[markl]

Quote:

1) If trade with China is equivalent to, "China just vacuuming up dollars out of our economy," then why is the US and Europe so eager to trade with China?

I see 4 factors, there's blame to go all around.

1. We have a government who believes blindly in "free trade", it's like a religion to them. They don't seem to remember that it's a two-way street, that your trading partner has to open up their markets to your goods and not "cheat" as China does. When your trading partner is dishonest, you are a fool to keep playing by the rules of "free trade".

2. Our government is a wholly owned subsidiary of coporate interests. Corporations want to be able to move their businesses off-shore to get rid of expensive American workers, all their expensive benefits and all of those pesky regulations that make it so hard for them to do things like pollute.

3. Corporations are driven by next quarters profits at the expense of the long-term bigger picture. Managers are under pressure for profits *now*. This makes them blind to the obvious logic that if they keep shipping our jobs overseas, they will no longer have anyone to sell their goods to in the USA, because we'll all be unemployed. They are also global organizations now, so basic patriotism is a useless appeal.

4. Consumers are bargain-shopping themselves into poverty by buying goods only made in countries that rob people of their labor. Yeah, you got a great deal at Wal-Mart but it's all goods made elsewhere. This drives wages down farther and farther to compete with overseas-based manufacturers, so pretty soon, people earning less and less can't afford to buy American even if they want to.

Check and mate, game over. It's a depressing spiral.

 

[Oski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CookieFactory Because in law a corporation has many of the same rights as natural person. This is like Accounting 101.

That is correct in the legal sense, but we are talking about people who don't see that a corporation serves the collective interest of its shareholders, employees, and customers which amounts to a lot of people. Even when AT&T lays off 10,000 people as someone cited above, doing so will keep the company profitable, which will keep the remaining 162,000 employees on the payroll so they can continue to provide service for millions of subscribers. People tend to lose sight of the fact that many lives are extricably linked to a faceless corporation.

 

[Oski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl Check and mate, game over. It's a depressing spiral.

My turn to say amen to that brotha!

 

[digitalcat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bahamaman You still can. Sony v. MGM is still good law.

Now isn't it funny that Sony went from one side to the other in this battle?

As for illegal file-sharing, if you count the total number of downloads every day on the original Napster and charge the downloader 1 cent per file, maybe both sides would be very very happy. They just don't have the guts for it.

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl 4. Consumers are bargain-shopping themselves into poverty by buying goods only made in countries that rob people of their labor. Yeah, you got a great deal at Wal-Mart but it's all goods made elsewhere. This drives wages down farther and farther to compete with overseas-based manufacturers, so pretty soon, people earning less and less can't afford to buy American even if they want to. Check and mate, game over. It's a depressing spiral.

No kidding.
The masses vote with their wallets.

-Ed

 

[morphsci]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamWill ".... To take the analogy the other way, do you shoot the neighbour's cat if it walks through your yard?

Of course not. After all my dogs deserve some fun, don't they?

 

[morphsci]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamWill ".... To take the analogy the other way, do you shoot the neighbour's cat if it walks through your yard?

Of course not. After all my dogs deserve some fun, don't they?

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bahamaman You still can. Sony v. MGM is still good law. What the Napster case held is that making digital copies available for anyone to copy is fundamentally different from the VCR. First, the VCR, as a practical matter, is limited to making a single (or perhaps a few) copies. Distinguish that from the capabilities of an mp3 file stored on a computer that is accessible to anyone with an internet connection. Second, when I record a movie off television, at least the owner of the copyrighted work made the conscious decision to license the film's showing that evening. Conversely, when you make available "Enter Sandman" to the world on your hard drive, the copyright owner did not agree for you to publish the song. These at least were the arguments the Ninth Circuit in Napster used to distinguish legal "time-shifting" from illegal downloading. It is, imo, a fair distinction.

Yes, but time-shifting rights are being erroded as well. Television executives cannot for some reason see that their audience has a far more busy lifestyle and shorter attention span than when TV and radio first emerged.

When future time-shifting tech is being limited so that it must be watched within a specific period of time before it is automatically deleted or even controlling whether a program can or cannot be time-shifted period, this is very anti-consumer IMO. I won't stand for it, and will not pay for any piece of tech that supports this.

I for one am really reall sick of the whole adversarial TV broadcast industry. "Watch our show at this specific time instead of the other show."

-Ed

 

[Snake]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood I for one am really reall sick of the whole adversarial TV broadcast industry. "Watch our show at this specific time instead of the other show."

Then we, as the consumers, have to say something.

When I was still watching TV (years ago - I watch no television (not a single show) at all now), one of my "favorite" (a long running show that I watched partly out of habit) was moved to compete, in my local market, with another similar show.

I actually found out the telephone number to the station's corporate office, called, and gave them a real piece of my mind. Just like you said, "Why are you making us compete for your show, when we want to watch it anyway???"

I guess they got enough of these types of messages, because the next year they moved it again, to a better spot.

You've got to let these losers know you're going to give them a what-for with their stupidity. Enron got away with things because not a single group, not large enough anyway, moved against them. They bitched - to themselves - and did nothing publically.

Gripe. "The empty barrel makes the most noise"

 

[CookieFactory]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood Yes, but time-shifting rights are being erroded as well. Television executives cannot for some reason see that their audience has a far more busy lifestyle and shorter attention span than when TV and radio first emerged. When future time-shifting tech is being limited so that it must be watched within a specific period of time before it is automatically deleted or even controlling whether a program can or cannot be time-shifted period, this is very anti-consumer IMO. I won't stand for it, and will not pay for any piece of tech that supports this. I for one am really reall sick of the whole adversarial TV broadcast industry. "Watch our show at this specific time instead of the other show." -Ed

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood No kidding. The masses vote with their wallets. -Ed

So in your opinion, when consumers vote with their wallets, is it a good thing or bad?

 

[blip]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CookieFactory So in your opinion, when consumers vote with their wallets, is it a good thing or bad?

If I may grab a question intended for someone else... It is neither bad nor good. Just like voting is neither bad nor good. (Though an argument could be made that at least since it is possible it is always inherently slightly good. See T.H. Breen's "Market Place of Revolution" for the extension of this argument. While imperfect, its a book that all Americans at least should read and seriously evaluate the implications of) The consumer holds quite a few of the cards in modern society and can, to some extent, dictate terms.

The thing is the corporations get that and try to repress the recognition of this power in every way possible. And human beings (perhaps more importantly) tend to think on a fairly short time frame (not our fault really, its worked just fine for the last 20,000 years.. but times they are a changing) so they favor immediate gains even if that results in a long-term loss.

 

[MrEcted1]

Sheesh, soon local bands will have to pay royalties just so they can play cover songs.

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CookieFactory So in your opinion, when consumers vote with their wallets, is it a good thing or bad?

In the case of Walmart, bad.

Can't have it both ways. Many complain about loss of manufacturing jobs, etc. But then demand cheaper and cheaper goods.

-Ed

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrEcted1 Sheesh, soon local bands will have to pay royalties just so they can play cover songs.

Probably.

Only if the song is really popular.

-Ed

 

[Jasper994]

Not completely off topic...

Thanks Blip for the link in your sig regarding the Sony/BMG discs... I'll be on the look out...

All this crap makes me want to buy less and less mucic.