Outsourcing to India and China

java-programmer, Outsourcing to India and China Phillip Lord <email***@***.com> wrote in message news:<email***@***.com>...
> >>>>> "Loco" == Loco Pollo <email***@***.com> writes:
>
> >> >this is anti free trade and ultimately anti freedom.
> >>
> >> Free trade is not necessarily a good thing.
>
> Loco> no but many good can come of it.
>
> >> First it encourages shipping goods all over the planet that could
> >> have been produced locally. This wastes fuel and pollutes the
> >> atmosphere.
>
> Loco> in a truly market economy, it wouldn't happen unless it is
> Loco> cost effective. this would include the cost of pollution.
>
> No it wouldn't. The market economy fails to work for any commodity
> where the cost of charging for that commodity either outweighs the
> value of that commodity, or worse, there is no way to charge for a
> commodity.
>
> For example, I like hill walking. In the UK there are lots of
> hills. Its not possible to charge for them because building a large
> fence around the for example, the 150 miles of the peninnes would cost
> a massive amount. Worse there is a legal "right to roam" which
> effectively stops the land owners from doing this anyway.

imho what your talkin bout has nothin to do with a free market. if
there's no market for it the market wouldn't be there. if there is a
need a market would self create itself. in your example, no company
would try to charge you for the trails you use if there was no way to
make $ off of it(of course there is and they are, hiking boots from
texas, rain jacket made in china, etc..). the destruction of nature
caused by hikers has more to do with govt and user obligations than
with free trade. actually none of that example has to do with free
trade.

> Of course in the US, it would be a different matter, as you would just
> build a gate across the road leading too the hills, which would
> effectively block all access.

actually we got what's called national parks where the govt pays for
its upkeep subsidized by entry fees. i'm guessing our national park
system has 100s of millions of people accessing them per yr and
preserves what would otherwise be developed.

> >> It enables multinationals to exploit workers by threatening to
> >> move to where labour and environmental laws are laxest.
>
> Loco> multinationals are no different than national companies. if a
> Loco> country "can" manage a national company, i see no reason why
> Loco> the world can't manage a multinational.
>
> We don't have a world government. The only "regulatory" bodies for
> multinationals for some reason seem to work in the interest of the
> multinationals, or more accurately the interest of those who own the
> multinationals rather than the population at large.

we do have a world govt. there are people who specialize in
international laws. yes multinationals have way too much power,
however, this isn't because of free trade. its because we as a species
are too greedy and corrupt.

we have everything we need to create a paradise but none of the social
maturity to accomplish it.

java-programmer >> Outsourcing to India and China Phillip Lord <email***@***.com> wrote in message news:<email***@***.com>...
> >>>>> "Loco" == Loco Pollo <email***@***.com> writes:
>
> >> >this is anti free trade and ultimately anti freedom.
> >>
> >> Free trade is not necessarily a good thing.
>
> Loco> no but many good can come of it.
>
> >> First it encourages shipping goods all over the planet that could
> >> have been produced locally. This wastes fuel and pollutes the
> >> atmosphere.
>
> Loco> in a truly market economy, it wouldn't happen unless it is
> Loco> cost effective. this would include the cost of pollution.
>
> No it wouldn't. The market economy fails to work for any commodity
> where the cost of charging for that commodity either outweighs the
> value of that commodity, or worse, there is no way to charge for a
> commodity.
>
> For example, I like hill walking. In the UK there are lots of
> hills. Its not possible to charge for them because building a large
> fence around the for example, the 150 miles of the peninnes would cost
> a massive amount. Worse there is a legal "right to roam" which
> effectively stops the land owners from doing this anyway.

imho what your talkin bout has nothin to do with a free market. if
there's no market for it the market wouldn't be there. if there is a
need a market would self create itself. in your example, no company
would try to charge you for the trails you use if there was no way to
make $ off of it(of course there is and they are, hiking boots from
texas, rain jacket made in china, etc..). the destruction of nature
caused by hikers has more to do with govt and user obligations than
with free trade. actually none of that example has to do with free
trade.

