Slashdot Mirror

bullshit.

It's pricey and only comes out every two months but if you really want to know what's going on on this wacky planet it's one of the best mags out there. Foreign Affairs Homepage

The American role in promoting Europe's recovery during these years extended far beyond the disbursement of aid. The ECA oversaw numerous projects, from the rebuilding of the Corinth canal by American contractors under the supervision of the Army Corps of Engineers to the modernization of mines in Turkey. In Trieste American technicians helped install U.S. equipment in an oil refinery.

I also find it interesting that in the middle of the effort to rebuild Iraq, you cry "We are giving too much money to corporations!" How the hell do you know (without using hindsight like with the Marshall Plan) how the current and future expenditures will be allocated?

What disturbs me is that you are not only out of touch with reality, but willing to attempt to warp your entire worldview, contrary to what evidence and reason might say, to accomodate your personal feelings about the value of corporate help in the rebuilding of Iraq.

I might respect you when you begin to think.

Read this:

LINK

The Outsourcing Bogeyman By Daniel W. Drezner

From Foreign Affairs, May/June 2004

Summary: According to the election-year bluster of politicians and pundits, the outsourcing of American jobs to other countries has become a problem of epic proportion. Fortunately, this alarmism is misguided. Outsourcing actually brings far more benefits than costs, both now and in the long run. If its critics succeed in provoking a new wave of American protectionism, the consequences will be disastrous -- for the U.S. economy and for the American workers they claim to defend.

Daniel W. Drezner is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and the author of "The Sanctions Paradox." He keeps a weblog at www.danieldrezner.com/blog; full references and data sources for this article can be found here.

THE TRUTH IS OFFSHORE

When a presidential election year coincides with an uncertain economy, campaigning politicians invariably invoke an international economic issue as a dire threat to the well-being of Americans. Speechwriters denounce the chosen scapegoat, the media provides blanket coverage of the alleged threat, and legislators scurry to introduce supposed remedies.

The cause of this year's commotion is offshore outsourcing -- the alleged migration of American jobs overseas. The depth of alarm was strikingly illustrated by the firestorm of reaction to recent testimony by N. Gregory Mankiw, the head of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers. No economist really disputed Mankiw's observation that "outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade," which makes it "a good thing." But in the political arena, Mankiw's comments sparked a furor on both sides of the aisle. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry accused the Bush administration of wanting "to export more of our jobs overseas," and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle quipped, "If this is the administration's position, I think they owe an apology to every worker in America." Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, meanwhile, warned that "outsourcing can be a problem for American workers and the American economy."

Critics charge that the information revolution (especially the Internet) has accelerated the decimation of U.S. manufacturing and facilitated the outsourcing of service-sector jobs once considered safe, from backroom call centers to high-level software programming. (This concern feeds into the suspicion that U.S. corporations are exploiting globalization to fatten profits at the expense of workers.) They are right that offshore outsourcing deserves attention and that some measures to assist affected workers are called for. But if their exaggerated alarmism succeeds in provoking protectionist responses from lawmakers, it will do far more harm than good, to the U.S. economy and to American workers.

Should Americans be concerned about the economic effects of outsourcing? Not particularly. Most of the numbers thrown around are vague, overhyped estimates. What hard data exist suggest that gross job losses due to offshore outsourcing have been minimal when compared to the size of the entire U.S. economy. The outsourcing phenomenon has shown that globalization can affect white-collar professions, heretofore immune to foreign competition, in the same way that it has affected manufacturing jobs for years. But Mankiw's statements on outsourcing are absolutely correct; the law of comparative advantage does not stop working just because 401(k) plans are involved. The creation of new jobs overseas will eventually lead to more jobs and higher incomes in the United States. Because the economy -- and especially job growth -- is sluggish at the moment, commentators are attempting to draw a connection between offshore outsourcing and high unemployment. B

Please read the following article in Foreign Affairs. I think it outlines most of the relevant economic issues and points out some interesting political ones. Most importantly - the current alarmism about offshoring is political FUD.

With T.V. I can have tripe like "Yes Dear" forced upon me or I can view meaningful content on demand via the internet.

For example, I can pay $80/mo. for standard, no movie channel cable from Time Warner and get news fed to me in 30 minute bursts or I can pay $8.95/mo. for internet access and read in-depth studies from sites like foreign affairs. I can be a better parent and read about my gifted son's condition and learn from it on the internet or I can sit on my ass and watch Temptation Island.

T.V. no longer consistently delivers meaningful content (if it ever did). Heck even formerly great channels like TLC have relegated themselves to regurgitating reruns of While You Were Out.

The entire media industry is sooo out of touch with the populace and clearly have no clue how to react and change to an increasingly digital lifestyle so many of us are adopting.

Ok. Their main industry is still agriculture, not IT, not cars, not industry. There main markets for agriculture would be Japan, USA & Europe - if those countries did not subsidize and dump their own produce to hell. Without world markets for this produce they are forced to build up capacity in other industries that are "free". I do expand on this in the link to my long boring journal entry which includes some links to the affects reaction of Congress to the 1929 bust.

