Washington's newfound ire toward China is not a good sign for technology companies.
Until recently, the Bush administration has sought to avoid direct confrontation with Asia's emerging superpower, instead stressing cooperation against terrorists and North Korea and veering in a generally free-trade direction.
That may be about to change. China's decision to keep its currency tied to the American dollar, which ensures that its products stay relatively inexpensive, is wildly unpopular with U.S. government officials. Tension is mounting over China's possessiveness toward Taiwan and its alleged arms sales to Iran, and a new crop of Bush appointees seems less inclined toward amicability.
Those are the necessary ingredients for an ugly trade dispute that's starting to simmer. By a 67 to 33 vote this month, the U.S. Senate effectively endorsed a bill that would impose 27.5 percent tariffs on all Chinese products.
Reading the political tea leaves offers little hope for optimism.
"We would be among the first to feel the pinch of tariff barriers," says Rhett Dawson, president of the Information Technology Industry Council. "We don't believe in tariffs. We're free traders. We think that the United States is uniquely and philosophically pro-free trade...We'd much rather have Congress pushing a free-trade agenda. We think we can compete."
The ITIC, which represents companies such as Apple Computer, Cisco Systems, Dell, eBay, IBM, Intel, Microsoft and Oracle, estimates that overseas sales account for 60 percent of the revenue of U.S. technology companies. That's why "we hope things will work themselves out," Dawson says, adding that ITIC has concerns about China's currency and its commitment to stopping software piracy.
It's true that the United States is running a massive trade deficit and Chinese exports have skyrocketed (up 6.5 times from 1993 to 2004). But what tends to be overlooked is that around 62 percent of the growth has been driven by Chinese outposts of U.S., European and Asian firms. In other words, reality is a bit more complicated than just us vs. them.
For one thing, global tech companies are moving quickly to set up manufacturing plants in China. Dell said in March that it would build a new plant in Xiamen; LG.Philips is manufacturing thin CRTs in Nanjing; Cisco has opened a research center in China; and Advanced Micro Devices has created a Chinese manufacturing subsidiary. Suffice it to say that these companies wouldn't be delighted by tariffs.
Unfortunately, reading the political tea leaves offers little hope for optimism. China pointedly snubbed the United States by
Biography Declan McCullagh is CNET News.com's chief political correspondent. He spent more than a decade in Washington, D.C., chronicling the busy intersection between technology and politics. Previously, he was the Washington bureau chief for Wired News, and a reporter for Time.com, Time magazine and HotWired. McCullagh has taught journalism at American University and been an adjunct professor at Case Western University.
Governments give the lie to their claim that theyre driven purely by economic concerns when they treat different countries differently.
India has with the support of the US government exploited its ludicrous rate of exchange to transfer the software industry from the US and EC to India. The US government has overtly subverted the laws it created to protect American workers interest in order to facilitate the training of Indians in the US so that they could return to India taking their new-found expertise with them.
Now contrast all that with the US governments attitude towards China. China is primarily driven by domestic concerns, increasing its markets (into which we all sell) as well as its manufacturing sector. Its being treated as an enemy state, like Iraq.
Snubbing China, subsidizing India, and bombing Iraq sounds like a combination taken from The Fools Opera.
The vote did not pass. So we will not impose those tarriffs.
There we 67 NAYs. It did not pass. <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00086" target="_newWindow">http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00086</a>
Vote Result: Motion to Table Failed
It means something that the legislation came up, but it means more that it did not pass.
We DO NOT want to deviate from free-market path and enforce tariffs. It will merely allow us to be lazy and not compete - ignoring quality and "beating" China because of a faux-pricehike.
Mr. Roboto thought he could make better, cheaper cars than us. If we respond the same way we did to Japan in the 80s with good-ole American Can-do and know-how, we will prevail. If we decide we can legislate our way out of this and turn a blind eye towards the prominence of China, we will be eclipsed as the premiere country of the world.
I never said the bill became law. I said the Senate "effectively endorsed," which it did.
As you should know from high school civics, there's more to a bill becoming law than one chamber approving it. In this case the parliamentary mechanics are a bit more complex but the bottom line is you have a large number of politicians who are very upset, which is what this article is all about.
