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

You know Trevor...reading your opinions on this topic put me in mind of the
peace advocates who zealously believe that there should not be a death
penalty for anyone, no matter what.  Why do they believe that? Because they
have not yet been hurt enough by someone or something to believe that there
truly is evil in the world. I think the same principle applies here. You
personally have not yet been hurt enough by the outsourcing fiasco of our
jobs to India yet so you don't see this as that big of a deal yet. When you
DO finally lose your job to an inexperienced third-world programmer, and you
are living on unemployment checks and trying to figure out whether your new
career will be as a Wal-Mart greeter or a long-haul truck driver... come
back and talk to us again.  Because then you will no longer be speaking from
ignorance.

Luke Dalton

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Trevor Perry
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 11:40 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: [CPF0000] The globalization of COMMON,or is this the right
direction?

Joe,

From what I know, by spending money in India, the US is making more than 

they spend. This would mean that while some of the wealth shifts there, more

of it comes back.

And, even if this is not 100% true, the part about "destroying the standard 
of living of Americans" can not be blamed on globalization. The argument 
about the divide between rich and poor might be a more relevant debate - and

yes, this applies all over the world.

Trevor

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Pluta"
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