Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Newsweek column on outsourcing
Newsweek ^ | 8-07-2003 | Michael Rogers

Posted on 08/08/2003 7:41:52 AM PDT by samuel_adams_us

Aug. 7, 2003 / 5:32 PM ET Readers on outsourcing: I’ve been corresponding with readers this week about two Newsweek pieces, one on the “jobless recovery” phenomenon and the other on offshore outsourcing. It’s a major hot-button topic, particularly among IT workers, but the mail for the most part has been quite reasoned, if somewhat sorrowful and resigned. A few readers asked some pointed questions:

Name: Marc Hansen Hometown: Seattle When all the Microsoft, Oracle, and IBM software production has been outsourced offshore, and when all Intel factories are completely automated, and when all Home Depot stores have self-check-out lines. ... my question is: Who, in America, will be able to afford the food that the McDonald’s robots cook?

Name: EV Hometown: Annapolis, Md. Where do all of these upper level managers think they will be when everyone has been outsourced? Guess they better learn Hindi or one of the other 18 dialects. You are only a manager if there is someone left to manage.

Name: Daniel E. Platt Hometown: Putnam Valley, N.Y. Sixteenth century Spain was quite rich on gold from America. While they funded the industrial revolution in the rest of Europe, they were largely left behind in the end. Are we doomed to the same fate? Or should we purchase a future at the cost of lower profit margins now?

Rogers replies: All good questions. Here are some personal tales from the trenches:

Name: Toni Klinger Hometown: Massillon, Ohio I am so angry. My husband is 59 and lost his job to Canada four months ago. Yesterday, my sister-in-law was notified that her skip-tracing job was going to India. Hey, no problem, she’s only been with the company for 21 years! I have never been so frustrated in my life. People in their 50s just can’t start over. I hate life!

Name: G. Popsworth Hometown: Dallas, Texas I am struggling with what to suggest to my children for a course of study at college. It is becoming more and more difficult for college grads to find employment. Now with outsourcing rampant, they need something stable for their career opportunities. A small town dentist, doctor or lawyer might be appropriate.

Name: Thela Jinseet Hometown: Clinton, N.J. Here’s my story: I am a journalist for an online publication, and I’m bracing for impact. My employer’s entire technical staff is from India, making up nearly 50% of the employees here. The owners of the company are also Indian and they outsource to a team in India. Our Indian employees are a real bargain because they work ungodly hours: 10- to 12-hour days every day and on the weekends. They are also extremely bright. And it’s for low pay. But there’s more. My husband lost his electrical engineering job four days after 9-11 from a major Japanese company that closed its plant and moved its operations to France. Despite graduating with honors from a top university, it took more than a year for him to find work. And just in time: We had two weeks of unemployment benefits left, which was barely enough to pay for our mortgage. This time, he saw a substantial cut in pay. I am truly frightened after our experience. I am scared to buy another house. (We had to sell ours for his new job.) I am scared to have a baby. We can’t afford to save for retirement. Pensions are a thing of the past. My company doesn’t even have a 401(k) plan or even direct deposit for paychecks. I fear we will be poverty-stricken when we retire at 75. Why isn’t Congress listening?

Rogers replies: There were also some suggestions about what to do:

Name: Bill Hometown: Roswell, Ga. Outsourcing customer service jobs overseas is a double-edged sword. One side slashes the number of jobs that are available to U.S. employees and the other side slashes the income taxes that the federal government can collect. Uncle Sam ends up funding unemployment benefits for U.S. citizens who are denied jobs that have been sent overseas. One solution may be to penalize these outsourcing companies in the form of a negative subsidy so that they can help pay benefits for the unemployed.

Name: Mike K. Hometown: Aurora, Ill. Outsourcing makes for some really profitable companies, but fewer consumers have the money to buy that company’s products. That profit won’t last for long. Remember the big “Buy American” kick back in the 80s? I think we’re on the way to the “Hire American” craze. Find out who outsources and who doesn’t and support those who support America by hiring Americans.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: freetrade; outsourcing
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440441-452 next last
To: maui_hawaii
"Yup. I do. I think I have a right to a job. What of it?"

My apologies, I should have asked if you have an "entitlement" (meaning both a right to a job on your part and an obligation on the part of someone else to provide that job).
401 posted on 08/09/2003 5:06:17 AM PDT by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke
That power was granted to Congress in 1789 see Article I US Constitution.

Implicit within that power is the power to set wage levels and to determine the number of workers in a particular industry.

That assetion is unsupported by the Historical record but even if it were suppoprted then we are discussing the very nature of what constitutes the United States of America.

