"Globalization is exerting downward pressure on worker wages in the developed world. It is likely of little comfort to a downsized auto worker that, at the same time, hundreds of millions of people are moving out of poverty in India and China. A lowering of the standard of living in the United States demands a political response, and the longer it continues, the more inevitable that response becomes."

There are two ways we can help the parts of the world that are worse off than we are: we can send money or food (the Africa model); or we can let them compete with us for jobs (the Asia model). If we let them compete with us, which I think clearly is the more viable model, we will inevitably, but perhaps temporarily, sacrifice some of our affluence. For every 10 steps that they take toward our standard of living, perhaps we will move back a step or two. Once China, India and Indonesia have progressed up the ladder of affluence, however, we will be just as likely to benefit from such a larger pool of new consumers as they are.

The Africa model, where we allow guilt to prod us into helping out whenever our TV screens start showing scenes of starving children, simply does not work. Let me repeat that, trying to bring people out of poverty by sending them money and food does not work.

So we are then faced with two choices, let the developing world compete with us, or let them stay where they are. But in a world where communications even in the poorest shantytown allow the poor to see how we live, that is recipe for increasing global unrest and conflict.

One other point on the article: China's neighbors have indeed profited from China's success and for much the same reason that the US and Europe have profited. That is, Taiwanese, South Korean, Japanese, European and US companies are the main players in Chinese exports. In technology exports, for example, foreign companies account for more than 75% of Chinese exports. Foreign companies design their products at home, produce the high-end components at home, ship those components to China where they are assembled and shipped back home for sale. At the moment (although China is obviously very interested in progressing) the lowest-end part of the process is done in China and the most valuable parts of the product chain -- research, design, marketing, production of highly technical or valuable components, sales -- remain at home. Simply comparing Chinese exports without taking into effect the foreign companies who have set up there gives a distorted picture.

Globilization is a complicated picture.

I am a co-founder of a company that outsources legal support work to workers in India. Our experience is that although the Indian Institute of Technology is a pre-emminent institution, the average Indian university "pumps out" a lot of folks who are utterly lacking in "common sense." The Indian workers have done quite a good job on tasks that do not require independent thought. When we tried to use the Indian workers to do higher end tasks, they failed miserably, despite a lot of one-on-one training.

The work that the Indian workers perform is work that is not done by law firms or corporations now because they cannot do it in a cost effective manner. The Indian workers also perform tasks in processes that create new legal products and services that have not been previously offered. I do not believe that there have been any lay-offs of US workers as a result of this company. To the contrary, the new products and services offered require new types of analysts and legal assistants in the US.

Our future plans are to automate a lot of the work that is now being sent to India and keep the higher end work in the United States.

I saw the other side of the globilization spectrum during a recent trip to Shanghai. While there, I visited the research lab of a Fortune 100 company. This laboratory employed thousands of scientists and engineers in China to invent for the world. There were at least two other similarly sized research campuses in the same neighborhood, also owned by Fortune 100 companies. These facilities probably are taking US jobs. The Chinese scientists and engineers are living a solid middle class lifestyle at a lower compensation than in the US because of government subsidies of housing, transportation and food.

The Bush administration claims one thing and then does another on this topic. The National Renewable Energy Lab here in Colorado is an example of public/private partnerships for the purpose of developing renewable energy resources; it got a 20% cut in funding during the Christmas break to make sure congress wasn't around to react I suppose. NREL is where cutting edge, high tech renewable energy research is done, which is why its budget has been reduced by this administration. Does it make any sense to be cutting back research in this area while we are fighting over oil resources?

One can go on and on with this topic, there isn't an area of science funding that these guys haven't cut the budget for, unless it is defense related. The rest of the western world recognizes the value in public investment in basic research and science, and every Republican administration continues to cut these funds in the US. No wonder we are losing our technological position in the world.

That's the term Paul Krugman is using to describe what is so well summarized in the articles and most of the letters in response. The shoe fits.

There are still a few places where the USA has a lead in exportable technology, but all windows will not stay open indefinately. In particular, Environmental remidiation, pollution prevention, and associated new product development to replace unsustainable products and systems. This is an cottage industry that employs people at all levels of skill, talent, and educational backgrounds. We could be doing well helping China and Eastern Europe with its current growth and and legacy environmental problems, respectively, and getting back more of what we are giving. Not to mention the obvious benefits that would also provide here in this country. Think of what that could provide if it was elevated out of its current niche market role.

But no, that conjures up the willful ignorance of Neo-con and corporate policy boogeyman for anything environmental and sustainable that does not benefit their cronies exclusively. The windows are closing, and those who are pay even a modicum of attention can all can sense pretty well who would will ultimately continue to suffer.