[rescue] Do you remember when? Security software.....

Daniel de Young daniel at velvetsea.com
Wed Aug 13 04:38:15 CDT 2003

On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 00:52, Francisco Javier Mesa-Martinez wrote:
> On 12 Aug 2003, Daniel de Young wrote:
> > Fun to joke about :), but IMHO, regulation (and taxes) is the *major*
> > factor in driving jobs overseas.  I don't see how we can regulate
> > business into keeping jobs here.
> Very easy, put tariffs on American products made overseas so that it is
> less "convenient" to ship jobs offshore.

Tempting isn't it.  However, it *could* also be viewed as the same kind
of reactionary response that you're rightly denouncing below.  Is the
answer to the question of "why are they doing this" really nothing other
than laziness and/or greed OR is there something else going on that
would cause all these businesses to ship jobs AND that we NEED to fix?

It depends on what a person views as the problem.  Is the problem that
companies are shipping off jobs en mass?  Could that be a symptom of a
deeper problem?  What's better for the long term?  Doctor's prescribe
medication for symptoms, but that is not by any means a cure.  When
possible, a cure is developed and given medical preference over treating
symptoms.  The problem is that we've made a science out of treating
symptoms so well that we've forgotten about the disease.  This occurs in
all facets of our society these days.  I agree, short term thinking is
the primary problem, but it happens on both sides of the argument.

> In all seriousness, I believe it is both a structural and cultural
> problem. There is little "accountability" for managing teams, therefore
> they can be isolated from consecuences from their actions. Thus making
> their policies rather absurd IMHO. There is also a quick buck mentality,
> and a lack of pride in quality.

There is a severe problem with accountability in our culture these
days.  People used to put there name on something when they did it. 
This is evident in the state of tort law.  What came first the chicken
or the egg? :-)

>   When you tell a person he can't to
> > something, what does he spend most of his waking hours trying to find a
> > way of doing?  What we need is a way to encourage business to keep jobs
> > here.  Incentives work far better than regulations.
> Absolutely, but you must understand that once Corporations get used to
> "incentives" they can use them as "blackmail." And there is no way of
> having any sort of security that once a company has exhausted all the
> "incentives" it will not end up leaving anyways.

Incentives are really the wrong word.  As I see it, there was a time
when business could get away with anything they wanted.  Put thousands
of worker/slaves up in shanty housing and hook them on the company
store, then exploit the crap out of them.  This needed to be taken care
of. Laws were passed and taxes were increased.  The regulations and
taxes have increased every day for 100 years.  At some point it's going
to break the back of business.  All I'm asking is, "is this the time to
re-evaluate our approach?"

>   It's simple human
> > nature.  However, with a press that loves to push the philosophy of tax
> > breaks for people who don't pay taxes
> Huh? I am missing something here, rich people do pay some taxes :)

A quick jibe at the press for the pathetic mantra of how sad and
"disturbing" it was that people who don't pay "income tax" were somehow
not getting "income tax" rebates.  One of the arguments I heard was,
"they pay sales tax!"  Never heard anybody tell them to talk to their
rep about "lowering" sales tax now did I? This is pretty funny for me as
somebody who lives in Sacramento California where the 8th largest
economy in the world is governed and the words "lower" and "tax" haven't
been heard together for quite some time ;-)

> > (just to rally votes) and "end corporate welfare", not to mention a
> > population that increasingly thinks it's "owed" something because it
> > exists, it's unlikely that the US will be saved from total economic
> > implosion.
> I don't believe that most Americans think they are "owed" anything, in
> fact I grew up in Europe and I amazed at the low level of expectations a
> lot of Americans have for returns in their investment in their own
> governmnent (taxes)

Hmmmm, I'm interested to know what you're expectations are.  My wife and
I love to discuss this.  She spent the first 20 years of her life across
the pond.

> > I will never buy the "evil corporation" theory.  Management teams are
> > obligated to make numbers or the board will kick them to the pavement.
> > Anybody who thinks that a corporation ships off jobs just to be assholes
> > is missing the point.
> The point is that they do not research other solutions, at any point those
> management "teams" look for the easiest solution, without any regards for
> past or future consecuencies. They do not do it because they are assholes,
> they do it because they lack the knowledge to actually do their job and
> find a real solution. As long as those management teams are as a
> "reaction" driven system, you might aswell replace them with trained
> monkeys because you will get the same result. At a much much much lower
> cost. IMHO... a management team's job is to MANAGE, not to REACT.

I agree.  Again, the question... what are they reacting to?  Is there a
deeper problem?  Can we cure the problem instead of reacting back and
further perpetuating the chain reaction between government and business?

> Corporations are not evil per se, they are profit oriented... and
> sometimes they can get stuck in some "local" focii (max or min whatever
> you want to look at it). Hence regulation is indeed needed, in the same
> way I do not believe in invisible could beings, I sure as hell do not
> trust things to "invisible" hands... :) Also the problem is that
> corporations are viewed a simple profit driven entities, without any sort
> of expectations for social responsability. Profit and returns are not the
> only thing that should be expected from a corporation. In the same sense
> that "breeding and passing your genes" would not be the only expectation
> from an individual.

Perhaps we should just let government take over business entirely? 
Government is sure to inject some morality and social responsibility
into the process!  hehe (just kidding you)

>   Unfortunately, people feel powerless to enact
> > change and wind up voting for people who's sole mission in life is to
> > transfer their voting base's economic strife into the pockets of
> > business.  Business in turn transfers it back to all the working stiffs
> > and eventually leaves the state or even country and then there is less
> > working stiffs... so they go back to business and the whole cycle starts
> > over.  It's sick really.
> My view is that when you mix inept politicians, with inept business
> managers, and throw a pinch of uneducated voting base... only bad things
> can happen.

I'll agree with this much.  

Just as much of a problem is voters that have been *so* educated that
they cease thinking for themselves and spout out whatever they were told
by there parents or professors.  Everybody does this to certain point,
it's the definition of childhood, but some people never grow up and take
a clear look around themselves to *really* decide what they see and how
they feel about it.  That's the truly sad part... millions of educated,
working, go-getters who spout what they've been told and never think for
themselves.  It's far more disturbing than "uneducated" people who
simply don't know any better.

My $5.85


More information about the rescue mailing list