11 Outsourcing Trends to Watch in 2011

More bad news from the IT front.
     ------lee

By Stephanie Overby
Mon, December 20, 2010

     CIO — Outsourcing activity is expected to creep back in 2011, but things are hardly getting back to normal in the IT services space. The new year will be marked largely by upheaval—smaller contracts, cloud-related chaos, increased offshoring and decreased quality, for a start.
Read on for more. It's not all bad, we promise.

1. Progressive Outsourcing
     The year will be marked by the inking of smaller IT services deals, many of them by first-time buyers who sat on the sidelines in 2010, say industry watchers. Providers, happy to have a foothold, will push such customers to expand the scope of their relationships over time—the old "penetrate and radiate" approach. Contract activity will "creep back throughout 2011, as the recover stutters and buyers pull the trigger on sourcing activity," says Phil Fersht, founder of outsourcing analyst firm HfS Research.

2. Diving for Dollars

     Facing a slow economic recovery, IT leaders will continue to scour their existing outsourcing arrangements for savings. "There's a pot of gold in every contract, and in some cases we have found a pot worth millions," says Mark Ruckman, an independent outsourcing consulting working in conjunction with Sanda Partners. IT services customers may reconcile their invoices with their original contracts with an eye toward under-delivery or over-payment, for example, or replace contractors from large sourcing providers with IT professionals from local temp agencies.

3. Outsourcing, Meet Cloudsourcing

     Even if some of the discussion of cloud-based offerings from IT service providers is largely hot air, it will continue to be a hot topic in the industry. "The emerging cloud sourcing market will cause the destruction of the outsourcing market as we know it today," predicts Ben Trowbridge, CEO of outsourcing consultancy Alsbridge. "The two markets will merge and cloud sourcing will drive the rebirth of outsourcing."
  
For more...

Immigration and state/local budgets

Interesting article, but it's hogwash.  The immigrants are here for one reason only, to keep wages down.  This is the way Alan Greenspan set it up, and politicians of both parties are happy to keep their lavish perks and bribes...oops, campaign contributions coming, even if you or those you love eventually end up sleeping in a car.  Don't believe me?  Check this out.---rng

The Congressional Budget Office has an interesting article about the fiscal impact of "unauthorized immigrants" you might want to check out. The CBO says the net effect is a modest negative impact. Read and decide for yourself. ------lee

     CBO released a new report this morning on the impact of unauthorized immigrants on state and local government budgets. Most analyses have found that the fiscal impact of immigrants as a whole (both legal and unauthorized, and including all levels of government) is slightly positive — the tax revenues generated by immigrants exceed the cost of the government services they use. This study examines the literature on a more narrow question: the fiscal impact of unauthorized (as opposed to all) immigrants at the state and local government level (excluding the federal government).
     Many state and local governments incur costs for services associated with unauthorized immigrants, particularly in the areas of education, health care, and law enforcement. Some of those costs are incurred because of rules governing federal programs, court decisions, and state-level statutory or constitutional requirements. CBO’s review of the literature finds that the amount of spending involved is a small share of total state and local spending on these services, but the tax revenue collected from unauthorized immigrants at the state and local level does not offset the costs involved. The result is probably a modest negative net impact on state and local budgets.

to continue reading

Let Texans Know the True Cost of Illegal Immigration

from vdare.com
February 17, 2011

The Peter Morrison Report, By Peter Morrison

‏Last November, voters went to the polls across Texas and America and sent an unmistakable message: we've had enough of "me too"Republicans, and we want leaders who will do more than just mouth platitudes that sound good. We want Republicans who will fight for conservative causes and principles, instead of caving in and kowtowing to liberals at the first sign of opposition.

Some of our senators and representatives in Austin have let us know that they received the message loud and clear, and they're going to work hard on behalf of the issues we care about, and there are indications that this session won't just be business as usual. Unfortunately, others seem to have completely forgotten the conservative revolution of last November

Rep. Debbie Riddle (R-Houston) has proposed a bill that would require all public schools to check the immigration status of all their students. This is a very sensible first step toward getting a handle on the huge illegal immigration problem in Texas. As it stands now, there are no reliable figures as to just how widespread the problem is. If Debbie Riddle's bill becomes law, at least we would finally be able to measure just how much it costs us every year to educate the children of illegals in our public schools. This is exactly the sort of leadership conservative Texans demanded last November

Unfortunately it seems that not all the Republicans in Austin got the message. One of them, Rep. Rob Eissler (R-The Woodlands) is Chairman of the House Public Education Committee. Recently he gave an interview to the Texas Tribune in which he was asked about Rep. Riddle's bill. [Eissler: Don't Check Immigration Status of Students, by Evan Smith, February 3, 2011(includes video)] His response to the question should anger every conservative in Texas. At first he tried to avoid answering the question. Then, not only did he say he opposes the bill, calling it a mandate, he did so in a very condescending and offensive manner. He gave the distinct impression that he wants nothing to do with those of us who are concerned about illegal immigration, and won't be doing anything to stop it

to continue article

It's more important that we enforce immigration laws

"When was the last time you saw a news story and photos of our unemployed who must compete in a horrendous job market while our federal government continues each month to issue 75,000 work permits to newly arrived foreign workers..."

from tennessean.com
by Dave Gorak

Feb. 16, 2011

Because I am not an attorney, I will not attempt to address the legal challenges to Davidson County Sheriff Daron Hall's participation in the federal 287(g) program that allows local law enforcement to work with immigration agents in dealing with illegal aliens.

But as a citizen of a country that boasts that it is a nation of laws, I am extremely concerned about its future, which is looking very grim at the moment because certain elements within our society are fighting tooth and nail to prevent enforcement of our immigration laws — laws, please remember, that were created to protect American workers.

Our immigration crisis exists because:

• Pandering politicians elected to represent the interests of their constituents show more concern and compassion for those who have no respect for our immigration laws and sovereignty but demand that the rest of us respect them.

• Mainstream media for years have portrayed illegal immigrants as victims of a "broken'' immigration policy. Nearly every day, Americans are subjected to news stories that ignore the media's own ethics and standards for fairness and balance, coverage that leaves readers and viewers with the impression that the only people now entitled to "search for a better life'' in this country are the foreign-born, especially those here illegally.

When was the last time you saw a news story and photos of our unemployed who must compete in a horrendous job market while our federal government continues each month to issue 75,000 work permits to newly arrived foreign workers who, for the most part, bring with them few skills and little education?

to read full article

The Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act

Does this mean that outsourcing, offshoring and supporting amnesty for illegal alien job thieves are illegal?---rng

from ezinearticles.com
by Joseph Devine

The Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act, also known as the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act, was a piece of legislation passed in 1978 as a means to combat the rampant unemployment and inflation that was facing the United States in the late 1970s. Unlike most other bills that came before it, the FEBGA established an overarching game plan for the government to address these problems, by issuing a timeline for fixing particular problems. For example, by 1983, the government was supposed to have reduced unemployment to under 3% for the workforce over the age of 20, with the inflation rate at or below 4%.

The late 1970s were a difficult time for the United States. An energy crisis was confronting the nation, and a phenomenon called "stagflation" was constricting an already too-tight economy. Stagflation is the combination of stagnation and inflation in an economy, previously thought to be impossible as inflation and unemployment seem to be opposite problems. However, as the 1970s proved, the two problems can happen simultaneously under certain economic circumstances. In that case, oil prices rose suddenly, while banks in turn employed over-stimulative monetary policy to try to fight the recession, causing widespread economic hardship.

To combat the problem, the government turned to Keynesian economics, an economic theory that supports government intervention in economics to counteract recession. The belief is that the government can influence demand-side economics by injecting investment money into private businesses as a way of lessening the shock of a sudden lack of private investment. That is, the government intended to replace with government spending the money companies were no longer receiving from private investors.

The FEBGA had four main goals, which were stated explicitly in the bill itself:

to continue original article

For more information about employment law,

visit austinemploymentattorney.com.

