Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
Skip to search.
 

Re: Help! Offshoring/Outsourcing

Expand Messages
  • Dan Minette
    ... From: Warren Ockrassa To: Killer Bs Discussion Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 12:11 PM Subject: Re:
    Message 1 of 12 , Sep 29, 2004
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Warren Ockrassa" <warren@...>
      To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@...>
      Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 12:11 PM
      Subject: Re: Help! Offshoring/Outsourcing


      > On Sep 29, 2004, at 3:13 AM, Erik Reuter wrote:
      >
      > [actually a forward of an article by Brad DeLong]
      >
      > > What are the people who used to sit in their huts and make coir mats
      > > doing instead? We don't know. But we do know one thing: Whatever they
      > > are doing, they would rather be making coir mats.
      >
      > I believe that is an indefensible assertion. There is no evidence to
      > support this conjecture; the people making mats might well instead be
      > performing some other labor, at a factory perhaps instead of in their
      > one-room hovels, that pays considerably more than the money-grubbing
      > racket ever did.

      If those jobs were readily available, why didn't they have enough sense to
      think that a job paying $2.00 an hour was better than one paying $.25 an
      hour (Ritu can give me better figures)?

      > My postulate is just as feasible, just as likely as the worst-case
      > speculation submitted by DeLong.

      Huh? His explaination reflects the real world....at least as described by
      my Zambian daughter. Almost exclusively, people in poor countries that
      take work like this see it, realistically, as a chance to improve their lot
      in live. Neli would love to have "exploitive" American factories in
      Zambia. What hurts Africa is the refusal of Europe to open trade with
      Africa.

      > > Those who took up the
      > > option of making coir mats did so because it seemed to them to be the
      > > best available option.
      >
      > That's similarly insupportable. Certainly making mats is not preferable
      > to acquiring an education (there *are* public schools in India). This
      > is another premise that DeLong wishes us to accept without
      > consideration of plausible alternatives.

      He merely supposes that the people choose what they think is best for them.
      When the best jobs are taken, the next best jobs then become more
      attractive.
      >even though the entire crux of DeLong's argument is
      > (in essence) that the desperately poor choose to remain so. ("If they
      > didn't have doormats to make they'd be doing something worse/less
      > productive.")

      The second statement is accurate and has little to do with the first
      statement. The desperately poor will gladly take the next rung up on the
      ladder, no matter how low that rung is. Destroying that rung does not get
      them to the next rung, rather it lowers the chance for them to get to the
      next rung.

      > There's subtle -ism at play here too, possibly racism or culturism: If
      > our great corporations didn't magnanimously extend their
      > ever-so-generous economic patronage, keeping the lowest economic rung
      > occupied, why, who knows what mischief Those People might get up to?

      That is not an accurate reading. His point is that the people who do this
      choose to becasue there alternatives are worse. All one does if one stops
      the selling of these doormats is consign these people to a poorer
      existance.

      > DeLong's argument sounds very suspiciously like some of those advanced
      > to support slavery, but that's hardly surprising, as toiling day after
      > day making mats for a corporation, with no hope whatsoever for
      > advancement or escape, is, in essence, just that.

      No, it is not....unless the people were not allowed to quit.


      > Used to be that liberals were bashed for wanting to "throw money at a
      > problem" to make it go away. I'm unable to distinguish a difference
      > here. Spend money buying fourth world goods and the problems in those
      > countries will evaporate? Piffle.

      So, why has it already happened elsewhere? Tawian and South Korea, for
      example, were both dirt poor countries One can measure it happening. One
      can calculate the loss to poor countires when rich countries insist on
      paying higher prices locally instead of buying goods

      > The problem with the "do something worse than..." argument is that it's
      > totally hollow. If an exploitive, wealthy culture moves in and abuses
      > the local economy for its massive gain (and minimal recompense is
      > offered to the laborers), that culture has effectively become a
      > monopoly -- on *work source*.
      >
      > If that massive, or even large-scale, work source were not available,
      > other modes of employment, which might or might not be "better", would
      > become available to the locals. (What did they do before old white cows
      > in the states got a collective moistie for doormats? India's culture is
      > about 20 times as old as America's -- 5000:250 years -- they had to be
      > occupied during at least SOME of that time.)

      Right, in subsitance farming...with just a little left over to fund an
      aristocracy and a few tradesmen. Life in the ancient world was
      unbelievably difficult by today's standards. Going back to that ecconomy
      would require that the overwhelming majority of the world die from
      starvation.

      > This is significant in part because, even if wages were worse, the odds
      > of the business being owned and operated entirely by the locals would
      > be much better. Whatever capital was made would then be diverted
      > entirely back into the community -- not a pittance skimmed from vast
      > offshore coffers.

      But, all the money that is coming in is from the outside. India's ecconomy
      is doing much better now than in the '60s, when corporate investment faced
      many more hurdles. Gautam or Ritu are both free to correct me, but I'm
      pretty sure that the ecconomic situation in India has improved greately
      since their international trade increased.



      > What's being carefully ignored by DeLong, though, is the inverse
      > pyramid. That a vast amount of capital is acquired by relatively few.
      > This is a significant problem. Every economy that has *ever* existed
      > with wealth concentrated among only a very few has been fundamentally
      > unequal, fundamentally undemocratic, and in the main feudal. DeLong is
      > arguing in favor of a feudalistic social structure that is covered with
      > a very thin veneer of democracy (at best; at worst he's arguing for an
      > economic colony-state), and it's reprehensible.

      No, he is arguing for the only realistic way to improve the lot of the poor
      in the world. Indeed, I'd argue that its not our responsibility to boycott
      products from India because wages in India are too low. Its the
      responsibility of the government of India, which is fairly representative,
      to do this. If it doesn't, its the responsiblity of the people to throw
      the rascels out, and get a new bunch of rascles that will get at least this
      right.


      > And as long as fools propagate this policy of usury, problems will
      > continue to get worse, not better.

      OK, let me understand this. I know my daughter, who's interned for the
      IMF, and is finishing her degree in economics feels like Brad does. She
      would _love_ to have the kind of international trade that you call
      exploitive, because it would help her people. Why is she a fool for this?
      Why is living on substance farming, a bad drought away from a famine,
      better than life in India.

      Zambia has a per capita GDP of $800. It has 50% unemployment. Its exports
      to the US are about 24 million. (< $2.50 per person). 86% of the people
      are below the poverty line. Its Gini index is about .51

      India, on the other hand, has a per capita GDP of $2,900, with 9.5%
      unemployment. Its exports to the US are about $14 billion (~$14 per
      person) Its Gini index is about .38.

      Zambia has minimal investment in foreign trade that produces jobs. Its
      main sources of foreign exchange are the selling of electricity to South
      Africa and its copper mines. Jobs like the ones you describe as slavery
      would be a step up for most people.

      Why is Neli a fool for wanting the lot of her people to improve?

      Dan M.


      _______________________________________________
      http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
    • Gautam Mukunda
      ... Certainly not. What factory do you think is available to employ these people? If those jobs were around, why on earth do you think that they would not be
      Message 2 of 12 , Sep 29, 2004
        --- Warren Ockrassa <warren@...> wrote:
        > I believe that is an indefensible assertion. There
        > is no evidence to
        > support this conjecture; the people making mats
        > might well instead be
        > performing some other labor, at a factory perhaps
        > instead of in their
        > one-room hovels, that pays considerably more than
        > the money-grubbing
        > racket ever did.
        >
        > My postulate is just as feasible, just as likely as
        > the worst-case
        > speculation submitted by DeLong.

        Certainly not. What factory do you think is available
        to employ these people? If those jobs were around,
        why on earth do you think that they would not be
        working there already? They are working on mats
        because that is the best option available for them.
        This is so obvious as to verge on a tautology - people
        take the best option available to them.

        > That's similarly insupportable. Certainly making
        > mats is not preferable
        > to acquiring an education (there *are* public
        > schools in India). This
        > is another premise that DeLong wishes us to accept
        > without
        > consideration of plausible alternatives.

        This is nothing more nor less than the imposition of
        your values on people in an entirely different
        context. When you're barely living on a subsistence
        income, you _don't) have the option of acquiring an
        education, because you're spending all day, every day
        trying to feed yourself and your family.
        >
        > The problem is that the foregoing assertions, which
        > are glossed over
        > and buried in a way that makes it seem like they
        > wish to be hidden,
        > carry no weight, even though the entire crux of
        > DeLong's argument is
        > (in essence) that the desperately poor choose to
        > remain so. ("If they
        > didn't have doormats to make they'd be doing
        > something worse/less
        > productive.")

        No, the problem is that Brad's exactly right, and
        people like Seth Stevenson do more harm to the Third
        World than the most predatory MNC that has ever
        existed.
        >
        > There's subtle -ism at play here too, possibly
        > racism or culturism: If
        > our great corporations didn't magnanimously extend
        > their
        > ever-so-generous economic patronage, keeping the
        > lowest economic rung
        > occupied, why, who knows what mischief Those People
        > might get up to?

        Yeah, but it's your subtle -ism, not Brad's, that
        would lead you to deny these people the option of the
        best job that they can find.

        > Perhaps manufacturing drugs (to sell to the wealthy)
        > or engaging in
        > petty cutpursery (perpetrated against wealthy
        > tourists) -- in other
        > words, we're keeping them economically suppressed
        > for their own good
        > (and to protect White Folks from Those People's
        > idle, devil-occupied
        > hands), because like the blacks were in the Southern
        > US in the early
        > 1800s, they's jus' too simple to knows any betta',
        > boss.

        Does this have anything to do with what Brad was
        writing, or is it just gibberish? The companies
        working in India aren't keeping people economically
        suppressed, they're the only people doing much
        effective to _help_ them.
        >
        > DeLong's argument sounds very suspiciously like some
        > of those advanced
        > to support slavery, but that's hardly surprising, as
        > toiling day after
        > day making mats for a corporation, with no hope
        > whatsoever for
        > advancement or escape, is, in essence, just that.

        Nonsense. They can always quit, which is what makes
        slavery different from a job. The reason they are in
        that job is because it's better than what they were
        doing before they took the work manufacturing mats.

        > Used to be that liberals were bashed for wanting to
        > "throw money at a
        > problem" to make it go away. I'm unable to
        > distinguish a difference
        > here. Spend money buying fourth world goods and the
        > problems in those
        > countries will evaporate? Piffle.

        Really? South Korea? Taiwan? China? The incredible
        economic advancement that India is seeing? The
        difference here should be obvious to anyone. Making
        mats creates economic value and begins the creation of
        an industry. "Throwing money at problems" that didn't
        involve that sort of creation of an industry usually
        did far more harm than good, because it distorted the
        local economy in unsustainable ways.
        >
        > The problem with the "do something worse than..."
        > argument is that it's
        > totally hollow. If an exploitive, wealthy culture
        > moves in and abuses
        > the local economy for its massive gain (and minimal
        > recompense is
        > offered to the laborers), that culture has
        > effectively become a
        > monopoly -- on *work source*.

        Do you have any idea of what life was like in India
        even twenty years ago? How about 200? The grinding
        poverty of rural India is something that most
        Americans cannot even begin to imagine. It's no worse
        now than it was 2000 years ago. The _difference_ is
        that now, because of those exploitive wealthy cultures
        you condemn, those people have the hope of something
        better.
        >
        > If that massive, or even large-scale, work source
        > were not available,
        > other modes of employment, which might or might not
        > be "better", would
        > become available to the locals. (What did they do
        > before old white cows
        > in the states got a collective moistie for doormats?
        > India's culture is
        > about 20 times as old as America's -- 5000:250 years
        > -- they had to be
        > occupied during at least SOME of that time.)

        Yes, they were. It's called subsistence farming. It
        involves backbreaking labor from dawn to dusk every
        day, without a break, with an average lifespan of 30
        years and infant mortality rates in the 50% range.
        There were also only about 200 million Indians, not a
        billion of them. Where, exactly, do you think this
        "better" source of work is going to come from? If it
        was there, why wasn't it there already?
        >
        > This is significant in part because, even if wages
        > were worse, the odds
        > of the business being owned and operated entirely by
        > the locals would
        > be much better. Whatever capital was made would then
        > be diverted
        > entirely back into the community -- not a pittance
        > skimmed from vast
        > offshore coffers.

        So you mean, they would be worse off ("even if wages
        were worse") but no one else would be making any
        profit. And you somehow think this is _better_?
        >
        > What's being carefully ignored by DeLong, though, is
        > the inverse
        > pyramid. That a vast amount of capital is acquired
        > by relatively few.
        > This is a significant problem. Every economy that
        > has *ever* existed
        > with wealth concentrated among only a very few has
        > been fundamentally
        > unequal, fundamentally undemocratic, and in the main
        > feudal. DeLong is
        > arguing in favor of a feudalistic social structure
        > that is covered with
        > a very thin veneer of democracy (at best; at worst
        > he's arguing for an
        > economic colony-state), and it's reprehensible.

