Globalism, Corporatism and Open Source

(Second in a series.) Globalism is the least hip political idea around at the moment, perhaps because it has been hijacked so completely by the multinationals. Herd-like college kids and knee-jerk political activists associate the term with a broad range of bugaboos, from cultural imperialism to sweatshops to environmental destruction. But others (like me) see it as the best hope for a world in which gaps between the tech and non-tech worlds are widening, and the have-nots are increasingly enraged at the haves. Philanthropist and open-society advocate George Soros is an ardent supporter globalization, despite its shortcomings. In response to this series, Niklas Saers e-mails this question: "Do you think developing countries will be able to use open source to develop and keep pace with the western world?" My answer: not unless they get open governments to support it. Soros supports globalism, and not only because of the new wealth he believes it can produce. Along with many Open Source advocates -- he believes in what supporters call a global open society that could ensure a greater degree of freedom than individual states can or will. Is it already too late for that?

To Soros, the current state of globalism -- capital is free but social concerns are underfunded -- represents a distortion of globalization, not its true promise.

Corporatism and globalism have become hopelessly confused in the public mind.The many excesses of valueless, greedy, proprietary and unrestrained multinational corporations have become enmeshed with tech-driven networked economies. It's difficult to even imagine what an effort it would take to separate one from another, sadly.

In his book George Soros on Globalization, the billionnaire asks for institutional reforms to address some of the many political concerns globalism raises:

l. Contain the instability of financial markets.

2. Complement the World Trade Organization (WTO),which is supposed to generate equitably-distributed global wealth, with equally powerful international organizations devoted to social goals, like reducing poverty and making necessary goods available all over the world.

3. Improve the quality of public life in countries suffering from corrupt, repressive or incompetent governments.

Free software advocates have argued for years now that open software could help create wealth and promote open societies in once-repressive, impoverished and technologically-primitive regimes. This idea is exciting. It attracted non-geeks like me to Open Source and Slashdot in the first place. That they are right is almost beside the point. How will proprietary software be curbed, and open software developed, in regimes that are corrupt and repressive? Why would these noxious governments support the use of software to develop an open society any more than they would encourage free speech or abandon censorship?

Legal scholars like Lawrence Lessig see the GPL as a major cornerstone of a vast, global "digital commons." So far, this vision has failed to materialize. In fact, new software is creating personalized, fragmented, narcissistic media in which screening and blocking (products, people, differing opinions) has become widely accepted, even epidemic.

In his terrific new biography of Richard Stallman, Free As In Freedom writer Sam Williams quotes Stallman: "What history says about the GNU project, twenty years from now, will depend on who wins the battle of freedom to use public knowledge. If we lose, we will be just a footnote. If we win, it is uncertain whether people will know the role of the GNU operating system -- if they think the system is 'Linux' they will build a false picture of what happened and why. But even if we win, what history people learn a hundred years from now is likely to depend on who dominates politically." So far, the big winners are the big corporations.

But Stallman, the Thomas Paine of the Net, is obviously right in some ways. To many people on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley, the GNU project is already a footnote. It remains the most vibrant and exciting political idea on the Net, whatever the obstacles. But it seems that corporatism is too deeply entrenched to really change, and who is going to make it change? Few governments in the world as as powerful as Microsoft or AOL-Time-Warner. The multi-nationals are, in a way, the new nation-states of globalism. In recent years, they have been the primary beneficiaries of globalism -- as Soros concedes -- and for much of the undeveloped world and many political activists, they are the spawn of globalism's first generation of existence.

Soros skirts some major obstacles to his proper and idealistic vision. He recognizes that the networked global economy is forcing market values into areas where they don't properly or historically belong, from copyright to publishing to medicine to the law. These intrusions also occur in foreign cultures where they are distinctly unwelcome. Anti-Americanism has become a staple of life in many parts of Europe, and even more virulently elsewhere, where the United States is equated with evil, greed, corruption and blasphemy.

One of the great -- and widely foreseen -- political consequences of the rise of the Net was a widening gap between developed and undeveloped countries, many of which simply lack the infrastructure to wire up their populations and economies. How can governments in places like Afghanistan embrace open software and an open society if they can't even bring electricity and telephones to most of their citizens?

There's already enormous opposition to ideas like the ones Soros proposes. Market fundamentalists and conservatives object to tinkering with the global marketplace. And the broad range of people who call themselves "antiglobalization activists" don't buy the idea that globalization could conceivably improve lives in impoverished parts of the world. Many don't believe meetings should even be held by governmental officials to discuss globalism.

Soros argues that the world's worst conditions aren't necessarily caused by globalism. It's bad governments that are responsible for exploitive working conditions, lack of social and economic capital, and political repression.

Soros's primary argument is that globalism could be used as a powerful social tool, one that could undermine or circumvent incompetent or repressive regimes. The increased wealth globalization produces, he maintains, could make up for the inequities and other shortcomings of networked, global economies. The problem is that the winners don't compensate the losers, says Soros. "There is no international equivalent of the political process that occurs within individual states. While markets have become global, politics remain firmly rooted in the sovereignty of the state."

The Net becomes a significant political factor in this evolution, because it is both individualistic and trans-national. It permits the rapid movement of capital and, if open source activists are correct, could also use free software and other technologies as a powerful tool for developing nations who want to join the globalization movement.

But it's difficult to see by what process this is going to occur. As a result of globalization, the divisions between the world's rich and the poor continues to widen. According to the United Nations Development Program, the richest one percent of the world's population receives as much income as the poorest 57 percent. More than a billion people live on less than a dollar a day; nearly a billion lack any access to clean water; 826 million suffer from malnutrition; 10 million die annually due to lack of basic health care. Some of these conditions pre-dated globalization, but the new economy has hardly improved matters. And it seems to be generating hatred of the United States, where contemporary notions of globalism were born and shaped.

Next: Getting specific about reforming globalism.

Comments

Globalism, Corporatism and Open Source, eh?

[gowen]

Jon ... I fear your slashdot headline generator has become jammed in the "on" position again.

quote

[Anonymous Coward]

"Herd-like college kids"

But then, for the most part, you repeat yourself. As a college student, I'm amazed how often kids who have led sheltered lives, upon finding out there is more in the world, latch onto every new idea they get like its the holy grail of modern thought. I think this explains a lot of the college protests going on.

Re:quote

[ADRA]

You concider collage kids to broadly. I think it is more an individual trying to make a difference in their society. Most people lack the ambitions to cause change directly, so they join groups that already have their acts together to make a difference.

There will always be followers, that is a given. To exclude them as anonymous cattle would be an over simplification of the issue. They bring with the the morals and values that they have had. Instead of fighting globalization, they could be fighting for the environment, less taxes, more social spending, less social spending, less imegration, etc..

Re:quote

[dgroskind]

After a few years they grow up and grow out of it.

Life would be much simpler if everything one learned was true. Unfortunately, students by definition start from a position of relative ignorance and can only learn what's true by trying out different ideas.

People who "grow out it" have often come to precisely the wrong conclusion, that protest is futile and a quiet and comfortable life is preferable. What they should be learning is more sophisticated and effective means of protest and what sacrifices and compromises those means require.

Re:quote

[Stonehand]

Try this column instead.

Re:quote

[Lemmy Caution]

I agree with Moore's causes, but he's no brain trust - he fudges facts, takes cheap shots, overlooks a lot of complexity and plays to the crowd. If Chomsky and Zinn are the poplar luminaries of the left, Moore is the left's Rush Limbaugh. Fun, catchy, and satisfying for the converted, but often wrong, or right for the wrong reasons.

This guy

[SkyLeach]

Sounds like a closet communist trying to show that the GPL and open-source support communism.

I think they are more like democracy, allowing everyone to know the truth and everyone to have a vote. Everybody knows humanity as a whole is greedy and collectivly ignorant of its own well-being. The only reason that open-source really works is because it has more of a republic-style structure. There are very smart people working in a tight-knit group for the good of the software and those that use it. They don't allow just anybody to get their hands on the code (read that as modify the CVS tree), and if the community doesn't like what's going on in it they fork and create a new small tight-knit group that does the same thing a different way.

The problem with extending this philosophy to government is that software can passively take away the goods of the closed-source guys by the rules of supply and demand. Try to take away governments candy and you are going to pick a fight. They don't have to compete, they RULE. :-)

Double edged sword

[Clovert Agent]

Like so many other things, globalisation can be good, or can be bad. Make that "can be great, or can be dreadful". Unfortunately, it seems to swing to one or t'other extremes, and the rhetoric certainly focuses on little else.

Certainly the removal of trade barriers should be a force for good all round, but not when unrestricted trade allows a masive multinational to come in and crush local industry by running at a loss until the market is "secure".

The only possible solution is a carefully moderated one, but that's what the EU was supposed to achieve, and it's proving a MUCH more painful process than expected.

Trouble is, the conglomerates only ever talk about the pros, and the protesters only ever talk about the cons. It's very very rare to encounter a forum which discusses both sides frankly, AND attempts to find middle ground. Which is silly - there's no fundamental reason why everyone couldn't benefit from the process.

2c, anyway.

Re:Double edged sword

[Stonehand]

Certainly the removal of trade barriers should be a force for good all round, but not when unrestricted trade allows a masive multinational to come in and crush local industry by running at a loss until the market is "secure".


Which happens to be illegal under both US and WTO rules, if memory serves. The findings that other countries were "dumping" steel onto the US markets (selling it at below cost) were what enabled the President to impose steel tariffs.

Re:Double edged sword

[Glytch]

Ah, so globalism is good until it upsets bloated, inefficient US monopolies? Ah, I understand now. This explains the new US tariff on Canadian softwood lumber, too.

For those not in the know, Canadian lumber companies are being punished by the US for having efficient, profitable mills, resulting if a few thousand layoffs. But that's okay, they're not Americans, so they don't matter.

Re:Double edged sword

[benwaggoner]

Indeed. While dumping can happen, it's far from clear it was happening either with softwoods or steel. In the case of the steel industry, it was especially dubious, since minimills are doing just great. It's the old-line integrated steel producers that are having trouble. But this is largely because they signed terribly expensive deals with their unionized workers, including massive unfunded pension and health care deals for retired workers. This is one of the reasons why 401(k) deals are so good - you aren't screwed if your employer goes out of business!

The big problem is, of course, that the highly paid steelworkers aren't able to add as much value per $ of salary as global competitors (or even local competitors from nonunionized mini mills). Thus, those jobs are inevitably going to be lost in a free economy.

And as I said earlier, saving these jobs means we're going to lose three times as many jobs in other parts of the economy that rely on cheap steel. And we're going to be paying a heck of a lot more for cars, appliences, etcetera. In essence, tarrifs are taxing ourselves, but with a very, very stupid tax.

I've always been unclear why those who most advocate a wealth transfer to the third world in the form of massive forign aid are so unwilling to lose a few US jobs in exchange for more jobs in countries that need them a lot more than we do. The third world needs jobs AND aid.

The US economy should be based on the things we do best. Free trade is a great way to find out what you're good at with great accuracy and low latency. Nothing's worse for an economy than a government industrial policy.

Re:Double edged sword

[Sentry21]

Which happens to be illegal under both US and WTO rules, if memory serves. The findings that other countries were "dumping" steel onto the US markets (selling it at below cost) were what enabled the President to impose steel tariffs.

Right, and according to the WTO, Canada is NOT dumping lumber, but the US imposed tarrifs anyways. Let's face it, the US is only concerned with globalism insofar as it allows American companies to make more money. They even ignored American consumers, such as the builders of low-cost housing, whose housing will be less low-cost as a result of having to buy more expensive US lumber.

That's the great thing about the US. American companies didn't even HAVE to 'come in', or even sell at reasonable, let alone below-cost, prices to crush competition. They just dumped money into pockets and it was done. Globalism will never succeed until the US is willing to play fair. Until then, people will oppose it, and rightly so.

--Dan

Rich to get Richer?

[FFFish]

Soros supports globalism, and not only because of the new wealth he believes it can produce.

The cynic in me reads "new wealth he believes it can produce for him."

Re:Rich to get Richer?

[FFFish]

Hmmm. According to the United Nations Development Program, the richest one percent of the world's population receives as much income as the poorest 57 percent. More than a billion people live on less than a dollar a day; nearly a billion lack any access to clean water; 826 million suffer from malnutrition; 10 million die annually due to lack of basic health care.

George Soros has $3000 million to his name. He could rid himself of $2500 million and still be one of the wealthiest men on earth.

That's seven million people fed for a year at a dollar a day. That'd be clean water for every person on the planet (clean water is easy; there's a sand-filter technology that's perhaps a hundred bucks a pop); that's all malnutrition eliminated; that's basic healthcare for everyone.

George Soros could singlehandly wipe out most of the starvation/dire health problems on this planet. But he doesn't.

For that matter, George is #60 on the Forbes list. Imagine if all those ultra-mega-elite rich were to get some compassion and donate 10% of their unimaginable wealth to solving these basic problems of human needs.

Globalism isn't going to fix a damn thing. The rich will get richer, and the impoverished will continue to drop like flies because the rich don't care to share enough. (Which isn't to say that non-globalism is a cure. It isn't. The only cure is for the ultra-rich to become ultra-generous.)

Re:Rich to get Richer?

[Tackhead]

> George Soros has $3000 million to his name. He could rid himself of $2500 million and still be one of the wealthiest men on earth.
>
> That's seven million people fed for a year at a dollar a day. That's 0.1% of the world's population. But let's continue with your altruistic notion that George Soros (who earned his money) should divest himself of his wealth and distribute it "fairly".

> That'd be clean water for every person on the planet (clean water is easy; there's a sand-filter technology that's perhaps a hundred bucks a pop); that's all malnutrition eliminated; that's basic healthcare for everyone.

There are 6 billion people on the planet.

George Soros could give each of them $0.50. (Or, more likely, governments could take his $3000 million, leaving him with nothing, and distribute the fifty cents "equally".)

Next year, George Soros would have nothing to give. So even if you could provide basic health care, education, food, etc. for $0.50 per person per year (you'd be hard pressed to do it at $0.50 per person per day!) you can't go back to him, because you've drained him dry.

Now whom will you loot to buy food and health care for the poor?

> Imagine if all those ultra-mega-elite rich were to get some compassion and donate 10% of their unimaginable wealth to solving these basic problems of human needs.

I have. Eventually, you run out of ultra-mega-elite rich people to loot, and the system collapses.

No thanks. Look at the standard of living 100 years ago, and compare it to today. Flush toilets, hot water, antibiotics, refrigeration, crossing the Atlantic ocean in hours instead of weeks, air conditioning in the home and office, a printing press and Cray supercomputer on every desk, and if the price of that standard of living is that the people who made all these things possible get rich as a result of my choosing to purchase them, then so be it.

Re:Rich to get Richer?

[Grab]

George Soros the billionaire who made his wealth in the global economy says that it's a good thing. Well, duh! you think the turkeys are going to vote for Christmas?!

Certainly there's good things about globalisation, like getting poorer countries richer by global companies opening offices over there. Ireland is a good example - piss-poor 20-30 years back, now a thriving technology centre trading off the intelligence of its workforce. If you're contracting your coding out, the result should be the same whether the coders are 5 minutes round the corner or in Outer Mongolia. And that gets more money into Outer Mongolia (or wherever).

But it also means you're competing against ppl in other countries for work, which screws up richer countries. Why hire a team of American engineers at $50k each when you can hire a team of British engineers at £25k ($35K) each? Or why hire a team of British engineers when you can hire a team of Ukrainian engineers for $10k each?

Grab.

Re:Rich to get Richer?

[ahde]

The problem is that it's not necessarily the people who make things possible that get rich. That's the rub alot of people have, but its misdirected, thanks in no small part to mega-corporate media.*

And that's where OSS/FS exposes the problem more clearly. Software patents, copyright hording, monopolization, etc. are devices used by those who didn't make things possible (or who used to make things possible, but don't anymore) to maintain or increase their own wealth and power at the expense of new innovation.

* Think Microsoft is big? GE could buy them outright and not even notice -- instead they've partnered with them

Re:Rich to get Richer?

[Tackhead]

> The problem is that it's not necessarily the people who make things possible that get rich.

No, but it's often likely. Considering myself as an example - I make my employer's product easier to use.

Should I get all the money? No. I couldn't build that product myself, nor could I ship it, nor could I support it. So I get a portion of that money. It's called "wages".

Your point about patents is well-stated - just because someone invented the transistor, doesn't mean they should get a royalty on every transistor in every IC ever fabbed.

Those who invented the transistor were paid what they were worth (in both dollars and "fame" :) - if they hadn't been paid enough, they'd have done something else with their time.

As for OSS/FS - the notion of a software commons by the voluntary consent of those writing the software in the commons - is great! Because software (unlike transistors) costs nothing to reproduce, if I choose to write something cool with the intention of allowing others to copy it, then everybody has something cool.

Can I put food on the table that way? Probably not. I'm good at what I do, but I'm not that good. So I trade my labor for dollars, as do about 50-odd other people with whom I work. The guy who started the whole ball rolling (with little more than a good idea and some cash of his own) has made damn good money over the few years. He risked almost all he had, and has been rewarded commensurately ("$BIGNUM in the bank, $BIGHOUSE on the lot, and a fun place to work"). We have also been well-rewarded ("a good paying job in a fun place to work") in comparison with what we risked (which was almost nothing).

And as a result of his risk and effort (and his willingness to trade some of his dollars for our work - meeting with our willingness to trade our work for some of his dollars), we've created a product that people are willing to trade their dollars for. Most of those dollars (after the looters take 40%) go to the coffers of the company, as well they should. If and when the company cannot support its customer base or develop products its customers wants, it hires more employees by offering them some of those dollars in the form of wages. (Umm, and again, the looters take about 40% of those dollars, too. Funny thing about looters. There never seem to be enough dollars for them to loot, or enough ways for them to loot dollars.)

Can someone who's damn good at what he does put food on his table via open source/free software? Sure - so long as there's a geek in the bar, neither ESR nor RMS nor Linus will ever have to pay for beer again. :-)

(And the best part about open source / free software is that because no dollars change hands, there's nothing for the looters to grab!)

Re:Rich to get Richer?

[Stonehand]

If you want to defeat starvation, health problems, and similar ills, there are probably scores of governments, rebel groups, and other local warlords that need to be hammered into the ground, first. Sending aid doesn't guarantee that ever reaches its intended recipients.

Re:Rich to get Richer?

[ansible]

Think Microsoft is big? GE could buy them outright and not even notice -- instead they've partnered with them.

Check one of the stock websites. GE's market cap is only $60B greater than MSFT's. If you have a friend who has $150B laying around (to buy controlling interest in MSFT), let me know.

Re:Rich to get Richer?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Where does FFFish say that George Soros is at all obligated to provide this service? He merely noted that Mr. Soros is able to provide great good at no impact to his lifestyle and chooses not to.

Re:Rich to get Richer?

[NineNine]

Unfortunatelly the price for YOU TO HAVE ALL THAT is 80% of the world population been poor and literally "starving to death in the streets" (please, go to Africa or India and you'll understand what you are talking about).


Thsi is complete bullshit. One of the only places in the world that people are starving to death in mass quantities is in North Korea, and that's due to Communism. The standard of living in most of the world is *tenfold* better than it was a hundred years ago. Even as we speak, I'm working on a plan to export tens of thousands of wireless phones and wireless phone equipment to one African country to people who want and can afford wireless phones and *wireless Internet access*!

Re:Rich to get Richer?

[Tackhead]

> Unfortunatelly the price for YOU TO HAVE ALL THAT is 80% of the world population been poor and literally "starving to death in the streets" (please, go to Africa or India and you'll understand what you are talking about).

Let me get this straight. The price for our 20% of the world to have all this technology is that the other 80% of the planet doesn't (yet) have (all of) it (at the same time I have it).

Are you seriously alleging that if the capitalist economies of the world hadn't developed flush toilets, indoor plumbing, antibiotics, refrigeration, jet aircraft, air conditioning, computers, laser printers, (that is, that the First World had chosen to continue to live in a 19th-century agrarian economy), that Africa, India, Afghanistan, Iraq, Argentina, Palestine, and Peru would now have invented, produced, and distributed all of these things?!?!?

Do you expect me to believe that antibiotics rain from the sky like manna from heaven, and that air conditioners and laser printers spontaneously materialize out of quantum fluctuations? (Let's hope it's this way and not the other way around, 'cuz HP Laserjets falling from the sky would suck!)

What are you smoking, and are you sharing?

Re:Rich to get Richer?

[ahde]

and yet last year GE's revenue($125B) and earnings ($14B) were about 5 times Microsoft's ($25B and $3.5B).

Market capitalization is not everything, its just a temporary stock valuation based on number of shares and asking price -- and is unrealistic. If Microsoft stock had anywhere near the fluidity of GE's, their valuation would go way down. Instead, most of it is being sat on by Bill Gates and Co., making a scarcity that drives up the prices.

Not to mention that GE has tons of subsidiary companies that aren't listed on the main company stock ticker.

And while a 90% market share on computer desktops is becoming increasingly strategic, it's nothing compared to the (ballpark estimate) 50% of all TV viewers that NBC commands, similar numbers for electricity generation, and maybe a quarter of all government contracts. Oh yeah, and being one of the biggest financial trading groups in the world. Not to mention a hegemony of the light bulb market at least as powerful as Microsoft's over desktop computers :)

Re:Rich to get Richer?

[LionKimbro]

And kind slave owners that treated their slaves nicely were used as illustrations that the slavery situation was good for everybody, slaves included. We're all just one, big, happy family.

Re:Rich to get Richer?

[Tackhead]

> Well... I read his as a quote once and found it rather funny, I don't remember where it was and who it was from but there it goes:
>
> If a large number of poor people contribute, they can make up for a rich man. But than again, it takes a large number of poor people to make a rich man.

Allow me to descend into rampant classism for a moment: "If you pour a glass of wine into a barrel of sewage, you have a barrel of sewage. If you pour a glass of sewage into a barrel of wine, you still have a barrel of sewage."

(That is, there's such a thing as a point of diminishing returns, and throwing good money after bad.)

In your defence: "Both the millionaire and the pauper have the same right to sleep on the street."

Re:Rich to get Richer?

[ahde]

You risk as much or more as your boss. What would he lose if the company went under? Nothing. You? Potentially everything. Your boss may be different, but in most cases those with the money (they already had money -- before they took any risk.) are fairly well insulated from catastrope. And that is specifically why corporations were invented.

Your boss (again, speaking generally) was born in $BIGHOUSE with $BIGNUM in a trustfund. And the way the trend is going, increasingly only thouse born into that group are allowed to benefit. Are you suggesting that only the hereditary elite are able to take risks or manage businesses?

The fact is, that whoever invented the transistor (who was it again?) didn't get rich off of it. The corporation he worked for did.

I don't think we disagree that much, I'm just portraying one extreme, and it sounds like your boss (specifically) is a pretty cool guy.

Re:Rich to get Richer?

[crucini]

Your boss (again, speaking generally) was born in $BIGHOUSE with $BIGNUM in a trustfund. And the way the trend is going, increasingly only thouse born into that group are allowed to benefit.

My boss, generally speaking, has been a corporate manager from the same socio-economic tier as me. I haven't run across too many independently wealthy people working at corporations. If you're talking about small businesses, most of the ones I've worked for were started with savings and a lot of pain and risk. People with $BIGNUM in a trustfund don't generally start businesses, as I see it, other than frivolous, doomed businesses like trendy restaurants or something.

The idea of a very wealthy boss seems premodern. The modern capitalist system separates management (being a boss) from ownership (being wealthy).

We aren't living in a Utopia!

[MonkeyBot]

First of all, globalism is as much of a dream as communism. It looks good on paper, but people in general are too corrupt to make it work properly, so it will fail. Many Americans fail to see this because we live in a nation where our government's corruption is minimal RELATIVE TO MOST OTHER COUNTRIES (not meant to be flamebait--if you don't believe me, stop over in any South American or African country for a few days). Globalization will merely turn into an excuse to basically turn third world countries into slave nations. There will be no point in the rich trying to make themselves richer by exploiting people in their own country; they can already exploit the wealth gap that will be readily available in other countries! Don't believe me? It's already happening! And don't kid yourself with reform--PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY POLITICIANS, ARE INHERENTLY CORRUPT!
Secondly, how is this "news for nerds" or "stuff that matters?" Just because you mention RMS doesn't mean we're interested!

Re:We aren't living in a Utopia!

[Iguanaphobic]

we live in a nation where our government's corruption is minimal RELATIVE TO MOST OTHER COUNTRIES

If you were to replace the word "minimal" with "less obvious" you might have a point. Do a web search on the Carlyle Group, United Defense, the Saudi Bin Laden family and George Bush Senior. Then we'll talk about corruption. Never mind the whole Enron/President Of The United States thing. Corruption in American society has become so common place that it is hardly worth mentioning. Not to mention that it is human nature to actively seek out other people's flaws while sweeping your own messes under the rug.

Re:We aren't living in a Utopia!

[NDPTAL85]

The US hating has just got to stop. No one said that there is NO corruption in the US but if you compare the US (or any Western European nation) to any third world country such as Mexico, Argentina, South America, North Korea, China, India....etc the amount of corruption you'll see will boggle your mind. There's more to corruption than the assumed buying of politicians by big businesses. When you can't even get a cab or phone service without putting out extra money or something like that then you know its bad.

Re:We aren't living in a Utopia!

[rudedog]

Here is a color-coded map showing relative levels of corruption in different countries. More specifically, it represents how well the countries' governments control corruption in their country.

In hard data, the US is in the 91st percentile, so it's doing pretty well, although there are other countries that are less corrupt than the US, such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, etc. Finland has the honor of being the least corrupt country in the world.

The February 28th edition of The Economist had a special report about corruption around the world. It was very interesting reading.

Re:We aren't living in a Utopia!

[Wateshay]

When you factor in the fact that there is a lot more to be gained by buying a U.S. senator than there is by buying his Finnish equivilent, I would say that the U.S. is doing really well (which is of course different from saying that we're perfect).

Re:We aren't living in a Utopia!

[IamTheRealMike]

Secondly, how is this "news for nerds" or "stuff that matters?"

Are you saying that the future direction of our society isn't stuff that matters?

Re:We aren't living in a Utopia!

[TWR]

While you (and the people who modded you up) seem to have a tin-foil cap welded to your head, anyone who has a shred of common sense will realize that what passes for "corruption" in the US is piffle compared to what is common practice in the rest of the world. Look at what passes for "elections" in other countries. Look at how contracts for government services are awarded. Look how FREAKING PERMITS TO START A COMPANY are awarded. If you get outside of the US, Canada, and Western Europe, it's pretty damn hard (and with the Socialist governments in some of the EU countries, starting up a new company is pretty damn hard there, too; but that's incompetence, not corruption). Fantasizing about some imaginary link between Osama bin Laden and Bush, Sr. is nuts.

There are regular studies of rates of corruption in governments world-wide. The US comes out close to the top; not at the top, but pretty close.

There is a strong correlation between standard of living in a country and rates of corruption. The causation is likely on the side of the corruption, not on the low standard of living; countries that had low standards of living but little corruption (say, Hong Kong in the 1950's) raised their standards of living remarkably quickly.

And, hey, those presidential connections sure helped Enron get bailed out, huh?

-jon

Re:We aren't living in a Utopia!

[TWR]

You just made up all of the numbers in your post. What kind of cogent argument is that?

Everyone is ALWAYS working to make someone you never met rich. It's what Adam Smith called "The Invisible Hand." It turns out that, most of the time, if everyone looks after their own interests, everyone benefits. There are cases where regulation is needed (primarily in regulating usage of common resources, whether they are fields for grazing livestock or radio waves or water or air), but the system works amazingly well, considering that it involves no central co-ordination.

The fact that I can buy stuff cheaper at Meglomart than I can buy them from Mom and Pop means that I have more money to spend on more things. The people who lose are the ones who can't sell something at a competitive price or who are now making something that's obsolete.

-jon

Re:We aren't living in a Utopia!

[TWR]

slashdot is a forum for anti-capitalistic viewpoints.

That's because the average /. reader is barely past puberty, and has his idiot head filled with nonsense from people who are economic illiterates.

IMHO, passing grades in courses in logic, statistics, and econ should be required before anyone graduates high school. If you want to fix problems, you have to know how to THINK about the problems first.

These anti-globalization idijts don't know math, don't know econ and are proud of it. Then half of them get jobs teaching children and perpetuate the cycle. Sheesh.

-jon

Re:We aren't living in a Utopia!

[rudedog]

Corruption of high-level officials is certainly a problem, but it is mostly insignificant compared to the impacts of systemic corruption at all levels of a country's bureauocracy, from the traffic cop on up. The report that I cited deals more with the latter than the former. I think that applying "fudge factors" based on a country's relative economic and political might only serves to conceal the real problems.

Re:We aren't living in a Utopia!

[ADRA]

US Politicians have FAR less direct power over you then in most countries in the world. Have you ever known people to have been displaced without compensation, emprisioned for having conflicting opinions, etc?

I think direct corruption is a derivitive of social morality, consequences, and self advantage.

Social Morality:
No matter what benefit to the person, if you don't feel comfortable in breaking the law or violating personal ethics, you won't.

Consequences:
How many people steal in Arabic nations? Not many because you loose a hand. Consequences are a large deterant for corruption. The consquences for corruption are very low in the US. Imagine being imprisioned for 20 years if you took a bribe. I see social justice rising in such a case.

Self Advantage:
If someone tried to bribe me with a penny for a copy of proprietary software, I would laugh in their face, but if they gave me, say half the retail price, if I didn't concider it stealing, I would do it, becuase I am making MONEY $-).

Re:We aren't living in a Utopia!

[ADRA]

Ok, you are now making mass generalizations about people you don't even know? Who is the bigger idiot?

You have your head stuck up your ass so deaply, that you cannot see differential opinions of others, so instead of attacking their policies, you are attacking the person, hence Ad hominen, but you knew that, right, because you are a master of logic, right?

Re:We aren't living in a Utopia!

[TWR]

Fact: the average slashdotter is college age or lower

Fact: the average slashdotter is male

Fact: the average slashdotter has not attended a high school that requires coursework in econ, statistics, or logic

Fact: the average school teacher in America is not qualified to teach the subjects they teach, especially in science and math

Fact: the average school teacher's political leanings are leftist.

Please dispute these facts with sources. Otherwise, you're just uncomfortable with the fact that I've nailed the truth.

And, yes, you're right. I've never seen a "differential" opinion.

-jon

Re:We aren't living in a Utopia!

[TWR]

Who the fuck is talking about dumping money in the hands of warlords? I'm talking about the exact opposite, you nitwit. I take MY money and use it how I see fit. I buy the things I want and I invest my money in whatever enterprise I want. No centralization. It turns out that everyone working in their own economic self-interest tends to work out pretty well (with the exceptions I mentioned earlier).

Socialism is the centralization of capital, so it can be dolled out by those who know better. This doesn't tend to work too well. This is why socialist countries tend to have high unemployment and low rates of economic growth.

Someone always brings up Sweeden when they talk about Socialism. Reminds me of a story. Milton Freedman, the conservative economist was talking to a more liberal economist. The liberal economist said that in Sweeden there was no poverty. Freedman responded, "In America, there's no poverty among Sweedes, either."

The meaning of the anecdote is that cultures that have a strong work ethic and a cultural history of sticking together (which certainly describes the Sweedes; can't survive the winter by slacking off, and helping out your neighbor is a good deed that will come back to you sometime in the future).

Cultures that have high rates of corruption do not value hard work (easier to steal or bribe your way up) and don't value helping out your neighbor (what's in it for me?). There's also little chance for advancement, unless you know someone who knows someone. Having a society that is meritocracy gives a chance for people to succeed. A democratic, capitalist system provides the best meritocracy. There's no formal proof, just 5000 years of human history. The liberal (in the classic sense, not in the modern, corrupted sense) democracies of the world are the richest countries. Conspiracy? Or is it common sense?

And I don't see how warlords raping your wife have anything to do with anything. Anarchists are the ones who oppose globalization AND having a government that protects its citizens. Libertarians, and heck, even Randians, belive in a police force and rule of law. It's the inbreds burning McDonald's to the ground as part of their "protests" who don't believe in any law except mob rule.

Ayn Rand was a crackpot (her followers have certainly turned her into a cult figure). Adam Smith was a visionary.

And KotH is hardly anti-capitalist.

-jon

Re:We aren't living in a Utopia!

[ADRA]

Flamethrowers Full steam!!!

You state presumptions as facts, since YOU didn't give any reference to all. I guess you want me to prove that Unicorns don't exist either, right? Oh well. Here goes.

"Fact: the average slashdotter is college age or lower"
Cannot prove or disprove

"Fact: the average slashdotter is male "
Cannot prove or disprove, though maybe it is listed on slashdot somewhere

"Fact: the average slashdotter has not attended a high school that requires coursework in econ, statistics, or logic"
One can make a generalization that most slashdotters are American, and that most Americans are not required to know Economics, Statistics, or Basic Logic, but you cannot prove that the majority of Slashdot readers don't meet these criterian. More data on the "most"'s is required, like hard statistical proportions, then one can make a better determination. The best measure would be to ask them.

"Fact: the average school teacher in America is not qualified to teach the subjects they teach, especially in science and math"
It may be posted somewhere, but I am not lurking the net that to prove for/against the point.

"Fact: the average school teacher's political leanings are leftist."
Probably true, but I cannot prove either way, and so can't anyone else without a poll, but I doubt I will ever see such a poll.

"Please dispute these facts with sources. Otherwise, you're just uncomfortable with the fact that I've nailed the truth."
Truth is a result of analysis, not perspective. You claim the merets of Logic, but you have yet to use it throughout your posts.

Globalism

[mbbac]

Globalism's whole premise is based upon the presumption that so-called third world countries want to join us in becoming increasingly technologized.

Secondly, it drives large corporatists crazy with dreams of raizing new nations of consumers -- ready to purchase their wares without sophistication or restraint.

Re:Globalism

[Stonehand]

Hm. Some years ago, "Khmer Rouge" might have been one answer... IIRC, they wanted a return to simple, rural ,agrarian ways, and didn't flinch at killing their own citizens who stood in the way.

Great title

[aozilla]

"Globalism, Corporatism and Open Source"

Nuff said...

Serious Journalism On Slashdot?

[Mr.Phil]

For the life of me, I keep wondering why JonKatz continues to post stories on Slashdot, even though the majority of posts in a JonKatz article are basically cat-calls and color commentary on his relations with *insert any item here*. Is it possible that the editors of Slashdot have bought into the same line that JonKatz believes, that he is a serious Journalism/Editorial Writer?

I click on ads on Slashdot daily, mainly because I don't want to pay for "editorial content" provided by JonKatz.

Flamebait, troll, whatever I don't care. The author sounds like my cousin who got hooked on drugs in college and joined the Communist Party of America because they had some "really cool ideas about stuff."

Re:Serious Journalism On Slashdot?

[duffbeer703]

Are they selling subscriptions?

I couldn't tell -- this site is so cluttered it's hard to find a link.

I also only seen one person with the little yellow bulb next to their name.

Re:Serious Journalism On Slashdot?

[Sentry21]

Maybe, just maybe, it's because he starts serious, interesting discussion on interesting topics. If you don't like it, then use your preferences to stop reading it, but personally, I like the discussions and input provided by various slashdotters on the topic. Even if you only read Katz's article to gain some sense of context for the impending discussion, at least there are interesting points to be had from the discussion itself.

Sadly, it appears that increasing my comment threshold to 3 hasn't blocked all Katz-whiners out, and I'm all out of mod points, so if you don't mind, do those of us who enjoy discussion a favour, block the stories out, and don't post to them. You don't have to deal with Katz, we don't have to deal with you, everyone wins.

--Dan

Re:The worn out "theyre poor cos we're rich" ideol

[wilde73]

Take a look at your clothes tag. Were are they made?

Globalism = Exploitation

[joshgunnar]

Globalism is great for multinational corporations. Big business depends on cheap labor as a commodity to be sought out and exploited. Globalism removes the weak boundaries that might prevent a company from laying off it's entire domestic workforce and shipping it's jobs and money overseas... ala Nike. A strict utalitarian might argue that it betters the lives of workers in other nations by giving them a slightly better wage. Given the current climate of flag-wavin, USA-cheerin americans, it's hard to imagine people getting excited about allowing more US workers to get the axe just so that corporations can improve their bottom line.

I believe in Lower Class Technocratic Globalism!

[Com2Kid]

Muahhahhahaha! Title says it all!

Fuck the middle / upper class, let the Nerds rise up, w00t!

Anyway. In all seriousness, I DO believe that the only halfway decent hope for a future that this already royally f'ed up planet has is to let the academics in charge, but NOT the bureaucratic ones, because bureaucrats suck, something awful. And they blow. At the same time. Yes folks, bureaucrats blow AND suck.

They need to be shot into the moon with lawyers.

Oddly enough if you let the Nerds into control you would find yourself in a Globalization style of a world rather quickly, as Nerds generally don't give a fuck about things like artificial boundaries and what not. Hell just look at the Chess masters during the Cold War. . . . ^_^

(or Scientists during almost ANY war. The idea of cutting off science journal entries and such just because somebody was on an enemy side was / is abhorrent to the large majority of Scientists.)

Anyway. That is my own personal wacko socio-political theory, what's yours? :)

Order-independent content!

[JuanGatosElGaseoso]

After randomly rearranging the words in the first paragraph, I've found that, amazingly, they make about the same sense as the original version; they have roughly equivalent signal to noise ratios: range that? and multinationals. produce. new moment, "Do world society wealth of and individual perhaps keep least by think cultural western supporters which advocates what others only he a not the develop e-mails he My world?" shortcomings. call haves. it to the open Is it political with late governments to and between Soros the will and Open to it in kids with or it. Source this widening, at political developing able Saers greater best believes been is Soros (like In the the in around have-nots are environmental a series, believes can despite be you has its knee-jerk increasingly the is hijacked countries the hip open-society could as response from activists that George open to bugaboos, of non-tech states enraged Philanthropist many globalism, supports degree the Herd-like tech a an with use Globalism imperialism already than global because this because and the term are But a answer: hope to Along broad unless completely source will. to open can freedom me) they globalization, college ensure the it too idea and Niklas -- worlds gaps at not pace so get associate destruction. for supporter ardent see support for advocate sweatshops of question:

Globalism is simple

[cryptochrome]

People too often confuse globalism with some of its results. But globalism itself is rather simple. Throughout very time an improvement in transportation, shipping, and/or communication came about, the ability of an individual to trade goods and information got wider, leading to new opportunities for collaboration and new sources of conflict. As one region finds itself in a common market with another, it finds differences in culture that both enrich and enrage, and a market in which it may excel or suffer in due to natural advantages or disadvantages. The net result is generally a richer and more productive lifestyle on average - that frequently comes at the costs of individuals, cities, and now whole nations in the process.

All globalism is is the latest and perhaps last ('til space) iteration of this process. It's just as inevitable as it was before. Fighting against it with favoratist practices just makes things harder. The less competitive nations and companies will naturally have a problem with it, as will anyone opposed to the market system in general (which explains all the neo-marxist college students). One thing is clear: your comfortable and predictable lifestyle (for however long you've had it) won't be there for you forever. Preserve the unique things that matter most, and be prepared to adapt to change and compete in the world.

Re:Globalism is simple

[Tackhead]

> Besides if the goverments don't start expanding, who is going to be able to police the multinationals?

20th Century Multinational Body Count: Tens of thousands, maybe a million, tops.
20th Century Governmental Body Count: Tens of millions. Possibly 100,000,000.

I'll take my chances with the multinationals.

Re:Globalism is simple

[asparagus]

Damn straight.

Disney may want all my money, but I have the feeling they'll try to show me a good time rather than simply bopping me over the head for it.

-asparagus

Katz Buzzword Bingo

[Knunov]

Globalism

Top left square.

Imperialism

Bottom right square.

Open Source

Center square.

Corporatism

2nd row, 2nd column square.

Multi-nationals

4th row, 4th column square.

BINGO!!!!

If he somehow included 'Post-Columbine', 'Hellmouth' and 'Post-911', I could have filled the entire card.

Knunov

Practice what you preach

[anthony_dipierro]

How can governments in places like Afghanistan embrace open software and an open society if they can't even bring electricity and telephones to most of their citizens?

How can JK embrace open software and an open society when he doesn't even license his harangues under an open content license?

Who needs that type of World View anyway?

[Rahga]

But others (like me) see it as the best hope for a world in which gaps between the tech and non-tech worlds are widening, and the have-nots are increasingly enraged at the haves.

We'll be in the trouble if the have-nots decide to fight amongst each other and, in some cases, the rest of the world because of some sort of perverted religious motivation rather than just pure greed... oh.

10 million die annually due to lack of basic health care.
According to my calculations, that's roughly 1 out of every 700 people. Heck, I'd say that's a remarkable acheivement on behalf of the worldwide charities and modern medicine.

Some of these conditions pre-dated globalization, but the new economy has hardly improved matters. And it seems to be generating hatred of the United States, where contemporary notions of globalism were born and shaped.
Well, the United States as we know it started hardly a few centuries ago from scratch with a handful of political ideas to empower the people and encourage trade and economic growth. Other nations who have followed this example tends to prosper. The "winners versus losers" view is mostly a sad argument. The fact that the USA started capitalist and is still capitalist attests to the fact that it works and it benefits EVERYBODY. If I had to choose between a world where both Bill Gates and me were forced to live dirt poor, or a world where Bill Gates was mega-rich and I was pretty dang well off, I know which world I would choose.

Re:Who needs that type of World View anyway?

[Tackhead]

> wrong. sorry. just wrong. capitalism benefits those who are rich already. the lawers and the doctors of our world are primarily those people who grew up in upscale middle class homes or mansions with trust funds and trips to new zealand over the summer.

What the ring-tailed rambling fsck?!

The one lawyer I know personally grew up in a poor community and a family of five.

The three Ph.D.s I know were average joes from blue-collar families who scrimped and saved to get them into university.

I was the first member of my family to go through college. As a result of a good education, I'm making more than my parents combined.

Yeah, I've got it easy today. Yeah, I was born with a hell of an advantage over people in the third world. Yeah, I was born with a smaller advantage (but an advantage nonetheless) over the children of crackheads.

What's your alternative? That I should renounce my advantages and starve, merely so that others continue to starve with me?

No thanks. I choose to use my advantages to gain more wealth for myself, precisely because I don't want to starve.

And incidentally, compare the standard of living of the poorest 10% of Americans today, with the standard of living of the richest 10% of Americans 100 years ago. Capitalism has done some wonderful things, despite the best efforts of people like you.

Re:Who needs that type of World View anyway?

[Tackhead]

> In no way am I asking you to renounce anything. [ ... ] I'm just asking you to question the assumptions that have been programmed into you. The things that make you say this in the first place. That people must work. That work is good. That making money is good. That making more money is better. That it's really only important how much more successful than your parents you are.

So far, we agree with each other - I'm more than willing to question those assumptions. (I accept the first three and reject the fourth one about being more successful than one's parents; I merely cited it as an counterexample to the assertion that class mobility is impossible.)

> What does the standard of living "back then" have to do with the standard of living today.

Our standard of living today is the direct result of people building cool stuff because they believed that the building of "cool stuff" (i.e. "progress", "making money", "working hard") was a worthwhile pursuit.

A look at societies that rejected this assumption - e.g. the Amish, many Islamic nations, the Soviet Union - reveals a lower standard of living.

The Amish seem pretty happy with their lot. (And anyone who chooses to live that way is welcome to sign up.) The Islamic nations don't seem terribly happy with their lot (and their unhappiest people seem to be willing to kill those who don't sign up), and the people of the former Communist Bloc (who were "signed up" at gunpoint) became sufficiently unhappy with it that they overthrew it and are in the process of trying something new.

> Capitalism HAS done some wonderful things, but in my eyes the injustices commited in it's name [ ... ] far outweighs the benefits you and I got to be priveledged with, however few, just so we could have a chance to become richer than we were.

And that's where we differ, and why I said "No thanks" to the alternatives.

I happen to think that the improvement in standards of living in capitalist nations over the past century (and the lack of such improvement in non-capitalist nations) means that, at the macro level, the choice is between capitalism/progress and stagnation/starvation.

> starvation is a motivation to earn enough to eat not a motivating factor for gaining more wealth. That's called greed.

If the desire to improve my life over the level of a subsistence farmer constitutes "greed", well then - guilty as charged, and proud of it! :)

Re:The worn out "theyre poor cos we're rich" ideol

[lysurgon]

Anyone who thinks that if the west hadn't got rich through the industrial revolution , and
science and technology in general then the 3rd world would somehow have inherited that wealth
and would all be living in some happy nirvana right now is either a fool or living in some hippy
cloud somewhere south of reality.

Now, I don't think we'd have nirvana anywhere if the industrialized nations stayed out of other countries, but to argue that centuries of exploitation have nothing to do with the dire situation in most of these countries is plain blindness.

Where pray tell did the vast majority of raw materials and cheap (e.g. slave) labor that powered the industreal revolution come from? Hmmm... the third wold. So, if the industrealized nations colonized (directly or by economic corporate proxy) other countries, dismantled their subsistance-based economy and set them up to export their natural resources to be refined and used by industreal nations, it's their own fault?

Povery is caused by a combination of degradation of the enviroment, despot dictators, poor economic management, religious zealotry and plain old overpopulation.

All of which are direct results of colonialism. I mean, really, you think we didn't step on a few hands while "dragging ourselves out of the stone age?"

wow

[Lord Omlette]

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=Globalism
http ://www.dictionary.com/search?q=Corporatism
http:/ /www.dictionary.com/search?q=Open%20Source

I thought he was just making words up...

Re:Damn.

[dattaway]

Katz doesn't have a salary. He's a bot. Katzbot is a proof of concept program brought to you from MIT, the next generation of RMS's "doctor" script. Katz takes information off the newswire and compiles it into psuedo-commentary and is further compiled into the buzzword filter. From there, it is parsed into an AI engine.

Apparently, this version seems to be a bit buggy as it is spewing out some smelly shit. We hope to have it fixed in the next version

It's a very slow process.

[circletimessquare]

People are always fussing over the iniquities of capitalism, but it is the best system we have discovered so far on this planet to yoke progress to human nature, for wealth creation and personal betterment. It is meritocracy writ large: work hard, and you shall succeed.

The problem is that the pure social darwinists, and there are still a lot out there, unfortunately, have absolutely no cognizance of how capitalism is still a messy, wasteful machine, and not the well-oiled engine of social justice they believe it to be. It is not a religion, and a lot people do get crushed by it, opportunity or not.

If you think globally, what are you really doing? You are projecting the convergence of societies and technologies and such into the future by extrapolating what has already taken place in the recent past. And of course, it looks like the big bang in reverse: one big global marketplace of work, capital, and ideas.

You can see that as the end-all evil end-game of the megacorporate republics, or you can see it as the grand equalizer of cronyism, regional chauvinism, virtual caste systems, slavery and human trafficking, chronic poverty, or any other grand injustice at work in the world today.

The truth is that both visions are probably true, no dystopia, no utopia, just the continuation of the struggle. Except it would be writ large across the entire globe, where something that happens in Shanghai has just as much immediate effect in Caracas or Amsterdam as it does in Beijing. I think Globalism is still progess, because the new iniquities that replace the old ones don't seem as heinous to me.

To paraphrase Jon Stewart...

[realgone]

The People of Afghanistan:
Thank you for your wonderful open-source software. Can we... eat it?

globalism and corporate takeovers

[thanjee]

Globalism could be good, but the mechanisms for it to work and be fair to everyone do not exist.
If you really want to create a global economy that is fair you have to start thinking about things like a global minimum wage and global minimum worker entitlements, otherwise the multinational corporations will exploit the poorer countries even more than they do now.

The current ideas of globalism that the WTO are pushing are the opposite of a democratic society. They reduce the role of the democratically elected government and give more power to corporations. This is not a good thing, as the public has NO control over a corporation, whereas they have some control over a government.

As far as open source software and technology goes, there will be no extra benefits. They have as much access to that now as they will do in a global economy. For some countries this is nothing. For example if you are a non-government civilian living in Burma and are caught even posessing a computer or a private phone line you will be severely punished. People in Cambodia and many other countries don't want computers, they want their basic rights and needs, like food, clean water, decent shelter, a decent wage for a decent days work. If globalism addresses all of these social kinds of isses then I will give it the go ahead. Until then, lets help those that really need help.

Re:The GPL and open-source ARE communist!

[SkyLeach]

Nobody said communism in and of itself was wrong.

As a matter of simple fact, when the Christian first started they "had all things common" because we (the Christians) were supposed to be beyond greed and stuff. [Acts 2:44, 4:32]. So you see, Christians invented communism before Marx. We also figured out it didn't work. Paul expressly said it was a bad idea later in Corinthians.

The problem is that perfect societies attract bad people and good people, and in a society built on a model where you can read "to each according" you should immediately see "to each according to how I see he deserves it". As long as the person executing the statement is perfect: no problem. As soon as someone less-than perfect gets ahold of the purse strings things start going very very badly because communism is all about trust and when that breaks down the system breaks down.

So no, we aren't told that communism is bad by our parents simply because of a lack of freedom. We were told communism was bad because our (American's) parents grew up predominately protistant and protestants came from Christian Catholics who learned about communism from Paul who said it was a bad idea.

:-)

Way to belittle activism!

[Bimble]

Herd-like college kids and knee-jerk political activists associate the term with a broad range of bugaboos, from cultural imperialism to sweatshops to environmental destruction. But others (like me) see it as the best hope for a world in which gaps between the tech and non-tech worlds are widening, and the have-nots are increasingly enraged at the haves.

That's cute. By using derogatory terminology to refer to activists that have protested against globalization, you dismiss their arguments without ever having to demonstrate why you think they aren't important. That frees you to trumpet your own ideas without addressing the drawbacks of globalization as it is currently being approached by the US.

The reason so many "knee-jerk activists" turned up in Seattle and elsewhere is because organizations like the WTO and trade agreements like NAFTA place an emphasis on global profit over local prosperity. It's an enforceable emphasis, too - under some of these agreements, if a corporation's profits would be hurt by new legislation (such as environmental or labor laws), a corporation can sue the government for compensation. That's had a discouraging effect on such legislation in countries that can't afford such compensation.

It's great to tout the benefits of globalization, but don't dismiss its drawbacks. At the least, if you are going to dismiss its drawbacks, tell us why instead of hiding behind name-calling. Tell us why it isn't important that globalization agreements are preventing improved labor conditions in these third-world countries, and why they're interfering with environmental legislation in first-world countries (to the point of demanding repeal of laws implemented by elected officials). Globalization as it's practiced today has become an emphasis of capitalism over democracy, and name-calling won't make that problem go away.

Re:Not again....

[anthony_dipierro]

When is the JonKatz madness going to stop?!

When is the senseless Katz bashing going to stop?

When is the redundant Katz bashing bashing going to stop?

Katz bashing is fun. And at least Katz bashes tend to change each time. Whereas the mindless Katz defense tend to repeat the same argument over and over.

We read Katz because it's fun to make fun of him. Hell, that's the main reason I read slashdot any more - to make fun of the editors.

Jon Katz = lots of buzz words

[acoustix]

I think Jon needs a bigger vocab. Although I'm still trying to get over the review he wrote for the movie Panic Room. Here are some of the buzz words in this article:

Corporatism
Globalism
Open Source
Linux
bugaboos
skirts
electricity
tele phones
United Nations Development Program
technologically-primitive regimes
knee-jerk political activists

I could go on and on....but I think you get the picture. Jon, instead of the word "skirts" try using "short dresses". Instead of "technologically-primitive regimes" try using "Amish people". You see? It isn't that tough!

Re:The worn out "theyre poor cos we're rich" ideol

[why-is-it]

Fuck the 3rd world, its not our fault the state they're in. We dragged ourselves out of a stone age culture, they didn't. Well thats their damn problem.

On the whole, this post is a troll and should be treated as such.

However, in response to the claim "it's not our fault", I would encourage people to check out this site: nologo.org and get a different perspective.

If you have the time and/or inclination, I would highly recommend Naiomi Klein's book of the same name.

Let them Have Open Source

[ziriyab]

.
Concerned Slashdotter: Your Majesty, the people in the third world are angry, for they have no bread

Katz: Let them have open source software

OSS advocacy is one thing, but claiming it's a panacea to everything is ridiculous. People in developing countries need:
1. Food
2. Healthcare
3. Non-corrupt governments

As for Soros, more power to him and his charities, but when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Soros thinks they need stable financial markets, etc., because he's a capitalist and his only tool is the market.

Re:bugaboos?

[ahde]

the buzzword you are familiar with is "straw man", which itself really only means, "I reject your arguement and will soon label you a racist"

A bugaboo is a mythical creature (ie. something that doesn't exist) invoked to scare people. It has the same root as bogeyman.

In JonKatz's context it may not be used exactly correct, but in the sense that he argues sweatshops are not directly related to globalism, it makes sense.

The Painfully Obvious Shortcomings Of Globalism

[istartedi]

1. If defined as "using a common standard" globalism falls short for the same reason that monoculture crops, or everybody using the same e-mail program falls short: any failure in the system is exported everywhere.

2. If defined as "free trade", it falls short because of the hidden costs that don't make it into the accountant's ledgers. For example, allowing international shipping on the Great Lakes seems like the obvious choice until you realize that trout are disappearing because of pests transported from foreign waters. From the Black Death of the middle ages, to the great flu epidemic of WWI, trade and travel has always brought these increased risks. These risks almost never appear on the balance sheet when free trade proponents make their arguments. The rational way to maintain the benefits of trade and ensure against such losses is to impose reasonable tarrifs. The proceeds of said tarrifs must be used to inspect imported goods, write regulations, etc. That is the only fair way to pay for such activities because the revenue collected will be proportional to trade. Pulling revenues out of the general fund won't work because the temptation to skimp on inspections is already too great. At the very least, import-export companies should pay into some sort of insurance fund to pay for ecological disasters and epidemics.

3. If defined as "world government" the problem is so painfully obvious that it almost lends credence to the conspiracy theorists who believe that globalism is a plot designed to start a world war and kill a few billion people. It's hard enough to keep Great Britain under one law. Can anyone seriously imagine bringing the entire world under one law without some serious butt-kicking? And for what? All because it looks so good on paper? And then when the government becomes evil where do you run? That brings us back to point 1--a monoculture government with no place for asylum seekers.

4. Some people have argued that "we have to expand free trade to help the economy". More painfully obvious fallacies. If we need to expand free trade to help the economy, then the economy is helpless because there is a finite world in which to expand.

5. If defined as "the UN" globalism is just a waste of time. Everybody has been marketed into believing that without the UN the world would sink into chaos. Bollox! Without the UN diplomats would continue to have ad-hoc meetings in times of crisis, and some left-leaning committees staffed by the wives of wealthy CEOs would no longer exist.

Yeah, George Soros thinks something is a great idea... whatever. These are the same kind of people who brought us Keynes and the "fine tuning" of the economy.

Equate democracy with globalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Essentially, how do underdeveloped countries build a middle class and have a democratic society?

Ignored by most of the anti-globalism activists is that without a workable legal system, no amount of financial aid, loans, industrial investment, farming assistence, etc., will help create a middle class and a sustainable economy.

Without the legal system, no other progress is feasable.

Re:Equate democracy with globalism

[Lemmy Caution]

Chicken/egg. A population will not value a legal system that is corrupt, protects only the few, and generally doesn't serve the populace. Historical circumstances create cultural mores to a greater extent than the inverse (it's no accident that a work-ethic can thrive in a population that has never been enslaved, never been conquered or occupied, never had life savings devalue to nothing overnight - all these experiences tend to erode that Protestant work ethic, and respect for property also tends to disappear when one's family is hungry and sick.) I don't think it's an accident that respect for the law declines most sharply in the US where the law is seen as an unfair, outside force meant to protect the privileged from the rest, and the white from the non-white.

Re:Equate democracy with globalism

[benwaggoner]

Absolutely. Many biggest problems that most underdeveloped countries are due to insufficient globalism, not to globalism itself.

Corruption: One of the big factors of success in Western economies is transparency and lack of bribary. While we're far from 100% free of these, we're doing a lot better than most of the world. Look at the Enron scandal - we agree that it's inapprpriate for an auditor to go easy on the audits in order to gain more consulting work. The richest heads of state in the world are in third world countries. While rich people often hold elected office in the US, they're typically poorer instead of richer after it's all done (elections are expensive!).

Opaque and bribary-ridden societies mean inefficient uses of resources. If funcionaries see a primary goal of their employment being to maximize graft, the net effect is that anything that involves government approval will take as much time and require as many participants as possible. It also increases the power of the well connected over the competant, so companies who tend to get government contracts tend to be lousy and them.

Clear title to assets: A lot of the land in poor countries has unclear title, which means they can't be used as assets for loans, sold, or otherwise be treated as a form of wealth. The reasons for these are often due to a combination of a corrupt government (too many bribes to get the paperwork), and well intentioned but misguided attempts to enforce a more communal rural economy.

Free trade: This is a problem in rich and poor countries, although rich countries tend to at lesat give lip service to free trade. If everyone is free to trade goods across national borders, the net effect is that everyone can do what they're most efficient at. Protectionism enables local producers to be less efficient, with the inevitable effect of empoverishing the many for the benefit of the few. For example, in the new US steel tariffs are estimated to cost at least three jobs in steel consuming and shipping industries for every steelworker job they save. Not only is it a bad thing for our trading partners, it's bad for ourselves. Everyone loses in protectionism.

Re:Equate democracy with globalism

[Lemmy Caution]

I agree that there are no easy answers. I think something that demonstrably does not work is focus on the elites within third world countries. The trouble is that development led by trade has a short-term interest of generating profits and getting access to cheap resources and cheap labor - which means dealing with the elites in those countries, often for whom corrupt judges, purchased police etc. are operating. Globalism in service of the multinationals is not going to do much good. It takes the political enfranchisement of the general population, which often works against the profits of the multinationals who underwrite "development."

Re:Equate democracy with globalism

[Stonehand]

Afghanistan should provide an interesting experiment, considering that they're practically building a government from scratch.

Re:Equate democracy with globalism

[cryptochrome]

Many countries have been where Afghanistan is now before. Frankly, I don't hold much hope for them at all. Afghanistan has never progressed even beyond warring clans. At a minimum it will take generations to build a strong national identity that won't cave into tribal interests.

Re:Equate democracy with globalism

[ArcSecond]

Hear! Hear!

Globalism is just a word. It is the trend of funneling government (national and IMF) cash into the pockets of elite that bothers me, not increasing "closeness" of cultures. As you say, Globalism in service of the multinationals is not going to do much good... for anybody who isn't a multinational shareholder.

Every problem we have could be solved with a little "Prisoners' Dilemma" reasoning, but I just don't see how you change corporate culture so radically that the elite are willing to sacrifice their maximized self-interest for the benefit of people they will never meet. As has been pointed out often on this site--especially by self-proclaimed capitalists--greed is just a fact of life, and why not accept the system that has been built around the pursuit of self-interest?

Well, because greed is not the rock of my moral foundation. And although I bet it is for a lot of people, I would prefer to live in a world where decisions are focused on maximizing the common good (what I like to call "Social Capital"), not just the interests represented by the creaking and warped structures of the Establishment.

It makes sense not to sink more money in the pit of International Aid as conceived by the elite. That is, more money for businesses to strip wealth from the third world, more money to build infrastructure that locks them into expensive technologies, and more money to grease the palms of local officials to ensure things go smoothly.

Lets face it: there is only a call for "Reform" in cases where the corruption is actually interfering with profits... after all, there's no need to reform governments that continue to shaft their constituents and give free reign to multinationals, is there? As a matter of fact, let's reward those countries by not interfering in their civil affairs (Indonesia) and if they go broke following our IMF directives (Argentina), too bad for them.

No, on second thought, let's NOT do that.

Re:Equate democracy with globalism

[elflord]

I don't think it's an accident that respect for the law declines most sharply in the US where the law is seen as an unfair, outside force meant to protect the privileged from the rest,

Seriously, you should get out more. What "protects the powerful" is not law, but lawlessness and corruption. And there are many countries where corruption is a tool that is used to slam doors in the faces of those who don't have "the right connections". The notion of fair and due process not only exists in the US, it is enshrined in the law. Disclosure requirements for public corporations, safety standards, anti discrimination laws, etc etc. In the US, the little guy has at least some means to fight back, whether it's through the media, or legal system, in other countries they would just disappear and no-one would notice.

and the white from the non-white.

Is this some sort of race-baiting exercise ? Sorry, no cigar. It's true that "non-whites" commit a large number of crimes, but the real concern is protecting them from each other (minorities are usually the victims of minority crime). Look at the push for hate crimes and affirmative action legislation, etc. Of course, not everyone agrees with every proposal, but a reasonable person cannot deny that treating minorities fairly is a topic that Americans feel is an important one, and that is reflected in the political discourse and its media coverage.

Corruption - Not just Africa/South America

[Knunov]

I'm with you 100%. If you even mention that America might not be corrupt to its core, you get flamed for being a naive flag-waver.

The few Americans that have travelled extensively generally get a tourist's point-of-view of other countries. I've been (un)fortunate enough to partake in business dealings with other countries.

Stuff that would get you fired and/or arrested in America is widely accepted, and even encouraged in other countries.

I worked aboard a cruise ship and assisted the pursing department when the ship pulled into port. The port agents *expect*, not ask for, not hint, *expect* a bribe to make sure all the paperwork goes through smoothly.

We kept a stock of whiskey bottles, wine and cartons of cigarettes in the captain's meeting room just for this reason. Some of the nastier agents/ports will require an envelope stuffed with money. Once in Turkey, the captain had to pay $5000 cash to avoid a $40,000 'fine'.

And this happens in countries you wouldn't expect.

France, Italy, Portugal and Spain were the 'least worst' offenders, with Italy being a little dirtier. Their port agents held a server that was shipped from the U.S. until we paid a $1000 duty. We told them to shove it, and had it re-routed to France. Their port agents only charged us a $500 duty...

These fees are negotiable, you see, depending on the scumminess of the particular agent.

Greece is bad. 50% of the cargo we had shipped to Greece somehow 'disappeared' from the port authority.

India, Morocco and Turkey are borderline criminal. Want your luggage to get through Customs? Better have a 20-spot in your pocket.

In fact, Gibraltar was the only port that didn't require greasing some port official's palm. It's run by Brits, so no surprise there.

I never appreciated America more than when I tried to do business overseas.

Knunov

The Dirty Undersides Of Philanthropists

[istartedi]

One other thing to say; it's interesting that you describe Soros as a philanthropist. It seems like a lot of these wealthy donors favor systems that make it difficult for small business to enter the market. Copylefting software is a tool that does that. I have a theory about why the elites like copyleft. They saw Bill Gates, who was a nerd, rise to a position of power. BG shunned philanthropy until his father browbeat him into it. BG ignored the government until it attacked him. BG lobbied nobody until his enemies lobbied. Plainly, BG is not "one of them" and because proprietary software can allow people with nothing more than a good idea and a few thousand dollars to become billionaires, it plainly represents a threat to the power elites. They have to keep the nerds out of the country club. Nobody talked about the irrelevancy of government until BG got rich. Free Software everywhere would help the ruling class maintain their position. Policy wonks like Soros would become important again, free to force their ideas down people's throats. RMS and Lessig are nothing more than mouth-pieces funded by the power elites. If RMS's hadn't received the MacArthur grant, we might not even be talking about him.

Re:The Dirty Undersides Of Philanthropists

[istartedi]

The rich get richer by buying property and then renting it or selling it for much more than it originally cost them. Inventing new kinds of property (like copyrighted software, for instance) just gives them more opportunities.

Only half true. First, "the rich" is a misnomer. I was talking about the power elites. Driving a Mercedes does not make you a power elite. Owning half of Mercedes-Benz dramaticly increases the odds that you are a member of the power elite, though even that level of wealth is no gaurantee. BG does not present as a classic member of the power elite. The other half-truth here is that new revenue streams provide new opportunities for the power elites. The trouble is, they also provide opportunities for nouveau-riche guys like BG and the PEs hate that. So, the PEs are willing to do things like increase taxes or stifle IP if they believe it won't hurt them too much, all the while knowing that it will prevent new contenders from rising. That's whey the AIP movement is favored by the PEs.

here's the problem

[mikec]

The last paragraph betrays a huge misunderstanding of reality:

As a result of globalization, the divisions between the world's rich and the poor continues to widen. According to the United Nations Development Program, the richest one percent of the world's population receives as much income as the poorest 57 percent. More than a billion people live on less than a dollar a day; nearly a billion lack any access to clean water; 826 million suffer from malnutrition; 10 million die annually due to lack of basic health care. Some of these conditions pre-dated globalization, but the new economy has hardly improved matters.

This is so far from reality that it's hard to know where to start debunking. First of all "As a result of globalization" barely qualifies a hypothesis; it certainly isn't a proven fact. "As a result of disparities in legal respect for property rights" is a better hypothesis.

Second, growing disparity between rich and poor is not necessarily bad. If you could wave a wand and improve the standard of living of the poor by 8x, but in the process make the rich 10x as rich, would you do so? If not, why not? Just because disparity would grow?

Third, by almost all objective standards, the amount and severity of poverty in the world has dropped significantly during the era of globalization. There is less starvation; infant mortality is lower; life expectancy is longer; there is less malnutrition.

Finally, the places where things haven't improved correspond not to hotbeds of globalization, but to regimes so repressive or corrupt that global investment doesn't happen. Globalization has barely touched most of Africa or North Korea because no one will invest. In those places the standard of living is wretched.

Re:here's the problem

[delcielo]

This whole thing also assumes that money is the only measure of a life.

The poor farmer in Thailand may know nothing of the internet, may not own a telephone, may not even trade most of his crops for money, trading it rather for other goods and services. Is he poor? Certainly. What's the quality of his life? Well, you'd have to ask him.

He may live longer than you, may never know the dissatisfaction of being laid off. May never suffer the uncertainty of "finding himself" or the perennial angst of therapy. His soul doesn't need any chicken soup.

The truth is, he may be richer than anybody we know.

Re:here's the problem

[mikec]

1. Where is it proven?
2. It's not a troll. It's pointing out a fact: being worse off relative to the rich is not the same as being worse off in absolute terms. We could reduce global disparity by nuking Canada and Finland. Would that help the poor? Of course not.
3. Check your facts. The argument seems to be "things are getting worse, and there's globalism, so globalism makes things worse." That argument is pretty weak to begin with, but it is totally silly if things are actually getting better. And all objective data show that to be the case.

Re:here's the problem

[Untimely Ripp'd]

Second, growing disparity between rich and poor is not necessarily bad. If you could wave a wand and improve the standard of living of the poor by 8x, but in the process make the rich 10x as rich, would you do so? If not, why not? Just because disparity would grow?

To begin with, until I could provide a certain minimum standard of living, I would oppose something that increased the wealth gap because it is wrong to adopt policies that provide additional luxury for those who already have more than they can use, while others go without enough food -- assuming alternative policies are available.

Beyond that, the proposition is a standard Chicago School bit of straw man nonsense. "If the universe were constructed completely differently than it is, would you still hold to your irrational principle?" It's a sad attempt to prove that the principles of the left are really just class envy. This is bull. I would oppose the hypothetical policy because whatever the apparent short-term benefit, I believe that in the long run increasing the disparity between rich and poor guarantees that the rich are going to have the power to reduce the poor to subsistence slavery. Period.

Third, by almost all objective standards, the amount and severity of poverty in the world has dropped significantly during the era of globalization. There is less starvation; infant mortality is lower; life expectancy is longer; there is less malnutrition.
This is just silly. It's not silly because it can't possibly true, it's not even silly because it might not be true; it's silly because the author doesn't actually know whether it's true but feels compelled to assert it. He's likely quoting verbatim from some mass-media right-wing ideologue, who similarly said it with no actual knowledge to back it up. It's easy to find this sort of thing.
It's also silly because it inevitably ignores any and all objective standards that don't fit the model. The amount and severity of child prostitution in Bangkok has almost certainly increased with globalism. The number of children who work unconscionable hours in slave conditions in Malaysia or Pakistan has certainly increased. The number of people slaughtered in ethnic and regional conflicts seems to be increasing with globalism.
It's also silly because it asserts the primacy of cross-cultural "objective standards", thus conveniently erasing all culture-based standards. For most of human history, most children spent almost every moment in direct proximity to one or both of their parents. This is an "objective standard" that few in our culture even consider, even though it was true in America right up to WW I. Does the inevitable rise in world-wide juvenile delinquency in the wake of corporate globalism qualify as an objective standard of measure? (Meanwhile, now that a few Americans are asserting the need for society to accommodate parent involvement in child-rearing, there is a backlash from some childless-by-choice folks who resent being forced to subsidize the requirements of those horrible selfish parents.)

Finally, the places where things haven't improved correspond not to hotbeds of globalization, but to regimes so repressive or corrupt that global investment doesn't happen. Globalization has barely touched most of Africa or North Korea because no one will invest.

This is comically untrue. Check the "made in" on almost every common consumer good you own -- clothes, cars, toys, baby strollers. Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Thailand, Mexico, and of course, the People's Republic of China. Do you know the going rate for 5 years of a child's labor in Pakistan? $100 to $200. (Multiplying it by 10 might increase the price of a soccer ball from 10 bucks to 10.20.) And if you happen to have a sadistic streak, you get to beat them mercilessly too. I suppose if you actually killed one you might get in trouble, if you weren't able to somehow cover it up as an on-the-job accident. "yes, well, he got run over by the shipping truck, you know." That's globalism at work: It gives corporations the ability to work with the powerful elites in developing nations to savage the poor, while earning obscene profits by selling the goods in the wealthy West.

Re:here's the problem

[mikec]

"it is wrong to adopt policies that provide additional luxury for those who already have more than they can use, while others go without enough food -- assuming alternative policies are available."

Why? That's not a rhetorical question. Why? You seem to believe that there is some inherent good in me flushing money down the toilet to reduce income disparity, in spite of the fact that no one would benefit.

"I believe that in the long run increasing the disparity between rich and poor guarantees that the rich are going to have the power to reduce the poor to subsistence slavery."

Why would they want to do that? It is certainly not in the best interests of the rich to reduce the standard of living of the poor. The rich get that way by selling stuff. You can't sell much to poor people.

He's likely quoting verbatim from some mass-media right-wing ideologue, who similarly said it with no actual knowledge to back it up.

Oh, now there's a good argument. :-)

This is comically untrue. Check the "made in" on almost every common consumer good you own -- clothes, cars, toys, baby strollers. Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Thailand, Mexico, and of course, the People's Republic of China.

And in which of those places has the standard of living dropped since, say, 1970? In which is there more starvation than there was thirty years ago? Note: I didn't ask "in which of those places are some people suffering."

Re:here's the problem

[mikec]

So your argument boils down to this: any actual measurements that show overall improvements are irrelevant since they are always trumped by anecdotal evidence of particular abuses.

I agree that there's more to life than infant mortality and starvation. However, I still haven't seen any evidence that things are overall getting worse. All I see are examples of people who are suffering. That doesn't tell me much except that there's lots of room for improvement, because there were plenty of examples of people suffering 30 years ago, too

It's like, I say "the weather is cooling off" and you say "It can't be, it's still hot!". I say,"but it was hotter yesterday." You say "but, jeez, its almost 90 degrees". I say, but yesterday it was 105". You say, "But look, that fellow is sweating---it can't be cooling off."

Re:here's the problem

[elflord]

When the number of people being enslaved rises due to globalization, when the number of people being degraded rises due to globalization, when the number of people who are suffering from toxin related illness rises due to globalization, when the number of people being harmed, maimed, or killed by companies unwilling to invest in safety practices rises due to globalization, then things are getting worse.

Except you don't show there is an existing trend, let alone making an argument that it's "caused" by globalisation (as opposed to, say, population growth)

Also, for what it's worth, infant mortality and starvation are not meaures of quality of life. Neither of them change based on how people live - they only change based on how people die.

One can't enjoy life while they're dead. That point aside, starvation is a slow and painful death, and high levels of starvation go hand in hand with large numbers of people who are constantly hungry and malnourished. Infant mortality and starvation are reasonable indicators of public health.

Re:here's the problem

[elflord]

This whole thing also assumes that money is the only measure of a life.

It is not a good measure, but it is a measure. The alternative "spiritual satisfaction" definition is not something that can be measured, which is why it's not a reliable source of quantitative data.

It is true that one can be sick, poor, but happy. However, it's certainly easier to be happy if you're healthy and live comfortably and safely.

If two people ran for election, one promised to increase the standard of living, the other promised spiritual happiness, who would win ? I'd vote for the guy promising something tangible, even though I'd prefer improve my "spiritual happiness" than get rich.

Re:What a load of bullshit.

[ahde]

"Giving work away for free doesn't create welth."

So you think computers have no use?

I don't live in a third world country, but because of free software I learned to program, which got me my job, am able to host my own website, can do my accounting, desktop publishing, and play nethack and read slashdot for leisure.

Re:The worn out "theyre poor cos we're rich" ideol

[dkleinsc]

Actually, colonialism was in place through World War II, putting it slightly over 50 years past us. For example, in the process of turning colonies into independent states a small nation was created on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean. Other countries created from colonies in this period include most of Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. Large portions of the Middle East were also carved up right around then, re-forming countries such as Egypt and Jordan. The phrase "The sun never sets on the British empire" was true throughout the first half of the 20th century.

And there was something stopping the inhabitants of these areas from going back to subsistance farming during the colonial period: Being at the wrong end of a British (usually) or French rifle. That tends to be pretty effective motivation. Not that there wasn't resistance (e.g. the Zulu Wars and the Sepoy rebellion).

Re:Especially as RMS is speaking at the DNC this w

[ahde]

I think it means the DNC is letting them use the building. The only inkling of an ally free software had in congress was Orin Hatch, a Republican senator from Utah. I doubt the perl mongers really influence politics.

It's never been about "anti-globalization"

[Wesley Everest]

The term "anti-globalization" was made up by the "pro-globalization" folks. Unfortunately, many activists use it to describe themselves because that's what the "pro-globalization" media keeps using to refer to us. It's like talking about abortion and wondering how anyone could be "anti-life" or "anti-choice".

So if the "anti-globalization" movement isn't really against globalization, then what is it really about? It's against a new form of top-down globalization, where ordinary people are stopped at borders, but corporations are free to move jobs whereever wages are kept artificially low (due to lack of ability of most third world workers to move to democratic countries that respect workers' rights). The movement is against new organizations that can veto national and local laws, yet the people affected by these decisions have no power to elect representatives to these organizations.

In most if not all countries, things are stacked against ordinary people influencing the laws that affect their daily life. But in many semi-democratic countries, it is possible to change the laws if you spend many years building a large movement, forcing politicians to represent us. But imagine our surprise after finally having our voice heard, just the tiniest bit, only to have the WTO decide that our democratic rights are a violation of "free trade".

You don't have to be a much of a cynic to see the folly in saying "if you don't like the laws the current crop of politicians enacted, vote them out", but at least with local and national governments, that is an option. When the WTO creates new rights for corporations and destroys rights for people, there isn't even a pretense of the ability to "vote them out".

So, yes, I'm all about "globalism" or "internationalism" or whatever you want to call it. I'm just for a globalism controlled by the 5 billion or so people it affects. And this is hardly a new idea. Internationalism has been a fundamental aspect of the struggle since the early 1800's. We were fighting for it then, and we're fighting for it now. The Industrial Workers of the World had hundreds of members in Seattle to protest the World Trade Organization's idea of globalization, yet the IWW is as firmly committed to uniting working people across the globe as they were at their founding in 1905.

And, yes, I'm happy that some billionaire likes the idea of a kinder-gentler unelected organization controlling our lives in a way that benefits us. That sure beats the sort of thing billionaires are usually arguing for. But that's hardly a solution. Doesn't anyone remember all that "of the people, by the people, for the people," crap? So this billionaire wants some kind of international body "for the people" but presumably of and by unelected politicians and corporations. That's a third of the way there. Hell, I'd be happy enough if it was at least honest - one vote for every $100,000,000 of wealth.

As for how to get there... Free software is definitely one aspect of it. The general priniciple is people coming together and collectively creating and controlling the things that affect our lives. Free (as in speech) Software gives computer users the chance to opt out of Bill Gates' orwellian wet dreams, and it also demonstrates an alternative method of organization and creation. It even makes ideas of a sane future imaginable -- and, as a programmer, Free Software is the only method of software production and distribution that makes sense in a (hopefully not too distant) future where people are in charge instead of corporations. The general principle applies in all other spheres of life, as well -- joining together with others working at the workplace, in our communities, and so on.

Re:The GPL and open-source ARE communist!

[SkyLeach]

"So you see, Christians invented communism before Marx [wrote about it]. - better? ;-)

Sorry 'bout that. I knew Marx didn't invent communism but I keep thinking the average /. reader doesn't care about the nitty-gritty details. He made it popular, or at least famous, and that's what I was really trying to show/say.

Re:"Anti-Globalist Protester" Perspective

[cryptochrome]

That's not such a bad sentiment, but it's hardly what I hear coming from the angry mobs of protesters. Generally it's either people upset over the fact that their livelihoods have lost out in the equation (understandable, but not unexpected, and requires adaptation rather than protection), the weakening of their local culture with regards to global culture (again, change is inevitable, adapt), some specific issue i.e. the environment (needs to be addressed), or anti-capitalist (despite the fact that every command economy/government in history has turned out miserably compared to regulated markets, especially the marxist "utopias").

Maybe if American and 1st World globalism protesters would start representing themselves rationally in the media and engage in active debate and problem-solving, rather than organizing yet more incoherent, costume-laden, stupid-slogan-shouting protests, they would be taken more seriously.

Re:The GPL and open-source ARE communist!

[Tackhead]

> this fundamentally scientific approach to politics and economics

DingDingDingDingDing! Pseudoscience alert!

Though, in defence of Marx and Engels, they hadn't been able to test their hypotheses at the time they came upw ith 'em.

That said, by 2002, the results of the experiments they conducted are pretty clear. They came up with an interesting hypothesis, but attempts to validate the hypothesis using the Real World as a laboratory resulted in tens of millions of deaths and the collapse of the experimental apparatus.

The hypothesis was shown to be false, and in the name of basic scientific ethics, I pray we never try any more large-scale experiments.

(More precisely, having seen the number of "to each" and "from each" phaseouts and arbitrary restrictions in the Internal Revenue Code, I pray we cease building the partially-completed large-scale experiment in North America before any further damage is done. Tax "software" is evil - every year, the slaves should be forced to confront the ornamentation that gives the master's whip in all its brutal, byzantine glory. Only then might they actually vote the bastards out.)

Re:GPL produces segmented software

[Glytch]

Numerous obligations? Like what? If you don't like the terms of the GPL, like you said yourself, WRITE YOUR OWN CODE . No one's forcing you to use someone else's code. People who whine about how restrictive the GPL is just want a free lunch.

"Segmented software"? What the fuck is that? Oh, I get it. It's a new turn you invented to describe some big scary situation so that others will buy into your worthless argument, duped into thinking that you know what you're talking about.

It is too late, we're doomed

[sam_handelman]

global open society that could ensure a greater degree of freedom than individual states can or will. Is it already too late for that?

In response to this "Linux myth", Microsoft chairman Bill Gates issued the following press release:
My minions are already in a position to topple all world government and make me supreme leader. Your pathetic open source movement is powerless to stop me! Bwah ha ha ha ha!

You can find more information at the new homepage for world domination, www.wehaveyouunderourthumb.com.

Seriously, Jon, please. Open Source is an anticorporate movement; to the extent that the excessive power of corporations makes the lives of people who like to muck around with computers difficult, open source can help. Open source can even help to make technology cheaper, and reduce the economic clout of certain, particular, monopolistic corporations.

However, the high price of technology is not the root cause of most of the evil in the world. The profits from selling software are not what props up the international corporations and allows them to subvert the political process around the world to their own ends. Even if the techno anarchists succeed in destroying not just Big Software, but Big Music and Big Media as well, how will that benefit some teenage girl making a nickel a day manufacturing CD player components while she's exposed to heavy metals and drinks cholera contaminated water in a ghetto in the philippines? Oh, the CD player will have Linux embedded in it! AND no big mean corporation will be able to make you embed DRM in the firmware!

Free software advocates have argued for years now that open software could help create wealth and promote open societies in once-repressive, impoverished and technologically-primitive regimes.

Like Rock music was going to?
There is a certain truth to the argument that open source software is such a cool idea that it changes people on a philosophical level. So does la musica rock. I like Rock Music, and I like Open Source. Both of them have a highly positive impact on my quality of life, personally.

However, when you're talking about injustice on a global scale, call me when Richard Stallman storms the bastille, okay?

I'm a liberal, not a revolutionary by preference or inclination. I'm not looking for an excuse to promote armed struggle. However, when the institutions for moderate change, which is less disruptive to people's lives and welfare, if that is what you really care about and I do, have been co-opted so completely by reactionary forces, you're not left with a lot of options.

Recall, global corporations have a serious weakness vis a vis nation-states. Evil megacorps do not engender real loyalty. They try, and you can envisage a (nightmarish) future, where they do, but I don't think that it's likely. They depend for their existence on loyalty to the institutions of law and government which we have erected for the public benefit, and which they are subverting to support their own agendas. There comes a point where significant numbers of people - smart, able, well organised people - begin to lose loyalty to those institutions. This enables conglomerates to seize more control of those institutions; see cycle, vicious.

Now that the USSR is gone, people forget how close they came to winning, in how many ways and on how many fronts and at how many times. The institutions that protect our civil society, which seem to us so powerful exist purely in our heads; our society is not so different from the USSR is that it could collapse spontaneously based on the fickleness of the public mind; a fortress built of paper burns down in a day. I'm not just worried about the rise of corporate republics, as dystopic as such might be. I'm worried about the backlash from the other side of the political spectrum, which can be very, very ugly, and which threatened to stamp out civil society world wide as recently as 20 years ago. That is less than a generation. If you think that such sentiments are not simmering world wide just b/c the USSR is no longer helping them with their pamphletry, you are not paying attention.

Can free (as in speech) software help stem the rage of 65% of the world's population against those implicated in their impoverishment? No, it can't. Sorry.

Corruption is the #1 threat to Democracy

[cryptochrome]

Amen.

A certain amount of corruption will inevitably occur. What matters is how the government and especially the CITIZENS respond to it, once they become aware of it. Corruption is the single most dangerous threat to any government, and especially democracies, because a democracy that won't control corruption is not a democracy at all. Severe punishment and righteous indignation are the hallmarks of societies which can keep corruption in check, allowing themselves to prosper. Apathy and capitulation are hallmarks of societies which will allow corruption to grow until they can't even function.

The US is pretty good about corruption, at least where domestic affairs are concerned, but we could be better, particularly with regard to corporate regulations and international concerns. Some spots in Northern Europe may be as good or better, but as far as the rest of the world is concerned they need a lot of improvement. Yes, even and in fact especially Japan.

Re:Corruption is the #1 threat to Democracy

[Citizen of Earth]

The US is pretty good about corruption, at least where domestic affairs are concerned, but we could be better, particularly with regard to corporate regulations and international concerns.

Here is an index of corruption compiled for nations around the world. Can't comment on its authoritativeness, but America is ranked as #16. Northern Europe is 'extra clean'.

Re:Corruption is the #1 threat to Democracy

[cryptochrome]

That's an interesting survey, but it's strictly about perception. I'm not even sure who they were surveying, exactly, nor how to objectively evaluate between different countries.

Hong Kong, for instance, has weak laws governing business practice and major trafficking problems. Swiss banks will keep money for anyone, no matter if it was criminally obtained. Luxemborg (I think) was used as a tax shelter for people in the EU. All fine and good domestically, but it has major international impacts.

Japan is only 5 spots below America, but the cronyism and political connections endemic in the system is driving their economy straight to hell - even the Prime Minister who was elected on precisely that issue can't do anything about it.

Point being, I'd prefer some more objective assessment of corruption rather than a poll.

Re:Corruption is the #1 threat to Democracy

[cryptochrome]

Well I can't actually say who is better or worse in the world - this was just my casual observation.

For the record, I think the US media is not independent enought. They're too easily swayed by various powerful special interest groups with their own agendas and little regard for fair play. Perhaps it's America's puritan heritage, but they're also too easily swayed by sex scandals in the face of more important issues too. Furthermore, there are few news outlets with real journalistic integrity. The trend towards papers that cater to niche mentalities in the name of "alternative perspectives" has become so great that I doubt there are any truly trusted objective news sources out there.

Naturally this is really important since the media plays such a key role, but people tend to gloss over it.

Re:The simple truth

[Tackhead]

> A global government, on the other hand, is very bad -- unless the rest of the world is willing to adopt and abide by the US Constitution.

Hell, I'd settle for just the US adopting th
{~{|{{{|NO CARRIER

Looters...

[Wntrmute]

I'm a looter. And I'm not ashamed to admit it. See, I depend on the police to protect me from getting my hard-earned money stolen when I take it to the bank. A bank that I know I'll be able to get my money back out of thanks to the FDIC. I know if my apartment complex catches on fire, the Fire Department will show up to try and put the fire out. When I eat meat, I know it's been inspected by the USDA. I drive to and from my high-paying job on roads maintained by the government of the city I live in. The reason why I had the knowledge to get the job is because I was educated at a public school, and a state-run university. (which I paid for with government-secured student loans) And I'm able to use the Internet to post this, thanks to the government research done developing it.

So yes, I'm a looter. And if you've ever take advantage of similar benfits, you're a looter too.

We need global freedom of movement first

[WGR]

One of the problems of the "globalization" movement is that it is really a global capital movement but not a global labour movement.

That is, all the WTO and G8 talks are designed to make it easy to send capital around the world easily but not allow people to move to different places according to need for skills. As long as corporations have global freedom but not people, we will have the disparity between different people. If a true market in labour existed where people could move anywhere where their skills were wanted, then dicatators would not be able to oppress their citizens so easily, since they could just leave.

Open Source on a global Internet threatens monopoly power because it allows someone in Brazil to develop software that is used in Australia and that same person to use software developed in Finland. The software goes pretty directly from creator to user rather than having some intermediate owner like Microsoft controlling supply and demand.

Open Source tends to reduce the tyranny of money, whch allows a controller of money such as a bank to profit without production, and return to a barter system where my labour is directly available to consumers, and their labour is directly available to me. This threatens the global money monopoly a lot. So that is one reason there is such an attempt to block easy flow of information products (DMCA SSCA etc.). Both the banks and Disney want to ensure that information only is exchanged through a medium where they get a cut.

Remember that money doesn't really exist. It is just a convenient fiction to keep track of the exchange of the real things like goods and knowledge. Any thing that threatens this fiction is very dangerous.

Re:We need global freedom of movement first

[Stonehand]

Not necessarily. Some illegals don't have the cash, but instead enter into agreements with the traffickers, who then employ them with minimal pay and zero benefits in illegal enterprises such as businesses operated primarily for the purpose of money laundering. Others get forced into prostitution, gangs and so forth.

Re:The GPL and open-source ARE communist!

[ADRA]

Also as history tells, you don't need to be communist to kill millions of people. Today, a sadistic president of the United States could make the world a graveyard if they chose to.

With capitalism, you are shielded from the human aspect because it revolves around liquid assets, not people. With Communnism / Socializm, that is all there is, so the inflicted bruitality is directly evident.

How many people died in the industrial revolution from people working in poorly run factories? If it wasn't for socialistic viewed unionists, there would still be worker abuse in industry today. Capitalism is defined by the bottom dollar, and without social recourse, the system would run the world into a place that I wouldn't want to live in. Laissez Fair capitalism needs balance with Socialism if we ever want to keep an 'enlightented' society.

Re:"Anti-Globalist Protester" Perspective

[cryptochrome]

Well I think rational globalists should be eschewing protesting and seeking out active debate and coverage, bringing their arguement to the people rather than berating those who don't subscribe to it. If they really want to make a statement they should go to the Daily Show, knowing full well that they better be honest and rational, otherwise they simply be ridiculed.

As for the whole global/western culture thing, certainly the west has been agressively exporting its culture, often through its superior technology and at the expense of local culture. Competition between cultures as between nations was considered perfectly reasonable, and only in recent times has this been considered bad by anyone on the winning side. The only reason it is considered bad now is because the winners of the culture wars started realizing that because their advantages were so great, they might be losing things of value in the process of waging the cultural wars. The west began actively studying and adopting the cultures of the less powerful non-west in search of valuable ideas and perspectives, in addition spreading their own. Somewhere along the way this multicultural caveat in the pursuit of an objectively superior culture got twisted into the non-sensical postmodern notion that all cultures are equally able and valid, except for western/american culture which is inherently bad. Which they aren't, and it isn't.

Certainly the non-western world would not have given any more consideration to local culture had they been the ones in power. Many probably would have been much worse - look at China or Japan! But they weren't, and it seems the ethics of western culture are an integral part of that same technological power, and vice versa. This is what is in such demand, and in pursuit of it much local culture is still lost. I'm not saying that all the hallmarks of western culture (such as McDonalds) are good. But neither are they all bad, there are many good things that the rest of the world would be better off adopting and developing further for their own sakes. The key is preserving the truly valuable aspects of their local societies, and promoting their adoption to the rest of the world.

Re:Not again....

[President Chimp Toe]

When is this ludicrous Katz bashing bashing bashing bashing bashing bashing bashing bashing bashing bashing bashing bashing bashing bashing bashing bashing bashing bashing bashing bashing bashing bashing bashing bashing bashing bashing bashing going to end?

ARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHh help me - recursive loop virus infection in logic unit.

Re:Rich to get Richer - then they die.

[President Chimp Toe]

I believe that there is a fairly good chance there wont be much left in George's will for relatives. Most will be left to "good causes" (e.g. The Soros foundation...). This is also true of most self made [m|b]illonaires. In fact, Bill Gates - the devil himself - is on record as stating that only $200 million of his will is going to be inherited by relatives. The Bill & Maria Gates foundation overtook the Wellcome Trust as the largest charitable organisation in the world not so long back.

And that is perfectly fair. We know that capital begits capital. If you are rich - and have good intentions - the best thing you can do is be greedy whilst alive. Then give away your money when you die. It will be a substantially larger contribution to good causes.

Re:The GPL and open-source ARE communist!

[bryan1945]

Nah, make everyone write a check every time they get paid at work. When the tax money no longer comes out before they get the check, and are forced to part with that money, then they will realize how badly we all are getting screwed.

Re:The worn out "theyre poor cos we're rich" ideol

[lysurgon]

Ah crap. Colonialism ended a hundred years ago.

Ah crap right back at you. As the previous response noted, formal imperial colonialism was in place until the aftermath of WWII. I would argue that another form of economic colonialism exists now in which less developed countries are kept in a sort of raw-materials-producing indentured servitude by the established economic powers.

I would argue moreover that the massive cultural destabization and systems of corrupt political patronage wrought on nations we call the "3rd World" which I assume are the "real issues" you refer to, are in large part as a result of Colonialism (both imperial and corporate) and not some inherant defect of the peoples of these nations themselves, as is your highly racist inferrence.

Make no mistake, American enginuity got us where we are today: the enginuity to screw over other people and extract resources from them at an advantageous pace for ourselves.

Re:The worn out "theyre poor cos we're rich" ideol

[lysurgon]

The "industrial revolution," at least in the United States, was fueled primarily from within.

I would disagree. You're correct that in the first stage of the industrial revolution (early 1800s to early 1900s) there was little to no offshore manufacturing. However, vast amounts of resource and labor were extracted from other parts of the world (sometimes in the form of immigrants).

While it's true that there was significantly less government-orchestrated (imperial) colonialism prepetuation on behalf of the US (mostly confined to the carribean, central america, and the east) the basis for many of the great founding corporations of this country has always been import/export.

In essance, we didn't get where we are by existing in a vaccum. This is quite obviously the case in our "global" 21st century, but I might remind you that while the interconnection of economies works faster these days than ever before (thanks to things like the internet), the degree of interconnection is hardly unpreccidented. Historical research has shown that just prior to WWI, the interconnection of national economies (as measured by the value of their imports/exports as a funtion of their GDP) was actually GREATER than today.

Why they might use Open Source

[jc42]

> "Do you think developing countries will bable to use open source to develop and keep pace with the western world?" My answer: not unless they get open governments to support it.

This misses one of the main points pushing open source in much of the developing world: Commercial software has secret inner workings that you can't know about. This puts you at the mercy of the corporation that built the software. It can have all sorts of trapdoors and spy code, and if you're on the network, the software can be sending your data back to headquarters without you knowing it.

This is especially worrying to closed governments. If you were a third-world dictator, would you want a big American corporation to have a secret pipeline into your computers?

The only real solution to such worries is to follow the same rule as any high-security installation: You only run programs for which you have all the source code. And you compile them yourself. And you make sure that you have a pool of loyal citizens who have the training to study the software and tell you what it can and can't do to you, and maybe modify it for your own purposes.

Yeah, some governments are buying Microsoft and other corporations' software. They'll eventually find themselves at the mercy of those corporations. Maybe we should feel sorry for them. The smart ones won't fall into this trap.

There's also the price issue ...

Political animal weighs in ...

[SmartAs]

... Woohoo, some meaty civic dialogue on /. I would like to share my ideas on the JonKatz post. I see how he paraphrased Soros as saying:

"There is no international equivalent of the political process that occurs within individual states. While markets have become global, politics remain firmly rooted in the sovereignty of the state."

I recommend Mr. Soros look at a mature academic concept called 'Regime Theory'

Any readers interested in connecting this concept to quantitative proof that being good pays, should attempt correlation with 'Game Theory' as well. That ought to ring a bell with certain computer geeks in our community.

Anyways, good luck. I know there is a thesis in here somewhere.

- Later, SmartAs ...

Re:Starbucks Revolutionaries

[ADRA]

lol

I think the guy was targeting geeks who cannot afford computers, or cell phones, or *gasp* DVD players.

The BIG problem with technology is that it is almost 100% based on money. The more money you have, the more advantaged you will be in the industry. Potentially being the best coder in the woirld is one thing, but if you don't have a computer, coding means nothing, and yes, there are many many people in this world who cannot afford a bargain basement computer even if they tried.

Japan...

[aquarian]

I have several clients and friends in the civil/structural engineering and construction management business. All of them say that Japan is appalling when it comes to corruption in these industries- with graft being as much as 20% of the total budget of a major hotel or office building.

Heres some problems

[HanzoSan]

Globalism can be a good thing, when the time is right, but at the moment i believe the US benifits from globalism more than anyone else.

good idea on paper, bad idea considering the situation the world is in.

If each country had a seperate economy first, then entered the global economy it would be fine, but alot of countries dont have anyting to give to the global economy.

We dont even have a democratic society in the usa

[HanzoSan]

We are a republic, We have a small group who runs the country. Not really much diffrent than China which has a small group which runs the country.

Yes on the local levels we do have some control, but the federal government is fucked up.

Local governments are a democracy, Federal governments arent.

Countries can make progress easily, The problem with globalization that I have, is it seems like another attempt by the US to dominate the world, who benifits most from a global economy? Which country has the best economy? The country with the best economy is the country who is at the top of the ladder, capitalism is a pyramid economy, the global third world will be at the bottom of the ladder, and we'll become richer.

They may become richer than they are now, but I believe they'd be better off if they formed their own economy, China for example does not need to globalize, they have more than enough people to form a good economy.

Also something you dont consider which harms people in the USA, in a completely global information economy, why would anyone hire anyone from the USA? WHy would you get the job when someone from pakistan or asia can do it for cheaper?

Until each countries economy is absolutely equal, the global idea is unfair.

Re:Starbucks Revolutionaries

[Com2Kid]

Perhaps we can take up a collection. I'm sure there's a sweatshop worker in Brazil who'll be thrilled to donate to the cause. After all, you paid his salary via Nike...

Having spent a good part of my childhood living below the poverty level, not to mention that I don't go to starbucks or drink coffee at all (too expensive, waste of resources, water please), and that the only Nike shoes I have owned in years were a pair of leather boots that cost me $60 and lasted a year and a half (and thats sayin something for shoes that take as much abuse as I dole out), which were the best value that I could find;

excuse me if I think that you are full of bullshit.

The damn beancounters are the REASON that people are stuck working in sweatshops, hell, when was the last time you saw a Nerd saying "Oh yah hey thats no problem, use slave labor if it'll save us a few bucks!"

Basicially thats why I am against globalism

[HanzoSan]

I dont see it helping me, or you, it only helps a rich CEO.

Example, via globalism cant this CEO hire people from other countries cheaper than hiring you?
This allows him to save costs, but you lack a job because some guy in pakistan will work for next to nothing.

Until Globalism addresses the issue of wage equality, theres going to be a big big problem.

What happens when the global workforce is cheaper than we are, and more educated?

Re:Basicially thats why I am against globalism

[FFFish]

What happens when the global workforce is cheaper than we are, and more educated?

Er... then there'll be no more third-world nations, everyone will have adequate food and shelter and education, and maybe there'll be no need for war?

Hows this help us the americans?!

[HanzoSan]

Hows this help the irish? Irish people dont want our companies there because now they cant start their own without competiting with ours.

We dont want our companies there because now we have less jobs because irish people are being hired

Re:ooh, the scary redcoats!

[Stonehand]

Ah, so Kabila overthrowing the previous government of the Congo never happened? Revolutions happen. Once upon a time, Somalia actually did have a government... and likewise, a certain fundamentalist bastard named Hekmatyar did help demolish one Afghan government, and he appears to be trying to work on the current one, as well.

Of course, Kabila was later assassinated by one of his own bodyguards, if memory serves, but *shrug* the life of a warlord can be rough, and sometimes remarkably short.

slavery,. remember that?

[HanzoSan]

You act as if third world countries had nothing to do with the US being rich

Who took over africa, took slaves, ruined their society, etc etc?

Kids in africa starve to death because you destroyed africa and stole their land, their people, and their diamonds and natural reasources

Re:slavery,. remember that?

[HanzoSan]

Anonymous coward its true slavery always exsisted in africa, it also exsisted in europe.

The diffrence between slavery in your own race and slavery in another race, in africa slaves werent trapped into slavery, oppressed, controlled, etc,

There was slavery in europe, however you could escape slavery by getting married to a nobel, your children could escape slavery through your hard work, if you are of a totally diffrent race however, once a slave ALWAYS a slave, theres no escape from it because anyone whos white instantly knows you are a slave, you cant run away and go to another town, you cant marry someone white and beat slavery, you cant ever get out of it.

So yes theres a diffrence between slavery inn the same race and culture, and slavery/oppression.

The reason the jews were able to rebound so quickly from oppression is because they could change their name and fit right in.

Re:The GPL and open-source ARE communist!

[maxpublic]

There have never been any real-world examples of capitalism, socialism, or communism in history. The closest economic theory we've come to implementing in the real world is capitalism, and even this is a watered-down two-bit whore of a copy; socialism has never existed, and most people can't even properly define communism, much less conceive of how it might work.

No 'experiments' in any of these economic systems have been attempted. None. America isn't a truly capitalistic society and never has been. The USSR wasn't communist, it was a fascism that called itself communism for PR purposes.

I'm still amazed that people can be so clueless on these topics, especially when they claim to have a college education.

Max

hmm i dont think so

[Edmund Blackadder]

"Second, growing disparity between rich and poor is not necessarily bad. If you could wave a wand and improve the standard of living of the poor by 8x, but in the process make the rich 10x as rich, would you do so? If not, why not? Just because disparity would grow?"

I dont think that is happening. The poor are still dirt poor.

"Third, by almost all objective standards, the amount and severity of poverty in the world has dropped significantly during the era of globalization. There is less starvation; infant mortality is lower; life expectancy is longer; there is less malnutrition. "

Where are you getting that from? Standards of living dropped sharply in eastern europe after the fall of communism. Countries in south america like argentina and brazil are in facing humanitarian disasters.

"Finally, the places where things haven't improved correspond not to hotbeds of globalization, but to regimes so repressive or corrupt that global investment doesn't happen. Globalization has barely touched most of Africa or North Korea because no one will invest. In those places the standard of living is wretched. "

What about the "hotbeds of globalisation" like eastern europe which are still well behind the industrial production and standard of living they had under communism; what about argentina that used to be a darling of the globalisation movement and now it is at the edge of anarchy; even the former powerful economies of the east - japan korea, taiwan etc; are suffering long reccessions as a result of globalisation.

also your argument has an underlying assumptuin that is false - that hotbeds of globalisation are different from places with repressive regimes.

That is not true, just look at indonesia saudi arabia etc. even places like russia. The more repressive the Putin government becomes the more he is praized by economies. Hell the same is true about the US.

Re:Starbucks Revolutionaries

[Com2Kid]

Hell the problem is the rich dip shits who pay those workers crap for wages so as to maximize a companie's profits.

Now if companies are made to be SELF SUPPORTING and STABLE rather then be expected to grow by 2-10% every year then the situation will get a lot better.

It would require other work of course, but the FIRST STEP is to stop this entire grab for greed that everybody is so darn obsessed with.

Heres what i think

[HanzoSan]

Mr.Coward, Yes a good education is needed, but we wont ever do that

Rich people in the USA likee having the education advantage.

Re:Heres what i think

[1010011010]

Horseshit.

Finally!

[lkaos]

Free software advocates have argued for years now that open software could help create wealth and promote open societies in once-repressive, impoverished and technologically-primitive regimes. This idea is exciting. It attracted non-geeks like me to Open Source and Slashdot in the first place.

We know how to get rid of Katz!

Ok, we have changed our minds. Free Software won't create wealth nor will it promote an open society. Sorry, we were wrong, NOW GO AWAY! Stop trying to leverage hard-working geeks to advance your political agenda.

Im not anarchist

[HanzoSan]

I'm not right wing either

I an anti globalization because its always been our influence whos made other countries poor.

Africa had diamonds and many natural resources which were stolen from them by the british, China managed to fight the british off and they did ok, Japan did ok because they joined the club

Countries that did not do ok, mexico, africa, the middle east, its not so much because they were set up wrong, its because we interupted them.

Globalization should be something each country joins when they are ready, alot of countries arent ready, africa sure as hell isnt ready

alot of countries need to knoow how to gain control of their own government (africa) and alot of countries need to control poverty (Africa)
And some countries need better education (mexico + africa)

Globalization wont do anything but turn these people into brainless zombie slaves working for a RICH CEO in the USA.

Re:Im not anarchist

[TWR]

Whoo boy. So much wrong, so little time...

You need a serious history lesson, and I don't feel like giving it right now. You also need to define what you mean by "Globalization." You seem to think it's the same as "Gunboat diplomacy" and "colonialization." It's neither. In many ways, it's the opposite.

The driving realization behind globalization is simple: trade makes everyone rich. The more efficiently things are manufactured, with as little transportation of the intermediate raw materials (shipping costs predominate in the cost of most items), the lower the prices could be, and the greater profit for the sellers. If workers in one place are willing to take less money for the same work, and they provide the same quality of work, why wouldn't you want to employ those cheaper laborers? The reason people take "sweatshop" wages in third world countries is that they beat the hell out of any other wages that are available.

The only way to get better wages in third world countries is to develop a middle class that has a stable source of income (no hoarding of funds in case the crop fails), has a stable and free government (no worries about being shot for praying or saying the wrong thing), and has a basically capitalist system (I have control over the capital that I earn, minus taxes).

Back to globalization and overseas workers. If your overseas workers create a lower quality product that hurts your company in the marketplace, then you'll lose sales. If you get the same (or higher, as in the case of software that has been outsourced to India) quality, you can make higher profits at the same price, or undercut your competition and make the same profit at the lower price. The poor people overseas get more money than they'd ever had a chance to before. The consumers get lower-priced goods. The companies get higher profits. Everyone wins. Yay capitalism. The only "losers" are those who are unwilling to either take advantage of lower costs, are unable to reposition themselves (such as many family farms becoming "organic" farms that charge more for produce without pesticides), or those who are unskilled in anything but what they are currently doing (rust belt auto workers and steel workers). The first two groups should be left to fend for themselves, but governments should step in to educate (or pay to educate) workers who need retraining.

My suspicion is that most of those who are leading the complaints about globalization are those who stand to lose the most from it: unions for semi-skilled laborers, farmers who don't want to lose their subsidies, Marxists who hate being proved wrong yet again, and non-governmental organizations that are afraid of being unimportant when the poor people in third world countries stop being poor and needing them.

-jon

Heres why

[HanzoSan]

Perhaps they dont want to work for someone else, perhaps they run their own businesses farming or whatever and will make less working for mcdonalds.

We need a Minimum Global Wage

[HanzoSan]

This means, someone working at mc donalds in the US should make the same as someone working at mcdonalds in africa.

With a Minimum Global Wage, I can support globalism

But currently what we have is partial Globalism, Globalism which only benifits the CEOs and other rich people, Why hire people from the US when you can hire people from other places?

WE need a GLOBAL minimum wage so that everyone can have a fair chance at getting the job.

MOD UP.

[LionKimbro]

Of all of the Score 3+ articles I have seen here, this is the only one that accurately reflects what the so-called "anti-globalization" movement is all about. The remaining articles have no clue what it is about. This article should receive more attention.

OSS is the lever to quit poverty

[gelfling]

OSS and cheap hardware is frequently the only lever for some smart people to launch themselves out of the developing economies they live in. Closed source - eg. expensive code is a barrier.

Something on public procurement and open source

[mpawlo]

Newsforge published a short piece where I tried to elaborate on the subject of open code in public procurement.

In my opinion, governments should not push proprietary solutions or open code solutions. That much said, governments and public bodies still could improve the competition and make open code much more of an option in public procurement.

The government should always choose the best computer program and IT solution at any given period of time. However, by the design of public procurement policies open code is often ruled out even before the governmental shop opens. This should be changed to make sure open code solutions may compete in public procurement on the same terms as proprietary solutions.

Regards

Mikael

What do you mean by that?

[Richthofen80]

he believes in what supporters call a global open society that could ensure a greater degree of freedom than individual states can or will.

Do you mean 'freedom' as in individual rights, or more freedom meaning 'free things'?

Too often, people equate economic prosperity with individual liberties. i.e. that to be free is to have stuff, and since there are those that don't have stuff, they are not free. I think people push towards globalism for a greater redistribution of wealth. I don't agree with it, I'm perfectly happy with individual nations, since I can move if I don't like one. I'm happy with this specific nation (the US) because it seems to be one of the few states that I can keep my freedom to make money (and keep it.)

No?

[HanzoSan]

Then Globalism can NEVER work.

IF not for the minimum wage in the US, who going to keep rich CEOs in line? WHy shouldnt rich CEOs pay everyone pennies if theres no one to force them to pay everyone a fair wage??

Stupid IDEA? Getting a fair wage is a stupid idea????????!

Trade makes everyone rich ONLY

[HanzoSan]

When that trade is equal, and when people in all countries make equal wages.

Trade works so well in the USA because we all make fair wages, trade wont work when you trade a penny for a weeks supply of food in africa.

Fair wage means someone in africa should make the same as someone in the US for doing the same job.

A programmer there should make 100k, a programmer here should make 100k, the minimum wage for a programmer should be 100k, period.

this would keep companies from exploiting poorer workers and paying them less, it would also make sure WE have jobs, because if they could get away with it, they'd hire 100 percent of everyone from isreal, pakistan and other places.

Re:"Anti-Globalist Protester" Perspective

[cryptochrome]

People want the power, and smarter ones also want the ethics that will bring it to them. Whether western technologism is a good or bad thing is a matter of debate, but ultimately I think it's a moot point. Technology is very, very powerful, and people always want that. Some might choose not to pursue it, but they generally end up getting screwed in the end by those who do. Countries eschew technology at their own peril.

I'm not sure that cultural development of any kind can be called un-natural. Whether it's an accidental turn of phrase on the part of an individual, or a major multinational pursuing a campaign, it happens. If you want culture, local or global, to go a certain way you have to take responsibility for seeing that it does so, and hope others do the same.

Corporations regularly try to create culture (or rather a market) which will accept their product. We call this advertising. And I don't just mean commercials and ads. Nowadays advertising is more science than art, it's pervasive, and it's very effective, especially on the unsuspecting. Bad? Most likely. What to do about it? You decide.

Re:"Anti-Globalist Protester" Perspective

[cryptochrome]

I'm serious about the Daily Show. They do real interviews besides the joke news, and have some insane number of viewers who ONLY get their news from the Daily Show. Of course it helps to be funny too, otherwise they'll provide the humor at your expense. And provide viable alternatives to your objections.

I'm not saying what an objectively superior culture might be, nor even if there is one, but I am saying that much of history involves powerful nations pursuing this ideal. What is superior or inferior is not for people to decide directly, but manifests itself in the positive or negative effects it has on the world, particularly in light of other cultures.

