No need to flame, the french like their small independent booksellers and they moved to protect them.
If the French really like small independent booksellers, why would they need a law to protect them?
Wouldn't most French people patronize the small bookstores thereby driving amazon out of business?
Of course, if it turns out that most people prefer amazon's low prices, then your statement that "the french like their small independent booksellers" would be proven false.
Microsoft's idea is that I should only be free to choose some flavor of Microsoft, and Microsoft gets to tell me what me needs are and what the options are.
I must have missed that. I have been running linux (at home and at work) for the last 6 years and MS has *never* told me what my options are.
This might be a wild guess, but I think they only impose conditions on you if you enter into a (voluntary) agreement with them.
how about letting supply and demand of the American workforce take over giving pay raises to nearly all of us IT workers.
If you are against importing foreign labor, logically, shouldn't you also be against importing foreign software?
Buying finished software from foreign countries is just another form of outsourcing. It is actually much worse than outsourcing. After all, if importing labor is bad for the local engineers, importing software would be bad for more people than just the engineers - testers, marketing people, etc.
Imagine if all US companies were required to buy software designed, coded, tested and marketing in the USA; salaries would rise, people would pay more taxes and everyone would be richer......wouldn't they?
Not to mention a system where interest rates are not determined by the market, but by a simplistic system where the main variable is the election calendar.
It is funny that everyone who rails against "predatory lending" does not stop to ask themselves why this phenomenon started in 2002/03 when interest rates were indecently low and not, say, in 1990 or 1999.
Logical fallacy: if you outsource, the $1 income permitting Americans to spend $1 is gone.
So the money to buy the spoon is obtained by profit from making the spoon?
John used to buy the spoon from Mr.Smith for $1. Mr. Smith buys bread from John for $1. No outsourcing and Lou Dobbs is happy and unemployed.
John now buys the spoon from Mr.Chang for $0.98.
Mr. Smith is broke and cannot buy bread from Mr. Smith.
But Mr. Chang buys bread from John. (Or more likely, Mr.Chang buys F16s from Peter who buys more bread from John.)
John is better off by $0.02 & whatever extra he gets from the bread. Mr. Chang is better off because he gets cheaper bread and was able to make a profit from the spoon.
Smith is unemployed and:
1. Realizes that he has to do something else to add value to society. --or--
2. Points a gun at John and forces him to buy spoons from him. --or--
3. Gets the govt. to do (2) for him and calls himself a patriot.
Outsourcing both graphic design and programming......
And when would I do that? Only when I have an opportunity to earn $100 as a project manager.
Or when I make enough on the margin from outsourcing that it is a net win for me - i.e., I make $49+$24+$5 by outsourcing programming+ outsourcing graphic design+waiting tables.
Of course, if I'm making $73 from outsourcing, I'd spend my free time learning a new skill to be more productive.
And this is exactly how division of labour frees up time to become more productive.
Now, we outsource that factory to Somewhere Else, but continue to import the widgets to satisfy domestic demand, perhaps at a lower price.
Good - the lower price tells you that it is more efficient to buy than to make. Or that the other guy is dumb and will go out of business soon.
Now, consumers buy their widgets from Somewhere Else, meaning that wealth flows over there.
Ah, I wasn't aware that each time I buy an apple my wealth is being transferred to the grocery store. I always thought that I got something in exchange for what I gave them. Silly me.
At the same time, all the people who work at the widget factory are unemployed.
So now, not only does the community get widgets for cheaper, they also have all these man-hours to design & build other things.
Wealth is not 'all the people working all the time'. If wealth meant that everyone always had work, then the middle ages would be the wealthiest period in the world and Africa would be the wealthiest place in the world now.
I'll take a wild guess here that you don't live in Detroit.
But I do know of a single mother here in IL who could buy a much safer car for a lot less because of outsourcing. Since she paid less for the car, she doesn't have to work overtime to make the car payment.
Guess she is one of those evil people who benefited from outsourcing at the expense of the hard working auto union employee.
I didnt know it was THAT hard to apply for citizenship for each of those towns in Illinois.
You are close.
It is easy to 'apply for citizenship' in each of these towns in IL. It is also easy to move goods and services from/to each of these towns.
And we are all better off. No one is "stealing jobs", no one is "transferring wealth".
The same is true for IL and CA or IL and AK for that matter.
It is not so easy to gain citizenship between nations. And it is not so easy to move goods and services between nations.
Do you see the problem yet? Here is a clue:
Go to Google earth and see if you can find the difference between the line that separates Woodridge,IL and Darien,IL and the line that separates USA and Mexico.
The 'free stuff' ain't free... it's debt.
It depends on the terms of the sale, doesn't it?
And even if that were true, if I want to take on a mountain of debt to enjoy something in the short term, why should anyone have the right to stop me?
