Slashdot Mirror
European Commission To Raise Camera Costs in Europe
An anonymous reader writes "According to a recent CNET article, digital camera costs could increase in Europe as result of trade inequalities. 'At the moment, all digital cameras are manufactured outside Europe. They're all imported. All of them. Currently, there's a European Commission-imposed 4.9 per cent import tariff on camcorders, but not on cameras, whatever their video-recording abilities. The EC's Nomenclature Committee has cottoned on to this and wants to slap a tax on cameras that can record at least 30 minutes of video in one go, with a resolution of 800x600 pixels or higher at 23 frames per second or higher. The Nomenclature Committee has recommended the proposal but has not, as yet, garnered the required majority vote.'" Update: 07/23 02:18 GMT by Z : Took out a bit of hyperbole.
So does this affect phones? Slapping arbitrary technical specs on something might later on bleed over into emerging technologies. Hell, I think my phone is almost capable of that... It's not, but it can't be long before your average phone is... So, what's the plans for that?
TLF
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
Cause if there are people in China who are willing to work for cheaper than people in your country then you best make sure business and consumers can't benefit from that.
How we know is more important than what we know.
There should be a law that punished with death penalty any attempts to raise taxes.
Circumcision is child abuse.
The less tax the better, because at it's core government is horribly inefficent, so the less money going to them the better. Sure, they are required to pay for things we couldn't be trusted to pay for ourselfs like police and the military, but taxation to protect local manufacturers who can't compete is crappy economics.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I foresee special "EU edition" cameras with the video recording function switched off in firmware so it won't qualify for the tariff. Of course manufacturers will "forget" certain cheat codes in the firmware that will permanently enable said functionality. These codes will of course be mysteriously "leaked" to the internet.
Yay. Another tax. If a product is invented, you can be rest assured that the people whos' salaries are paid for by taxes will apply a tax to it!! Let's see, we'll tax your commerce, your income, your morality, your charity... is there anything left???
So why camcorders... and not all the other millions of goods that come from china/elsewhere in general.
To put this in perspective for anyone who's not doing the math, this means the cost of a $500 camera has now increased by *gasp* 25 dollars. You pay far more tax than that when you buy a new car.
What's happening here in /. Why is every article Zonk post so boring, let alone newsworthy. I remember last time this guy posting an article about someone switching from Linux to Mac OS....ROFLMAO. Heh Zonk, we know that you're a Mac fanboy, so please stop littering /. with all your bullshit articles. Please don't turn /. into Dig.
with a resolution of 800x600 pixels or higher at
How many cameras can record at a resolution higher than 640x480? I wasn't aware that many non-camcorder cameras were able to do that.
5% is signficant, but it's not going crazy. Also, the vast majority of digital cameras at the moment wouldn't fit in with this definition anyway--800x600 at 23 fps?
It seems to me that with the constant growth & change of the high-tech marketplace the stuffed shirts responsible for levying taxes are going to have to significantly overhaul how taxes are levied in the not-too-distant future. The way this tax appears to be defined it could apply to devices that are not primarily cameras. Mobile phones are close to fitting into this definition. You can also buy binoculars capable of recording to digital media. A similar problem thats already rearing its ugly head is the recent decision by Canada to levy an "ipod tax" on mp3 players. They're already collecting taxes on the sale of music, so this in effect is taxing the end user twice. I'd be willing to bet that somebody in Canada will sue over that soon. Imagine if Canada implemented this digital camera tax and then in a few years ipods started showing up with built-in cameras... You'll end up with devices that are heavily taxed under a slew of "digital rights" taxes.
Someone is losing money somewhere and goes crying to the govt because of poor business decisions.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
How would eBay and other online stores fit into this little plan? I know that most online purchases here in the US aren't taxed, but how about the good old EU?
..there is no domestic European camera industry to protect? As they say in the article, all the cameras are manufactured outside Europe. The purpose of tariff barriers is to protect domestic industry (or so I thought).
This would be really stupid. Slapping extra tax on devices that can create creative content is plain fakin stupid.
It will take the manufacturers all of a blink of an eye to create Euro only models by changing the firmware to limit video capabilities.
Then buyers can change the firmware after they get the cameras.
Examples of Idiocy: How /. has become.
Articles like this and this are the reason slashdot is no longer taken seriously. Please read the rest of the article here.An articles devoted to Zonk.
Try, "with no choice but" instead of "willing" in your statement and you're closer to the truth.
If a country had actual slave labour, would you argue against tariffs on products from that country too?
