<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_28_1619239</id>
	<title>What the iPod Tells Us About the World Economy</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1259428500000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"Edmund Conway has an interesting article in the Telegraph where he analyzes <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/edmundconway/100002310/what-the-ipod-tells-us-about-britains-economic-future/">where the money goes when you buy a complex electronic device marked 'Made in China,'</a> and why a developed economy doesn't need a trade surplus in order to survive. For his example, Conway chooses a 30GB video iPod 'manufactured' in China in 2006. Each iPod, sold in the US for $299,  provides China with an export value of about $150, but as it turns out, Chinese producers really only 'earned' around $4 on each unit. 'China, you see, is really just the place where most of the other components that go inside the iPod are shipped and assembled.' Conway says that when you work out the overall US balance of payments, it shows that most of the cash for high tech inventions has flowed back to the United States as <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/hamish-mcrae-why-intellectual-property-is-a-vital-trade-for-the-englishspeaking-world-419708.html">a direct result of the intellectual property companies own in their products</a>. 'While the iPod is manufactured offshore and has a global roster of suppliers, the greatest benefits from this innovation go to Apple, an American company, with predominantly American employees and stockholders who reap the benefits,' writes Conway. 'As long as the US market remains dynamic, with innovative firms and risk-taking entrepreneurs, global innovation should continue to create value for American investors and well-paid jobs for knowledge workers. But if those companies get complacent or lose focus, there are plenty of foreign competitors ready to take their places.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " Edmund Conway has an interesting article in the Telegraph where he analyzes where the money goes when you buy a complex electronic device marked 'Made in China, ' and why a developed economy does n't need a trade surplus in order to survive .
For his example , Conway chooses a 30GB video iPod 'manufactured ' in China in 2006 .
Each iPod , sold in the US for $ 299 , provides China with an export value of about $ 150 , but as it turns out , Chinese producers really only 'earned ' around $ 4 on each unit .
'China , you see , is really just the place where most of the other components that go inside the iPod are shipped and assembled .
' Conway says that when you work out the overall US balance of payments , it shows that most of the cash for high tech inventions has flowed back to the United States as a direct result of the intellectual property companies own in their products .
'While the iPod is manufactured offshore and has a global roster of suppliers , the greatest benefits from this innovation go to Apple , an American company , with predominantly American employees and stockholders who reap the benefits, ' writes Conway .
'As long as the US market remains dynamic , with innovative firms and risk-taking entrepreneurs , global innovation should continue to create value for American investors and well-paid jobs for knowledge workers .
But if those companies get complacent or lose focus , there are plenty of foreign competitors ready to take their places .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "Edmund Conway has an interesting article in the Telegraph where he analyzes where the money goes when you buy a complex electronic device marked 'Made in China,' and why a developed economy doesn't need a trade surplus in order to survive.
For his example, Conway chooses a 30GB video iPod 'manufactured' in China in 2006.
Each iPod, sold in the US for $299,  provides China with an export value of about $150, but as it turns out, Chinese producers really only 'earned' around $4 on each unit.
'China, you see, is really just the place where most of the other components that go inside the iPod are shipped and assembled.
' Conway says that when you work out the overall US balance of payments, it shows that most of the cash for high tech inventions has flowed back to the United States as a direct result of the intellectual property companies own in their products.
'While the iPod is manufactured offshore and has a global roster of suppliers, the greatest benefits from this innovation go to Apple, an American company, with predominantly American employees and stockholders who reap the benefits,' writes Conway.
'As long as the US market remains dynamic, with innovative firms and risk-taking entrepreneurs, global innovation should continue to create value for American investors and well-paid jobs for knowledge workers.
But if those companies get complacent or lose focus, there are plenty of foreign competitors ready to take their places.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30259452</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading Conclusion.</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1259435700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that Knowledge is just like those digital bits we so hotly debate hereabouts. There is zero cost to "pirate" and disseminate Knowledge. It isn't something you make/grow and sell that is by its nature in limited supply (as are all manufactured and grown goods). Rather, you might make it, but then your competitors use and sell it, and you're no better off than before. Once you export Knowledge, its market value is zero. And anyone who can apply it more cheaply than you can will beat you in the marketplace.</p><p>And thinking we can survive on our exports of Knowledge presumes the rest of the world has no available brains, which is far from the case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that Knowledge is just like those digital bits we so hotly debate hereabouts .
There is zero cost to " pirate " and disseminate Knowledge .
It is n't something you make/grow and sell that is by its nature in limited supply ( as are all manufactured and grown goods ) .
Rather , you might make it , but then your competitors use and sell it , and you 're no better off than before .
Once you export Knowledge , its market value is zero .
And anyone who can apply it more cheaply than you can will beat you in the marketplace.And thinking we can survive on our exports of Knowledge presumes the rest of the world has no available brains , which is far from the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that Knowledge is just like those digital bits we so hotly debate hereabouts.
There is zero cost to "pirate" and disseminate Knowledge.
It isn't something you make/grow and sell that is by its nature in limited supply (as are all manufactured and grown goods).
Rather, you might make it, but then your competitors use and sell it, and you're no better off than before.
Once you export Knowledge, its market value is zero.
And anyone who can apply it more cheaply than you can will beat you in the marketplace.And thinking we can survive on our exports of Knowledge presumes the rest of the world has no available brains, which is far from the case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255396</id>
	<title>That said..</title>
	<author>delire</author>
	<datestamp>1259433060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Each iPod, sold in the US for $299, provides China with an export value of about $150, but as it turns out, Chinese producers really only 'earned' around $4 on each unit.</p></div> </blockquote><p>

The differences in salary relative to cost of living ought to be taken into account. The average daily salary of a Chinese person is <a href="http://www.china.org.cn/government/central\_government/2008-04/02/content\_14111192.htm" title="china.org.cn">was around USD14.1</a> [china.org.cn] last year.. <br> <br>
Secondly, it's not just about revenue but longer term industrial dependency. Were China to suddenly refuse (due to political embargo, for instance) to produce such items Apple would suffer a considerable economic loss, if only while they secured an alternative manufacturer. Chinese and Taiwanese companies are in a good position to steer the market in their favour, eventually producing (if not already) competing products for their own market - the world's biggest in many sectors - and others abroad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Each iPod , sold in the US for $ 299 , provides China with an export value of about $ 150 , but as it turns out , Chinese producers really only 'earned ' around $ 4 on each unit .
The differences in salary relative to cost of living ought to be taken into account .
The average daily salary of a Chinese person is was around USD14.1 [ china.org.cn ] last year. . Secondly , it 's not just about revenue but longer term industrial dependency .
Were China to suddenly refuse ( due to political embargo , for instance ) to produce such items Apple would suffer a considerable economic loss , if only while they secured an alternative manufacturer .
Chinese and Taiwanese companies are in a good position to steer the market in their favour , eventually producing ( if not already ) competing products for their own market - the world 's biggest in many sectors - and others abroad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Each iPod, sold in the US for $299, provides China with an export value of about $150, but as it turns out, Chinese producers really only 'earned' around $4 on each unit.
The differences in salary relative to cost of living ought to be taken into account.
The average daily salary of a Chinese person is was around USD14.1 [china.org.cn] last year..  
Secondly, it's not just about revenue but longer term industrial dependency.
Were China to suddenly refuse (due to political embargo, for instance) to produce such items Apple would suffer a considerable economic loss, if only while they secured an alternative manufacturer.
Chinese and Taiwanese companies are in a good position to steer the market in their favour, eventually producing (if not already) competing products for their own market - the world's biggest in many sectors - and others abroad.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256090</id>
	<title>I am missing something in the article</title>
	<author>chrisG23</author>
	<datestamp>1259439660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>TFA has a nice pie chart with the heading "Value captured by country for $190 of captured value for $299 iPod sold in the U.S." <br> <br>
I am not an economist, can someone explain to me what "captured value" means and what happened to the $109 not mentioned on the pie chart? Where did that go? If China got it, then its more than the $4 mentioned in the article. <br> <br>
1. Make claim that defies common sense and knowledge (but could be correct, common sense and common knowledge are not infalliable)<br> <br>
2. Back it up with mysterious pie chart.<br> <br>
3. ????<br> <br>
4. Profit?</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA has a nice pie chart with the heading " Value captured by country for $ 190 of captured value for $ 299 iPod sold in the U.S. " I am not an economist , can someone explain to me what " captured value " means and what happened to the $ 109 not mentioned on the pie chart ?
Where did that go ?
If China got it , then its more than the $ 4 mentioned in the article .
1. Make claim that defies common sense and knowledge ( but could be correct , common sense and common knowledge are not infalliable ) 2 .
Back it up with mysterious pie chart .
3. ? ? ? ?
4. Profit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA has a nice pie chart with the heading "Value captured by country for $190 of captured value for $299 iPod sold in the U.S."  
I am not an economist, can someone explain to me what "captured value" means and what happened to the $109 not mentioned on the pie chart?
Where did that go?
If China got it, then its more than the $4 mentioned in the article.
1. Make claim that defies common sense and knowledge (but could be correct, common sense and common knowledge are not infalliable) 
2.
Back it up with mysterious pie chart.
3. ????
4. Profit?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257078</id>
	<title>That is an odd way of putting it.</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1259407380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b><i>    I refuse to believe that imaginary property is an acceptable replacement for real manufacturing capacity.</i></b></p><p><i>It sounds like you find the concept immoral in some way, rather than impossible.</i></p><p>I don't find intellectual property so much immoral as it holds back progress.  Even the father of the Free Market Adam Smith didn't like patents.  He called them a necessary evil.  That may of been true in his tyme but I don't believe is still true.  Take the case with the iPhone.  Apple probably has an exclusive contract with Foxconn and other manufactures to assemble iPhones and other contractors to manufacture the parts.  If someone else has those parts somewhere along the lines someone is violating one or more contracts.  And the Chinese government cares a lot about that.</p><p>As for progress, I believe today patents hold back progress.  If someone makes an improvement in an item that is protected by a patent yet they don't hold the patent themself they can not make and market it.  Without that patent though in order to continue making money from an invention a business has to provide something others are willing to pay for.  A better quality product can be offered, the product can be sold at a lower price, and or improvements (ie progress) need to be made.</p><p>Now there are cases where I find IP immoral such as with biopiracy, for instance company X gets a patent for some rice Y or another one gets a patent on the use of a plant as a drug or pesticide even though others have used it in those ways for centuries.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I refuse to believe that imaginary property is an acceptable replacement for real manufacturing capacity.It sounds like you find the concept immoral in some way , rather than impossible.I do n't find intellectual property so much immoral as it holds back progress .
Even the father of the Free Market Adam Smith did n't like patents .
He called them a necessary evil .
That may of been true in his tyme but I do n't believe is still true .
Take the case with the iPhone .
Apple probably has an exclusive contract with Foxconn and other manufactures to assemble iPhones and other contractors to manufacture the parts .
If someone else has those parts somewhere along the lines someone is violating one or more contracts .
And the Chinese government cares a lot about that.As for progress , I believe today patents hold back progress .
If someone makes an improvement in an item that is protected by a patent yet they do n't hold the patent themself they can not make and market it .
Without that patent though in order to continue making money from an invention a business has to provide something others are willing to pay for .
A better quality product can be offered , the product can be sold at a lower price , and or improvements ( ie progress ) need to be made.Now there are cases where I find IP immoral such as with biopiracy , for instance company X gets a patent for some rice Y or another one gets a patent on the use of a plant as a drug or pesticide even though others have used it in those ways for centuries .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>    I refuse to believe that imaginary property is an acceptable replacement for real manufacturing capacity.It sounds like you find the concept immoral in some way, rather than impossible.I don't find intellectual property so much immoral as it holds back progress.
Even the father of the Free Market Adam Smith didn't like patents.
He called them a necessary evil.
That may of been true in his tyme but I don't believe is still true.
Take the case with the iPhone.
Apple probably has an exclusive contract with Foxconn and other manufactures to assemble iPhones and other contractors to manufacture the parts.
If someone else has those parts somewhere along the lines someone is violating one or more contracts.
And the Chinese government cares a lot about that.As for progress, I believe today patents hold back progress.
If someone makes an improvement in an item that is protected by a patent yet they don't hold the patent themself they can not make and market it.
Without that patent though in order to continue making money from an invention a business has to provide something others are willing to pay for.
A better quality product can be offered, the product can be sold at a lower price, and or improvements (ie progress) need to be made.Now there are cases where I find IP immoral such as with biopiracy, for instance company X gets a patent for some rice Y or another one gets a patent on the use of a plant as a drug or pesticide even though others have used it in those ways for centuries.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255462</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading Conclusion.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259433660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The rich get richer<br>The poor get poorer</p><p>How long has this been going on?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The rich get richerThe poor get poorerHow long has this been going on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rich get richerThe poor get poorerHow long has this been going on?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255512</id>
	<title>inside foxconn</title>
	<author>kaini</author>
	<datestamp>1259434080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.chinalaborwatch.org/20080827Fox.htm#" title="chinalaborwatch.org" rel="nofollow">inside foxconn shenzhen</a> [chinalaborwatch.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>inside foxconn shenzhen [ chinalaborwatch.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>inside foxconn shenzhen [chinalaborwatch.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30259524</id>
	<title>Re:Not so fast</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1259436960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's the legally enacted IP, which is pretty bogus, but there is real IP.  That is held by scientists, engineers, designers etc. . . who have real working experience, skills, and knowledge that it not easily transferred to others, and comes only from doing the design work.  This kind of IP is hard earned and extremely valuable.  For the time being it remains here.  But americans are becoming more detached from reality every day.  Soon we won't live in a country that encourages innovation and knowledge and entrepreneurship at all (if we even still do).  Then the people in the world with real IP will look elsewhere for opportunities to make their dreams a reality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's the legally enacted IP , which is pretty bogus , but there is real IP .
That is held by scientists , engineers , designers etc .
. .
who have real working experience , skills , and knowledge that it not easily transferred to others , and comes only from doing the design work .
This kind of IP is hard earned and extremely valuable .
For the time being it remains here .
But americans are becoming more detached from reality every day .
Soon we wo n't live in a country that encourages innovation and knowledge and entrepreneurship at all ( if we even still do ) .
Then the people in the world with real IP will look elsewhere for opportunities to make their dreams a reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's the legally enacted IP, which is pretty bogus, but there is real IP.
That is held by scientists, engineers, designers etc.
. .
who have real working experience, skills, and knowledge that it not easily transferred to others, and comes only from doing the design work.
This kind of IP is hard earned and extremely valuable.
For the time being it remains here.
But americans are becoming more detached from reality every day.
Soon we won't live in a country that encourages innovation and knowledge and entrepreneurship at all (if we even still do).
Then the people in the world with real IP will look elsewhere for opportunities to make their dreams a reality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30259682</id>
	<title>Socioeconomic illusions</title>
	<author>daemonenwind</author>
	<datestamp>1259526000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot has been made in the comments here about how trade and brands are illusions.</p><p>Well, our modern, global economy lives on a broad number of highly important illusions.  Some of the most important are that paper currency has value, and that brands are worthwhile as a means of product differentiation.</p><p>If you take one of these core illusions away - such as paper money valuation - you will quickly see the global economy shatter.</p><p>But then ask yourself: "What do I do if the cash I have is now, or will soon be, worthless as a trade instrument"?<br>Do you buy gold and bury it in the backyard?  That assumes someone else wants that stuff, which will likely be wrong.<br>Do you buy livestock/seeds and become an urban farmer?  That assumes you know how to grow food crops and preserve their nutrient value; as well as raise, slaughter and butcher livestock and then preserve the result.  Not to mention that local laws would allow it.</p><p>So it seems you have two choices:<br>1.  Go on with the illusions our modern world has developed, understanding that if you elect people with radical agendas, that the whole thing will behave in an unstable fashion for a while.  (whether politically right or left)</p><p>2.  Learn the methods of food generation and preservation your great-grandparents used, move somewhere out-of-the-way (lots of space and no urban laws against farming) with a good growing season, and begin farming/preserving against the death of illusions.</p><p>Before you sound off, consider which one lets you continue to post on Slashdot on your Dell computer, in your Ecko gear, while listening to the music you downloaded from iTunes, in between rounds of Valve's Left4Dead2 on your Microsoft Xbox 360, while being 30lbs overweight and unable to lift heavy loads or put in a full day of honest, sweat-generating manual labor?</p><p>Oh, and if you choose option 2 - practice your marksmanship and stock ammo, because if the End of Illusions comes, lots of hungry people will come looking for what you've stocked up.  They will not be friendly and rational.  And you might want to get a few wives too, just to ensure your genetic code lives on to future generations.  Infant mortality is a bitch outside the core of civilization.</p><p>FYI:  People of this persuasion tend to like Montana and Colorado, and fear black helicopters and the Federal Government.  (Just setting you up for the local culture)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot has been made in the comments here about how trade and brands are illusions.Well , our modern , global economy lives on a broad number of highly important illusions .
Some of the most important are that paper currency has value , and that brands are worthwhile as a means of product differentiation.If you take one of these core illusions away - such as paper money valuation - you will quickly see the global economy shatter.But then ask yourself : " What do I do if the cash I have is now , or will soon be , worthless as a trade instrument " ? Do you buy gold and bury it in the backyard ?
That assumes someone else wants that stuff , which will likely be wrong.Do you buy livestock/seeds and become an urban farmer ?
That assumes you know how to grow food crops and preserve their nutrient value ; as well as raise , slaughter and butcher livestock and then preserve the result .
Not to mention that local laws would allow it.So it seems you have two choices : 1 .
Go on with the illusions our modern world has developed , understanding that if you elect people with radical agendas , that the whole thing will behave in an unstable fashion for a while .
( whether politically right or left ) 2 .
Learn the methods of food generation and preservation your great-grandparents used , move somewhere out-of-the-way ( lots of space and no urban laws against farming ) with a good growing season , and begin farming/preserving against the death of illusions.Before you sound off , consider which one lets you continue to post on Slashdot on your Dell computer , in your Ecko gear , while listening to the music you downloaded from iTunes , in between rounds of Valve 's Left4Dead2 on your Microsoft Xbox 360 , while being 30lbs overweight and unable to lift heavy loads or put in a full day of honest , sweat-generating manual labor ? Oh , and if you choose option 2 - practice your marksmanship and stock ammo , because if the End of Illusions comes , lots of hungry people will come looking for what you 've stocked up .
They will not be friendly and rational .
And you might want to get a few wives too , just to ensure your genetic code lives on to future generations .
Infant mortality is a bitch outside the core of civilization.FYI : People of this persuasion tend to like Montana and Colorado , and fear black helicopters and the Federal Government .
( Just setting you up for the local culture )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot has been made in the comments here about how trade and brands are illusions.Well, our modern, global economy lives on a broad number of highly important illusions.
Some of the most important are that paper currency has value, and that brands are worthwhile as a means of product differentiation.If you take one of these core illusions away - such as paper money valuation - you will quickly see the global economy shatter.But then ask yourself: "What do I do if the cash I have is now, or will soon be, worthless as a trade instrument"?Do you buy gold and bury it in the backyard?
That assumes someone else wants that stuff, which will likely be wrong.Do you buy livestock/seeds and become an urban farmer?
That assumes you know how to grow food crops and preserve their nutrient value; as well as raise, slaughter and butcher livestock and then preserve the result.
Not to mention that local laws would allow it.So it seems you have two choices:1.
Go on with the illusions our modern world has developed, understanding that if you elect people with radical agendas, that the whole thing will behave in an unstable fashion for a while.
(whether politically right or left)2.
Learn the methods of food generation and preservation your great-grandparents used, move somewhere out-of-the-way (lots of space and no urban laws against farming) with a good growing season, and begin farming/preserving against the death of illusions.Before you sound off, consider which one lets you continue to post on Slashdot on your Dell computer, in your Ecko gear, while listening to the music you downloaded from iTunes, in between rounds of Valve's Left4Dead2 on your Microsoft Xbox 360, while being 30lbs overweight and unable to lift heavy loads or put in a full day of honest, sweat-generating manual labor?Oh, and if you choose option 2 - practice your marksmanship and stock ammo, because if the End of Illusions comes, lots of hungry people will come looking for what you've stocked up.
They will not be friendly and rational.
And you might want to get a few wives too, just to ensure your genetic code lives on to future generations.
Infant mortality is a bitch outside the core of civilization.FYI:  People of this persuasion tend to like Montana and Colorado, and fear black helicopters and the Federal Government.
(Just setting you up for the local culture)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255680</id>
	<title>New feudalism...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259435820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure you're doing the 10hrs of work each day, but I bought something way back when that makes the fruit of your labour belong to me. Isn't laissez-faire capitalism grand?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure you 're doing the 10hrs of work each day , but I bought something way back when that makes the fruit of your labour belong to me .
Is n't laissez-faire capitalism grand ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure you're doing the 10hrs of work each day, but I bought something way back when that makes the fruit of your labour belong to me.
Isn't laissez-faire capitalism grand?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257364</id>
	<title>The Telegraph is trying to spray paint dog shit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259410860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not that there is anything wrong with that, but the bottom line is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the bottom line (or in this case, it's still dog shit).</p><p>It doesn't matter how much you're making, but how much you didn't piss away at the end of the month.<br>On that account, the "developed" countries are failing huge.</p><p>It's not rocket science people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that there is anything wrong with that , but the bottom line is ... the bottom line ( or in this case , it 's still dog shit ) .It does n't matter how much you 're making , but how much you did n't piss away at the end of the month.On that account , the " developed " countries are failing huge.It 's not rocket science people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that there is anything wrong with that, but the bottom line is ... the bottom line (or in this case, it's still dog shit).It doesn't matter how much you're making, but how much you didn't piss away at the end of the month.On that account, the "developed" countries are failing huge.It's not rocket science people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255602</id>
	<title>Rejoice!</title>
	<author>pm\_rat\_poison</author>
	<datestamp>1259435160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Americans rejoice as the exploitation of cheap workers in far away oppressive countries makes filthy rich investors who happen to live closer, rather than further. The rest of the world's feelings about economic imperialism and the resentment these inequalities create are the products of Emmanuel Goldstein</htmltext>
<tokenext>Americans rejoice as the exploitation of cheap workers in far away oppressive countries makes filthy rich investors who happen to live closer , rather than further .
The rest of the world 's feelings about economic imperialism and the resentment these inequalities create are the products of Emmanuel Goldstein</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Americans rejoice as the exploitation of cheap workers in far away oppressive countries makes filthy rich investors who happen to live closer, rather than further.
The rest of the world's feelings about economic imperialism and the resentment these inequalities create are the products of Emmanuel Goldstein</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255428</id>
	<title>Smash imperialism!</title>
	<author>For a Free Internet</author>
	<datestamp>1259433360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For international socialist revolution!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For international socialist revolution !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For international socialist revolution!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255456</id>
	<title>We can't destroy our manufacturing base</title>
	<author>transporter\_ii</author>
	<datestamp>1259433600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No matter how much money is made in America from items assembled in China, everyone can't work at Wal-Mart and Burger King and be able to afford said items. Don't get me wrong, those are real jobs and I even worked at a Wal-Mart many years ago, but in the past, service jobs were not the base of the economy. If everybody is making minimum wage with no benefits whatsoever, who can afford services? Thus a service-based economy isn't sustainable in the long run. Yeah, we will survive and life goes on, but we shouldn't just count the beans and proclaim everything is alright. We need to take into account several things:</p><p>How citizens are treated by the governments of our trading partners, for instance.</p><p>What happens to our economy when nothing left but service jobs is another one.</p><p>When the trading partners are using the profit from us to build up armies to come back over here and kill us, should make the list as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No matter how much money is made in America from items assembled in China , everyone ca n't work at Wal-Mart and Burger King and be able to afford said items .
Do n't get me wrong , those are real jobs and I even worked at a Wal-Mart many years ago , but in the past , service jobs were not the base of the economy .
If everybody is making minimum wage with no benefits whatsoever , who can afford services ?
Thus a service-based economy is n't sustainable in the long run .
Yeah , we will survive and life goes on , but we should n't just count the beans and proclaim everything is alright .
We need to take into account several things : How citizens are treated by the governments of our trading partners , for instance.What happens to our economy when nothing left but service jobs is another one.When the trading partners are using the profit from us to build up armies to come back over here and kill us , should make the list as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No matter how much money is made in America from items assembled in China, everyone can't work at Wal-Mart and Burger King and be able to afford said items.
Don't get me wrong, those are real jobs and I even worked at a Wal-Mart many years ago, but in the past, service jobs were not the base of the economy.
If everybody is making minimum wage with no benefits whatsoever, who can afford services?
Thus a service-based economy isn't sustainable in the long run.
Yeah, we will survive and life goes on, but we shouldn't just count the beans and proclaim everything is alright.
We need to take into account several things:How citizens are treated by the governments of our trading partners, for instance.What happens to our economy when nothing left but service jobs is another one.When the trading partners are using the profit from us to build up armies to come back over here and kill us, should make the list as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256450</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading Conclusion.</title>
	<author>cwarner7\_11</author>
	<datestamp>1259399880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The rich get richer
The poor get poorer"

This fallacy is inconsistent with the facts.  Compare the wealth and power of the industrial magnates of the 1890's in the US with the wealth and power of today's wealthiest (i.e., Bill Gates and Warren Buffett).  Back in the 1890's, a single individual (I believe it was a Rockerfeller, but that may not be correct) could pay off the entire US national debt from personal resources.  How many of our wealthy citizens would have to pool their resources to pay off the current national debt?  120 years ago, the wealthy had sufficient power to run their businesses as they saw fit (albeit in many cases, in accordance with questionable moral practices).  Today, the wealthy need government permission to sneeze.
The poor getting poorer? In the 1950's, growing up in a "middle class" family in the United States, we did not have air conditioning or an automobile, nor did my parents own their own home- but we always were able to rent quality housing (no leaky roof, no broken windows, well heated in the winter).  But we were not poor- we ate well, attended good public schools, dressed well, attended the movies on a regular basis...We did not have a television (mostly because one needed a tower about 120 feet high to receive a signal in the rural area where we lived).  Today, when I visit poor neighborhoods, I am struck by the number of cars parked outside the tenements, by the number of televisions and boom box stereos blaring from the broken windows, by the number of people talking on cell phones or walking about with earbuds stuck in their ears (true, one can not tell if these are really attached to a working IPod...).  And this in in a "Third World" country.  But, most tellingly, in most of the world, the life expectancy of the poorer elements of the society has increased dramatically over the past 100 years.  I fail to see how one can claim that the poor are getting poorer...</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The rich get richer The poor get poorer " This fallacy is inconsistent with the facts .
Compare the wealth and power of the industrial magnates of the 1890 's in the US with the wealth and power of today 's wealthiest ( i.e. , Bill Gates and Warren Buffett ) .
Back in the 1890 's , a single individual ( I believe it was a Rockerfeller , but that may not be correct ) could pay off the entire US national debt from personal resources .
How many of our wealthy citizens would have to pool their resources to pay off the current national debt ?
120 years ago , the wealthy had sufficient power to run their businesses as they saw fit ( albeit in many cases , in accordance with questionable moral practices ) .
Today , the wealthy need government permission to sneeze .
The poor getting poorer ?
In the 1950 's , growing up in a " middle class " family in the United States , we did not have air conditioning or an automobile , nor did my parents own their own home- but we always were able to rent quality housing ( no leaky roof , no broken windows , well heated in the winter ) .
But we were not poor- we ate well , attended good public schools , dressed well , attended the movies on a regular basis...We did not have a television ( mostly because one needed a tower about 120 feet high to receive a signal in the rural area where we lived ) .
Today , when I visit poor neighborhoods , I am struck by the number of cars parked outside the tenements , by the number of televisions and boom box stereos blaring from the broken windows , by the number of people talking on cell phones or walking about with earbuds stuck in their ears ( true , one can not tell if these are really attached to a working IPod... ) .
And this in in a " Third World " country .
But , most tellingly , in most of the world , the life expectancy of the poorer elements of the society has increased dramatically over the past 100 years .
I fail to see how one can claim that the poor are getting poorer.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The rich get richer
The poor get poorer"

This fallacy is inconsistent with the facts.
Compare the wealth and power of the industrial magnates of the 1890's in the US with the wealth and power of today's wealthiest (i.e., Bill Gates and Warren Buffett).
Back in the 1890's, a single individual (I believe it was a Rockerfeller, but that may not be correct) could pay off the entire US national debt from personal resources.
How many of our wealthy citizens would have to pool their resources to pay off the current national debt?
120 years ago, the wealthy had sufficient power to run their businesses as they saw fit (albeit in many cases, in accordance with questionable moral practices).
Today, the wealthy need government permission to sneeze.
The poor getting poorer?
In the 1950's, growing up in a "middle class" family in the United States, we did not have air conditioning or an automobile, nor did my parents own their own home- but we always were able to rent quality housing (no leaky roof, no broken windows, well heated in the winter).
But we were not poor- we ate well, attended good public schools, dressed well, attended the movies on a regular basis...We did not have a television (mostly because one needed a tower about 120 feet high to receive a signal in the rural area where we lived).
Today, when I visit poor neighborhoods, I am struck by the number of cars parked outside the tenements, by the number of televisions and boom box stereos blaring from the broken windows, by the number of people talking on cell phones or walking about with earbuds stuck in their ears (true, one can not tell if these are really attached to a working IPod...).
And this in in a "Third World" country.
But, most tellingly, in most of the world, the life expectancy of the poorer elements of the society has increased dramatically over the past 100 years.
I fail to see how one can claim that the poor are getting poorer...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255638</id>
	<title>Ignarance is bliss</title>
	<author>croftj</author>
	<datestamp>1259435520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The author is quite blissful! He completely forget that what he is saying is true, but only half of the truth. In the end, we still need $4.00 of exports TO china to make it all balance out.</p><p>When we import any thing, some number of dollars leave this nation. If a corresponding number of exports be it in commodities such as grain or coal, or brain share such as banking services or designs (or legal fees), is not made, we end up owing the nation from which we imported the good from.</p><p>
&nbsp; In other words, if we import $200,000,000 in a year and only export $150,000,000, we end up owing $50,000,000. Sooner or later those dollars WILL have to make it back to us, whether it is from the other nation buying buildings, gold or politicians (us: china please be kind to your people. china: mind your own business or we will collect on your debt!).</p><p>Of course the numbers I quoted are quite small compared to reality. Scale them accordingly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The author is quite blissful !
He completely forget that what he is saying is true , but only half of the truth .
In the end , we still need $ 4.00 of exports TO china to make it all balance out.When we import any thing , some number of dollars leave this nation .
If a corresponding number of exports be it in commodities such as grain or coal , or brain share such as banking services or designs ( or legal fees ) , is not made , we end up owing the nation from which we imported the good from .
  In other words , if we import $ 200,000,000 in a year and only export $ 150,000,000 , we end up owing $ 50,000,000 .
Sooner or later those dollars WILL have to make it back to us , whether it is from the other nation buying buildings , gold or politicians ( us : china please be kind to your people .
china : mind your own business or we will collect on your debt !
) .Of course the numbers I quoted are quite small compared to reality .
Scale them accordingly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The author is quite blissful!
He completely forget that what he is saying is true, but only half of the truth.
In the end, we still need $4.00 of exports TO china to make it all balance out.When we import any thing, some number of dollars leave this nation.
If a corresponding number of exports be it in commodities such as grain or coal, or brain share such as banking services or designs (or legal fees), is not made, we end up owing the nation from which we imported the good from.
  In other words, if we import $200,000,000 in a year and only export $150,000,000, we end up owing $50,000,000.
Sooner or later those dollars WILL have to make it back to us, whether it is from the other nation buying buildings, gold or politicians (us: china please be kind to your people.
china: mind your own business or we will collect on your debt!
).Of course the numbers I quoted are quite small compared to reality.
Scale them accordingly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255418</id>
	<title>Perhaps a smidge short sighted?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259433300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The mistake any article like this makes is it assumes that the people providing the cheap manufacturing labour are content to continue doing so indefinitely - even when the factory owners can easily find out precisely how much their product is making in the country it's sold in and compare it with the amount they get to see.</p><p>History has shown that this is frequently not the case - I refer you to the UK's former motor industry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The mistake any article like this makes is it assumes that the people providing the cheap manufacturing labour are content to continue doing so indefinitely - even when the factory owners can easily find out precisely how much their product is making in the country it 's sold in and compare it with the amount they get to see.History has shown that this is frequently not the case - I refer you to the UK 's former motor industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The mistake any article like this makes is it assumes that the people providing the cheap manufacturing labour are content to continue doing so indefinitely - even when the factory owners can easily find out precisely how much their product is making in the country it's sold in and compare it with the amount they get to see.History has shown that this is frequently not the case - I refer you to the UK's former motor industry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256930</id>
	<title>Re:That said..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259405280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was just going to add there: I have a friend living in a country within 1000 miles of the US who is making maybe 28/day, despite gas prices being in the 5/gallon rate. And y'know what? A midrange (by american standards) laptop, purchased new, internet, plenty of food, and a LOT less trips in the car. So while we may be getting paid 2-3x as much to work a fastfood joint here as they're getting paid elsewhere, there's no guarantee the same quality of living will cost as much outside the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was just going to add there : I have a friend living in a country within 1000 miles of the US who is making maybe 28/day , despite gas prices being in the 5/gallon rate .
And y'know what ?
A midrange ( by american standards ) laptop , purchased new , internet , plenty of food , and a LOT less trips in the car .
So while we may be getting paid 2-3x as much to work a fastfood joint here as they 're getting paid elsewhere , there 's no guarantee the same quality of living will cost as much outside the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was just going to add there: I have a friend living in a country within 1000 miles of the US who is making maybe 28/day, despite gas prices being in the 5/gallon rate.
And y'know what?
A midrange (by american standards) laptop, purchased new, internet, plenty of food, and a LOT less trips in the car.
So while we may be getting paid 2-3x as much to work a fastfood joint here as they're getting paid elsewhere, there's no guarantee the same quality of living will cost as much outside the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255386</id>
	<title>It's the dollar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259433000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't work if you don't have the world's reserve currency.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't work if you do n't have the world 's reserve currency .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't work if you don't have the world's reserve currency.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256486</id>
	<title>The telegraph</title>
	<author>vorlich</author>
	<datestamp>1259400300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes it is a very traditional conservative paper, but it is well known for its high standards of journalism. Simply put if you grow potatoes in Idaho and buy iPods from China you grew iPods in Idaho. Let me dismiss the majority off negative comments on this with the observation that they demonstrate a fair lack of understanding here of either Marxist,  Capitalist, or Modern economics. Not that this is terribly unusual since almost everyone thinks that they understand micro or macroeconomics. There are more armchair economists than generals.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes it is a very traditional conservative paper , but it is well known for its high standards of journalism .
Simply put if you grow potatoes in Idaho and buy iPods from China you grew iPods in Idaho .
Let me dismiss the majority off negative comments on this with the observation that they demonstrate a fair lack of understanding here of either Marxist , Capitalist , or Modern economics .
Not that this is terribly unusual since almost everyone thinks that they understand micro or macroeconomics .
There are more armchair economists than generals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes it is a very traditional conservative paper, but it is well known for its high standards of journalism.
Simply put if you grow potatoes in Idaho and buy iPods from China you grew iPods in Idaho.
Let me dismiss the majority off negative comments on this with the observation that they demonstrate a fair lack of understanding here of either Marxist,  Capitalist, or Modern economics.
Not that this is terribly unusual since almost everyone thinks that they understand micro or macroeconomics.
There are more armchair economists than generals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30262346</id>
	<title>Re:Ignarance is bliss</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1259518920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>When we import any thing, some number of dollars leave this nation. If a corresponding number of exports be it in commodities such as grain or coal, or brain share such as banking services or designs (or legal fees), is not made, we end up owing the nation from which we imported the good from.</i></p><p>That is only half the story.  Even the Chinese want their <a href="http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story\_id=14931575" title="economist.com">iPhones</a> [economist.com], which don't have to be exported or imported and Apple still gets paid.  Some of that money comes back to the US.  Technically while the US isn't exporting the iPhones it does have money coming back in.</p><p>That reminds me of the British and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium\_Wars" title="wikipedia.org">Opium Wars</a> [wikipedia.org].  With the British importing so much tea from India, they wanted to balance their trade deficit.  So what did they do?  They bought opium in South Asia and exported it to China, and thus were able to pocket the profits.  However opium was illegal in China so the Chinese government tried to stop it.  When they did the British military intervened on the side of the opium dealers.  Which is why <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views\_of\_Lyndon\_LaRouche#The\_.22British.22\_conspiracy" title="wikipedia.org">Lyndon LaRouche</a> [wikipedia.org] and others called the British crown a drug dealer.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When we import any thing , some number of dollars leave this nation .
If a corresponding number of exports be it in commodities such as grain or coal , or brain share such as banking services or designs ( or legal fees ) , is not made , we end up owing the nation from which we imported the good from.That is only half the story .
Even the Chinese want their iPhones [ economist.com ] , which do n't have to be exported or imported and Apple still gets paid .
Some of that money comes back to the US .
Technically while the US is n't exporting the iPhones it does have money coming back in.That reminds me of the British and the Opium Wars [ wikipedia.org ] .
With the British importing so much tea from India , they wanted to balance their trade deficit .
So what did they do ?
They bought opium in South Asia and exported it to China , and thus were able to pocket the profits .
However opium was illegal in China so the Chinese government tried to stop it .
When they did the British military intervened on the side of the opium dealers .
Which is why Lyndon LaRouche [ wikipedia.org ] and others called the British crown a drug dealer .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When we import any thing, some number of dollars leave this nation.
If a corresponding number of exports be it in commodities such as grain or coal, or brain share such as banking services or designs (or legal fees), is not made, we end up owing the nation from which we imported the good from.That is only half the story.
Even the Chinese want their iPhones [economist.com], which don't have to be exported or imported and Apple still gets paid.
Some of that money comes back to the US.
Technically while the US isn't exporting the iPhones it does have money coming back in.That reminds me of the British and the Opium Wars [wikipedia.org].
With the British importing so much tea from India, they wanted to balance their trade deficit.
So what did they do?
They bought opium in South Asia and exported it to China, and thus were able to pocket the profits.
However opium was illegal in China so the Chinese government tried to stop it.
When they did the British military intervened on the side of the opium dealers.
Which is why Lyndon LaRouche [wikipedia.org] and others called the British crown a drug dealer.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255548</id>
	<title>Have you even been to Apple...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259434380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"....with predominantly American employees and stockholders.."</p><p>Seriously, I would say that 70-80\% of the employees I have seen at various tech companies...at least on the west coast are foreign nationals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ....with predominantly American employees and stockholders.. " Seriously , I would say that 70-80 \ % of the employees I have seen at various tech companies...at least on the west coast are foreign nationals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"....with predominantly American employees and stockholders.."Seriously, I would say that 70-80\% of the employees I have seen at various tech companies...at least on the west coast are foreign nationals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30259644</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading Conclusion.</title>
	<author>witherstaff</author>
	<datestamp>1259525580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A person recently built a second home on a local lake. A nice 3 story McMansion. His company supplies steel to Ford Motor for their cars. Ford moved a plant to Mexico, so his company moved a facility near the Ford plant. They had thousands of people line up for hiring. The mexican workers knew that the US had nice unions so they held out for negotiating a good wage. They demanded 15 cents an hour. The local person was glad they didn't conceed to the union demands as that would show weakness, they settled for 11.5 centers an hour.  Yeah, about 1/10 of a dollar an hour. With total costs of labor it comes to about $1 an hour.
</p><p>Now business is business but having went to college in Flint I've seen what the collapse of the auto Industry is like first hand. I don't see how moving our manufacturing entirely out of the country actually ends up helping the average worker. Sure the US is becoming more service oriented but when it's more walmart greeters and less higher paying manufacturing jobs it becomes a problem.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A person recently built a second home on a local lake .
A nice 3 story McMansion .
His company supplies steel to Ford Motor for their cars .
Ford moved a plant to Mexico , so his company moved a facility near the Ford plant .
They had thousands of people line up for hiring .
The mexican workers knew that the US had nice unions so they held out for negotiating a good wage .
They demanded 15 cents an hour .
The local person was glad they did n't conceed to the union demands as that would show weakness , they settled for 11.5 centers an hour .
Yeah , about 1/10 of a dollar an hour .
With total costs of labor it comes to about $ 1 an hour .
Now business is business but having went to college in Flint I 've seen what the collapse of the auto Industry is like first hand .
I do n't see how moving our manufacturing entirely out of the country actually ends up helping the average worker .
Sure the US is becoming more service oriented but when it 's more walmart greeters and less higher paying manufacturing jobs it becomes a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A person recently built a second home on a local lake.
A nice 3 story McMansion.
His company supplies steel to Ford Motor for their cars.
Ford moved a plant to Mexico, so his company moved a facility near the Ford plant.
They had thousands of people line up for hiring.
The mexican workers knew that the US had nice unions so they held out for negotiating a good wage.
They demanded 15 cents an hour.
The local person was glad they didn't conceed to the union demands as that would show weakness, they settled for 11.5 centers an hour.
Yeah, about 1/10 of a dollar an hour.
With total costs of labor it comes to about $1 an hour.
Now business is business but having went to college in Flint I've seen what the collapse of the auto Industry is like first hand.
I don't see how moving our manufacturing entirely out of the country actually ends up helping the average worker.
Sure the US is becoming more service oriented but when it's more walmart greeters and less higher paying manufacturing jobs it becomes a problem.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30259152</id>
	<title>Re:Have you even been to Apple...</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1259430600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what?  They live here.  They spend their money here.  They have kids here.  They're immigrants, just like every other group of immigrants throughout our history, and that makes them quintessentially all American.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what ?
They live here .
They spend their money here .
They have kids here .
They 're immigrants , just like every other group of immigrants throughout our history , and that makes them quintessentially all American .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what?
They live here.
They spend their money here.
They have kids here.
They're immigrants, just like every other group of immigrants throughout our history, and that makes them quintessentially all American.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30258794</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading Conclusion.</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1259426100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>TFA suggests that this means the financial hit of off-shoring manufacturing is actually small. Whether or not the article is correct on money making its way back to the US, there is an important factor. The money is making its way right back into the pockets of the company owners and rights holders. The people who would normally make their living in these manufacturing jobs are still stuffed. I don't think that any "trickle down" effect from returned profits is going to make up for that.</i></p><p>Those who previously made their money making stuff would have lost their jobs anyway, it doesn't matter if a domestic company imports them or a foreign business exports them.  Put it this way, which are you going to pay, $300 for an imported item or $1000 for one made in the US?  If Company A does not offer the item for $300 another one will.  And of course many people will buy the cheaper item.</p><p>And don't even try to bring up protectionist laws.  If any country raises barriers to trade other nations will retaliate by raising their own.  That was one of the things that made the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great\_Depression" title="wikipedia.org">Great Depression</a> [wikipedia.org] as bad as it got.  After the US passed the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot\%E2\%80\%93Hawley\_Tariff\_Act" title="wikipedia.org">Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act</a> [wikipedia.org] in 1930 US exports decreased by more than 60\% hurting many, many, exporting businesses.  Businesses that employed people.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA suggests that this means the financial hit of off-shoring manufacturing is actually small .
Whether or not the article is correct on money making its way back to the US , there is an important factor .
The money is making its way right back into the pockets of the company owners and rights holders .
The people who would normally make their living in these manufacturing jobs are still stuffed .
I do n't think that any " trickle down " effect from returned profits is going to make up for that.Those who previously made their money making stuff would have lost their jobs anyway , it does n't matter if a domestic company imports them or a foreign business exports them .
Put it this way , which are you going to pay , $ 300 for an imported item or $ 1000 for one made in the US ?
If Company A does not offer the item for $ 300 another one will .
And of course many people will buy the cheaper item.And do n't even try to bring up protectionist laws .
If any country raises barriers to trade other nations will retaliate by raising their own .
That was one of the things that made the Great Depression [ wikipedia.org ] as bad as it got .
After the US passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act [ wikipedia.org ] in 1930 US exports decreased by more than 60 \ % hurting many , many , exporting businesses .
Businesses that employed people .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA suggests that this means the financial hit of off-shoring manufacturing is actually small.
Whether or not the article is correct on money making its way back to the US, there is an important factor.
The money is making its way right back into the pockets of the company owners and rights holders.
The people who would normally make their living in these manufacturing jobs are still stuffed.
I don't think that any "trickle down" effect from returned profits is going to make up for that.Those who previously made their money making stuff would have lost their jobs anyway, it doesn't matter if a domestic company imports them or a foreign business exports them.
Put it this way, which are you going to pay, $300 for an imported item or $1000 for one made in the US?
If Company A does not offer the item for $300 another one will.
And of course many people will buy the cheaper item.And don't even try to bring up protectionist laws.
If any country raises barriers to trade other nations will retaliate by raising their own.
That was one of the things that made the Great Depression [wikipedia.org] as bad as it got.
After the US passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act [wikipedia.org] in 1930 US exports decreased by more than 60\% hurting many, many, exporting businesses.
Businesses that employed people.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255692</id>
	<title>Different Problem</title>
	<author>DaveAtFraud</author>
	<datestamp>1259435940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, balance of trade calculations have historically ignored payments for intellectual property and services and have only counted raw materials and manufactured goods.  This has been pointed out numerous times in the past as people bemoan the balance of trade deficit the the U.S. historically runs.  The so called "U.S. balance of trade deficit" really isn't as bad as or doesn't even exist due to all if the money that flows into the U.S. due to IP and services.</p><p>Note: this post is based on something I remember from several years ago so it could have changed and I didn't hear about it but I don't think it has.  I'd be quite happy if someone were to post a refutation with references since I feel that a number of people use the so-called "balance of trade deficit" for political purposes when, to a large extent, such a deficit only exists in the trade of tangible goods.</p><p>Cheers,<br>Dave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , balance of trade calculations have historically ignored payments for intellectual property and services and have only counted raw materials and manufactured goods .
This has been pointed out numerous times in the past as people bemoan the balance of trade deficit the the U.S. historically runs .
The so called " U.S. balance of trade deficit " really is n't as bad as or does n't even exist due to all if the money that flows into the U.S. due to IP and services.Note : this post is based on something I remember from several years ago so it could have changed and I did n't hear about it but I do n't think it has .
I 'd be quite happy if someone were to post a refutation with references since I feel that a number of people use the so-called " balance of trade deficit " for political purposes when , to a large extent , such a deficit only exists in the trade of tangible goods.Cheers,Dave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, balance of trade calculations have historically ignored payments for intellectual property and services and have only counted raw materials and manufactured goods.
This has been pointed out numerous times in the past as people bemoan the balance of trade deficit the the U.S. historically runs.
The so called "U.S. balance of trade deficit" really isn't as bad as or doesn't even exist due to all if the money that flows into the U.S. due to IP and services.Note: this post is based on something I remember from several years ago so it could have changed and I didn't hear about it but I don't think it has.
I'd be quite happy if someone were to post a refutation with references since I feel that a number of people use the so-called "balance of trade deficit" for political purposes when, to a large extent, such a deficit only exists in the trade of tangible goods.Cheers,Dave</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30269336</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading Conclusion.</title>
	<author>h4rm0ny</author>
	<datestamp>1259592300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>to quote Stephenson, music, movies,</p></div> </blockquote><p>
The quote from Stephenson (and I'm sure he's delighted that he has reached surname-only status, joining the Einsteins, Witgensteins, Shakespeares, et. al), stands in contradiction to the point you're trying to make with it. He wasn't holding up these things as a future goal, he was saying that this was all that America was left with after (from memory) the Invisible Hand had smeared down the average wage to something a Pakistani brick-layer considered a decent sum.
<br> <br>
The thing is, I agree with you - there is such a thing as, if not a post-industrial nation, at least a nation that has moved from making t-shirts and tables, to, I don't know, space elevator rope and anti-aging drugs or whatever. The thing is, that to move to this next stage, we require an educated workforce that has the opportunities to pursue these goals. And we don't have it because the benefits from off-shoring manufacturing aren't going to the people (either directly or indirectly), but to a wealthy elite that use it to mostly to increase their control and ownership.
<br>
And Stephenson may yet prove wrong about the Microcode if India has anything to say about it. You want the bright, glorious future? Do something about the wealth inequality. Poor people don't get to do the Phds they'll need to become the World's future scientific super-stars. At least not as often as we need.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>to quote Stephenson , music , movies , The quote from Stephenson ( and I 'm sure he 's delighted that he has reached surname-only status , joining the Einsteins , Witgensteins , Shakespeares , et .
al ) , stands in contradiction to the point you 're trying to make with it .
He was n't holding up these things as a future goal , he was saying that this was all that America was left with after ( from memory ) the Invisible Hand had smeared down the average wage to something a Pakistani brick-layer considered a decent sum .
The thing is , I agree with you - there is such a thing as , if not a post-industrial nation , at least a nation that has moved from making t-shirts and tables , to , I do n't know , space elevator rope and anti-aging drugs or whatever .
The thing is , that to move to this next stage , we require an educated workforce that has the opportunities to pursue these goals .
And we do n't have it because the benefits from off-shoring manufacturing are n't going to the people ( either directly or indirectly ) , but to a wealthy elite that use it to mostly to increase their control and ownership .
And Stephenson may yet prove wrong about the Microcode if India has anything to say about it .
You want the bright , glorious future ?
Do something about the wealth inequality .
Poor people do n't get to do the Phds they 'll need to become the World 's future scientific super-stars .
At least not as often as we need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to quote Stephenson, music, movies, 
The quote from Stephenson (and I'm sure he's delighted that he has reached surname-only status, joining the Einsteins, Witgensteins, Shakespeares, et.
al), stands in contradiction to the point you're trying to make with it.
He wasn't holding up these things as a future goal, he was saying that this was all that America was left with after (from memory) the Invisible Hand had smeared down the average wage to something a Pakistani brick-layer considered a decent sum.
The thing is, I agree with you - there is such a thing as, if not a post-industrial nation, at least a nation that has moved from making t-shirts and tables, to, I don't know, space elevator rope and anti-aging drugs or whatever.
The thing is, that to move to this next stage, we require an educated workforce that has the opportunities to pursue these goals.
And we don't have it because the benefits from off-shoring manufacturing aren't going to the people (either directly or indirectly), but to a wealthy elite that use it to mostly to increase their control and ownership.
And Stephenson may yet prove wrong about the Microcode if India has anything to say about it.
You want the bright, glorious future?
Do something about the wealth inequality.
Poor people don't get to do the Phds they'll need to become the World's future scientific super-stars.
At least not as often as we need.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30264752</id>
	<title>Re:We can't destroy our manufacturing base</title>
	<author>mr\_matticus</author>
	<datestamp>1259498460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You seem to misunderstand what a "service" economy means.</p><p>It doesn't mean menial services, retail clerks, and Burger King employees.</p><p>It means <em>all</em> non-manufacturing labor, including engineers, doctors, programmers, analysts, and researchers.  It includes entertainers, artists, architects, and designers.</p><p>In short, it is all labor, manual and intellectual, that is neither agrarian nor industrial manufacturing.</p><p>What happens when nothing is left but service jobs is a question already answered:  the United States economy is a post-industrial service economy.</p><p>It is absolutely sustainable in the long run as long as you accept the basic reality of progress and population growth:  there will be a point in which there are too many people and simply no need to employ them all.</p><p>We are dealing with it now by creating unnecessary jobs and intentionally slowing progress because we have no solution to supporting a society where 40\% unemployment is the most efficient vehicle.  It could be done with high taxes and redistribution, except that people feel so <em>entitled</em> to both a job that they're not uniquely suited for, and to all the proceeds from it.</p><p>You seem to suggest that the solution is maintaining a manufacturing base.  For what?  So we can create worthless jobs making worthless crap out of ever-dwindling resources?  If you're going to employ people just for the sake of employing them, stick to the service sector.</p><p>The answer is not a refactoring of the economy itself, but finding a system that supports all of society with high unemployment.  Whether that is better-managed socialism or just creating make-work jobs so everyone gets a paycheck (which is really just corporate socialism), it's a social problem and not an economic one.</p><p>When you have more people than are needed to maintain the economy, what do you do with the others?  At a single company, you lay off the dead weight.  When all companies do so, you've got high unemployment, which is only bad because of a social expectation that everyone should have a job.  That's not an economic expectation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to misunderstand what a " service " economy means.It does n't mean menial services , retail clerks , and Burger King employees.It means all non-manufacturing labor , including engineers , doctors , programmers , analysts , and researchers .
It includes entertainers , artists , architects , and designers.In short , it is all labor , manual and intellectual , that is neither agrarian nor industrial manufacturing.What happens when nothing is left but service jobs is a question already answered : the United States economy is a post-industrial service economy.It is absolutely sustainable in the long run as long as you accept the basic reality of progress and population growth : there will be a point in which there are too many people and simply no need to employ them all.We are dealing with it now by creating unnecessary jobs and intentionally slowing progress because we have no solution to supporting a society where 40 \ % unemployment is the most efficient vehicle .
It could be done with high taxes and redistribution , except that people feel so entitled to both a job that they 're not uniquely suited for , and to all the proceeds from it.You seem to suggest that the solution is maintaining a manufacturing base .
For what ?
So we can create worthless jobs making worthless crap out of ever-dwindling resources ?
If you 're going to employ people just for the sake of employing them , stick to the service sector.The answer is not a refactoring of the economy itself , but finding a system that supports all of society with high unemployment .
Whether that is better-managed socialism or just creating make-work jobs so everyone gets a paycheck ( which is really just corporate socialism ) , it 's a social problem and not an economic one.When you have more people than are needed to maintain the economy , what do you do with the others ?
At a single company , you lay off the dead weight .
When all companies do so , you 've got high unemployment , which is only bad because of a social expectation that everyone should have a job .
That 's not an economic expectation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to misunderstand what a "service" economy means.It doesn't mean menial services, retail clerks, and Burger King employees.It means all non-manufacturing labor, including engineers, doctors, programmers, analysts, and researchers.
It includes entertainers, artists, architects, and designers.In short, it is all labor, manual and intellectual, that is neither agrarian nor industrial manufacturing.What happens when nothing is left but service jobs is a question already answered:  the United States economy is a post-industrial service economy.It is absolutely sustainable in the long run as long as you accept the basic reality of progress and population growth:  there will be a point in which there are too many people and simply no need to employ them all.We are dealing with it now by creating unnecessary jobs and intentionally slowing progress because we have no solution to supporting a society where 40\% unemployment is the most efficient vehicle.
It could be done with high taxes and redistribution, except that people feel so entitled to both a job that they're not uniquely suited for, and to all the proceeds from it.You seem to suggest that the solution is maintaining a manufacturing base.
For what?
So we can create worthless jobs making worthless crap out of ever-dwindling resources?
If you're going to employ people just for the sake of employing them, stick to the service sector.The answer is not a refactoring of the economy itself, but finding a system that supports all of society with high unemployment.
Whether that is better-managed socialism or just creating make-work jobs so everyone gets a paycheck (which is really just corporate socialism), it's a social problem and not an economic one.When you have more people than are needed to maintain the economy, what do you do with the others?
At a single company, you lay off the dead weight.
When all companies do so, you've got high unemployment, which is only bad because of a social expectation that everyone should have a job.
That's not an economic expectation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30259600</id>
	<title>Outsourcing is only a temporary solution</title>
	<author>Casandro</author>
	<datestamp>1259524800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The big problem is communications. If the company building your product is far away, they are unlikely to contact you when they have problems. Likewise it's impossible for you to find out if something goes wrong. For example we once outsourced a certain RF-cable to china. The result was that they didn't connect the shield at all.<br>Apple must have simmilar problems, though on a different scale. Since they outsourced their manufacturing the quality went down considerably.</p><p>Outsourcing can be made to work for low complexity products like cars. For example BMW, a german car manufacturer outsourced part of it's production to a low-wage north american country just north of mexico. It seems to work.</p><p>However countries like china will be able to improve their quality by getting more and more engineers. This however will also mean that they will be less dependent on foreign intellectual property. And chineese manufacturers seem to get a lot more right. Just look at DVD-Players. You used to be happy when you could play VCDs on them. Since the Chineese took over every cheap player can play just anything the hardware can decode. The Chineese just don't build as many stupid limits into their systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The big problem is communications .
If the company building your product is far away , they are unlikely to contact you when they have problems .
Likewise it 's impossible for you to find out if something goes wrong .
For example we once outsourced a certain RF-cable to china .
The result was that they did n't connect the shield at all.Apple must have simmilar problems , though on a different scale .
Since they outsourced their manufacturing the quality went down considerably.Outsourcing can be made to work for low complexity products like cars .
For example BMW , a german car manufacturer outsourced part of it 's production to a low-wage north american country just north of mexico .
It seems to work.However countries like china will be able to improve their quality by getting more and more engineers .
This however will also mean that they will be less dependent on foreign intellectual property .
And chineese manufacturers seem to get a lot more right .
Just look at DVD-Players .
You used to be happy when you could play VCDs on them .
Since the Chineese took over every cheap player can play just anything the hardware can decode .
The Chineese just do n't build as many stupid limits into their systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big problem is communications.
If the company building your product is far away, they are unlikely to contact you when they have problems.
Likewise it's impossible for you to find out if something goes wrong.
For example we once outsourced a certain RF-cable to china.
The result was that they didn't connect the shield at all.Apple must have simmilar problems, though on a different scale.
Since they outsourced their manufacturing the quality went down considerably.Outsourcing can be made to work for low complexity products like cars.
For example BMW, a german car manufacturer outsourced part of it's production to a low-wage north american country just north of mexico.
It seems to work.However countries like china will be able to improve their quality by getting more and more engineers.
This however will also mean that they will be less dependent on foreign intellectual property.
And chineese manufacturers seem to get a lot more right.
Just look at DVD-Players.
You used to be happy when you could play VCDs on them.
Since the Chineese took over every cheap player can play just anything the hardware can decode.
The Chineese just don't build as many stupid limits into their systems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256318</id>
	<title>"predominantly American employees and stockholders</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259441700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>who reap the benefits"</p><p>Stockholders mostly.</p><p>To bad American employees don't benefit from having a job manufacturing iPods, but you can't compete against 14ct/hr labor - which is in part a result of lobbying by big US corporations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>who reap the benefits " Stockholders mostly.To bad American employees do n't benefit from having a job manufacturing iPods , but you ca n't compete against 14ct/hr labor - which is in part a result of lobbying by big US corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who reap the benefits"Stockholders mostly.To bad American employees don't benefit from having a job manufacturing iPods, but you can't compete against 14ct/hr labor - which is in part a result of lobbying by big US corporations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255370</id>
	<title>Misleading Conclusion.</title>
	<author>h4rm0ny</author>
	<datestamp>1259432880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>TFA suggests that this means the financial hit of off-shoring manufacturing is actually small. Whether or not the article is correct on money making its way back to the US, there is an important factor. The money is making its way right back into the pockets of the company owners and rights holders. The people who would normally make their living in these manufacturing jobs are still stuffed. I don't think that any "trickle down" effect from returned profits is going to make up for that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA suggests that this means the financial hit of off-shoring manufacturing is actually small .
Whether or not the article is correct on money making its way back to the US , there is an important factor .
The money is making its way right back into the pockets of the company owners and rights holders .
The people who would normally make their living in these manufacturing jobs are still stuffed .
I do n't think that any " trickle down " effect from returned profits is going to make up for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA suggests that this means the financial hit of off-shoring manufacturing is actually small.
Whether or not the article is correct on money making its way back to the US, there is an important factor.
The money is making its way right back into the pockets of the company owners and rights holders.
The people who would normally make their living in these manufacturing jobs are still stuffed.
I don't think that any "trickle down" effect from returned profits is going to make up for that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30261992</id>
	<title>Re:We can't destroy our manufacturing base</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259515980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A service job is not necessarily low-paying.  Lawyers, for instance, are in the service sector.  So are a lot of developers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A service job is not necessarily low-paying .
Lawyers , for instance , are in the service sector .
So are a lot of developers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A service job is not necessarily low-paying.
Lawyers, for instance, are in the service sector.
So are a lot of developers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255472</id>
	<title>In May 2009, the US owed China $772 billion.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259433780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And somewhere between then and now, then banks went bankrupt.</p><p>Good job, business community.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And somewhere between then and now , then banks went bankrupt.Good job , business community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And somewhere between then and now, then banks went bankrupt.Good job, business community.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256218</id>
	<title>More economists who can't do simple economics...</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1259440740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No a developed country can't run a trade deficit forever - thus it does in fact need a trade surplus (well dead even is fine too) to survive.</p><p>The US gets away with it simply because the US dollar is used as the reserve currency and trade currency for most commodities. Other nations get away with it due to China's games with the US dollar knocking on to their currencies.</p><p>What should happen is that the relative value of the currency of the country running a deficit will fall until it is no longer running a deficit. It's simple mathematics.</p><p>The rest of the world keeps printing money and buying US treasuries to stop this inevitable re-balancing, but it will happen at some point - it gets more and more unstable the longer the current situation is propped up. Of course humans can keep unstable situation balancing for much much longer than it seems possible (witness US real estate prices - a bubble that "should" have popped in 2003 but lasted much longer, and staill hasn't fully deflated)...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No a developed country ca n't run a trade deficit forever - thus it does in fact need a trade surplus ( well dead even is fine too ) to survive.The US gets away with it simply because the US dollar is used as the reserve currency and trade currency for most commodities .
Other nations get away with it due to China 's games with the US dollar knocking on to their currencies.What should happen is that the relative value of the currency of the country running a deficit will fall until it is no longer running a deficit .
It 's simple mathematics.The rest of the world keeps printing money and buying US treasuries to stop this inevitable re-balancing , but it will happen at some point - it gets more and more unstable the longer the current situation is propped up .
Of course humans can keep unstable situation balancing for much much longer than it seems possible ( witness US real estate prices - a bubble that " should " have popped in 2003 but lasted much longer , and staill has n't fully deflated ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No a developed country can't run a trade deficit forever - thus it does in fact need a trade surplus (well dead even is fine too) to survive.The US gets away with it simply because the US dollar is used as the reserve currency and trade currency for most commodities.
Other nations get away with it due to China's games with the US dollar knocking on to their currencies.What should happen is that the relative value of the currency of the country running a deficit will fall until it is no longer running a deficit.
It's simple mathematics.The rest of the world keeps printing money and buying US treasuries to stop this inevitable re-balancing, but it will happen at some point - it gets more and more unstable the longer the current situation is propped up.
Of course humans can keep unstable situation balancing for much much longer than it seems possible (witness US real estate prices - a bubble that "should" have popped in 2003 but lasted much longer, and staill hasn't fully deflated)...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257848</id>
	<title>intellectual integrity</title>
	<author>CHRONOSS2008</author>
	<datestamp>1259415840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>integrity would tell me there is morals in what you do and there is nothing moral about a DMCA style law that last 95 years after some azz dies.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>integrity would tell me there is morals in what you do and there is nothing moral about a DMCA style law that last 95 years after some azz dies.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>integrity would tell me there is morals in what you do and there is nothing moral about a DMCA style law that last 95 years after some azz dies.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30259422</id>
	<title>Re:We can't destroy our manufacturing base</title>
	<author>FrankieBaby1986</author>
	<datestamp>1259434980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If everybody is making minimum wage with no benefits whatsoever, who can afford services?</p></div><p>
Just had a weird thought, maybe i'm way off. If the economy was largely services, then the prices would have to come down so that people could afford them. The end result is basically a trade of services of things that people would have done themselves. Which degenerates into a form of "communism" in which people perform tasks they are able to do for others and in turn receive the result of tasks performed by others. Expand the idea of a service to include manufacturing items for other people and you've got a service economy. <br> <br>
Hmm, this sounds like how things are now. weird. <br> <br> Maybe we need less us-vs-them and need to instead look at us as a global population.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If everybody is making minimum wage with no benefits whatsoever , who can afford services ?
Just had a weird thought , maybe i 'm way off .
If the economy was largely services , then the prices would have to come down so that people could afford them .
The end result is basically a trade of services of things that people would have done themselves .
Which degenerates into a form of " communism " in which people perform tasks they are able to do for others and in turn receive the result of tasks performed by others .
Expand the idea of a service to include manufacturing items for other people and you 've got a service economy .
Hmm , this sounds like how things are now .
weird. Maybe we need less us-vs-them and need to instead look at us as a global population .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If everybody is making minimum wage with no benefits whatsoever, who can afford services?
Just had a weird thought, maybe i'm way off.
If the economy was largely services, then the prices would have to come down so that people could afford them.
The end result is basically a trade of services of things that people would have done themselves.
Which degenerates into a form of "communism" in which people perform tasks they are able to do for others and in turn receive the result of tasks performed by others.
Expand the idea of a service to include manufacturing items for other people and you've got a service economy.
Hmm, this sounds like how things are now.
weird.   Maybe we need less us-vs-them and need to instead look at us as a global population.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30262696</id>
	<title>Re:The trouble is the retail model of buying stuff</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1259521620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It would be so much more efficient
to cut out the middle men and supply iPOD's on demand...</i></p><p>Funny, I can cut the middle man by ordering an iPod, which I don't want, <a href="http://store.apple.com/us" title="apple.com">online</a> [apple.com].  That's how I ordered my Mac, even though there are 4 Apple stores in my area, and who knows how many third party retailers.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be so much more efficient to cut out the middle men and supply iPOD 's on demand...Funny , I can cut the middle man by ordering an iPod , which I do n't want , online [ apple.com ] .
That 's how I ordered my Mac , even though there are 4 Apple stores in my area , and who knows how many third party retailers .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be so much more efficient
to cut out the middle men and supply iPOD's on demand...Funny, I can cut the middle man by ordering an iPod, which I don't want, online [apple.com].
That's how I ordered my Mac, even though there are 4 Apple stores in my area, and who knows how many third party retailers.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257210</id>
	<title>Re:That said..</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1259409000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Chinese and Taiwanese companies are in a good position to steer the market in their favour</p></div></blockquote><p>The only thing that's new about China is that it's one large country.  Before, instead of "Made in China" on everything, we'd have "Made in Malaysia" on certain products, "Made in Cambodia" on others, etc.  They could each individually have made similar policy shifts, and had a similar short-term impact on certain industries.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; China has simply become the one-stop shop, which makes it slightly cheaper.  Should it show the slightest sign of being less friendly to foreign companies, they would switch back to other Asian countries in a heartbeat, and never take a risk on China again...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chinese and Taiwanese companies are in a good position to steer the market in their favourThe only thing that 's new about China is that it 's one large country .
Before , instead of " Made in China " on everything , we 'd have " Made in Malaysia " on certain products , " Made in Cambodia " on others , etc .
They could each individually have made similar policy shifts , and had a similar short-term impact on certain industries .
    China has simply become the one-stop shop , which makes it slightly cheaper .
Should it show the slightest sign of being less friendly to foreign companies , they would switch back to other Asian countries in a heartbeat , and never take a risk on China again.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chinese and Taiwanese companies are in a good position to steer the market in their favourThe only thing that's new about China is that it's one large country.
Before, instead of "Made in China" on everything, we'd have "Made in Malaysia" on certain products, "Made in Cambodia" on others, etc.
They could each individually have made similar policy shifts, and had a similar short-term impact on certain industries.
    China has simply become the one-stop shop, which makes it slightly cheaper.
Should it show the slightest sign of being less friendly to foreign companies, they would switch back to other Asian countries in a heartbeat, and never take a risk on China again...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256148</id>
	<title>Re:Rejoice!</title>
	<author>zmaragdus</author>
	<datestamp>1259440080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about you, but I don't know any Americans who "rejoice" at the exploitation of cheap workers. On the contrary, people I've met recognize the existence of and disapprove of the exploitation of cheap labor. What you could fault them for, however, is being utterly apathetic about it.</p><p>Sounding angry doesn't make an argument more appealing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about you , but I do n't know any Americans who " rejoice " at the exploitation of cheap workers .
On the contrary , people I 've met recognize the existence of and disapprove of the exploitation of cheap labor .
What you could fault them for , however , is being utterly apathetic about it.Sounding angry does n't make an argument more appealing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about you, but I don't know any Americans who "rejoice" at the exploitation of cheap workers.
On the contrary, people I've met recognize the existence of and disapprove of the exploitation of cheap labor.
What you could fault them for, however, is being utterly apathetic about it.Sounding angry doesn't make an argument more appealing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30264652</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading Conclusion.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259497440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is exactly why intellectual property is critical to the functioning of first-world economies.</p><p>It is the way in which the results of knowledge interact with a market economy.</p><p>The United States cannot have wealth in a post-industrial economy without either IP or an abandonment of a capitalist market system.  Since the latter is effectively impossible, this is what's left.</p><p>The poster further up discussing how "we" at Slashdot are opposed to copyrights and patents simply shows the ceaseless ignorance of the masses.  IP isn't imaginary property any more than <em>any</em> other kind of property is imaginary (pro tip:  ALL property is imaginary), and it's not possible for an information-based economy to function without IP unless the market system is wholly abandoned.</p><p>This isn't Star Trek.  People need to be paid, and they're paid not for farming, not for manufacturing, and not for manual labor, but for <em>intellectual</em> labor.  It must therefore be quantized.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is exactly why intellectual property is critical to the functioning of first-world economies.It is the way in which the results of knowledge interact with a market economy.The United States can not have wealth in a post-industrial economy without either IP or an abandonment of a capitalist market system .
Since the latter is effectively impossible , this is what 's left.The poster further up discussing how " we " at Slashdot are opposed to copyrights and patents simply shows the ceaseless ignorance of the masses .
IP is n't imaginary property any more than any other kind of property is imaginary ( pro tip : ALL property is imaginary ) , and it 's not possible for an information-based economy to function without IP unless the market system is wholly abandoned.This is n't Star Trek .
People need to be paid , and they 're paid not for farming , not for manufacturing , and not for manual labor , but for intellectual labor .
It must therefore be quantized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is exactly why intellectual property is critical to the functioning of first-world economies.It is the way in which the results of knowledge interact with a market economy.The United States cannot have wealth in a post-industrial economy without either IP or an abandonment of a capitalist market system.
Since the latter is effectively impossible, this is what's left.The poster further up discussing how "we" at Slashdot are opposed to copyrights and patents simply shows the ceaseless ignorance of the masses.
IP isn't imaginary property any more than any other kind of property is imaginary (pro tip:  ALL property is imaginary), and it's not possible for an information-based economy to function without IP unless the market system is wholly abandoned.This isn't Star Trek.
People need to be paid, and they're paid not for farming, not for manufacturing, and not for manual labor, but for intellectual labor.
It must therefore be quantized.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256866</id>
	<title>Slaves</title>
	<author>paxcoder</author>
	<datestamp>1259404380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the rich get richer, and slave-driving gets different names - currently: outsourcing.<br>You are solely responsible if you are one.<br>Something stinks in the state of World.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the rich get richer , and slave-driving gets different names - currently : outsourcing.You are solely responsible if you are one.Something stinks in the state of World .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the rich get richer, and slave-driving gets different names - currently: outsourcing.You are solely responsible if you are one.Something stinks in the state of World.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256380</id>
	<title>Re:Different Problem</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1259399220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The United Kingdom produced a lot of "IP" in the XIXth century. From works in literature to scientific research and applied research. Steam engine? Steam turbine? Railroad? However as the century passed increasingly the USA started ascending in power due to a greater industrial production capacity driving a virtuous cycle. The people who manned the factories had the money to buy the new products and more money was available for R&amp;D. Once the British Empire lost its colonies, access to cheap raw materials and labor, not to mention sank its money in multiple expensive wars it increasingly faded until it was surpassed by the USA. Still it took WWII to finish it off as a credible power. The ending of an empire is seldom a pretty sight. China is still technologically backwards in a lot of ways, but the gap will continue to decrease.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The United Kingdom produced a lot of " IP " in the XIXth century .
From works in literature to scientific research and applied research .
Steam engine ?
Steam turbine ?
Railroad ? However as the century passed increasingly the USA started ascending in power due to a greater industrial production capacity driving a virtuous cycle .
The people who manned the factories had the money to buy the new products and more money was available for R&amp;D .
Once the British Empire lost its colonies , access to cheap raw materials and labor , not to mention sank its money in multiple expensive wars it increasingly faded until it was surpassed by the USA .
Still it took WWII to finish it off as a credible power .
The ending of an empire is seldom a pretty sight .
China is still technologically backwards in a lot of ways , but the gap will continue to decrease .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The United Kingdom produced a lot of "IP" in the XIXth century.
From works in literature to scientific research and applied research.
Steam engine?
Steam turbine?
Railroad? However as the century passed increasingly the USA started ascending in power due to a greater industrial production capacity driving a virtuous cycle.
The people who manned the factories had the money to buy the new products and more money was available for R&amp;D.
Once the British Empire lost its colonies, access to cheap raw materials and labor, not to mention sank its money in multiple expensive wars it increasingly faded until it was surpassed by the USA.
Still it took WWII to finish it off as a credible power.
The ending of an empire is seldom a pretty sight.
China is still technologically backwards in a lot of ways, but the gap will continue to decrease.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256492</id>
	<title>Bad example</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1259400360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The iPhone is the quintessential example of a product in which marketing, design and form are chosen over function. (not that it's a bad product, but it's by far not the most feature-rich nor the best hardware)... so of course in that specific case most of the value-added is American.</p><p>Most products do not work this way. And the ones that do are not that big, either. It would have been interesting to see a study of all phones, not just the relatively marginal iPhone, or things other than phones, ie toys, electronics, white goods...</p><p>While he's at it, why didn't the author do that study on Windows or MacOS, which I'm sure are manufactured for $2 in China, and sell for $80-$250 ?</p><p>Design, advertising, and goodwill are much more fungible than manufacturing capacity and know-how. A handful of counter-examples when those 3 items are maximized cannot be generalized, nor extrapolated over time. Who took over IBM's PCs again ? Are you that sure that, in the long run, the companies that actually manufacture all those things will not be best placed to design - market - sell them ? Give it time. A few years ago, it was electronics, then computers... phones and media-players will follow, and given the sad state of western OSes, software, and services, there's a huge market waiting to be taken over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The iPhone is the quintessential example of a product in which marketing , design and form are chosen over function .
( not that it 's a bad product , but it 's by far not the most feature-rich nor the best hardware ) ... so of course in that specific case most of the value-added is American.Most products do not work this way .
And the ones that do are not that big , either .
It would have been interesting to see a study of all phones , not just the relatively marginal iPhone , or things other than phones , ie toys , electronics , white goods...While he 's at it , why did n't the author do that study on Windows or MacOS , which I 'm sure are manufactured for $ 2 in China , and sell for $ 80- $ 250 ? Design , advertising , and goodwill are much more fungible than manufacturing capacity and know-how .
A handful of counter-examples when those 3 items are maximized can not be generalized , nor extrapolated over time .
Who took over IBM 's PCs again ?
Are you that sure that , in the long run , the companies that actually manufacture all those things will not be best placed to design - market - sell them ?
Give it time .
A few years ago , it was electronics , then computers... phones and media-players will follow , and given the sad state of western OSes , software , and services , there 's a huge market waiting to be taken over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iPhone is the quintessential example of a product in which marketing, design and form are chosen over function.
(not that it's a bad product, but it's by far not the most feature-rich nor the best hardware)... so of course in that specific case most of the value-added is American.Most products do not work this way.
And the ones that do are not that big, either.
It would have been interesting to see a study of all phones, not just the relatively marginal iPhone, or things other than phones, ie toys, electronics, white goods...While he's at it, why didn't the author do that study on Windows or MacOS, which I'm sure are manufactured for $2 in China, and sell for $80-$250 ?Design, advertising, and goodwill are much more fungible than manufacturing capacity and know-how.
A handful of counter-examples when those 3 items are maximized cannot be generalized, nor extrapolated over time.
Who took over IBM's PCs again ?
Are you that sure that, in the long run, the companies that actually manufacture all those things will not be best placed to design - market - sell them ?
Give it time.
A few years ago, it was electronics, then computers... phones and media-players will follow, and given the sad state of western OSes, software, and services, there's a huge market waiting to be taken over.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257164</id>
	<title>Re:We can't destroy our manufacturing base</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1259408580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If everybody is making minimum wage with no benefits whatsoever, who can afford services?</p></div></blockquote><p>Wal-Mart is not the be-all, end-all of the service economy.  And even if they were, they have a large number of well-paid employees...  Managers, IT, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If everybody is making minimum wage with no benefits whatsoever , who can afford services ? Wal-Mart is not the be-all , end-all of the service economy .
And even if they were , they have a large number of well-paid employees... Managers , IT , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If everybody is making minimum wage with no benefits whatsoever, who can afford services?Wal-Mart is not the be-all, end-all of the service economy.
And even if they were, they have a large number of well-paid employees...  Managers, IT, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256992</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading Conclusion.</title>
	<author>Harinezumi</author>
	<datestamp>1259406300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>We produce more knowledge and export that. There isn't a limited amount of it to be had, you know.
<br> <br>
Manufacturing is not the end of a society's economic development, no more than agriculture is. Industrialization is just one in a long series of steps a society takes to increase its power and improve the socioeconomic well-being of its populace. The US and the rest of the Western industrialized societies are now finishing the transition from an industrial, manufactruring-based economy, to a post-industrial, knowledge-based one. At the end of that transition, the engines of national wealth generation will be, to quote Stephenson, music, movies, microcode, and high-speed pizza delivery.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We produce more knowledge and export that .
There is n't a limited amount of it to be had , you know .
Manufacturing is not the end of a society 's economic development , no more than agriculture is .
Industrialization is just one in a long series of steps a society takes to increase its power and improve the socioeconomic well-being of its populace .
The US and the rest of the Western industrialized societies are now finishing the transition from an industrial , manufactruring-based economy , to a post-industrial , knowledge-based one .
At the end of that transition , the engines of national wealth generation will be , to quote Stephenson , music , movies , microcode , and high-speed pizza delivery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We produce more knowledge and export that.
There isn't a limited amount of it to be had, you know.
Manufacturing is not the end of a society's economic development, no more than agriculture is.
Industrialization is just one in a long series of steps a society takes to increase its power and improve the socioeconomic well-being of its populace.
The US and the rest of the Western industrialized societies are now finishing the transition from an industrial, manufactruring-based economy, to a post-industrial, knowledge-based one.
At the end of that transition, the engines of national wealth generation will be, to quote Stephenson, music, movies, microcode, and high-speed pizza delivery.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30260676</id>
	<title>So wait, they figured out the value-added chain</title>
	<author>RichiH</author>
	<datestamp>1259502120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No way! There is such a thing as a value-added chain and the ones who control how and where it lies make the most money out of a particular one? *GASP*!</p><p>What they did \_not\_ see is that the Chinese start to build their own stuff. And as you can see with South Korea, Japan and Taiwan, that path lead to total and utter economic destruction of those countries. Oh, wait...</p><p>It's easy: You rip off a country as cheap labour, but as you are required to give them more and more expertise as their capacity for labour increases, you actually boot-strap their economy with your own.</p><p>I am not saying if this is a bad or a good thing, just that it's painfully obvious. And history proves that again and again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No way !
There is such a thing as a value-added chain and the ones who control how and where it lies make the most money out of a particular one ?
* GASP * ! What they did \ _not \ _ see is that the Chinese start to build their own stuff .
And as you can see with South Korea , Japan and Taiwan , that path lead to total and utter economic destruction of those countries .
Oh , wait...It 's easy : You rip off a country as cheap labour , but as you are required to give them more and more expertise as their capacity for labour increases , you actually boot-strap their economy with your own.I am not saying if this is a bad or a good thing , just that it 's painfully obvious .
And history proves that again and again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No way!
There is such a thing as a value-added chain and the ones who control how and where it lies make the most money out of a particular one?
*GASP*!What they did \_not\_ see is that the Chinese start to build their own stuff.
And as you can see with South Korea, Japan and Taiwan, that path lead to total and utter economic destruction of those countries.
Oh, wait...It's easy: You rip off a country as cheap labour, but as you are required to give them more and more expertise as their capacity for labour increases, you actually boot-strap their economy with your own.I am not saying if this is a bad or a good thing, just that it's painfully obvious.
And history proves that again and again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257778</id>
	<title>Re:Ignarance is bliss</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259415120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That sounds wrong. If I design a chair and have it manufactured and shipped from China at the cost of 140$ and then sell to my next door US neighbor for $300, it causes US a $140 trade deficit, but $160 profit. Now if I sell it to some guy in UK for 300$, not only did I make $160, also US had $160  trade surplus from it. You and the author are confusing two unrelated things: profit and trade deficit.</p><p>If an iPod causes Apple $150 to manufacture in China that is $150 trade deficit for US. It does not matter if China retains only $4 of it. If the Chinese would have to buy $146 worth of goods from other countries to produce the iPod and sell it for $150 then China had initially $146 deficit, and the made up for it with $150 surplus and has a net surplus of $4.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That sounds wrong .
If I design a chair and have it manufactured and shipped from China at the cost of 140 $ and then sell to my next door US neighbor for $ 300 , it causes US a $ 140 trade deficit , but $ 160 profit .
Now if I sell it to some guy in UK for 300 $ , not only did I make $ 160 , also US had $ 160 trade surplus from it .
You and the author are confusing two unrelated things : profit and trade deficit.If an iPod causes Apple $ 150 to manufacture in China that is $ 150 trade deficit for US .
It does not matter if China retains only $ 4 of it .
If the Chinese would have to buy $ 146 worth of goods from other countries to produce the iPod and sell it for $ 150 then China had initially $ 146 deficit , and the made up for it with $ 150 surplus and has a net surplus of $ 4 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That sounds wrong.
If I design a chair and have it manufactured and shipped from China at the cost of 140$ and then sell to my next door US neighbor for $300, it causes US a $140 trade deficit, but $160 profit.
Now if I sell it to some guy in UK for 300$, not only did I make $160, also US had $160  trade surplus from it.
You and the author are confusing two unrelated things: profit and trade deficit.If an iPod causes Apple $150 to manufacture in China that is $150 trade deficit for US.
It does not matter if China retains only $4 of it.
If the Chinese would have to buy $146 worth of goods from other countries to produce the iPod and sell it for $150 then China had initially $146 deficit, and the made up for it with $150 surplus and has a net surplus of $4.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255400</id>
	<title>Not a solid plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259433120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Intellectual property" is not a solid plan for balancing trade, since not all countries have the same view on patents and copyrights, and certainly not on trademarks.  After all these years of people crying about "counterfeit" goods, why would someone use "intellectual property" as the justification for the current structure of the US economy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Intellectual property " is not a solid plan for balancing trade , since not all countries have the same view on patents and copyrights , and certainly not on trademarks .
After all these years of people crying about " counterfeit " goods , why would someone use " intellectual property " as the justification for the current structure of the US economy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Intellectual property" is not a solid plan for balancing trade, since not all countries have the same view on patents and copyrights, and certainly not on trademarks.
After all these years of people crying about "counterfeit" goods, why would someone use "intellectual property" as the justification for the current structure of the US economy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257978</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading Conclusion.</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1259416980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man, at that rate, I wish I coulda been born poor a thousand years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , at that rate , I wish I coulda been born poor a thousand years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, at that rate, I wish I coulda been born poor a thousand years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30263174</id>
	<title>Strong economies produce, export, and sell.</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1259526240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And what you miss is the US is the <a href="http://www.people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch5en/conc5en/leadingtraders.html" title="hofstra.edu">third largest exporter</a> [hofstra.edu] in the world.  While the US imports more it exports a lot too.  <a href="http://www.uschina.org/statistics/tradetable.html" title="uschina.org">Here's</a> [uschina.org] what the US exports to China.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what you miss is the US is the third largest exporter [ hofstra.edu ] in the world .
While the US imports more it exports a lot too .
Here 's [ uschina.org ] what the US exports to China .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what you miss is the US is the third largest exporter [hofstra.edu] in the world.
While the US imports more it exports a lot too.
Here's [uschina.org] what the US exports to China.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256316</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading Conclusion.</title>
	<author>amRadioHed</author>
	<datestamp>1259441700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Retail jobs are also being lost to online merchants, which no doubt frequently turn into outsourced IT support jobs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Retail jobs are also being lost to online merchants , which no doubt frequently turn into outsourced IT support jobs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Retail jobs are also being lost to online merchants, which no doubt frequently turn into outsourced IT support jobs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256588</id>
	<title>Re:Not so fast</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1259401140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do find it immoral.  The fact that a large percentage of IP is held by Americans doesn't change the immorality one whit. The evolution of copyright/patent law over the last 75 years has been just so freaking wrong.  No patent, no copyright should last as much as 50 years.  It was far more reasonable when 20 years was the maximum.</p><p>We did away with royalty, and the feudal system.  We will eventually replace that with IP holders and a new feudal system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do find it immoral .
The fact that a large percentage of IP is held by Americans does n't change the immorality one whit .
The evolution of copyright/patent law over the last 75 years has been just so freaking wrong .
No patent , no copyright should last as much as 50 years .
It was far more reasonable when 20 years was the maximum.We did away with royalty , and the feudal system .
We will eventually replace that with IP holders and a new feudal system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do find it immoral.
The fact that a large percentage of IP is held by Americans doesn't change the immorality one whit.
The evolution of copyright/patent law over the last 75 years has been just so freaking wrong.
No patent, no copyright should last as much as 50 years.
It was far more reasonable when 20 years was the maximum.We did away with royalty, and the feudal system.
We will eventually replace that with IP holders and a new feudal system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257014</id>
	<title>Re:Not so fast</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259406540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I refuse to believe that imaginary property is an acceptable replacement for real manufacturing capacity.</i></p><p>It's not. MANUFACTURING IS EVERYTHING. The so called "information economy" was bullshit from the get-go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I refuse to believe that imaginary property is an acceptable replacement for real manufacturing capacity.It 's not .
MANUFACTURING IS EVERYTHING .
The so called " information economy " was bullshit from the get-go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I refuse to believe that imaginary property is an acceptable replacement for real manufacturing capacity.It's not.
MANUFACTURING IS EVERYTHING.
The so called "information economy" was bullshit from the get-go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255774</id>
	<title>Ignorant right wing tat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259436720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While Chinese producers may only have made $4 net profit (at least, according to the figures of some right wing reporter, from one of the UK's most ideologically right wing 'papers'), there was still a significant net capital outflow from the US economy in exhange for material goods.<br>Remember that this profit still exists after paying workers wages to make these goods, which still has far more significant benefits for the economic security of a country that 'net profit' to one company.<br>The Right Wing nuts always choose ignore this fact, because they are predominately the rich individuals who have some stakeholding in the profits of corporations, but for the rest of us, a huge trade deficit is a reflection of an economy that is failing for the vast majority of the general population, as jobs are offshored, and real world wages decline.<br>'Intellectual Property' huckersterism may look like it offers good returns currently, but if you look at the actual components in the iPhone, many were not actually designed in the West, and China is most certainly developing an indigenous design capability that has already surpassed that is the United States, and UK in many areas. This model will also fail for the rich, ultimately.<br>Manufacturing has always had small margins, particularly when run domestically - but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't manufacture domestically. In fact, to do so is a matter of national economic security.<br>It is precisely this kind of Right Wing extremist nonsense that infuriates me, and insults my intelligence. The Telegraph truly is voice of Right Wing greed (and of course, stupidity - its readers).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While Chinese producers may only have made $ 4 net profit ( at least , according to the figures of some right wing reporter , from one of the UK 's most ideologically right wing 'papers ' ) , there was still a significant net capital outflow from the US economy in exhange for material goods.Remember that this profit still exists after paying workers wages to make these goods , which still has far more significant benefits for the economic security of a country that 'net profit ' to one company.The Right Wing nuts always choose ignore this fact , because they are predominately the rich individuals who have some stakeholding in the profits of corporations , but for the rest of us , a huge trade deficit is a reflection of an economy that is failing for the vast majority of the general population , as jobs are offshored , and real world wages decline .
'Intellectual Property ' huckersterism may look like it offers good returns currently , but if you look at the actual components in the iPhone , many were not actually designed in the West , and China is most certainly developing an indigenous design capability that has already surpassed that is the United States , and UK in many areas .
This model will also fail for the rich , ultimately.Manufacturing has always had small margins , particularly when run domestically - but that does n't mean that we should n't manufacture domestically .
In fact , to do so is a matter of national economic security.It is precisely this kind of Right Wing extremist nonsense that infuriates me , and insults my intelligence .
The Telegraph truly is voice of Right Wing greed ( and of course , stupidity - its readers ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While Chinese producers may only have made $4 net profit (at least, according to the figures of some right wing reporter, from one of the UK's most ideologically right wing 'papers'), there was still a significant net capital outflow from the US economy in exhange for material goods.Remember that this profit still exists after paying workers wages to make these goods, which still has far more significant benefits for the economic security of a country that 'net profit' to one company.The Right Wing nuts always choose ignore this fact, because they are predominately the rich individuals who have some stakeholding in the profits of corporations, but for the rest of us, a huge trade deficit is a reflection of an economy that is failing for the vast majority of the general population, as jobs are offshored, and real world wages decline.
'Intellectual Property' huckersterism may look like it offers good returns currently, but if you look at the actual components in the iPhone, many were not actually designed in the West, and China is most certainly developing an indigenous design capability that has already surpassed that is the United States, and UK in many areas.
This model will also fail for the rich, ultimately.Manufacturing has always had small margins, particularly when run domestically - but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't manufacture domestically.
In fact, to do so is a matter of national economic security.It is precisely this kind of Right Wing extremist nonsense that infuriates me, and insults my intelligence.
The Telegraph truly is voice of Right Wing greed (and of course, stupidity - its readers).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30263140</id>
	<title>Re:Net flow out</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1259525880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I think this guy is missing the obvious. Who is guying the Ipods....Americans. That means every time apple sells an Ipod there is a net flow of $4 to china.</i></p><p>And you're missing something.  Every tyme a Chinese buys something made in the US money flows from China to the US.</p><p><i> I don't see the Chinese buying products manufactured here.</i></p><p>Because you're not looking and seeing the whole picture.  Behind Germany and China the US was the <a href="http://www.people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch5en/conc5en/leadingtraders.html" title="hofstra.edu">third largest exporter</a> [hofstra.edu] in 2007.  <a href="http://www.uschina.org/statistics/tradetable.html" title="uschina.org">Here</a> [uschina.org] are some things China buys from the US.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this guy is missing the obvious .
Who is guying the Ipods....Americans .
That means every time apple sells an Ipod there is a net flow of $ 4 to china.And you 're missing something .
Every tyme a Chinese buys something made in the US money flows from China to the US .
I do n't see the Chinese buying products manufactured here.Because you 're not looking and seeing the whole picture .
Behind Germany and China the US was the third largest exporter [ hofstra.edu ] in 2007 .
Here [ uschina.org ] are some things China buys from the US .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this guy is missing the obvious.
Who is guying the Ipods....Americans.
That means every time apple sells an Ipod there is a net flow of $4 to china.And you're missing something.
Every tyme a Chinese buys something made in the US money flows from China to the US.
I don't see the Chinese buying products manufactured here.Because you're not looking and seeing the whole picture.
Behind Germany and China the US was the third largest exporter [hofstra.edu] in 2007.
Here [uschina.org] are some things China buys from the US.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30258624</id>
	<title>Do you check their green cards?</title>
	<author>ThrowAwaySociety</author>
	<datestamp>1259424240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"....with predominantly American employees and stockholders.."</p><p>Seriously, I would say that 70-80\% of the employees I have seen at various tech companies...at least on the west coast are foreign nationals.</p></div><p>And you know this how? Just because someone has brown skin and speaks with an accent does not necessarily make them a "foreign national." Geez.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ....with predominantly American employees and stockholders.. " Seriously , I would say that 70-80 \ % of the employees I have seen at various tech companies...at least on the west coast are foreign nationals.And you know this how ?
Just because someone has brown skin and speaks with an accent does not necessarily make them a " foreign national .
" Geez .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"....with predominantly American employees and stockholders.."Seriously, I would say that 70-80\% of the employees I have seen at various tech companies...at least on the west coast are foreign nationals.And you know this how?
Just because someone has brown skin and speaks with an accent does not necessarily make them a "foreign national.
" Geez.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256062</id>
	<title>Re:Ignarance is bliss</title>
	<author>LynnwoodRooster</author>
	<datestamp>1259439480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, the author's point was that - because of the way trade deficit numbers are calculated - we only apparently have a $700 billion annual imbalance.  Basically, the way trade stats are worked results in an iPhone showing a $140 deficit, when in fact it completely ignores the $160 of profit made on the product.  China makes about $4 in profit.
<p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.<br>
To summarize, the author's contention is that it's not the gross dollar flow that matters, but the retained earnings - the profit - that matters.  And in that case, the vast bulk of the money stays right inside the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the author 's point was that - because of the way trade deficit numbers are calculated - we only apparently have a $ 700 billion annual imbalance .
Basically , the way trade stats are worked results in an iPhone showing a $ 140 deficit , when in fact it completely ignores the $ 160 of profit made on the product .
China makes about $ 4 in profit .
. To summarize , the author 's contention is that it 's not the gross dollar flow that matters , but the retained earnings - the profit - that matters .
And in that case , the vast bulk of the money stays right inside the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the author's point was that - because of the way trade deficit numbers are calculated - we only apparently have a $700 billion annual imbalance.
Basically, the way trade stats are worked results in an iPhone showing a $140 deficit, when in fact it completely ignores the $160 of profit made on the product.
China makes about $4 in profit.
.
To summarize, the author's contention is that it's not the gross dollar flow that matters, but the retained earnings - the profit - that matters.
And in that case, the vast bulk of the money stays right inside the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255494</id>
	<title>Only works for apple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259433840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok if you go into best buy what high end products beside apple are made by u.s. based companies? How does this work for U.S. when you buy samsung, or sony or 99\% of the non apple products?<br>What about non-high end items from china? How do those numbers work what patent money goes back to u.s. corps? Zero. How much in sales do  those products have compared to apple products?</p><p>If there were a lot more apples then this article would have merit for trade deficit numbers but unfortunately outside of computers, almost all hardware in best buy is sold by non u.s. companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok if you go into best buy what high end products beside apple are made by u.s. based companies ?
How does this work for U.S. when you buy samsung , or sony or 99 \ % of the non apple products ? What about non-high end items from china ?
How do those numbers work what patent money goes back to u.s. corps ? Zero .
How much in sales do those products have compared to apple products ? If there were a lot more apples then this article would have merit for trade deficit numbers but unfortunately outside of computers , almost all hardware in best buy is sold by non u.s. companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok if you go into best buy what high end products beside apple are made by u.s. based companies?
How does this work for U.S. when you buy samsung, or sony or 99\% of the non apple products?What about non-high end items from china?
How do those numbers work what patent money goes back to u.s. corps? Zero.
How much in sales do  those products have compared to apple products?If there were a lot more apples then this article would have merit for trade deficit numbers but unfortunately outside of computers, almost all hardware in best buy is sold by non u.s. companies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30259354</id>
	<title>Re:Not so fast</title>
	<author>ibi</author>
	<datestamp>1259433600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A bigger problem is that companies that outsource manufacturing tend to lose touch with the underlying technologies that make their products possible. If you're not very careful (and Apple is more the exception here than the rule - and I speak as an ex-Apple engineer<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) you'll eventually find that your "designers" have no idea of what's going to be possible in the next generation of technology.</p><p>Apple is the exception because the elements of consumer technology are familiar to most American trained engineers from their experience as budding consumers. The same does not apply to aerospace, heavy manufacturing, and most other high tech areas. If you're not building the stuff in those areas you'll soon run out of people who have any idea of what they're doing...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A bigger problem is that companies that outsource manufacturing tend to lose touch with the underlying technologies that make their products possible .
If you 're not very careful ( and Apple is more the exception here than the rule - and I speak as an ex-Apple engineer : - ) you 'll eventually find that your " designers " have no idea of what 's going to be possible in the next generation of technology.Apple is the exception because the elements of consumer technology are familiar to most American trained engineers from their experience as budding consumers .
The same does not apply to aerospace , heavy manufacturing , and most other high tech areas .
If you 're not building the stuff in those areas you 'll soon run out of people who have any idea of what they 're doing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A bigger problem is that companies that outsource manufacturing tend to lose touch with the underlying technologies that make their products possible.
If you're not very careful (and Apple is more the exception here than the rule - and I speak as an ex-Apple engineer :-) you'll eventually find that your "designers" have no idea of what's going to be possible in the next generation of technology.Apple is the exception because the elements of consumer technology are familiar to most American trained engineers from their experience as budding consumers.
The same does not apply to aerospace, heavy manufacturing, and most other high tech areas.
If you're not building the stuff in those areas you'll soon run out of people who have any idea of what they're doing...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255448</id>
	<title>A snapshot myopia</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1259433540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>'China, you see, is really just the place where most of the other components that go inside the iPod are shipped and assembled.'</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Well, that's how it starts.  Some places, like Mexico seems, is happy to do just that.  But other places with bit more brains, like China, builds on it to take up more and more of the whole production process.
</p><p>
Btw, am I saying Mexico is dumb?  In a way, yes.  All in all, Mexico seems a lot more of a tiered society with less a sense of national unity, and she's not alone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'China , you see , is really just the place where most of the other components that go inside the iPod are shipped and assembled .
' Well , that 's how it starts .
Some places , like Mexico seems , is happy to do just that .
But other places with bit more brains , like China , builds on it to take up more and more of the whole production process .
Btw , am I saying Mexico is dumb ?
In a way , yes .
All in all , Mexico seems a lot more of a tiered society with less a sense of national unity , and she 's not alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'China, you see, is really just the place where most of the other components that go inside the iPod are shipped and assembled.
'

Well, that's how it starts.
Some places, like Mexico seems, is happy to do just that.
But other places with bit more brains, like China, builds on it to take up more and more of the whole production process.
Btw, am I saying Mexico is dumb?
In a way, yes.
All in all, Mexico seems a lot more of a tiered society with less a sense of national unity, and she's not alone.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255438</id>
	<title>iPod is a success, US is not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259433420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>iPod is an export success, it results in a positive input into the US. So taking that as an example is not representative of the US (which imports more than it exports and has for a long time).</p><p>The real truth is that, as the owner of the US$, they simply printed the difference and to justify the growth of their money supply, they claim huge 'intangible asset' values in the companies. But it's just vapour, iPods are a real product, whereas those vapour valuations of 'goodwill &amp; IP' are not.</p><p>The harsh reality is that the Federal Reserve refuses to let Congress audit their 'assets' backing the US$, and that tells you that there is nothing of substance holding up the dollar. As for IP rights, well there again, there are so many patents covering the same things, and so the same value is counted as 'goodwill' in the balance sheet of thousands of companies.  i.e. it's just another huge fake inflated market.</p><p>Dollar is dropping, as others recognise the Bernanke game.</p><p>I think the articles authors wishes for the clock to roll back, but nobody will pay Billions for Excite.com now, once the illusion of value goes, it never comes back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>iPod is an export success , it results in a positive input into the US .
So taking that as an example is not representative of the US ( which imports more than it exports and has for a long time ) .The real truth is that , as the owner of the US $ , they simply printed the difference and to justify the growth of their money supply , they claim huge 'intangible asset ' values in the companies .
But it 's just vapour , iPods are a real product , whereas those vapour valuations of 'goodwill &amp; IP ' are not.The harsh reality is that the Federal Reserve refuses to let Congress audit their 'assets ' backing the US $ , and that tells you that there is nothing of substance holding up the dollar .
As for IP rights , well there again , there are so many patents covering the same things , and so the same value is counted as 'goodwill ' in the balance sheet of thousands of companies .
i.e. it 's just another huge fake inflated market.Dollar is dropping , as others recognise the Bernanke game.I think the articles authors wishes for the clock to roll back , but nobody will pay Billions for Excite.com now , once the illusion of value goes , it never comes back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>iPod is an export success, it results in a positive input into the US.
So taking that as an example is not representative of the US (which imports more than it exports and has for a long time).The real truth is that, as the owner of the US$, they simply printed the difference and to justify the growth of their money supply, they claim huge 'intangible asset' values in the companies.
But it's just vapour, iPods are a real product, whereas those vapour valuations of 'goodwill &amp; IP' are not.The harsh reality is that the Federal Reserve refuses to let Congress audit their 'assets' backing the US$, and that tells you that there is nothing of substance holding up the dollar.
As for IP rights, well there again, there are so many patents covering the same things, and so the same value is counted as 'goodwill' in the balance sheet of thousands of companies.
i.e. it's just another huge fake inflated market.Dollar is dropping, as others recognise the Bernanke game.I think the articles authors wishes for the clock to roll back, but nobody will pay Billions for Excite.com now, once the illusion of value goes, it never comes back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257112</id>
	<title>Re:We can't destroy our manufacturing base</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259407920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No matter how much money is made in America from items assembled in China, everyone can't work at Wal-Mart and Burger King and be able to afford said items</p></div><p>The reason offshoring works is that assembly lines are populated with unskilled labor not much different than Wal-Mart stockers and Burger King cooks.  In the US, those unskilled factory jobs include a healthy $20-$30/hr wage, health &amp; retirement benefits.  In China, the job can be done for $2/hr, no medical, no retirement.  If the US wants to maintain its standard of living in a global marketplace, it needs to make sure it produces truly skilled workers whose time is worth more than a bolt-tightener.  You don't ensure competitiveness on the global stage by legislating or subsidizing high commodity prices - or wages - you do it by providing a good, service, or skill that isn't readily available elsewhere.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No matter how much money is made in America from items assembled in China , everyone ca n't work at Wal-Mart and Burger King and be able to afford said itemsThe reason offshoring works is that assembly lines are populated with unskilled labor not much different than Wal-Mart stockers and Burger King cooks .
In the US , those unskilled factory jobs include a healthy $ 20- $ 30/hr wage , health &amp; retirement benefits .
In China , the job can be done for $ 2/hr , no medical , no retirement .
If the US wants to maintain its standard of living in a global marketplace , it needs to make sure it produces truly skilled workers whose time is worth more than a bolt-tightener .
You do n't ensure competitiveness on the global stage by legislating or subsidizing high commodity prices - or wages - you do it by providing a good , service , or skill that is n't readily available elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No matter how much money is made in America from items assembled in China, everyone can't work at Wal-Mart and Burger King and be able to afford said itemsThe reason offshoring works is that assembly lines are populated with unskilled labor not much different than Wal-Mart stockers and Burger King cooks.
In the US, those unskilled factory jobs include a healthy $20-$30/hr wage, health &amp; retirement benefits.
In China, the job can be done for $2/hr, no medical, no retirement.
If the US wants to maintain its standard of living in a global marketplace, it needs to make sure it produces truly skilled workers whose time is worth more than a bolt-tightener.
You don't ensure competitiveness on the global stage by legislating or subsidizing high commodity prices - or wages - you do it by providing a good, service, or skill that isn't readily available elsewhere.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255924</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading Conclusion.</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1259438220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree... and read the comments following TFA; they're much more on point. Once we export all our knowledge, what do we have left? manufacturing is long gone, and food production is going overseas too. What happens when we are purely a nation of consumers?</p><p>Tho sometimes one thinks that most businesses are already mainly selling marketing to each other, rather than selling an actual product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree... and read the comments following TFA ; they 're much more on point .
Once we export all our knowledge , what do we have left ?
manufacturing is long gone , and food production is going overseas too .
What happens when we are purely a nation of consumers ? Tho sometimes one thinks that most businesses are already mainly selling marketing to each other , rather than selling an actual product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree... and read the comments following TFA; they're much more on point.
Once we export all our knowledge, what do we have left?
manufacturing is long gone, and food production is going overseas too.
What happens when we are purely a nation of consumers?Tho sometimes one thinks that most businesses are already mainly selling marketing to each other, rather than selling an actual product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256392</id>
	<title>Net flow out</title>
	<author>pcjunky</author>
	<datestamp>1259399340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this guy is missing the obvious. Who is guying the Ipods....Americans. That means every time apple sells an Ipod there is a net flow of $4 to china. I don't see the Chinese buying products manufactured here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this guy is missing the obvious .
Who is guying the Ipods....Americans .
That means every time apple sells an Ipod there is a net flow of $ 4 to china .
I do n't see the Chinese buying products manufactured here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this guy is missing the obvious.
Who is guying the Ipods....Americans.
That means every time apple sells an Ipod there is a net flow of $4 to china.
I don't see the Chinese buying products manufactured here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255960</id>
	<title>The dollar should drop. China has the yahn pegged.</title>
	<author>HornWumpus</author>
	<datestamp>1259438580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
China occasionally moves the peg as Chinese industry becomes overwhelmed with export demand.
</p><p>
That is not good enough.
</p><p>
If the Yahn floats market forces fix much of this mess over the next 20 years.
</p><p>
If the Yahn remains pegged the dollar will eventually crash all at once.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China occasionally moves the peg as Chinese industry becomes overwhelmed with export demand .
That is not good enough .
If the Yahn floats market forces fix much of this mess over the next 20 years .
If the Yahn remains pegged the dollar will eventually crash all at once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
China occasionally moves the peg as Chinese industry becomes overwhelmed with export demand.
That is not good enough.
If the Yahn floats market forces fix much of this mess over the next 20 years.
If the Yahn remains pegged the dollar will eventually crash all at once.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255728</id>
	<title>That's a really good job of spin!</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1259436180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It does not, however, get into the U.S. economy at large.  There are the local retail sales people and the like, but the big money goes into the people with big pockets and pretty much stays there.  One only has to look at the current figures for distribution of wealth to show that there is nearly no middle class left in the U.S.  Further, all the money is being made through imaginary property ownership.  Some say the roman empire fell because their economy shifted to an economy based economy... the same with the british empire.  The global empire is in trouble for similar reasons.</p><p>We need our manufacturing back.  We need our agriculture back in the hands of individual farmers.  Some things are just better when people are working.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does not , however , get into the U.S. economy at large .
There are the local retail sales people and the like , but the big money goes into the people with big pockets and pretty much stays there .
One only has to look at the current figures for distribution of wealth to show that there is nearly no middle class left in the U.S. Further , all the money is being made through imaginary property ownership .
Some say the roman empire fell because their economy shifted to an economy based economy... the same with the british empire .
The global empire is in trouble for similar reasons.We need our manufacturing back .
We need our agriculture back in the hands of individual farmers .
Some things are just better when people are working .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does not, however, get into the U.S. economy at large.
There are the local retail sales people and the like, but the big money goes into the people with big pockets and pretty much stays there.
One only has to look at the current figures for distribution of wealth to show that there is nearly no middle class left in the U.S.  Further, all the money is being made through imaginary property ownership.
Some say the roman empire fell because their economy shifted to an economy based economy... the same with the british empire.
The global empire is in trouble for similar reasons.We need our manufacturing back.
We need our agriculture back in the hands of individual farmers.
Some things are just better when people are working.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255368</id>
	<title>Low Tech Goods?</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1259432820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And what about low technology good such as clothes, furniture, steel, glass, toys, and widgets? Where does the money flow there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what about low technology good such as clothes , furniture , steel , glass , toys , and widgets ?
Where does the money flow there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what about low technology good such as clothes, furniture, steel, glass, toys, and widgets?
Where does the money flow there?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256436</id>
	<title>Re:We can't destroy our manufacturing base</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1259399700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you suggesting that the only possible jobs are manufacturing, and Walmart/Burger King? Service jobs covers a vast range of possibilities.</p><p>I also don't see how this means being unable to afford an Ipod. There are plenty of service jobs that pay more. OTOH, there are plenty of low paid jobs in manufacturing. E.g., how much do you think they're paid for manufacturing Ipods in China, for one?</p><p>The reality is the opposite of what you suggest - if manufacturing jobs were here, they'd have to pay more in salaries, so the products would be more expensive, meaning less people could afford them.</p><p><i>If everybody is making minimum wage with no benefits whatsoever, who can afford services?</i></p><p>Why do you think this will happen? Do you have evidence to suggest that higher paid skilled jobs with benefits are more likely to go abroad, than lower paid ones? Remember, even the minimum paid jobs are still higher wages than those in China, so companies still have no incentive to keep them from that point of view.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you suggesting that the only possible jobs are manufacturing , and Walmart/Burger King ?
Service jobs covers a vast range of possibilities.I also do n't see how this means being unable to afford an Ipod .
There are plenty of service jobs that pay more .
OTOH , there are plenty of low paid jobs in manufacturing .
E.g. , how much do you think they 're paid for manufacturing Ipods in China , for one ? The reality is the opposite of what you suggest - if manufacturing jobs were here , they 'd have to pay more in salaries , so the products would be more expensive , meaning less people could afford them.If everybody is making minimum wage with no benefits whatsoever , who can afford services ? Why do you think this will happen ?
Do you have evidence to suggest that higher paid skilled jobs with benefits are more likely to go abroad , than lower paid ones ?
Remember , even the minimum paid jobs are still higher wages than those in China , so companies still have no incentive to keep them from that point of view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you suggesting that the only possible jobs are manufacturing, and Walmart/Burger King?
Service jobs covers a vast range of possibilities.I also don't see how this means being unable to afford an Ipod.
There are plenty of service jobs that pay more.
OTOH, there are plenty of low paid jobs in manufacturing.
E.g., how much do you think they're paid for manufacturing Ipods in China, for one?The reality is the opposite of what you suggest - if manufacturing jobs were here, they'd have to pay more in salaries, so the products would be more expensive, meaning less people could afford them.If everybody is making minimum wage with no benefits whatsoever, who can afford services?Why do you think this will happen?
Do you have evidence to suggest that higher paid skilled jobs with benefits are more likely to go abroad, than lower paid ones?
Remember, even the minimum paid jobs are still higher wages than those in China, so companies still have no incentive to keep them from that point of view.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30261986</id>
	<title>Re:Rejoice!</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1259515980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another anti-capitalist anti-free market demigod.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another anti-capitalist anti-free market demigod .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another anti-capitalist anti-free market demigod.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256468</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading Conclusion.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259400060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The rich, richer? Sure<br>The gap between rich and poor wider? Perhaps<br>The poor, poorer? I call BS - unless you really think the poor of today are a lot worse off than the poor in the 18th century?</p><p>As someone once said - given the choice between being a middle-class citizen in today's (western) world and a king in the 18th century, I'd pick today's middle-class life without question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The rich , richer ?
SureThe gap between rich and poor wider ?
PerhapsThe poor , poorer ?
I call BS - unless you really think the poor of today are a lot worse off than the poor in the 18th century ? As someone once said - given the choice between being a middle-class citizen in today 's ( western ) world and a king in the 18th century , I 'd pick today 's middle-class life without question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rich, richer?
SureThe gap between rich and poor wider?
PerhapsThe poor, poorer?
I call BS - unless you really think the poor of today are a lot worse off than the poor in the 18th century?As someone once said - given the choice between being a middle-class citizen in today's (western) world and a king in the 18th century, I'd pick today's middle-class life without question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257184</id>
	<title>Valid Conclusion, Invalid Reasoning</title>
	<author>Dean Edmonds</author>
	<datestamp>1259408760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The author's primary conclusion is that it isn't necessarily a problem if a developed country runs a large trade deficit. His reasoning is that when a Chinese-made iPod sells in the US for $150, that shows up in the US trade numbers as a $150 deficit to China, but only about $4 of that actually goes to China because they had to import parts and tech worth $146 to make that iPod and the bulk of that $146 eventually flows back to the US.</p><p>The problem with this analysis is that when that $146 flows back to the US, it will show up as a trade <i>surplus</i> leaving the US with a net deficit of only $4. Depending upon the routes that the various goods, services and finances take, the net deficit with China may indeed remain $150, but the <i>overall</i> US trade deficit will only have increased by $4. In fact the CRITO quotes that the author included in his article <i>make exactly that point!</i></p><p>The author tries to explain this away by saying that this balancing doesn't happen due to the way in which trade balances are calculated, but doesn't give any details. While there are some peculiarities in trade calculations which lead to phantom imbalances, their effects are marginal in comparison to the US's staggering $550bn trade deficit.</p><p>Despite his flawed reasoning, the author's overall conclusion is still correct. But what matters is <i>how the deficit is being used</i>. If the deficit is being used primarily for productive investment, things like power stations, communications systems, plant equipment and so forth, which will boost future productivity, then it's not a problem. If it's being used for current consumption, such as food, clothing and entertainment, then it means that the country is living beyond its means and will eventually have to reign in spending.</p><p>In the case of the US, the picture is mixed. Over half of the deficit is used for productive investment, but there's still a big chunk, even before the recent stimulus, which represents the American consumer spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave. The US is currently living beyond its means, but not nearly so much so as the alarmists who point at raw trade figures would have us believe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The author 's primary conclusion is that it is n't necessarily a problem if a developed country runs a large trade deficit .
His reasoning is that when a Chinese-made iPod sells in the US for $ 150 , that shows up in the US trade numbers as a $ 150 deficit to China , but only about $ 4 of that actually goes to China because they had to import parts and tech worth $ 146 to make that iPod and the bulk of that $ 146 eventually flows back to the US.The problem with this analysis is that when that $ 146 flows back to the US , it will show up as a trade surplus leaving the US with a net deficit of only $ 4 .
Depending upon the routes that the various goods , services and finances take , the net deficit with China may indeed remain $ 150 , but the overall US trade deficit will only have increased by $ 4 .
In fact the CRITO quotes that the author included in his article make exactly that point ! The author tries to explain this away by saying that this balancing does n't happen due to the way in which trade balances are calculated , but does n't give any details .
While there are some peculiarities in trade calculations which lead to phantom imbalances , their effects are marginal in comparison to the US 's staggering $ 550bn trade deficit.Despite his flawed reasoning , the author 's overall conclusion is still correct .
But what matters is how the deficit is being used .
If the deficit is being used primarily for productive investment , things like power stations , communications systems , plant equipment and so forth , which will boost future productivity , then it 's not a problem .
If it 's being used for current consumption , such as food , clothing and entertainment , then it means that the country is living beyond its means and will eventually have to reign in spending.In the case of the US , the picture is mixed .
Over half of the deficit is used for productive investment , but there 's still a big chunk , even before the recent stimulus , which represents the American consumer spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave .
The US is currently living beyond its means , but not nearly so much so as the alarmists who point at raw trade figures would have us believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The author's primary conclusion is that it isn't necessarily a problem if a developed country runs a large trade deficit.
His reasoning is that when a Chinese-made iPod sells in the US for $150, that shows up in the US trade numbers as a $150 deficit to China, but only about $4 of that actually goes to China because they had to import parts and tech worth $146 to make that iPod and the bulk of that $146 eventually flows back to the US.The problem with this analysis is that when that $146 flows back to the US, it will show up as a trade surplus leaving the US with a net deficit of only $4.
Depending upon the routes that the various goods, services and finances take, the net deficit with China may indeed remain $150, but the overall US trade deficit will only have increased by $4.
In fact the CRITO quotes that the author included in his article make exactly that point!The author tries to explain this away by saying that this balancing doesn't happen due to the way in which trade balances are calculated, but doesn't give any details.
While there are some peculiarities in trade calculations which lead to phantom imbalances, their effects are marginal in comparison to the US's staggering $550bn trade deficit.Despite his flawed reasoning, the author's overall conclusion is still correct.
But what matters is how the deficit is being used.
If the deficit is being used primarily for productive investment, things like power stations, communications systems, plant equipment and so forth, which will boost future productivity, then it's not a problem.
If it's being used for current consumption, such as food, clothing and entertainment, then it means that the country is living beyond its means and will eventually have to reign in spending.In the case of the US, the picture is mixed.
Over half of the deficit is used for productive investment, but there's still a big chunk, even before the recent stimulus, which represents the American consumer spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave.
The US is currently living beyond its means, but not nearly so much so as the alarmists who point at raw trade figures would have us believe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30259074</id>
	<title>food production is going overseas too</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1259429280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually the US is one of the largest, if not the largest, food exporter in the world.  </p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually the US is one of the largest , if not the largest , food exporter in the world .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually the US is one of the largest, if not the largest, food exporter in the world.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256898</id>
	<title>Missing $$$ on the trade balance?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259404800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't anyone else wonder why the profits on the balance sheets show a credit in China for $150 when only $4 actually goes to the manufacturers?  If the balance of trades show $150 going to China (but secretly transferred to profits in the US)... there must be some fancy financial bookwork done, possibly for tax purposes.  <br>How?  International banking in places like the British Virgin Islands where most of China FDI flows.  Take a pretend loss in China to balance out the books back home.  Big multinational companies are good at hiding the flow of money... it's no wonder the money doesn't show up as a credit in the US.  So where does the missing money on the balance sheets go and how is it transferred into the US?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't anyone else wonder why the profits on the balance sheets show a credit in China for $ 150 when only $ 4 actually goes to the manufacturers ?
If the balance of trades show $ 150 going to China ( but secretly transferred to profits in the US ) ... there must be some fancy financial bookwork done , possibly for tax purposes .
How ? International banking in places like the British Virgin Islands where most of China FDI flows .
Take a pretend loss in China to balance out the books back home .
Big multinational companies are good at hiding the flow of money... it 's no wonder the money does n't show up as a credit in the US .
So where does the missing money on the balance sheets go and how is it transferred into the US ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't anyone else wonder why the profits on the balance sheets show a credit in China for $150 when only $4 actually goes to the manufacturers?
If the balance of trades show $150 going to China (but secretly transferred to profits in the US)... there must be some fancy financial bookwork done, possibly for tax purposes.
How?  International banking in places like the British Virgin Islands where most of China FDI flows.
Take a pretend loss in China to balance out the books back home.
Big multinational companies are good at hiding the flow of money... it's no wonder the money doesn't show up as a credit in the US.
So where does the missing money on the balance sheets go and how is it transferred into the US?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30258028</id>
	<title>Re:Ignarance is bliss</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259417460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is factually incorrect. Profits are an entirely different beast than international capital flows. The trade flows (included in the current account balance) are an accurate way of indicating a net funding deficit or surplus. For example, if the United States has a 500 billion USD current account deficit, that is literally the amount that they United States needs in net borrowing to balance international capital flows (without digging into the official reserves, which are not large in the United States' case).</p><p>What is actually being described by the author is this:</p><p>1. China buys $146 worth of materials externally (let's pretend that they come from Taiwan, Korea, and Japan) to build an iPod<br>2. China sells iPod to United States (Apple) for $150<br>3. Apple sells iPod for $300 to an American consumer</p><p>Looking only at China, we see $146 leave China and go to its suppliers. We see $150 enter China when it sells the iPod. That's $4 of new capital in China.</p><p>Now, let's look at the United States. $150 of capital leaves the United States (which will be replaced by debt capital when China lends America the money to pay for the new iPod).</p><p>If the author contends that Apple's profits are the most important part of this equation, he/she is clueless because the profits really only reflect Apple getting rich at some strung-out American consumer's expense (not China's).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is factually incorrect .
Profits are an entirely different beast than international capital flows .
The trade flows ( included in the current account balance ) are an accurate way of indicating a net funding deficit or surplus .
For example , if the United States has a 500 billion USD current account deficit , that is literally the amount that they United States needs in net borrowing to balance international capital flows ( without digging into the official reserves , which are not large in the United States ' case ) .What is actually being described by the author is this : 1 .
China buys $ 146 worth of materials externally ( let 's pretend that they come from Taiwan , Korea , and Japan ) to build an iPod2 .
China sells iPod to United States ( Apple ) for $ 1503 .
Apple sells iPod for $ 300 to an American consumerLooking only at China , we see $ 146 leave China and go to its suppliers .
We see $ 150 enter China when it sells the iPod .
That 's $ 4 of new capital in China.Now , let 's look at the United States .
$ 150 of capital leaves the United States ( which will be replaced by debt capital when China lends America the money to pay for the new iPod ) .If the author contends that Apple 's profits are the most important part of this equation , he/she is clueless because the profits really only reflect Apple getting rich at some strung-out American consumer 's expense ( not China 's ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is factually incorrect.
Profits are an entirely different beast than international capital flows.
The trade flows (included in the current account balance) are an accurate way of indicating a net funding deficit or surplus.
For example, if the United States has a 500 billion USD current account deficit, that is literally the amount that they United States needs in net borrowing to balance international capital flows (without digging into the official reserves, which are not large in the United States' case).What is actually being described by the author is this:1.
China buys $146 worth of materials externally (let's pretend that they come from Taiwan, Korea, and Japan) to build an iPod2.
China sells iPod to United States (Apple) for $1503.
Apple sells iPod for $300 to an American consumerLooking only at China, we see $146 leave China and go to its suppliers.
We see $150 enter China when it sells the iPod.
That's $4 of new capital in China.Now, let's look at the United States.
$150 of capital leaves the United States (which will be replaced by debt capital when China lends America the money to pay for the new iPod).If the author contends that Apple's profits are the most important part of this equation, he/she is clueless because the profits really only reflect Apple getting rich at some strung-out American consumer's expense (not China's).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255442</id>
	<title>That does not work out</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1259433480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Innovation usually follows production in the long run, since the west things we can survive on IP alone we will have a bad wakeup call in about 20-30 years timeframe, no production, no invention period, the patents usually are the last to follow due to the grace period but they are slowly moving towards asia as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Innovation usually follows production in the long run , since the west things we can survive on IP alone we will have a bad wakeup call in about 20-30 years timeframe , no production , no invention period , the patents usually are the last to follow due to the grace period but they are slowly moving towards asia as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Innovation usually follows production in the long run, since the west things we can survive on IP alone we will have a bad wakeup call in about 20-30 years timeframe, no production, no invention period, the patents usually are the last to follow due to the grace period but they are slowly moving towards asia as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255348</id>
	<title>Not so fast</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259432460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe the author of TFA could also analyze who makes th eprofits off the many <a href="http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story\_id=14931575" title="economist.com" rel="nofollow">counterfeit</a> [economist.com] iPhones mfg'd in China:</p><p>"Illicit phones comprise a staggering 40\% of Chinese firms' production, and 13\% of the world's, according to iSuppli, a research firm. It reckons China will produce 145m of them this year, up by almost half since 2008. This has hit sales of legal phones."</p><p>I refuse to believe that imaginary property is an acceptable replacement for real manufacturing capacity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the author of TFA could also analyze who makes th eprofits off the many counterfeit [ economist.com ] iPhones mfg 'd in China : " Illicit phones comprise a staggering 40 \ % of Chinese firms ' production , and 13 \ % of the world 's , according to iSuppli , a research firm .
It reckons China will produce 145m of them this year , up by almost half since 2008 .
This has hit sales of legal phones .
" I refuse to believe that imaginary property is an acceptable replacement for real manufacturing capacity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the author of TFA could also analyze who makes th eprofits off the many counterfeit [economist.com] iPhones mfg'd in China:"Illicit phones comprise a staggering 40\% of Chinese firms' production, and 13\% of the world's, according to iSuppli, a research firm.
It reckons China will produce 145m of them this year, up by almost half since 2008.
This has hit sales of legal phones.
"I refuse to believe that imaginary property is an acceptable replacement for real manufacturing capacity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30274414</id>
	<title>Re:That is an odd way of putting it.</title>
	<author>inviolet</author>
	<datestamp>1259574480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't find intellectual property so much immoral as it holds back progress. Even the father of the Free Market Adam Smith didn't like patents. He called them a necessary evil. That may of been true in his tyme but I don't believe is still true.</p></div></blockquote><p>If something is <i>evil</i>, and yet your moral code accepts it as <i>necessary</i>, then your moral code is broken.  It's one or the other but never both.  (Or you can declare life itself to be evil, provided you can supply a suitable point of view from which to make this declaration.)
</p><p>I'm curious to know which category you would file patents in.  Adam Smith dodged the question but you are still alive and so you can answer it.  Tell us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't find intellectual property so much immoral as it holds back progress .
Even the father of the Free Market Adam Smith did n't like patents .
He called them a necessary evil .
That may of been true in his tyme but I do n't believe is still true.If something is evil , and yet your moral code accepts it as necessary , then your moral code is broken .
It 's one or the other but never both .
( Or you can declare life itself to be evil , provided you can supply a suitable point of view from which to make this declaration .
) I 'm curious to know which category you would file patents in .
Adam Smith dodged the question but you are still alive and so you can answer it .
Tell us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't find intellectual property so much immoral as it holds back progress.
Even the father of the Free Market Adam Smith didn't like patents.
He called them a necessary evil.
That may of been true in his tyme but I don't believe is still true.If something is evil, and yet your moral code accepts it as necessary, then your moral code is broken.
It's one or the other but never both.
(Or you can declare life itself to be evil, provided you can supply a suitable point of view from which to make this declaration.
)
I'm curious to know which category you would file patents in.
Adam Smith dodged the question but you are still alive and so you can answer it.
Tell us.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30259148</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading Conclusion.</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1259430480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Really, I wonder who even buys the "trickle down" nonsense anymore.</p></div><p>Those that vote "pro-buisness."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , I wonder who even buys the " trickle down " nonsense anymore.Those that vote " pro-buisness .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, I wonder who even buys the "trickle down" nonsense anymore.Those that vote "pro-buisness.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256908</id>
	<title>Re:Not so fast</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259405040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excuse the tin-foil-hat theory here but I see TFAs writer as an astroturfer for Intellectual Property (IP). The people who stand to gain the most from IP are the ones with an already large portfolio. Those who stand to lose from it are the real innovators; the ones with new ideas but no funds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excuse the tin-foil-hat theory here but I see TFAs writer as an astroturfer for Intellectual Property ( IP ) .
The people who stand to gain the most from IP are the ones with an already large portfolio .
Those who stand to lose from it are the real innovators ; the ones with new ideas but no funds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excuse the tin-foil-hat theory here but I see TFAs writer as an astroturfer for Intellectual Property (IP).
The people who stand to gain the most from IP are the ones with an already large portfolio.
Those who stand to lose from it are the real innovators; the ones with new ideas but no funds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30258688</id>
	<title>Perhaps most usefully for shills</title>
	<author>Zey</author>
	<datestamp>1259424840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What the iPod Tells Us About the World Economy</p></div></blockquote><p>What the linked story <em>really</em> demonstrates is you can work product placement for Apple gear into nearly any article whatsoever, not just the reviews for competing IT products, non-competing IT products and "competing if you squint hard enough and long enough" products.</p><p>The news media's always been fairly open to writing positive copy for their advertisers, but, in the current economic climate of falling sales and falling advertising there must be a powerful temptation to go that little bit too far.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the iPod Tells Us About the World EconomyWhat the linked story really demonstrates is you can work product placement for Apple gear into nearly any article whatsoever , not just the reviews for competing IT products , non-competing IT products and " competing if you squint hard enough and long enough " products.The news media 's always been fairly open to writing positive copy for their advertisers , but , in the current economic climate of falling sales and falling advertising there must be a powerful temptation to go that little bit too far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the iPod Tells Us About the World EconomyWhat the linked story really demonstrates is you can work product placement for Apple gear into nearly any article whatsoever, not just the reviews for competing IT products, non-competing IT products and "competing if you squint hard enough and long enough" products.The news media's always been fairly open to writing positive copy for their advertisers, but, in the current economic climate of falling sales and falling advertising there must be a powerful temptation to go that little bit too far.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256430</id>
	<title>Something's missing....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259399640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As usual, the writer misses one critical component; whether or not the bulk of the funds return to the USA is irrelevant, there needs to be INCENTIVE for the US based firm to hire US workers. If you can design it here, build it there cheaply, and simply pocket the profits, why hire anyone else in the US? Jobs isn't going to wake up one day and say, "hey, I got all this extra dough laying around. Maybe I'll hire on more wokrers!" It doesn't work that way. He has to NEED to hire more workers. And if he hires more (hypothetically speaking) he may decide to hire them overseas rather than in the US.<br>The lack of basic logical thinking is staggering sometimes!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As usual , the writer misses one critical component ; whether or not the bulk of the funds return to the USA is irrelevant , there needs to be INCENTIVE for the US based firm to hire US workers .
If you can design it here , build it there cheaply , and simply pocket the profits , why hire anyone else in the US ?
Jobs is n't going to wake up one day and say , " hey , I got all this extra dough laying around .
Maybe I 'll hire on more wokrers !
" It does n't work that way .
He has to NEED to hire more workers .
And if he hires more ( hypothetically speaking ) he may decide to hire them overseas rather than in the US.The lack of basic logical thinking is staggering sometimes ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As usual, the writer misses one critical component; whether or not the bulk of the funds return to the USA is irrelevant, there needs to be INCENTIVE for the US based firm to hire US workers.
If you can design it here, build it there cheaply, and simply pocket the profits, why hire anyone else in the US?
Jobs isn't going to wake up one day and say, "hey, I got all this extra dough laying around.
Maybe I'll hire on more wokrers!
" It doesn't work that way.
He has to NEED to hire more workers.
And if he hires more (hypothetically speaking) he may decide to hire them overseas rather than in the US.The lack of basic logical thinking is staggering sometimes!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30258292</id>
	<title>10 things the iPod tells me about the world</title>
	<author>Dystopian Rebel</author>
	<datestamp>1259421300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Eye contact and conversation with people nearby are becoming too frightening for people.<br>2. Most of the music being produced formally is crap.<br>3. The Musical Idolatry Complex is no longer capable of concealing Point 2.<br>4. Cocaine use is dropping because of Point 3.<br>5. Wall Street has not been affected by Point 4.<br>6. DRM is dead.<br>7. Most people think "more bass" is a substitute for a crappy bitrate, but Point 2 makes this fact moot.<br>8. "Zune" is a crappy name for a product.<br>9. Consumers and sheep are not disturbed by the suffering of others.<br>10. Point 9 is as true for international relations and the slaughterhouse as it is for my ears on the bus in the morning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Eye contact and conversation with people nearby are becoming too frightening for people.2 .
Most of the music being produced formally is crap.3 .
The Musical Idolatry Complex is no longer capable of concealing Point 2.4 .
Cocaine use is dropping because of Point 3.5 .
Wall Street has not been affected by Point 4.6 .
DRM is dead.7 .
Most people think " more bass " is a substitute for a crappy bitrate , but Point 2 makes this fact moot.8 .
" Zune " is a crappy name for a product.9 .
Consumers and sheep are not disturbed by the suffering of others.10 .
Point 9 is as true for international relations and the slaughterhouse as it is for my ears on the bus in the morning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Eye contact and conversation with people nearby are becoming too frightening for people.2.
Most of the music being produced formally is crap.3.
The Musical Idolatry Complex is no longer capable of concealing Point 2.4.
Cocaine use is dropping because of Point 3.5.
Wall Street has not been affected by Point 4.6.
DRM is dead.7.
Most people think "more bass" is a substitute for a crappy bitrate, but Point 2 makes this fact moot.8.
"Zune" is a crappy name for a product.9.
Consumers and sheep are not disturbed by the suffering of others.10.
Point 9 is as true for international relations and the slaughterhouse as it is for my ears on the bus in the morning.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256154</id>
	<title>Patent trolls getting rich</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259440140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, the premise is that patent trolls are getting rich while the rest of us are out of work. Isn't that what he said?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , the premise is that patent trolls are getting rich while the rest of us are out of work .
Is n't that what he said ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, the premise is that patent trolls are getting rich while the rest of us are out of work.
Isn't that what he said?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30263058</id>
	<title>Re:Ignorant right wing tat</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1259525040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Remember that this profit still exists after paying workers wages to make these goods, which still has far more significant benefits for the economic security of a country that 'net profit' to one company.<br>
The Right Wing nuts always choose ignore this fact</i></p><p>More like anti-capitalists ignore the fact that most people want to make money and communism failed.  Why do so many people oppose voluntary exchanges of goods and services?</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember that this profit still exists after paying workers wages to make these goods , which still has far more significant benefits for the economic security of a country that 'net profit ' to one company .
The Right Wing nuts always choose ignore this factMore like anti-capitalists ignore the fact that most people want to make money and communism failed .
Why do so many people oppose voluntary exchanges of goods and services ?
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember that this profit still exists after paying workers wages to make these goods, which still has far more significant benefits for the economic security of a country that 'net profit' to one company.
The Right Wing nuts always choose ignore this factMore like anti-capitalists ignore the fact that most people want to make money and communism failed.
Why do so many people oppose voluntary exchanges of goods and services?
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256942</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading Conclusion.</title>
	<author>Harinezumi</author>
	<datestamp>1259405520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The people who would normally make their living in these manufacturing jobs are still making their living in these manufacturing jobs, they're just making that living in Fujian instead of Michigan. Personally, I don't see any reason why an unskilled laborer 3000 miles away from me deserves any more of my sympathies than an unskilled laborer 6000 miles away from me, particularly if the latter is offering to perform the same amount of labor for less cost.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The people who would normally make their living in these manufacturing jobs are still making their living in these manufacturing jobs , they 're just making that living in Fujian instead of Michigan .
Personally , I do n't see any reason why an unskilled laborer 3000 miles away from me deserves any more of my sympathies than an unskilled laborer 6000 miles away from me , particularly if the latter is offering to perform the same amount of labor for less cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people who would normally make their living in these manufacturing jobs are still making their living in these manufacturing jobs, they're just making that living in Fujian instead of Michigan.
Personally, I don't see any reason why an unskilled laborer 3000 miles away from me deserves any more of my sympathies than an unskilled laborer 6000 miles away from me, particularly if the latter is offering to perform the same amount of labor for less cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257034</id>
	<title>Re:That said..</title>
	<author>Harinezumi</author>
	<datestamp>1259406840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That would imply that that $150 is going to keep 10 workers fed in China at the cost of putting one worker on the street in the US. Looking at it that way, it would seem immoral <i>not</i> to move the work to China.
<br> <br>
As for the economic loss you mention, it would cut both ways, significantly increasing the costs of said political embargo and thus decreasing the probability of its enactment. Anything that motivates the world's great powers to act in a more civil manner towards each other is a win in my book.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would imply that that $ 150 is going to keep 10 workers fed in China at the cost of putting one worker on the street in the US .
Looking at it that way , it would seem immoral not to move the work to China .
As for the economic loss you mention , it would cut both ways , significantly increasing the costs of said political embargo and thus decreasing the probability of its enactment .
Anything that motivates the world 's great powers to act in a more civil manner towards each other is a win in my book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would imply that that $150 is going to keep 10 workers fed in China at the cost of putting one worker on the street in the US.
Looking at it that way, it would seem immoral not to move the work to China.
As for the economic loss you mention, it would cut both ways, significantly increasing the costs of said political embargo and thus decreasing the probability of its enactment.
Anything that motivates the world's great powers to act in a more civil manner towards each other is a win in my book.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255630</id>
	<title>Re:Have you even been to Apple...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259435340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Foreign nationals but american citizens probably. I would be surprised if companies had 70-80\% of their workforce on H1B visas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Foreign nationals but american citizens probably .
I would be surprised if companies had 70-80 \ % of their workforce on H1B visas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Foreign nationals but american citizens probably.
I would be surprised if companies had 70-80\% of their workforce on H1B visas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256420</id>
	<title>Re:It's the dollar</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1259399580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do you think people have been rushing to buy gold for the last years? Gold is the savings shelter when a country is printing loads of paper money. Inflation usually results.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you think people have been rushing to buy gold for the last years ?
Gold is the savings shelter when a country is printing loads of paper money .
Inflation usually results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you think people have been rushing to buy gold for the last years?
Gold is the savings shelter when a country is printing loads of paper money.
Inflation usually results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255538</id>
	<title>Then why does China has a huge trade surplus?</title>
	<author>ericferris</author>
	<datestamp>1259434380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have doubts about the article's numbers. If that was true, how could China have a huge trade surplus? If the article was correct, all of the export gains would be spent on IP fees to non-Chinese companies, and would reduce their trade surplus. That's not what we observe.</p><p>So, while it's important to have a sound R&amp;D and to have plenty of licenses ready to sell for lots of product, this does not replace a good manufacturing basis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have doubts about the article 's numbers .
If that was true , how could China have a huge trade surplus ?
If the article was correct , all of the export gains would be spent on IP fees to non-Chinese companies , and would reduce their trade surplus .
That 's not what we observe.So , while it 's important to have a sound R&amp;D and to have plenty of licenses ready to sell for lots of product , this does not replace a good manufacturing basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have doubts about the article's numbers.
If that was true, how could China have a huge trade surplus?
If the article was correct, all of the export gains would be spent on IP fees to non-Chinese companies, and would reduce their trade surplus.
That's not what we observe.So, while it's important to have a sound R&amp;D and to have plenty of licenses ready to sell for lots of product, this does not replace a good manufacturing basis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257010</id>
	<title>Re:In May 2009, the US owed China $772 billion.</title>
	<author>laddiebuck</author>
	<datestamp>1259406540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What do you mean? The devaluation of the dollar has meant a devaluation of debt on a grand scale. I call that a reasonably shrewd move.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you mean ?
The devaluation of the dollar has meant a devaluation of debt on a grand scale .
I call that a reasonably shrewd move .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you mean?
The devaluation of the dollar has meant a devaluation of debt on a grand scale.
I call that a reasonably shrewd move.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256256</id>
	<title>Re:That's a really good job of spin!</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1259441160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Further, all the money is being made through imaginary property ownership.</p></div><p>Wouldn't that suggest that the property is not so imaginary after all?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Further , all the money is being made through imaginary property ownership.Would n't that suggest that the property is not so imaginary after all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Further, all the money is being made through imaginary property ownership.Wouldn't that suggest that the property is not so imaginary after all?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30259076</id>
	<title>A familar argument</title>
	<author>MikeURL</author>
	<datestamp>1259429340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the argument made famous quite a number of years ago that it does not matter if we make computer chips or potato chips.
<br> <br>
Of course owning the IP is important but all of that goes out the window when your friendly trading partner is suddenly shooting at you.  Then you have a pile of technical drawings and he has 100s of thousands of factories ready to be retooled and crank out weapons.
<br> <br>
It isn't just some weird coincidence that the US spends so much money on our military.  We know that the World Order is all that keeps us from being "excused" from demanding a disproportionate share of the world's resources.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the argument made famous quite a number of years ago that it does not matter if we make computer chips or potato chips .
Of course owning the IP is important but all of that goes out the window when your friendly trading partner is suddenly shooting at you .
Then you have a pile of technical drawings and he has 100s of thousands of factories ready to be retooled and crank out weapons .
It is n't just some weird coincidence that the US spends so much money on our military .
We know that the World Order is all that keeps us from being " excused " from demanding a disproportionate share of the world 's resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the argument made famous quite a number of years ago that it does not matter if we make computer chips or potato chips.
Of course owning the IP is important but all of that goes out the window when your friendly trading partner is suddenly shooting at you.
Then you have a pile of technical drawings and he has 100s of thousands of factories ready to be retooled and crank out weapons.
It isn't just some weird coincidence that the US spends so much money on our military.
We know that the World Order is all that keeps us from being "excused" from demanding a disproportionate share of the world's resources.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255528</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading Conclusion.</title>
	<author>eclectro</author>
	<datestamp>1259434260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The people who would normally make their living in these manufacturing jobs are still stuffed.</p></div><p>No amount of sugarcoating can make up for the hard fact that manufacturing jobs are outright lost, leaving the American economy with mostly service jobs. The problem is that the US economy is saturated with service jobs.</p><p>But even service jobs are being exported (IT and Medical diagnostics) now. If the job is not bolted down to the floor of a fast food restaurant, companies will try to export that job.</p><p>Really, I wonder who even buys the "trickle down" nonsense anymore.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The people who would normally make their living in these manufacturing jobs are still stuffed.No amount of sugarcoating can make up for the hard fact that manufacturing jobs are outright lost , leaving the American economy with mostly service jobs .
The problem is that the US economy is saturated with service jobs.But even service jobs are being exported ( IT and Medical diagnostics ) now .
If the job is not bolted down to the floor of a fast food restaurant , companies will try to export that job.Really , I wonder who even buys the " trickle down " nonsense anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people who would normally make their living in these manufacturing jobs are still stuffed.No amount of sugarcoating can make up for the hard fact that manufacturing jobs are outright lost, leaving the American economy with mostly service jobs.
The problem is that the US economy is saturated with service jobs.But even service jobs are being exported (IT and Medical diagnostics) now.
If the job is not bolted down to the floor of a fast food restaurant, companies will try to export that job.Really, I wonder who even buys the "trickle down" nonsense anymore.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30259428</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading Conclusion.</title>
	<author>bitrex</author>
	<datestamp>1259435280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's no such thing as a "post-industrial" economy.  All the things Stephenson mentions are consequences of industrialized society, not substitutes for industrialized society.  Nothing happens without steel, coal, copper, petrochemicals, and precious metals.  Without these things industrialized society ceases to exist - music, movies, microcode, and pizza delivery become irrelevant the instant fuel sources become scarce and the lights start going out.  The West is now deficient in the raw materials of industrial civilization, while the "undeveloped" world is still relatively rich in them; note how China is making all efforts to secure the resources of Africa for itself while the Western industrial societies deal with the consequences of attempting to make an economy out of speculation and data manipulation rather than production of tangibles.  One wonders how long nations that do have fundamental resources will continue to trade them for the ever decreasing quality of product the West has to offer.  I'm sure the Chinese are quite capable of producing enough music, movies, and microcode to satisfy themselves without having to pay some "knowledge based economy" for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no such thing as a " post-industrial " economy .
All the things Stephenson mentions are consequences of industrialized society , not substitutes for industrialized society .
Nothing happens without steel , coal , copper , petrochemicals , and precious metals .
Without these things industrialized society ceases to exist - music , movies , microcode , and pizza delivery become irrelevant the instant fuel sources become scarce and the lights start going out .
The West is now deficient in the raw materials of industrial civilization , while the " undeveloped " world is still relatively rich in them ; note how China is making all efforts to secure the resources of Africa for itself while the Western industrial societies deal with the consequences of attempting to make an economy out of speculation and data manipulation rather than production of tangibles .
One wonders how long nations that do have fundamental resources will continue to trade them for the ever decreasing quality of product the West has to offer .
I 'm sure the Chinese are quite capable of producing enough music , movies , and microcode to satisfy themselves without having to pay some " knowledge based economy " for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no such thing as a "post-industrial" economy.
All the things Stephenson mentions are consequences of industrialized society, not substitutes for industrialized society.
Nothing happens without steel, coal, copper, petrochemicals, and precious metals.
Without these things industrialized society ceases to exist - music, movies, microcode, and pizza delivery become irrelevant the instant fuel sources become scarce and the lights start going out.
The West is now deficient in the raw materials of industrial civilization, while the "undeveloped" world is still relatively rich in them; note how China is making all efforts to secure the resources of Africa for itself while the Western industrial societies deal with the consequences of attempting to make an economy out of speculation and data manipulation rather than production of tangibles.
One wonders how long nations that do have fundamental resources will continue to trade them for the ever decreasing quality of product the West has to offer.
I'm sure the Chinese are quite capable of producing enough music, movies, and microcode to satisfy themselves without having to pay some "knowledge based economy" for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255468</id>
	<title>True to a degree</title>
	<author>pvt\_medic</author>
	<datestamp>1259433720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The challenge with this analysis is that it only focuses on a small component of the overall economy.  The apple iPod is a great example of this, and areas where the US can develop and market these high tech items we can assemble them oversees as ultimately we will make the profit back here in the US.  The challenge is that there are many elements of the economy that based soley on manufacturing and this is an area where China has an advantage.  Also many companies that were historically american have been purchased by oversees holdings.  Overall if you look at the flow of money for most parts of the US economy the money ends up in other countries.  Ultimately to have a healthy economy you need both high tech and manufacturing balanced appropriately so your companies are not too dependent on other countries.  This is where the US suffers the greatest</htmltext>
<tokenext>The challenge with this analysis is that it only focuses on a small component of the overall economy .
The apple iPod is a great example of this , and areas where the US can develop and market these high tech items we can assemble them oversees as ultimately we will make the profit back here in the US .
The challenge is that there are many elements of the economy that based soley on manufacturing and this is an area where China has an advantage .
Also many companies that were historically american have been purchased by oversees holdings .
Overall if you look at the flow of money for most parts of the US economy the money ends up in other countries .
Ultimately to have a healthy economy you need both high tech and manufacturing balanced appropriately so your companies are not too dependent on other countries .
This is where the US suffers the greatest</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The challenge with this analysis is that it only focuses on a small component of the overall economy.
The apple iPod is a great example of this, and areas where the US can develop and market these high tech items we can assemble them oversees as ultimately we will make the profit back here in the US.
The challenge is that there are many elements of the economy that based soley on manufacturing and this is an area where China has an advantage.
Also many companies that were historically american have been purchased by oversees holdings.
Overall if you look at the flow of money for most parts of the US economy the money ends up in other countries.
Ultimately to have a healthy economy you need both high tech and manufacturing balanced appropriately so your companies are not too dependent on other countries.
This is where the US suffers the greatest</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255978</id>
	<title>Re:Not so fast</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259438700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I refuse to believe that imaginary property is an acceptable replacement for real manufacturing capacity.</p></div></blockquote><p>That is an odd way of putting it.  It sounds like you find the concept immoral in some way, rather than impossible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I refuse to believe that imaginary property is an acceptable replacement for real manufacturing capacity.That is an odd way of putting it .
It sounds like you find the concept immoral in some way , rather than impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I refuse to believe that imaginary property is an acceptable replacement for real manufacturing capacity.That is an odd way of putting it.
It sounds like you find the concept immoral in some way, rather than impossible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255604</id>
	<title>Hmmm it seemeth to me....</title>
	<author>Kral\_Blbec</author>
	<datestamp>1259435220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that this is simply another attempt at rationalizing world government and the demise of national sovereignty. Its just trying to say that our huge deficit to other countries is okay because we get a little back from it, and its not worth demanding any sort of independence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>that this is simply another attempt at rationalizing world government and the demise of national sovereignty .
Its just trying to say that our huge deficit to other countries is okay because we get a little back from it , and its not worth demanding any sort of independence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that this is simply another attempt at rationalizing world government and the demise of national sovereignty.
Its just trying to say that our huge deficit to other countries is okay because we get a little back from it, and its not worth demanding any sort of independence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255686</id>
	<title>The trouble is the retail model of buying stuff</title>
	<author>Yergle143</author>
	<datestamp>1259435880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To me the whole problem is the retail model; towit how about that $199 to $299 markup<br>to have these darned things sitting on a shelf? It would be so much more efficient<br>to cut out the middle men and supply iPOD's on demand...the fact is the blue collar<br>tweekers got completely screwed by THE MAN. Their jobs were off-shored in favor<br>of store clerks. Also this article doesn't focus on things like brooms and clothing and<br>such. No such profits find their way back here due to intellectual property windfall.<br>The fact is the jobs to make this things are gone with the wind and we let it happen<br>because we are collectively too greedy to care.</p><p>537</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To me the whole problem is the retail model ; towit how about that $ 199 to $ 299 markupto have these darned things sitting on a shelf ?
It would be so much more efficientto cut out the middle men and supply iPOD 's on demand...the fact is the blue collartweekers got completely screwed by THE MAN .
Their jobs were off-shored in favorof store clerks .
Also this article does n't focus on things like brooms and clothing andsuch .
No such profits find their way back here due to intellectual property windfall.The fact is the jobs to make this things are gone with the wind and we let it happenbecause we are collectively too greedy to care.537</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me the whole problem is the retail model; towit how about that $199 to $299 markupto have these darned things sitting on a shelf?
It would be so much more efficientto cut out the middle men and supply iPOD's on demand...the fact is the blue collartweekers got completely screwed by THE MAN.
Their jobs were off-shored in favorof store clerks.
Also this article doesn't focus on things like brooms and clothing andsuch.
No such profits find their way back here due to intellectual property windfall.The fact is the jobs to make this things are gone with the wind and we let it happenbecause we are collectively too greedy to care.537</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256848</id>
	<title>yay for companies, boo for poor shlubs on welfare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259404020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What more do I need to say?</p><p>I guess I could wonder how Apple's highly rewarded executives getting rich from all of this is benefiting the unemployed.  I think I know the answer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What more do I need to say ? I guess I could wonder how Apple 's highly rewarded executives getting rich from all of this is benefiting the unemployed .
I think I know the answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What more do I need to say?I guess I could wonder how Apple's highly rewarded executives getting rich from all of this is benefiting the unemployed.
I think I know the answer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256666</id>
	<title>The missing point</title>
	<author>DaMattster</author>
	<datestamp>1259401860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article conveniently leaves out that by giving control of manufacturing to China, the US loses out in the long run.  American jobs go overseas and our technical prowess diminishes.  Strong economies produce, export, and sell.  Service economies are weak and founded on shale.  We have seen the effects of a service-based economy in two recessions: dot-com bomb and the housing bust.  Manufacturing economies breed technological innovation, encourage higher education, and engage in heavy research and development.  Not to mention, a manufacturing economy gives way to strong national security.  Being dependent upon China and others leaves the US in a weaker position.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article conveniently leaves out that by giving control of manufacturing to China , the US loses out in the long run .
American jobs go overseas and our technical prowess diminishes .
Strong economies produce , export , and sell .
Service economies are weak and founded on shale .
We have seen the effects of a service-based economy in two recessions : dot-com bomb and the housing bust .
Manufacturing economies breed technological innovation , encourage higher education , and engage in heavy research and development .
Not to mention , a manufacturing economy gives way to strong national security .
Being dependent upon China and others leaves the US in a weaker position .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article conveniently leaves out that by giving control of manufacturing to China, the US loses out in the long run.
American jobs go overseas and our technical prowess diminishes.
Strong economies produce, export, and sell.
Service economies are weak and founded on shale.
We have seen the effects of a service-based economy in two recessions: dot-com bomb and the housing bust.
Manufacturing economies breed technological innovation, encourage higher education, and engage in heavy research and development.
Not to mention, a manufacturing economy gives way to strong national security.
Being dependent upon China and others leaves the US in a weaker position.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30258676</id>
	<title>Marketing not news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259424720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this article was written to make Apple look good. Bad Apple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this article was written to make Apple look good .
Bad Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this article was written to make Apple look good.
Bad Apple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30259108</id>
	<title>An argument made before and very astute</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259429940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is an argument made several years ago by Gave-Kal (Hong Kong investment firm) in a book they produced. They posit the importance of what they term "platform companies" like Cisco (Apple would qualify as well) that set industry standards and reap the vast preponderance of profits available within any product. They also note that this is why people want to invest in the US equity market -- because through exposure to the most dynamic economy available they are able to realize greater relative returns than available in other equity investments in other economies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an argument made several years ago by Gave-Kal ( Hong Kong investment firm ) in a book they produced .
They posit the importance of what they term " platform companies " like Cisco ( Apple would qualify as well ) that set industry standards and reap the vast preponderance of profits available within any product .
They also note that this is why people want to invest in the US equity market -- because through exposure to the most dynamic economy available they are able to realize greater relative returns than available in other equity investments in other economies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an argument made several years ago by Gave-Kal (Hong Kong investment firm) in a book they produced.
They posit the importance of what they term "platform companies" like Cisco (Apple would qualify as well) that set industry standards and reap the vast preponderance of profits available within any product.
They also note that this is why people want to invest in the US equity market -- because through exposure to the most dynamic economy available they are able to realize greater relative returns than available in other equity investments in other economies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30259354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30263174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30262346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30261986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30259074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30259152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30259644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30258028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30259524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30259428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30259148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30258624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30274414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30259452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30263058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30258794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30269336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30259422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30264752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30261992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30264652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30263140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30262696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1619239_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1619239.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257010
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1619239.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1619239.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30259354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256588
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257078
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30274414
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30259524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256908
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1619239.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1619239.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256486
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1619239.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256380
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1619239.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30262346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256062
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257778
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30258028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1619239.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1619239.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30259152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30258624
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1619239.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30264752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30261992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30259422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257164
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1619239.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30263058
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1619239.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30261986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1619239.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1619239.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255368
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1619239.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1619239.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256218
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1619239.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1619239.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255924
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256992
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30259428
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30264652
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30259452
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30269336
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30259074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30257978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256450
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256316
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30259148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30259644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30258794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1619239.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30262696
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1619239.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30263140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1619239.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30255960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1619239.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1619239.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30256666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1619239.30263174
</commentlist>
</conversation>
