Fortunately, the vast majority of the population of the world are not capitalists. They still value humanity over a corporation. Unfortunately, corporations are gaining power.
Obviously you have never lived in a country that kills its OWN citizens. Obviously you haven't heard of the totalitarian regimes in Germany, USSR, and USA's close friends Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Obviously you haven't heard of the damage done to civil rights activists in the 60's by the FBI and the CIA. Obviously you have never been targetted by the police. Obviously you are not a minority man (particularly black) living in some parts of USA. Obviously you haven't heard of the infiltration of the FBI by organized criminals (particularly the Italian mafia in the 60's and 70's). Obviously you haven't heard of police fabricating information and jailing people. Obviously you haven't heard of the government cooking up bogus charges and jailing people. Obviously McCarthyism is not part of your collective mind. Obviously you haven't heard of John Ashcroft's recent decree to spy on antiwar activists. Obviously you believe the legal system represent justice....Obviously you underestimate the power of the goverment.
So to answer your question, I would rather have some guy off the street spying on me than the goverment ANY DAY OF THE WEEK! There is something that you don't understand about the government--any government. Governments are far more powerful than 1000 people put together! They have immense power. The illusion of a legal system--which IS an illusion--does not change any of this. One just needs to look through the history of the government that you live under to see what I mean (I picked USA but you can pick any govt).
I'm Canadian.. but anyway, what nomenclature? The seperation of realpolitik and protectionist measures? I don't know. It's hard to say. There is one person for sure: me:) Other than that, I would guess maybe 30% of the population would probably agree with me.
I don't think you can consider the elimination of trade with countries like Burma, Cuba, Iran, Syria, and others are protectionist measures. Those embargoes are realpolitik. Essentially any country that does not yield to US imperialism gets cut off. Even many of the capitalists (except the Libertarian types) are in favour of that. Reading the Wall Street Journal and the neoconservative opinions will show that they support embargoes to serve imperialist pursuits.
So, even though that seems like a protectionist measures against free trade, it really isn't. I really wouldn't mix that with things like lumber tariffs. They are two different things. The capitalists themselves say so.
USA and Canada will be better off without the rich capitalists. While you are at it, you can take your corporations with you too. We can always start from scratch. I mean, most of the settlers in Canada and USA ran away from the oppressive wealthy elites in Europe. Back then it was the monarchs but now it is the capitalists... oh wait.. who is going to do the dirty work for the rich? I mean, how many people in the military are wealthy? Let's see how good the wealthy crowd gets along without the lower classes protecting them. And who is going to pick up the garbage off your street?
Auto industry is "special". It has traditionally had massive protectionism. There have been MASSIVE tariffs placed on foreing imports. This is why Japanese companies built factories in USA and Canada in the first place (in 80's)--to overcome the tariffs. They have been removing the tariffs but I think they are still there. I think the auto industry is still more protected than others (I am not 100% sure though).
So-called Globalization (i.e. neo-liberal economics) will NOT even out economic disparities. The reason is pretty simple: capitalism is elitist and hence it will always be like that.
Just to show you why it won't work, consider this. What happens when wages in India, or China, or whatever rise? Well, the companies will move to another country that is even poorer and hence the people are willing to put up with lower wages. This is what has happened in other industries to other countries. For example, how come Latin America is WORSE off now than ever? They were on the receiving end of many jobs during the 70's, 80's and 90's. Yet they haven't improved much. This Globalization thingie isn't something new. It has been happening since the world switched to capitalism (actually, it was occurring under merchantilism too but that's another story). Or how about some African countries who saw foreign investment yet haven't really shown anything?
The reason the world for not equalizing is pretty simple. The benefits of trade can accrue to one party, the other, or to both. Right now, it accrues to one party: the multinational corporations.
Having said this, I believe India and more importantly China are playing the Great Capitalist Game perfectly. That is to say, preach capitalism but ensure that the country is self-sufficient. So these two countries may gain something out of it. I'm not so sure about the hundreads of others that have signed themselves up to it.
That's a misleading view. First of all, one is salaried and the other is not. Salaried people are better overall because they are not as vulnerable to market shocks. For example, a wage earner (which is what most factor workers are) will get laid off as soon as demand drops.
Second, what's the point of comparing AVERAGE factory worker to ENTRY-LEVEL professional? That's like comparing ENTRY-LEVEL management to average professional (I would guess that the entry-level manager makes less than an average professional).