Joseph Devine

Head Of Immigration agency Slams Senate's Illegal Alien Bill

This was timely then and it's timely now.  Cartoon needs updating of players but message still perfect.    Remember, too many apples drives down the price of apples, and it doesn't matter if the apples come from Mexico or Germany.---rng

from hyscience.com
June 1, 2006


Topics: Immigration and Border Issues

.... immigration law violators are not immigrants . They are aliens who are in the United States in violation of law. There is a profound difference between individuals who legally apply for admission and fulfill all the requirements for admission, and those who decide to enter the United States, or intentionally overstay their visa in violation of law. Labeling such violators as intending immigrants only confuses the issue and juxtaposing these two categories is specious logic. - George Weissinger, Ph. D. New York Institute of Technology 

Here comes more ammunition for the House-side of the argument for border security and immigration law enforcement first (which includes cracking down on employers who hire illegal aliens), and award free tickets to citizenship for lawbreakers later - if ever.

As almost everyone that's actually awake, that is, functioning with eyes open to where this country is actually headed with our existing problem of incoming hordes of illegals, given the huge illegal alien (read - as opposed to immigrants, as the media like to present them), the Senate's immigration bill makes the same mistake as the 1986 amnesty bill by restricting the ability of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service to share information on illegal alien guest-worker applicants who are criminals and terrorists.

And this comes from the man whose agency has to administer the program:

The Senate immigration bill makes the same mistake as the 1986 amnesty by restricting the ability of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to share information on illegal alien guest-worker applicants who are criminals and terrorists, the agency's director said yesterday.

Emilio T. Gonzalez, whose agency would have to administer a guest-worker program, said not allowing the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to share information on someone who applies means they cannot begin the process of removing criminals and national security threats, even after they are rejected from the guest-worker program.

"It is important for us to be able to act on what we get when we run a background check on somebody," Mr. Gonzalez said in a briefing with reporters in which he weighed in on the Senate immigration bill, which would offer a chance for citizenship to millions of illegal aliens, expand legal immigration and start a new foreign-worker program.

to read original article

Illegal immigration: A jobs issue for those here legally

from JSOline
By Dave Gorak

Arizona's new law, Senate Bill 1070, aimed at removing illegal immigrants from that state is being called all the wrong things by the mainstream media and those portraying themselves as the champions of "immigrant rights."

This law is not "racist," nor does it encourage "racial profiling," the terms used by those bent on throwing open our borders and ending American sovereignty. Nor is it "misguided," in the words of President Barack Obama, whose only priority these days seems to be doing whatever it takes to make Democrats the major political party for the foreseeable future. Rule of law? Protecting American jobs? Not on this president's radar.

Arizona's crackdown reflects the recommendations of President Bill Clinton's U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by Barbara Jordan, now deceased. In short, SB 1070 has "credibility," something missing from a federal immigration policy long ago disavowed by Washington and the many of members of Congress who for years have ignored their own oath of office that requires them to uphold our laws.

For Jordan, the nation's first African-American to become a Texas congresswoman, deportations were key to any immigration policy worthy of the name. During her 1995 testimony before Congress, Jordan said:

"Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in get in; those who should be kept out are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave."

What's lost in the howling over enforcement of our immigration laws is that these laws were designed primarily to protect American workers. When it comes to this part of the debate, the illegal immigrant advocates and mainstream media are nowhere to be found. Where is the outrage and threats of "civil disobedience" from Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) and others over American workers having to compete with an unending wave of foreign workers for jobs they once did but for wages that allowed them to support their families?

Where is the compassion so generously doled out to illegal immigrants by editorial writers, clerics and those seeking "social justice" for our native-born working poor of every race, creed and color?

The unemployment rate among black Americans, for example, hovers around 17%. While the media recently noted the economic hardship in the black community wrought by the Great Recession, there was no mention of the role immigration plays.

Writing in the March 22 edition of The Washington Times, Frank L. Morris Sr., a former executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation said, "The CBC also should be the vanguard of the effort to reduce overall levels of immigration to the United States. During the 2000s, the growth of our labor force - fueled by the highest levels of legal and illegal immigration in our nation's history - outpaced the growth of jobs in our economy. As often has been the case throughout history, it is black workers who have suffered the most."

to continue article

January Jobs: Immigrants Displace Natives At Record Rate

The war against the American workers grows increasingly ugly.  Thank you, George Bush and thank you, Barack Obama.---rng

February 05, 2011

from vdare.com

National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein

January Jobs: Immigrants Displace Natives At Record Rate

The U.S. unemployment rate fell unexpectedly to 9.0% in January, a 21-month low, while nonfarm payrolls rose by a surprisingly meager 36,000 jobs. Snowstorms probably had some effect on the anemic job numbers, given that sectors like construction and transportation and warehousing shed jobs. As a result, some economists said they would largely disregard the latest government report.

