But the purpose of school or any EDUCATIONAL facility is to educate...
And the purpose of education is to provide society with more productive individuals
... not to gauge ability for third parties or to prepare one for the workforce.
If the final objective of education is productivity, the evaluation of the result of education should target the final objective: the expected productivity of an individual.
There are some 'pure' degrees that defy this logic, namely philosophy degrees. Most degrees, though, are meant to result in increased productivity of the student when he's out in the workforce. An engineers' degree should prove that an individual can build a long standing bridge, not that he understands the math behind force propagation. He must understand and *apply* the knowledge. Applying knowledge inevitably calls for abilities not formally taught in school benches. Hence, an engineers grade should reflect his ability to design and build stuff.
That falls back to a measure of the intellect of the individual. That will play a role after school but you don't go to school to demonstrate your abilities or use material, you go to learn material.
And herein lies our disagreement. The grade you get in school should reflect your potential once you get out of school into the real world. As an employer, I should be able to rely on a recent graduate's grades to predict the ability to perform. This ability to perform real tasks in the real world calls for a complete evaluation of an individual's intellect. Is it difficult to measure intellect? Yes, very much. Should schools quit trying to do so? Absolutely not.
School grades aren't a contest, with rules providing an equal opportunity environment. They are the evaluation of an individual by the faculty, against the relevant matters he/she will need to perform in the future work environment.
Unfortunately, you could learn the material without being creative, quick thinking, or a good writer. If you are this unfortunate sole you just got a lower grade. Grades are supposed to demonstrate understanding of the course material, not how bright you are.
It's a philosophical question, with no correct answer, but I don't think grades should evaluate the understanding of a course. Grades should evaluate the ability to *use* the material of a course. This is beyond understanding. A student who completely understands a course should get a B. An A-level student is one who grasps the course material so well that he builds on it to produce other conclusions.
If you lack skills needed to compound your understanding of the material, tough luck. A B is not a poor grade...
So it is not about THAT constitutional cornerstone of the country. It is about the fact that stomping religious rights of people is much more important than freedom.
Limiting the effect of religious leaders on society has historically produced good results on overall freedom. Are you asserting that people have more freedom in islamic countries? Do they have the freedom to be anti-islamic? We have satanic groups here. They're non-dangerous, but people are entitled to them in the name of freedom. Don't throw stones when you have glass doors.
Freedom is never absolute. It's always necessary to draw lines and limits on freedom. Western civilizations reached a good compromise. It's not optimal, but it is one of the best.
My point is that all declarations of freedom in France is just handwaving, it means nothing.
Because it affected you and your religion? Boohoo. It affects others too, and you don't see them waving discrimination accusations.
You cannot declare religious freedoms or any freedoms in the morning and restrict those freedoms in the evening.
...
It is a problem only for a fascist atheistic hypocratic state that France is right now.
And there you go again with the decline theory. Again I repeat: The French Revolution happened in the late XVIII century. Over two hundred years ago. This separation between church and state happened then. Mind you, then it was much worse than it is now, because religious orders were persecuted. Now people are free to follow their religion.
That makes you a fascist, Professor.
And thus we hit Godwin's Law. This thread is now closed. I won't answer nor read anymore.
You ran out of arguments and did not concede. I didn't ever expect you to concede. I just hoped that once your apparent anger on the discussion ended, the ideas I've expressed flourished. It takes a leap to see the other person's perspective and I never saw that leap in your texts.
The claims that Muslims are not persecuted in France is absurd. Government is telling Muslims - "amend your religion, your beliefs or out of school".
Once and again, you are taking the message of the government personally, even after I've explained the origin, proven it is older than any person alive and not targeted specifically at Muslims. In simpler terms, the French government is saying: "France is a lay country.". The rest is consequence. Unfortunately for your anger, persecution feelings and generic tendency to blow things up, we are not persecuting Muslims.
I'm talking you hear me but do not listen. Sorry, I quit banging my head against a hard place. Save these texts and re-read them when you gain a bit more perspective into the world. I recommend studying another culture's history. If you resent Europe for some reason, study China history from Confucius (~500BC) to Mao. Observe the effect of religion in their society, their reaction and the result
I am telling you that according to the Qur'an and Sunnah it is obligatory for Muslim women to wear a headscarf all the time they are in the public place (in front of men that are not their husbands, fathers sons or close relatives).
You, being uneducated in Islam (you do not have any credibility in that) cannot claim anything on this matter, and have to admit that this is a fact. Millions of Muslims in France and other countries share this opinion.
You definitely do not understand the result of living in a lay country. Sunday mess is mandatory for catholics. Vote is mandatory for French citizens. Imagine there is an election requiring all-day presence on a sunday. Catholics must forfeit mess and attend the election.
Don't like it? Easy. French is a democracy. Vote for a candidate that supports a religious government. Good luck.
BTW, I am educated in Islam even if not a follower. I've read and studied the Koran. The passage you refer is by no means accepted universally. Not that it makes any difference in the discussion...
No need to concede to me. Study my points and you'll find out I'm right and your opinion is based on the false premise that Muslims are persecuted in France.
I "grasp" that. What you are not "grasping" is the whole subject of the conversation which is not about Muslims, it is about French.
What _I_ do not "grasp" is how can an honest and intelligent person cannot see that this law contradicts the basic principles of French constitution: it discriminates against religious people vs atheists.
And herein lies the root of your misunderstanding. You missed the first phrase of the first article of the constitution:
Article 1er:
La France est une République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale. Elle assure l'égalité devant la loi de tous les citoyens sans distinction d'origine, de race ou de religion. Elle respecte toutes les croyances. Son organisation est décentralisée.
Laïque, which I can only translate to English as lay, means non-affiliated to the church. You disregard that this lay stand in the constitution is strong enough to have made it to the first phrase of the text. In fact, it is so strong that there are countless reflections of the lay stand in individual laws. One of which is the prohibition of religious symbols in schools.
You say it is discrimination, because it's a prohibition affecting religious people and not atheists. It's a nonsensical argument. Atheists aren't affected because the law affects religion and religious symbols, which do not constitute part of an atheists life. It's a bit like saying that prohibition of drinking in the street is discriminatory because it affects alcohol drinkers only. It would be discriminatory if it singled out a group. It does not. It establishes a rule that everyone must follow. And it affects the vast majority of Frenchmen.
You do not get it. Muslims are obliged to use MEANS, not to ACHIEVE goals. Achievement is GRANTED as a gift from the Creator who has created all this world and time and space, who decreed "Be, and it became". And in that aspect we will be still obeying religious laws in the first hand, while superficially obeying the civil laws of France. We are fine with that. It is not without us. Earth is wide, we can leave to other places. We will leave the world in less than 3 sec actually (that is the length of life compared to eternity of Paradise or Hell).
You do understand that this is the same kind of rhetoric used by suicide terrorists who blew themselves up in the WTC. It's frightening to see so much blind faith.
Europe has long reached the enlightenment that blind faith produces blind horror. I won't use present events or Muslim History as it would put you in the defensive. Look at European/Christian history (I'm Christian btw, not atheist). Look at our own History, with witch hunting, torture, holy wars and it's obvious that blind faith produces powerful leaders. If History has taught us something is that power *always* corrupts. Religious leaders are human and corruptible as humans are.
Religion quality is not at stake here. The central tenet of Christianism is "Love others as you love thyself" or, put another way "Do unto others as you would do to yourself". There is no best life objective than that. Well, this same religion produced horror over and over. This only stopped when religion no longer attracted power. After it ceased to be in power, the Vatican became a center of goodwill and peace.
Church and State separation is a good thing. Europe has achieved it, the Muslim culture didn't get there yet. Measures to defend it are needed, may be inconvenient, but are being applied with a reasonable level of good sense. I really do not understand how the Muslim world takes this as a personal attack.
What you don't seem to grasp is that in France, as in all of western Europe, religious law abides to civil law. If there is a contradiction between civil and religious law, people must follow civil law. This is a cultural difference between Europeans and middle-easterns. In France, as in Europe, if religion mandates a scarf and civil law forbids it, people should obey civil law and go bare-headed.
Is it correct? I'm sure you think not, I obviously think it is. I'm not discussing it, as I'm not discussing how high should a decent skirt be. It's a cultural difference. I'm stating, and please agree with me, that current law hierarchy is the result of events over two centuries old. It's the result of European History. It is a cultural marker of Europeans, which was already present generations before the Muslims who generated a ruff about the scarf arrived in France.
As European women respect Muslim decency standards, it is expected that Muslims - as all other religious believers - respect the culture of host countries. It's common sense.
To cap, I'll explain the religious symbol prohibition: It was instated to force the separation between state and church, in times when the church was perceived as having too much power. It's a leftover. I don't think it's needed anymore, but I doesn't do any harm either.
Scarf is not a "religious symbol". It is a religious obligation. Can you tell a difference between "religious obligation" and "religious propaganda"?
It is a symbol. The fact that it is a mandatory symbol is secondary. It is a symbol, and civil law forbids it. No religion supersedes civil law. Case closed.
So you are saying I should be quiet now because every other religious person is discriminated? THAT is twisted.
It is only discrimination if different people are treated differently. That is not the case. No one is being discriminated here. No one is allowed the use of religious symbols.
Christians do not make fuss over it for several reasons: first, it might be that people do not consider it obligatory to wear a cross, second, there aren't so many as deeply believing Christians in France as Muslims anymore.
Christians do not make a fuss over it because of History. It's a direct result of the French revolution. It is no longer mandatory to wear a cross, because Europeans in general have weakened the weight of religious power on the society. Muslims haven't. They can do however they please in their land. They can't, however, criticize the history and costumes of other countries.
I believe Europe is better off without religious power meddling with society. This historic evolution is a positive evolution. Hence, I believe Europe should defend that religious independence. I congratulate the French for doing so openly. There is nothing to criticize in their stand.
We openly receive foreigners, as long as they understand and respect our culture, as much as we (Europeans) understand and respect their culture in their land.
As an exercise, imagine what would happen if a french woman decided it's her right to wear a miniskirt in a Muslim country.
Can you imagine a US public school even in the Bible Belt, that would prohibit a girl from waring a headscarf?
Twisted view... There is nothing against the scarf in particular. The French have long prohibited all religious symbols in schools. It's a good measure. Christian crosses aren't allowed either. It's just that no Christian ever made a fuss about it...
Seriously though, the only thing I hate about England is that since in Scotland we basically get English TV every four years all we hear about is 1966 and how it's going to be England's time again. But thankfully that soon passes after their decidely average football team gets knocked out a few rounds in.
Go, Portugal! Scots probably love us for knocking England's socks off on every important match:-)
DRM was always an inconvenience to Apple. It's fundamentally a restriction and it can only decrease the user experience. The fact that they find DRM distasteful is why they're far and away the best at selling it. With Apple it's always been about as little restrictions as they can get away with.
I agree with most of the post, but this last paragraph has two blatant errors:
DRM was always an inconvenience to Apple. False. DRM was very convenient as a lock-in for ipod bootstrapping. Now, the feel good capital of ditching DRM provides a better proposition
With Apple it's always been about as little restrictions as they can get away Oh, so false. Apple locks its OS to its hardware. And don't whine about driver compatibility because they could do as IBM did in the 80s, and release a platform specification, allowing white label Macs. They never allowed white label Macs and actively fight the existence of such a market. If Apple were in IBM's shoes in the 80s the PC revolution would have never happened
Stop whining. It's not just American corporations. It's that European corporations don't make slashdot headlines when fined by the EC. It's actually quite common, and the EC does fine even the largest corporations around here. I recall at least Siemens and Vodafone being in the EC's line of fire.
The record companies are the ones who really should change their priorities. And the EU should be hassling them. If Apple shuts down iTMS Europe, then the EU is just going to end up stuck with the same problems with whatever store tries to take its place.
And what better way to pressure labels? Add declining CD sales to the EC ban on regional price enforcement for online sales, and you'll observe that the labels won't let iTMS 'pack up and go'. They'll concede.
I don't know about an online store, but national US chains do charge different prices in different states. Products tend to be cheaper in lower income regions of the US. It doesn't really make sense to hold prices constant while allowing average income to differ.
The question is not about regional pricing. That's ok by EU law. The question is about enforcing the pricing by forbidding customers from shopping in other countries.
Offtopic, but I must answer. The EU shouldn't be doing squat about those Brits. The EU was opposed to the Iraq war, and the Brits went there anyhow and digged their own hole. Why should French or German or Swedish soldiers risk their neck saving dimwits? Let the Brits do the phone call to Bush now...
Apple doesn't, but most retail stores already do. The cost of living in Iowa is much different than the cost of living in the Bay Area, California. I'd expect that goods and services would be cheaper in Iowa, possibly even half the price... it makes perfect economic sense. The EU viewpoint doesn't make any sense... it punishes poor areas by raising their prices and subsidizes prices for rich urban areas.
You're getting it wrong. There's no penalty for regional pricing. That's common practice over here too. The penalty is for enforcing regional pricing. There can be no import/export barriers within the EU. I, in Portugal, must be allowed to purchase anything from a German online (or offline) store. There are exceptions, naturally (sadly I can't order pot from Amsterdam;)
>7p>
I think Apple should be able to charge whatever the hell they want in whatever locale they want. Just giving a little analogy without telling me what you're arguing against isn't going to convince me otherwise. And the EU's constant harassment of American companies is getting downright ridiculous. If European companies can't compete on their own merits, they shouldn't be using the EU as their instrument to "get revenge" or whatever the hell's going on here.
It's only harassment of American companies because the EC is already done with the European ones. Siemens, most of the utilities, Vodafone and a huge slew of others were already fined by the commission. It's that now the concept of a unified market is assimilated and almost no EU company breaks the rules. Now the same treatment is being applied to foreigners.
Actually, if the EC can be accused of anything, it's of being lenient against foreign companies for over a decade. I'm glad it's stopping.
I honestly don't think it should be but that's just me. I think Apple had the option to work this one of two ways and now the government is making that decision for them.
You must be very very young my dear. Having lived a bit longer and experienced the alternative, where national governments and companies fixed import taxes and regional prices the way they wanted, I can assure you: If companies have their go, consumers get raped all the way to the bank.
Given the track records of the players in question, I doubt that an investigation will find that Apple were the ones who went to the negotiating table saying, "hey, let's waste a lot of resources and piss off a lot of customers by making a patchwork of regional stores, offering different inventories at different prices in each one, and making people in one region wait six months longer to get access to their store than their neighbors 50 kilometers away!"
Apple can try to defend itself using other tactics, but invoking the contract with the labels won't stick for sure. The EC regards only how the product is presented to the consumer, it does not deal with how the company came to get hold of it. From the EC point of view, Apple is enforcing regional discriminatory pricing for goods, which is something strictly forbidden by the Rome Treaty.
They can use discriminatory pricing, but they can't forbid me, a Portuguese, from purchasing a song from the German iTMS. Not that I could do that, they speak gibberish out there;-)
We have differing points of view, to a point where I can't sway your opinion. I'll just close reinforcing my position. I do believe I am right.
Point by point:
1) Japan was an economic miracle because it grew at two digit rates for decades. China is doing the same. India has some social bumps to solve, but has the potential for the same rates. Naturally, the conditions are different -- no keiretsu, a communist past among many others -- but the end result is solid. High rate sustainable growth. The miracle label will be stamped afterwards.