Reporting costs and going IPO are two different things. Yes, reporting costs are huge (especially for medium sized companies--Google isn't medium though). But if you just go for an IPO just because of the $2million (or whatever) reporting/admin costs, that's not a wise decision. Going IPO means that you are GIVING UP OWNERSHIP of your company. NO ONE wants to give up ownership of the company under normal circumstances. Think of it this way. Google supposedly has net income of around $300 million. With its proposed share issue (1/3 of the company), the owners will all of a sudden just get $100million now in income (instead of the $300m they were getting before). The owners get ZERO "extra" money. It's not as if the billions raised by google will go to the existing owners.
The main reason for getting on the stock market is for FINANCING reasons. If you want to grow, issuing stock is the easiest and sometimes cheapest way* to getting capital (borrowing money from bank becomes difficult). There are also other reasons but they are usually minor (for example, some companies get listed on the stock market to increase their profile. If you are involved in international trade, being listed on the stock market automatically boosts your credibility)
(* From what I remember from my finance courses, issuing stocks is actually the most expensive cost of the financing techniques. Getting loans, issuing bonds, etc are cheaper. However this depends on many factors and one has to look at it on a case-by-case basis. Issuing bonds, for example, is better than issuing stock but some companies don't have a good credit rating, or are already leveraged with massive debt, and so on. Gettings loans is much tougher for tech companies because they don't have much collatoral. )
I'm pretty sure the main reason Google is going for an IPO is to get more money. They probably can't get enough capital for their future growth. Google is attempting to grow and it cannot do so without getting financing from the stock market.
Anyway, you are right that the 33% public share will be owned by tens of thousands of people. BUT his point is still somewhat correct. The 33% may be fragmented, but they often act similarly and have almost the same interest. For instance, nearly all institutional investors act the same way. If one mutal fund, for example, wants something done, it is more than likely that other mutual funds want the same thing done.
huh? Demand their money back? What money? If you own a share, you can't ask the company to pay back that in dollars? The investors are not LOANING money. Instead they are buying an equity (ownership). You can't ask for your money back. At best what you can do is to sell on the market and hope that someone else buys it. If no one else wants to buy it, you will end up with ZERO.
You won't get another bubble... The tech bubble was something special--something rare. It doesn't happen very often. You likely won't see it happening in the tech industry ever again in your life. However, the bubble may occur in other industries (one prime candidate IMO is biotech)...
I'm not an expert but I am pretty sure those are blatantly false! The government cannot force a company to go public! USA is the most capitalist country and it is against capitalism to do that.
What do you mean that the Google IPO is being done differently? It seems that they are just like any other IPO. There were rumours on Slashdot before about ebay auctions and stuff but they don't seem to be true. Reading that article, it seems to be a typical IPO.
Assuming that this is just like any other IPO (I think it is), what you said in the first paragraph is how things will work out. Google will sell to the investment bankers, who then sell to the public. It is almost always like this. If the IPO price goes up, Google will not make more money on it (although it is still good for the firm since its valuation just went up).
The reason the insiders get the stock at a fixed price is because it benefits the company. The company gets a fixed amount of financing while the burden is on the investment bankers to sell the stock. If the stock doesn't sell (which does happen--especially to less "sexy" smaller companies), the bankers take the "loss".
You can get cheap video cards with S-Video out. You could probably buy a GeForce 2 with S-Video out for less than $50. So I'm sure the newer cards can have them easily. Of course, I'm not sure if the S-Video out is any good. I have tried in with a few cards a few years ago (Nvidia, Matrox) and couldn't really tell the difference. But then again, I wasn't using it much. S-Video really isn't a big deal anymore (I think you can get them for $40 to $50 on any card these days).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Re:The problem is that the ISS is 'international'
on
ISS May Have A Leak
·
· Score: 1
And the Martians who destroyed their crafts... You don't think the probes failed all by themselves do you?;)
I see what you're saying, but the problem with your assertion is that the US does not set the value of its currency.
USA has HUGE influence over its currency. Yes, it is free-floating but it can still be controlled. For example, the interest rates set by the Federal Reserve impacts the value of the currency.
Also, as you mention how how the currency is not backed by anything these days, it is based on TRUST. The value of the currency can swing all over the place based on the PERCEPTIONS of the currency traders. I'm sure that if the US president comes out and says that the US currency needs to decline or if the Chairman of the Federal Reserve says that the currency is going to decline in the future, it will fall.
As far as why currencies are not backed by something tangible, my conspiracy theory is that the government (it wast he Nixon govt) couldn't afford to do it. All this bogus reasoning about more minerals being mined is just that: bogus. Capitalists just wanted to leverage it more and that's what ended up happening. Everything is leveraged, including the money you have in your bank. If everyone went and withdrew their money from the banks, the banks would collapse. There isn't enough money to give back.
What I'm saying here is that it is India that will become less competitive against nations and regions that are less than developed than she is. Someday, many Indian jobs will be outsourced to Bangladesh, and some already are going there.
I agree. But my point is from that of USA or Canada (I'm Canadaian BTW:) ). What happens in India (or Bangladesh or South Africa, or whatever) is irrelevant (sort of). The situation will be the same in USA. People, software developers in this case, just can't compete. Instead of India or China, now it will be Bangladesh, or South Africa, or Ghana, or whatever.
The original author (I can't remember if it was you) made the argument that Americans can decrease their wages. My main argument is regarding that. My view is that it is very difficult (as I pointed out with the cost of living differences). Sure, the jobs may move from India to Bangladesh but the situation is the same for the American worker.
The notion that the US should or is going to devalue its own currency is ridiculous.
Yes, it IS ridiculous. But then again, a lot of stuff I say is ridiculous. I also predict the collapse of capitalism within our lifetimes:) All I can say is that everything seemed ridiculous at one time.
What's more, everybody loves American money. I've travelled to more than thirty nations, and you can always find someone who has American dollars
That's true but at one time everyone used British Pound. If someone said the Pound was going to lose its world currency "status" 70 years ago, you would have been laughed off. But look what happened. Same thing can happen to USA. According some conspirarcy theorists, US foreign intervention in the Middle East (and other places) is to stop those countries from switching to the Euros (before you dismiss the theory, at least read the first article on that page). Iraq, for example, switched from the dollar to the euro. Whether you give credance to that theory or not, you can't deny that the dollar is worth what it is mainly due to petrodollar.
On top of all this, don't forget that as US imperialism and unilateralism increases, countries will be tempted to dump the dollar. Not just for economic reasons, but also POLITICAL ones.
The important point out of all this is that the US dollar is worth what it is primarily due to foreign demand for it (as you pointed out). But if the demand subsides, the dollar will plummet IMO. BUT there are even more complicated factors at all. For instance most of the world economy depends on USA and also many countries
As far as corporations are concerned, it's not as if humans haven't faced similar creatures in the past. As Noam Chomsky once remarked, the corporate world is like slavery. The people running corporations aren't evil or anything. They are just like you and me. However, within the institution called a corporation, they perform activities that do not benefit humanity. It's just like how many of the slaveowners were the nicest people on earth. They weren't evil. They didn't differ from the rest of society. However, within the institution of slavery, they were terrible people. Same thing with corporations. The CEOs are not bad people. They eat the same food you do, watch the same tv programs, and play the same computer games. But within the corporate entity, they behave differently...
Either you don't believe what you are saying, or you have fallen for the elitist dogma. You don't need to be a majority to rule a country, or earth for that matter. Monarchy showed that. I mean a few select members of one family easily managed to brainwash and control millions of people. Similar thing with capitalism. There might only be a few large corporations. Only a few percent of the population may be rich. But that isn't going to stop anything.
Humans can be easily manipulated... Totalitarians are masters of that. Nazi Germany and USSR should have taught you something...
I'm neither a capitalist nor involved in management... having said that, that Porter quote looks almost out of context. I would be interested to know what Porter's take on this whole outsourcing issue is. I'll bet he'll support the present strategy (since it is towares pure capitalism).
Pat Buchanan is a protectionist but most of the theoretical and ideological strength for protectionism comes from the left (of which I'm part of). Buchanan, if anything, is a right winger and will never have any power (since most conservatives are capitalists and protectionism is anti-capitalist). I really have no idea how anyone can think that Buchanan's protectionism can be implemented without switching to fascism. In contrast, the left wing provides progressive solutions to issues that threaten workers.
Anyway, the reason outsourcing is cited often is because it is IMPORTANT to workers in North America. It may not be tech-related but it has everything to do with the industry.
Slashdot Mirror
lol maybe he is trying to figure out how many people actually read his e-mail... and then fire the rest ;)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Only under capitalism...