Not this economist. The "other" employment survey—of households rather than businesses—found that 117,000 jobs were created last month, with all the gains accruing to Hispanics—a group overrepresented in occupations normally impacted by weather.

In the month of January:

• Total employment: rose 117,000 (+0.08 percent)
• Hispanic employment: rose 193,000 (+0.97 percent)
• Non-Hispanic employment: fell 76,000 (-0.06 percent)

VDARE.com’s American Worker Displacement Index (VDAWDI) rose to a record in January as Hispanics gained jobs at about 16-times the rate of non-Hispanics:

Since the official end of the recession in June 2009 non-Hispanics have lost 1.2 million jobs while Hispanics have gained 490,000 positions.

• For every 1,000 Hispanics employed in June 2009 there were 1,025 employed in January 2011.
• For every 1,000 non-Hispanics employed in June 2009 there were 995 employed in January 2011

Some of the MSM called the unexpectedly large decline in the unemployment rate a sign of a reinvigorated labor market. We beg to disagree: unemployment is down because people have given up looking for jobs. Those too discouraged to look are not in the labor market—and therefore not counted as unemployed.

Who are the discouraged workers? As a group, they are the native-born.Over the past year the foreign born labor force has grown while the native born labor force has declined: 

to continue...

14 Points To Save America

from dailybail.com

by S. Gompers

Guest post submitted by S. Gompers.

---

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.”

       Charles Dickens, English novelist (1812 - 1870)

##

It is funny how this quote from A Tale of Two Cities seems to be the very essence of the age we live in today.  Many see hope, light, darkness or despair reflected in their views of one party or the other depending on their faith or views of one another.  Everyone is concerned for the future, yet strongly abide by the very party lines that got us here in the first place. Reality is, both sides have been striving to derail the American experiment for many years. Evidence of this lies in the rhetoric thrown at one another as being somehow more important than real solutions for what ails the nation. Ignore the problems, but create plenty of distractions to keep the masses preoccupied.

To save the nation, I feel that the following 14 points should be implemented while we still have time to break out of our current free fall.

1) -  If candidates are sincere, they must refuse to accept money from financial institutions or lackeys thereof (one must first get elected to have any effect on the other points) and demonstrate their sincerity to the American people that they are truly interested in returning our nation to its intended Representative Democratic Republic.  Our “Representatives” have manipulated our current system into such a sorry state that we now have an un-named, unmanageable, unworkable system of government.

2) -  End the FED. With a vote by Congress in 1913, the government gave legal legitimacy to a cartel of the largest bankers and permitted them to inflate the money supply at will, providing for themselves and the financial system liquidity in times of need, while insulating themselves against the consequences of overextension of credit and bad loans.

This form of financial socialism that has benefited the rich and the powerful through the creation of the FED has caused, or greatly contributed to, the unprecedented economic instability in the decades afterwards and must be laid to rest.

The current alleged functions of the Federal Reserve System include:

• To address the problem of banking panics.

• To serve as the central bank for the United States.

• To strike a balance between private interests of banks and the centralized responsibility of government.

• To supervise and regulate banking institutions.

• To protect the credit rights of consumers.

• To manage the nation's money supply through monetary policy to achieve the sometimes-conflicting goals of maximum employment, stable prices, including prevention of either inflation or deflation, and moderate long-term interest rates.

• To maintain the stability of the financial system and contain systemic risk in financial markets.

• To provide financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions, including playing a major role in operating the nation's payments system.

• To facilitate the exchange of payments among regions.

• To respond to local liquidity needs.

• To strengthen U.S. standing in the world economy.

