic Logic - not Democracy and hence Indian policy cannot be fairly compared.

In India the population is conditioned to democracy, and the Government and politics is steeped in ‘control based economic policy’. India has not permitted itself to use its human resource as a ‘resource’ because of poor political will, and thus we have been unable to grow through the natural abilities of our population. So growth has and will always remain minimal based on Government policy. Only infrastructure investments and minimal management (negation and inaction) will result in growth. India has a unique opportunity in this one area where one strong infrastructure could guarantee huge returns based on our established success and credibility in the area of software and I.T enabled services. This can support the entire country’s foreign exchange needs based on the availability of “low cost overseas communication facilities”.

While it requires full Government input and commitment to take advantage of this opportunity – the poor approach towards telecom as indicated by continued BUNGLING of policy is indicative of our most likely loss in opportunity to exploit our natural strength.One can infact forecast continuation of poor policy based on Non Linear logic because the basic frame work of our past politics is based on the basic desire to retain control; as the last bastion of political instinct. They are perhaps aware that there is little chance of subsequent control by Government once any business is conducted through the open sky! Years of control and restrictions seems to made it obligatory and reflex for Government policy to “allow”, direct, or regulate investment and growth.

With improving communication technologies, reducing cost, and the fact that communication uses only “space” as the infrastructure - a developing economy like India has a unique chance to have an Equal infrastructure - compared to any other country - i.e. in communication. In all other areas of infrastructure like transport, roads, shipping, ports, energy and power - India cannot aspire to have adequate infrastructure or the funds to create an internationally competitive efficient infrastructure capacity that can be exclusively devoted to an “export” industry. Since our main resource is human power we are unlikely to create a competitive manufacturing industry that starts with the disadvantage of poor infrastructure. The ONLY way that industry would become competitive IF policy continues to prevent free trade is “continued devaluation” of our currency. AT some rate our currency will create ‘competitiveness by default’. Perhaps at 100 rupees to the dollar every PSU will also become the lowest cost producer in the World. In a Non Linear era our foreign exchange reserves are also unable to protect our currency value which will continue to depreciate till it equals the ‘true value of our goods and services’. The current success of our service industry is holding the rest of industry afloat. This cannot be a sustainable policy for ‘globalisation’ for India.

It is possible however to become EQUAL to any and all other countries in “overseas communication and transmission of digitized resources.”

For India - only 2-3 Million English speaking University Graduates (amongst a huge availability of 20 Million) can create the needed revenue to cover any shortfalls in foreign exchange. This existing resource has to generate a small turnover ( not net earning or income ) in international terms - while living in India. The foreign companies are already aware of this and as the permissions are available they have started to set up their infrastructure, which basically provides Indians the employment but the added value in the forms of savings to the overseas companies. For the moment an acceptable barter. There is enough human power resource in India to provide all the needed foreign exchange to purchase what is needed from the lowest cost source - rather than chase prehistoric and archaic ideologies of self - sufficiency. The Indian purchasing power alone will give a boost to global trade and further increase the export of “human hours”.

This is already obvious, as most have experienced that the real low cost of Indian worker is not on the shop floor - but in the low cost white collar technocrats. “Digital workers” must provide support services to overseas economies while they live in India. Once this is understood then India can focus its large investments to manufacture what is needed locally in large quantities for the mass markets. Overseas technologies can at best create product requirement that has limited consumption. These should be imported based on the lowest cost and reasonable tariff - so as to get the best return and revenue from the limited incomes and capital available in the country. A country like USA will not be able to sustain their growth based on ‘immigration’. The purchase of man-hours is the correct substitute and a fair trade.

We have already seen that there is a desperate need to increase all “inputs” and input evaluation. This cannot be afforded by the developed economies unless they purchase human-resource hours from countries like India. Today input cost in the developed world, reduces the economic viability of research, innovation, risk based development. These inputs control the future, success and growth of any corporate or economy. This infact would be the “correct” global trade in inputs - because it is based on equitable sharing of existing resources and strength of each country.

The opportunity referred to here need not be thought of in conventional terms as an opportunity to merely increase Indian “market share’ in Global software. This is Linear logic. This trade opportunity is not part of an existing trade - but an “emerging” one and a very obvious new business opportunity that can be “created” easily because it uses existing resources. The true interpretation of free trade between India and the developed would - will be easy import into India of products not required by mass markets - and the export from India of our existing resource - Human Power in Digital hours.

“Reprioritisation” is always the “best-first-option” when faced with limited resources. The focus of sustainable self-sufficiency must first and always be based fiscal and not

"Physical self-sufficiency" - perhaps a small spelling error that has prevented growth and equalization in so many developing economies.