Fortunately, the vast majority of the population of the world are not capitalists. They still value humanity over a corporation. Unfortunately, corporations are gaining power.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Obviously you have never lived in a country that kills its OWN citizens. Obviously you haven't heard of the totalitarian regimes in Germany, USSR, and USA's close friends Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Obviously you haven't heard of the damage done to civil rights activists in the 60's by the FBI and the CIA. Obviously you have never been targetted by the police. Obviously you are not a minority man (particularly black) living in some parts of USA. Obviously you haven't heard of the infiltration of the FBI by organized criminals (particularly the Italian mafia in the 60's and 70's). Obviously you haven't heard of police fabricating information and jailing people. Obviously you haven't heard of the government cooking up bogus charges and jailing people. Obviously McCarthyism is not part of your collective mind. Obviously you haven't heard of John Ashcroft's recent decree to spy on antiwar activists. Obviously you believe the legal system represent justice....Obviously you underestimate the power of the goverment.
So to answer your question, I would rather have some guy off the street spying on me than the goverment ANY DAY OF THE WEEK! There is something that you don't understand about the government--any government. Governments are far more powerful than 1000 people put together! They have immense power. The illusion of a legal system--which IS an illusion--does not change any of this. One just needs to look through the history of the government that you live under to see what I mean (I picked USA but you can pick any govt).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm Canadian.. but anyway, what nomenclature? The seperation of realpolitik and protectionist measures? I don't know. It's hard to say. There is one person for sure: me :) Other than that, I would guess maybe 30% of the population would probably agree with me.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't think you can consider the elimination of trade with countries like Burma, Cuba, Iran, Syria, and others are protectionist measures. Those embargoes are realpolitik. Essentially any country that does not yield to US imperialism gets cut off. Even many of the capitalists (except the Libertarian types) are in favour of that. Reading the Wall Street Journal and the neoconservative opinions will show that they support embargoes to serve imperialist pursuits.
So, even though that seems like a protectionist measures against free trade, it really isn't. I really wouldn't mix that with things like lumber tariffs. They are two different things. The capitalists themselves say so.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
USA and Canada will be better off without the rich capitalists. While you are at it, you can take your corporations with you too. We can always start from scratch. I mean, most of the settlers in Canada and USA ran away from the oppressive wealthy elites in Europe. Back then it was the monarchs but now it is the capitalists... oh wait.. who is going to do the dirty work for the rich? I mean, how many people in the military are wealthy? Let's see how good the wealthy crowd gets along without the lower classes protecting them. And who is going to pick up the garbage off your street?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Auto industry is "special". It has traditionally had massive protectionism. There have been MASSIVE tariffs placed on foreing imports. This is why Japanese companies built factories in USA and Canada in the first place (in 80's)--to overcome the tariffs. They have been removing the tariffs but I think they are still there. I think the auto industry is still more protected than others (I am not 100% sure though).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
So-called Globalization (i.e. neo-liberal economics) will NOT even out economic disparities. The reason is pretty simple: capitalism is elitist and hence it will always be like that.
Just to show you why it won't work, consider this. What happens when wages in India, or China, or whatever rise? Well, the companies will move to another country that is even poorer and hence the people are willing to put up with lower wages. This is what has happened in other industries to other countries. For example, how come Latin America is WORSE off now than ever? They were on the receiving end of many jobs during the 70's, 80's and 90's. Yet they haven't improved much. This Globalization thingie isn't something new. It has been happening since the world switched to capitalism (actually, it was occurring under merchantilism too but that's another story). Or how about some African countries who saw foreign investment yet haven't really shown anything?
The reason the world for not equalizing is pretty simple. The benefits of trade can accrue to one party, the other, or to both. Right now, it accrues to one party: the multinational corporations.
Having said this, I believe India and more importantly China are playing the Great Capitalist Game perfectly. That is to say, preach capitalism but ensure that the country is self-sufficient. So these two countries may gain something out of it. I'm not so sure about the hundreads of others that have signed themselves up to it.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That's a misleading view. First of all, one is salaried and the other is not. Salaried people are better overall because they are not as vulnerable to market shocks. For example, a wage earner (which is what most factor workers are) will get laid off as soon as demand drops.
Second, what's the point of comparing AVERAGE factory worker to ENTRY-LEVEL professional? That's like comparing ENTRY-LEVEL management to average professional (I would guess that the entry-level manager makes less than an average professional).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Wait until the markets crash or something... of course, you can hedge it but I doubt you are...