All this private banking system has managed to do is successfully privatize the profits, while socializing the losses onto the backs of generations of Americans who have not even been born yet.  If anyone feels these goals as stated by the FED have been achieved, speak now or forever hold your peace.

3) - Restore a Constitutional monetary system outside of the central banking structure.  The mechanics of this item has yet to be addressed or determined, as most focus on issue number 2 and seem to have not thought this far in advance.

4) - End lobbying and restore a Government of the people, by the people, by majority rule, instead of a government of the lobbyist, for the special interest, focusing on a rule by a very elite minority.  This item in its own right will strip the ruling minority of its carrot and stick method of subjugating the masses by controlling the “elected representation” that the people elected to represent them.

5) - Prosecute those responsible for the financial destruction of America.  Only through the realization that crime does not pay can future ponzi schemes and frauds be averted. Speak softly and carry a big stick people, as long as crime is rewarded, it will be rampant.

6) - Investigate all "lawmakers" who were contributory to aiding the crime of the century by repealing laws such as Glass-Steagall, etc., and uncover the money trail of special interest money desiring the same.  We must stop the flow of money to politicians to serve other masters than the American people. They get “rewarded”, while we pay for the crimes that are implemented is not in the healthiest interests of our nation.

7) - End the selling out of our national interests to foreigners.  When the government spends more than it collects every year, it borrows. It prints up Treasury Notes and Bonds etc.

This puts the government in a catch-22. It can’t raise taxes, because nobody likes that. It can’t charge tariffs (tax) on products coming into the country and put the cost of our government onto foreign countries and foreign manufactures. It could do this, especially since we now import 80% of what is sold in the U.S., but it can’t, because we believe in “UNfree trade”. Besides, most of our imports are from American based companies who went overseas to avoid paying taxes and hire cheaper labor in the first place.  Instituting tariffs would spoil their whole plan, especially since much of their plan was assisted with U.S. taxpayer’s dollars to get out of paying taxes.

to continue reading

Wages and Productivity

For my money,the most savvy economist around.---rng

Ravi Batra, "The Crash of the Millennium,"  
New York: Random House/Harmony Books, 1999, pp. 66-69

WAGES AND PRODUCTIVITY

Supply and demand for goods are linked to the 
workforce through wages and productivity. What 
happens in the national labor market is the key to a 
country's economic health. Supply and demand for 
workers determine wages and employment. Skilled and 
motivated workers are the backbone of high 
efficiency, but what is perhaps crucial is that 
company wages reflect labor productivity. When new 
technology raises hourly output, then fairness 
demands that workers are properly compensated for 
their hard work and skills. This is not only a 
question of ethics but of labor peace and social 
prosperity as well.

Wages are the main source of demand, productivity the 
main source of supply, and if the two are not in sync 
with each other, then national supply and demand 
cannot be in balance for long, and eventually the 
economy runs into major trouble. For a while the 
balance between the two forces can be maintained by 
raising artificial demand through excessive business 
investment, or through the expansion of consumer 
debt, money supply, corporate debt, government budget 
deficits, and even exports, but these are mere 
palliatives that may mask the problem for some time. 
Artificial spending is the stuff of which economic 
disasters are made. Frequently it culminates in 
recessions, but occasionally it has even spawned 
depressions and inflation—-even hyperinflation. 
Whenever and wherever a country has suffered a major 
depression, you will find a persistent and 
substantial wage-productivity gap. The bigger the 
size of artificial demand, the greater the eventual 
trouble.

A SIMPLE ILLUSTRATION

When the labor market is distorted in the sense that 
real wages lag behind productivity, the entire 
economy behaves irrationally. Let us take a simple 
example in a very simple economy. Suppose there are 
one hundred workers in a society, and each produces 
$5 worth of output. Worker productivity is then $5, 
and if everybody is employed, total output or supply 
will be $500. U.S. experience of the 1950s and the 
1960s reveals that a high-growth economy with 
practically no unemployment and inflation requires 
that about 80 percent of output go to labor and the 
remaining 20 percent to the owners of income-
producing property or capital, which is also an 
important resource contributing to productivity. 
(Capital owners usually earn incomes through their 
labor as well, so the 20 percent share is not their 
only source of earnings). Under this rule, wages will 
be 80 percent of output, or $400, and profits the 
rest, or $100.