> Of course in the US, it would be a different matter, as you would just
> build a gate across the road leading too the hills, which would
> effectively block all access.

actually we got what's called national parks where the govt pays for
its upkeep subsidized by entry fees. i'm guessing our national park
system has 100s of millions of people accessing them per yr and
preserves what would otherwise be developed.

> >> It enables multinationals to exploit workers by threatening to
> >> move to where labour and environmental laws are laxest.
>
> Loco> multinationals are no different than national companies. if a
> Loco> country "can" manage a national company, i see no reason why
> Loco> the world can't manage a multinational.
>
> We don't have a world government. The only "regulatory" bodies for
> multinationals for some reason seem to work in the interest of the
> multinationals, or more accurately the interest of those who own the
> multinationals rather than the population at large.

we do have a world govt. there are people who specialize in
international laws. yes multinationals have way too much power,
however, this isn't because of free trade. its because we as a species
are too greedy and corrupt.

we have everything we need to create a paradise but none of the social
maturity to accomplish it.

java-programmer >> Outsourcing to India and China Michael Borgwardt <email***@***.com> wrote in message news:<bttrmm$ancsn$email***@***.com>...
> Loco Pollo wrote:
> > i think that is the distinct difference between japan and the rest of
> > asia. during the critical imperical age of the western world, japan
> > chose to learn as about the west whereas korea and china chose to
> > isolate themselves as much as possible out of fear and mistrust.* of
> > course they were right to fear and mistrust but they failed to evolve
> > as a result of their protectionist attitudes.
>
> What's the "imperical age"? If you mean "imperialist", the statement is
> utterly wrong. Japan had isolated itself far more completely than
> China or Korea ever did (or could) during the Edo period up to about
> 1860, i.e. they missed most of what's generally called the age of
> imperialism, whereas China was practically a colonly and not
> at all isolated throughout this time, until the collapse of the
> empire in 1911.

japan like all asian nations protected its borders with a passion,
however japan tried to import western ideas far earlier than other
asian nations. even back during their 3 kingdoms period i believe.
think that was like 1700s??? the portugese brought in things like
muskets that had a "slight" influence on the course of the entire
country. china and korea on the other hand always had a "see no evil",
"hear no evil", "speak no evil" attitude towards foreigners throughout
the entire western imperical age. and this is what i'm speaking of.

> It's true that Japan very intensively embraced western science and
> culture after they were forced to end the isolation; this was mostly
> an effort to end their military and economical inferiority and avoid
> becoming as dominated by western countries as China had been.

well yeah that's exactly my point. a protectionist attitude is the
reason japan caught up with the western world. the reason the western
world was so far ahead is because they were in contact with the rest
of the world where most of the world chose to close itself off. and
that's the main difference between japan and the rest of asia.

> > * almost nothing japanese is really japanese its their interpretation
> > of korea's interpretation of china.
>
> Almost nothing <insert European country> is really <insert European country>,
> it's their interpretation of ancient rome's interpretation of ancient greece.
> Something similar is true for every country on this world.

umm.. its more about the extent of the influence. of course every
society is made up of interpretations of other society. i don't think
anyone can possibly argue that point. frankly i think your statement
was more to be agressive than to actually make any redemable
statement.

i don't think i'm the first person to recognize that japanese culture
has always been very good at perfecting other people's technologies
and with good reason. and if your japanese i hope you'll recognize
that i said that in the most complimentary way.

java-programmer >> Outsourcing to India and China Loco Pollo wrote:
> japan like all asian nations protected its borders with a passion,
> however japan tried to import western ideas far earlier than other
> asian nations. even back during their 3 kingdoms period i believe.
> think that was like 1700s??? the portugese brought in things like
> muskets that had a "slight" influence on the course of the entire
> country.

Sorry, but you're apparently talking about something you have very little
knowledge of. There is no such things as a "three kingdoms period"
in Japanese history, and the 1700s are right in the middle of the
Edo period (roughly 1600-1850) during which Japan was *absolutely*
isolated - there was a single Dutch trade outpost in Nagasaki, and
they were allowed very little contact with Japanese outside the
government. Any Japanese who left the country were executed if they
returned.

