RE: [CPF0000] The globalization of COMMON, or is this the right direction?

Trade is not a zero-sum game, the whole point of any voluntary exchange
is that BOTH parties benefit. There is not a finite amount of wealth in
the world to divvy up, our wealth is the result of our productivity. If
we can find a way to raise our productivity then we can ALL have more. 

In times and places where everyone has to do everything for themselves
the standard of living is generally VERY low, maybe you can grow enough
food for you and your family to eat, but to make a computer yourself or
even a clock is ridiculous. So you have some food and the clothes on
your back, but not much else. In better times what happens is that
people specialize and then exchange the products of their labor for the
products of other people's labor. 

So you specialized in writing code on the iseries, your employer pays
you money to write the code and you exchange the money for food,
clothes, shelter, transportation and so on and so on. The prosperity we
experience in this nation is a result of trade.

International trade is like trade between individuals, as nations excel
at different things, they can produce more of the good or service that
they excel at, and exchange it with their neighbor. When this happens
the global production possibility curve rises and we have more of
everything.

If international trade is so great, why are their so many people opposed
to it? The reason is because the gains from international trade are
generally diffuse, while the pain from international trade is highly
focused. We open up trade with another country, we are more efficient at
producing good A, they are better at producing good B. As both nations
start to specialize there is a net gain in the amount of both goods that
we can produce, and consumers of both goods benefit. This gain is
distributed across consumers of both goods in both nations. The downside
is that if you happen to be in the industry that is less efficient in
either country you are going to lose your job to the foreign
competition.

Here we have a net benefit, our society has more wealth, but the benefit
is spread out and the loss is very concentrated, so the people who get
the benefit don't notice it as much, and the people who take the loss
notice it very much. Imagine a scenario where you could steal a dollar
from every American, and reap the benefits yourself, but let's say your
scheme will cost 200 Million to implement, and so in the end you are
left with only 100 Million. You might say to yourself it's only a
dollar, who is going to notice? What if 20,000 other people implement
the same scheme? Then the real wealth of Americans drops significantly,
now imagine that someone in government is attempting to stop ONE of the
scammers. Everyone in America gets back a dollar, but the scammer is
going to lose his 100 Million, who do you think is going to take notice,
the people or the scammer? Who is going to lobby harder? The real
question of international trade is one of special interest VS the public
good.

 
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joe Pluta
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 12:13 PM
To: 'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'
Subject: RE: [CPF0000] The globalization of COMMON,or is this the right
direction?

Trevor, yes it is simple.  Because it has nothing to do with
competition.
It has to do with standard of living and population growth.  The reason
emerging countries can compete with American labor is because they have
a
lower cost based on their lower standard of living.  There are only two
options: create artificial barriers to equalize the costs, or else bring
the
entire global economy to parity.

Because Americans share the wealth of the United States among only 300
million or so people means we have a much higher standard of living
than,
say, India, which shares far fewer resources among four times the
population
(a disparity that only grows as India's population explodes).  The only
way
to have global parity is to spread America's wealth to those billions of
impoverished people.

This will raise the standard of living of those billions a little bit,
while
destroying the standard of living of Americans.

Which is exactly what the global economy is about.  Think about it.  If
Americans make roughly $50,000 per capita (remember you have to include
all
non-working people as well, so this number is probably high except
perhaps
in Hollywood and Washington D.C.), then sharing that with the 6 billion
people on the planet means everyone's share is about $2500 a year.
While
that's great for the poorest parts of the world, my bet is that you
won't
want to live on that, will you?  And you can bet the corporate moguls
and
bureaucratic mouthpieces that spout this stuff will find loopholes for
themselves as well.  So what this REALLY means is taking the wealth from
America's middle class and divvying it up among the rest of the world,
while
carving out a big chunk for the corporate middlemen.  The result?  The
destruction of the American working class.

Note that the other option is for parts of the world that are already
impoverished to LOWER their population growth.  This of course is never
discussed.  Instead, we'll simply take it from the Americans.  But if
you
kill that particular golden goose, boy, you are going to have one sorry
mess
on your hands. 

And hey, maybe I'm wrong on this whole thing.  But it sure makes sense
that
the planet's resources are finite and thus a zero sum game.  And it's
just
common sense that what supports 300 million people is unlikely to be
able to
support 6 billion (and counting) to anywhere near that level.  So any
talk
of a global economy without reducing the global population means a
global
demise.

Joe

From: Trevor Perry

It is so simple, it is obvious.