(that's just another manifestation of the living wage) Of course, if the government is going to do that for textile workers, how about auto workers? If you're going to influence wages and employment levels, then you're into the relative levels between industry. And, that is the old argument about "compartive worth". Should a textile worker make more or less than an autoworker? Do we really want to go down this path?

No it is not just another manifestation of tthe living wage. Under a tariff system the market determines the wages. This was the case from 1789 on. Tariffs were not about living wagesthey were about letting the Free market operate within the USA. The historical record shows that your inferences are unsupported on this.

402 posted on 08/09/2003 5:12:09 AM PDT by harpseal (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: taxed2death
"I guess it's wrong that the tariff gave HD enough breathing room to reorganize and become the industry leader and economic powerhouse in the motorcycling industry that it is today. - Pretzel logic."

Yes it was wrong. I think you'd have to agree that the Japanese bikes were superior on cost, quality, and performance. (If you don't want to agree, then why were consumers running to buy them?)

Why should the government raise prices on a superior product and force consumers to pay more for less? Is this an example of who one segment of the population (HD workers) using the power of government to extort money from another? Why should a conservative support such activities? How is it different from a democrat using the power of government to affect wealth transfer from the wealthy to the poor?

BTW, HD is still overpriced IMHO and their success has more to do with Baby Boomer nostalgia than tarriffs. I also note that Indian is coming back into the market.
403 posted on 08/09/2003 5:14:38 AM PDT by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Dead Dog
RIAA doesn't have the power to tax and raise tarrifs.

Ooooooh, if it got its way, all computers (or at least new ones) would had to have lockdown built into them.

404 posted on 08/09/2003 5:15:32 AM PDT by drlevy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Markd0713
"I guess the arguement boils down to, do you want cheap things, or are you willing to pay double and have a job? The jury is still out."

The jury should not be out on this issue for a conservative. Essentially, the use of tarriffs to protect wages is a form of government coercion to force consumers to pay more for a product that is either inferior or more costly or both. Should a conservative advocate the use of the power of government to set wages and employment levels? If you want to base your decision on purchases based upon US content, then that is fine, well, and good. It is the use of the power of government to force others to make that same decision where I have a problem.
405 posted on 08/09/2003 5:20:45 AM PDT by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: jackass
"Yes, I think I have a right to a job. Any man who's willing to work hard deserves a job. Obviously, you've never been without a job for very long. Otherwise, you wouldn't say something so stupid and judgmental."

I was downsized in '94. Moved two thousand miles to a desolate location to take a job I didn't like paying 25% less than what I had been making. I was unemployed for seven months. So, my comments were not "stupid or judgemental". As the saying goes, not only do I have the t-shirt, I paid for it. FYI, I've moved back, got two promotions, a great job, and I'm making 50% more than before I was downsized. I'm 57.

You have a right to look for a job, you don't have the right to a job.
406 posted on 08/09/2003 5:26:31 AM PDT by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
Well good morning, glad to see someone else is an early riser.

You wrote: "That power was granted to Congress in 1789 see Article I US Constitution."

"Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

I'm not arguing that Congress cannot impose tariffs. I am arguing that imposing tariffs for the purpose of protecting wages and ensuring certain levels of employment was not the original intent. These powers were given to Congress only to fund the federal government. That is clearly supported by both the text of the Constitution and the historical record. If you wish to argue that we should abolish the income tax and revert to tariffs, that is another argument.

"No it is not just another manifestation of tthe living wage. Under a tariff system the market determines the wages. This was the case from 1789 on. Tariffs were not about living wagesthey were about letting the Free market operate within the USA. The historical record shows that your inferences are unsupported on this."

I disagree. Under a tariff system, the government sets the tariffs to achieve a specific wage and level of employment within an industry. Otherwise, how does the government know the level to set the tariff? Consequently, prices and wages become a political matter, one decided at the ballot box and are not determined by market forces.

I really believe this is just another manifestation of the "living wage". These articles and threads always argue that workers should be protected from competition to ensure a certain wage level, a wage necessary to maintain an American standard of living. I fail to see the difference between these arguments and arguments that a worker at McDonalds needs to be protected from competition by enforcing a "living wage" standard.

Do you, as a conservative, want the federal government in the business of determing who gets what wage? If you support protective tariffs, then you must face the fact that you are advocating such a role for the federal government.


407 posted on 08/09/2003 5:53:14 AM PDT by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: Nathaniel Fischer
If you want, I can give you the specific studies done on 19th century trade. The ONLY industry where there is even any debate about whether or not tariffs "protected" it is textiles 1815-1835, and recent scholarship suggests that in fact even that didn't happen---that British textiles hit a totally different market/niche than did American textiles, and that the tariff only drove up the cost on some Americans to benefit others. I don't usually support the neo-Confederates, but they do have a valid argument on this point.
408 posted on 08/09/2003 6:59:49 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
Fine. I suggest we begin with the premise that the tariff was NOT a predominantly "protectionist" measure---it only affected two areas, textiles and iron, in that sense---and that it was primarily a revenue raising measure (along with the main source of revenues, land sales).

A good place to begin it Frank Taussig's traditional history of the tariff, where you can see the rates and impact for yourself.

While I know few will take my word for it, I do survey the economic history literature every 2-3 months, and the current debate has pretty much concluded that a) the ONLY protective tariff that had any impact at all was the one on textiles; b) the iron tariff was steadily reduced BEFORE America became a leading iron/steel producing country; and c) the debate is how much (if any) the textile tariff affected the domestic industry.

There are some (C. Knick Harley) who continue to maintain that the tariff "protected" the textile industry (which never eclipsed England's before the Civil War); but other, more recent studies, have found that there were key differences in the U.S. textiles an British textiles---we made low-end goods (i.e., like China) and the free trade British made high-end, value-added goods (like quality shirts, dress coats, etc.). We did not start to capture the latter market until after the tariffs were significantly reduced.

There is a third issue, though, that cannot be avoided, which is that the SOUTH inevitably ended up supporting the NORTH, because the South's goods were not "protected," but her citizens had to pay the higher prices. Hammond, Calhoun (who was wrong about a lot, but right about this), Thomas E. Dew, and even Jefferson Davis all recognized this. While I do not agree with Lincoln-bashers that the tariff was "the cause" of the Civil War (slavery was), it is undeniable that the tariff helped further separate the two sections.

Once you have gotten to this point in the scholarship, next look at Doug Irwin and Mario Crucini, two young, contemporary scholars who have worked on tariffs and who have a devastating critique of their impact on American business and labor forces.

409 posted on 08/09/2003 7:07:21 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
Harp, you are getting repetitions, and either you are deliberately obtuse, or (a worse alternative) cannot read what I have written, repeatedly: I do not support government subsidies for ANYTHING except clear cases of national defense (i.e., if, for example, Boeing could no longer compete in passenger aircraft, I would support subsidizing Boeing).
410 posted on 08/09/2003 7:08:55 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Throughout this entire debate I've noticed something conspicuously missing: the idea of reducing obscene taxation and the monsterous amount of red tape involved in starting and maintaining a business.

The populist sentiment (which is in no way conservative) here of late desires more government intervention, believes that someone owes someone a job and a certain standard of living, and scuttles the idea of private property by desiring penalties against companies doing what they are in business to do, profit.

What is the appreciable difference between this sentiment and the Leftist thinking that shouts the same thing(s) only using slightly different language? I mean, really, what gives?

411 posted on 08/09/2003 7:20:12 AM PDT by rdb3 (Nerve-racking since 0413hrs on XII-XXII-MCMLXXI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke
The jury should not be out on this issue for a conservative. Essentially, the use of tarriffs to protect wages is a form of government coercion to force consumers to pay more for a product that is either inferior or more costly or both. Should a conservative advocate the use of the power of government to set wages and employment levels? If you want to base your decision on purchases based upon US content, then that is fine, well, and good. It is the use of the power of government to force others to make that same decision where I have a problem.

Amen! You just broke it down, and as my late uncle used to say, let it be broke! ;-)

412 posted on 08/09/2003 7:25:22 AM PDT by rdb3 (Nerve-racking since 0413hrs on XII-XXII-MCMLXXI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

Comment #413 Removed by Moderator

To: harpseal
Please see my post above on the sources. Begin with Taussig, who merely supplies most of the numbers, but then look at Doug Irwin's new book and Mario Crucini's articles.

The best study on the antebellum tariff is Doublas Irwin and Peter Temin, "The Antebellum Tariff on Cotton Textiles Revisited," Journal of Economic History, 61, Sept. 2001, 777-805; and Temin, "Product Quality and Vertical INtegration in the EArly Cotton Textile Industry," (same source), 48, (1988), 891-907. A contrary viewpoint is expressed in C. Knick Harley, "International Competitiveness of the Antebellum American Cotton Textile Industry," (same journal), 52 (1992), 559-584, but then see the comments by Harley following the Irwin/Temin article. The main problem is lack of data prior to 1830, due to the poor collection of reports, but Irwin and Temin conclude that "the u.S. cotton-tetile industry was largely independent of the tariff by the early 1830s." Even after the tariff was drastically lowered---AND IMPORTS SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED---there was no decline in domestic output, because we made "different stuff" than the British did. Harley tries to explain the differences by claiming the reasearchers were using "different sources" than he was---unpersuasive. (BTW, Temin, if I'm not mistaken, used to be a "pro-tariff" guy).

On Vandy, see Burt Folsom's very readable book, "Myth of the Robber Barons." It's quite well researched. And no, Vandy's triumph was no insignificant. It was quite impressive, as was his victory over SUBSIDIZED businesses every time he contronted them.

As for the late 19th century, Irwin's paper "Explaining America's Surge in Manufactured Exports, 1880-1913" (Review of Economics and Statistics, May 2003, 364-376) shows that natural resource changes, particularly the discovery of the Mesabi iron ore range, accounted for the productivity improvements and price declines, not other factors (especially not tariffs). "However these new technologies were all developed during an age when the benefits of capital investment in the USA were clear because of the protective tariffs." Irrelevent. Has nothing to do with the tariff. They were enacted because it was profitable to do so.

Your comment on Bessemer is interesting. Carnegie did not benefit greatly from the light steel tariff, yet he instantly replaced his furnaces with Bessemer the minute he could, and then outproduced the British, even accounting for the tariff.

This cirucular argument that the non-protected areas surged BECAUSE they were not protected is amazing. Indeed, no further comment IS necessary, and I'll leave it to readers to figure out which of the two of us is more logical.

I'm not going to go through two pages worth of discussions, so keep it to one or two questions---it starts to get too much like teaching. :)

414 posted on 08/09/2003 7:34:35 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: UnBlinkingEye
We became the richest nation on earth with virtually NO tariffs on all of the stuff we took the lead in---sewing machines, firearms, high-quality steel (tariffs were quite low on steel by then), canned goods, paper, whatever. The one area where we never took the lead was in the one area we had a tariff---high-end textiles.

How, exactly, should higher education "correct" the problems of the lower-end schools. Do you hire incompetent people just so you can train them? The purpose of a university is to provide ADVANCED degrees. It defeats its purpose if you do remedial stuff. I do not support dumbing down of our colleges. I support AMERICAN students getting their butts in gear and learning, even in spite of the cruddy schools, like our competitors do.

BTW, Britain had no tariffs, on anything, when she was at the peak of her industrial might. It was only after she started to adopt socialist policies (welfare, etc) that she lost her edge. THEN she started to adopt tariffs, and that was the end. If tariffs were so great, why did the Brits not "come back" by adopting tariffs?

415 posted on 08/09/2003 7:38:26 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke
I've been in the MC business since 1988.

Yes, I'd agree that at the time Jap bikes were superior in cost, quality and performance.

"Why should the government raise prices on a superior product and force consumers to pay more for less"?

Answer: To save an American icon.

No one forced any consumers to do anything.

"Is this an example of one segment of the population using the power of government to extort money from another"?

Yes. Look at the recent "no-bid" contract Haliburten and Dynacorp were awarded. Wake up. This is common business practice 24/7.

"Why would a conservative support such a decision"?

To protect American jobs.

"How is it different than a Dumacrat using the power of government to affect wealth transfer from the wealthy to the poor"?

As a consumer, you still have a choice. As a tax payer, you don't.

"BTW, HD is still overpriced IMHO and their sucess has more to do with Baby Boomer nostalgia than tariffs."

Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't ride a HD, I'm partial to Italian twins. Hd sucess came directly from the breathing space that the tariffs allowed. They realized at that time their product was inferior. They changed their business plan 180 degrees. They capitalized on their "image" and made it work to their advantage. They stopped selling motorcycles on their merit, or lack of, and started selling the image. This is pure genious and should be used in every business school as an example. All the while they were doing this they updated their motorcycle, engine and production facilities. Had tariffs not been employed, this company would have ceased to exist. Did anyone force you to buy a HD?

Overpriced?

My local HD dealer is selling the V-rod for $7000.00 OVER list price. My local dealer is imposing a tariff. How has this affected your purchase of a HD? Someone out there is willing to pay these prices, not you, but they are selling them as fast as they can make the.

416 posted on 08/09/2003 7:39:54 AM PDT by taxed2death (A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke
Actually the issue is divisive for many conservatives that have children nearing college age. What do you tell them to study that isn't a target for BPO? Everybody can't be a dentist, lawyer, politician or business owner. While these are fine professions there are over 300 million Americans.

At the moment no one would be encouraged to go into the sciences and risk their future career path being wiped out. Engineering requires increadibly intelligent people and we are discouraging those people from even entering the field.

America's dominance in technology was born of our science community. If no one wants to enter the field then we are denying ourselves future dominance in the technology field. Countless innovations have come from the science community that have fueled job growth over the years. Now we are eliminating the act of innovation itself.

I have no faith in the business community to provide future opportunities like I do the true innovators, our scientists, engineers, software developers, etc.

The short term answer is general trade tariffs combined with targeted tax cuts for affected industries. The long term answer is a complete overhaul of our tax system, changes in our regulatory practices, limits on settlements and ultimately a much smaller federal government.

The solution is not a simple "no tariffs" or a "tariffs forever" approach. We all know that reducing the burden of our government will not happen quickly. We cannot expect people to compete wage to wage with third world countries with the current cost of government while those root problems are addressed. If we do many professions will simply be wiped out or voluntarily avoided by the masses. That avoidance will cause a massive void in our scientific capacity and risk our national security.
417 posted on 08/09/2003 7:45:32 AM PDT by RockyMtnMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: LS
Fine. I suggest we begin with the premise that the tariff was NOT a predominantly "protectionist" measure---it only affected two areas, textiles and iron, in that sense---and that it was primarily a revenue raising measure (along with the main source of revenues, land sales). A good place to begin it Frank Taussig's traditional history of the tariff, where you can see the rates and impact for yourself.

First, the premise that the tariffs in place in 1848 in the USA were not protectionist in nature would have been news to the Southern politicians oif that era. Noe have you ever heard of the doctrine of nullification. It reffered top protective tariffs. lets start with the premise there were tariffs in place in 1848.

While I know few will take my word for it, I do survey the economic history literature every 2-3 months, and the current debate has pretty much concluded that a) the ONLY protective tariff that had any impact at all was the one on textiles; b) the iron tariff was steadily reduced BEFORE America became a leading iron/steel producing country; and c) the debate is how much (if any) the textile tariff affected the domestic industry.

Excuse me the current economic literature is mostly a reinterpretaion iof the data whos econclusions are irrelevant and not specifically germain to a debate on the histroical record. Presumptions that do not necessarily conform to the actual history of the period are not germmain to the issue.

There are some (C. Knick Harley) who continue to maintain that the tariff "protected" the textile industry (which never eclipsed England's before the Civil War); but other, more recent studies, have found that there were key differences in the U.S. textiles an British textiles---we made low-end goods (i.e., like China) and the free trade British made high-end, value-added goods (like quality shirts, dress coats, etc.). We did not start to capture the latter market until after the tariffs were significantly reduced.

Again with the references to others opinions and no hard data facts. You did understand teh challenge it was on the Historical record. We are not here to bring in others conclusions whether they agree or disagree.

There is a third issue, though, that cannot be avoided, which is that the SOUTH inevitably ended up supporting the NORTH, because the South's goods were not "protected," but her citizens had to pay the higher prices. Hammond, Calhoun (who was wrong about a lot, but right about this), Thomas E. Dew, and even Jefferson Davis all recognized this. While I do not agree with Lincoln-bashers that the tariff was "the cause" of the Civil War (slavery was), it is undeniable that the tariff helped further separate the two sections.

I personally agrre that the underlying issue of Slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War but it is also clear from the South Carolina secession resolution that the tariff was an immediate concern. I will stipulate that the politicians you mentioned all disliked the tariffs in question which were in effect but I do not admit they were correct on this issue.

Once you have gotten to this point in the scholarship, next look at Doug Irwin and Mario Crucini, two young, contemporary scholars who have worked on tariffs and who have a devastating critique of their impact on American business and labor forces.

Perhaps instead of your conclusions and recommending two young scholars who ageree with your viewpoint you could have actually referenced the records and tried to show any harm from tariffs. You have yet to do anything remotely likke this.

418 posted on 08/09/2003 12:52:28 PM PDT by harpseal (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: LS
Harp, you are getting repetitions, and either you are deliberately obtuse, or (a worse alternative) cannot read what I have written, repeatedly: I do not support government subsidies for ANYTHING except clear cases of national defense (i.e., if, for example, Boeing could no longer compete in passenger aircraft, I would support subsidizing Boeing).

Please understand the addressing of government subsidies was meant for Poohbah not you. you were copied as a courtesy because I was mentioning you.

419 posted on 08/09/2003 12:54:08 PM PDT by harpseal (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
My mistake. I didn't realize we were having a multi-player discussion.
420 posted on 08/09/2003 1:04:42 PM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440441-452 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson