Can lawyers be outsourced?

[Paikea]

1. Technically they're not in violation of anything because they don't have these rights/laws on the books.  Also, many Chinese would argue that if there was a list of priorities, they'd prefer to fulfill their basic needs by being able to afford food and other necessities, rather than speak out against their government.  As long as their incomes are increasing, they do not mind the current state of affairs.

2. "Japan has $700B of accumulated Treasuries, and China $200B." from http://www.safehaven.com/article-3097.htm.

That's hardly 75%

3. Unocal is the 9th largest oil company in the States.  One of the largest yes, but ninth doesn't exactly scream oh my god they're going to control our oil supply.

1.  I would disagree. And without getting into a whole "China and human rights violations" tangent (which seems to always happen) I will just say this.   The kinds of labor practices that go on in China are the exact kind that are deemed extremely inhumane by our nation.  They violate every ounce of our conception of human rights and US labor laws.  Add in the fact that a multitude of US corporations have set up shop and participating in such practices is, well, wrong.  Yes, the Chinese may be fine with forcing 14 year old girls to work 17 hour work days in intolerable conditions, in addition to forcing women to have  abortions in order for them to retain their employment status.  For this thread, I won't argue that they should change.  But I will argue that the US should not condone, nor participate, in such acts.

2.  Yes, as philabuster points out, this pertains to trade deficit.  But to be honest, this was a report I heard on the radio.  But it was stated that China owns 75% of our nations trade deficit.  Heck, even if the number was closer to 50%, this is not a good thing.

3.  Buying UnoCal does not instantly scream they own our oil supply.  I never stated that.  But it strongly signals the fact that China is out to buy oil companies rather than be a nation dependant on other country's oil.   And the scary thing is that they have all the money they need to buy whatever oil companies  come their way.

[Paikea]

You've stated that China has throughout it's history been the greatest innovator of all time. I've brought up Lu Xun because his works show how different traditional Chinese society is from the modern Western world. The West didn't "build upon" Chinese innovations, its civilization is fundamentally different. You can take Chinese medicine as an example of that.

Western institutions, things such as the U.N. and other multilateral organizations, are  the total opposite of what existed under dynastic China's tributary system.

But let me give you another example--Chinese law. If you read Chinese legal documents during the Qing dynasty, you'll be shocked at what you find.

I am not taking the position that China is responsible for the greatest innovations in every catagory.  Nor am I saying that the West is void of their own great innovations as well.  But, without repeating what J D has already posted (which I would greatly agree with, of course) the innovations that were developed during this time period in China were instrumental for a vast majority of advances that were to come later, including those in the West.    Sure the civilizations are different, but that is not what I am talking about.    I am not advocating that early Chinese civilzation has anything that rivaled the UN.  Or that early Chinese law seems backwards compared to today's law.  Nor am I arguing the Chinese had anything that rivaled space stations, ocean steamliners, or even personal laptop computers.  But I will argue that their early innovations (as a whole) were not only further ahead of their time than others, moreso than anything developed during the Industrial Revolution or later, they were also instumental foundations for later technological advancements to come in both the East and West.

[Paikea]

Great point, Paikea.  The Chinese might have been backward vis-à-vis the West by the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (for example, in medicine and the sciences), when the Middle Kingdom had clearly declined and the West had made truly amazing leaps in terms of political and military power, science and technology.  But that in itself doesn't disqualify their immense societal and cultural development over the course of the previous millenia.  They developed things like gunpowder, paper, and movable type FAR earlier than was the case in Europe (and I would argue these developments were essential, if not sufficient, for the advent of modernity).  Their political system developed thousands of years before the Roman Empire and lasted a hell of a lot longer.  All of this is nothing to sneeze at, notwithstanding the ideas of some people like Lu Xun and Fukuzawa Yukichi.

Exactly JD.  Things need to be looked at relative to when they took place.  Definitely the West made huge advancements during the modern era.  This cannot be denied.   But the innovations that took place in early China relative to it's time, and where other countries where at that time, especially Europe, is quite mindboggling.

[Hegel]

WOW.  All I wanted to say was to not underestimate the Chinese and Indians. 

Then one poster decides to argue that a country with much greater population has fewer people with higher IQ's and subsequently complains about ad hominems while he/she engages in that very activity.  Meanwhile, everyone starts comparing cultural prowess. 

No wonder Congress can't accomplish anything, except digressing into side arguments having little relation to the topic at hand.  Ultimately, does it matter which culture is the champion of all inventions throughout history?  What really matters is keeping the "American dream" alive without shipping it off to third world countries in search of the almighty dollar.  Just because there are no laws on the books in China doesn't make it right for American corporations to indirectly avoid labor laws here in the United States.

The problem lies in the trade agreements themselves and the enforcement of any violations of the provisions therein.  For this country to enter into trade agreements that will surely result in fewer jobs and cheaper goods is economic suicide not to mention counterproductive to our long-term sovereignty. 

Globalism is not a panacea as professed by some economic pundits whom are largely responsible for this trend toward instability within the US economy.  The resulting codependency amongst countries does not necessarily mean that they will not be hostile toward each other.  In fact, they might become more hostile, since their basic needs are now obtained from within the borders of the other country.

[mal]

Buying UnoCal does not instantly scream they own our oil supply.  I never stated that.  But it strongly signals the fact that China is out to buy oil companies rather than be a nation dependant on other country's oil.   And the scary thing is that they have all the money they need to buy whatever oil companies  come their way.

You didn't say it but your post certainly seemed a bit hysterical ("and is now positioning itself to purchase one of our largest oil companies, UniCal...watch out!" and "Yep, in about 25 years, we will all be speaking Chinese.").  Also, don't the resolutions passed by the house and strong outcry against the deal on nat'l security grounds indicate to you that the deal more than likely will not go through, and that buying "whatever oil companies  come their way" isn't such an easy proposition?


I advise all who have more than a passing interest in the labor conditions here to come to China and speak to a few Chinese people.  Many will tell you that conditions in foreign-owned factories are much better than Chinese ones.  They don't measure up to western standards, but neither do a heck of a lot of things in this country. 

(With respect to American companies coming here and not subscribing to labor laws of their home country....why would they!? That's one of the reasons for coming here in the first place, (similar to incorporating in Delaware or the Bahamas to reduce taxes) to increase profits.  I'm not saying it's right, but they're corporations, and are acting like corporations.  As consumers, we are free to take our business elsewhere....)

[mal]

Globalism is not a panacea as professed by some economic pundits whom are largely responsible for this trend toward instability within the US economy.  The resulting codependency amongst countries does not necessarily mean that they will not be hostile toward each other.  In fact, they might become more hostile, since their basic needs are now obtained from within the borders of the other country.

A contrarian view...

"Economics also made a great difference. If two countries were highly interdependent (their mutual trade accounted for a substantial portion of their GNPs), they were again about two-and-a-half times less likely to have a military dispute than if they traded little or at all. This was an even greater disincentive than simply being wealthy, and the reasons are pretty clear. If we bomb the cities or factories of a close trading partner--where we also are likely to have heavy private investments--we are bombing our own markets, suppliers, and even the property of our own nationals"

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR22.5/russett.html

[mxpocc]

WOW.  All I wanted to say was to not underestimate the Chinese and Indians. 

Then one poster decides to argue that a country with much greater population has fewer people with higher IQ's and subsequently complains about ad hominems while he/she engages in that very activity.  Meanwhile, everyone starts comparing cultural prowess. 

don't expect not to be held accountable for the statements you make. also, stop lying about the ad hominem stuff. I already pointed out that you put words into my mouth.

here's an article you might be interested in reading, Hegel

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.05/flynn.html

[Paperback Writer]

This guy is talking sense.  Time to stop toadying up to China...

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/peninsula/12073353.htm?source=rss&channel=mercurynews_peninsula

Money quote:
"He also blasted China for manipulating its currency to keep it undervalued. Doing this makes a country's exports cheaper and provides an unfair advantage.

``It's cheating,'' he said.

Bayh said the United States has less leverage holding countries such as China accountable to international trade standards as the United States spirals into debt.

``Our legacy to our children -- mine and yours -- should be more than unpaid bills,'' he said.

Bayh -- who became governor of Indiana at age 32, one of the youngest in the nation's history -- helped create 375,000 jobs in the state and amassed a budget surplus of $1.6 billion, according to the Web site of All America, his political action committee. He has more than $6 million left over from his last campaign, and the political action committee has raised money, too, Pfeiffer said."

It used to be that Ohio and Indiana were roughly the same.  I can tell you that since Taft has been governor, Ohio has fallen apart.  Jobs are hard to find, and it seems like a new scandal busts out every day.

[mal]

You should check this book out:

"Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1843310279/qid=1120835867/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-0853228-6463307

It's main point is that now that developed countries have removed (most of) their protectionist policies that helped them grow, and embraced intellectual property rights as critical to encouraging innovation, they now impress the same on developing countries.  Needless to say, when developed countries were at the same stage of development as the now developing countries, it was an anything goes type of mentality.

Sure, what China is doing may not be "fair," but it really depends on whose perspective you're looking at it from now doesn't it?

[Paperback Writer]

You should check this book out:

"Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1843310279/qid=1120835867/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-0853228-6463307

It's main point is that now that developed countries have removed (most of) their protectionist policies that helped them grow, and embraced intellectual property rights as critical to encouraging innovation, they now impress the same on developing countries.  Needless to say, when developed countries were at the same stage of development as the now developing countries, it was an anything goes type of mentality.

Sure, what China is doing may not be "fair," but it really depends on whose perspective you're looking at it from now doesn't it?

First, you are suggesting that we shouldn't learn from the past, and seem to suggest that we should go gently into that good night.  Second, China is not a country that respects human rights and democracy.