Re: [PLUG] Free Software

[zuzu <sean.zuzu@gmail.com>]

On 10/26/07, Matthew Rosewarne <mrosewarne@inoutbox.com> wrote:
>
> Well, we shot past the Europeans for several reasons, some our own doing, and
> some their doing.  Our problem comes from supply and demand, in the following
> situation:
>
>         Act 1: Mid 20th century
>                 The USA manufacturing base, pumped up by the war effort and public works
> projects (for reference, not free market economics) has overwhelming
> productive capabilities.  The US also has cutting-edge research and
> technology, yielding a pace of innovation seldom seen in history.  The
> innovators dream up new technologies, the industry manufactures them, and the
> populace (now wealthy from being the source of that innovation and
> production) consume more than ever.
>
>         Act 2: Late 20th century
>                 Seeing a way to increase proftits, US companies open manufacturing
> facilities in impoverished but stable countries, and subsequently start
> closing facilities in the US.  Those consumers not initially effected by the
> shift encourage this behaviour, as it results in lower prices for consumer
> goods.  Since manufacturing jobs start to dry up, much of the population must
> turn to fields such as services, technology, or finance in order to make a
> living.  Fairly soon, lower-level jobs in these other fields are also
> relocated, causing the population to fall back more on the fields that
> remain, particularly the knowledge- and service-oriented fields.
>
>         Act 3: Early-Mid 21st century
>                 Having gained enough wealth to develop strong educational and financial
> infrastructures of their own, the formerly-impoverished countries no longer
> require the innovation or financial management of the US.  The US, having
> abandoned manufacturing, technology, and now inevitably most of the other
> trades at which it formerly excelled, slides into recession, since there is
> no longer much for it to export to the other countries.  The only solid
> sources of income remaining are agriculture and raw materials, which in
> themselves do not provide much of a trade surplus.  The lack of exports
> causes income to dry up, resulting in wage loss and unemployment, in turn
> causing our consumption to plummet.  Now that the population can no longer
> afford them, the services market suffers.  Without a strong partner to help
> rebuild our economy, like our Marshall plan did for Europe after WWII, it is
> a long time before the US sees prosperity once again.
>
>
> So what I'm saying is, we can't rely on our intellect as our only export to
> the world, since as they begin to supply "intellectual capital" themselves,
> there is much less demand for ours.  If we still had a broad range of
> supply-side occupations, particularly manufacturing, it would be enough to
> achieve an equitable balance.  I'm not saying we should let poorer countries
> rot, nor am I saying we should all drop out of college to make steel, but
> that we shouldn't sacrifice the next decades of our economy in exchange for a
> higher stock price next quarter.

I don't mean to blithely dismiss this much writing without considering
it more, but after my first reading you seem to implicitly assume that
economics is a zero-sum game.  perhaps this is because you're
challenging the assumption that all trade is both-benefit?
___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --        http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  --   http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug