I understand the argument, but it does not account for reality.
Some of us simply do not have anything to do. If you agree to pay me for 40 hours per week and just don't give me any work to do, it's your own fault. That's why I'm typing on Slashdot as we speak... I'm waiting for signoff and access to the platform.
It's nice in principle to demand eight hours of solid work per day, but in reality, there are occasions where there are only six or seven hours of work to do, or over the last week or so for me, zero to one.
I wouldn't have as big a problem if you're prosecuted for violating a foreign law that is simply not prosecuted in that country. Although I still don't like it.
But you're right, it's a "Think of the children" law. Most US laws are that way in principle.
The drawbacks also depend on all software running as a service as well. There are plenty of benefits to having certain components of the software as a service and other components run locally. I think any architect with half a brain could tell you that different techniques are better for certain situations than others.
Those examples are cases where one goes to another country and does something that is not expressly prohibited by local laws. In Yahoo's case, they simply were avoiding breaking the foreign law. Different situations.
Even so, I would say it is still wrong to prosecute someone for breaking a US law while abroad. Just because Canada does it doesn't make it right.;)
The US has oil reserves for that very reason.
The way I see it, there are two extremes:
(a) Use our resources up now so we don't have to build up a trade deficit.
(b) Incur a trade deficit, and maybe if our currency gets devalued, we begin using up our own resources.
It would seem wisest to produce what we can, but there's no reason to do that if it costs more. There are two major factors that encourage our trade deficit, and they are (a) people not willing to work for "market value" (well, not even being able to work for market values, what with minimum wage laws...), and (b) high costs of government on businesses. Maybe you're right that at some point our money won't be worth as much and it will become cheaper to produce stuff here, but I don't see any reason for us force ourselves to suffer now to avoid the possibility of the same suffering later.
The US can get raw materials from the same place anybody else gets them--out of the ground. What we are purchasing is really nothing more than cheap labor.
Although, the countries that export raw materials don't have their hands tied by environmental agencies like we do... So you may have a point there.;)
That's not a problem with the trade deficit. You can have a trade deficit without having borrowed a single dime. Likewise, you can spend irresponsibly without having incurred any trade deficit. If you're defaulting on your loans, it's not because you spent too much on imports, it is that you spent too much.
There is no "foreign debt" at all. A trade deficit does not imply debt of any kind, it is nothing more than a purchase. You do not borrow anything when you purchase foreign goods in exchange for cash. There is no agreement to pay anything back later.
But in the end, that currency can only be spent in the US, so in order for it to have any real value to our trading partners, it has to be sent back. Even if our currency does get devalued abroad, is it really that big a deal? If at some point we can't afford imports, we'll just have to start manufacturing stuff, and that's what is being proposed as the "solution" anyways.
The grocery store needs to sell something so it can have money to buy something. If we're exporting things in exchange for currency, the trade partner can do one of two things with that currency: (a) send it back in the form of a purchase or investment, and (b) burn it.
If they want to give us stuff for pieces of paper, I'm all for it.
I never understood what the big issue with the trade deficit is. It's NOT a debt. They're not giving us stuff and expecting something in return later, we're buying stuff with our currency. And as Friedman pointed out, even if they don't send the currency back by buying our stuff, it's just as if they're giving us stuff for cheaply made pieces of paper.
Trade deficit alarmism is pseudo-economics at its finest.
I can't see text messages, facebook, myspace, etc. replacing email. First of all, email is still the most practical means for communication within a corporation. Some form of email communication will probably always be a requirement for formal business communication. Imagine your company setting up a facebook group and communicating that way.:P
That brings up the other problem with other forms of communication. The very reason email is fraught with spam is what will prevent it from being replaced: it is universal. You can only communicate with someone through facebook if you have a facebook account, etc. That eliminates any social networking tool from providing a replacement for email. Text messaging could possibly replace email as a form of informal communication, but email also provides other facilities, such as email groups, that text messaging doesn't yet provide.
And then there are the purists like me who will refuse to succumb to short, grammar-defying text messages. I have actually received emails that said things like, "I'm intrstd n that job!!!" and other disturbing, unintelligible vomit.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand the argument, but it does not account for reality.
Some of us simply do not have anything to do. If you agree to pay me for 40 hours per week and just don't give me any work to do, it's your own fault. That's why I'm typing on Slashdot as we speak... I'm waiting for signoff and access to the platform.
It's nice in principle to demand eight hours of solid work per day, but in reality, there are occasions where there are only six or seven hours of work to do, or over the last week or so for me, zero to one.
Every version of DOS I ever used had Fail. I have used a couple that have Ignore in addition to the others, though.
You don't play video game. Video game plays YOU.
If he's as big a slacker as you suggest, he might be reading slashdot right now. Better watch your back!
Oh, but then Chinese people would have no jobs and starve! Let's face it, this is the fault of the Chinese government for having a bad law.
I wouldn't have as big a problem if you're prosecuted for violating a foreign law that is simply not prosecuted in that country. Although I still don't like it. But you're right, it's a "Think of the children" law. Most US laws are that way in principle.
The drawbacks also depend on all software running as a service as well. There are plenty of benefits to having certain components of the software as a service and other components run locally. I think any architect with half a brain could tell you that different techniques are better for certain situations than others.
Those examples are cases where one goes to another country and does something that is not expressly prohibited by local laws. In Yahoo's case, they simply were avoiding breaking the foreign law. Different situations. Even so, I would say it is still wrong to prosecute someone for breaking a US law while abroad. Just because Canada does it doesn't make it right. ;)
The US has oil reserves for that very reason. The way I see it, there are two extremes: (a) Use our resources up now so we don't have to build up a trade deficit. (b) Incur a trade deficit, and maybe if our currency gets devalued, we begin using up our own resources. It would seem wisest to produce what we can, but there's no reason to do that if it costs more. There are two major factors that encourage our trade deficit, and they are (a) people not willing to work for "market value" (well, not even being able to work for market values, what with minimum wage laws...), and (b) high costs of government on businesses. Maybe you're right that at some point our money won't be worth as much and it will become cheaper to produce stuff here, but I don't see any reason for us force ourselves to suffer now to avoid the possibility of the same suffering later.
The US can get raw materials from the same place anybody else gets them--out of the ground. What we are purchasing is really nothing more than cheap labor. Although, the countries that export raw materials don't have their hands tied by environmental agencies like we do... So you may have a point there. ;)
That's not a problem with the trade deficit. You can have a trade deficit without having borrowed a single dime. Likewise, you can spend irresponsibly without having incurred any trade deficit. If you're defaulting on your loans, it's not because you spent too much on imports, it is that you spent too much. There is no "foreign debt" at all. A trade deficit does not imply debt of any kind, it is nothing more than a purchase. You do not borrow anything when you purchase foreign goods in exchange for cash. There is no agreement to pay anything back later.
But in the end, that currency can only be spent in the US, so in order for it to have any real value to our trading partners, it has to be sent back. Even if our currency does get devalued abroad, is it really that big a deal? If at some point we can't afford imports, we'll just have to start manufacturing stuff, and that's what is being proposed as the "solution" anyways.
I guess being a factory worker is your idea of a good career path?
The grocery store needs to sell something so it can have money to buy something. If we're exporting things in exchange for currency, the trade partner can do one of two things with that currency: (a) send it back in the form of a purchase or investment, and (b) burn it.
If they want to give us stuff for pieces of paper, I'm all for it.
I never understood what the big issue with the trade deficit is. It's NOT a debt. They're not giving us stuff and expecting something in return later, we're buying stuff with our currency. And as Friedman pointed out, even if they don't send the currency back by buying our stuff, it's just as if they're giving us stuff for cheaply made pieces of paper.
Trade deficit alarmism is pseudo-economics at its finest.
If you have, you know what it's a great idea for people to NOT be able to design their own profiles.
I can't see text messages, facebook, myspace, etc. replacing email. First of all, email is still the most practical means for communication within a corporation. Some form of email communication will probably always be a requirement for formal business communication. Imagine your company setting up a facebook group and communicating that way. :P
That brings up the other problem with other forms of communication. The very reason email is fraught with spam is what will prevent it from being replaced: it is universal. You can only communicate with someone through facebook if you have a facebook account, etc. That eliminates any social networking tool from providing a replacement for email. Text messaging could possibly replace email as a form of informal communication, but email also provides other facilities, such as email groups, that text messaging doesn't yet provide.
And then there are the purists like me who will refuse to succumb to short, grammar-defying text messages. I have actually received emails that said things like, "I'm intrstd n that job!!!" and other disturbing, unintelligible vomit.