Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!jack!crash!pnet01!haitex
From: haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Japan and semiconductors (further digression)
Message-ID: <2321@crash.cts.com>
Date: 10 Jan 88 06:36:18 GMT
Sender: news@crash.cts.com
Organization: People-Net [pnet01], El Cajon CA
Lines: 65

farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) writes:
>Disregarding any arguments about the truth of this assumption (I don't
>think it's true, by the way), what damn difference does it make?  If
>we assume that each nation is an independent entity, which has to 
>defend itself against any and all other states because its life depends
>on it, then your viewpoint makes sense.  In the world as it really
>exists today, though, that viewpoint is dangerously limited.  We live
>in an environment where every nation's economic health is dependent,
>to some extent, on every other nation's economic health.  Europe has
>long realized this (thus the EEC), while we in the U.S. are still
>clinging to the idea that our own interests are the only ones which
>are important, and this is hurting us more than it is helping.

	Actually, I basically agree with you.  The problem is that
while the world economy functions most efficeintly when run as you
describe, this assumes that none of the participating nations will
cheat.  However the benfits to a nation for cheating are real.  If
a nation is able to gain dominance by undercutting other nations,
even taking a short term loss, there are real internal gains to be
made.  Monopolies and Oligarchies are bad for economic growth.  In
the past this was not a big problem because foriegn economies were
so much weaker than that of the U.S., which cannot really be said
any more.  We break up or regulate internal monoplies.  Shouldn't
we be concerned about the formation of external monopolies?  After
all, it may take more than litigation to protect ourselves from
these!

	As far as recognizing the inter-dependance of world markets,
the lack of U.S. understanding of the importance of such, and the
more enlightened European approach, I suggest you read about the
"Marshall Plan".  The U.S. is the standard bearer of this line of
thought.  It is always in the interest of the dominant econmic power
to ecourage free and un-restricted trade.  

>Frankly, if the Japanese can make microelectronics more efficiently,
>more power to them.  Not only does this mean that we all can benefit
>from their expertise, but it also means that we won't be stuck in
>the situation that we have found ourselves in more and more lately -
>where we insist on protecting a domestic industry that isn't willing
>to take the measures necessary to compete in the real world.  We've
>seen this happen with the steel and textile industries already; the
>only way we'll be able to avoid the same sort of fate for the micro-
>electronics industry is to face the fact that we're being beaten,
>and take appropriate measures, either to regain the lead we've lost
>or to simply accept the situation as it stands.  Hiding our heads,
>and saying that it isn't necessary to acknowledge other's efforts,
>gains us nothing except a false sense of superiority.  When we can
>demonstrate a real superiority, the problem won't be a problem any
>more.

	If they can do it more efficeintly, so be it.  But to sit back
and watch them drive us out of the industry because our internal
policy denies U.S. companies the right to excercise the same long-run
strategies would be foolish.


						Thanks,


							Wade.


UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!haitex
ARPA: crash!pnet01!haitex@nosc.mil
INET: haitex@pnet01.CTS.COM