Slashdot Mirror

Awww... poor little eurotrash. You seem to think that the only organization fit to distribute funds are governmental orgs and that the only funds that count are ones that are gathered through coercion (taxes).

Noticeably absent from the anti-american salon article are numbers for private charitable giving (which dwarf any country no matter how you slice - Hell, between 1992 and 1998 the US sent almost $2.9 billion in PRIVATE AID to CUBA!) and US military expenditures (no, we're not discussing Iraq) that are solely for humanitarian purposes.

We're moving a f'en carrier group into the region for support and search and rescue, you think that's cheap?

With 300 million people you donated ODA $6.9 billion in foreign aid in 1997.

http://www.usaid.gov/fani/ch06/privateaid.htm
The actual total of official development assistance and private giving was $44.5 billion, or 0.45 percent of U.S. gross national income - and that still doesn't account for military humanitarian spending

LOL: In 2000 U.S. universities and colleges gave more to developing countries in foreign scholarships than Australia, Belgium, Norway, Spain, and Switzerland each gave in ODA.

What were you saying again?

And, btw, the current numbers for ODA funding are:
Australia - $1.2 Billion
France - $7.3 Billion
US - $16.2 Billion (a 23% increase over last year under the evil Bushilter!)

Awww... poor little eurotrash. You seem to think that the only organization fit to distribute funds are governmental orgs and that the only funds that count are ones that are gathered through coercion (taxes).

Noticeably absent from the anti-american salon article are numbers for private charitable giving (which dwarf any country no matter how you slice - Hell, between 1992 and 1998 the US sent almost $2.9 billion in PRIVATE AID to CUBA!) and US military expenditures (no, we're not discussing Iraq) that are solely for humanitarian purposes.

We're moving a f'en carrier group into the region for support and search and rescue, you think that's cheap?

With 300 million people you donated ODA $6.9 billion in foreign aid in 1997.

http://www.usaid.gov/fani/ch06/privateaid.htm
The actual total of official development assistance and private giving was $44.5 billion, or 0.45 percent of U.S. gross national income - and that still doesn't account for military humanitarian spending

LOL: In 2000 U.S. universities and colleges gave more to developing countries in foreign scholarships than Australia, Belgium, Norway, Spain, and Switzerland each gave in ODA.

What were you saying again?

And, btw, the current numbers for ODA funding are:
Australia - $1.2 Billion
France - $7.3 Billion
US - $16.2 Billion (a 23% increase over last year under the evil Bushilter!)

Well, the most recent PISA study pretty much debunks your argument.

While the godless, pinko, commie, socialist, anti-american, linux-using Finns with their wicked socialist public school system came ahead just of about everybody, students from the free enterprise, privatized great nation of the US of A didn't look too well.

Get a clue!

I had to search a while but I found this OECD raport which among other things has a table of immigration per 1000 inhabitants. You can see right there that the US is in the low end compared to other countries, including many European ones. So this disproves (1) (assuming the data is somewhat correct, it is off course a bit off).

Secondly, most immigrants to European countries come from Third World countries (I'm thinking Arab and African nations here). And I don't know what anybody meant by 3.

But it proves a point that you should be careful about saying "we have x immigrants more", while usually when you break down the numbers it just isn't correct. (in this case the US does have more immigrants in absolute numbers, but this is logical with it being the biggest nation)

The U.S. was mid table for both:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/47/34011082.xls

That's the PISA : program for internation student assessment, and they cover much more than just math. Reading is (IMHO) more important.

Here's the full report in PDF.

Can someone find the test questions and post them? I haven't been able to locate them on the OECD PISA website.

Yes, militarily, many major countries no longer need American troop support. Which I imagine is part of the reason troops have been moved out of Germany. South Korea might still need them, however.

Economically is another story entirely. All major nations economies are directly connected to America's, but others are downright dependant. American financial aid, aka "Official Development Assistance" still flows into many European countries to the tune of billions. If we're becoming so "irrelevant" then they shouldn't mind not receiving any U.S. tax dollars. Infact, if they hate the U.S. half as much as they claim, they should reject it.

If you want to see an irrelevant body, look at the United Nations. I don't think Kerry's Presidency would have magically 'unfuck' ourselves in the eyes of the world, certainly not the fundamentalist extremists who want nothing less than the destruction Israel and America, despite whatever "plans" he constantly boasted about.

Exactly who is leaving us behind and how? Is the rest of the world going somewhere? Are their economies booming ahead of America's? Or do they just like us less? Boy, that would make me sad. :(

Check this please Productivity measures in the OECD countries.

You may produce the most, consume the most, but you are certainly not the most productive country.

X years from now, what do you think are the odds a top economic ranking is will give you comfort on your death-bed?

How about the fact that we have twice the infant mortality rate than Sweden ? Or that we have twice the obesity rate of Sweden?

Anecdote: My friend has a step-mother who never will have to work another day in her life -- she gets $100K/year just from sitting around and collecting real-estate income. The woman is neurotic beyond belief (hypochondria being the most prominent proble), is unahappily devorced, has spotty relations with her children.

We try to stay #1 economically. Consider that may not be the best end goal.

One thing I noticed when looking at the graph from the OECD website is that cable modems seem to falling behind as the broadband connection of choice except in the US and a few other countries. Canada is about half and hald and the rest of the world is mostly using DSL...

But one thing that neither he or the Economist mentioned though:

4. US citizens have higher disposable income than EU citizens because US citizens work 40% more hours, i.e. EU citizens have same productivity as US, but work less hours, hence lower GDP/capita. Or to put it another way EU citizens have traded GDP/capita for leisure time, US citizens work much more and hence buy more stuff (TVs, cars, ...)

Where are you that class size is 20?

Switzerland.

Size seems to be around 22 (6-9 year olds; don't know for later), up from around 18 when I was in school (but what I remember is for when I was between 14-18).

And quality seems to have dropped too, according to the Pisa study (annoying pdf), where Switzerland is way behind most comparable countries (and Australia seems to do well). So the number of children per class is obviously not everything.

But I don't know how the study mixed private and state schools (nobody (almost) goes to private schools in Switzerland).

Trouble is, when you get three times the salary driving a forklift truck nights at the local steelworks (friend of mine), it's a bit hard to get the best people into the profession in the first place.

And then, maybe it's just the opposite: to be willing to do very hard work for a small salary, you have to really be dedicated to it. (Of course, I'm NOT saying "keep their pay low", and wouldn't make this remark in front of a politician voting budgets).

You are completely screwed.

First of all you are talking about trade. Trade deficits are bad. They help them more then they help us.

Obviously, and my point was to compare and contrast the trade deficit with Israel with other countries around the world which are far far greater, and so much so, that the statement you made that Israel is taking so much charity that it negatively impacts us is absolute drivel. To quote you " If instead of giving billions of dollars to israel we spend those dollars right here in the US maybe we would have invented those cool things. Maybe we would have manufactured those things. maybe American companies would be selling shit to israel providing jobs of Americans."

Quite clearly your idea is that we are giving away billions of dollars to Isreal in charity, but then you call it manufacturing then you think we should sell shit to Israel. We do - we sold 6 billion $ worth of shit to Isreal, and bought 12. That is trade. There is a deficit, there is a significant deficit with the entire world. I showed the deficit with Israel is miniscule in comparison to the rest of the world, and can hardly be called charity.

I am talking about us foreign aid. Not trade. Foreign aid is charity given by the US because people are destitute, starving or because we feel somehow justified in giving our money away.

Liar. You just said if those gadgets were manufactured here in the good 'ol us, yada yada, and if we made them by our shit instead of the other way around, etc etc, so you are talking about trade.

Furthermore if you were talking about foreign aid, this chart shows exactly how much assistance does flow to Israel, about $.5B total from all donor countries not just US. Israel by the way is a DAC II country since being rescheduled out of DAC I in 1997, one in a transition out of being a developing country, other DAC II countries Aruba, Bahamas, Bermuda, Brunei, Cayman Islands, Chinese Taipei, Cyprus, Falkland Islands, French Polynesia, Gibraltar, Hong Kong China, Israel, Korea, Kuwait, Libya, Macao, Netherlands Antilles, New Caledonia, Qatar, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, Virgin Islands (UK), all assistance DAC I and II took a total $190.7B in 2001 about $10B was assistance from the US, so Israel took %0.2 in mostly program funding such as scholarships and technology cooperatives, which would equate to about $26million from US . Blaming that figure for the state of the US economy is just plain idiotic garbage. The DAC I countries took most of the actual charity assistance, as opposed to program assistance, charity including used clothes, food, etc. These countries include Poland, former Soviet blocks, eastern europe, China, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippinens, Malaysia, Viet Nam, Mongolia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Morocco, Tunisia, and Peru.

Nobody has ever convinced me that giving charity to israel is justified. They are not destitute, they are not starving, they don't need our help and they give us back nothing in return.

Well actually, Israel invested about $3B in the US last year. And they bought a lot of our crap, about half as much as we bought of theirs, so they are running with the pack. If you want to blame someone for the state of the US due to misplaced funding and manufacturing, look all over the freaking world; the world should love us, we buy everything and ship nothing. Don't blame Israel for that.

I am so scared of Europe with it's socialist policies that lead to high unemployment and little incentive to seek employment.

The real rate of US unemployment is currently firting with 10% but is generally underreported while I am so scared of Europe with it's socialist policies that lead to high unemployment and little incentive to seek employment.