I'm not wishing ill will but markets aren't exactly predictable...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Reporting costs and going IPO are two different things. Yes, reporting costs are huge (especially for medium sized companies--Google isn't medium though). But if you just go for an IPO just because of the $2million (or whatever) reporting/admin costs, that's not a wise decision. Going IPO means that you are GIVING UP OWNERSHIP of your company. NO ONE wants to give up ownership of the company under normal circumstances. Think of it this way. Google supposedly has net income of around $300 million. With its proposed share issue (1/3 of the company), the owners will all of a sudden just get $100million now in income (instead of the $300m they were getting before). The owners get ZERO "extra" money. It's not as if the billions raised by google will go to the existing owners.
The main reason for getting on the stock market is for FINANCING reasons. If you want to grow, issuing stock is the easiest and sometimes cheapest way* to getting capital (borrowing money from bank becomes difficult). There are also other reasons but they are usually minor (for example, some companies get listed on the stock market to increase their profile. If you are involved in international trade, being listed on the stock market automatically boosts your credibility)
(* From what I remember from my finance courses, issuing stocks is actually the most expensive cost of the financing techniques. Getting loans, issuing bonds, etc are cheaper. However this depends on many factors and one has to look at it on a case-by-case basis. Issuing bonds, for example, is better than issuing stock but some companies don't have a good credit rating, or are already leveraged with massive debt, and so on. Gettings loans is much tougher for tech companies because they don't have much collatoral. )
I'm pretty sure the main reason Google is going for an IPO is to get more money. They probably can't get enough capital for their future growth. Google is attempting to grow and it cannot do so without getting financing from the stock market.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Stop callling people idiot...
Anyway, you are right that the 33% public share will be owned by tens of thousands of people. BUT his point is still somewhat correct. The 33% may be fragmented, but they often act similarly and have almost the same interest. For instance, nearly all institutional investors act the same way. If one mutal fund, for example, wants something done, it is more than likely that other mutual funds want the same thing done.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
huh? Demand their money back? What money? If you own a share, you can't ask the company to pay back that in dollars? The investors are not LOANING money. Instead they are buying an equity (ownership). You can't ask for your money back. At best what you can do is to sell on the market and hope that someone else buys it. If no one else wants to buy it, you will end up with ZERO.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You won't get another bubble... The tech bubble was something special--something rare. It doesn't happen very often. You likely won't see it happening in the tech industry ever again in your life. However, the bubble may occur in other industries (one prime candidate IMO is biotech)...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm not an expert but I am pretty sure those are blatantly false! The government cannot force a company to go public! USA is the most capitalist country and it is against capitalism to do that.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What do you mean that the Google IPO is being done differently? It seems that they are just like any other IPO. There were rumours on Slashdot before about ebay auctions and stuff but they don't seem to be true. Reading that article, it seems to be a typical IPO.
Assuming that this is just like any other IPO (I think it is), what you said in the first paragraph is how things will work out. Google will sell to the investment bankers, who then sell to the public. It is almost always like this. If the IPO price goes up, Google will not make more money on it (although it is still good for the firm since its valuation just went up).
The reason the insiders get the stock at a fixed price is because it benefits the company. The company gets a fixed amount of financing while the burden is on the investment bankers to sell the stock. If the stock doesn't sell (which does happen--especially to less "sexy" smaller companies), the bankers take the "loss".
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Is that a trick question? Because the answer is ZERO. True geeks wouldn't worry about anyone else except themselves ;) ...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You can get cheap video cards with S-Video out. You could probably buy a GeForce 2 with S-Video out for less than $50. So I'm sure the newer cards can have them easily. Of course, I'm not sure if the S-Video out is any good. I have tried in with a few cards a few years ago (Nvidia, Matrox) and couldn't really tell the difference. But then again, I wasn't using it much. S-Video really isn't a big deal anymore (I think you can get them for $40 to $50 on any card these days).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
And the Martians who destroyed their crafts... You don't think the probes failed all by themselves do you? ;)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
First Post :)
I think I just became a troll...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I see what you're saying, but the problem with your assertion is that the US does not set the value of its currency.
:) ). What happens in India (or Bangladesh or South Africa, or whatever) is irrelevant (sort of). The situation will be the same in USA. People, software developers in this case, just can't compete. Instead of India or China, now it will be Bangladesh, or South Africa, or Ghana, or whatever.
:) All I can say is that everything seemed ridiculous at one time.
