Paul Bramscher <pfbram_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>> Paul Bramscher <pfbram_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> BearItAll wrote:
>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Microsoft Shuts Down Linux 10 Years Ago Says Iowa Attorne
>>>>>
>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>> | Going back now to as early as 1998, Microsoft starts to realize that
>>>>> | Linux might pose a possible threat, and Vinod Valloppillil, who is
>>>>> | a program manager at Microsoft, is asked by Mr. Allchin, Jim Allchin,
>>>>> | to analyze potential strategies for combatting open-source software,
>>>>> | and specifically Linux.
>>>>> | His memos are leaked to the press in April -- I beg your pardon --
>>>>> | in October of 1998 and become known as the Halloween documents.
>>>>> | And the evidence will be that Microsoft uses its influence in the
>>>>> | OEM channel, the computer manufacture channel, to make sure that
>>>>> | end users have a difficult time buying PCs with Linux preinstalled.
>>>>> `----
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> http://www.linuxelectrons.com/News/RoundUp/Microsoft_Shuts_Down_Linux_10_Years_Ago_Says_Iowa_Attorney
>>>>> Microsoft's Dirty OEM-Secret
>>>>>
>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>> | They are, in short the secret to Microsoft's success. And the word
>>>>> | secret is to be taken quite literally: No OEM may talk about the
>>>>> | contents of his contract, or he will lose his license, and (assumption)
>>>>> | likely be sued for breach of contract as well.
>>>>> `----
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110
>>>> The problem with this stuff comes when trying to distinguish between the
>>>> parts that are bullying, underhanded, monopolistic and those parts that are
>>>> just good business decisions for the time that they were made.
>>>>
>>>> Take coaches. When the government put the busses out to tender, there was
>>>> some tax advantage in being a local bus or coach company, to do with the
>>>> distance between bus stops serviced (I don't know exactly how that worked,
>>>> but that was the gist of it). So, one enterprising man and wife who until
>>>> then were quite a small player in the coach industry, put a bus stop in
>>>> every service station down the M1, and M6, which effectively meant they
>>>> could undercut the long distance coaches by quite a lot and cover just
>>>> about the whole country, certainly the most used routes.
>>>>
>>>> Other bus and coach companies shouted and screamed, but it was simply a
>>>> matter that National Express had thought of it first. Well done I would
>>>> say. Now they are the largest of the coach companies and many of those that
>>>> were around prior to that move have now gone.
>>>>
>>>> Some could say that National Express is effectively a monopoly within the
>>>> bus and coach industry, simply because of their success, but should they
>>>> really be punished for success, in particular a single decision that lead
>>>> to that success probably a much greater degree of success than the two
>>>> owners would have thought possible at the time they thought of it? Now that
>>>> they are the biggest, they can undercut all oposition simply because it is
>>>> possible for them to balance profit and loss over many more active coaches,
>>>> simple accounting.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that capping them or punishing them for success is the way to
>>>> deal with such things, there is nothing wrong in my book with success based
>>>> good products or an intelligent or wise decision.
>>> Well, you need to ask what "success" can and cannot be legitimately
>>> built on. Corporations are so-called "fictitious individuals":
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation.
>>>
>>> The globalized corporations are somewhat based on several dynamics
>>> wholly inimical to the free market & free exchange of ideas:
>>> 1. They drop down borders of intellectual property, patents, etc. which
>>> are little more than "idea cartels", prohibiting others from
>>> manufacturing a similar product for a certain amount of time -- even if
>>> it's a potentially life-saving drug, etc.
>>> 2. They can achieve a position of monopoly via political backdoors,
>>> lucrative or slushy government contracts, etc. which (again) can give
>>> one company an unfair advantage.
>>> 3. Of course, companies are always free to outsource (Halliburton is now
>>> going to Dubai) -- but workers must stay put.
>>>
>>> Nobody should punish success, but we need to be careful about what is
>>> "success" vs. exploitive.
>>
>> Talking back to the National Express example, NE do not have a monopoly on
>> travel around the UK, indeed, there are cars, taxis, trains, aeroplanes,
>> bikes, walking, and also other coach companies. Also, they have not
>> made any effort to kill any of those alternatives by any particular
>> means, excepting normal competition.
>>
>>> 1. The patent system is broken. Let's dispense with it.
>>
>> As soon as possible, please.
>>
>>> 2. Far tougher public and government scrutiny over slushy practices,
>>> conflicts of interest, etc. Get "tough on" white collar crime.
>>
>> Yup.
>>
>>> 3. Forbid American companies from outsourcing -- or else allow free
>>> roaming rights for all workers, cross any border you want to, whenever
>>> you want to.
