Via spam I've been submitting through www.spamcop.net. They've received soooooo many complaints that they don't wan't to receive any more. Here's the output:
Tracking link: http://www.sheck-buy.com [report history] ISP does not wish to receive report regarding http://www.sheck-buy.com Resolves to 216.39.69.238 Routing details for 216.39.69.238 [refresh/show] Cached whois for 216.39.69.238 : abuse@savvis.net Using abuse net on abuse@savvis.net abuse net savvis.net = abuse@savvis.net Using best contacts abuse@savvis.net ISP does not wish to receive reports regarding http://www.sheck-buy.com - no date available http://www.sheck-buy.com has been appealed previously.
If your ISP cut off connections to them, you'd probably complain when you couldn't access a LEGITIMATE site.
Which is the problem. They're so big that they have lots of legitimate customers and a few spammers.
The only way to go after them is through their reputation and their customers. Which is what happened. They don't want to be known as a spammer's network so they have to change.
I thought the Republicans attacked him as a "flip flop" because they didn't have any REAL material to attack him on.
Do you think that someone who NEVER changes his mind, despite new facts is better than someone who DOES change his mind when presented with new information?
It seems like the Republicans ARE saying that.
If they had any REAL material to attack him on, I'm sure they'd be using that instead.
"Either that, or the complete absence of terrorist strikes in the US since 9/11 indicates -- not that we are fighting "terror" and winning -- but that there is no terrorist threat to the United States of America."
Statistically - you are far Far FAR more likely to be killed on the highway then by a terrorist.
Statistically - you are more likely to be killed by someone in your own family than by a terrorist.
(neither of those statistics include people killed in foreign countries)
So, there IS a terrorist threat to the citizens of the USofA. Just not much of one. But that RARITY in itself leads the media to cover it completely out of proportion to the likelyhood of it happening again.
Now, is there a terrorist threat to the USofA? No.
Nothing any terrorist can do will EVER destroy the USofA. Under no circumstances will we overthrow our existing government and install a Muslim theocracy.
On the other hand, we can slip into a fundamentalist theocracy (see Bush and Co.) or a corporate-based fascist state. But that won't be because Osama did anything. That will be because WE voted for it and allowed it.
"Ignoring your whole "think of the children!" rant (and, frankly, while I'm not at all in favour of it as an industry, if my choices were starvation and prostitution I know which one I'd pick) you are still twisting things badly. For example:"
It's a valid example. It meets all of your statements AND it is a documented fact.
The issue is NOT "starvation" vs prostitution.
The issue is development vs exploitation.
"How exactly is this "greed"?"
DUH! Because it places the profits above the welfare of the worker. That's "greed".
"For your other point, it actually costs more to offshore, all other things being equal."
Ummmmm, maybe you MISSED THE PART WHERE I SAID THE OTHER STUFF IS NOT EQUAL.
Again, here's what I specifically stated: "Hardly. The reason the labour is cheaper over there is because they start of at a lower standard of living (as you noted) AND THEY DO NOT GAIN OUR PROTECTIONS."
Did you miss that again? Maybe you need it one more time?
"Hardly. The reason the labour is cheaper over there is because they start of at a lower standard of living (as you noted) AND THEY DO NOT GAIN OUR PROTECTIONS."
"The only reason it happens is that "all other things" aren't equal."
Well, it's good to see that I finally got that through you head.
"Requiring that they be equal is an underhanded way of saying "offshoring should be prohibited" without being honest about your goals."
What was that I said about "greed"?
When the PROFIT motive outweighs the PROTECTIONS, it is greed.
You don't seem to agree with that, but it keeps coming back to that.
Off-shoring is just fine... as long as the corporations operate with the same level of worker and environmental protections as are required here.
I didn't say it should be illegal.
If those protections are a good idea here, why not there? Your "point" is that it would COST MORE if it was required (hmmm, "cost more", but it isn't about greed).
The protections we have add to the cost of employing us. If business is allowed to move production to avoid those protections, then it is the same race-to-the-bottom that everyone else has been pointing out.
Which gets back to my example of Thailand's sex tourism industry. By your "logic", that's a fine example of "helping" the local girls and boys.
I say that is pure exploitation and claiming that their lives are slightly better in a material fashion is nothing more than attempts at justifying your greed.
Otherwise, we'd be operating under the same protections there as we do here.