If I own my life and property, I should be able to spend it in whatever way I want. If I want to sell all of my stuff to a Chinese man for some lead-tainted toys, why shouldn't I be able to do that?
Unless of course, I don't really own my life and property.
Hypothetical: If EVERYTHING were designed and built overseas and then brought back here and sold, who here would have enough money to buy it?
And that is why everything will not be designed and built overseas. The Chinese would want to sell you stuff only if they know you can pay.
What *will* be designed and built overseas is whatever that can be done cheaper.
If it costs Americans $1 to make a plastic spoon and if the Chinese can sell it for $0.98, then that will be outsourced.
The Chinese know you can pay for it (since you were spending $1 for it until now) and the Americans are better off by $0.02.
The guy who loses is the guy who actually makes the spoon for $1. He can either go do something more productive that people would willingly pay for, or he could gather a bunch of economic ignoramuses and try to force people to buy his stuff.
They will obviously cut their unprofitable programs.
This is why businesses suck. They cut unprofitable stuff.
Why, I make it a point to increase my unprofitable activities. Every day, I wake up and read comic books for 5 hours instead of going to work.
Sure, it is unprofitable and cutting that out would make economic sense, but then there would be no difference between me and the evil corporations.
No. As a nation, we should focus of continuing to do unprofitable things and make things as inefficient as possible.
Remember boys and girls, the more inefficient you are, the more jobs you create. And, as everyone knows, the more jobs you have here, the more wealthy everyone is.
I still don't get it.
When I, as an individual, outsource graphic design to my friend, the both of us benefit and both our 'GDPs' increase. I can focus on programming and she can focus on graphics.
If I stopped 'outsourcing' this to my friend, I'd have to learn both, spend more hours doing both pieces of work. And she'd have nothing.
Why would it be different for countries/cities/states/companies?
Because Americans do not want cheaper goods and services. They want full employment.
Even if such employment makes everything more expensive and results in Americans working longer hours.
Remember, only evil economists say that productivity gains make everyone richer. The truth is, slogging away for 20 hours a day is what people really want.
The concern is that America is importing more than it exports. Overtime, this causes long-term damage to an economy.
If the Chinese are giving you free stuff (if you are giving them less than what they give you, you are getting something for free), why is that bad?
Are the Chinese and every other country that dumb that they want to give away their wealth and work to you for free?
Finally, someone speaks the truth about the damage outsourcing does.My city (woodridge,il) is hemorrhaging jobs because we outsource everything.
We outsource car production, computer production, etc.
Heck, we don't even make our own offshore drilling rigs to drill for oil so we can get petroleum that we can use to make plastic to make little spoons.
It wasn't always like this. A couple of hundred years ago, we manufactured almost everything we needed right here. Everyone was employed.
In fact, there was so much work, people had to work about 18 hours a day.
With all the outsourcing now, there isn't enough work. In fact, there is so little work, people actually sit in front of their TV and do nothing.
Hopefully, the govts around the world stop outsourcing so we can go back to living like we did in the 1700s.
We absolutely need govt. regulation for websites. Greedy private companies, looking out only for their own profit will do nothing to stop problems such as online bullying, adult content targeted toward children, spam, etc.
It is a loony libertarian idea to say that private individuals and companies, left to themselves will sort it out.
It seems to me the distinction we are making is between means and ends. You can patent ideas that embody means of achieving some end, but you can't patent the end in itself.
I don't think you can classify everything into these two groups. Leaving aside the practical difficulty of codifying such a subjective notion into an objective law (99% of the laws are like that), I don't think that these (idea that embody means and ideas that embody the end) are fundamentally two different things.
Like you say in your post, an idea could belong to a different group depending on the context. And different people, even honest ones, in different times will see things differently.
A law should be as generic as possible - i.e., "murder is not allowed" as opposed to "plunging a knife into someone's stomach and causing blood loss is not allowed". Unfortunately, most of the laws in existence today are of the second kind.
I agree with you when you say that there are different kinds of ideas. And your way of classifying them is interesting.
But who makes that judgment? I'm too lazy to think of an example now, but I'm sure someone can think of a case which does not fit into your classification.
Even if that weren't the case, this classification is still subjective and a given idea can be placed into different categories even by honest people. Throw in patent trolls and dumb, supercilious, ignorant, frog-in-the-well judges then the old system might start looking better.
Slashdot Mirror
If the French really like small independent booksellers, why would they need a law to protect them?
Wouldn't most French people patronize the small bookstores thereby driving amazon out of business?
Of course, if it turns out that most people prefer amazon's low prices, then your statement that "the french like their small independent booksellers" would be proven false.
No one has a "right" to what I would call obscene wealth
And what would you consider "proper"? 200 times? 100? And whatever number you come up with, how did you arrive at that multiple?
