[2banana]

My letter to Mike Evans:

Dear Mike Evans,

I enjoyed your interesting article in the October CADCAMNet issue. I do not think you will win many converts though.

However, I disagree with you on the "political point" of:

"We all benefit from growth in the percentage of the worldwide population with disposable income. They are building a stake in peace and prosperity. Those with nothing have no stake. The vast disparity in wealth that exists today is unsustainable."

To make such a statement, you must prove that:

1. That wealth disparity anytime in the past was any different. Was it "smaller" during the era of Victoria England when the Crown owned India? Was it smaller when Europe was industrializing and Russia still had serfs? Was it any different when Rome ruled the world and barbarian tribes could not understand the "arch method" of building?

2. What is the definition of "wealth?" The "poor" in industrialized countries are vastly better than the "poor" of 100 years ago. The "poor" of America would be considered "upper middle class" in any third world country. Is it purely based on the accumulation of material possessions? Not all cultures in the world measure their "wealth" by "stuff."

3. The system of government of a country has no effect on peace and prosperity. I have traveled the world over and by far the biggest contributing factor for a country being "poor" is governmental corruption that stifles entrepreneurship, risk takers, wealth creation/ownership and dissenting political opinion. Building disposable income, peace and prosperity in a developing countries will never happen without a government that will at least tolerate people working for their own betterment. And by far, the governments that are the most corrupt and stifling of wealth creation in developing countries are the ones based on socialist/communist methods of government/economic systems. Haiti has the lowest wages in the western hemisphere yet companies will not move any production there. Nigeria is a country blessed with abundant natural resources (they are the 7th largest exporter of oil;) yet their economy is a basket case. Poor Cubans that flee their homeland with nothing and yet prosper in America. Zimbabwe went from a net exporter of foodstuffs to near starvation as its government changed to a communist method of land redistribution. Israel (with 5.5 million people) out produces the entire Arab world (250 million people) combined (non-oil exports) and has the highest standard of living in the Middle East (without any significant oil deposits).

You do not make "poor" countries better by making "rich" countries weaker. All you do is make the entire economic system worse. You also imply that the people being "outsourced" are doing so for the greater good of the world economy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Best Regards,

2banana

[ClintonBeGone]

There are some amazing bargins on the web. Places where you can put out for bid a project and have people from all over the world bid on it. Two of my favorites are:

http://www.elance.com/

http://www.scriptlance.com/

I had a buddy get his business logo designed for $25 by a guy in Hungary (versus $500 American firms were proposing). He also got a fully functional database driven website for $150 by a firm in India, where the American firms were bidding over $2000. If any fool wants to support these outragous prices, be my guest. The rest of us will get rich on the bargins.

[eno_]

Your rebuttal is a muddle.

You imply that there because are poor people throughout history, and because there are poor people somewhere today, we are justified in being protectionist at the expense of, say, Indians and Chinese (and ourselves, for that matter).

The fact that poor Americans are relatively well-off just undermines your point: It's it better for a go-getter in India to get that money than a welfare slacker here?

Your one-paragraph treatise on comparative advanatges is a muddle inside a muddle: If China and India are well-enough governed to become prosperous, why should we stand in the way? Indeed, the conclusion seems to be that our own government is the cause of any economic woes we have, and indeed it is: If taxes and regulation were reduced, we would have a Golden Age here, no matter what the price of CAD/CAM workers in India.

[TexasCajun]

Observers usually describe this in negative terms, often saying that manufacturing jobs are exported from their country. It can certainly be a disaster for individuals stuck in industrial towns in West Virginia, Flanders, the Ruhr, or the West Riding of Yorkshire, partly because they are not getting enough help to cope with change. For many citizens of developed countries, however, the positive effect of change outweighs the negative issues and cost of help.

This is exactly how John FnKerry Liberals, especially Massachuettes & Hollywood Liberals think. But in an election here, they just can't reveal their true beliefs, just as Rush always had said.

[Willie Green]

The developed economies benefit from increasing numbers of potential customers in emerging economies wanting their sophisticated goods.

Mr. Evans apparently doesn't understand trade deficits.
The so-called "undeveloped" countries are the one's producing the sophisticated goods, while the "developed" countries are producing diddly-squat. IOW, those of us who have struggled for decades to build up our standard of living are being sucked down into the economic black-hole of Third World poverty.