Ummm, that "perfect world" is the one we live in. Whether you realize it or not. The US government collects a LOT of money in taxes and spends a LOT MORE money.
If that doesn't meat the definition of "re-deployment" then I think you have a problem with your definitions.
"I view government meddling in the economy as an unfortunate side effect at best."
Whatever. The government needs money to operate (pay the military / fund education / social security / welfare / etc) so WHERE that money is collected will ALWAYS result in "meddling in the economy".
Just for the record, I want to see more skilled and better paying jobs in the US. 90% of the population working in a "service industry" (hey, prostitution is a "service industry") is bad for that 90% and for the USofA.
Yep, my salary is "grossly inflated" by their standards. But I'd still prefer that our government get itself straightened out and realize that having MORE skilled people in the middle middle class would be a "good thing" (tm).
"It might be abuse to migrate someone from US-standard-of-living (call it 10) to the outsource-worker-standard (call it 4), but what we are talking about is taking people who often are living well below the poverty line (1-2 on the same scale) and raising their livel of income to something that (while we might find it beneith our dignity to accept) is still far above what they could otherwise expect."
So, it's okay to exploit people if they see some slight benefit from the exploitation?
Well then. Thailand's sex tourism industry would be a "good thing" in your view. After all, those girls and boys get to eat and wear nice clothes (part of the time). That's definately a couple of steps up from living in complete poverty.
"I supose you might think it less cruel to just let people starve instead of helping them earn enough money to buy food and clothing (but not iced-coffee-drinks and laptop computers). But I think it's a step in the right direction."
While I believe that it is a transparent attempt to justify your greed. There is no reason (aside from PROFIT) why the US corporations could not provide the same level of worker and environmental protections in those countries that are required here.
"Because this is argument is just a protectionist strawman?"
Hardly. The reason the labour is cheaper over there is because they start of at a lower standard of living (as you noted) AND THEY DO NOT GAIN OUR PROTECTIONS.
I'm all for "free trade" as long as both sides have the same levels of protection.
Otherwise, you end up with the same situation as Thailand's sex tourism industry. Justified exploitation because the victim's lives are slightly better from a materialistic point of view.
"The stock purchaser collects the dividend, but retains the value of the stock itself."
And the value of the stock itself is dependant upon the market's perception of the value of that stock.
"Then, after collecting some dividends, if the company has done well in investing the purchaser's money, the value of the share of stock increases and the purchaser can sell the share for a profit if desired."
Again, the value of the stock is dependant upon the market's perception of it.
But, back to the main point, investing $100 for $1 of annual income (whether you can still sell the stock for the original $100) is NOT a viable option for most people to live on.
They will STILL need a job (again, because MOST people cannot live on their stock dividends) until they can retire and live off of their investments.
But they will NOT have that job because it has been OFF SHORED.
Yep, the small businesses hire the most people, overall.
"How many jobs were outsourced? Now, looking back on history shouldn't we consider the 70s the age of outsourcing automobile workers? The 80s textile workers?"
YES! But this has been discussed before. Talk to people in the "rust belt" now.
"As for the job creation. The capital gains tax cuts and similar equalizing of the percentage of income tax benefit the small business greatly."
How? Most small businesses do NOT see much benefit from capital gains cuts. That is mostly on UNEARNED income.
You see, there are, basically, TWO types of income:
Earned - via labour
Unearned - via investments
The small businesses focus almost exclusively on the EARNED income. They make things and sell them. They provide a service for a fee.
Big businesses and rich individuals benefit from the UNEARNED portion. Stock dividends, income from selling stock, etc.
"Now what will stop this? Simple, raising the taxes on the "evil rich"."
Hardly. All that needs to be done is to focus the tax structure a bit more fairly (by "fairly", I mean "for the greatest number"). Since the majority of US citizens do NOT see much benefit from reducing taxes on UNEARNED income, then we do NOT reduce taxes on unearned income.
Since the majority of US citizens WOULD see a benefit from reducing taxes on EARNED income, then we reduce taxes on EARNED income.
"The ones with the millions and billions have relatively no income and have the means to dodge nearly most forms of taxes."
So you've fallen for the old right-wing trick, eh?
The key is to identify and remove the tax loop-holes. Then the taxes are re-structured to provide the greatest incentive for the greatest number.
The stuff you've been reading is biased. The "small businesses" you hear about include Bush and Cheney because they receive income from properties. And the "small business" rules have been setup to include that.
#1. All of the "benefits" it cites are based upon PREDICTIONS.
#2. Those PREDICTIONS are NOT based upon previously off-shored industries.
#3. Those PREDICTIONS are based off of COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. "As with agriculture a century ago, productivity gains have outstripped demand, so fewer and fewer workers are needed for manufacturing." That's the switch from an agricultural-based economy to an industrial-based economy.
#4. "Similarly, most current predictions are not as ominous as they first sound once the numbers are unpacked. Most jobs will remain unaffected altogether: close to 90 percent of jobs in the United States require geographic proximity. Such jobs include everything from retail and restaurants to marketing and personal care -- services that have to be produced and consumed locally, so outsourcing them overseas is not an option."
So we'll end up a nation of burger-flippers and butlers. Coincidently, those are the LOWEST paying jobs out there.
Yet, despite all of the EASILY SEEN FLAWS in that article, people keep trotting it out as if it were some valued bit of insight.
The kind who got the IT jobs without going through the education I did.
I still have my job and they're gone. They're gone because they do not know their jobs.
That's the flaw in your concept. You cannot just get the education sufficient to your job today. Who is supposed to know what you'll need to know or what you'll need to do?
"I hear your arguments, but I feel you've missed the big point. American jobs are expensive. Indian ones aren't. The American Dream, capitalism, demands the jobs go abroad. You can't have it both ways."
Again, if all other factors were equal, you'd be correct. But they aren't equal.
If they WERE equal, you'd see the entire corporation moving to India.
"As others have mentioned, the stockholders also benifit, as do the consumers (if the outsourcing is handled well) or their competitors (if it is handled badly)."
But 90% of US citizens do NOT own much stock. So the "stockholders" are, in reality, the same executives making the big salaries.
The "consumers", well, the depends upon whether they can make enough money to purchase the products.
The "competitors", since they also sell a similar product, they face the same problem the "consumers" face.
"But even more important, it benifits the economies of the countries to which the jobs are outsourced, and as a consequence benifits many people who just aren't americans but are nonetheless just as real as you are."
Check that. Look at the environmental protections and the employee protections of those countries. In most cases, the reason it is cheaper to send the work over seas is because they have fewer protections. Abusing your people is one way to achieve prosperity. But it is just a race to the bottom to see who can inflict the most abuse.
Instead, why not require that any country that we outsource to have the SAME level of protections that we do?
"Every one of these people now has a personal vested interest in seeing the US stay healthy and strong, and interest in peace with the US instead of war...."
Right..... and the last time we went to war with a country we were outsourcing to was......?
They do NOT have a "personal vested interest" in the US. Just in the CORPORATIONS.
"Free trade (including outsourcing) may disrupt the status quo in complacent markets but it does far more good in the long run for both sides."
Incorrect. Handled badly (as it currently is), it will result in many countries with toxic waste dumps and increased cancer amongst their populations. Their people will still be poor, but their officials will be wealthy.
"If Nike does better, all US-based employees of Nike, from execs down to janitors, benefit."
Only if there is some mechanism in place to distribute the increased profits.
From what I've read, there is not. So not "all US-based employees of Nike" would benefit.
"Also, since anybody can buy shares in Nike, the average US citizen is free to benefit from Nike's success directly as a minor shareholder."
You're a little confused about stock. Stock costs a lot (relatively) to buy, but pays out small dividends (relatively) if at all. If it costs you $100 to get $1 (but that $1 will be every year), then it will take you 100 years... well, most people won't live long enough to see the benefit.
A strong MIDDLE CLASS is needed to keep the economy of this country going.
When you have the ultra rich not paying taxes AND lobbying to pay FEWER taxes, then you have wealth concentrating in the upper levels.
Since there is a finite amount of wealth at any given time, this weakens the middle class (because the lower class doesn't have that much to lose anyway).
Over time, you see the population splitting into a few rich and lots and lots of poor. This is not good for the economy of the country.
Particularly since it shows Linux at 3% and Mac at 2.5%.
And it shows a fairly steady (if slow) increase.
I believe there is a logical reason for this.
on
A Sound of Thunder
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Simply stated, a really good writer can write a really good book... along comes a MEDIOCRE Hollywood writer / director / producer and turns the book into a mediocre movie.
It's all about talent levels. Bradbury wrote a good short story. But the writer(s) who expanded it to movie length probably were NOT in the same league as him.
"The spammers have to identify themselves; once you have their identity, block all their mail. You got spam from @spammer.com? Block spammer.com. The guy at spammer.com can't pretend to be anyone else, so you've got him successfully blocked. Sure, he can register multiple domains, but with a good RTBL that isn't too much of a problem."
The next step would be to match those domains with IP addresses.
You'll see the pattern emerge of which ISP's are "spam friendly".
Suppose you work at a company. YOU might be perfect, but SOMEONE is going to make a mistake. And over time, more people make mistakes. They end up on spammer's lists.
I don't care about how efficient your client filters are. The messages STILL need to arrive and they STILL take up bandwidth.
Given enough spammers, the T-1 my company has will be flooded. This will become a DDoS via eMail.
You're looking at the problem for your single-user perspective. I'm looking at the problem from the network administrator's perspective. I see the bandwidth lost from spam. I see the disk space consumed. I have to put in additional hardware just to handle it.
Spam will be around as long as it is profitable enough for the low-lifes.
SPF is the first step in reducing the profit from spam.
It will not stop spam, but it will kill some of their practices.
Slashdot Mirror
Via spam I've been submitting through www.spamcop.net. They've received soooooo many complaints that they don't wan't to receive any more. Here's the output:
Tracking link: http://www.sheck-buy.com
[report history]
ISP does not wish to receive report regarding http://www.sheck-buy.com
Resolves to 216.39.69.238
Routing details for 216.39.69.238
[refresh/show] Cached whois for 216.39.69.238 : abuse@savvis.net
Using abuse net on abuse@savvis.net
abuse net savvis.net = abuse@savvis.net
Using best contacts abuse@savvis.net
ISP does not wish to receive reports regarding http://www.sheck-buy.com - no date available
http://www.sheck-buy.com has been appealed previously.
If your ISP cut off connections to them, you'd probably complain when you couldn't access a LEGITIMATE site.
Which is the problem. They're so big that they have lots of legitimate customers and a few spammers.
The only way to go after them is through their reputation and their customers. Which is what happened. They don't want to be known as a spammer's network so they have to change.
I thought the Republicans attacked him as a "flip flop" because they didn't have any REAL material to attack him on.
Do you think that someone who NEVER changes his mind, despite new facts is better than someone who DOES change his mind when presented with new information?
It seems like the Republicans ARE saying that.
If they had any REAL material to attack him on, I'm sure they'd be using that instead.
Semantic check:
"Either that, or the complete absence of terrorist strikes in the US since 9/11 indicates -- not that we are fighting "terror" and winning -- but that there is no terrorist threat to the United States of America."
Statistically - you are far Far FAR more likely to be killed on the highway then by a terrorist.
Statistically - you are more likely to be killed by someone in your own family than by a terrorist.
(neither of those statistics include people killed in foreign countries)
So, there IS a terrorist threat to the citizens of the USofA. Just not much of one. But that RARITY in itself leads the media to cover it completely out of proportion to the likelyhood of it happening again.
Now, is there a terrorist threat to the USofA? No.
Nothing any terrorist can do will EVER destroy the USofA. Under no circumstances will we overthrow our existing government and install a Muslim theocracy.
On the other hand, we can slip into a fundamentalist theocracy (see Bush and Co.) or a corporate-based fascist state. But that won't be because Osama did anything. That will be because WE voted for it and allowed it.
The Tyranny of Words
by Stuart Chase
It will help you sort out the content-free "blab" words (patriotism, family-values, etc). Unfortunately, most "political" talk is full of such crap.
All you'll end up with is the propaganda that each side pushes.
White propaganda == facts
Grey propaganda == half truths / partial stories
Black propaganda == lies
Collecting grey propaganda from both sides just means you end up with lots of grey propaganda.
From the Standard Response List:
#1. So, you'd rather we didn't invade at all? Is that it? You'd like it if Osama took over the US!
#2. Gay agenda/Gay marriage.
#3. "Here with the story is a radical left-wing nutcase who is easily discredited."
#4. Terrorism/Terrorists/9-11
#5. We propose to investigate initiating a Congressional panel to look into the possibility of researching this matter. After the election.
"Ignoring your whole "think of the children!" rant (and, frankly, while I'm not at all in favour of it as an industry, if my choices were starvation and prostitution I know which one I'd pick) you are still twisting things badly. For example:"
... as long as the corporations operate with the same level of worker and environmental protections as are required here.
It's a valid example. It meets all of your statements AND it is a documented fact.
The issue is NOT "starvation" vs prostitution.
The issue is development vs exploitation.
"How exactly is this "greed"?"
DUH! Because it places the profits above the welfare of the worker. That's "greed".
"For your other point, it actually costs more to offshore, all other things being equal."
Ummmmm, maybe you MISSED THE PART WHERE I SAID THE OTHER STUFF IS NOT EQUAL.
Again, here's what I specifically stated:
"Hardly. The reason the labour is cheaper over there is because they start of at a lower standard of living (as you noted) AND THEY DO NOT GAIN OUR PROTECTIONS."
Did you miss that again? Maybe you need it one more time?
"Hardly. The reason the labour is cheaper over there is because they start of at a lower standard of living (as you noted) AND THEY DO NOT GAIN OUR PROTECTIONS."
"The only reason it happens is that "all other things" aren't equal."
Well, it's good to see that I finally got that through you head.
"Requiring that they be equal is an underhanded way of saying "offshoring should be prohibited" without being honest about your goals."
What was that I said about "greed"?
When the PROFIT motive outweighs the PROTECTIONS, it is greed.
You don't seem to agree with that, but it keeps coming back to that.
Off-shoring is just fine
I didn't say it should be illegal.
If those protections are a good idea here, why not there? Your "point" is that it would COST MORE if it was required (hmmm, "cost more", but it isn't about greed).
The protections we have add to the cost of employing us. If business is allowed to move production to avoid those protections, then it is the same race-to-the-bottom that everyone else has been pointing out.
Which gets back to my example of Thailand's sex tourism industry. By your "logic", that's a fine example of "helping" the local girls and boys.
I say that is pure exploitation and claiming that their lives are slightly better in a material fashion is nothing more than attempts at justifying your greed.
Otherwise, we'd be operating under the same protections there as we do here.
"Perhaps that's so in your perfect world."
Ummm, that "perfect world" is the one we live in. Whether you realize it or not. The US government collects a LOT of money in taxes and spends a LOT MORE money.
If that doesn't meat the definition of "re-deployment" then I think you have a problem with your definitions.
"I view government meddling in the economy as an unfortunate side effect at best."
Whatever. The government needs money to operate (pay the military / fund education / social security / welfare / etc) so WHERE that money is collected will ALWAYS result in "meddling in the economy".
Just for the record, I want to see more skilled and better paying jobs in the US. 90% of the population working in a "service industry" (hey, prostitution is a "service industry") is bad for that 90% and for the USofA.
Yep, my salary is "grossly inflated" by their standards. But I'd still prefer that our government get itself straightened out and realize that having MORE skilled people in the middle middle class would be a "good thing" (tm).
"It might be abuse to migrate someone from US-standard-of-living (call it 10) to the outsource-worker-standard (call it 4), but what we are talking about is taking people who often are living well below the poverty line (1-2 on the same scale) and raising their livel of income to something that (while we might find it beneith our dignity to accept) is still far above what they could otherwise expect."
So, it's okay to exploit people if they see some slight benefit from the exploitation?
Well then. Thailand's sex tourism industry would be a "good thing" in your view. After all, those girls and boys get to eat and wear nice clothes (part of the time). That's definately a couple of steps up from living in complete poverty.
"I supose you might think it less cruel to just let people starve instead of helping them earn enough money to buy food and clothing (but not iced-coffee-drinks and laptop computers). But I think it's a step in the right direction."
While I believe that it is a transparent attempt to justify your greed. There is no reason (aside from PROFIT) why the US corporations could not provide the same level of worker and environmental protections in those countries that are required here.
"Because this is argument is just a protectionist strawman?"
Hardly. The reason the labour is cheaper over there is because they start of at a lower standard of living (as you noted) AND THEY DO NOT GAIN OUR PROTECTIONS.
I'm all for "free trade" as long as both sides have the same levels of protection.
Otherwise, you end up with the same situation as Thailand's sex tourism industry. Justified exploitation because the victim's lives are slightly better from a materialistic point of view.
Free trade requires equal protections.
"The stock purchaser collects the dividend, but retains the value of the stock itself."
And the value of the stock itself is dependant upon the market's perception of the value of that stock.
"Then, after collecting some dividends, if the company has done well in investing the purchaser's money, the value of the share of stock increases and the purchaser can sell the share for a profit if desired."
Again, the value of the stock is dependant upon the market's perception of it.
But, back to the main point, investing $100 for $1 of annual income (whether you can still sell the stock for the original $100) is NOT a viable option for most people to live on.
They will STILL need a job (again, because MOST people cannot live on their stock dividends) until they can retire and live off of their investments.
But they will NOT have that job because it has been OFF SHORED.
"But it is not a zero-sum game, even if you insist on pretending it is."
... strength/weakness ... they are all measured by comparing one instance with another instance.
...
At any instant, it is. Growth/decay
"The growth of the economy depends on said wealth being redeployed."
Again, the ECONOMY can grow in that more wealth is being generated
But that still does not mean that the MIDDLE CLASS will prosper. And without a strong middle class, the economy will fail.
"Not on it being collected by government agencies and directed to soup kitchens."
But the government is one of the primary tools for re-deployment. The government collects taxes and pays for defense / education / welfare / etc.
Therefore, WHERE the government collects taxes from is VERY IMPORTANT in the economy.
Yep, the small businesses hire the most people, overall.
"How many jobs were outsourced? Now, looking back on history shouldn't we consider the 70s the age of outsourcing automobile workers? The 80s textile workers?"
YES! But this has been discussed before. Talk to people in the "rust belt" now.
"As for the job creation. The capital gains tax cuts and similar equalizing of the percentage of income tax benefit the small business greatly."
How? Most small businesses do NOT see much benefit from capital gains cuts. That is mostly on UNEARNED income.
You see, there are, basically, TWO types of income:
Earned - via labour
Unearned - via investments
The small businesses focus almost exclusively on the EARNED income. They make things and sell them. They provide a service for a fee.
Big businesses and rich individuals benefit from the UNEARNED portion. Stock dividends, income from selling stock, etc.
"Now what will stop this? Simple, raising the taxes on the "evil rich"."
Hardly. All that needs to be done is to focus the tax structure a bit more fairly (by "fairly", I mean "for the greatest number"). Since the majority of US citizens do NOT see much benefit from reducing taxes on UNEARNED income, then we do NOT reduce taxes on unearned income.
Since the majority of US citizens WOULD see a benefit from reducing taxes on EARNED income, then we reduce taxes on EARNED income.
"The ones with the millions and billions have relatively no income and have the means to dodge nearly most forms of taxes."
So you've fallen for the old right-wing trick, eh?
The key is to identify and remove the tax loop-holes. Then the taxes are re-structured to provide the greatest incentive for the greatest number.
The stuff you've been reading is biased. The "small businesses" you hear about include Bush and Cheney because they receive income from properties. And the "small business" rules have been setup to include that.
#1. All of the "benefits" it cites are based upon PREDICTIONS.
#2. Those PREDICTIONS are NOT based upon previously off-shored industries.
#3. Those PREDICTIONS are based off of COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. "As with agriculture a century ago, productivity gains have outstripped demand, so fewer and fewer workers are needed for manufacturing." That's the switch from an agricultural-based economy to an industrial-based economy.
#4. "Similarly, most current predictions are not as ominous as they first sound once the numbers are unpacked. Most jobs will remain unaffected altogether: close to 90 percent of jobs in the United States require geographic proximity. Such jobs include everything from retail and restaurants to marketing and personal care -- services that have to be produced and consumed locally, so outsourcing them overseas is not an option."
So we'll end up a nation of burger-flippers and butlers. Coincidently, those are the LOWEST paying jobs out there.
Yet, despite all of the EASILY SEEN FLAWS in that article, people keep trotting it out as if it were some valued bit of insight.
It's 100% pure CRAP.
The kind who got the IT jobs without going through the education I did.
I still have my job and they're gone. They're gone because they do not know their jobs.
That's the flaw in your concept. You cannot just get the education sufficient to your job today. Who is supposed to know what you'll need to know or what you'll need to do?
"I hear your arguments, but I feel you've missed the big point. American jobs are expensive. Indian ones aren't. The American Dream, capitalism, demands the jobs go abroad. You can't have it both ways."
Again, if all other factors were equal, you'd be correct. But they aren't equal.
If they WERE equal, you'd see the entire corporation moving to India.
Someone with $10 MILLION spends his money a lot differently than ... ...
500 people with $20,000 each.
It's the effect on our country's economy and our tax system.
"As others have mentioned, the stockholders also benifit, as do the consumers (if the outsourcing is handled well) or their competitors (if it is handled badly)."
But 90% of US citizens do NOT own much stock. So the "stockholders" are, in reality, the same executives making the big salaries.
The "consumers", well, the depends upon whether they can make enough money to purchase the products.
The "competitors", since they also sell a similar product, they face the same problem the "consumers" face.
"But even more important, it benifits the economies of the countries to which the jobs are outsourced, and as a consequence benifits many people who just aren't americans but are nonetheless just as real as you are."
Check that. Look at the environmental protections and the employee protections of those countries. In most cases, the reason it is cheaper to send the work over seas is because they have fewer protections. Abusing your people is one way to achieve prosperity. But it is just a race to the bottom to see who can inflict the most abuse.
Instead, why not require that any country that we outsource to have the SAME level of protections that we do?
"Every one of these people now has a personal vested interest in seeing the US stay healthy and strong, and interest in peace with the US instead of war...."
Right..... and the last time we went to war with a country we were outsourcing to was......?
They do NOT have a "personal vested interest" in the US. Just in the CORPORATIONS.
"Free trade (including outsourcing) may disrupt the status quo in complacent markets but it does far more good in the long run for both sides."
Incorrect. Handled badly (as it currently is), it will result in many countries with toxic waste dumps and increased cancer amongst their populations. Their people will still be poor, but their officials will be wealthy.
"If Nike does better, all US-based employees of Nike, from execs down to janitors, benefit."
... well, most people won't live long enough to see the benefit.
Only if there is some mechanism in place to distribute the increased profits.
From what I've read, there is not. So not "all US-based employees of Nike" would benefit.
"Also, since anybody can buy shares in Nike, the average US citizen is free to benefit from Nike's success directly as a minor shareholder."
You're a little confused about stock. Stock costs a lot (relatively) to buy, but pays out small dividends (relatively) if at all. If it costs you $100 to get $1 (but that $1 will be every year), then it will take you 100 years
Just don't forget the next steps.
A strong MIDDLE CLASS is needed to keep the economy of this country going.
When you have the ultra rich not paying taxes AND lobbying to pay FEWER taxes, then you have wealth concentrating in the upper levels.
Since there is a finite amount of wealth at any given time, this weakens the middle class (because the lower class doesn't have that much to lose anyway).
Over time, you see the population splitting into a few rich and lots and lots of poor. This is not good for the economy of the country.
"The claim here is that IT outsourcing is beneficial to the US as a whole, because the IT engineers in Bangalore wear Nike tenis shoes."
Oh my yes. You see, the Nike executive will make money off of the sale no matter who buys them or where they are made.
The Nike executive will then hire additional personal servants where he has established his domicile (usually the US or Bahamas).
Sure, you'll work for a pittance, and you'll be easily replacable, but think of the joy of serving a Nike executive.
Particularly since it shows Linux at 3% and Mac at 2.5%.
And it shows a fairly steady (if slow) increase.
Simply stated, a really good writer can write a really good book ...
along comes a MEDIOCRE Hollywood writer / director / producer and turns the book into a mediocre movie.
It's all about talent levels. Bradbury wrote a good short story. But the writer(s) who expanded it to movie length probably were NOT in the same league as him.
"The spammers have to identify themselves; once you have their identity, block all their mail. You got spam from @spammer.com? Block spammer.com. The guy at spammer.com can't pretend to be anyone else, so you've got him successfully blocked. Sure, he can register multiple domains, but with a good RTBL that isn't too much of a problem."
The next step would be to match those domains with IP addresses.
You'll see the pattern emerge of which ISP's are "spam friendly".
Your method is too brittle.
Suppose you work at a company. YOU might be perfect, but SOMEONE is going to make a mistake. And over time, more people make mistakes. They end up on spammer's lists.
I don't care about how efficient your client filters are. The messages STILL need to arrive and they STILL take up bandwidth.
Given enough spammers, the T-1 my company has will be flooded. This will become a DDoS via eMail.
You're looking at the problem for your single-user perspective. I'm looking at the problem from the network administrator's perspective. I see the bandwidth lost from spam. I see the disk space consumed. I have to put in additional hardware just to handle it.
Spam will be around as long as it is profitable enough for the low-lifes.
SPF is the first step in reducing the profit from spam.
It will not stop spam, but it will kill some of their practices.