It is not so much that the Indians were facilitated in their training that they were able to return home taking their new-found expertise with them... but the need for countries such as India to emerge from their impoverished state to be able to purchase the expensive American and European goods and services (the manufacturing and energy generation equipment, aircrafts and other equipment that these countries do not now produce to enable them to meet their basic domestic needs) that would have remained out of reach or difficult for them to acquire otherwise.
If the "Indian" worker cannot earn sufficiently how will he/she be able to raise his/her standard of living and satisfy his/her American and European tastes which will no doubt safeguard and enhance other American job prospects. It cuts both ways, all in all - the value of "reciprocal" trade... There are two sides to the coin!
We need better schooling, not just more money spent on schools. We must have standards. If you are flunking algerbra, you should be taking shop. We do not need more MBAs that cannot produce any tangible goods. Stop exporting capital to China and send over some AFL-CIO union reps. That will shut them down. When the next war starts, the communist masters of China will take ownership of the factories. If your shoes say "China", you are part of the problem.
Not one factory in China can report earnings higher than those owned privately. The factories owned by the government are consistently "in the red" (pun intended as well).
So if the government enforces a command economy again, it will be its downfall.
China manipulates its currency; it forces millions into virtual slave labor to support a burgeoning market in electronics.
Fact is, the Chinese Government massively supports dumping of technological products onto the U.S. economy and while consumers in the U.S. do benefit, the peril to the larger economy and to technology companies is huge.
Bush, et al., have been very slow to act; and its a good thing that they are getting their arses in gear now.
The last straw in the Chinese retaining their pegged currency to the U.S. dollar despite steep declines in the dollar around the world.
This is only from my view; Present Chinese prosperity is the result that investment from the foreign countries was invited. They depend on foreign currency. Intervention to the money rate and rise in the trade customs duty will be made to fall their economy. 1300000000 people in china; the government who supports 1300000000 people must ignore G7. Each country shouldn't impose a customs duty at the present in favor of each country. A problem is; only government knows those conditions. Their people don't know.
The bush adminstration efforts to have China and other currencies to raise thier currency values in relation to the dollar is extremelyshort sided. The top debt holder states of U.S. securities and current account are Japan, Korea and China. If the foreign counties were to revalue thier currencies upward to the american dollar they would face hundreds of billions of losses in both accounts. According to the U.S government figures, Each of the Asia countries hold at least 167 Billion in Debt equities and 175 Billion or more in current accounts. Asking Coutries to take a significate loss is foolish. But more significatntly the losses such a exchange rate would have on the Asian suppliers in the softening Semiconductor/ computer/ telecomunications markets.
Argentina linked its currency to the dollar in 1991. While the situation in which it was done was completely different and the economy of Argentina cannot be compared in any way to China in any meaningful way, the results should be kept in mind. The economy of Argentina was able to remain stable for several years, but the growing inefficiency of the system, with growing production costs and more bureaucracy every year, finally made the system explode, leading to the biggest default in history. While linking an economy's currency to the dollar is not necessarily a bad thing, what Argentinean history tells us is that the system with the linked currency must keep local costs in control. While China is becoming more efficient with time, not less, the need to import food, water and raw materials with the growing economy imply that costs will very likely rise, and that will probably lead to a recession in some years, probably less than two decades unless they become so efficient in the mean time that they can compensate for the growing costs.
They take advantage of it. I do not know of a Chinese RDBMS that competes directly with Oracle. None of the leading software or hardware companies are Chinese (yet anyway). We just use there labor and manufacturing ability to off-shore and make more money for American corps. The tariffs should hurt them, but instead it's our own "Global Corporations" that don't want the tariffs.
Beyond Declan's obvious need for a high school civics refresher himself, his understanding of macroeconomics is a little shaky as well. Take the following quote:
"Perhaps Schumer means well, but his prescription (of enforcing tariffs against China) would be worse than the disease. A primary reason for the government's external deficit is that Americans simply are saving less and spending more. China and other governments feed our appetite for consumption by lending us money--Beijing alone holds nearly $200 billion in greenbacks."
This is not true. First, American's spending more and saving less is primarily impacting our ability to invest in infrastructure at home - via bank loans, etc ... Our trade deficit has nothing to do with that. If interest rates were low and there was no China, we would still be 'spenders' as opposed to 'savers'. So while the two things can have an influence on each other, in fact they are not related by 'cause and effect' - you can have either one alone without the other.