The real rate of US unemployment is currently firting with 10% but is generally underreported while EU reporting uses less "massaged" unemployment statistics. There are regions within the US that have lower, and regions that have higher. Just as there are regions in the EU that currently have 3% unemployment, and others with 15% unemployment. There are certain areas of the EU that are underdeveloped, centrally planned, and economically slumbering, but there are other hotspots that are booming and the shark-like capitalist hordes there would laugh in your face if you called them "socialist". And by the time they had finished laughing to distract you they would have taken your company with a leveraged buyout, gutted the assets, shipped the excess labour off to China, and perhaps re-employed your son as a janitor.

Well it's a good thing there is an international effort then isn't it?

However, since the majority of spammers are Americans in the United States, an American law that has the right form and the right enforcement should be able to dramatically reduce spam. Unfortunately, the US has neither.

This is simply not true. In 2001, the US spent about $10 billion in foreign aid, out of $50b worldwide. However, as a fraction of our GDP, our contributions are the smallest of any of the OECD countries, and as little as a tenth of the northern european countries.

This year, of course, we have an $87b spending spree. Only $20b of that is going towards reconstruction, though (the rest pays for the military). As for whether that's foreign aid or payment for damages is up to you.

Private aid might even score somewhat-- counting foundations, NGOs, private people sending money to their families, etc., the US sends $35b abroad every year. I can't find any equivalent statistics for other countries, though.

About 2% of charitable donations in the US leave the country.

References--
1, 2, 3

"Although speeding and alcohol remain among the primary causes of fatalities, driving under the influence of drugs appears to be an increasingly widespread road safety problem. In the U.K., for instance, recent research indicated that 18% of those who died in traffic accidents had one or more illicit drugs in their systems."Presumably, the offender was not the only person injured in every case.

"A recent report from P Swann of VicRoads Safety Department stated, "The real risks of being killed when driving whilst impaired by cannabis", shows that cannabis intoxication leads to a relative risk of six of causing a fatal road accident. Cannabis intoxication alone (that is excluding cases where alcohol or other drugs were also present) was found to be responsible for 4.3% of driver fatalities. These cannabis related deaths are not included in the ABS figures cited above."

Let's cut to the root of the argument: "If it can be imported for less, we should import it, and spend the extra money on the stuff only Americans can do."I see two flaming fallacies with this POV, which are

There are techniques/products/services which only Americans can offer

There is no reason to maintain a means of production within national borders, if it costs more.

In the first instance, there is now a cadre of engineers, scientists, entrepeneurs, and financiers - outside not only the US, but the entire OECD - with the ability to create and market anything, and do it cheaper than within the US, given the will to do so. Also, given the relatively free mobility of labor into the US, there is no position, job, career, or business endeavor that can't be performed with a better ROI than what each and every one of *you* are doing right now.

Addressing the second point, there is real economic value in maintaining and cultivating the ability to create goods within a nation. The most obvious example is that providing the tools of national defense requires a heavy industrial base. However, hanging on to national sovereignty, the very freedom and ability to act within your own country without the consent of another nation requires more. Technologies, products, and services have been and will be witheld from the US market to meet other nations ends. Up 'til now, you probably haven't noticed, because either these goods weren't critical, or an alternate source of supply was available. When it does become noticeable, it may be too late to react to, for a variety of reasons.

I realize it's fun to play the troll and playact as Adam Smith, preaching the dogma of free markets, and in a /. post you're not doing much harm. But, I fear that the plethora of these opinions may also show that some of you aren't even trying to think the thing through. Perhaps your own ox hasn't yet been gored.

Tax rates in the EU are not 'very high'...

Tax rates in the EU are a lot higher than in the US. The total tax burden in most EU countries is also much higher. In the US the various levels of govenment (i.e. everything from federal to local), spend about 30% of GDP. In the EU it is typically somewhere between 40% and 50%. You can see the latest OECD figures here.

Unemployment is also not 'very high', as you suggest.

But is is consistently much higher than the US. Even at its peak the unemployment rate in the US was much lower than the rates in most EU countries. Historically the rates in EU countries like France and Germany have been about double the rate in the US, and even now the US rate is much lower. If you take a look at the standardised rates published by the OECD then the US was at about 6% in '02, while many EU countries were at about 9% (France, Germany, Italy, Spain). The rate in the UK was closer to the US rate.

I'd suggest taking a look at the US' rapidly rising unemployment rate, a value that shows no signs of declining

I suggest you take a look here, where you will find the following claim:

The unemployment rate was 6.2 percent in July; the number of unemployed
persons was 9.1 million. Both measures edged down over the month...

So in addition to a larger GDP, and per capita disposable income, the US also has far lower tax rates, and a far lower unemployment. Over the last ten years or so the US growth rate has also been much higher than in the EU, so the differences are likely to increase not decrease.

Tax rates in the EU are not 'very high'...

Tax rates in the EU are a lot higher than in the US. The total tax burden in most EU countries is also much higher. In the US the various levels of govenment (i.e. everything from federal to local), spend about 30% of GDP. In the EU it is typically somewhere between 40% and 50%. You can see the latest OECD figures here.

Unemployment is also not 'very high', as you suggest.