The first firearms were brought to Japan just before the beginning
of the Edo period and used in some wars, but the Tokugawa shoguns
banned them completely, including for their own army.

> china and korea on the other hand always had a "see no evil",
> "hear no evil", "speak no evil" attitude towards foreigners throughout
> the entire western imperical age. and this is what i'm speaking of.

Even if they had such an attitude, they were far less isolated and
imported far more western ideas and technologies than Japan during most of
that time.

>>>* almost nothing japanese is really japanese its their interpretation
>>>of korea's interpretation of china.
>>
>>Almost nothing <insert European country> is really <insert European country>,
>>it's their interpretation of ancient rome's interpretation of ancient greece.
>>Something similar is true for every country on this world.
>
>
> umm.. its more about the extent of the influence.

And there the difference is far smaller than you think.

> i don't think i'm the first person to recognize that japanese culture
> has always been very good at perfecting other people's technologies
> and with good reason.

You're certainly not the first. In fact, it's a very strong clich?- it
*may* have some truth to it, but you're overstating it to a ridiculous
extent and make it sound like *the* basic trait of Japanese culture,
which is nonsense.

java-programmer >> Outsourcing to India and China In article <bu0egb$c4260$email***@***.com>,
Michael Borgwardt <email***@***.com> wrote:
>Loco Pollo wrote:
>> i don't think i'm the first person to recognize that japanese culture
>> has always been very good at perfecting other people's technologies
>> and with good reason.
>
>You're certainly not the first. In fact, it's a very strong clich?- it
>*may* have some truth to it, but you're overstating it to a ridiculous
>extent and make it sound like *the* basic trait of Japanese culture,
>which is nonsense.

Well, he is spot on in a way. The ability to adopt earlier successes -
wherever they come from, is a (if not _the_) basic trait of _any_
successful human civilization.

It's either that or live in caves.

Of course, this trait is so fundamental to us all it's not usually
worth bringing up :-)

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - email***@***.com - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

java-programmer >> Outsourcing to India and China >>>>> "Loco" == Loco Pollo <email***@***.com> writes:

>> No it wouldn't. The market economy fails to work for any
>> commodity where the cost of charging for that commodity either
>> outweighs the value of that commodity, or worse, there is no way
>> to charge for a commodity.
>>
>> For example, I like hill walking. In the UK there are lots of
>> hills. Its not possible to charge for them because building a
>> large fence around the for example, the 150 miles of the peninnes
>> would cost a massive amount. Worse there is a legal "right to
>> roam" which effectively stops the land owners from doing this
>> anyway.

Loco> imho what your talkin bout has nothin to do with a free
Loco> market. if there's no market for it the market wouldn't be
Loco> there. if there is a need a market would self create
Loco> itself. in your example, no company would try to charge you
Loco> for the trails you use if there was no way to make $ off of
Loco> it

No you are missing the point. You can not charge for access to the
hills. To do so you would have to restrict access to those who have
actually paid. The cost of doing this would exceed the money that you
made of the hills. This is because you would have to police a massive
border which people could just walk across.

Loco> (of course there is and they are, hiking boots from texas,
Loco> rain jacket made in china, etc..). the destruction of nature
Loco> caused by hikers has more to do with govt and user obligations
Loco> than with free trade. actually none of that example has to do
Loco> with free trade.

Yes, just as free trade has little to do with protecting the
environment in general. The prevailing capitalist ideology has spread
this notion that Adam Smith's invisible hand will automatically appear
and solve everything, or worse that we can only judge the value of
something by the price that we can charge for it. As you say "if there
is a need a market would self create itself". Well its not true. Even
if something is highly valuable to society, this does not mean you can
sell it.

As for hiking boot manufacturers they are selling boots, which you can
charge for. Not hills.

>> Of course in the US, it would be a different matter, as you would
>> just build a gate across the road leading too the hills, which
>> would effectively block all access.

Loco> actually we got what's called national parks where the govt
Loco> pays for its upkeep subsidized by entry fees. i'm guessing our
Loco> national park system has 100s of millions of people accessing
Loco> them per yr and preserves what would otherwise be developed.

I was being sarcastic.

As for entry fees, again this would not work in Britain. We don't have
"trails", and the roads going through the hills are not access roads,
they are just normal parts of our infrastructure. If you want to hill
walk you stop the car, or get out of the train, and walk up the hill.

Fortunately we to have national parks. We have decided to fund
something as a society because the free market would have failed to
do so.

>> We don't have a world government. The only "regulatory" bodies
>> for multinationals for some reason seem to work in the interest
>> of the multinationals, or more accurately the interest of those
>> who own the multinationals rather than the population at large.

Loco> we do have a world govt. there are people who specialize in
Loco> international laws.

Funny, I must have missed the last election.

Loco> yes multinationals have way too much power, however, this
Loco> isn't because of free trade. its because we as a species are
Loco> too greedy and corrupt.

Multinationals have fast amounts of power because they have lots of
cash. They have lots of cash because "free trade" as you insist on
calling capitalism is about "to those that have shall more be
given". Capitalism puts control of most resources into as few hands as
possible. In this it's even worse than the aristocracy that preceded
it.

Loco> we have everything we need to create a paradise but none of
Loco> the social maturity to accomplish it.

Yes I agree. Hopefully we will gain this maturity, and dumping free
trade and capitalism as a motivation in itself will be an important
part of this maturity.

Phil

java-programmer >> Outsourcing to India and China In message <3NDMb.8321$email***@***.com>, Andrew
Thompson <email***@***.com> writes
>| Tor> I think you will find SUVs can be driven off-road. :P
>|
>| In the UK most SUV's are too be found inside the M25 (the
>orbital
>| around London). I suspect few of them would actually work off
>road,..
>
>Would they work off a cliff? City based
>SUV drivers could learn from the lemmings.

Blimey - a thread from the TV series "Grumpy Old Men" - que withering
sarcasm from Will Self...
--
Stephen Kellett
Object Media Limited http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk
RSI Information: http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk/rsi.html

java-programmer >> Outsourcing to India and China Roedy Green <email***@***.com> wrote in message news:<email***@***.com>...
> On 9 Jan 2004 06:58:58 -0800, email***@***.com (bigbinc) wrote or
> quoted :
>
> >I sound like I hate different cultures or countries. I am watching
> >out for you guys. You are being exploited. You, India, China should
> >make a better, for example database product, then put Oracle out of
> >business, I would buy it.
>
> I wonder if Oracle and Microsoft have factored that possibility. If
> you train people in the inner workings of your product, can't they on
> their own time build a better mousetrap and sell it dirt cheap in
> comparison?
>
> Again think of Japan. In the 50s the Japanese were presumed capable
> only of copying other designs, doing nothing original. Oops!
>
> There is a racism and a presumed superiority that may make the
> American overlords overconfident.

Just a theory of course, but I think that is why other countries dont
have the wealth that we have. We are a little cutthroat. There is a
lot in our society, passed down, generation to generation that we must
try to gather and collect as much as we can, as fast as we can. In
our countries, the mentatility is a little more humble. As a result,
the meaner tougher guy gets the more stuff.

java-programmer >> Outsourcing to India and China sometimes i gotta wonder if we deserve this paradise we happen to
exist on. and no we're probably gonna end up takin the dolphins with
us <dolphin looks up from his sports pages with concern sayin "wtf did
we ever do to ya'll?">. did we make sure all the innocent civilians
made it out alive during all our wars?

but.. you gotta recognize that we as a species is about the most
amazing thing this planet has ever produced. it would be the tragdey
of all tragdies if we as a species cesce to exist so close to creating
a paradise. we have all the resources and technology we need, just not
the social progress.

Roedy Green <email***@***.com> wrote in message news:<email***@***.com>...
> On 12 Jan 2004 12:56:52 -0800, email***@***.com (Loco
> Pollo) wrote or quoted :
>
> >better regulation may curb this problem but i think the fundamental
> >issue is that most people don't care. they are too selfish to think of
> >anyone but themselves, their own family, race, nation, or what ever
> >category they feel most attached to.
>
> For millions of years, that attitude has sufficed. Man only had to
> worry about getting through a winter. There was little point in
> thinking further ahead than that. It is only recently that our actions
> have had such massive long term effects. Hunters could depopulate a
> region if they overkilled, but the game would come back if they left
> it alone. With agriculture, we started making permanent changes to
> the landscape, first to clear for our fields, then by losing soil
> through erosion.
>
> In the last century we have invented thousands of new ways to
> massively affect the environment from global warming, to pollution, to
> damming, to fertilizer runoff, to nuclear war, to bioterror, to
> paving, to introducing artificial genes into the environment.
> We are like little kids running amok doing experiments on the life
> support systems of planet earth -- not models -- on the production
> system.
>
> Yet we still deal with this with our million-year old "let's just
> worry about getting through the winter" attitude. It has sort of
> worked up to now, which leads people to have a naive faith it will
> continue to work.
>
> The odds of not doing something really catastrophic get worse and
> worse. It takes fewer and fewer people to do more and more damage.
> Further, the Scrooge ethic that one should scramble to get the maximal
> benefit for oneself, screw everyone else is spreading. People tend
> more and more to define benefit in a very one dimensional way -- as
> money, neglecting comfort, health, beauty, safety, justice ...
>
> This probably explains why we have not found other nearby intelligent
> technological life. Technological intelligence, too quickly evolving,
> annihilates itself.
>
> I just hope when we go, we leave some of the other interesting life
> forms behind such as whales, dolphins, kangaroos, elephants, coral
> reefs, rainbow trout...

java-programmer >> Outsourcing to India and China Phillip Lord <email***@***.com> wrote in message news:<email***@***.com>...
> >>>>> "Loco" == Loco Pollo <email***@***.com> writes:
>
> >> No it wouldn't. The market economy fails to work for any
> >> commodity where the cost of charging for that commodity either
> >> outweighs the value of that commodity, or worse, there is no way
> >> to charge for a commodity.
> >>
> >> For example, I like hill walking. In the UK there are lots of
> >> hills. Its not possible to charge for them because building a
> >> large fence around the for example, the 150 miles of the peninnes
> >> would cost a massive amount. Worse there is a legal "right to
> >> roam" which effectively stops the land owners from doing this
> >> anyway.
>
> Loco> imho what your talkin bout has nothin to do with a free
> Loco> market. if there's no market for it the market wouldn't be
> Loco> there. if there is a need a market would self create
> Loco> itself. in your example, no company would try to charge you
> Loco> for the trails you use if there was no way to make $ off of
> Loco> it
>
> No you are missing the point. You can not charge for access to the
> hills. To do so you would have to restrict access to those who have
> actually paid. The cost of doing this would exceed the money that you
> made of the hills. This is because you would have to police a massive
> border which people could just walk across.

i don't think i did. maybe i can try to be more clear. a market
creates itself if there is a need. this is a natural process that
occurs. even in your example, a market exists to allow hikers access
to hills. countries market their beaches no different than a
restaurant markets its atmosphere. are they chargin for the
atmosphere? no but is it a market that's been created out of a need?
yes.

just to repeat the usa is full of national parks (at least in the west
where i've spent most of my life) that caters to i'd say hundreds of
millions per year. generating god know how much $. in other words they
are essentially "chargin access to the hills".

now its obvious that its in the best long term economic interest to
preserve this resource, however, its corruption and short sightedness
that damages this resource not the idea of captitalism.

> Loco> (of course there is and they are, hiking boots from texas,
> Loco> rain jacket made in china, etc..). the destruction of nature
> Loco> caused by hikers has more to do with govt and user obligations
> Loco> than with free trade. actually none of that example has to do
> Loco> with free trade.
>
> Yes, just as free trade has little to do with protecting the
> environment in general. The prevailing capitalist ideology has spread
> this notion that Adam Smith's invisible hand will automatically appear
> and solve everything, or worse that we can only judge the value of
> something by the price that we can charge for it. As you say "if there
> is a need a market would self create itself". Well its not true. Even
> if something is highly valuable to society, this does not mean you can
> sell it.

i do agree emphatically that a market economy is not the magical
answer to all our hopes. my feelings are that capitalism has been
unfairly judged by most socialists due to history and that free trade
holds many hopeful promises for all mankind that would be a tragdey
not to leverage fully.

i also agree that we can't judge everything based on the price you can
charge for it. you can't say that michael jordan is more worthy a
person than lets say a doctor risking his life to save others.
however, he IS worth hundreds of millions of dollars more. $ != person
but $ = $.

> As for hiking boot manufacturers they are selling boots, which you can
> charge for. Not hills.

don't have to charge $ to make $ off the hills. its still a market
that creates itself from need or want.

> >> Of course in the US, it would be a different matter, as you would
> >> just build a gate across the road leading too the hills, which
> >> would effectively block all access.
>
> Loco> actually we got what's called national parks where the govt
> Loco> pays for its upkeep subsidized by entry fees. i'm guessing our
> Loco> national park system has 100s of millions of people accessing
> Loco> them per yr and preserves what would otherwise be developed.
>
> I was being sarcastic.
>
> As for entry fees, again this would not work in Britain. We don't have
> "trails", and the roads going through the hills are not access roads,
> they are just normal parts of our infrastructure. If you want to hill
> walk you stop the car, or get out of the train, and walk up the hill.
>
> Fortunately we to have national parks. We have decided to fund
> something as a society because the free market would have failed to
> do so.

the entire island of britain and your tourism dept is the store front.
very beautiful island. never been but everytime i see pictures, i see
somethin.

> >> We don't have a world government. The only "regulatory" bodies
> >> for multinationals for some reason seem to work in the interest
> >> of the multinationals, or more accurately the interest of those
> >> who own the multinationals rather than the population at large.
>
> Loco> we do have a world govt. there are people who specialize in
> Loco> international laws.
>
> Funny, I must have missed the last election.

i think your just arguing for arguments sake lol. the statement was
that there IS a world govt. not that its a democratic one based on
your understanding of proper british govt. fact is there are
international laws that all nations have to understand and deal with
no different than you as a citizen.

> Loco> yes multinationals have way too much power, however, this
> Loco> isn't because of free trade. its because we as a species are
> Loco> too greedy and corrupt.
>
> Multinationals have fast amounts of power because they have lots of
> cash. They have lots of cash because "free trade" as you insist on
> calling capitalism is about "to those that have shall more be
> given". Capitalism puts control of most resources into as few hands as
> possible. In this it's even worse than the aristocracy that preceded
> it.

just because the rich get richer doesn't mean that the poor have to
get poorer. the presiding paradigm is that the resources(not just
natural) are finite. that if you take alot others have to settle for
less. its anything but the case. the more we create the more we have.
if a guy can get stinkin rich by making cheap food that much cheaper,
he has created more resources this planet would have had if he didn't
get rich. he made the "pie" bigger.

the reason the poor get poorer has nothin to do with free trade it has
to do with humanity.

> Loco> we have everything we need to create a paradise but none of
> Loco> the social maturity to accomplish it.
>
> Yes I agree. Hopefully we will gain this maturity, and dumping free
> trade and capitalism as a motivation in itself will be an important
> part of this maturity.
>
> Phil

i believe captitalism holds a critical key to gobal unification and
prosperity, however, we will never get there without the social
progress and the united common purpose that communism brings. fail to
learn from either ideology and we all continue to suffer.

$ as a motivator does show lack of maturity (in which case i'm 12 yrs
old) but $ is not a commodity its just a tool to help us trade. it
doesn't matter if your trading with $ or kinky sex that would shock
madonna. no one should limit the right to do so. its this meddling
nature of man that limits our possibilities and this is what i
emphatically oppose not socialism.

java-programmer >> Outsourcing to India and China and all of the points you mention have to do with corruption of law
rather than free trade. in fact if there was free trade the workers
would be free to trade their labor to the highest bidder. a cartel
that partakes in price fixing and black listing is about the most
anti-free trade action anyone can take.

let me reiterate that i DO recognize that in PRACTICE there are many
faults of capitalism, however, they have to do with human weaknesses
rather than allowing people to freely trade with one another. in
addition, in practice, capitalism has created a better standard of
living for the avg person than has communism.

