|
Posted by Steve Larson on December 21, 2007, 12:17 pm
Please log in for more thread options
OK, let's sum this up. Clearly this is an ideological debate, to which
there will be no outcome or "winning" position. You fall on the side of
Thomas Friedman, Milton Friedman, and Alan Greenspan globalization theory, I
fall in the camp that believes wanton globalization it is destroying
America. Funny, isn't it, that China and India have much more restrictive
trade laws than the US, isn't it? Yet, they are the ones with the windfall
global trade surplusses, and the US is in increasing deficit as the US
dollar disappears. I will never fall on the side of Reagan's bogus
trickle-down economics theory, I will always oppose welfare tax breaks to
big oil, I will always oppose unrestricted and unregulated free trade, I
oppose NAFTA, I oppose open highways to Mexican trucking. I flatly reject
your views, you likely reject mine. We will never come to any understanding
of each other's views, or any compromise in our beliefs. You are entitled
to your perspective, as I am to mine. I would encourage you to not lash out
with personal attacks with people you disagree with, you won't find as many
supporters for your position. People are finally catching on that
conservatives usually just spew hatred and personal attacks as a way of
leveraging or closing the argument. I choose a different approach. You
thought my original comments were way out of line, yet I guarantee you many
others have shared the same experiences. As far as whether a post should or
shouldn't have been sent, I firmly believe in the US Constitution and the
freedoms it guarantees, so I will unashamedly send any post I choose to
send, whether a single individual objects to it or not. That is the
"small-D" democracy and lack of societal control of individual freedoms that
conservatives fear so much.
> Steve Larson wrote:
>> One more point, I didn't impune your experience, so I don't need to
>> engage in a urinating for distance contest. I'm sure you have an
>> extensive background.
>
> I thought your original comments were way out of line ... and they didn't
> belong in this group. This post too should not have been sent, but I'll
> address it anyway.
>
>> Where you are incorrect is assuming your
>> background precludes my experience in the circumstance I described.
>
>> Indians are some of the nicest, most humble people on this planet.
>
> I'm sure they'll apreciate you damning them with such faint praise. I'm
> also sure they're much more skilled than you've given them credit for.
>
>> I
>> couldn't care less WHICH nationality they were, I just have less
>> tolerance for companies seeking a free lunch by outsourcing to cheap
>> 3rd world markets just to earn a huge executive bonus this quarter.
>
> The only one seeking a free lunch here is you ... looking for subsidies
> for the "American workforce" ... including yourself.
>
>> Bigger picture stuff here, but allowing corporations to turn their
>> collective backs on the American workforce will have devastating
>> impacts on the US economy in the long term.
>
> This is just plain hogwash, and practially the opposite of the truth (once
> you remove the rhetoric like "turning their collective backs on the
> American workforce").
>
> I believe you're having a personal reaction to this process that you're
> attempting to translate into a national problem, but whatever the reason
> is, you are misinformed. [The effect of some programming work moving
> overseas has undoubtedly negatively affected me as much as anyone else ...
> but that does not cause me to seek sympathy, nor the interference of the
> government in the marketplace to gurantee me a job.]
>
> We have nothing to fear from the global economy and the comptetition it
> brings ... any more than workers in one state in the union have to fear
> from companies/workers in other states.
>
> No one has the right to a job. No one has the right to a particular
> salary. The marketplace is global, and it's going to stay global. If
> individuals and companies can't compete on a global level, they're going
> out of business. And that is a good thing, not a bad thing. One of the
> "functions" of the market is to weed out those that can't compete. There
> is a job for virtually everyone, but it's not necessarily the one they
> thought, or wish, it was ... and it may change over time. The market
> impartially acts to send the signals needed to push people and companies
> to provide the goods and services most desired by consumers.
>
> Competition is good. Humans (acting as consumers) consistantly and
> relentlessly seek lower prices. No country can "protect" its citizens
> from competition - no matter where that competition is located - without
> jacking up prices and lowering quality. If companies didn't seek the best
> employees for the least pay (just as employees seek the best job for the
> most pay), customers and shareholders would pay the price. And that just
> shouldn't happen.
>
> The operation of the marketplace is difficult to grasp and impossible to
> control. Many humans can't stand the fact that a system without any
> humans in control can actually perform much better than a system with
> humans in charge ... it's a case of ignorance (mostly of economics, but
> also ethics) combined with hubris ... a deadly combination.
>
> When governments restrict the ability of companies to hire the employees
> they desire (so the polititicians can bribe some workers to vote for them
> and NOT be seen as "turning their backs on the American workforce"), they
> are forcing American consumers and American shareholders to subsidize the
> "workers" who are being protected. This is not a good thing. ["Workers"
> not only "work": they consume and they invest ... how bizarre that some of
> them think they can help themselves by increasing the prices they pay for
> things and lowering the returns on their investments.]
>
> If you want to subsidize the "American workforce", then you pay for it.
> And if you want to lobby to have the American people subsidize the
> "American workforce", have the honesty to call it what it is you seek:
> forced charity. Make the government setup a special tax on all Americans
> (so everyone will know what it costs), and use the proceeds to send
> charity checks to affected workers.
>
> Americans should never have believed that they were guaranteed their jobs
> or their pay. As soon as they figure out that the world is going to move
> on, with or without them, they will start adopting policies (personal
> policies) that place a high value on adaptation ... either increasing
> their skill level to stay up with the competition, or broadening their
> skillset to allow switching to new jobs when other factors make that the
> best choice. The day when everyone could expect to have the same job for
> life are over; but people are still being trained (vocationally and
> emotionally) as if it were true.
>
> Geopolitical boundaries are largely arbitrary; and totally arbitrary when
> it comes to human abilities. It is senseless to blame your problems on
> other countries ... or other states, or other counties, or other cities
> ... or other people. There's no workable way to draw a line where
> competition occurs on one side of the line but not the other.
>
> If we discover intelligent life on other planets one day ... we'll have to
> compete with them too.
>
> --
> John Pollard
> First initial underscore Last name at mchsi dot com
> Please reply to newsgroup
>
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