Second, while the governments he mentions (and private investors he doesn't) do indeed feed our deficit - by buying T- bills and other US government securities - this also has nothing directly to do with American consumption habits. Assuming US current income levels and interest rates, if our federal government wasn't constantly running in the 'red', and our domestic industry were still making the things we wish to buy (DVD players, computers, iPods, etc ...) then we would again still be 'spenders'.
The reason why governments and people buy the securities we sell to finance our reckless fiscal policies, is because a] they believe that, despite the risks, it is still a relatively safe place to put their money and get a decent return, and b] the last thing that the governments that depend on our spending want is for our economy to meltdown. That is, their own domestic manufacturing is so heavily leveraged toward selling stuff to us, that they do what they can to keep us solvent so that they can continue selling us stuff. Its pretty simple self-interested behavior on their part.
It's the latter that holds the key to this debate really. As much as a trade war would cause American consumers some pain - up until the point that US companies would start building factories in other low wage countries, or perhaps even here again (more on that in a minute) - the real hurt would be put on those countries economies that are almost completely dependent on US citizens consuming their product output.
IF we were to change that pattern - via legislation or longer acting (and highly unlikely) economic processes - the fact is these countries' own domestic markets would be much too small to absorb the loss. That's even true for China right now. Despite it's huge numbers, the people there don't earn very much on average, and thus the domestic market for Chinese produced goods is no where near the size of the market they have with us.
Personally, I have nothing against a person in China making a living, even if that living is made by selling things to us. The Chinese people are warm and intelligent, and they deserve to have some success after years of suffering under Mao. One problem I do have is that the Chinese government is a still a direct descendant of Mao - it is a totalitarian system - and is simply using the largess, gained from capitalism and this imbalanced trading system we have in place now, to bulk up their economy/military for the purposes of making the Asian world march to their tune. For better or for worse, that is their only goal for the moment.
The second problem is that we ourselves are at risk of becoming the next Spanish Empire. Like them, we make money hand over fist yet do nothing productive with it - like investing in domestic industry, effective social services for our people (eductaion, health care, retirement), more efficient use of energy and resources, , improving infrastructure ... I could go on. Spain made their cash by mining the Americas for gold and living the high consumption lifestyle - we do the same, just by 'mining' financial and currency markets for all their worth. And, just as the Spanish had some good times for a while under that economic regime, but in fact were allowing themselves to be 'hollowed out' from within, the US today uses much the same trade and fiscal practices and seem to be running that same risk as a result. The Spanish were eventually kicked hard to second class status by the much more industrious British. My fear is that, thanks to our multinational companies' greed, our government's abdication of actually protecting our national intrests, and our citizen's complacency about all of the above, all are combining in a perfect-storm-scenario that will lead to the US repeating that well-understood historical pattern.
How about this for a prescription: A trade policy favoring democracies over totalitarian regimes (by tariffs if necessary), a fiscal policy that gets back to a Clinton Era balancing-of-the- books, and government action in improving our human capital, our infrastructure, and inducing business to invest in plant here - all of this should be combined into one comprehensive policy.
As for 'free trade'; it should be conducted with free societies and free governments, if it is to be conducted at all. We don't owe the Chinese politburo anything, but policy actions of the type I've just described may in fact help the Chinese PEOPLE aspire to more representative government, or at least stimulate their own domestic economy since ours won't be there as a substitute. And it should do nothing but provide the American people with a much sounder economic base as well.
What kind of research and data collection have you done over the years to support your claim "China Benefits More From Free Trade Than US Does"?
quote: "How about this for a prescription: A trade policy favoring democracies over totalitarian regimes (by tariffs if necessary)"
You obviously and desperately need a dose of reality check if not a trip back to high school.
(1) The U.S. is NOT a democracy in the true sense of the word. (one needs a really sharp mind plus serious training in history and philosophy to understand that)
(2) Democracy (in its pure form or otherwise) is NOT necessarily superior to other forms of government. (Hitler was democratically elected. In fact, percentagewise he had far more support from the population than GW Bush has ever had here in the U.S.) Your sense of moral high ground in democracy is not only naive and unwarranted, but dangerous as well.
(3) Free trade, as a practice established by countries around the world, is a commercial endeavor. You are mixing up politics and commerce like GW Bush's mixing up college drinking and getting an education.
(4) There isn't free trade between China and the U.S. YET. OK? You are embarrassing yourself.
The US might not like Tarrifs, but it has some excessive subsidies for it's farmers. Even so China should not be allowed in the WTO as long as they maintain their currency pegging.
The Submission of Well Researched Recommendations...
In their book - "Economic Evaluation and Investment Decision Methods"; Franklin and John Stermole explained that 'Engineering and science technology in one way or another provide the basis for most of the investment opportunities in this world today. Even the economic desirability of investments in land often relates to engineering technology that may make the land more valuable several years from now for apartments, a park or some industrial plant utilization. In a capitalist society it is imperative that engineering proposals as well as all other types of investment proposal be evaluated in terms of worth and cost before they are undertaken". It is further explained, "Thus the term "engineering economy" which is used widely used in literature and texts applies in general to the "economoc evaluation" of all types of investment situations". From the above... what I am simply trying to say in general is that instead of readers being treated with lenghty pieces of articles without any sound analyses... why not let countries like China, Japan, India and others around the world have well researched recommendations based on the definition of problems, the analyses of the problems, the development of alternative solutions, decisions based on the best solutions and the conversion of the decisions into effective actions as outlined by Peter Drucker in his management texts. Surely, these will provide close enough estimation as to realistic expectations throughout the world economy.
an update: Beijing ignores currency demands from G7
Check out this Financial Times piece: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://news.ft.com/cms/s/d653a6aa-b062-11d9-ab98-00000e2511c8.html" target="_newWindow">http://news.ft.com/cms/s/d653a6aa-b062-11d9-ab98-00000e2511c8.html</a>
"China yesterday ignored demands from finance ministers of the Group of Seven industrialised countries that it immediately adopt a more flexible currency regime."
Pertinent point - for this thread - that I got from the Slate article below: The Chinese government has no incentive to crack down on piracy, as the practice presently does nothing harmful to them. In fact it confers the advantage of easily helping build their economic base (particularly in technology and manufacturing).
Why not have the World Court address matters such as computer software piracy and other intellectual property issues that involves countries such as China, Russia and other countries around the world!
Chinese authorities have reportedly taken iPads from a third-party retailer, a move apparently brought on by Apple's continued refusal to honor a trademark for the iPad name owned by a Chinese manufacturer.
NY professor believes that a word-based algorithm can help bring together those who believe, with one glimpse, that they have found and lost the love of their lives.
Along with green-lighting Google's buy of Motorola, the Justice Department today OKs an Apple-Microsoft-RIM partnership deal to buy Nortel patents, and Apple's plan to acquire Novell patents.
Chamtech's spray-on antenna uses a nano material to provide a low-power boost to antenna range. The wireless-in-a-can product may some day bring an end to unsightly cell towers.
This week, we pass around Sony's new PlayStation Vita for some hands-on testing, check out HP's newest Beats Audio laptop, and debate the best and worst Valentine's Day gadget gifts.
EnerG2 opens a plant to make an engineered carbon that will improve performance of energy storage devices and make storage for start-stop hybrid cars less expensive.
India has with the support of the US government exploited its ludicrous rate of exchange to transfer the software industry from the US and EC to India. The US government has overtly subverted the laws it created to protect American workers interest in order to facilitate the training of Indians in the US so that they could return to India taking their new-found expertise with them.
Now contrast all that with the US governments attitude towards China. China is primarily driven by domestic concerns, increasing its markets (into which we all sell) as well as its manufacturing sector. Its being treated as an enemy state, like Iraq.
Snubbing China, subsidizing India, and bombing Iraq sounds like a combination taken from The Fools Opera.
The vote did not pass. So we will not impose those tarriffs.
There we 67 NAYs. It did not pass.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00086" target="_newWindow">http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00086</a>
Vote Result: Motion to Table Failed
It means something that the legislation came up, but it means more that it did not pass.
We DO NOT want to deviate from free-market path and enforce tariffs. It will merely allow us to be lazy and not compete - ignoring quality and "beating" China because of a faux-pricehike.
Mr. Roboto thought he could make better, cheaper cars than us. If we respond the same way we did to Japan in the 80s with good-ole American Can-do and know-how, we will prevail. If we decide we can legislate our way out of this and turn a blind eye towards the prominence of China, we will be eclipsed as the premiere country of the world.
But it is not inevitable.
As you should know from high school civics, there's more to a bill becoming law than one chamber approving it. In this case the parliamentary mechanics are a bit more complex but the bottom line is you have a large number of politicians who are very upset, which is what this article is all about.
If the "Indian" worker cannot earn sufficiently how will he/she be able to raise his/her standard of living and satisfy his/her American and European tastes which will no doubt safeguard and enhance other American job prospects. It cuts both ways, all in all - the value of "reciprocal" trade... There are two sides to the coin!
spent on schools. We must have standards.
If you are flunking algerbra,
you should be taking shop.
We do not need more MBAs that cannot produce
any tangible goods.
Stop exporting capital to China and send over
some AFL-CIO union reps. That will shut them
down.
When the next war starts, the communist masters
of China will take ownership of the factories.
If your shoes say "China", you are part of the
problem.
So if the government enforces a command economy again, it will be its downfall.
Fact is, the Chinese Government massively supports dumping of technological products onto the U.S. economy and while consumers in the U.S. do benefit, the peril to the larger economy and to technology companies is huge.
Bush, et al., have been very slow to act; and its a good thing that they are getting their arses in gear now.
The last straw in the Chinese retaining their pegged currency to the U.S. dollar despite steep declines in the dollar around the world.
Present Chinese prosperity is the result that investment from the foreign countries was invited. They depend on foreign currency. Intervention to the money rate and rise in the trade customs duty will be made to fall their economy. 1300000000 people in china; the government who supports 1300000000 people must ignore G7. Each country shouldn't impose a customs duty at the present in favor of each country. A problem is; only government knows those conditions. Their people don't know.
Asking Coutries to take a significate loss is
foolish. But more significatntly the losses such a exchange rate would have on the Asian suppliers in the softening Semiconductor/ computer/ telecomunications markets.
While linking an economy's currency to the dollar is not necessarily a bad thing, what Argentinean history tells us is that the system with the linked currency must keep local costs in control. While China is becoming more efficient with time, not less, the need to import food, water and raw materials with the growing economy imply that costs will very likely rise, and that will probably lead to a recession in some years, probably less than two decades unless they become so efficient in the mean time that they can compensate for the growing costs.
himself, his understanding of macroeconomics is a little shaky
as well. Take the following quote:
"Perhaps Schumer means well, but his prescription (of enforcing
tariffs against China) would be worse than the disease. A
primary reason for the government's external deficit is that
Americans simply are saving less and spending more. China and
other governments feed our appetite for consumption by
lending us money--Beijing alone holds nearly $200 billion in
greenbacks."
This is not true. First, American's spending more and saving less
is primarily impacting our ability to invest in infrastructure at
home - via bank loans, etc ... Our trade deficit has nothing to do
with that. If interest rates were low and there was no China, we
would still be 'spenders' as opposed to 'savers'. So while the two
things can have an influence on each other, in fact they are not
related by 'cause and effect' - you can have either one alone
without the other.
Second, while the governments he mentions (and private
investors he doesn't) do indeed feed our deficit - by buying T-
bills and other US government securities - this also has nothing
directly to do with American consumption habits. Assuming US
current income levels and interest rates, if our federal
government wasn't constantly running in the 'red', and our
domestic industry were still making the things we wish to buy
(DVD players, computers, iPods, etc ...) then we would again still
be 'spenders'.
The reason why governments and people buy the securities we
sell to finance our reckless fiscal policies, is because a] they
believe that, despite the risks, it is still a relatively safe place to
put their money and get a decent return, and b] the last thing
that the governments that depend on our spending want is for
our economy to meltdown. That is, their own domestic
manufacturing is so heavily leveraged toward selling stuff to us,
that they do what they can to keep us solvent so that they can
continue selling us stuff. Its pretty simple self-interested
behavior on their part.
It's the latter that holds the key to this debate really. As much as
a trade war would cause American consumers some pain - up
until the point that US companies would start building factories
in other low wage countries, or perhaps even here again (more
on that in a minute) - the real hurt would be put on those
countries economies that are almost completely dependent on
US citizens consuming their product output.
IF we were to change that pattern - via legislation or longer
acting (and highly unlikely) economic processes - the fact is
these countries' own domestic markets would be much too small
to absorb the loss. That's even true for China right now. Despite
it's huge numbers, the people there don't earn very much on
average, and thus the domestic market for Chinese produced
goods is no where near the size of the market they have with us.
Personally, I have nothing against a person in China making a
living, even if that living is made by selling things to us. The
Chinese people are warm and intelligent, and they deserve to
have some success after years of suffering under Mao. One
problem I do have is that the Chinese government is a still a
direct descendant of Mao - it is a totalitarian system - and is
simply using the largess, gained from capitalism and this
imbalanced trading system we have in place now, to bulk up
their economy/military for the purposes of making the Asian
world march to their tune. For better or for worse, that is their
only goal for the moment.
The second problem is that we ourselves are at risk of becoming
the next Spanish Empire. Like them, we make money hand over
fist yet do nothing productive with it - like investing in domestic
industry, effective social services for our people
(eductaion, health care, retirement), more efficient use of energy
and resources, , improving infrastructure ... I could go on. Spain
made their cash by mining the Americas for gold and living the
high consumption lifestyle - we do the same, just by 'mining'
financial and currency markets for all their worth. And, just as
the Spanish had some good times for a while under that
economic regime, but in fact were allowing themselves to be
'hollowed out' from within, the US today uses much the same
trade and fiscal practices and seem to be running that same risk
as a result. The Spanish were eventually kicked hard to second
class status by the much more industrious British. My fear is
that, thanks to our multinational companies' greed, our
government's abdication of actually protecting our national
intrests, and our citizen's complacency about all of the above, all
are combining in a perfect-storm-scenario that will lead to the
US repeating that well-understood historical pattern.
How about this for a prescription: A trade policy favoring
democracies over totalitarian regimes (by tariffs if necessary), a
fiscal policy that gets back to a Clinton Era balancing-of-the-
books, and government action in improving our human capital,
our infrastructure, and inducing business to invest in plant here
- all of this should be combined into one comprehensive policy.
As for 'free trade'; it should be conducted with free societies and
free governments, if it is to be conducted at all. We don't owe
the Chinese politburo anything, but policy actions of the type
I've just described may in fact help the Chinese PEOPLE aspire to
more representative government, or at least stimulate their own
domestic economy since ours won't be there as a substitute.
And it should do nothing but provide the American people with
a much sounder economic base as well.
What kind of research and data collection have you done over the years to support your claim "China Benefits More From Free Trade Than US Does"?
quote: "How about this for a prescription: A trade policy favoring
democracies over totalitarian regimes (by tariffs if necessary)"
You obviously and desperately need a dose of reality check if not a trip back to high school.
(1) The U.S. is NOT a democracy in the true sense of the word. (one needs a really sharp mind plus serious training in history and philosophy to understand that)
(2) Democracy (in its pure form or otherwise) is NOT necessarily superior to other forms of government. (Hitler was democratically elected. In fact, percentagewise he had far more support from the population than GW Bush has ever had here in the U.S.) Your sense of moral high ground in democracy is not only naive and unwarranted, but dangerous as well.
(3) Free trade, as a practice established by countries around the world, is a commercial endeavor. You are mixing up politics and commerce like GW Bush's mixing up college drinking and getting an education.
(4) There isn't free trade between China and the U.S. YET. OK? You are embarrassing yourself.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://news.ft.com/cms/s/d653a6aa-b062-11d9-ab98-00000e2511c8.html" target="_newWindow">http://news.ft.com/cms/s/d653a6aa-b062-11d9-ab98-00000e2511c8.html</a>
"China yesterday ignored demands from finance ministers of the Group of Seven industrialised countries that it immediately adopt a more flexible currency regime."
below: The Chinese government has no incentive to crack down
on piracy, as the practice presently does nothing harmful to
them. In fact it confers the advantage of easily helping build
their economic base (particularly in technology and
manufacturing).
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.slate.com/id/2116629/" target="_newWindow">http://www.slate.com/id/2116629/</a>
-JDM
-JDM