> Child labour was of course an issue, but its not the only point.
>
> With the invention of the steam powered mills, combined with the
> taxation rules of the day, the existing textiles industry was put out
> of business. The mill owners controlled both the mills, and the
> surrounding housing which was largely appallingly bad, and of course
> the mill owners formed a cartel so that anyone complaining or
> attempting to improve the lots of the workforce would be blacklisted
> from all of the mills.
>
> What you call the "free market" is more exactly "capitalism". Here a
> few people control the majority of the resources, which enables them
> to inflict terrible things on most of the population. It's largely
> similar to what happened in the US where the mining owners
> controlled the mines, accommodation and the company store. And
> nowadays what are called "economic action zones" where many of
> our clothes and shoes come from.
>
> The free market is a fine sounding thing. People can sell their goods,
> and people can buy them whether they want. But if you think this has
> much to do with the way we run our society, then you are deluded.
>
>
> Phil

java-programmer >> Outsourcing to India and China Michael Borgwardt <email***@***.com> wrote in message news:<bu0egb$c4260$email***@***.com>...
> Loco Pollo wrote:
> > japan like all asian nations protected its borders with a passion,
> > however japan tried to import western ideas far earlier than other
> > asian nations. even back during their 3 kingdoms period i believe.
> > think that was like 1700s??? the portugese brought in things like
> > muskets that had a "slight" influence on the course of the entire
> > country.
>
> Sorry, but you're apparently talking about something you have very little
>
> knowledge of. There is no such things as a "three kingdoms period"
> in Japanese history, and the 1700s are right in the middle of the
> Edo period (roughly 1600-1850) during which Japan was *absolutely*
> isolated - there was a single Dutch trade outpost in Nagasaki, and
> they were allowed very little contact with Japanese outside the
> government. Any Japanese who left the country were executed if they
> returned.

maybe i'm not an expert on japanese history but they DID have a 3
kingdoms period during which the imported muskets played a pivotal
role. these muskets were brought in from the dutch and the portugese.
i'll try to find some sources.

>
> The first firearms were brought to Japan just before the beginning
> of the Edo period and used in some wars, but the Tokugawa shoguns
> banned them completely, including for their own army.

it was banned AFTER unification along with all weapons.

> > china and korea on the other hand always had a "see no evil",
> > "hear no evil", "speak no evil" attitude towards foreigners throughout
> > the entire western imperical age. and this is what i'm speaking of.
>
> Even if they had such an attitude, they were far less isolated and
> imported far more western ideas and technologies than Japan during most o
> f
> that time.

japan adopted western methods far earlier than any other asian nation.
i don't thing too many historians would disagree with that. china was
forced deal with the western world. even if they we'rnt isolated they
were far less open to western ideas than japan and history does prove
this. japan adopted western methods far earlier.

> >>>* almost nothing japanese is really japanese its their interpretation
> >>>of korea's interpretation of china.
> >>
> >>Almost nothing <insert European country> is really <insert European cou
> ntry>,
> >>it's their interpretation of ancient rome's interpretation of ancient g
> reece.
> >>Something similar is true for every country on this world.
> >
> >
> > umm.. its more about the extent of the influence.
>
> And there the difference is far smaller than you think.

i think the extent of foreign influence on japan is the single
greatest factor of how japan came to be what it is today. much more so
than in other nations.

> > i don't think i'm the first person to recognize that japanese culture
> > has always been very good at perfecting other people's technologies
> > and with good reason.
>
> You're certainly not the first. In fact, it's a very strong clich - it
>
> *may* have some truth to it, but you're overstating it to a ridiculous
> extent and make it sound like *the* basic trait of Japanese culture,
> which is nonsense.

never said it was a "basic trait". i basically said their ability to
copy things and make them better was equaled by no one. its perfectly
natural to see something that makes sense and do the same thing, then
add a few things you've learned somewhere else. its idiotic and bull
headed not to. the very foundation of human intelligence rests on
this. its called learning. in a way i guess it is a basic trait of
man. so yeah it is a basic trait. the japanese have had much success
as a result of it.

i don't think i've "overstated to a ridiculous point" i think you've
read into it from your own opinions to a ridiculous point.

java-programmer >> Outsourcing to India and China > Well, he is spot on in a way. The ability to adopt earlier successes -
> wherever they come from, is a (if not _the_) basic trait of _any_
> successful human civilization.

but would you say some cultures are more predisposed to adopt foreign
ideas more than others? frankly its obvious to me that some cultures
are far more predisposed and this predisposition correlates directly
to success in the modern world.

> It's either that or live in caves.
>
> Of course, this trait is so fundamental to us all it's not usually
> worth bringing up :-)

i don't think anyone is arguing whether humans learn. i think my
premise is that japan was predisposed to adopt foreign ideas much more
than other asian nations and this was The Difference that saved them
from western agression.

its also fundamental trait (don't know if its "not worth bringin up")
that is constantly on fire. every nation seems bent on "doin it their
way" considers everyone else crazy, etc.. but i do agree it is the key
to success.

to tie it to this thread (which is really straying), we can't take a
protectionist attitude when it comes to any industry. especially one
that is basically ideas.

java-programmer >> Outsourcing to India and China >>>>> "Loco" == Loco Pollo <email***@***.com> writes:

Loco> i don't think i did. maybe i can try to be more clear. a
Loco> market creates itself if there is a need. this is a natural
Loco> process that occurs. even in your example, a market exists to
Loco> allow hikers access to hills.

No. There are hills, and I can walk on them. I have to pay nothing to
do so. The hills have to be maintained using funds gained in a way
other than by charging for them.

Markets, and capitalism, involve selling and owning things. As I say
they can not cope where you can not charge for a commodity.

Loco> just to repeat the usa is full of national parks (at least in
Loco> the west where i've spent most of my life) that caters to i'd
Loco> say hundreds of millions per year. generating god know how
Loco> much $. in other words they are essentially "chargin access to
Loco> the hills".

I am fully aware of the national parks in the US. Of course its
sometimes possible to charge independently of the actual goods..that
it you provide people with nice hills but charge them lots for tea.

Loco> now its obvious that its in the best long term economic
Loco> interest to preserve this resource, however, its corruption
Loco> and short sightedness that damages this resource not the idea
Loco> of captitalism.

Capitalism provides no ability to preserve these resources. You can
not charge for them. Your notion that started off this thread was that
if the environment is important a market would be created. No it
wouldn't. A market requires the ability to charge.

If you want another example, I'd suggest music. Look at the problems
the recording industry are in. In the past they could prevent copying
because you needed large scale resources to copy. Now you don't. So
they are asking for new and punitive laws to enable to charge.

Loco> i do agree emphatically that a market economy is not the
Loco> magical answer to all our hopes. my feelings are that
Loco> capitalism has been unfairly judged by most socialists due to
Loco> history

And the present day.

Loco> we do have a world govt. there are people who specialize in
Loco> international laws.
>>
>> Funny, I must have missed the last election.

Loco> i think your just arguing for arguments sake lol. the
Loco> statement was that there IS a world govt.

No. There are a set of national governments. "International law"
exists, but its a very different beast from national law.

Loco> just because the rich get richer doesn't mean that the poor
Loco> have to get poorer.

Sadly since the advent of Reaganomics, and neo-liberalism however, the
poor have got poorer. Of course it is possible to increase the size of
the pie. But most of what we these days call "wealth creation" is
actually redistribution. The pie is not increasing that quickly.

Loco> it doesn't matter if your trading with $ or kinky
Loco> sex that would shock madonna. no one should limit the right to
Loco> do so. its this meddling nature of man that limits our
Loco> possibilities and this is what i emphatically oppose not
Loco> socialism.

Again the ability to sell things is only the tinest part of what is
meant by "the free market".

Phil