Replies

Sorry about not tending to my posting for a goodly period of time. I have been busy.

1. I don't generally pay any attention to something Chuck Schumer attaches his name to or people who are third assistant anything.

2. Alan Greenspan's most recent testimony seems to agree with my position. This is a much more credible source.

That the new and somewhat brutal rules of the information age affect highly overpaid American software engineers is hardly news. That they are in a better employment position than the less bright and less well educated is indisputable and the thought that they might need or warrant protection is foolish. The information age means a vibrant economy depends upon our our goods and services competing overseas. We can not compete if we erect barriers of any kind because the ultimate cost of barriers is higher cost.

We can remove hobbles, however, that serve only to hamper our competitiveness. For example, why should a US corporation producing product or basing service within the US have to pay Corporate Income Tax on its export earnings when they are subjected to similar tax within market country (usually at a lower rate)? Sure, there are offsetting deductions but not enough to compensate for being taxed twice. And, the foreign company, not facing this situation of double taxation at the higher American rates, has a cost advantage. Why do you think wholly owned American subsidiaries of Japanese companies make essentially no profit in the US (Because they shift all the costs that they can to the American side of the books, keeping the profits at home where there are dramatically lower taxes)?

Similarly, we can strongly incentivize and strongly defend intellectual property. Why? Because at the moment we remain the world's leader in creativity and it is essential to keep the IP value side of margin on-shore. The laws are already there and are agreed to on an international basis. They are, however, inadequately enforced at our borders.

In a market like the U.S. with low population density where the labot force is not in competition with the world pop., the wages are precisely what they should be because each labor unit is scarce. No one is overpaid unless you are looking for a world equilibrium wage. If this is the case, your view is that most people should or must be poor and that the few who own the global corporations in significant chuncks are the only ones who should have "real" money.

I am always amazed at people's willingness to write off the vast majority of "we the people," because of the holy theory of comparative advantage. I am sure that similar arguments were made for keeping monopolies intact. Our goods and services (whichever of those we have left that have not and will not be outsourced due to the necessity of geographical proximity) don't meaningfully employ the majority of the American population. Sadly, most of the people work for the government. I think that it is clear that the only reason that is so is so that social peace can be maintained and business can go on as usual.
Please use the mind that God gave you.