3 ms·
Why would it have to be net positive for the US? If $100 million flows from AT&T to IBM. And IBM pockets $10 million and sends $90 million to India, that would
by timthelion 9y ago
Why would it have to be net positive for the US?
If $100 million flows from AT&T to IBM. And IBM pockets $10 million and sends $90 million to India, that would be a net -$90 million for the US economy.
- sriram_sun 9y agoGood point. I hadn't thought of that.
- fixermark 9y agoThat's assuming the $100 million flow in question can happen at all without the India piece of the puzzle. Another way to think about it might be "$100 million wealth flowed (and taxes paid on it, and salaries paid, &c), $90 million of which goes to India, vs. $0 wealth flowed (and so no taxes, no paychecks, etc.)" A lot depends on the accounting of where AT&T got the $100 million at the start of this story, and what spending that $100 million enables AT&T to do, whether this flow turns out to benefit both the US and India, mostly the US, mostly India, or neither.
- njarboe 9y agoOne would hope that AT&T gets and IBM get something for their money. If the flow is $100 million to IBM, and AT&T nets a $200 million value from workers in India, maybe it is still a net flow to the US. If the US can trade a simple change in a computer record (a US dollar transfer) for stuff it wants, seems like a net positive. Economics is a complicated system with lots of feedback where the actors in the system can change the system itself.