Friday, March 12, 2004
This is amazing
Millions of people are marching in solidarity against terrorism in Spain. If the ETA did this, they just made a MAJOR miscalculation.
Millions of people are marching in solidarity against terrorism in Spain. If the ETA did this, they just made a MAJOR miscalculation.
This might explain our planned mission to Mars
Well, not China's plan to send up female astronauts (who, consequently, are stronger constitutionally than men, and apparently can better handle the rigors of space). Rather, national pride is getting stirred up, and we want to be the BEST in outer space.
Granted, I want America to be in outer space, too (and I don't mean ripping up North America, wrapping it in a plastic bubble, and blasting it into Saturn's orbit). I just question why we STILL think government does a better job of figuring out how to send people into space than business.
Putting an outpost on the moon DOES make sense within the context of further exploration of the solar system. It's cheaper to send up rockets from the moon, where gravity is 1/10th of the strength on the surface of the earth. However, why doesn't the government view its role more as an instigator rather than puppet master? Figure out how much money would be needed to convince a consortium of well-funded companies to get together and start to plan the construction of a lunar outpost.
Lots of aerospace companies would probably get in on the action, provided they could be convinced that there were REAL profit opportunities to be derived from a presence on the moon, profits that THEY were allowed to keep. Likewise, companies with their own pound of flesh invested in the venture are MUCH more likely to look for cost savings that government bureaucrats hooked up to federal funding teats are less likely to think about. That's what companies do best: think about cost efficiency as a way to maximize profits. Government could make great strides in space exploration if they could just figure out a way to harness that.
Of course, I have absolutely no idea what kind of profit opportunities there would be. I can imagine how an orbiting Hilton hotel would make money. Perhaps a lunar outpost could do something similar (would be fun to bounce around in 1/10th of earth's gravity). Maybe it would make one hell of a retirement home. Have trouble standing up on earth? Go to the moon, and bounce around like a spastic 2 years old.
Mining might make sense, though I can't imagine how they would get iron ore from the moon to earth in a low-cost fashion. On the other hand, perhaps it would be better to broach the topic from a national stage, and see what the industry suggests? I'm sure there are LOTS of bright people who have decent ideas related to making a profit from outer space. The government's decision to help fund it could get the ball rolling, and by co-sponsoring it, they could do it on the cheap.
Well, not China's plan to send up female astronauts (who, consequently, are stronger constitutionally than men, and apparently can better handle the rigors of space). Rather, national pride is getting stirred up, and we want to be the BEST in outer space.
Granted, I want America to be in outer space, too (and I don't mean ripping up North America, wrapping it in a plastic bubble, and blasting it into Saturn's orbit). I just question why we STILL think government does a better job of figuring out how to send people into space than business.
Putting an outpost on the moon DOES make sense within the context of further exploration of the solar system. It's cheaper to send up rockets from the moon, where gravity is 1/10th of the strength on the surface of the earth. However, why doesn't the government view its role more as an instigator rather than puppet master? Figure out how much money would be needed to convince a consortium of well-funded companies to get together and start to plan the construction of a lunar outpost.
Lots of aerospace companies would probably get in on the action, provided they could be convinced that there were REAL profit opportunities to be derived from a presence on the moon, profits that THEY were allowed to keep. Likewise, companies with their own pound of flesh invested in the venture are MUCH more likely to look for cost savings that government bureaucrats hooked up to federal funding teats are less likely to think about. That's what companies do best: think about cost efficiency as a way to maximize profits. Government could make great strides in space exploration if they could just figure out a way to harness that.
Of course, I have absolutely no idea what kind of profit opportunities there would be. I can imagine how an orbiting Hilton hotel would make money. Perhaps a lunar outpost could do something similar (would be fun to bounce around in 1/10th of earth's gravity). Maybe it would make one hell of a retirement home. Have trouble standing up on earth? Go to the moon, and bounce around like a spastic 2 years old.
Mining might make sense, though I can't imagine how they would get iron ore from the moon to earth in a low-cost fashion. On the other hand, perhaps it would be better to broach the topic from a national stage, and see what the industry suggests? I'm sure there are LOTS of bright people who have decent ideas related to making a profit from outer space. The government's decision to help fund it could get the ball rolling, and by co-sponsoring it, they could do it on the cheap.
Yowza (I read strange news)
You probably missed this, but South Korean president Roh Moo-Hyun was recently impeached. That, by itself, isn't so shocking, but the brawling on the legislative floor was:
Pro Roh parliamentarians managed to delay the vote by camping out around the speaker's podium AND NOT LETTING HIM REACH IT. And I thought a filibuster was a strange concept.
You probably missed this, but South Korean president Roh Moo-Hyun was recently impeached. That, by itself, isn't so shocking, but the brawling on the legislative floor was:
Pro Roh parliamentarians managed to delay the vote by camping out around the speaker's podium AND NOT LETTING HIM REACH IT. And I thought a filibuster was a strange concept.
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Why manufacturing will disappear
Robotics is what's REALLY killing manufacturing. Even China is affected by it, though their low costs can delay the inevitable somewhat (though not stop it). However, I view human-assisted manufacturing in the same league as lumberjacks.
Of course, what do you do with people once manufacturing jobs go away? Good question. It isn't inconceivable that, someday, there will be lots of people who simply CAN'T find any job to do, simply because the lower-skilled labor they are capable of doing doesn't exist anymore.
Robotics is what's REALLY killing manufacturing. Even China is affected by it, though their low costs can delay the inevitable somewhat (though not stop it). However, I view human-assisted manufacturing in the same league as lumberjacks.
Of course, what do you do with people once manufacturing jobs go away? Good question. It isn't inconceivable that, someday, there will be lots of people who simply CAN'T find any job to do, simply because the lower-skilled labor they are capable of doing doesn't exist anymore.
There IS evil in the world
The bombing in Madrid, Spain, likely the work of Basque terrorists, is pretty appalling. I don't know what to say about it, really. It's so random, and Spain isn't exactly a poor country, either. Is humanity eternally to be saddled with idiots so obsessed with their own concerns that they will kill people they don't even know just to make a point?
The bombing in Madrid, Spain, likely the work of Basque terrorists, is pretty appalling. I don't know what to say about it, really. It's so random, and Spain isn't exactly a poor country, either. Is humanity eternally to be saddled with idiots so obsessed with their own concerns that they will kill people they don't even know just to make a point?
Why China acts to fix the price of the Yuan
China might allow more flexibility of the Yuan in future, but at present, they seem dedicated to keeping the Yuan within a fairly stable price range vis a vis the dollar.
To many, that is unfair, an example of a "beggar they neighbor" policy wherein Chinese imports are kept at an artificially low level in order to encourage exports.
To some degree, I'm sure that weighs on China's mind, but I think the FAR bigger reason China fears a devaluation of the Yuan is the effect that would have on external investment in China. If the Yuan starts to fluctuate wildly, if not take a nose dive, foreign investment could dry up, and there could be capital flight from China. The engine of Chinese growth is built on foreign investment, and thus, the bigger fear for China is that they will suddenly find the engine of their growth sputtering to a halt.
China is one of the bright spots on the balance sheet of most companies in the world these days. A China that hits a brick wall would do bad things for the global recovery.
Does China need to start to move towards a more flexible exchange rate policy? Yes. But haste is the WRONG answer. China is digesting the effects of explosive growth, and we need to give them a bit of room to adjust their policies. Keep pressure on them to provide more room for the Yuan to adjust against the dollar...but show some patience. Unfortunately, that's probably not the message that the Bush administration wants to hear, with an eye on November elections and an opponent trying to use a sour economy as a weapon against him.
China might allow more flexibility of the Yuan in future, but at present, they seem dedicated to keeping the Yuan within a fairly stable price range vis a vis the dollar.
To many, that is unfair, an example of a "beggar they neighbor" policy wherein Chinese imports are kept at an artificially low level in order to encourage exports.
To some degree, I'm sure that weighs on China's mind, but I think the FAR bigger reason China fears a devaluation of the Yuan is the effect that would have on external investment in China. If the Yuan starts to fluctuate wildly, if not take a nose dive, foreign investment could dry up, and there could be capital flight from China. The engine of Chinese growth is built on foreign investment, and thus, the bigger fear for China is that they will suddenly find the engine of their growth sputtering to a halt.
China is one of the bright spots on the balance sheet of most companies in the world these days. A China that hits a brick wall would do bad things for the global recovery.
Does China need to start to move towards a more flexible exchange rate policy? Yes. But haste is the WRONG answer. China is digesting the effects of explosive growth, and we need to give them a bit of room to adjust their policies. Keep pressure on them to provide more room for the Yuan to adjust against the dollar...but show some patience. Unfortunately, that's probably not the message that the Bush administration wants to hear, with an eye on November elections and an opponent trying to use a sour economy as a weapon against him.
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Event More Conversations with Eric Raymond, Part 8
My apologies if this is very boring to non-IT types. I probably should put all this somewhere else.
If this conversation continues, I might move it to a link off my home page.
------------------------------------------------
Okay, last set of responses for today. If I wait much
longer, I have no ride home.
> Give it time. The serious commercialization only
> started around 1996.
Though if I'm right, that will NEVER happen. Okay,
SOME will manage to make a buck selling pure open
source software. Like I said, though (and you keep
dodging), there are plenty of examples of open source
software companies running to the hybrid model, RedHat
being the BEST example.
> I've been a Unix fan since 1975; the early days of
> quasi-openness were
> my formative years as a programmer. In 1984 I
> thought AT&T's move to
> make Unix into a "real product" was a wonderful
> idea. I spent most of
> the next ten years slowly and reluctantly learning
> that it was a
> disasterously *bad* idea -- that the pressure of
> commercialization
> destroyed most of the virtues that had made Unix
> interesting and
> useful. This experience was an important part of
> what put me on the
> road to open source.
The problems faced by Unix are NOT faced by users of,
say, the Macintosh. You want a unified software
platform that you can build products for. I would say
that that is a LOT harder when the source code is
available for all the world to see. You leave
yourself WIDE open to fragmentation. GPL helps
matters somewhat, but it won't stop RedHat (that
example again) from spiking their implementation with
proprietary add-ons that people start to depend on.
> > Either way, you have to admit that when you have
> > access to the souce code, you have a LOT more
> leverage
> > to create an incompatible variant of the product.
>
> Yes, but it's rare for anyone to actually do this.
> The bad effects
> of having multiple proprietary implementations and
> no standards are
> much worse.
Oh really? I've been a consultant for MANY years, and
it is EXCEEDINGLY common for me to find a client that
has decided to "fork" their version of an open source
product. Likewise, Linux distributions are
sufficiently different that you can't take a product
that runs on distro A and assume it will run on distro
B.
So, I think that it is VERY common that people end up
making incompatible variants of an "open source"
product. In fact, your traumatic experience of Unix
was a good example.
My apologies if this is very boring to non-IT types. I probably should put all this somewhere else.
If this conversation continues, I might move it to a link off my home page.
------------------------------------------------
Okay, last set of responses for today. If I wait much
longer, I have no ride home.
> Give it time. The serious commercialization only
> started around 1996.
Though if I'm right, that will NEVER happen. Okay,
SOME will manage to make a buck selling pure open
source software. Like I said, though (and you keep
dodging), there are plenty of examples of open source
software companies running to the hybrid model, RedHat
being the BEST example.
> I've been a Unix fan since 1975; the early days of
> quasi-openness were
> my formative years as a programmer. In 1984 I
> thought AT&T's move to
> make Unix into a "real product" was a wonderful
> idea. I spent most of
> the next ten years slowly and reluctantly learning
> that it was a
> disasterously *bad* idea -- that the pressure of
> commercialization
> destroyed most of the virtues that had made Unix
> interesting and
> useful. This experience was an important part of
> what put me on the
> road to open source.
The problems faced by Unix are NOT faced by users of,
say, the Macintosh. You want a unified software
platform that you can build products for. I would say
that that is a LOT harder when the source code is
available for all the world to see. You leave
yourself WIDE open to fragmentation. GPL helps
matters somewhat, but it won't stop RedHat (that
example again) from spiking their implementation with
proprietary add-ons that people start to depend on.
> > Either way, you have to admit that when you have
> > access to the souce code, you have a LOT more
> leverage
> > to create an incompatible variant of the product.
>
> Yes, but it's rare for anyone to actually do this.
> The bad effects
> of having multiple proprietary implementations and
> no standards are
> much worse.
Oh really? I've been a consultant for MANY years, and
it is EXCEEDINGLY common for me to find a client that
has decided to "fork" their version of an open source
product. Likewise, Linux distributions are
sufficiently different that you can't take a product
that runs on distro A and assume it will run on distro
B.
So, I think that it is VERY common that people end up
making incompatible variants of an "open source"
product. In fact, your traumatic experience of Unix
was a good example.
Even More Conversations with Eric Raymond, Part 9
> Again, you're posing the wrong criterion. Recipes
> are less
> complicated, but *reconstructing them from the
> finished food* is often
> much more difficult than decompiling binaries. The
> problem is that
> the chemicals in food mix and combine in much more
> complicated ways
> than the bits in object code -- the information from
> the "source"
> (recipe) can turn into very subtle effects like the
> degree of
> caramelization of the sugars in a fruit.
You're thinking like an engineer, not a chef. Chefs
do strange things, like try a dish at a nice
restaurant, then go home and recreate it themselves.
It doesn't HAVE to be the exact same chemical
composition.
Programs require higher degrees of similarity, though,
simply because there are so many things that can cause
the performance characteristics to change.
> In the relevant sense, "free" software isn't free
> either, and never
> will be. It doesn't install itself, or maintain
> itself, or know when
> it needs an upgrade. So the right comparison would
> be between
> low-cost food and high-cost food.
Granted. But then again, the average consumer doesn't
tend to upgrade all htat often, or need maintenance.
I know people who still use DOS versions of
WordPerfect. If they got that product for free
originally, they would get one HELL of a lot of
mileage out of it.
As for products that need maintenance (custom software
in corporations), fine...but that applies to
proprietary software AND open source software. In the
latter case, though, you've ensured that people who
MAKE software can't get paid just for that. You've
excised a revenue model, and as I said, there are
advantages to the incentives created by a strong
source of revenue for software as such.
> So: what is it that makes it possible for expensive
> restaurants to
> compete against cheap food? And can you explain why
> they don't
> need to keep secrets to do so? Now apply this model
> to code.
Like I said, the fact that ALL restaurants charge.
Your recasting of the argument doesn't really apply to
software. GPLed software is REALLY and TRULY free for
most consumers. For businesses, they would have to
pay for maintenance, anyway, irrespective of whether
the code was open source or proprietary. In the open
source case, they just run more risk that code will
end up being made incompatible due to in-house
changes, and furthermore, if EVERYBODY is open source,
ensured that no incentive exists to orient programmers
towards the needs of non-technical users.
> > As the cost of automobiles goes down, the price of
> > auto mechanics goes up. The reason is that lower
> > priced automobiles results in higher demand for
> > automobiles, leading to more autos on the road,
> and
> > hence, more demand for mechanics.
>
> The full explanation is that automobiles and
> mechanics are part of a
> "bundled good" which is the ability of the consumer
> to get from point
> A to point B. Now a characteristic of such bundled
> goods is that when
> demand for the bundle is elastic (increases as price
> falls) then a
> fall in the price of one of the factors of
> production stimulates
> demand for the bundle, *and consumers spend more on
> the other factors
> of production*.
>
> Now, consider the bundled good that is the ability
> to handle
> information on computers. This good has numerous
> factors:
> hardware, programmer time, software licenses,
> electricity to
> run machines, etc. The above model predicts that
> cost reducers like
> commodity hardware and open-source development will
> pull programmer
> salaries *up*, not down -- and this is consistent
> with the real-world
> evidence.
But that doesn't deal with ANY of the examples I gave,
such as SAP, Oracle and Photoshop. Real world
evidence DOES show that salaries CAN go up as prices
go down IN CERTAIN CASES. It also shows that in other
cases (SAP, Oracle, etc.), high prices give cover to
high salaries.
I think you're vastly simplifying the data to suit
your point.
> You believe the opposite because you're fixated on
> sale value.
> But,
> in fact, very few programmers are paid from sale
> value.
I'm NOT only talking about sale value. I'm talking
about the manner in which software acquires value.
People convinced that software should cost money will
pay more for developers, just as people convinced that
coats should cost $1000 will pay more for tailors.
> Rather,
> they're paid a portion of the productivity increment
> that they deliver
> to employers who *use* what they write. The effect
> of open source is
> to increase their capacity to deliver use value to
> their employers
> (because, among other things, they can spend less
> time reinventing
> infrastructure and more time on business logic).
But that applies as much to closed source as open
source. If I REUSE components in Windows (HTML
Rendering, Media Handling), I'm not "reinventing the
wheel," as it were. With open source, however, you
run the risk that someone will create an incompatible
variant, which is VERY common.
> > Spoken like a true high priest of the open source
> > movement. Bravo.
> Um, two of those sources are texts on neoclassical
> economics.
No, I was talking about the "away, ye infidel, until
you accept the fullness of the truth" tone you were
taking with me.
> Again, you're posing the wrong criterion. Recipes
> are less
> complicated, but *reconstructing them from the
> finished food* is often
> much more difficult than decompiling binaries. The
> problem is that
> the chemicals in food mix and combine in much more
> complicated ways
> than the bits in object code -- the information from
> the "source"
> (recipe) can turn into very subtle effects like the
> degree of
> caramelization of the sugars in a fruit.
You're thinking like an engineer, not a chef. Chefs
do strange things, like try a dish at a nice
restaurant, then go home and recreate it themselves.
It doesn't HAVE to be the exact same chemical
composition.
Programs require higher degrees of similarity, though,
simply because there are so many things that can cause
the performance characteristics to change.
> In the relevant sense, "free" software isn't free
> either, and never
> will be. It doesn't install itself, or maintain
> itself, or know when
> it needs an upgrade. So the right comparison would
> be between
> low-cost food and high-cost food.
Granted. But then again, the average consumer doesn't
tend to upgrade all htat often, or need maintenance.
I know people who still use DOS versions of
WordPerfect. If they got that product for free
originally, they would get one HELL of a lot of
mileage out of it.
As for products that need maintenance (custom software
in corporations), fine...but that applies to
proprietary software AND open source software. In the
latter case, though, you've ensured that people who
MAKE software can't get paid just for that. You've
excised a revenue model, and as I said, there are
advantages to the incentives created by a strong
source of revenue for software as such.
> So: what is it that makes it possible for expensive
> restaurants to
> compete against cheap food? And can you explain why
> they don't
> need to keep secrets to do so? Now apply this model
> to code.
Like I said, the fact that ALL restaurants charge.
Your recasting of the argument doesn't really apply to
software. GPLed software is REALLY and TRULY free for
most consumers. For businesses, they would have to
pay for maintenance, anyway, irrespective of whether
the code was open source or proprietary. In the open
source case, they just run more risk that code will
end up being made incompatible due to in-house
changes, and furthermore, if EVERYBODY is open source,
ensured that no incentive exists to orient programmers
towards the needs of non-technical users.
> > As the cost of automobiles goes down, the price of
> > auto mechanics goes up. The reason is that lower
> > priced automobiles results in higher demand for
> > automobiles, leading to more autos on the road,
> and
> > hence, more demand for mechanics.
>
> The full explanation is that automobiles and
> mechanics are part of a
> "bundled good" which is the ability of the consumer
> to get from point
> A to point B. Now a characteristic of such bundled
> goods is that when
> demand for the bundle is elastic (increases as price
> falls) then a
> fall in the price of one of the factors of
> production stimulates
> demand for the bundle, *and consumers spend more on
> the other factors
> of production*.
>
> Now, consider the bundled good that is the ability
> to handle
> information on computers. This good has numerous
> factors:
> hardware, programmer time, software licenses,
> electricity to
> run machines, etc. The above model predicts that
> cost reducers like
> commodity hardware and open-source development will
> pull programmer
> salaries *up*, not down -- and this is consistent
> with the real-world
> evidence.
But that doesn't deal with ANY of the examples I gave,
such as SAP, Oracle and Photoshop. Real world
evidence DOES show that salaries CAN go up as prices
go down IN CERTAIN CASES. It also shows that in other
cases (SAP, Oracle, etc.), high prices give cover to
high salaries.
I think you're vastly simplifying the data to suit
your point.
> You believe the opposite because you're fixated on
> sale value.
> But,
> in fact, very few programmers are paid from sale
> value.
I'm NOT only talking about sale value. I'm talking
about the manner in which software acquires value.
People convinced that software should cost money will
pay more for developers, just as people convinced that
coats should cost $1000 will pay more for tailors.
> Rather,
> they're paid a portion of the productivity increment
> that they deliver
> to employers who *use* what they write. The effect
> of open source is
> to increase their capacity to deliver use value to
> their employers
> (because, among other things, they can spend less
> time reinventing
> infrastructure and more time on business logic).
But that applies as much to closed source as open
source. If I REUSE components in Windows (HTML
Rendering, Media Handling), I'm not "reinventing the
wheel," as it were. With open source, however, you
run the risk that someone will create an incompatible
variant, which is VERY common.
> > Spoken like a true high priest of the open source
> > movement. Bravo.
> Um, two of those sources are texts on neoclassical
> economics.
No, I was talking about the "away, ye infidel, until
you accept the fullness of the truth" tone you were
taking with me.
More Conversations with Eric Raymond, Part 4
We picked up our discussion after I copied him on some responses to Richard Stallman's comments.
---------------------------------------------------------
> Bruce thinks he's in Richard's camp, so the argument
> you think you have appers to be with me.
Eric, you sweet-talker you.
> There are reasons to doubt this; see my analysis in
> "The Magic
> Cauldron". But let's suppose it is true. Predicting
> the consequences
> you wanrt to draw from this would still require
> several steps you
> haven't justified. Here's one: you haven't shown
> that the incomes of
> most programmers are dependent on software sale
> value -- and, in fact,
> this turns out not to be the case, either
> empirically or in theory.
I'm not saying that it is. Yes, MOST programmer
revenue is generated from "custom software
development," which would include consulting. MOST,
however, does not equal all, and I think that the
"open source" community is rather cavalier about
destroying a model that provides a strong source of
revenue for software as such. As I explained in past
emails, there are a number of advantages to strong
revenue generation, such as providing incentives for
developers to concentrate on the needs of
non-technical users.
