>Houston, my comments interleaved:
>
>>>First of all there are large and obvious products like cars or computer parts or clothing that we all know where it is manufactured.
>>
>>Really? And what about Toyota's? Are these made in Japan, or here in the U.S., I'm guessing a mix of both. How about Ford? How many parts go into a Ford that are made overseas? But hey, I hear your argument – if an item is big or obvious, then that makes it easy to decide where it was made!!!
>
>You take the example too literally and therefore your facetiousness is justified. It is obvious that Sony televisions are a Japanese product and hence purchases of this item will ultimately benefit a non-local company. It’s the general point that I was trying to make.
>
>But more than this, we were discussing outsourcing of work rather than the nature, pros, and cons of globalization. If the work is outsourced but remains within a country then one could say that at least jobs are retained in that country on the whole.

Agreed, though this thread was talking about a particular example, outsourcing to India. I believe that there is a lot of merit in a company focusing on its core purpose but outsourcing the rest. But not to other countries, unless those countries have similar protections for the environment, set minimum wages, workers rights to occupational health and safety, etc.

>Globalization is too complicated a subject for a forum like this – at least for me it is.

Agreed.

>
>
>>You appear to have swallowed whole, the myth of consumer culture; that we have a choice! The only real choice is take it or leave it. The fact that there are a dozen sizes, flavors, colors, etc. is largely irrelevant - take for example surfactants, these are all basically the same, it is only the packaging that differs.
>
>Whether I have or have not swallowed whole a myth depends on your ability to prove that (a) such a myth exists and (b) that I have swallowed it whole. Simply stating so does not prove the point. What I have said in my posts in this thread is that the consumer has some choice and must accept some responsibility for those choices. Not that the consumer is totally responsible.

I Agree. "You appear to have..." might have been better as "Perhaps you have swallowed whole..." I really have no idea what you've been eating lately.

>>To quote a Stanford piece: "production choices of society are largely driven by the dynamics of Forced economic growth. Fabrication of demand is part of the production process, through massive marketing and feedback of the Economic ideology itself."
>
>I accept that respected people have strong opinions but there are opinions galore on both sides of the fence of any complex issue. And most opinions will also contain at least some truth which is why I do not believe in absolute right and wrong sides in these complex debates.
>
>
>>>Secondly, ignorance is not a defence (I think you mean defense).
>
>You quite are correct - I ment defense.
>
>
>>I was under the impression this thread was meant to be about an extremely humorous hypothetical Seinfeld skit.
>
>You are correct that was the topic but chatter topics tend to evolve. Sorry if this is off topic.
>
>
>>What ever (I think you mean "whatever"), lets take the argument you put forward else where (I think you mean "elsewhere" – it’s a silly game isn’t it? :), in this thread, that employing someone overseas can lead to more profits. Which in turn can lead to more taxes paid ... If you sell a product for $100 and it cost's you $40 if it's made by someone in the U.S. then that someone is paying U.S. taxes and (hopefully) also spending the remainder in the U.S. (hint: go to Google and search on "Economic Multiplier Effect"). If the same product can be made in India for $4 then that is $4 that will likely not see the U.S. again for a while, being spent I imagine in India! When it eventually returns to the U.S. it will be worth less (money typically reduces in value with time). The rest of your specious argument collapses in similar fashion.
>
>Again I am not in complete agreement with this. The examples that both of us have given are too simplistic I admit (a problem with having to type everything) and the world does not work in such black/white ways. I am sure you know this already.

Agreed, I just find it hard not to respond to enormous over simplification and generalities. If someone posted that 'Tables are good', then I would feel compelled to argue otherwise.

>>You’re correct, this is not about politics, it's about economics - alas I find it as hard to separate these two, as the Bush Administration does trying to keep Church and State separated.
>
>Sorry, I can’t comment. I don’t know what Bush is saying half the time :)

Only half!! You must be gifted!

>Have a good one and lets not take ourselves too seriously - its bad for the health!

Complete agreement.