        This is economic gibberish. He's arguing for
        something that does a lot of good for the people of
        India today. As in right now. India _was_ a feudal
        culture. It _isn't_ today, and that has lots to do
        with western influence.
        >
        > Of course this is precisely the same kind of drivel
        > one hears from
        > wealthy people in the US as well. And as the divide
        > between rich and
        > poor becomes greater in our "jobless" economic
        > "recovery", as the
        > middle class -- which used to be the backbone of
        > American society --
        > continues to shrink, we're going to continue to see
        > more dreck spewed
        > from patsies such as DeLong as the US continues to
        > more closely
        > resemble the very third- and fourth-world countries
        > it exploits for
        > cheap labor now.

        Well, if we listen to your economic advice, that's
        probably true. Of course, those third world countries
        would be plunged into starvation and anarchy, so we'd
        still be _relatively_ better off.
        >
        > And as long as fools propagate this policy of usury,
        > problems will
        > continue to get worse, not better.

        Well, true, but not in reference to the people you
        meant.

        Bob, you asked why I'm not joining you with the
        non-crazy Democrats? This is why. Among many
        reasons, this is a pretty good one.

        =====
        Gautam Mukunda
        ulysses02143@...
        "Freedom is not free"
        http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com



        __________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
        http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
        _______________________________________________
        http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
      • Gautam Mukunda
        ... It s not, actually. My panel s on Saturday. Thanks for the article. ===== Gautam Mukunda ulysses02143@yahoo.com Freedom is not free
        Message 3 of 12 , Sep 29, 2004
          --- Erik Reuter <ereuter@...> wrote:

          > It's too late for Gautam's request, but Brad DeLong
          > wrote an insightful
          > article about offshoring yesterday:

          It's not, actually. My panel's on Saturday. Thanks
          for the article.

          =====
          Gautam Mukunda
          ulysses02143@...
          "Freedom is not free"
          http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com



          _______________________________
          Do you Yahoo!?
          Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
          http://vote.yahoo.com
          _______________________________________________
          http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
        • Dan Minette
          ... From: Gautam Mukunda To: Killer Bs Discussion Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 2:39 PM Subject: Re:
          Message 4 of 12 , Sep 29, 2004
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Gautam Mukunda" <ulysses02143@...>
            To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@...>
            Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 2:39 PM
            Subject: Re: Help! Offshoring/Outsourcing


            > --- Erik Reuter <ereuter@...> wrote:
            >
            > > It's too late for Gautam's request, but Brad DeLong
            > > wrote an insightful
            > > article about offshoring yesterday:
            >
            > It's not, actually. My panel's on Saturday. Thanks
            > for the article.

            Gee Gautam, here Eric did you a favor and you go and tell him he's wrong.
            <grin>

            Dan M.


            _______________________________________________
            http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
          • Dan Minette
            ... From: Dan Minette To: Killer Bs Discussion Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 1:18 PM Subject:
            Message 5 of 12 , Sep 29, 2004
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Dan Minette" <dsummersminet@...>
              To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@...>
              Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 1:18 PM
              Subject: Re: Help! Offshoring/Outsourcing



              > No, he is arguing for the only realistic way to improve the lot of the
              poor
              > in the world. Indeed, I'd argue that its not our responsibility to
              boycott
              > products from India because wages in India are too low. Its the
              > responsibility of the government of India, which is fairly
              representative,
              > to do this.

              Rereading this, I think I was a bit unclear in my writing. Its the
              responsibility of the government of India to write labor laws that are in
              the best interest of the people of India. If a minimum wage would be a
              good thing, it would be that government's responsibility to define that
              wage and to ensure that companies comply with it. It is not the
              responsiblity of the United States to judge what's in the best interest of
              India.

              If India were ruled by a totalitarian government, then interference might
              be justified. If it were ruled by a genocidal minority (as in the Sudan),
              then interference would be justified. But, since the government of India
              is elected...even with all the problems that Ritu mentions, its far better
              for that government to determine the best interest of India instead of you
              and me. They have thrown the old rascels out just recently, so it clearly
              can be done. It's the responsibility of the citizens of India to make sure
              that the new government does a good job or to find someone that will. IMHO,
              India is improving, so I think the people are doing there job reasonably
              well. But, that's just my opinion, Ritu's opinion is far more important
              than mine in this situation.

              We both have the right to our opinion; but my primpary responsibility is
              towards good government in the US and hers is towards good government in
              India.

              Dan M.


              _______________________________________________
              http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
            • Erik Reuter
              ... Dan: Actually, you re wrong too! (Erik). Gautam: Cool! I d like to hear about the panel afterwards if you have any interesting stories. I can t cite a good
              Message 6 of 12 , Sep 29, 2004
                On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 03:10:26PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:

                > From: "Gautam Mukunda" <ulysses02143@...>
                >
                > > --- Erik Reuter <ereuter@...> wrote:
                > >
                > > > It's too late for Gautam's request, but Brad DeLong wrote an
                > > > insightful article about offshoring yesterday:
                > >
                > > It's not, actually. My panel's on Saturday. Thanks for the
                > > article.
                >
                > Gee Gautam, here Eric did you a favor and you go and tell him he's
                > wrong.

                Dan: Actually, you're wrong too! (Erik).

                Gautam: Cool! I'd like to hear about the panel afterwards if you have
                any interesting stories.

                I can't cite a good article on it, but something I've read several
                times (mentioned offhand in articles about offshoring) is that the most
                important thing we can do to support free trade is to improve the safety
                net for the unemployed in America.

                The reason is that millions of Americans are viscerally afraid of
                "losing my job to a foreigner who will do my job for 20% of my
                salary." While economists and economist-wannabes like ourselves realize
                that in the long run, this is a GOOD thing, nevertheless there IS some
                basis in reality to their fear. One problem is that many Americans lose
                their health insurance if they lose their job -- this really needs to be
                addressed if we want the public to favor free trade. I also think that
                a lot more could be done on a national level to support adult education
                and (re)training. As long as people are afraid of how they will take
                care of their family 6 months from now, it is difficult for them to
                think rationally about the longer term good of the world.



                --
                Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
                _______________________________________________
                http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
              • Erik Reuter
                On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 10:11:34AM -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote: [ snipped a lot of comments that completely missed the points Brad was making ] ... These
                Message 7 of 12 , Sep 29, 2004
                  On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 10:11:34AM -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote:

                  [ snipped a lot of comments that completely missed the points Brad was
                  making ]

                  > DeLong's argument sounds very suspiciously like some of those advanced
                  > to support slavery, but that's hardly surprising, as toiling day
                  > after day making mats for a corporation, with no hope whatsoever for
                  > advancement or escape, is, in essence, just that.

                  ...

                  > What's being carefully ignored by DeLong, though, is the inverse
                  > pyramid. That a vast amount of capital is acquired by relatively few.
                  > This is a significant problem. Every economy that has *ever* existed
                  > with wealth concentrated among only a very few has been fundamentally
                  > unequal, fundamentally undemocratic, and in the main feudal. DeLong
                  > is arguing in favor of a feudalistic social structure that is covered
                  > with a very thin veneer of democracy (at best; at worst he's arguing
                  > for an economic colony-state), and it's reprehensible.

                  These comments are amazing to anyone who knows Brad's biography and
                  opinions. Please note that Brad was Deputy Assistant Secretary for
                  Economic Policy 1993-1995 (i.e., during the Clinton Administration).
                  During a time when economic policy was exactly the opposite of what you
                  accuse Brad of advocating above. In addition, Brad regularly criticizes
                  the Bush II policies of tax cuts for the wealthy and not doing enough to
                  stimulate jobs.

                  > Used to be that liberals were bashed for wanting to "throw money at a
                  > problem" to make it go away. I'm unable to distinguish a difference
                  > here. Spend money buying fourth world goods and the problems in those
                  > countries will evaporate? Piffle.
                  >
                  > The problem with the "do something worse than..." argument is that
                  > it's totally hollow. If an exploitive, wealthy culture moves in and
                  > abuses the local economy for its massive gain (and minimal recompense
                  > is offered to the laborers), that culture has effectively become a
                  > monopoly -- on *work source*.

                  I'm guessing not from your comments that you are not familiar with the
                  economic principle of comparative advantage.

                  Here's a simple model. Assume an Indian can produce either 6kg of coir
                  mats per day or 2kg of food per day. An American can produce 24kg of
                  food per day or 12kg of coir mats per day. The American has an absolute
                  productivity advantage in both products -- regardless of whether the
                  American chooses to make mats or food, the American will make more than
                  the Indian. However, since the Indian has a comparative advantage of
                  mats and the American has a comparative advantage in food, it STILL
                  BENEFITS _BOTH_ PARTIES TO TRADE. The American should make food and the
                  Indian should make mats. (It will even work out for the good in less
                  extreme examples than this...try it!)

                  Equivalence Table
                  -----------------------------------------------
                  MASS PER DAY (kg) | LABOR PER KG (days)
                  Indian American | Indian American
                  ===============================================
                  Mats | 6 12 | 1/6 1/12
                  Food | 2 24 | 1/2 1/24
                  -----------------------------------------------

                  To see why both parties benefit, you need to look at the value of mats
                  and food to each person. To the American, the opportunity cost of 1kg
                  of mats is 1/12 of a day's work, and the cost of 1kg of food is 1/24
                  of a day. In contrast, the Indian values 1kg of mats at 1/6 of a day
                  and 1kg of food at 1/2 of a day. If the American is offered a 1kg mat,
                  the American would be willing to pay anything less than 1/12 of a day's
                  work, which for the American is equal to 2kg of food. For example,
                  the American would happily trade away 1kg of food to get a 1kg mat,
                  believing this to be a great bargain. To the Indian, 1kg of food is
                  worth 1/2 of a day, which for the Indian is equal to 3kg of mats. In
                  other words, the Indian would be willing to trade away anything less
                  than 3kg of mats to receive 1kg of food. When the American offers to
                  provide the Indian with 1kg of food and only asks for a 1kg mat in
                  return, the Indian is all too happy to make the trade (the Indian would
                  even have been willing to provide 2kg of mats for the 1kg of food).

                  Indeed they are so happy, that they do the same trade a total of 3 times
                  that day. At the end of a hard day's work and trade, the Indian has 3kg
                  of mats (having made 6kg and traded away 3kg) and 3kg of food from the
                  American, which is equivalent to TWO DAYS OF WORK (1/6 x 3 + 1/2 x 3)
                  for the Indian! And the American has 21kg of food (24 - 3) and 3kg of
                  mats, which is equivalent to 1/24 x 21 + 1/12 x 3 = 1 1/8 days work.
                  Both finish the day with product worth MORE TO THEM THAN ONE DAY'S WORK!

                  I think a lot of people get confused in thinking about the situation
                  because the complexity of real world trade can obscure the fundamental
                  principles. An important idea that often gets obscured is that there
                  are really only two fundamental ways to increase the well-being of
                  people who already work hard all day -- increase the quantity and
                  quality of the capital stock they possess, or increase their skills and
                  education. This is true in poor countries, where the most important
                  capital is water, land, livestock, and agriculture related, and the most
                  important skills and education involve agriculture and basic medicine.
                  It is also true in rich countries, but the most important capital and
                  skills are usually related to new technology, intellectual property,
                  managements and capital allocation.

                  But I digressed from my point which is that you need to improve the
                  capital and/or the skills and education of a people to help them. If
                  people are working every waking hour just to eat, then there is nothing
                  left over for them to invest in capital, and there is no time for
                  them to improve theirselves. If, on the other hand, people are free
                  to trade as shown in the example above, then people can end up with
                  more food than they could make themselves in one day, and still have
                  something left over to invest in the future. Progress! Slow, perhaps
                  even agonizing, but definite progress.

                  Want faster progress? Here are some of my favorite charities that
                  concentrate on making investments in the future of people and villages
                  rather than just providing handouts:

                  http://www.ashoka.org/

                  http://www.gfusa.org/

                  http://www.lifewater.org/

                  http://www.heifer.org/


                  --
                  Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
                  _______________________________________________
                  http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                • Gautam Mukunda
                  ... Sure. It s going to be...interesting. I love meeting people who are a lot smarter than I am. Now, being on the same stage with people who are a lot
                  Message 8 of 12 , Sep 29, 2004
                    --- Erik Reuter <ereuter@...> wrote:
                    > Gautam: Cool! I'd like to hear about the panel
                    > afterwards if you have
                    > any interesting stories.

                    Sure. It's going to be...interesting. I love meeting
                    people who are a lot smarter than I am. Now, being on
                    the same stage with people who are a lot smarter than
                    I am (and given that the chair of my panel is on the
                    shortlist for the Nobel Prize in economics, and one of
                    the other speakers has already won it, I'm quite
                    confident that I'm out of my league) that I'm nervous
                    about. But hey, it's going to be fun one way or the
                    other. Dan Drezner (www.danieldrezner.com) is going
                    to be there, so if you want more than one perspective
                    (or a much better one, actually) you should check out
                    his webpage - he's presenting on Friday, I think.

                    =====
                    Gautam Mukunda
                    ulysses02143@...
                    "Freedom is not free"
                    http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com



                    __________________________________
                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
                    http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
                    _______________________________________________
                    http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.