>>
>> You cannot forbid outsourcing for a simple reason, which is that it's a
>> fundamental part of the global economy, and has been ever since
>> international trading started, which was shortly after the first boats
>> could get to a remote location.
>>
>> For example, what is the real difference between buying-in a DVDr/w from
>> China, and buying-in programming expertise, say? In order to survive,
>> manufacturing companies will have to buy-in appliantised capabilities,
>> say, if they're not allowed to outsource the bits which would make up
>> their own appliance-like capability.
>>
>> The only way you could really address this would be to end global
>> trading.
>
> I can agree in principle, but then we need to look at the penned-in
> nature of the rent/borrow/labor economy. Since consumers freely
> outsource (that is, they regularly buy foreign-made goods), and
> manufacturers may freely outsource labor (that is, hire what would be
> "illegals" at home), then there's an unaddressed asymmetry afoot.
>
> Namely, workers need to enjoy the same free-roaming rights that the
> fictitious individuals (corporations) do. If I want to move to Canada
> tomorrow, but still work in Minnesota (we're a border state), why not?
> If I want to claim an Australian address, while living in Ireland, why
> not? Corporations apparently enjoy this sort of thing...
Now we've got to a /really interesting/ area, which is about what a
nation-state is, what it does, why it's there, what sovereignty means,
how economics works within that space, and so on.
Those nomadic peoples who've survived into the modern age have been
reasonably territorial, which does suggest that the pre-farming
communities would roam over loosely defined areas doing their
hunter/gatherer work in order to survive. The kind of government needed
for such a system is pretty rudimentary, so probably a senior council,
perhaps with a chairman (probably called a king!).
The move to agricultural economies means that land becomes a commodity
which has to be worked, and the question becomes who gains the rewards
from the work. Presumably, around this time, most societies had to
begin development of land ownership rules. As good land would
presumably be at a premium (need good communications, too!), then
fighting would thus take on a whole new meaning - no longer
fighting over a female, now over land.
If you look at the history of nations, in the main, they seem to have
grown in size commensurately with improvements in transport and
communications. Hand in hand with this has also gone the development of
new economic trading systems, with militaries being formed to defend
those economic areas from mass-theft. Note that the concept of theft is
meaningless if nobody owns anything, which is probably where the
pre-agricultural economies were.
Bring us forward to the modern age, and we have well defined boundaries
around grouping of people, with 193 countries in the world. Of those
countries, most are very poor, have few natural resources, have limited
food supplies and often fragile economies. However, they *all* have
people, some in abundance. The modern age has more efficient farming
than in the early subsistence days, so major economies only need to use
a smaller part of their land-mass to make food. This means that they
have people and space to do other things.
The 19th Century brought a whole new set of players into global
economics, though - the multi-nationals. As you say above, they now
enjoy the capability to trade in many geographies, however, they are
typically headquartered only in one, so only pay their main taxes in a
carefully selected geography. For example, Microsoft headquarter in
Ireland in order to pay the very low tax-rate their, whilst having
access to the major regions in the EU - being so poor, I can understand
why they want to avoid paying the taxes other, less well off companies
pay...
So, to your question - why can you not live in Canada and work in the
US? You can, but you need to follow the rules, which are considerable
and complex. You can argue that it's easier for companies, but in a
way, it's also much harder - if they go out of business, it's their
problem, whereas if a migrant fails to economically contribute and needs
state support, then everyone has to pay a little more tax.
If you look at very rich people, you can see that they are often
resident in many geographies, because their host countries are not
concerned about any lack of wealth on their part.
Where the whole system has fallen down, though, which I think is
what you're really driving at, is why is it possible for a company to
headquarter in a tax haven, but employ people in a tax-paying environment,
and/or why can you not do the same thing? Well, if you're rich enough,
you can, of course, but that doesn't address the issue with companies.
My personal view is that the legal systems we have in place now are
evolved from handling land-ownership, trading, taxation and personal
freedom issues. As companies rose up, they were treated as people by
the law, in the main, but the rich ones have become so rich that they
have begun to transcend normal laws, as they are powerful enough to
negotiate on reasonable terms with a national government, something
which very few individuals can do.
My personal view on this is that the /only/ way to stop major companies
from essentially negotiating their way around the planet to avoid paying
tax bills, expensive labour charges, and so on, is to have a global
government. The big problem with *that* is the risk of corruption would
be on a scale we could only imagine at the moment. Other routes could
involve insisting that when a company hits a certain size, it is broken
up into smaller units, however, most countries /want/ to have a few
major multinationals, as they feel it gives them more global clout, and
many people have deep reservations (for good reason) about governments
interfering in business.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