But is is consistently much higher than the US. Even at its peak the unemployment rate in the US was much lower than the rates in most EU countries. Historically the rates in EU countries like France and Germany have been about double the rate in the US, and even now the US rate is much lower. If you take a look at the standardised rates published by the OECD then the US was at about 6% in '02, while many EU countries were at about 9% (France, Germany, Italy, Spain). The rate in the UK was closer to the US rate.

I'd suggest taking a look at the US' rapidly rising unemployment rate, a value that shows no signs of declining

I suggest you take a look here, where you will find the following claim:

The unemployment rate was 6.2 percent in July; the number of unemployed
persons was 9.1 million. Both measures edged down over the month...

So in addition to a larger GDP, and per capita disposable income, the US also has far lower tax rates, and a far lower unemployment. Over the last ten years or so the US growth rate has also been much higher than in the EU, so the differences are likely to increase not decrease.

• The US (i.e. subset of NAFTA) = 10,383.1
• 
  
  • Canada = 716.7
  • Mexico = 630.4
  
  
• EU-15 = 8,623.0
• 
  
  • OECD-Europe = 9,613.1
  • Euro-zone = 6,647.0
  
  

Actually, tax rates aren't as different as you may think.

Actually the tax rates are very different. In the US the various levels of government take in around 30% of GDP in tax. Most EU governments take in somewhere between 40% and 50% of GDP. Disposable income (per capita, per year) in the US is around US$25k. In most EU countries it is closer to US$15k.

Here are the most recent OECD figures.

You might want to take a look at how each country calculates its unemployment numbers. We are actually about even.

This is entirely false. If you take a look at the standardised rates published by the OECD then the US was at about 6% in '02, while many EU countries were at about 9% (France, Germany, Italy, Spain). The rate in the UK was closer to the US rate.

I can't remember where I've heard/read it, but I've encountered it several times in the last decade. Seeing as you seemed sceptical, I did a Google search for you, and one of the first things I turned up was from the OECD. The numbers are per 100,000 - put whatever twist you like on that based on miles driven (figures not present for the UK). It's more than half the number of fatalities per 100,000: 6 vs 14.9. That could be partially attributed to the lower seatbelt rates in the US.

Calculated on the same basis - using the same definitions of what constitutes unemployment (who is included in the survey to start with, what constitutes an active job seeker etc.), Sweden has approximately 16 % unemployment when using the same criterias as used when calculating the US statistic.

The OECD page that links to the PDF in question says

The OECD standardised unemployment rates, compiled for 27 OECD Member countries, are based on definitions of the 13th Conference of Labour Statisticians (generally referred to as the ILO guidelines). Under these definitions, the unemployed are persons of working age who, in the reference period, are without work, are available for work and have taken specific steps to find work.

The uniform application of the definitions results in estimates that are more internationally comparable than those based on national definitions. National unemployment data in some countries only include persons registered at government labour offices. Under the ILO definition, persons without work who are seeking employment through other means can also be classified as unemployed and registrants can be excluded if they worked or were not available for work. The standardised unemployment rates shown here are calculated as the number of unemployed persons as a percentage of the civilian labour force (i.e the unemployed plus those in civilian employment). The standardised unemployment rates are seasonally adjusted.

The standardised unemployment rates for the European Union (EU) Member countries and for Czech Republic, Hungary, Norway, Poland and Slovak Republic are produced by the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat). The OECD is responsible for the collection of data and calculation of standardised unemployment rates for the remaining countries.

So how do the different measurements of unemployment differ in ways not ruled out by the use of the ILO definition? Or is the Swedish or US rate not using the ILO definition?

The US has the lowest unemployment rates and highest per capita income of any developed country.

Lowest unemployment rates? Not true in January 2003, at least, according to this table from the OECD - the US rate was 5.7%, whereas Austria had 4.1% and Sweden had 5.3%, for example.

Assuming you aren't grossly misinformed about Brazil's voting system (which you probably are), they have much bigger problems to deal with.

For example, what good is a technologically sound voting system when all the candidates are shit?

I guess if you don't mind your savings account being frozen by the president (de Mello), or a 35% currency devaluation (Cardoso), or a president without a high school diploma (da Silva), it's not so bad...

And I won't even start on the rampant corruption in Brazil. Slashdot's database wouldn't be able to hold so much information.

We'll put our pride away when Brazil puts away its complete joke of a government and stops forcing its masses to live in abject poverty.

You can lecture us on technology when Brazil stops doing asinine things like blowing up its own oil platforms.

Verdade?

Talisman

Wanna get pissed?

Another difference is that we end up paying for medical research out of our health care costs, whereas in much of Europe, medical research is subsidized separately from the socialized health care system.

Being a stupid simpleton, I had to look up what the OECD was. Aha: the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The national unemployment rates of different countries aren't comparable at all. Who is considered as unemployed?

Try the standardised unemployment rates from the OECD.

The unemployment rate in the EU was 7.4. Canada had an unemployment rate of 7.2, the US had one of 4.8 (2000).

Now, compare the social security system of Canada, various EU states and the US and maybe you know why an unemployment rate of 5.6 is considered "terrible".

Hint: People below poverty line: Canada 10.3%, US 17.0%, Source OECD

Imagine, some people consider poverty as a source of social unrest and criminality.

"It provides guidance on conducting an internal review of existing personal data practices and on developing a privacy policy statement. It gives links to private sector organisations with expertise in developing a privacy policy. It offers links to governmental agencies, non-governmental organisations and private bodies that give information on applicable regulations.

The Generator makes use of a questionnaire to learn about your personal data practices. A Help Section provides explanatory notes and practical guidance. Warning flags appear where appropriate. Your answers are then fed into a pre-formatted draft policy statement. You must assess this statement: is it an accurate reflection of your personal data practices and policy?"

PS. OECD = Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. According to their site they are "an international organisation helping governments tackle the economic, social and governance challenges of a globalised economy."

"It provides guidance on conducting an internal review of existing personal data practices and on developing a privacy policy statement. It gives links to private sector organisations with expertise in developing a privacy policy. It offers links to governmental agencies, non-governmental organisations and private bodies that give information on applicable regulations.

The Generator makes use of a questionnaire to learn about your personal data practices. A Help Section provides explanatory notes and practical guidance. Warning flags appear where appropriate. Your answers are then fed into a pre-formatted draft policy statement. You must assess this statement: is it an accurate reflection of your personal data practices and policy?"

PS. OECD = Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. According to their site they are "an international organisation helping governments tackle the economic, social and governance challenges of a globalised economy."

Shit, hit the wrong button. Here is the continuation.

The result has been that while there was no viable competition, telcos dragged their feet horribly. As soon as some competition appeared they:

1. Dragged out the regulatory process as long as possible

2. Rolled out as fast as they could

3. Kept local loop and wholesale prices high, while...

4. ... Keeping consumer retail prices low (lower than wholesale, btw)

Ah-ha! That last one is the clincher. The incumbent ensures that it is unprofitable for attackers to enter the market. For the moment we get great prices, but in the long run, we as consumers lose out.

High broadband prices are your friend (for the moment). They mean that providing broadband will be profitable for smaller providers until such time as the huge incumbent advantages can be erased and competition can take place on a reasonably level playing field.

For your further edification (about the European situation), I would check out the following sources: ECTA Scorecard (LLU), OECD (the broadband development document), and "Seventh Report on the Implementation of Telecommunications Regulatory Package" from the European Commision (It's out there somewhere, I just don't have the link.) These are pretty heavy reading, but if you are actually interested in how the regulatory situation evolves, they are informative (especially the last one).

The gov't shouldn't own the physical layer because gov'ts aren't into profit making, and therefore do not perform R&D or innovate. It's the incentive of profit that justifies R&D, and tax payers wouldn't (and shouldn't) stand for such behavior by the gov't when private corps. can do so (and be liable). This is what venture capitalists are for, not taxpayers' dollars

Really this depends heavily on whether you think that the service/infrastructure in question is important enough to the national welfare that it is in the nation's best interest to ensure that there is universal coverage. Companies are driven by the profit motive and as such are not likely to ensure service in less attractive areas. A government can ensure that even less lucrative customers can access the essential service. Now, there are certainly several ways to go about doing this, but government ownership is not the evil you make it out to be. In the US, the public roads are a case example. They are generally government owned (though not always operated) and they are some of the best road systems on which I have ever driven. A contrasting example is the stimulus of universal telephony coverage as mandated in '34. There the US government basically regulated the rural telephone system into existence. (I would also suggest the school system as an example of a government owned facility - there are several places in the world where the national school system works quite well.)

Back to the issue of broadband. What you find is that of the countries that lead in broadband penetration (South Korea, Singapore, Canada) the top two have had significant involvement by the government in driving the buildout. In Singapore the government actually did the backbone buildout and later privatized it. In Europe, Sweden is a broadband leader, and the government, both national and local, has taken an extremely active roll in ensuring broadband growth. There are subsidies to the infrastructure players and municipally owned networks. (Though they should have given Telia a firm kick in the ass a little earlier, IMHO)

For a good read on this topic, try the new OECD broadband report

High taxes and the brain drain'll kill this one dead right quick.

Bullshit. HighTaxes in Canada are not a problem. This is bullshit. They are high, any tax is too much in some eyes, but they are not the highest. See here.

Secondly, the "brain drain" is bullshit forwarded by "tax cut" advocates.. it makes a nice meme but has little substance.

Further, Canada spends 9% of GDP on health care for 100% coverage, US spends14% with
Dont like to pay taxes? Well, your gonna pay one way or the other, im betting the redundancy and weight of 'competition' and 'profit' wont end up being more disposable income...

I don't know where Gates gets his figures, but Google [google.com] tells me that Canada is up there with South Korea with penetrations of around 40-50%. This neat page of summary stats [internet.com] shows Denmark and Sweden at around 14% and I suspect many Scandinavian and other European countries are on par with the US's 11% broadband penetration rate. Sounds to me like the US is fighting for fifth at best.

A (PDF) OECD report on "The Development of Broadband Access in OECD Countries" has, on page 8, a graph of "Broadband penetration in OECD countries, June 2001", showing the US in fourth place, behind Korea (way ahead of everybody else, with 14 broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants), Canada (6/100), and Sweden (~4.3/100). The Netherlands appears to be epsilon below the US, and following it are Austria, Denmark, Belgium, Iceland, Luxembourg, Germany, Japan, and various others (see the graph for the full list).

Presumably the 40-50% figures are something other than percentages of the inhabitants, for example percentages of Internet users.

Google can tell you lots of things, depending on what page you found; you didn't indicate which page it found, nor did you indicate what you searched for. A search for "broadband penetration" found a Newsbytes article from October 4, 2001, saying that South Korea has 95% of home Internet users connected with broadband, Hong Kong with 53%, Taiwan with 35%, and Singapore with 24%, but only 5% in Australia and 4% in New Zealand. It says that a separate study shows 17.5% in the US.

An older report by the Strategis Group referred to in this CNN article names Australia, Canada, The Netherlands, Singapore, and Sweden as likely to lead broadband penetration.

To be precise, it says

The report, "International High-Speed Access: The Residential Marketplace 1999," said that less than 1 percent of the world's households use broadband Internet access. It predicts that combined DSL and cable modem penetration of total households will reach 10 to 30 percent by 2003 in several markets, including Australia, Canada, The Netherlands, Singapore, Sweden, and the US.

"Natural" monoplies are those which arise because there cannot be anything else. For example, it's not credible to expect more than one hydro cable to your house, or more than one telephone company: there isn't enough room on the poles for more than one each. Heck, the cable folks often have to sue to get permission to use the other guy's poles... These are existing natural monopolies, along with water, sewers and the like.

They propose that Bill has a natural monopoly, and that it will be broken and replaced with one where we are the monopolists. Well, natural monopolies are not trivial to overturn, so by arguing the we will overturn Bill, they're (accidentally!) arguing that he doesn't have a natural monopoly.

They have argued that some of the prerequisites exist, but they've jumped from there to the conclusion that it does exist, without offering proof.

A cople of references, findable via google: A Glossary of Political Economy Terms, and from http://www1.oecd.org/daf/clp/non-member_activities /dnme10.htm,
Natural monopoly arises in sectors characterised by declining costs of production so that there is room for only one firm to exploit available economies of scale. Typically, natural monopolies occur in industries characterised by large distribution networks with substantial fixed costs, such as gas, electricity, water and railways. In practice, however, it is as rare to find examples of industry-wide natural monopoly as it is examples of perfect competition. Even if some parts of an industry have natural monopoly characteristics others may be potentially competitive. For example electricity supply consists of natural monopoly in transmission but potential competition in generation and the supply of user equipment. Telecommunications was for a long time considered to be a natural monopoly at least for the basic telephone service, whereas value added services and the equipment market are competitive. The creation of new networks for voice transmission has even eroded the monopoly of the basic service.

America is not spending a lot of money on poor nations. In absolute numbers yes (but less than Japan which is a smaller economy), but this is what the chart relative to GDP looks like.

> Compare the unemployment rates of the U.S. to countries that ban at will policies. like here [oecd.org]? The US figures are not bad, but several countries are doing better.

[Sigh, why is it that slashdotters always mod up the left wing views, which are often base don incomplete information?]

Looking at the unemployment rates, only Austria, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal have lower rates (within the OECD) than the USA. Now see the OECD's tax statistics".

Looking at the tax rates on married, single earner couples with 2 kids, we see that of those countries with lower unemployment than the USA, all but two have lower tax rates than the USA. [BTW, did you know that the EU has been pressuring Ireland, with its much lower tax rates than the EU (and the USA), to "harmonize" its rates?]. Of the two exceptions: Norway has about the same, taxes, and the Netherlands, is the lone exception with sky high taxes, and probably (though I don't know), restrictive labor laws.

So I don't think two exceptions makes my assertion that countries that discourage "at will" employment arrangements have higher unemployment rates. There are always exceptions to rules, and often the exceptions prove the rules. For example, the Netherlands is home to several multinational corporations with large presences in the USA (e.g. Shell Oil, Unilever). Is it possible, that if the Netherlands has restrictive labor laws, that they leverage the USAs less restrictive laws so as to produce most of the layoffs in the USA? Just theorizing.

Of course this does not consider (1) the substantial USA prison population, and (2)

the fact that many people that would be honestly unemployed in Europe, hold low-value jobs like hamburger flipping in quiet desperation ("working poor").

> Compare the unemployment rates of the U.S. to countries that ban at will policies.
like here?
The US figures are not bad, but several countries are doing better.
Of course this does not consider (1) the substantial USA prison population, and (2) the fact that many people that would be honestly unemployed in Europe, hold low-value jobs like hamburger flipping in quiet desperation ("working poor").

The business community would like us to put our heads in the sand and forget about all these pesky problems steamrolling our way. But the consequences of inaction could be devastating for life across the planet, and our species survival. To continue to trivialize the debate by turning the issue into one of belief instead of verifiable facts simply accepts the common US big media propaganda and spin. This is not a debate of the number of angels on the head of a pin, it's a scientific debate whereby the vast majority of academic scientists the world over have accepted a common view that global climate change is real and could be devastating to life on earth. Please also see: Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development documents on the issue as well.

--Maynard

I fully support the idea of a Privacy Bill of Rights and would agree that P3P could be a distraction from the real issues, but your comment

"...the widespread adoption and implementation will make it impossible to constrain the access of foreign web sites to the personal information of U.S. citizens"

is way off the mark. Most other countries (and all "first world" ones), have much more effective controls in place over privacy than the US (which has almost none). When did you last see a US website privacy policy that covered all the OECD principles (there are actually eight of them - have you ever seen a privacy policy address more than four?). Witness the (still ongoing) furore between the EU and the US over the safe harbour agreement. If there's an enemy here, it's not the foreigners but US corporations.

Check this link out to see some real figures: http://www.oecd.org/std/gdp.htm

As you will see, in 1999, the UK past France with respect to GDP. Germany's GDP is 50% greater the UK's. I dunno what the size of the German population is these days, but the UK's is between 55 and 60 million. The UK showed good GDP growth between 96 and 99, while Germany showed declined. Of course, these figures do not include this year, when I believe Germany has been reviving.

"The German economy is the third in the world, right behind Japan and before France "

Between Japan and the UK.

"- UK does not have a "very boyant economy" as you said - the UK economic boom was several years ago and is now slowing down (just look at Rover or any other UK car brand : they all got bought buy foreign car makers) "

The manufacturing sector was in recession a couple of years ago. At the same time, other parts of the economy were over-heating. The economy overall was still growing. Manufacturing, and car production in particular, are not indicative of the whole. Hey, Germany might have a F1 world champion... but most of the successful teams are British (will Ferrari make it this year again?)

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has been called a think tank, monitoring agency, rich man's club, an unacademic university. It has elements of all, but none of these characterisations captures the essence of the OECD.

The OECD groups 29 member countries in an organisation that, most importantly, provides governments a setting in which to discuss, develop and perfect economic and social policy. They compare experiences, seek answers to common problems and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies that increasingly in today's globalised world must form a web of even practice across nations. Their exchanges may lead to agreements to act in a formal way - for example, by establishing legally-binding codes for free flow of capital and services, agreements to crack down on bribery or to end subsidies for shipbuilding. But more often, their discussion makes for better informed work within their own governments on the spectrum of public policy and clarifies the impact of national policies on the international community. And it offers a chance to reflect and exchange perspectives with other countries similar to their own.

The OECD is a club of like-minded countries. It is rich, in that OECD countries produce two thirds of the world's goods and services, but it is not an exclusive club. Essentially, membership is limited only by a country's commitment to a market economy and a pluralistic democracy. The core of original members has expanded from Europe and North America to include Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Finland, Mexico, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Korea. And there are many more contacts with the rest of the world through programmes with countries in the former Soviet bloc, Asia, Latin America - contacts which, in some cases, may lead to membership.

Exchanges between OECD governments flow from information and analysis provided by a Secretariat in Paris. Parts of the OECD Secretariat collect data, monitor trends, analyse and forecast economic developments, while others research social changes or evolving patterns in trade, environment, agriculture, technology, taxation and more. This work, in areas that mirror the policy-making structures in ministries of governments, is done in close consultation with policy-makers who will use the analysis, and it underpins discussion by member countries when they meet in specialised committees of the OECD. Much of the research and analysis is published.

My take on it is that it is sort of like an economic equivalent of NATO. It's pretty much involved with monitoring and creating global rules that it's member countries should or must (depending on how influential they are) obide by. They also try to bully smaller and poorer countries with programs such as the "harmful tax competition" programme I mentioned in my previous post. It's pretty interesting that this group of powerful countries should fear the unfair competition of small poor countries such as Belize, Dominica etc. May be these countries should create a black list of countries with to big economies, because thats unfair size competition?

Technology is where it's at I'm afraid. The problem with these so-called rogue states, is that they are Nation States as well and are run by individuals or groups of individuals. While you might get protection from them for a short while, if it's all of a sudden in the interest of your protective state to hand you over, they will.
Look at OECD's black list of Tax Havens Since the list was announced you have had Cayman Islands, Dominica, Antigua, Mauritius and several others bending over backwards.
Having lived and worked in several of these places, I have experienced first hand that the government officials here are not idealistic about anything, don't generally understand the new economy and are scared as hell right now of loosing their income.

"Of course Europe has more stringent antitrust laws than the US. That is exactly why the US is the superpower and the European countries are not. "

Running the risk of a silly flamewar...

Anti-trust laws are not why America is a super power. One of the reasons is that the US leveraged it's advantage at the end of the 2nd World War to become a super power. The existing European super powers before the war were bancrupted by the war. America took advantage of these countries such as Britain by making sure they paid back all of the war loans plus interest. America didn't have its cities destroyed by the war, it didn't have rationing into the 50's, and American post-war aid actually helped the American economy immensely.

Europe has a far larger military than the US (based on figures that I've seen reproduced in The Economist), but they are not combined. Europe doesn't act as whole. In addition, according to figures from the OECD, EU GDP is greater than that of America (http://www.oecd.org/std/gdp.htm). With the break down of borders within Europe, Europe stands a chance of becoming a single entity that has the potential of matching other giants such as the US.

I would suggest the economic problems of [continental] Europe are caused more by tax and spend policies. The UK doesn't suffer in the same way as the rest of the continent, which is perhaps why London is still the financial capital of the world (its foreign currency exchange is bigger than New York and Tokyo combined... so much for super power USA).

What you haven't explained, though, is why the FTC should be worried. What about this deal is anticompetitive?

I am not qualified to make such a determination, nor am I necessarily opposed to this merger, but I can think certain aspects bear scrutiny.

TimeWarner has a dominant position in a number of media niches, including television news (through the CNN family), newsmagazines (Time), movie and music publishing, etc. ad nauseam. While I don't recall if they're the largest cable operator in the nation (sounds right, though), I do know they serve the largest markets (NYC, LA). They already own a cable ISP (RoadRunner).

After this merger, they'll own the largest ISP in the nation, AND the Netscape browser. (Blah blah Mozilla blah - Mozilla may be open source, but Mozilla isn't Navigator. They'll have the exclusive rights to the Netscape name, and the attendant mindshare.)

This is an unheard of level of vertical integration, and can (likely, will) be used to lock competitive content out of their network. RoadRunner's TOS already includes restrictions on viewing more than 10 minutes of streaming video from anyone but "RoadRunner content partners".

The closest historical analogue to this situation comes from the days when Hollywood studios had a collective lock on the exhibition market - all of the theatres were studio owned, in order to have the right to exhibit films produced by the studios. At that time, not only did this keep competitors out of the exhibition market, but it kept competitors out of the content market; There were no independent films to speak of, as they couldn't be exhibited in studio-owned theatres. This situation also led, naturally, to price fixing, as studios could deny access to the exhibition market anyone wishing to compete by selling tickets at a lower price; studio-owned distributors would simply refuse to service these competitors.

Ultimately, the studios were forced to divest themselves of their theatres as a result of (surprise!) anti-trust action, in the so-called "Paramount Decrees".

I think the parallels here are fairly obvious.

-Isaac

More information about the Paramount Decrees (and more analysis of vertical integration in media) here and here.

What you haven't explained, though, is why the FTC should be worried. What about this deal is anticompetitive?

I am not qualified to make such a determination, nor am I necessarily opposed to this merger, but I can think certain aspects bear scrutiny.

TimeWarner has a dominant position in a number of media niches, including television news (through the CNN family), newsmagazines (Time), movie and music publishing, etc. ad nauseam. While I don't recall if they're the largest cable operator in the nation (sounds right, though), I do know they serve the largest markets (NYC, LA). They already own a cable ISP (RoadRunner).

After this merger, they'll own the largest ISP in the nation, AND the Netscape browser. (Blah blah Mozilla blah - Mozilla may be open source, but Mozilla isn't Navigator. They'll have the exclusive rights to the Netscape name, and the attendant mindshare.)

This is an unheard of level of vertical integration, and can (likely, will) be used to lock competitive content out of their network. RoadRunner's TOS already includes restrictions on viewing more than 10 minutes of streaming video from anyone but "RoadRunner content partners".

The closest historical analogue to this situation comes from the days when Hollywood studios had a collective lock on the exhibition market - all of the theatres were studio owned, in order to have the right to exhibit films produced by the studios. At that time, not only did this keep competitors out of the exhibition market, but it kept competitors out of the content market; There were no independent films to speak of, as they couldn't be exhibited in studio-owned theatres. This situation also led, naturally, to price fixing, as studios could deny access to the exhibition market anyone wishing to compete by selling tickets at a lower price; studio-owned distributors would simply refuse to service these competitors.

Ultimately, the studios were forced to divest themselves of their theatres as a result of (surprise!) anti-trust action, in the so-called "Paramount Decrees".

I think the parallels here are fairly obvious.

-Isaac

More information about the Paramount Decrees (and more analysis of vertical integration in media) here and here.