Things are cheap in China for a lot of reasons:
- no labour standards
- no environmental standards
- no intellectual property standards
- no rights generally
- poverty and desperation amongst the poor
Allowing unfettered access to domestic markets only rewards China for doing nothing to change those things.
Read Pynchon.
The street, your seat, the heat, your feet. Oh, and the pennies on your eyes, if you should die.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Problem solved. God, politicians are some dumb fuckers. That, or businesses are paying them off to write really dumb laws...hmm... :(
It find it funny how all these etatists talk about the growing "gap" between rich and poor, while at the same time preventing low-cost goods from entering a country or the European Union. The logical consequence of this etatist argument is that trade barriers should be erected everwhere, between countries, states, provinces, counties, cities, towns, burroughs, and last but not least people. The gap between rich and poor might be gone then, but so will civilization.
EU policy is to use tarrifs to induce industries to locate facilities within the Single European Market. That's what the EU is all about. They're trying not to make the mistake the US did, of losing manufacturing to low-wage countries.
I hardly consider an additonal 4.9% tax, passed along to the consumer as "Yet another wonderful move by your socialist overlords" to be "Going Crazy." It's more of a reason to go out and vote differently next election cycle. After all, you've brought this down on yourselves.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Leica claims to make the M8 digital rangefinder in Germany, so not ALL digicams are imported to the EU.
Not that I can tell.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The "canon" is not a tax. Tax are handled by the state, to pay roads, health care and other things. This one, which is based in size of CD or DVD but normally ends meaning around double price (example 700MB CD has a surcharge of 24 cents, while media price is 19-70 with VAT already included, varies with brand, total quantity in pack or case provided, so it means ~33-125% overprice), is handled by a private organization, SGAE, which for now seems to run without any check like you could ask for official agencies. The "reason" they provide is this compensates for the "private copy" right. Funny you have to pay for rights, and no matter what use you do.
The USA equivalent of SGAE is ASCAP, but the methods are more like MAFIAA ones, asking bars to pay money for music (and then losing in courts after proving the music is CC licensed, or even just not from SGAE members). So please, stop saying it is a tax, it is not, and it is hurting local shops, people that use optical media as backup or transfer media, and making some "musicians" some extra money.
*NM*
To posts that go this way:
It will take the manufacturers all of a blink of an eye to create Euro only models by changing the firmware to limit video capabilities.
Then buyers can change the firmware after they get the cameras.
If that tax accounts for hardware capability down to anything that can record video that is capable of/over 800x600/23fps, in any way (including firmware modification?), pay up.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Let's look at what you said more closely:
Claim: "The less tax the better"
Evidence: "because at it's core government is horribly inefficent"
Conclusion: "so the less money going to them the better."
Even if, "at its core", government is horribly inefficient, that does not mean it's not useful, or even necessary. Of course, sometimes government is exceptionally *efficient*. Your evidence does not support your conclusion, which is just a rewording of your claim.
Then you continue: "Sure, they are required to pay for things we couldn't be trusted to pay for ourselfs like police and the military,"
This completely contradicts your conclusion above. If "the less money, the better", then you can't get better than zero. However, zero and the above are contradictory.
Finally: "but taxation to protect local manufacturers who can't compete is crappy economics."
And funneling your wealth out of the country is *good* economics? Extreme anti-protectionism protects only two classes: the multinational corporations and the extremely wealthy. If you are not in either of those two classes, you are arguing against your own best interests. Congratulations.
Agreed. Globalization as originally envisioned (and argued by supporters) is dead! Cheapness as a metric of success is flawed.
BTW ALL countries practice protectionism to various degrees. From taxes and fees to rules and regulations that need to be met. Either pretend it's all bad and should be eliminated, or realize that it serves a useful purpose, and quit with the dancing around.
Leica makes the M8, a digital rangefinder. It's manufactured in Germany and Portugal. Admittedly, its sales are a drop in the digital camera sales bucket.
"Cause if there are people in China who are willing to work for cheaper than people in your country then you best make sure business and consumers can't benefit from that."
Yes, because hollowing out your locally-controlled manufacturing infrastructure and outsourcing their tasks to a foreign country not necessarily aligned with your ethics or interests, where work is carried out in social and environmental conditions your own nation's citizens consider unethical, is always beneficial to all concerned. And there'll always and forever be an extremely cheap oil-fuelled transport grid on a global scale, and never any possible spike in insurgency, piracy or other kinds of tensions that might make shipping more costly. Importing goods from distant places that could be manufactured locally incurs no energy efficiency costs, and the countries from which we import them will always wish to trade with us and never impose any kind of embargo for military or political reasons. We can fully trust every external organisation with which we deal, corporate or national, even if they are in outright competition with us, the only criterion being that they supply us right now with the absolute rock bottom prices available on the short-term market. Really, it's just common sense - when it all comes down to it, the only evaluation factor we ever need, as thinking humans, for trustworthiness, environmental sustainability or long-term future planning is one single figure: the end-user cash sale price.
Besides, employees are always just a cost factor, after all. It's not like they ever invest anything back in their local economy through purchases. Unlike hard-working executives, for whom every cent in income is a chance to sponsor yet another risky, farsighted, and rational venture that ennobles the human condition.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Just build cameras that record in 720x576. Or 799x599.
"What exactly is wrong with promoting a regional economy instead of depending on a complex web of corrupt globalist ties?"
Actually I just remembered one downside of globalization. Remember the pet food scare? How about the tainted human food? Those drugs? Medical data for sale? Would the US really have had these kind of problems under our umbrella?
or Americans, for that matter, be forced to bring down our livelihood to help others?
Free trade with places like China amounts to absolutely nothing else but the total undermining of our Western democracies and our respect for human rights. Trade with China says one and only one thing: Western Democracies and Values are not profitable, and the way to be competitive is to be a hell hole like China.
As an American, I say we quarantine the sweatshop block - all nations that are undemocratic and which routinely allow sweatshops, pollution, and worker abuse - and end all trade with them now. Destroy all trade barriers with Western nations NOW. Establish a Western trade block where we renew and strengthen our pledge to cut pollution, enforce human rights, and preserve our Western democracies from being overwhelmed by a handful of wealthy corporate interests.
If necessary, America can build the cameras and ship 'em to Europe, Europe can make the steel and ship it to us.
Yes, this will cost more money for the consumer, but the end result is we will not continue to thoroughly discredit our way of life and reduce the Western world to the horrible nations that we currently are exporting jobs and debt to.
BTW there is nothing in what I said that says Chinese people are bad - those who want to come to the West and participate in Western values, come on over. But by all means leave the "baby girls are a burden - kill them" attitude behind. Is it racist to want to leave the baby killing behind? Fine. It's racist. Bite me. I don't ever, as long as I live, apologize for not ever wanting to buy a single thing from a country whose citizens murder their daughters en masse.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
The question is not why still cameras are now considered to be the same as video cameras, the real question is why they are taxing video cameras to begin with!
And the best solution to this "horrible" inconsistency is to abolish the tax on video cameras, not to arbitrarily extend it to other devices.
Hyperbole is to slashdot what Viagra is to an old man.
It's probably because they've got all that extra space in them (where the cassette goes) that a digital camera just doesn't have . It doesn't take a large explosive to do a whole lot of damage on an airplane.
Well since the GP said "my camera is not" and doesn't say what it is the camera could very well be enough space for explosives. I could take my film camera as well as the lenses for it and pack enough C4, semtex, or another plastique to bring down an airplane. My biggest lenses, which isn't big, is large enough to hold half a pound of C4 hollowed out. With a ultra wide or super telephoto lenses I could pack a lot more in the lense. And that's lenses just for a 35mm slr.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Here is an interesting point. Who is this kind of market manipulation unfair to? People in Europe and the US buy goods from China at "below market" prices. That means that the Chinese are getting shafted because they are exchanging goods of greater value for goods of lesser value. Sure, they are building up treasury bills that they can exchange with us for goods and services later, but those will be worth even less when they do get around to spending them than they would be if they spent them today (and today they are worth less than the goods they originally exchanged for them).
What is going on here? The Chinese government is selling labour at below market cost to increase its global influence and finance a rapid build up of industrial infrastructure. In the mean time, Chinese citizens are getting shafted by being forced to work more to gain less personal benefit than other people in the industrialized world. In other words, the government is accumulating power on the backs of Chinese citizens.
Of course, it is impossible for us to reform this situation, since only the Chinese may put a stop to it by telling their government they won't stand for it any longer. Refusing to trade with China will only slow their industrial progress and make the Chinese less willing and able to stand up to these blatant governmental abuses.
In the case of tariffs, the EU is attempting to encourage local manufacturing and reduce trade imbalances
If the EU rally wanted to correct for a trade imbalance then what they need to do is get rid of the 100s of billions of euros in subsidies given to European farmers. Because of these subsidies food grown in Europe can be exported to third world nations and sold there retail for less than farmers there can grow food. That's a big reason the WTO meeting in Geneva fell apart in the summer of 2006. India walked out because first world nations, the EU, Japan, and the US wouldn't cut farm subsidies. India has literally thousands of farmers committing suicide because they can't compeat with farmers who collect hugh subsidies. Slashing US farm subsidies to $13 billion a year is "unacceptable," a Bush administration official said on Wednesday. All these tariffs are is protectionism.
whereas airline "security" is not about making flying safer, but about social engineering, making people more accepting of micro-management from a nanny state, and introducing the perception of safety even though everyone knows that it won't do a lick of good.
Yeap, our overseer lords want us all to believe the only way to keep safe is by having a nanny state. What they're really doing is a power grab, they want to tell people how to live, and if the people won't then force them to live the way they say.
FalconShould there be a Law?
"but it's also the case that there are plenty of instances where the opposite is true."
Can you tell us one time this has been true? I mean, if there are plenty, it should not be a big deal to give us one.
"mposing import tariffs in order to penalize countries that oppress their laborers, that deny them basic human rights, that deny them democratic participation and representation in their government, in my opinion are exactly the sort of cases when countries should impose tariffs."
The sounds pretty noble, and maybe an interesting way to promote life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The trouble is, they aren't doing this on general principles, they're doing it to promote and protect specific local industries, otherwise, they would raise the tariffs on all Chinese goods. Instead, they're just raising the tariffs on cameras with very specific capabilities. In the end, I don't see how this really helps anyone, save a handful of wealthy shareholders that this tax protects against Asian competition.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Yes, I know, it's protectionism, it's nationalism. But until you're willing to declare that we should all be a one world Government, protecting your own country and its people from being sucked dry economically, is a virtue. And if you believe we should be a one world Government, you're asking for much bigger horrors than protectionism and nationalism.
I both believe in international trade and in supporting the local economy. I buy imported stuff as well as local produce, actually as a member of two local coops I support local farmers as much as I can buy buying as much food produced locally, which the coops buy from themselves. As for "world government" I believe in as little government as possible, national or world. Most politics should be local, except when it interfers with liberty.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Taxes build the infrastructure (roads, schools, firehouses) that allow the markets to exist.
Taxes should not pay for all infrastructure, user fees should pay for some. Those roads for instance, they should be built and maintained with a user fee or tax on fuel, which we already pay when we get fuel. As for schools, firehouses, and some other things, property tax should pay for those.
FalconShould there be a Law?
America's wealth and living standards did not come from selling their wares as cheap as possible to other countries. Instead, they stem from America being a natural resource rich country and efficiently turning those resources into products that people like. Getting ever more efficient at this cycle is called "economic growth". (i.e.: when you only need half the amount of people to make the same amount of stuff, the other half can move on to making other stuff)
That is how you are supposed to sustainably industrialize. Buying manufacturing knowledge and equipment on credit from more advanced nations and then operating them by virtual slaves who will do anything just to stay alive, is not.
China, as vast as it is, has those resources too; it doesn't need anyone else. In isolation, they too can become as prosperous as any "western" country if they put their minds to it and are patient.
Imposing import tariffs in order to penalize countries that oppress their laborers, that deny them basic human rights, that deny them democratic participation and representation in their government, in my opinion are exactly the sort of cases when countries should impose tariffs.
Not all tariffs and other trade barriers are to penalise countries. Some are simply to protect inefficient national businesses. For instance the US has barriers on Brazilian sugarcane to protect US sugarcane and sugar beet farmers.
I have been a strong supporter of Ron Paul; he's my candidate. That's my general philosophy toward government
Same here, I voted for Ron Paul in 1988 and if he's on the ballot in 2008 I'll vote for him again.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I'm afraid you do, though I think it's a matter of not expressing yourself clearly.
Sometimes protectionism can benefit a country. Witness the success of MITI in Japan. Beyond that, however, you must ask the question "bad for whom"? What is it that your economics is trying to maximize? Equality? National wealth? Global wealth? Well being? Sustainability? That's a moral choice, whose answer depends on your ethical framework.
Finally, you provide a hypothetical illustration of one form of bureaucratic inefficiency. This is nothing more than anecdotal evidence... except it's not even anecdotal. It's about on the level of, "Take an American worker who watches some TV. If he's watching TV, he's not working. But the poor Chinese peasant seldom watches TV - he's always working. The Chinese also has to focus on the bottom line, because if he is inefficient he'll starve - the American will just end up on welfare."
If you want to show that goverment is "horribly inefficient" - or, more importantly, that it is less efficient than the market - then you need to compare more than just one possible form of government behavior. There are many ways of organizing economic activity, corporations, and governments. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, which vary depending on the government, th esociety in which it operates, the specific activity in question, etc. - and which must be judged relative to what ever standard you choose for efficiency (which is again an ethical question). If you want to show that government is "horribly inefficient" - or that it is more or less efficient than the market for a particular activity - you need to explain what you mean by "inefficient" and then you need to actually make a comparsion - not just cherry-pick an example, then smack your hands together with glee exclaiming: "see! they're horribly inefficient!"
It may be attractive to look for cute "laws" like "the less tax the better". But they don't exist. What you're stating there is not an objective characterization of the worth of goverment: it's a subjective ethical claim. If you really care about this kind of thing, you would be well advised to read some thoughtful arguments by people with varying perspectives, not run around calling people "dolts".
As it happens, I'm with you in this particular case: I susspect it's pernicious corporate welfare. Though frankly, it's small beans compared to many other goverment activities (software patents, copyright extension, barriers to third world agricultural products, etc.).
Zeiss and Leica among them, were decimated. Ask any seasoned photographer who made the better products, and you'll likely hear testaments to the quality of Leica and Zeiss products produced over half a century ago.
Yeap, Zeiss made some of the best optics, lenses. Hasselblad made, and continues to make, quality medium format cameras.
FalconShould there be a Law?
"At the moment, all digital cameras are manufactured outside Europe. They're all imported. All of them."
Is it none? Not one? They are all made outside the EU?
Talk about emphasising a point.
dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
I know that most online purchases here in the US aren't taxed, but how about the good old EU?
Actually taxes are supposed to be paid for online purchases, it's the buyer's responsibility to report the purchase to the state and pay the tax. These taxes go back to catalogue mail orders, however many people don't know this and even if they do not many will report it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
A tax intended to slant the playing field in such a manner that any potential EU camera producer has an immediate advantage when selling within the EU.
However any company trying to manufacture cameras in Europe has a distinct disadvantage, high taxes to support all the social welfare programs. Also there's the high cost of labor. That's why many European companies are moving thier manufacturing over seas.
FalconShould there be a Law?
greed
assignment != equality != identity
I guess that if it is happening we're gonna see on the box written clearly in cubic letters "PLEASE DONT GO TO THIS ADDRESS TO UPGRADE THE CAMERA BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL". You hit the point! I add another few examples that come from real life.
:D => Most mopeds built now have a bigger engine castrated by "firmware" (Electronic injection) that consume and perform as much as the previous model BUT fall into the new standard imposed by the eurocrats. Since the engine is more capable there there always been keen people able to trick it for a price (also stands true for BMW limitators on bigger cars).
Italian Limits for 14Y/O motorbikes: A motorbike to be driven by a 14y/o boy has to obej there rules - Cubature Less than 50CC - Less than 5HP - Max speed less than 45Km/h. As we all know anyone riding a bike is hungry power and speed let alone if he's 14 y/o and likes taking unuseful risks. The moped industry adapted promptly => It is usual for those motorbikes to ship with a "diopter" that can be removed by anyone with a little knowledge and a screwdriver - thought the operation is illegal most do it. After the operation you get a screaming monster capable of 80Km/h
Euro3 limits for pollution: These are limits to the quantity of pollution that approved engines can emit. They are classified into classes cubic centimeters. What happens is that if the engine is big enought it can emit more CO2 and still fall into the limits. What was the response of the moped industry?
With broadcast resolution in Europe being less than 800x600 for standard definition, I would have thought that means nearly all cameras are excluded from this tax as most digital cameras only offer PAL or NTSC quality video at best (720x576 PAL or just 640x480 for the blur-o-vision NTSC standard). Both of those resolutions are less than the 800x600 that is mentioned as the tax trigger. Very few still cameras offer 800x600 or higher video recording capabilities so I don't really see how this tax will make any difference.
Private health insurance overhead: 15 to 30% (in other words, for each $100 paid in premiums by insurees, $15 to $30 doesn't go to health care, but instead to marketing, advertising, legal, accounting and executive's yachts)
...)
Public health insurance overhead: less than 2% (no advertising, little legal BS, no shareholders to pay dividends to, no marketing geniuses needed to figure that everyone needs health insurance
But don't take my word for it. Look at the stats.
Developed country with mostly private health insurance (the US):
- Life expectancy lower than all other developed countries
- Infant mortality highest
- Total cost more than twice
Developed countries with mostly public health insurance (all the others)
- Higher life expectancy
- Lowest infant mortality
- Cost at least half
Yay, capitalism!
had the highest import duties of all the major countries.
Weird, eh.
The key this the 800x600 resolution. Since all the SDTV and standard DV video formats fit within this resoultion.
NTSC:720x468 (It is actually 720x525, but only 468 lines carry image data, the rest are sync or are unseen. NTSC isn't used in Europe anyway.)
PAL:720x576 (again the actual resolution is 720x625, but only 576 lines are visible)
SECAM:720x576 (same as PAL)
Interestingly, SECAM was developed by the French as a political statement (rather than on technical merit) to protect local manufacturers, since it was so incompatible with everything else. It was only later that another standard was developed, MESECAM, to try to make it more compatible with PAL, but that is getting away from the original subject.
I'm not exactly sure how the EU came up with 800x600, but it seems that most home camcorders would be exempt from the tarrif on this basis. Instead it seems to be solely focussed on HD cmeras, perhaps as a means for preventing people from importing cheap HD cameras and making commercial content with them. I'd say the only people really affected by this are the budding filmmakers, where cheap HD consumer cameras are a good alternative to either film or extremely expensive betacam setups. Of course the manufacturers will feel the pinch too, since these tarrifs will help to discourage the consumer adoption of HDTV camcorders.
It's not that simple, cowboy. Read a bit about Keynesian economics and how it explains the Great Depression, among other things. Also, about the multiplier effect in economics.
It's sorta like this: everyone can produce entirely too much of everything. The laissez faire capitalism of the 19'th century (that so many nerds long for a bullshit idealized version of):
A) only worked in an economy of scarcity, and
B) it wasn't a paradise, either. It produced cycles of bankruptcies, and a drive to cut the wages and demand more work hours after each hit.
Trying to undercut each other's prices always presented the easy option of cutting the wages some more. Unfortunately that had the side effect of reducing how much those people can buy. But the thing is, the wages aren't the only component there. Reducing salaries to half, doesn't also reduce the price of the end product by half, because there are other costs in there too. So essentially it's a losing spiral.
And the culmination of this was the Great Depression, when basically aggregate supply vastly outstripped aggregate demand. If you ploted units-produced vs production costs, and units-sold vs the at which price the market would buy that many, the two curves became parallel. There was no point at which you can sell all that stuff and break even, much less make a profit.
There were some other factors too, but essentially it was inevitable. That was where that downwards spiral was leading, sooner or later.
Where I'm getting at is that since the great depression, most governments _had_ to produce some extra demand. This means essentially requisitioning some of the production capacity to make something else, and create jobs in the process. But since we're not under communism, they can't outright do that, so the way it works is taking some money in taxes or as deficit spending and:
1. directly spending it on stuff
2. giving it to some people who otherwise would have not much to spend. E.g., unemployment benefits, tax breaks for people with kids, whatever. Just as long as someone goes and buys more stuff.
Especially during recession times, deficit spending is crucial to keep it going.
The multiplier effect means that 1$ spent by the government doesn't just create 1$ in employment. If the government gives a big chunk to someone producing tanks, then that factory goes and gives some money to someone producing trucks, and its employees buy cars and food. The company producing the cars and trucks then goes and buys something else with the money. That money circulates and produces more jobs and more money spent at other companies down the line.
Of course, you don't want _too_ high taxes either, because that reduces the multiplier. But basically neither extreme is some kind of ideal paradise. No taxes means no government spending, so with any multiplier imaginable, zero times that multiplier still equals zero effect.
You can see it worked too, because:
I. Look at who got out of the Great Depression when. The countries whose government overspent (e.g., USA with the New Deal, or Germany with its military spending) got out of the crisis fast, those who stuck to "nooo, the government should stay lean and cheap" ideas (e.g., Canada) got to enjoy a jolly good depression until the 40's (when they got dragged into the war anyway.)
II. Ever since we didn't have the bankruptcy cycles that plagued the previous laissez faire economy. Better yet, we've had inflation and unemployment where we want them ever since.
(That's one dirty little secret the politicians don't tell you: the Philips curve. Inflation and unemployment depend on each other, and pushing one down pushes the other up. The best you can do is pick your favourite point on that curve. So
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
haha, more costs for cameras...
Canon used to charge more for their cameras in Ireland. After a small campaign to balance the prices canon agreed that the price system they had was unfair. They raised the prices across euroland to match the Irish prices...
Won't affect SLRs, then. Ironically, cheap compact cameras could end up taxed more than expensive DSLRs.
Why is this on the front page? It's hardly newsworthy.. So, a 500 camera will now cost 525. This will surely hit consumers really bad, because we all buy cameras all the time. If you want to bring attention to protectionist measures, write about the CAP instead, which along with other protectionist measures in other rich countries is the cause of much poverty in the third world.
n/t
Well - all the digital cameras I looked at until now could capture at a maximum of 640 x 480 @ 30 fps (expect for models by Panasonic that could do 848 x 480 in widescreen mode).
Are there any models that can film in 800 x 600 @ 25 fps (or even 30 fps)? That would allow a conversation to European PAL without losing quality. Unfortunately I could not find anything like that on the market.
So if you know of a good bridge camera that allows filming in 800 x 600 please post the model name here. And don't forget: Were talking about digital cameras, not camcorders or webcams.
As I said somewhere else, overhead for private insurer = 15 to 30%; overhead for public universal healthcare: less than 2% (true of, for instance, Medicare of French Social Security).
That's an order of magnitude right there.
How about cameras that can record only 29 minutes 59 seconds out of the box, with a do-it-yourself *wink wink nudge nudge* hardware mod that eliminates this restriction?
For cheaper cameras this won't be worth the trouble but for $500 and up ones, it may be worth it.
In particular, high-end still cameras that have video as an afterthought might limit themselves to 22fps or 29 minutes to avoid the tax.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
we need to keep our food production locally. Dependence for food on other nations is a big no-no.
For food staples I totally agree. I can't think of a single place that shouldn't be food self sufficient. Now this doens't mean all food just food that's culturally appropriate, like casava, corn, potatos, rice, wheat, and whatever should be grown locally on farm owned and opperated by people living in the area. Some things that won't grow locally, as least not without a lot of inputs like energy and labor, should be traded. For instance a study I read about in the Economist magazine concluded it takes more energy and emits more CO2 by raising sheep in England than it takes in raising sheep in New Zealand then shipping them to England.
That said, I don't agree that they export the heavily subsidized stuff.
Wrong, corn is heavily subsidized yet it exported all around the world. Because US agribusinesses can grow corn then export it to Mexico where it's sold for less than Mexican farmers can grow corn, Mexican farmers are being driven off thier farms. This is one reason there are so many "illegal immigrants" or aliens in and trying to get in the US. Allow Mexican farmers to make a living on their farms and they will stay there.
They should just produce less, and that's often what happens: farmers are paid not to plant stuff.
Yeap, paying farmers not to plant some fields is another subsidy. While I don't agree with many subsidies, I approve of paying farmers to not plant, or ranch, in some places, such as along the banks of lakes and rivers. Instead pay farmers to use them as buffer zones to prevent these bodies of water from being polluted. That's what New York City does, NYC pays farmers in the Catskill Mountains, Catskills, to prevent farm runoffs from polluting rivers that run through the mountains where NYC gets most of it's freshwater. This isn't really a subsidy, the only other way to get the farmers to use buffers is to have a law mandating buffer zones, however such laws are a form of taking without compensating the owners.
FalconShould there be a Law?
those African countries have expressed all sorts of eagerness to supply the EU with inexpensive produce in exchange for lots of shiny, new euros.
Yes, but it would mean outsourcing our food production entirely to other nations
No it doesn't. Not all food stuff grows in Europe, at least not without massive energy requirements and or subsidies. For instance bananas aren't traditionally grown in Europe.
This is about balances of power. You might think that foreign trade with African countries will work, but it has to go both ways: if we are dependent on their food, they need to be dependent on something we produce... Otherwise the "peace producing foreign trade" doesn't work.
Where do you think a lot of diamonds, gold, and oil come from? How about coltan? Coltan is used in electronic equipment, especially cellphones. A lot of coltan comes from Congo, and the mining of coltan fuels war there as warlords fight one another as well as civilians for control of mining areas. Then there are the blood diamonds. Botswana evicts Bushmen from their ancesteral land so diamonds can be mined. Fact is is a lot of natural resources come from Africa, and not all of it helps those who live there.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Think about prices falling and farmers closing up shop and then there is only a few large commercial farms working.
First, the size of farms and agribusiness. Don't you think the US already has large commercial farms? What is ADM, Archr Daniels Midland, if not a large agribusiness? Cargill is another one. Actually Cargill is the largest privately held corporation in the US.
Next, dropping prices and farmers closing shop. As is the case with supply and demand and prices, if farmers close shop reducing supply but demand remains the same prices will rise not fall. While many young people are being driven off farms many urban professionals, especially older ones, are leaving the city life and starting small farms of their own, mostly organic and or specialty craft farms. As it is government gives farmers hugh subsidies, which usually go to big agribusinesses like ADM and Cargill, which distort the market. It's one thing to give small farmers money it's totally different to give money to hugh businesses. I'd rather not have the governemnt give either any taxpayer money. If taxes weren't as high as they are I could show my support for small local farmers by buy more from them.
India should be doing the exact same things. Especially with Pakistan and the border problems they have off an on. The India government could also buy all the imported food, determine the in country fare market value or price and then sell the imports for that price in order to pay for it. Dumping rules should allow this.
India walked out of the WTO meetings in Geneva during the summer of 2006 because they couldn't prevent the importation of cheap European food into India. Because of the distorted market subsidized European food has in India many farmers there are committing suicide. Indian farmer simply can't compeat with subsidized European farmers.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Don't forget using the poor peoples food for ethanol instead of feeding them ;-)
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
I think more taxes should be like this: on your honor. For instance, instead of taking money out of my paycheck, the IRS should just trust me to send in my income tax, without checking for correctness (audits).
I'd get rid of federal personal income tax AND the IRS period. States may have an income tax but not the feds. The federal government can instead tax corporations as well as shrink in size.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Don't forget using the poor peoples food for ethanol instead of feeding them ;-)
Food crops aren't needed to produce ethanol. Instead Switchgrass can b used. Using Switchgrass instead of corn will produce more ethanol than corn will also. Or hemp can be used to make biofuels, it can also be eaten though. Hemp seed oil can be used either for food, there's a salad dressing made with the oil, Hempola, or it can be useds to make diesel fuel. Small farmers can grow either, switchgrass for ethanol production and hemp for food or ethanol. This will create an income for these farmers, so it's not either food or fuel.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Yep, and they could start by downsizing the bloated military, and stopping getting involved in foreign wars of aggression.
I'd shrink the military in some ways, but I'd do more than just that. What I'd do see have a small core of military professionals then a large citizen's army, well military, like in Switzerland. Have almost all heads of household, both male and female, own and keep a rifle in the home and have them practice a few tymes a year as a unit with others. Civilian airline and helicopter pilots can fly military aircraft. And so on.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how we need to start wars in order to keep our economy in good shape; if it is true, then our civilization deserves to collapse.
What many don't consider is that bad economies actually increase the chance of war. Countries start fighting to get what other's have, but with a strong economy and trade nations won't want to upset the applecart.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Sounds good to me. I think Switzerland has the best model for running a nation: make the citizens the defense force, stay neutral in conflicts, and concentrate on having a strong economy and trade.
Yeap, about the only thing I don't like about Switzerland is that it's landlocked. Now if it were Corsica it'd be excellent.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Yep. But at least they have high mountains separating them from outside countries. If they're in danger of a siege, they just have to blow the tunnels and prepare the anti-aircraft guns.
And Corsica also has mountains, as well as the Med surrounding it. However Switzerland hasn't invaded whereas the French invaded and now controls Corsica as part of France. Corsicans are more closely related to Genoans.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The EU imagining that more government interference is going to get them anywhere except the stagnant direction of France and Italy. Do politicians willfully ignore 200 years of economic data or is a better life for EU citizens just not on the agenda? Open markets have been shown, and are shown as the only way for improving everyones lot in the long term, not this intervention and protectionism.
"Food crops aren't needed to produce ethanol."
They are being used though.
"Small farmers can grow either, switchgrass for ethanol production and hemp for food or ethanol. This will create an income for these farmers, so it's not either food or fuel"
For a few seconds perhaps, before they are put out of business by the big producers in the west.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Except that SECAM was developed before PAL... even Wikipedia gets this one right.
follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/moeffju
"Small farmers can grow either, switchgrass for ethanol production and hemp for food or ethanol. This will create an income for these farmers, so it's not either food or fuel"
For a few seconds perhaps, before they are put out of business by the big producers in the west.
Without subsidies big western producers couldn't produce ethanol then ship it for sale to third world countries cheaper than local farmers and producers could. However this wouldn't prevent wealthy landowners there from dominating the industry. And in some cases western companies pay military or paramilitaries groups. For instance Coca Cola has paid paramilitary leaders in Colombia to keep workers from starting unions. Stuff like this though happens because government allows it, and may even encourage it.
FalconShould there be a Law?