USA has HUGE influence over its currency. Yes, it is free-floating but it can still be controlled. For example, the interest rates set by the Federal Reserve impacts the value of the currency.
Also, as you mention how how the currency is not backed by anything these days, it is based on TRUST. The value of the currency can swing all over the place based on the PERCEPTIONS of the currency traders. I'm sure that if the US president comes out and says that the US currency needs to decline or if the Chairman of the Federal Reserve says that the currency is going to decline in the future, it will fall.
As far as why currencies are not backed by something tangible, my conspiracy theory is that the government (it wast he Nixon govt) couldn't afford to do it. All this bogus reasoning about more minerals being mined is just that: bogus. Capitalists just wanted to leverage it more and that's what ended up happening. Everything is leveraged, including the money you have in your bank. If everyone went and withdrew their money from the banks, the banks would collapse. There isn't enough money to give back.
What I'm saying here is that it is India that will become less competitive against nations and regions that are less than developed than she is. Someday, many Indian jobs will be outsourced to Bangladesh, and some already are going there.
I agree. But my point is from that of USA or Canada (I'm Canadaian BTW
The original author (I can't remember if it was you) made the argument that Americans can decrease their wages. My main argument is regarding that. My view is that it is very difficult (as I pointed out with the cost of living differences). Sure, the jobs may move from India to Bangladesh but the situation is the same for the American worker.
The notion that the US should or is going to devalue its own currency is ridiculous.
Yes, it IS ridiculous. But then again, a lot of stuff I say is ridiculous. I also predict the collapse of capitalism within our lifetimes
What's more, everybody loves American money. I've travelled to more than thirty nations, and you can always find someone who has American dollars
That's true but at one time everyone used British Pound. If someone said the Pound was going to lose its world currency "status" 70 years ago, you would have been laughed off. But look what happened. Same thing can happen to USA. According some conspirarcy theorists, US foreign intervention in the Middle East (and other places) is to stop those countries from switching to the Euros (before you dismiss the theory, at least read the first article on that page). Iraq, for example, switched from the dollar to the euro. Whether you give credance to that theory or not, you can't deny that the dollar is worth what it is mainly due to petrodollar.
On top of all this, don't forget that as US imperialism and unilateralism increases, countries will be tempted to dump the dollar. Not just for economic reasons, but also POLITICAL ones.
The important point out of all this is that the US dollar is worth what it is primarily due to foreign demand for it (as you pointed out). But if the demand subsides, the dollar will plummet IMO. BUT there are even more complicated factors at all. For instance most of the world economy depends on USA and also many countries
I agree. The majority cannot be ruled forever.
As far as corporations are concerned, it's not as if humans haven't faced similar creatures in the past. As Noam Chomsky once remarked, the corporate world is like slavery. The people running corporations aren't evil or anything. They are just like you and me. However, within the institution called a corporation, they perform activities that do not benefit humanity. It's just like how many of the slaveowners were the nicest people on earth. They weren't evil. They didn't differ from the rest of society. However, within the institution of slavery, they were terrible people. Same thing with corporations. The CEOs are not bad people. They eat the same food you do, watch the same tv programs, and play the same computer games. But within the corporate entity, they behave differently...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Either you don't believe what you are saying, or you have fallen for the elitist dogma. You don't need to be a majority to rule a country, or earth for that matter. Monarchy showed that. I mean a few select members of one family easily managed to brainwash and control millions of people. Similar thing with capitalism. There might only be a few large corporations. Only a few percent of the population may be rich. But that isn't going to stop anything.
Humans can be easily manipulated... Totalitarians are masters of that. Nazi Germany and USSR should have taught you something...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm neither a capitalist nor involved in management... having said that, that Porter quote looks almost out of context. I would be interested to know what Porter's take on this whole outsourcing issue is. I'll bet he'll support the present strategy (since it is towares pure capitalism).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Pat Buchanan is a protectionist but most of the theoretical and ideological strength for protectionism comes from the left (of which I'm part of). Buchanan, if anything, is a right winger and will never have any power (since most conservatives are capitalists and protectionism is anti-capitalist). I really have no idea how anyone can think that Buchanan's protectionism can be implemented without switching to fascism. In contrast, the left wing provides progressive solutions to issues that threaten workers.
Anyway, the reason outsourcing is cited often is because it is IMPORTANT to workers in North America. It may not be tech-related but it has everything to do with the industry.
Sivaram Velauthapillai