Keeping the argument as simple as possible, let us 
suppose that initially all wages are consumed and all 
profits are invested into new technology and the 
replacement of worn-out capital so that consumption 
spending is $400, investment spending is $100, and 
the aggregate spending is $500. In this case, the 
economy functions smoothly, for both national supply 
and demand for goods equal $500.

Now assume that owing to new technology, worker 
productivity doubles to $10, so the value of output 
generated by one hundred workers rises to $1,000. If 
wages and consumption also double to $800 and the 
profits and investment to $200, again national supply 
and demand for products will remain in balance, this 
time each equal to $1,000. However, suppose wages 
rise only to $600, while profits up to $400. 
Consumption now equals $600, and it is clear that 
investment spending must now be $400 lest national 
demand be short of supply, resulting in 
overproduction. Would businesses be willing to put 
all their profits into new investment, when consumer 
spending grows slowly? The answer is most likely not.

If you are investing $200 when your sales are $800, 
you are not likely to increase your investment for 
business expansion when your sales go down to $600. 
If companies realize that the current demand for 
their goods is inadequate, they will trim their 
investment even below $200. The purpose of capital 
spending, after all, is mainly to meet consumer 
demand; you would expand your business only in 
proportion to your sales. If sales fail to 
materialize, investment will decline. With consumer 
demand less than $800, the companies will invest even 
less than $200, in which case total spending will 
fall way short of supply, businesses will be stuck 
with unsold goods, and layoffs will have to follow. 
Thus the simple example makes it clear that when 
wages lag behind productivity, distorting the labor 
market, the product markets will also be out of 
kilter.

It is of course possible that, for a while, the 
companies may not be aware of the shortfall in 
consumer demand; their high profits may convince them 
to expand their capital expenditures all the way up 
to $400 and to buy more machines. In this case, 
demand and supply will each equal $1,000, and the 
economy will reveal no signs of the potential 
imbalance possible from the slowdown in consumer 
spending.  The growth process, however, will 
continue. With investment skyrocketing to $400, the 
use of new technology and worker productivity will 
climb even faster.

Suppose in the next round output per employee jumps 
to $20, so total supply, with full employment of 
labor, soars to $2,000; if wages and consumer demand 
rise only to $1,200, then investment must climb to 
$800 to maintain the balance between supply and 
demand. It is clear that with wages lagging behind 
productivity, the growth process will become 
explosive, requiring ever-increasing doses of 
business investment to maintain high employment and 
the living standard.

This process is purely artificial in the sense that 
businesses will be selling a large portion of their 
goods to each other rather than to consumers to 
sustain their prosperity. It's like a Ponzi scheme in 
which you have to create sellers to buy your products 
and sell them to other sellers. Such schemes always 
collapse. When firms raise their capital spending and 
buy more machines from other companies, in reality 
they sell goods to each other, because consumers 
certainly have no use for plant and equipment. Sooner 
or later, a point will come when the companies are 
unable to sell all their output, and a recession or a 
depression will result. If the growth process 
continues for a long time, then the potential 
overproduction becomes so large that a depression 
becomes inevitable.

It is noteworthy that the power of this logic in no 
way depends on the simplicity of our assumptions. In 
the real world, some workers do save, and not all 
profits may be invested. Furthermore, there is a 
large government sector today in most economies, 
which additionally have to reckon with the ills of 
inflation. Labor income also may not initially amount 
to 80 percent of output; these assumptions are not 
crucial to the argument. What is critical is that 
real wages grow slower than the rate of productivity 
resulting from new technology and business 
investment.

What could be done to rectify the problem? Since the 
fundamental source of the imbalance in both the labor 
and product markets is that wages trail productivity, 
the solution is clear. Either a law should be passed 
that all output be divided proportionately between 
labor and capital, or some institutions should be 
created such that wages grow in sync with hourly 
output. This, of course, has not been done anywhere 
in the world, even though the wage-productivity gap, 
hereafter called the wage gap, has been soaring all 
over the globe for the last three decades. Then how 
has the balance been maintained between demand and 
supply for products?

to read full article