In fact, if the open source community was more willing
to consider proprietary software, if nothing else for
the revenue, they could operate under a hybrid model
that provides MOST of the benefits of open source
software (access to source code) while availing
themselves of a decent source of revenue to allow them
to continue concentrating on JUST their product.
> No, instead you get the much worse kind of
> fragmentation that
> results from closed-source vendors "differentiating"
> for
> competitive advantage. Crap like this nearly
> destroyed the
> Unix market in the 1980s and explains why moving
> your documents
> from one word processor to another is either
> difficult or
> impossible.
An Unix was open source (in the sense that the source
code was readily available). That isn't the case with
Windows or the Mac OS (except for the BSD core). The
fact that differentiating happens, though, shows why
the market consistently organizes around ONE solution.
It's the reason most of the market organized around
Windows, and the reason most of the Unix market is
organizing around Linux (and even specific distros of
Linux). The software market lacks inherent standards,
and so the market rationally chooses to
disproportionately favor one provider in order to
generate the cost-saving economics of scale the market
needs and wants.
We picked up our discussion after I copied him on some responses to Richard Stallman's comments.
---------------------------------------------------------
> Bruce thinks he's in Richard's camp, so the argument
> you think you have appers to be with me.
Eric, you sweet-talker you.
> There are reasons to doubt this; see my analysis in
> "The Magic
> Cauldron". But let's suppose it is true. Predicting
> the consequences
> you wanrt to draw from this would still require
> several steps you
> haven't justified. Here's one: you haven't shown
> that the incomes of
> most programmers are dependent on software sale
> value -- and, in fact,
> this turns out not to be the case, either
> empirically or in theory.
I'm not saying that it is. Yes, MOST programmer
revenue is generated from "custom software
development," which would include consulting. MOST,
however, does not equal all, and I think that the
"open source" community is rather cavalier about
destroying a model that provides a strong source of
revenue for software as such. As I explained in past
emails, there are a number of advantages to strong
revenue generation, such as providing incentives for
developers to concentrate on the needs of
non-technical users.
In fact, if the open source community was more willing
to consider proprietary software, if nothing else for
the revenue, they could operate under a hybrid model
that provides MOST of the benefits of open source
software (access to source code) while availing
themselves of a decent source of revenue to allow them
to continue concentrating on JUST their product.
> No, instead you get the much worse kind of
> fragmentation that
> results from closed-source vendors "differentiating"
> for
> competitive advantage. Crap like this nearly
> destroyed the
> Unix market in the 1980s and explains why moving
> your documents
> from one word processor to another is either
> difficult or
> impossible.
An Unix was open source (in the sense that the source
code was readily available). That isn't the case with
Windows or the Mac OS (except for the BSD core). The
fact that differentiating happens, though, shows why
the market consistently organizes around ONE solution.
It's the reason most of the market organized around
Windows, and the reason most of the Unix market is
organizing around Linux (and even specific distros of
Linux). The software market lacks inherent standards,
and so the market rationally chooses to
disproportionately favor one provider in order to
generate the cost-saving economics of scale the market
needs and wants.
More Conversations with Eric Raymond, Part 5
> I'm in agreement with you here. I would oppose any
> law that
> restricted the freedom of programmers and users to
> make whatever kind
> of contract they can negotiate, whether open-source
> or closed.
But, you might support laws which favor open source
over proprietary software in government procurement.
I disagree with that, too.
> Really? Then why do good restaurants often sell a
> recipe book (for a
> price that is nominal relative to any figure you
> might assign to the
> secrecy value of the recipes) at the cash register?
Not all do, though, and we are starting to dive into
the weakness of the "recipe" analogy. A recipe is
relatively simple, and it's a LOT easier to figure out
what goes into a dish made by a competing restaurant.
Not so software. Giving away the source code to
software is giving away a LOT more than what a
restaurant gives away.
> Until you can answer that question, and explain how
> this case is
> similar and how it differs from open-source
> software, your grasp of
> the economics of open source is too weak for you to
> be writing about
> it.
I'm going to change my email name to "leave weapons at
the door." You seem really keen to convince me that I
have no right to debate you on this.
> I'm mostly with you rather than Richard here. Some
> proprietary software companies do scheme to keep
> users
> helpless and divided, but most are simply following
> the profit motive without intending to divide
> anybody.
>
> One of the weaknesses of the idealist/moralist
> stance is
> a near-compulsion to believe that one's opponents
> have
> base motives. Richard, alas, has this in spades.
But you SOUND like you consider the profit motive as
somehow "less" than the motive to donate software to
the open source cause. I don't think it is. Consider
the profit motive among entrepreneurs simply to be the
motivation to be free of having to rely on ANYBODY for
your income. That's a noble goal.
You can do a LOT of really neat things when you don't
have to worry about finding a job. That's not
"selfish."
> I'm in agreement with you here. I would oppose any
> law that
> restricted the freedom of programmers and users to
> make whatever kind
> of contract they can negotiate, whether open-source
> or closed.
But, you might support laws which favor open source
over proprietary software in government procurement.
I disagree with that, too.
> Really? Then why do good restaurants often sell a
> recipe book (for a
> price that is nominal relative to any figure you
> might assign to the
> secrecy value of the recipes) at the cash register?
Not all do, though, and we are starting to dive into
the weakness of the "recipe" analogy. A recipe is
relatively simple, and it's a LOT easier to figure out
what goes into a dish made by a competing restaurant.
Not so software. Giving away the source code to
software is giving away a LOT more than what a
restaurant gives away.
> Until you can answer that question, and explain how
> this case is
> similar and how it differs from open-source
> software, your grasp of
> the economics of open source is too weak for you to
> be writing about
> it.
I'm going to change my email name to "leave weapons at
the door." You seem really keen to convince me that I
have no right to debate you on this.
> I'm mostly with you rather than Richard here. Some
> proprietary software companies do scheme to keep
> users
> helpless and divided, but most are simply following
> the profit motive without intending to divide
> anybody.
>
> One of the weaknesses of the idealist/moralist
> stance is
> a near-compulsion to believe that one's opponents
> have
> base motives. Richard, alas, has this in spades.
But you SOUND like you consider the profit motive as
somehow "less" than the motive to donate software to
the open source cause. I don't think it is. Consider
the profit motive among entrepreneurs simply to be the
motivation to be free of having to rely on ANYBODY for
your income. That's a noble goal.
You can do a LOT of really neat things when you don't
have to worry about finding a job. That's not
"selfish."
More Conversations with Eric Raymond, Part 6
> Have you read "The Magic Cauldron"? I'm
> not 'cavalier' about destroying the proprietary
> model, it's something I've thought about a
> great deal and to which I've applied most of
> the toolkit of neoclassical and Austrian
> economics.
Yes, I have, though I will admit that it has been
awhile. I'll read it again, and who knows...maybe
you'll get a ZDNet article out of it.
> The disadvantages outweigh the advantages. But
> don't take my word for
> this; watch as users, *and* the brightest
> programmers, vote with their
> feet.
I've watched as lots of bright programmers have been
convinced of open source. I've also watched as
companies like RedHat have marched away from things
like Fedora towards their open source "hybrid"
Advanced Server. I also have watched as few pure open
source companies have gained much traction in the
industry. Open source, as a movement, has been around
for awhile, and I would expect that there would be a
LOT more pure open source companies making a credible
profit if it was truly possible to make decent revenue
from open source (access to source code for the
complete product).
I expect that there will be a move in the other
direction in not too long as people start question the
"conventional wisdom" that open source is a sound
foundation for revenue generation.
> No, this won't wash. You could be thrown in
> jail for possessing proprietary Unix sources.
> It wasn't open and it's largely because I
> watched what that did to the Unix market that
> I don't buy your most central arguments.
ALL the proprietary unices were based, or at least
inspired, by the original Unix, the source code for
which was widely available. AT&T licensed it to
universities and others. Granted, the source code was
STRICTLY licensed, and they weren't open source (or
"free") in the sense that you or Stallman would agree
with. However, it WAS more than, say, Microsoft
releasing a binary for Windows. It lead to LOTS of
parallel development, and profit orientation started
to interpose itself, leading to fragmentation.
Of course, that's MY interpretation. I expect that
you, or Stallman, both of whom were a lot closer to
the Unix battles, would have a different take on it.
Either way, you have to admit that when you have
access to the souce code, you have a LOT more leverage
to create an incompatible variant of the product.
When you have just extensibility interfaces, though
(like Browser Helper Objects in IE, as an example),
there is less likelihood of incompatibility simply
because someone can't change the core stuff in such a
way as to make it incompatible.
> Have you read "The Magic Cauldron"? I'm
> not 'cavalier' about destroying the proprietary
> model, it's something I've thought about a
> great deal and to which I've applied most of
> the toolkit of neoclassical and Austrian
> economics.
Yes, I have, though I will admit that it has been
awhile. I'll read it again, and who knows...maybe
you'll get a ZDNet article out of it.
> The disadvantages outweigh the advantages. But
> don't take my word for
> this; watch as users, *and* the brightest
> programmers, vote with their
> feet.
I've watched as lots of bright programmers have been
convinced of open source. I've also watched as
companies like RedHat have marched away from things
like Fedora towards their open source "hybrid"
Advanced Server. I also have watched as few pure open
source companies have gained much traction in the
industry. Open source, as a movement, has been around
for awhile, and I would expect that there would be a
LOT more pure open source companies making a credible
profit if it was truly possible to make decent revenue
from open source (access to source code for the
complete product).
I expect that there will be a move in the other
direction in not too long as people start question the
"conventional wisdom" that open source is a sound
foundation for revenue generation.
> No, this won't wash. You could be thrown in
> jail for possessing proprietary Unix sources.
> It wasn't open and it's largely because I
> watched what that did to the Unix market that
> I don't buy your most central arguments.
ALL the proprietary unices were based, or at least
inspired, by the original Unix, the source code for
which was widely available. AT&T licensed it to
universities and others. Granted, the source code was
STRICTLY licensed, and they weren't open source (or
"free") in the sense that you or Stallman would agree
with. However, it WAS more than, say, Microsoft
releasing a binary for Windows. It lead to LOTS of
parallel development, and profit orientation started
to interpose itself, leading to fragmentation.
Of course, that's MY interpretation. I expect that
you, or Stallman, both of whom were a lot closer to
the Unix battles, would have a different take on it.
Either way, you have to admit that when you have
access to the souce code, you have a LOT more leverage
to create an incompatible variant of the product.
When you have just extensibility interfaces, though
(like Browser Helper Objects in IE, as an example),
there is less likelihood of incompatibility simply
because someone can't change the core stuff in such a
way as to make it incompatible.
More Conversation with Eric Raymond, Part 7
> Yes, I do support such laws. I support them
> because I believe that if we're to have governments
> at all, the process of government, *including
> the software it uses*, ought at least to be
> transparent to citizen scrutiny.
I don't think that's necessary, particularly when the
penalty for such a rule is confining yourself to
entities far less capable of making a profit.
Granted, you don't agree that they will, in fact, make
less profit. I discuss that later.
> Bad argument. First, it's not true. Have you every
> tried to reconstruct the recipe for (say) a cake
> by examing the finished product?
A competent cook can usually figure out how something
they eat was made. That's why so many chefs visit
competing restaurants. You'd have a hard time
convincing me that a RECIPE is anything nearly as
complicated as, say, an operating system, or a desktop
office suite.
> Besides, even if your premise were good, the
> relative cost of discovering the recipe would
> be a red herring. What you really need to make
> your case is an argument that explains why
> good restaurants can live without secrecy
> rent and asymmetrical information but programmers
> can't.
Restaurants that are very good compete on raw skill.
However, you wouldn't be able to walk into a
restaurant and get the food for free. Restaurants
don't face FREE (as in cost) competition.
In an open source world (particularly when the product
is licensed under the GPL), you DO face free (as in
cost) competition. Heck, you might even have to face
a free version of your OWN product, as Sun does with
OpenOffice. So, it becomes a LOT harder to make a
buck. Sun is managing it to a certain extent, and
they are doing it on brand, but they are NOT making
the kind of revenue that proprietary software
companies make.
> Incorrect. You have every right to debate me about
> this, otherwise I
> wouldn't be bothering to argue with you. BUT...do
> you know what
> happens to the hourly wages of mechanics when the
> price of automobiles
> drops? Can you explain why? (Hint: the concepts of
> "factor of
> production" and "bundled good" are important.) Now
> use this
> explanation to predict the salary trends for
> programmers as more
> software becomes open source.
As the cost of automobiles goes down, the price of
auto mechanics goes up. The reason is that lower
priced automobiles results in higher demand for
automobiles, leading to more autos on the road, and
hence, more demand for mechanics.
Microsoft used that same model for most of its
history. Windows (or DOS) was low cost relative to
alternative operating systems. They went for volume.
That volume created a large unified market atop which
to sell software.
Justin Frankel did the same thing with WinAmp. CHarge
a low cost for the product, and it is more likely that
SOMEONE will bother sending you the fee.
I defend outsourcing along similar lines. Lower
manufacturing costs leads to more product sold,
leading to more demand for products that require those
manufactured goods. For instance, if Motorola can
make smartphones cheaper, that leads to MORE demand
for cell phones, and MORE opportunities for developers
who write software for cell phones.
Your error, however, is in assuming that these trends
apply down to zero. They don't. Take, as an example,
a coat. If you paid $10 for it, you are less likely
to pay $50 to have it repaired. You'll just buy a new
coat. The same applies to TV sets. With TV sets as
low in price as they are, it costs MORE to get them
repaired. Therefore, you just get a new TV set.
Apply this to the software market. I'm always stunned
how much SAP consultants make, particularly when SAP
seems like such antiquated technology. SAP is also
horrendously expensive. Since it is so expensive, the
big companies who pay for it think little of paying
high consulting rates to customize it. The same
applies to Oracle databases. The high cost of an
Oracle installation provides a lot of cover to high
database administrator salaries. The high cost of
Adobe Photoshop enables Paintshop Pro to charge $99,
and call itself a bargain, even though that price is
higher than the software average.
In other words, if you take the price of software down
to zero, it is simply FALSE to claim developer
salaries will skyrocket. As you cheapen the value of
software, you cheapen the value of the people who make
that software.
Granted, truly expensive software would so throttle
the market as to make salaries go down. I would
consider a graph of salary to software prices to be
bell shaped.
By the way, this was the crux of my argument in this
article: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107-992824.html
> If you don't have the mental toolkit to do the above
> exercise, you do
> *not* yet understand the economics of open source
> well enough to be
> writing public articles about it. Go read David
> Friedman's "Price
> Theory" my "The Magic Cauldron", and Varian &
> Shapiro's "Information
> Rules". Then think until you grok them. Then...and
> only then...will
> you be prepared not to mislead your readers on this
> topic.
Spoken like a true high priest of the open source
movement. Bravo.
As an aside, it IS possible to discuss issues with
people who disagree with you without insulting them.
You are smart, and you've obviously thought a lot
about this issue. That doesn't mean that you are
OBJECTIVELY right. It just means you have a very
well-formed opinion.
> I'm not sure I even understand what you're claiming
> here. But perhaps
> your misconception of my beliefs will be addressed
> if I tell you that
> I'm a market anarchist? I would cheerfully abolish
> government in
> favor of a society mediated *entirely* by the profit
> motive, though I
> may have a bit wider conception of the latter than
> you because I think
> many of the most important markets aren't monetized.
Oddly enough, I'm not an economic anarchist. I
believe that government should ensure that everyone
has decent education, health care, and welfare. I
think those are justified in terms of enabling
individuals in a society to have CHOICES. You have
fewer choices if you are uneducated, or fear losing
health care and salary if you change jobs. That
doesn't mean I think Europe does it perfectly, but
there is a lot to be said for a credible social safety
net.
But that all is beside the point. Thanks for relating
your stance to me.
> Yes, I do support such laws. I support them
> because I believe that if we're to have governments
> at all, the process of government, *including
> the software it uses*, ought at least to be
> transparent to citizen scrutiny.
I don't think that's necessary, particularly when the
penalty for such a rule is confining yourself to
entities far less capable of making a profit.
Granted, you don't agree that they will, in fact, make
less profit. I discuss that later.
> Bad argument. First, it's not true. Have you every
> tried to reconstruct the recipe for (say) a cake
> by examing the finished product?
A competent cook can usually figure out how something
they eat was made. That's why so many chefs visit
competing restaurants. You'd have a hard time
convincing me that a RECIPE is anything nearly as
complicated as, say, an operating system, or a desktop
office suite.
> Besides, even if your premise were good, the
> relative cost of discovering the recipe would
> be a red herring. What you really need to make
> your case is an argument that explains why
> good restaurants can live without secrecy
> rent and asymmetrical information but programmers
> can't.
Restaurants that are very good compete on raw skill.
However, you wouldn't be able to walk into a
restaurant and get the food for free. Restaurants
don't face FREE (as in cost) competition.
In an open source world (particularly when the product
is licensed under the GPL), you DO face free (as in
cost) competition. Heck, you might even have to face
a free version of your OWN product, as Sun does with
OpenOffice. So, it becomes a LOT harder to make a
buck. Sun is managing it to a certain extent, and
they are doing it on brand, but they are NOT making
the kind of revenue that proprietary software
companies make.
> Incorrect. You have every right to debate me about
> this, otherwise I
> wouldn't be bothering to argue with you. BUT...do
> you know what
> happens to the hourly wages of mechanics when the
> price of automobiles
> drops? Can you explain why? (Hint: the concepts of
> "factor of
> production" and "bundled good" are important.) Now
> use this
> explanation to predict the salary trends for
> programmers as more
> software becomes open source.
As the cost of automobiles goes down, the price of
auto mechanics goes up. The reason is that lower
priced automobiles results in higher demand for
automobiles, leading to more autos on the road, and
hence, more demand for mechanics.
Microsoft used that same model for most of its
history. Windows (or DOS) was low cost relative to
alternative operating systems. They went for volume.
That volume created a large unified market atop which
to sell software.
Justin Frankel did the same thing with WinAmp. CHarge
a low cost for the product, and it is more likely that
SOMEONE will bother sending you the fee.
I defend outsourcing along similar lines. Lower
manufacturing costs leads to more product sold,
leading to more demand for products that require those
manufactured goods. For instance, if Motorola can
make smartphones cheaper, that leads to MORE demand
for cell phones, and MORE opportunities for developers
who write software for cell phones.
Your error, however, is in assuming that these trends
apply down to zero. They don't. Take, as an example,
a coat. If you paid $10 for it, you are less likely
to pay $50 to have it repaired. You'll just buy a new
coat. The same applies to TV sets. With TV sets as
low in price as they are, it costs MORE to get them
repaired. Therefore, you just get a new TV set.
Apply this to the software market. I'm always stunned
how much SAP consultants make, particularly when SAP
seems like such antiquated technology. SAP is also
horrendously expensive. Since it is so expensive, the
big companies who pay for it think little of paying
high consulting rates to customize it. The same
applies to Oracle databases. The high cost of an
Oracle installation provides a lot of cover to high
database administrator salaries. The high cost of
Adobe Photoshop enables Paintshop Pro to charge $99,
and call itself a bargain, even though that price is
higher than the software average.
In other words, if you take the price of software down
to zero, it is simply FALSE to claim developer
salaries will skyrocket. As you cheapen the value of
software, you cheapen the value of the people who make
that software.
Granted, truly expensive software would so throttle
the market as to make salaries go down. I would
consider a graph of salary to software prices to be
bell shaped.
By the way, this was the crux of my argument in this
article: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107-992824.html
> If you don't have the mental toolkit to do the above
> exercise, you do
> *not* yet understand the economics of open source
> well enough to be
> writing public articles about it. Go read David
> Friedman's "Price
> Theory" my "The Magic Cauldron", and Varian &
> Shapiro's "Information
> Rules". Then think until you grok them. Then...and
> only then...will
> you be prepared not to mislead your readers on this
> topic.
Spoken like a true high priest of the open source
movement. Bravo.
As an aside, it IS possible to discuss issues with
people who disagree with you without insulting them.
You are smart, and you've obviously thought a lot
about this issue. That doesn't mean that you are
OBJECTIVELY right. It just means you have a very
well-formed opinion.
> I'm not sure I even understand what you're claiming
> here. But perhaps
> your misconception of my beliefs will be addressed
> if I tell you that
> I'm a market anarchist? I would cheerfully abolish
> government in
> favor of a society mediated *entirely* by the profit
> motive, though I
> may have a bit wider conception of the latter than
> you because I think
> many of the most important markets aren't monetized.
Oddly enough, I'm not an economic anarchist. I
believe that government should ensure that everyone
has decent education, health care, and welfare. I
think those are justified in terms of enabling
individuals in a society to have CHOICES. You have
fewer choices if you are uneducated, or fear losing
health care and salary if you change jobs. That
doesn't mean I think Europe does it perfectly, but
there is a lot to be said for a credible social safety
net.
But that all is beside the point. Thanks for relating
your stance to me.
Arnie, you sweet-talker, you...
An Arnold Schwarzenegger-inspired moment of Zen:
I love it when the people go to the polls and flex their muscles and let their voices be heard!
In all truth, I LIKE Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor of California. Not only is he very business-oriented, but he also seems free of all the moral central planning which is pushed by the christian fundamentalist wing of the Republican party. I REAlLY hope that Arnold Schwarzenegger is massively successful as governor, because his success will start to change the tone of the national Republican party.
Likewise, I have ZERO problems with Arnold's Hollywood background. Plato might have preferred philosopher kings, but the history of the world isn't one of philosophers sitting in ivory towers rationally planning the shape of the modern world. Rather, history is (usually) shaped by good ideas AND the power to convince others that those ideas are actually correct.
Clinton managed to win TWO terms as president, in spite of rabid opposition from a Republican congress, because the guy could sell rowboats to people who live in the middle of the Sahara. Clinton dripped charm, and that made him a very effective leader. Compared to Clinton, Gore looked about as exciting as a rusty fire hydrant.
The same can be said of Arnold Schwarzenegger. His ideas regarding solutions for California's problems are VERY GOOD. That, combined with charisma, is a powerful combination. It validates the decision to replace Gray Davis, who lacked charisma AND any decent ideas regarding a solution to the debt problems of the 5th biggest economy in the world.
An Arnold Schwarzenegger-inspired moment of Zen:
I love it when the people go to the polls and flex their muscles and let their voices be heard!
In all truth, I LIKE Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor of California. Not only is he very business-oriented, but he also seems free of all the moral central planning which is pushed by the christian fundamentalist wing of the Republican party. I REAlLY hope that Arnold Schwarzenegger is massively successful as governor, because his success will start to change the tone of the national Republican party.
Likewise, I have ZERO problems with Arnold's Hollywood background. Plato might have preferred philosopher kings, but the history of the world isn't one of philosophers sitting in ivory towers rationally planning the shape of the modern world. Rather, history is (usually) shaped by good ideas AND the power to convince others that those ideas are actually correct.
Clinton managed to win TWO terms as president, in spite of rabid opposition from a Republican congress, because the guy could sell rowboats to people who live in the middle of the Sahara. Clinton dripped charm, and that made him a very effective leader. Compared to Clinton, Gore looked about as exciting as a rusty fire hydrant.
The same can be said of Arnold Schwarzenegger. His ideas regarding solutions for California's problems are VERY GOOD. That, combined with charisma, is a powerful combination. It validates the decision to replace Gray Davis, who lacked charisma AND any decent ideas regarding a solution to the debt problems of the 5th biggest economy in the world.
Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan face outsourcing
As detailed in this article.
They, however, are less likely to say "keep our jobs away from all those damn foreigners," simply because the people in all three locations identify closely with the interests of people in China. Likewise, they benefit from being on the front lines of a MASSIVE, and RAPIDLY GROWING market. You simply won't hear protectionist calls in these locations.
Motorola will save manufacturing costs, enabling them to lower the price of phones. Lower price phones will lead to more people buying phones, particularly the new "smartphones" with enhanced functionality. More smartphones will increase new software opportunities for developers, who now can target an expanded market for smartphone software.
I've talked about the opportunities created in the past by South Korea's near-ubiquitous broadband infrastructure (when I last checked, 80% of people on the internet (60% of Koreans, if not more) had broadband). With all that broadband, there are HUGE opportunities for companies that create broadband infrastructure or services that cater to broadband users.
I've also noted in past that computers cost much more in Europe than in America. That higher cost leads to fewer people buying computers, which leads to fewer opportunities for software developers in Europe.
Lower costs BENEFIT other sectors of the economy. That's why people should keep an eye on the macro-economy when considering the effects of outsourcing (or just companies moving manufacturing to take advantage of lower costs).
As detailed in this article.
They, however, are less likely to say "keep our jobs away from all those damn foreigners," simply because the people in all three locations identify closely with the interests of people in China. Likewise, they benefit from being on the front lines of a MASSIVE, and RAPIDLY GROWING market. You simply won't hear protectionist calls in these locations.
Motorola will save manufacturing costs, enabling them to lower the price of phones. Lower price phones will lead to more people buying phones, particularly the new "smartphones" with enhanced functionality. More smartphones will increase new software opportunities for developers, who now can target an expanded market for smartphone software.
I've talked about the opportunities created in the past by South Korea's near-ubiquitous broadband infrastructure (when I last checked, 80% of people on the internet (60% of Koreans, if not more) had broadband). With all that broadband, there are HUGE opportunities for companies that create broadband infrastructure or services that cater to broadband users.
I've also noted in past that computers cost much more in Europe than in America. That higher cost leads to fewer people buying computers, which leads to fewer opportunities for software developers in Europe.
Lower costs BENEFIT other sectors of the economy. That's why people should keep an eye on the macro-economy when considering the effects of outsourcing (or just companies moving manufacturing to take advantage of lower costs).
Monday, March 08, 2004
A worrying trend
I REALLY dislike Hugo Chavez, the democratically elected president of Venezuela who seems to be showing signs that he would rather lead according to the model of Cuba's Fidel Castro. Half a million people marched through the streets of Caracas to protest the National Election Council's decision to force the opposition to prove that over 1 million of the signatures they gathered were in fact valid. Keep in mind that that council is full of Chavez appointees, and given signs that Chavez would lose a recall election, are ill disposed to allowing that referendum to go forward.
Venezuela IS a divided country. While many in the middle classes oppose him, his base of supporters are the poor and disenfranchised. The fact that the poor support him, however, is not a sign that what he offers them is really what will help them. Chavez is doing everything in his power to undermine free enterprise in his country. He is fighting against a free trade area of the Americas, and unfortunately, is finding a receptive audience to that opposition beyond his borders (as well among those poor and disenfranchised Venezuelans).
This simply won't help the poor of Venezuela, any more than trade barriers helped American workers during the Great Depression.
If Chavez was a free marketeer with dictatorial aspirations (something which could be said of Chile's Pinochet), at least one could say that he was sowing the seeds of his eventual downfall, as a wealthier and more prosperous population would eventually demand, and get, the democracy they deserve (other examples include Taiwan and South Korea, both of which were ruled for decades by military dictatorships). Unfortunately, Chavez is doing things to ensure that his people remain poor for the foreseeable future, thus ensuring that democracy will gain little purchase in a land of poverty and want.
Of course, America has little leverage to influence events in Central and South America. We regularly propped up dictators who did what the United States told them to do, then knocked them over when they stopped doing that (in fact, one might accuse the US of doing the same thing in Iraq, however justified I consider removing him from power to have been). Furthermore, the cost of our futile drug war is borne more by people in Central and South America than by the citizens of the United States. We don't have to live with Colombia's civil war, or deal with the unrest which results from Bolivia's attempt to shut down the only source of revenue available to indiginous farmers.
That's why Chavez finds inflammatory statements against the US to be so useful. We too often take a blatantly self-interested approach to events in the region (our drug war being a good example), leading the locals to question whether what America wants is truly in their interests.
Chavez uses anti-American demagoguery because it resonates with Venezuelans, and that is largely OUR fault.
I REALLY dislike Hugo Chavez, the democratically elected president of Venezuela who seems to be showing signs that he would rather lead according to the model of Cuba's Fidel Castro. Half a million people marched through the streets of Caracas to protest the National Election Council's decision to force the opposition to prove that over 1 million of the signatures they gathered were in fact valid. Keep in mind that that council is full of Chavez appointees, and given signs that Chavez would lose a recall election, are ill disposed to allowing that referendum to go forward.
Venezuela IS a divided country. While many in the middle classes oppose him, his base of supporters are the poor and disenfranchised. The fact that the poor support him, however, is not a sign that what he offers them is really what will help them. Chavez is doing everything in his power to undermine free enterprise in his country. He is fighting against a free trade area of the Americas, and unfortunately, is finding a receptive audience to that opposition beyond his borders (as well among those poor and disenfranchised Venezuelans).
This simply won't help the poor of Venezuela, any more than trade barriers helped American workers during the Great Depression.
If Chavez was a free marketeer with dictatorial aspirations (something which could be said of Chile's Pinochet), at least one could say that he was sowing the seeds of his eventual downfall, as a wealthier and more prosperous population would eventually demand, and get, the democracy they deserve (other examples include Taiwan and South Korea, both of which were ruled for decades by military dictatorships). Unfortunately, Chavez is doing things to ensure that his people remain poor for the foreseeable future, thus ensuring that democracy will gain little purchase in a land of poverty and want.
Of course, America has little leverage to influence events in Central and South America. We regularly propped up dictators who did what the United States told them to do, then knocked them over when they stopped doing that (in fact, one might accuse the US of doing the same thing in Iraq, however justified I consider removing him from power to have been). Furthermore, the cost of our futile drug war is borne more by people in Central and South America than by the citizens of the United States. We don't have to live with Colombia's civil war, or deal with the unrest which results from Bolivia's attempt to shut down the only source of revenue available to indiginous farmers.
That's why Chavez finds inflammatory statements against the US to be so useful. We too often take a blatantly self-interested approach to events in the region (our drug war being a good example), leading the locals to question whether what America wants is truly in their interests.
Chavez uses anti-American demagoguery because it resonates with Venezuelans, and that is largely OUR fault.
The "buckets of money" theory
America seems to have a lot on its plate, at least militarily, in this election year. Some have been saying that America would have been more pro-active in Haiti (or even North Korea) if we weren't already deeply engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. Truth be told, I think dealing with Afghanistan and Iraq takes priority over dealing with Haiti and North Korea (the latter of which we can't do much to resolve from a military standpoint, as Seoul is within mortar range of North Korea).
Some have been making some really ridiculous claims, though, about what we SHOULD have done about Haiti. Rep. Jose E. Serrano, a Democrat from New York, claimed the following:
The United States is guilty of outright neglect for its failure to act earlier"..."This was not an overnight crisis, and could we not have better supported the democracy in Haiti if we had been more generous with our assistance?"
This is what I call the "buckets of money" argument. If only America had ladled generous doses of foreign aid onto Haiti, Haiti wouldn't be in its current crisis.
The problem, however, is that Haiti was in no position to absorb ANY kind of foreign aid. Some note that America held up World Bank loans to Haiti, or maintained a ban on direct aid. Note that both forms of banned aid are the sort that go to GOVERNMENTS, and Haiti's government was NOT dedicated to democratic principles. Aristide was starting to maintain power by relying on armed gangs of thugs (who the Haitians called chimères). If there was any doubt as to whether he controlled these gangs, it should have disappeared when the chimères ended their murderous rampage when the United States issued a stern warning to Mr. Aristide to control his followers. Aristide presided over a government that was corrupt and awash in drug money.
The economy was NOT set up for free enterprise, as it takes DECADES (if possible at all) for private citizens to acquire land or start a company (and either way, foreign aid wouldn't make it down to ordinary citizens when the country was run by as corrupt a leader as Aristide).
Remember, the World Bank loaned billions to Argentina, and that nation defaulted rather spectacularly a few years ago. This shows the fatal flaw in sending aid money to GOVERNMENTS. If you want to send aid, make it in the form of easier loans for private citizens in the target country. Of course, that can only work if the country is set up to enable private citizens to conduct business.
Aid would NOT have helped Haiti. If anything, it would merely enabled Aristide and his cronies to acquire more of the hardware needed to TRULY oppress their fellow citizens. State aid to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s didn't make Iraq a freer and wealthier place. Arisitide was no Saddam Hussein, but giving aid money to his GOVERNMENT would have made a bad situation worse.
America seems to have a lot on its plate, at least militarily, in this election year. Some have been saying that America would have been more pro-active in Haiti (or even North Korea) if we weren't already deeply engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. Truth be told, I think dealing with Afghanistan and Iraq takes priority over dealing with Haiti and North Korea (the latter of which we can't do much to resolve from a military standpoint, as Seoul is within mortar range of North Korea).
Some have been making some really ridiculous claims, though, about what we SHOULD have done about Haiti. Rep. Jose E. Serrano, a Democrat from New York, claimed the following:
The United States is guilty of outright neglect for its failure to act earlier"..."This was not an overnight crisis, and could we not have better supported the democracy in Haiti if we had been more generous with our assistance?"
This is what I call the "buckets of money" argument. If only America had ladled generous doses of foreign aid onto Haiti, Haiti wouldn't be in its current crisis.
The problem, however, is that Haiti was in no position to absorb ANY kind of foreign aid. Some note that America held up World Bank loans to Haiti, or maintained a ban on direct aid. Note that both forms of banned aid are the sort that go to GOVERNMENTS, and Haiti's government was NOT dedicated to democratic principles. Aristide was starting to maintain power by relying on armed gangs of thugs (who the Haitians called chimères). If there was any doubt as to whether he controlled these gangs, it should have disappeared when the chimères ended their murderous rampage when the United States issued a stern warning to Mr. Aristide to control his followers. Aristide presided over a government that was corrupt and awash in drug money.
The economy was NOT set up for free enterprise, as it takes DECADES (if possible at all) for private citizens to acquire land or start a company (and either way, foreign aid wouldn't make it down to ordinary citizens when the country was run by as corrupt a leader as Aristide).
Remember, the World Bank loaned billions to Argentina, and that nation defaulted rather spectacularly a few years ago. This shows the fatal flaw in sending aid money to GOVERNMENTS. If you want to send aid, make it in the form of easier loans for private citizens in the target country. Of course, that can only work if the country is set up to enable private citizens to conduct business.
Aid would NOT have helped Haiti. If anything, it would merely enabled Aristide and his cronies to acquire more of the hardware needed to TRULY oppress their fellow citizens. State aid to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s didn't make Iraq a freer and wealthier place. Arisitide was no Saddam Hussein, but giving aid money to his GOVERNMENT would have made a bad situation worse.
Bush's election ads
I haven't seen many of the new advertisements for the Bush campaign (I am in Switzerland), but have read that some are complaining that they are using footage from the September 11th attacks. Apparently, some think the use of the footage a crass attempt to sway public opinion using the emotions stirred up by September 11th footage.
I don't agree. I think that it is JUST and PROPER for Bush to include footage from those attacks, simply because it is JUST and PROPER to judge the Bush administration's success (or lack thereof) within the context of what happened on September 11th.
I don't deny that a lot of people find that footage painful. Heck, I still do. It brings back those feelings of anger we all felt when we saw the twin towers collapse.
That, however, is the point. We are getting ready to decide whether or not to replace the president on whose watch September 11th occurred. I want ALL the cards on the table. I want to think, honestly, about EVERY aspect of his presidency. Like it or not, September 11th is a part of that presidency.
The president has the right to ask the American people to consider whether or not he has reacted properly within the context of September 11th. Some will conclude that he didn't, and vote to remove him. Others will go the other direction. Either way, I don't think we help ourselves to make a better decision in November by hiding our head in the sand and not letting ourselves get "shocked" by footage of September 11th. It makes the dialogue incomplete.
I can't say for whom I'm going to vote. Anyone who has read my blog knows that there are aspects to both Kerry and Bush I find appealing. I'm not going to make my decision artificially easier, though, by excising painful points from the debate. That's not intellectually honest.
I haven't seen many of the new advertisements for the Bush campaign (I am in Switzerland), but have read that some are complaining that they are using footage from the September 11th attacks. Apparently, some think the use of the footage a crass attempt to sway public opinion using the emotions stirred up by September 11th footage.
I don't agree. I think that it is JUST and PROPER for Bush to include footage from those attacks, simply because it is JUST and PROPER to judge the Bush administration's success (or lack thereof) within the context of what happened on September 11th.
I don't deny that a lot of people find that footage painful. Heck, I still do. It brings back those feelings of anger we all felt when we saw the twin towers collapse.
That, however, is the point. We are getting ready to decide whether or not to replace the president on whose watch September 11th occurred. I want ALL the cards on the table. I want to think, honestly, about EVERY aspect of his presidency. Like it or not, September 11th is a part of that presidency.
The president has the right to ask the American people to consider whether or not he has reacted properly within the context of September 11th. Some will conclude that he didn't, and vote to remove him. Others will go the other direction. Either way, I don't think we help ourselves to make a better decision in November by hiding our head in the sand and not letting ourselves get "shocked" by footage of September 11th. It makes the dialogue incomplete.
I can't say for whom I'm going to vote. Anyone who has read my blog knows that there are aspects to both Kerry and Bush I find appealing. I'm not going to make my decision artificially easier, though, by excising painful points from the debate. That's not intellectually honest.