The unaccountability of the WTO is a major concern - likewise, any dictates it has where key resources (water, food, and energy) are concerned. I find it odd that Bolivia would be required to privatize water, when this is usually a matter of state control and international treaty, including in the US.

Nationally, we do set boundaries on corporations, through taxes and regulations. We expect other countries to do the same. It works just fine. I don't see how the WTO can bypass these regulations. They may be able to pressure some economies into making concessions, but there will be limits with the US for sure. The problems come with the differences in regulations, specifically in countries that don't mind exploiting their people and resources. But ultimately, the WTO must bow to the laws of the lands. Mark my words, the moment the EU or the US governments are actually challenged by the WTO it'll be gone or unrecognizable in a flash. Heck, China's economy is untenable already - when the state decides to "appropriate" all those foreign funded projects, investors will take a bath and the WTO will get a black eye on that one. Money doesn't buy loyalty.

There is no "we, the people" of the world, but what you're proposing is some sort of world law. I don't like the idea of that at all for anything that isn't a purely international matter (like nautical law or international trade). I don't like the idea of someone in another country telling me what I can and can't do in my own, like that awful Hague treaty. Nor do we need some sort of Mommy World government.

With that being said, globlaism is unfair

[HanzoSan]

If we cant have a fair wage, if everyone cant start off on a fair ground

its no diffrent than say minorities in the US getting paid less than whites

Why? because they are less efficient? dont give me that bs either.

If they are truely less efficient why would big businesses be hiring them. eh?

Re:With that being said, globlaism is unfair

[HanzoSan]

This isnt about the cost of living
if people were paid by the cost of living we'd have communism,. we wouldnt have billionares like bill gates.

People should get paid what they are worth, period.

Do you really want programmers and computer experts in third world countries working for less, thus you are out of a job because they are cheaper?

When you are building a machine for a company you build it with the cheapest highest quality parts possible, to keep profits up and costs down.

Companies will have no reason to hire us because other people will always be cheaper than us and just as qualified, this will make the american worker obsolete in the most important field of information technology.

Listen, WE NEED FAIR GROUND, we cant compete with cheaper better workers who work longer hours and for less money unless we are willing to work longer hours and for less money.
This means the cheapest worker sets the rate for ALL workers.

This is why we need a bottom floor, a minimum wage, so EVERYONE can compete with the cheapest worker and the person most qualified for the job be it in the USA or Afganastan gets hired.

We should not be hired based on who will do the job cheapest, because if thats the case, Americans will be at the bottom of the ladder, or we'll all be forced to work for the same rates as the rest of the world, So why not create a minimum wage and instead allow the rest of the world to make the same wages as us, at least this way we'll have a bottom floor.

Do you know why the pop up ad economy online failed? or the dot com economy failed? Ads got cheaper and cheaper until the ad business was no longer profitable.

This will happen to us with no minimum wage, the wage will be a penny an hour, and people from china will have all the programmer jobs.

DO you like your job security? or do you want to lose your job to a chinese perosn who will work 7 days a week for 14 hours a day for a penny an hour?

Re:With that being said, globlaism is unfair

[HanzoSan]

So an American is worth more than an equally or superior educated chinese person doing the same exact job?!

People should get paid by what they are worth based on what they do not where they live.

Thats like saying a programmer from the ghetto in the USA shouldnt be paid as much as someone from upper class neighborhoods.

Where you live shouldnt define your worth.

We'd get exploited also

[HanzoSan]

We would be replaced by a guy in afganastan willing to work 14 hours a day for a penny an hour.

With no minimum wage why should any company ever hire you? I sure as hell wouldnt hire any americans if i can hire chinese people to do slave labor or some people in afganastan.

Think about it, you'll be out of a job!!!

Hows this help you? or them? the only thing which would help both us and them, is a minimum wage

I dont give a damn if companies save money, Its about US, not billionares trying to save money so they can buy a new mansion.

There should be NO ONE EXPLOITED, if globalization exsists, we get exploited because its US who will be replaced by cheaper harder working workers from the third world who work for less.

IN the US, should minorities get all the jobs because they will work for cheaper? hell no.

Someone here actually sees the light

[HanzoSan]

You do realize we are the ones who are going to lose our jobs.

Not CEOs, not managers, people like us, programmers, technicians, tech support, etc etc

WE will all be out of a job because of this and everyone thinks its good?

When felix from mexico takes your job as a programmer, and Kareem from south africa takes your job as a graphic designer, You'll be throwing a fit.

What you dont realize is, having more workers does NOT help the US economy, importing workers from other countries does NOT help the US economy, What helps the US economy is creating jobs for the workers here in the USA,

Not creating jobs for people elsewhere. Our economy will be fucked up when globalization is done with it.

How will you become a programmer when theres programmers all over china willing to work for cheaper?

Theres a minimum wage in the USA, we need a minimum wage globally, I mean if there were no minimum wage in the USA, minorities would have all the jobs because they'd always be willing to work for cheaper.

Its competitive enough as it is, why give the third world an unfair advantage of being cheaper than us and allowing them to work longer hours than us

How can we beat that? What? some wiseass from slashdot is going to say "Well we'll just be smarter"

I really doubt that considering these people dont have any distractions, they basically live in tents in the jungle or in small villages and can basically write programs all day and night, read books continuously, these people dont watch tv, they dont go to the movies, clubs, etc, you see? These people are more focused, and in order to compete with them, you'll have to give up all yourr free time to studying.
why not just move to the third world?

why would they drop prices

[HanzoSan]

why? who forces them to drop prices? i see sneaker prices rising, mcdonalds too, and microsoft, video game systems, etc

Darwinism is stupid

[HanzoSan]

Darwinism assumes Darwin is right about everything and everyone.

Not everyone agrees with Darwin, theres 2 sides, people who believe in survival of the fittest, and people who believe in survival of everyone.

their kids will be criminals

[HanzoSan]

Ever notice how the prisons are filled with mexicians and other immagrants?

Its simple, people who break the law entering our country, will break the law once they are here, and if they dont, their children will

Criminals are not the people we want.

Why are CEOs getting richer?

[HanzoSan]

Costs go down, Prices either stay the same or go up.

Tell me why bill gates should lower the price of Windows? Because Windows is cheaper to produce? bullshit

No one forces him to lower the price.

Why should the price for nike sneakers go down? Because they are cheap to produce?

I know pave low, you are a CEO making millions or one of your family members are, so you dont want things to ever change

why would someone whos rich want the world to be fair?

Are you some kinda stalker?!

[HanzoSan]

Why do you have to respond to every msg i write about anything?!

Theres alot of people here on slashdot who agree with my point of view.

lets respond to you.


what would that guy do? computer programming? mechanical engineering? with their infrastructure? get real.

About 30 percent of China has computers. Computers are cheap now, you could easily sell computers to people in the third world. People can learn programming on paper and through books if they cant afford a cheap computer. Infastructure? People in the third world are programming right now, my professor was from india, and alot of jewish and indian people are working for big companies, have you ever worked for a big company?

Umm..because i have some skills that are in demand? because the company might need good workers to keep making money?

And you seem to think Chinese, Indian or really anyone else with a computer in any country or even access to an internet cafe like box couldnt learn C? Come on get real, your skills arent in demand anymore, perhaps they were for alittle while, but as more and more people learn what you know in the third world, your skills will eventually not be in demand at all.

You seem to think "money" and "intelligence" are related, they arent, theres people in the third world who are far more intelligent than you, give them access to books and a computer (hell even a calculator is a computer) and even if they arent formally educated, by MIT, if they can do the job, they'll get hired because they are cheaper than you are and perhaps just as skilled.


Well, as soon as there are boatloads of afghani C programmers, then I'll start quaking in my boots. And also minimum wage jobs are hardly slave labor. you have the option to go somewhere else.

You act as if they dont have access to the internet, or books, are you really this stupid? 30 percent of China is online right now, I admit mostly in the urban community, and mostly through wireless connections, but 30 percent of China is about 350 million people, then theres India, Africa, Mexico, all of them are learning C and have access to tons of source code to learn from via Open Source and free OS via Linux.

You just dont see whats going on here, Miguel Icaza is from Mexico, hes a better programmer than you are, Ximian hires alot of guys from Mexico, Connectiva Linux, Turbo Linux, etc etc, these guys arent as stupid as you think.

Minimum Wage is needed, You have to admit we need a minimum wage.
IF you dont agree, then you must be CEO because no job is secure enough that you cant be replaced by a worker from China or India who works for cheaper.

Sure these people dont have food and water, because of this they will be very motivated to learn C and master computers, and will do whatever it takes to get a job including work longer hours and for less money.

Re:Are you some kinda stalker?!

[HanzoSan]

The have nots are always more motivated than those that have.

Because the have nots, their survival is at stake.

Re:Are you some kinda stalker?!

[1010011010]

Theres alot of people here on slashdot who agree with my point of view.

You keep saying this, as if it matters.

Re:Are you some kinda stalker?!

[1010011010]

I have to shoot down more of your bullshit.

About 30 percent of China has computers.

About 30% of people in Beijing have computers. Beijing, the largest city in China, along with its surrounding countryside, has a population of about 13.8 million people. 2.8 million Beijing residents have internet access; this is about 20%. Their per-capita income is $1200.

The overall computer ownsership rate in the 14 largest cities in China is 21%.

China has a population of about 1.27 billion people. The population of Beijing is less than 1.5% of the population of China.

Rural China -- which is most of China -- has a much lower ownership rate.

Incidentally, a lot of old computers do end up in China, but they end up in dumps as environmental hazards. "Consequently, the ground water is so polluted that drinking water has to be trucked in from a town 18 miles away". Of course, I' sure you have a pat asnwer as to why this is the fault of the U.S.

Minimum Wage is needed, You have to admit we need a minimum wage.
Your readers have to do nothing of the sort.

IF you dont agree, then you must be CEO
More insulting assumptions. I wish I was a CEO.

If we didnt have a minimum wage,

[HanzoSan]

Alot of people would be working for a dollar an hour and unable to survive, some people would be forced to work 14 hours a day, etc

you need a minimum wage to set the standard,

now, sure you can claim in the USA you can make more than minimum wage, but you also have to be more educated, usually with a degree.

What if someone from china or pakistan is more educated than you, in fact what of hundreds of millions of them are, and they will all work for cheaper than you?

Why hire you?

Re:If we didnt have a minimum wage,

[1010011010]

What if someone from china or pakistan is more educated than you, in fact what of hundreds of millions of them are, and they will all work for cheaper than you?

Why hire you?

Why indeed? Free trade helps developing nations more than it helps developed nations.

Why should we

[HanzoSan]

Why should we help THEM when we have so much poverty and economy problems in our own country.

We should help them help themselves, not give them our economy.

Whys the customer more important than the worker?

[HanzoSan]

Who gives a damn about the "company" the only thing i care about is my job, and maybe the product,
both which have nothing to do with the "company"

. Think $5,000 per hour minimum wage in US. The minimum wage is what inane propagandists brainwash ignorant people with. You're either propagandist or ignorant.

Ok econimics major from MIT, please answer some questions.

What incentive do companies have to pay workers more money than the absolute cheapest a worker will accept, if the market for these workers are worldwide, who sets the standard? The cheapest most efficient worker of course.

When you go to a store to buy something you buy the cheapest most efficient product, companies are far more sensitive to price than we are.

Second, question.

If the cheapest worker sets the standard, lets say $1 an hour is the standard to pay for a programmer world wide, because of the unlimited supply (you have the whole world market) the demand wont be high, thus the price wont be high;
The reason programmers get paid currently at 100k a year in the USA is because the demand for them is high, theres not alot of programmers to choose from, programmers are of great value.

When you bring programmers in from the third world, it decreases the value of the programmer career until its down to the level of say shoe salesman, office clerk, typist, etc.

Please tell me how you maintain the demand when the supply increases?

Third question, without a minimum wage, what decides if a person can make a living and survive off of the income or not? Because not everyone can go to MIT and get a doctorates degree, what happens to these people who arent as well educated? Are they forced to work 14 hours a day 7 days a week to make ends meet?

You know what i notice, everyone who responds to my posts with "we dont need a minimum wage" and "we need globalism" or "globalism helps you" crap

Its always people who are pretty much secure, either elite CEOs who already are rich, or guys who are in elite colleges like MIT getting a Masters degree in science.

Honestly, what about the majority of everyone else whos not a science major at MIT or Harvard, we actually DO have to compete with the third world because unlike you, theres no way in hell we'd be able to market ourselves as something rare when in reality we are just another typical programmer, technician etc.

You see, people who dont want to battle the third world, who just want to survive, HATE globalism because it makes their survival much much harder,

The third world, well their survival is hard right now, bringing them into the corperate world = more competition which would equal better products but even if it does equal better products will i have money to buy it when im working 7 days a week 14 at minimum wage to compete with a guy in India who has no minimum wage?

You see the only people who wont be making minimum wage are MIT graduates with science degrees, these folks will be working on building quantum computers at IBMs research and development division,

The rest of us common programmers and technicians have to fight for survival.

Its not going to be pretty, unless you can give me advice on how to secure my job for the next 20 years and compete with the third world, dont tell me globalism is a good thing.

Pave Low heres some questions for you

[HanzoSan]

A. In a global economy, how do you secure your spot when you compete with the world?

B. What incentive does a company in the US have to hiring American workers over cheaper and equally efficient workers in other countries.

C. Whats to stop the wages from going down to the same level of a shoe salesman at footlocker, a mcdonalds worker, office clerk, or any of these other jobs? The only reason computer industry jobs pay 100k a year is because the demand still out weighs the supply, what happens when theres more programmers and technicians than needed and companies can actually choose between you and someone cheaper?

D. How does more competition benifit the American worker? Do we really want to be forced to work longer hours to compete with the efficiency of sweat shop programmers?

Re:Pave Low heres some questions for you

[HanzoSan]

First bill gates become a billionaire because hes a petty thug who steals ideas

I have respect for carmack hes the only one on that list who worked his way to the top.

what you dont mention is the fact that the consumers are also the workers.

Education is going to be more important, but what happens to americans who dont have masters degrees and above?

Also people take whatever jobs are there, thats why people work at mcdonalds, i dont think programming is the kinda job which takes alot of training, its something someone in china or india can do if they read a book and are given a refrence manual. Dont forget people in China are more productive than us because they work longer hours and on weekends, have less holidays etc.

Better products i'd agree on this we will have better products, but this doesnt mean cheaper products, it also doesnt mean we will still make the money we make today, theres too many variables and i dont think its worth the risk.

Re:Pave Low heres some questions for you

[ergo98]

The only reason computer industry jobs pay 100k a year is because the demand still out weighs the supply, what happens when theres more programmers and technicians than needed and companies can actually choose between you and someone cheaper?

I get the gist of what you're saying, but just a bit of conjecture regarding that situation (highly paid software developers) : One thing I've found in software development is that there are tremendous numbers of people who parade themselves as software developers`, and perhaps they actually completed a technical school course, or maybe even their Comp. Sci degree, maybe even their masters in Computer Science, yet they can't program their way out of a recursive loop. Working in the industry I've found it staggering the number of people who don't have a grasp on the basic tenents of software engineering, and for them the tool companies are progressively making higher and higher level languages, and bounding every operation by countless checks to ensure that the programmer didn't screw up (as a software developer I love this: The more bloated and managed your code is [hence slower, less efficient], the easier it is for me to make superior software). This variance in output and quality of output is the reason that software software developers get paid the big $, and many others don't deserve to be lumped in the same group. I see it as very similar to any other pursuit where the actual value of the employee isn't a constant, but varies considerably : Some salespeople make 100s of thousands of dollars, whereas others make minimum wage.

and about PCs

[HanzoSan]

PCs arent sold as full packages but seperate companies selling seperate parts, this is why its competitive enough for prices to fall.

This isnt compareable to one company selling the whole product like say apple, nike, microsoft, etc.