Finally I would dispute "MUCH" and I would also say that you must be doing pretty badly if you think India and China are "doing great".

If you don't like my analysis, here's another view.

Outsourced burgers in India? From what? Holy cows? Guess you didn't think that one through ;)

Though you meant it as a joke ... it should be pointed out that the sacred prohibition against the slaughter of cows applies to "Hindus" (however one might want to construe that term) and not to other sizeable populations within India, such as Muslims.

Jains are not to kill cattle or consume beef, either, but not because cows possess inherent sanctity. Then there's the Buddhist population...

Whether the "Hindu" prohibition is long-standing is itself a contentious view.

Adherents to movements like the BJP may not be too thrilled about it, but there are plenty of Indians who don't think cows sacred. Indians aren't all Hindus.

In short; Outspend them until they fail.

Seems like it worked to me...

I strongly diagree with you that it is the only way to stop the war by transferring all Palestinians out. With no further options for peace, ALL Arabs will then support war. It will create hundreds of Bin Ladens. Do you think the Saudis can crack down on citizend funding terrorism if EVERYONE does it? If Israel does that, they will be destroyed. And perhaps they would deserve it for such an extreme and unfair deed.

If you think that Arab culture is all about showing force, then you and Mr. Bush and Mr. Sharon should read more. Treating your opponent in such a disrespectful manner only increases hostility.

You telling me "I'm smart" won't make me roll over and believe your opinions. I think I can see more than many too, but I don't think you will trust me just by my allegation.

You think the US flexing its muscle will keep governments in line. Fine. But it will only encourage individuals and Non-governmental terrorist organizations. Al Qaeda recruiters are swamped with people eager to join now, after watching the carnage and blood on TV. Too bad American journalism is more sanitized. I think you should watch the BBC or Al Jazeera more and tell me if that doesn't shake your opinions.

Some Christians feel non-Christians are inferior, some Jews feel non Jews are inferior, some Hindus feel non-Hindus are inferior.

Your article from 1911 didn't help me understand Arabs any better. Go see my article above.

Mike Hawash is a can of worms, I don't think we should open that. Perhaps the fact that the US was unfairly aggressive got to him. I warned you, starting wars leads to more people joining terrorists. (IF he did, and I didn't follow the case)

This is simply not true. In 2001, the US spent about $10 billion in foreign aid, out of $50b worldwide. However, as a fraction of our GDP, our contributions are the smallest of any of the OECD countries, and as little as a tenth of the northern european countries.

This year, of course, we have an $87b spending spree. Only $20b of that is going towards reconstruction, though (the rest pays for the military). As for whether that's foreign aid or payment for damages is up to you.

Private aid might even score somewhat-- counting foundations, NGOs, private people sending money to their families, etc., the US sends $35b abroad every year. I can't find any equivalent statistics for other countries, though.

About 2% of charitable donations in the US leave the country.

References--
1, 2, 3

All you have to do is look at the political landscape of France.

"France today has roughly four or five million Muslim inhabitants, nearly a tenth of the population. Approximately half have French citizenship. More precise figures are not available, since the French state, being officially secular, is forbidden to inquire into questions of religion. It is generally agreed, however, that France, preponderantly Catholic, now has more Muslims than either Protestants or Jews, its historical minorities. Islam has become the country's second religion."

You cannot forget that in 2002, Chirac's main opponent in his election was a isolationist (Le Pen), illustrating that the french commoners wanted to roll back the recent immigration, and did not like the direction the politicians were taking the country... Chirac has to appease the arabic voters , and the best way he knew how was to counter the United State's forays into Afghanistand and Iraq at every turn, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

You give him too much credit, thinking he was "standing up against the USA", when he is just politicing and covering his ass.

What led to the breakdown in talks was our invasion of Iraq. France didn't actually veto anything, indeed, there would have been no need for them to do so, as we could not get even majority support for what we were demanding--a resolution that would essentially give us UN authority for an immediate invasion.

French officals similarly claim that Chrac would have gone ahead with the use of force if a nine-month schedule had been set at the beginning. The swing voters on the council (Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico, and Pakistan) would have been satisfied with as little as four months....

To secure a second resolution would have also required some compromise on substance, especially the question of timing. London was willing to endorse such an approach, but Washington was not. Had the Bush administration shown some flexibility in early March, however, it would have been France that ended up on the losing side of the tally, not the United States. In fact, a compromise text did emerge that would have had the tacit backing of Blix and the support of ten countries. This resolution would have entailed the following elements: the establlishment of benchmarks for compliance...the setting of a mid-April deadline for Iraq to meet the established tests; and, finally, a presumption that failure to comply would constitute a material breach and thus trigger the use of force...

...but Washington's inflexibilty doomed the effort. Instead, either because of the military timetable or because he was frustrated with the diplomatic process, Bush offered a one-week extension to mid-March--no compromise at all --James P Rubin, Stumbling Into War

Really?
My dictionary defines empire thusly:
Empire
Of, relating to, or characteristic of a neoclassic style, as in clothing or the decorative arts, prevalent in France during the first part of the 19th century.

In political terms, there's still a fair bit of debate whether the United States constitutes an empire or hegemony. The distinction seems to be rather too subtle to be of much value. But for you conspiracy fans out there, the US could be said to control the World largely through manipulation of the World Bank and IMF--the policies promoted thusly may seem neutral, but tend to favour the US view of things.

Regardless of whether the US is a hegemon, an empire, or hyperpuissance, the fact that US policies are translated into political control over persons who have no say in the matter should be of grave concern to USians. It matters not how benevolent this rule may be-- the ruled must be given the opportunity to choose for themselves.

Talk about privacy-advocates mis-quoting the Constitution... Here's the clause to which you refer. I don't think it means what you think it means:

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

This doesn't grant any new powers. It gives Congress lawmaking ability. It isn't extra or contradictory; it's necessary. There wouldn't be a legislature without it.

Moreover, it is most definately not clear how the rules established in the Constitution... interface with contemporary laws.

Mostly, they don't. That's the problem. Two-hundred years of pansy-mis-interpretation of the Constitution have left the Judiciary confused and irrelevant. The President can now declare War, for Christ's sake! I might have some respect for the court if it started randomly striking-down new laws that are obviously outside the scope of Federal powers, but I don't see that happening.

There wouldn't be a need for lawyers or judges or The Supreme Court at all, since everyone would understand the laws.

I didn't say that everyone can understand the self-contradictory dribble that our illiterate lawmakers put out. I said that everyone can understand the Constitution, except, it seems, many of said lawmakers.

'Militia' may have a different connotation, maybe even a negative one to certain people, but the definition is the same as it always was. The National Guard is not the Militia. It is an instrument of National power, not of "the people".

if you're so happy to take the text of the Constitution/Bill of Rights perfectly literally, why aren't you happy to take all the laws of the day?

Good question. The Constitution is a very idealistic document. It is obvious that, while they were able to envision such ideals, even the founding fathers were unable to live by them. I would just expect that a country as rich as ours would be able to do a better job.

I am not impressed with what I see of the legal establishment. You should stop trying to 'awe' me with mention of the institutions and titles that these idiots have granted themselves. I've had political science professors try to tell me that the Amendments to the Constitution serve to restrict rights, rather than protect them. I've had logic professors who didn't know their ass from their face and spent the entire class lecturing about how lazy my generation is instead of teaching. Something is seriously wrong with most of their thought patterns, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let it affect my liberty.

On a side note, I recently read this book and found it to be an insightful and balanced look into these issues and more.

Try Janes and Foreign Affairs give fairly unbiased analysis of such things.

Roadmap for War on Iraq and the New American Empire brought to by:

Elliott Abrams , Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney , Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes , Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld , Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz

xyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzy

Yeah. I was spouting off one day about 242 when someone enlightened me.

I agree with your sentiment on 242, but not the WTC. I used to think so, but upon further reading, I've since changed my mind. The Isreal-Palestine situation is one big fucking mess that never should have gotten this far out of control. However, no one, including the Muslim states and al Queda, gives a shit about the Palestines. It's simply a convenient banner for different groups (Muslim or not) to raise. If the Palestine conflict were resolved peacefully today (I mean Israelis and Palestines having pinics together), al Queda would still be blowing shit up. That's what they do. There is a great article about Palestine as symbol in the Jan/Feb 2003 Foriegn Affairs magazine (Page 19 - hey... I found the artcile).

Hey... I'm a Texan and my last name is Canadian-French. Damn. Am I even American? HE HE HE

• High Literacy Rate
• Functioning Beureaucracy
• Functioning Economy

We can also talk about the sales tax being a regressive tax. Much like tariffs, it eats a greater percentage of income as total income decreases. One way that the middle class copes now is save on sales tax. The middle class cannot launder money through off shore credit card accounts. The middle class cannot launder retirement savings through dummy corporations. The only thing they can do is try to save a bit of money by buying out of state.

The great U.S.A., which has traditionally targeted the middle class for tax complience, is not actively trying to go after the money launderers that actually have massive amounts of disposable income. Rather, they go after the middle class and ask for an additional cut of the tiny amount of cash that is left after food, shelter, and clothes. I don't know about you, but if I have to pay an additional 10% on mail order purchases, I may just decide to test my luck at the thrift store instead, or probably go without.

I was unaware that they had an online version until a few moments ago. They have placed all of their articles pertaining to the politics of the attack in one area, and have made the full text free to non-subscribers. (link below)

Foreign Affairs: Terrorism Background Briefing

Some of the articles give some pretty interesting info for those who wish to know more about the destabilizing factors present in the middle east.

George Segal wrote an article (tiny summary) about this in Foreign Affairs a little while ago -- China, although the potential is great, China is not too strong right now.
There was some discussion about this a couple of years ago -- it's like there is a need to create an enemy to fill our cold-war mindsets (etc.etc.). Although in several ways China and the US/"western nations" are opposed, China is not the military power that the Soviet Union once was, and neither is China funding nuclear missiles in Cuba or whatever.
It's just not the right enemy for the job.

willis