Microsoft's idea is that I should only be free to choose some flavor of Microsoft, and Microsoft gets to tell me what me needs are and what the options are.
I must have missed that. I have been running linux (at home and at work) for the last 6 years and MS has *never* told me what my options are.
This might be a wild guess, but I think they only impose conditions on you if you enter into a (voluntary) agreement with them.
how about letting supply and demand of the American workforce take over giving pay raises to nearly all of us IT workers.
If you are against importing foreign labor, logically, shouldn't you also be against importing foreign software?
Buying finished software from foreign countries is just another form of outsourcing. It is actually much worse than outsourcing. After all, if importing labor is bad for the local engineers, importing software would be bad for more people than just the engineers - testers, marketing people, etc.
Imagine if all US companies were required to buy software designed, coded, tested and marketing in the USA; salaries would rise, people would pay more taxes and everyone would be richer......wouldn't they?
Not to mention a system where interest rates are not determined by the market, but by a simplistic system where the main variable is the election calendar.
It is funny that everyone who rails against "predatory lending" does not stop to ask themselves why this phenomenon started in 2002/03 when interest rates were indecently low and not, say, in 1990 or 1999.
Yes they did. Like bending over to the unions. The shareholders deserve to lose their investment for employing those clowns.
And all that currency is good where?
(Hint: there is only one country in the world where the U.S dollar is guaranteed to be honored. Guess which one.)
So the money to buy the spoon is obtained by profit from making the spoon?
John used to buy the spoon from Mr.Smith for $1. Mr. Smith buys bread from John for $1. No outsourcing and Lou Dobbs is happy and unemployed.
John now buys the spoon from Mr.Chang for $0.98. Mr. Smith is broke and cannot buy bread from Mr. Smith.
But Mr. Chang buys bread from John. (Or more likely, Mr.Chang buys F16s from Peter who buys more bread from John.)
John is better off by $0.02 & whatever extra he gets from the bread. Mr. Chang is better off because he gets cheaper bread and was able to make a profit from the spoon.
Smith is unemployed and:
1. Realizes that he has to do something else to add value to society. --or--
2. Points a gun at John and forces him to buy spoons from him. --or--
3. Gets the govt. to do (2) for him and calls himself a patriot.
Outsourcing both graphic design and programming ......
And when would I do that? Only when I have an opportunity to earn $100 as a project manager.
Or when I make enough on the margin from outsourcing that it is a net win for me - i.e., I make $49+$24+$5 by outsourcing programming+ outsourcing graphic design+waiting tables.
Of course, if I'm making $73 from outsourcing, I'd spend my free time learning a new skill to be more productive.
And this is exactly how division of labour frees up time to become more productive.
Ok - I'll bite.
Now, we outsource that factory to Somewhere Else, but continue to import the widgets to satisfy domestic demand, perhaps at a lower price.
Good - the lower price tells you that it is more efficient to buy than to make. Or that the other guy is dumb and will go out of business soon.
Now, consumers buy their widgets from Somewhere Else, meaning that wealth flows over there.
Ah, I wasn't aware that each time I buy an apple my wealth is being transferred to the grocery store. I always thought that I got something in exchange for what I gave them. Silly me.
At the same time, all the people who work at the widget factory are unemployed.
So now, not only does the community get widgets for cheaper, they also have all these man-hours to design & build other things.
Wealth is not 'all the people working all the time'. If wealth meant that everyone always had work, then the middle ages would be the wealthiest period in the world and Africa would be the wealthiest place in the world now.
But I do know of a single mother here in IL who could buy a much safer car for a lot less because of outsourcing. Since she paid less for the car, she doesn't have to work overtime to make the car payment.
Guess she is one of those evil people who benefited from outsourcing at the expense of the hard working auto union employee.
You are close.
It is easy to 'apply for citizenship' in each of these towns in IL. It is also easy to move goods and services from/to each of these towns. And we are all better off. No one is "stealing jobs", no one is "transferring wealth".
The same is true for IL and CA or IL and AK for that matter.
It is not so easy to gain citizenship between nations. And it is not so easy to move goods and services between nations.
Do you see the problem yet? Here is a clue:
Go to Google earth and see if you can find the difference between the line that separates Woodridge,IL and Darien,IL and the line that separates USA and Mexico.
No - I completely agree with you. In fact, I want to go much further than you.
I'm tired of all those a-holes from Bolingbrook, Il stealing jobs from Woodridge, Il. Why it is a race to the bottom.
And my employer is in Lemont, Il and is playing a simple wage arbitrage game.
I demand that Woodridge, Il shut its borders and stop exporting jobs to Bolingbrook and Lemont.
We should have an Ikea here in Woodridge. And an Amoco station so we don't spend Woodridge wealth in Darien,Il.
We should also build a microprocessor plant and an Iron mine here in Woodridge, Il so we don't give away our wealth to Intel and Mittal Steel.
The JC Penny can stay in Downer's Grove, Il - we don't want that kind of business here.
It depends on the terms of the sale, doesn't it?
And even if that were true, if I want to take on a mountain of debt to enjoy something in the short term, why should anyone have the right to stop me?
If I own my life and property, I should be able to spend it in whatever way I want. If I want to sell all of my stuff to a Chinese man for some lead-tainted toys, why shouldn't I be able to do that?
Unless of course, I don't really own my life and property.
And that is why everything will not be designed and built overseas. The Chinese would want to sell you stuff only if they know you can pay.
What *will* be designed and built overseas is whatever that can be done cheaper.
If it costs Americans $1 to make a plastic spoon and if the Chinese can sell it for $0.98, then that will be outsourced.
The Chinese know you can pay for it (since you were spending $1 for it until now) and the Americans are better off by $0.02.
The guy who loses is the guy who actually makes the spoon for $1. He can either go do something more productive that people would willingly pay for, or he could gather a bunch of economic ignoramuses and try to force people to buy his stuff.
This is why businesses suck. They cut unprofitable stuff. Why, I make it a point to increase my unprofitable activities. Every day, I wake up and read comic books for 5 hours instead of going to work.
Sure, it is unprofitable and cutting that out would make economic sense, but then there would be no difference between me and the evil corporations.
No. As a nation, we should focus of continuing to do unprofitable things and make things as inefficient as possible.
Remember boys and girls, the more inefficient you are, the more jobs you create. And, as everyone knows, the more jobs you have here, the more wealthy everyone is.
I still don't get it.
When I, as an individual, outsource graphic design to my friend, the both of us benefit and both our 'GDPs' increase. I can focus on programming and she can focus on graphics.
If I stopped 'outsourcing' this to my friend, I'd have to learn both, spend more hours doing both pieces of work. And she'd have nothing.
Why would it be different for countries/cities/states/companies?
Because Americans do not want cheaper goods and services. They want full employment.
Even if such employment makes everything more expensive and results in Americans working longer hours.
Remember, only evil economists say that productivity gains make everyone richer. The truth is, slogging away for 20 hours a day is what people really want.
If the Chinese are giving you free stuff (if you are giving them less than what they give you, you are getting something for free), why is that bad?
Are the Chinese and every other country that dumb that they want to give away their wealth and work to you for free?
Finally, someone speaks the truth about the damage outsourcing does.My city (woodridge,il) is hemorrhaging jobs because we outsource everything.
We outsource car production, computer production, etc. Heck, we don't even make our own offshore drilling rigs to drill for oil so we can get petroleum that we can use to make plastic to make little spoons.
It wasn't always like this. A couple of hundred years ago, we manufactured almost everything we needed right here. Everyone was employed.
In fact, there was so much work, people had to work about 18 hours a day.
With all the outsourcing now, there isn't enough work. In fact, there is so little work, people actually sit in front of their TV and do nothing.
Hopefully, the govts around the world stop outsourcing so we can go back to living like we did in the 1700s.
You seem to suggest that division of work is good. That productivity gains due to specialization is good for the economy.
Next thing you know, you'll suggest that people trade only when it benefits them and hence the local economy.
We don't take kindly to economic truths and common sense around here.
Outsourcing lowers the GDP of our country
Can you please explain how that is so? Reading countless economics text books about the benefits of division of labor have confused me.
We absolutely need govt. regulation for websites. Greedy private companies, looking out only for their own profit will do nothing to stop problems such as online bullying, adult content targeted toward children, spam, etc.
It is a loony libertarian idea to say that private individuals and companies, left to themselves will sort it out.
It seems to me the distinction we are making is between means and ends. You can patent ideas that embody means of achieving some end, but you can't patent the end in itself.
I don't think you can classify everything into these two groups. Leaving aside the practical difficulty of codifying such a subjective notion into an objective law (99% of the laws are like that), I don't think that these (idea that embody means and ideas that embody the end) are fundamentally two different things.
Like you say in your post, an idea could belong to a different group depending on the context. And different people, even honest ones, in different times will see things differently.
A law should be as generic as possible - i.e., "murder is not allowed" as opposed to "plunging a knife into someone's stomach and causing blood loss is not allowed". Unfortunately, most of the laws in existence today are of the second kind.
I agree with you when you say that there are different kinds of ideas. And your way of classifying them is interesting.
But who makes that judgment? I'm too lazy to think of an example now, but I'm sure someone can think of a case which does not fit into your classification.
Even if that weren't the case, this classification is still subjective and a given idea can be placed into different categories even by honest people. Throw in patent trolls and dumb, supercilious, ignorant, frog-in-the-well judges then the old system might start looking better.