2) Disparity between classes was very high in pre-industrial japan. By the end of WWII japan was almost feudal, with very large agricultural classes. Except in hindsight, it was worse than China and India are nowadays. The emperor ruled with supposed divine powers!!
3) Not 40 years. Japan took 20 years to reach western living standards. By the early 70s they had a solid industry and economy, by the end of the 70s they surprised the US with unprecedented levels of industrial efficiency, directly affecting at least the automotive industry. Look at Chinese products, and you'll recognize the same telltale signs: Cheap, low quality products, high efficiency. They will travel up the road of quality now, as it's the natural evolution to higher market penetration. And they are doing so with western capital, much as Japan did.
Japan did crash in the 90s, in no small part due to problems relating to rapid growth, but this does not affect my line of reasoning.
4) This is a US-centric view. You seem to miss the difference in scale between US and eastern economies. There's no way the US and Europe can maintain power over an economy as large as China/India, once it grows. Take a look at this presentation for a reality check: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHWTLA8WecI
I think it's a bit naive to think that it has approached its peak; the macroeconomic benefits are too great, particularly for large organizations.
It's a direct observation of the environment around me. There's no statistical foundation to my claim, and I may be skewed by the fact that European companies are more resistant to offshoring. Further, experiences obviously vary according to the remote partner quality.
However, since you referred macroeconomic benefits, you've touched a chord and I have to answer. One of the reasons I believe outsourcing is past its peak is a macroeconomic effect. India and China are replaying the growth that Japan had after the second world war. The advantage of studying History is that we already know how this will play out. In the next ten years, you will observe:
India and China will approach western living standards, and hence western wages. GDP yearly growths in the two digits for a couple of decades tend to have that effect.
More important, India and China will rise in the chain of value, with their own brands, their own companies, and move away from selling raw labour
Their rise will cause extreme ambiental and economic pressure, namely in energy source scarcity, but that is another subject entirely. It's the only major difference between the rise of Japan and this new rise of the east.
Slashdot Mirror
And the purpose of education is to provide society with more productive individuals
If the final objective of education is productivity, the evaluation of the result of education should target the final objective: the expected productivity of an individual.
There are some 'pure' degrees that defy this logic, namely philosophy degrees. Most degrees, though, are meant to result in increased productivity of the student when he's out in the workforce. An engineers' degree should prove that an individual can build a long standing bridge, not that he understands the math behind force propagation. He must understand and *apply* the knowledge. Applying knowledge inevitably calls for abilities not formally taught in school benches. Hence, an engineers grade should reflect his ability to design and build stuff.
And herein lies our disagreement. The grade you get in school should reflect your potential once you get out of school into the real world. As an employer, I should be able to rely on a recent graduate's grades to predict the ability to perform. This ability to perform real tasks in the real world calls for a complete evaluation of an individual's intellect. Is it difficult to measure intellect? Yes, very much. Should schools quit trying to do so? Absolutely not.
School grades aren't a contest, with rules providing an equal opportunity environment. They are the evaluation of an individual by the faculty, against the relevant matters he/she will need to perform in the future work environment.
Bah, it's so easy...
It's a philosophical question, with no correct answer, but I don't think grades should evaluate the understanding of a course. Grades should evaluate the ability to *use* the material of a course. This is beyond understanding. A student who completely understands a course should get a B. An A-level student is one who grasps the course material so well that he builds on it to produce other conclusions.
If you lack skills needed to compound your understanding of the material, tough luck. A B is not a poor grade...
Limiting the effect of religious leaders on society has historically produced good results on overall freedom. Are you asserting that people have more freedom in islamic countries? Do they have the freedom to be anti-islamic? We have satanic groups here. They're non-dangerous, but people are entitled to them in the name of freedom. Don't throw stones when you have glass doors.
Freedom is never absolute. It's always necessary to draw lines and limits on freedom. Western civilizations reached a good compromise. It's not optimal, but it is one of the best.
Because it affected you and your religion? Boohoo. It affects others too, and you don't see them waving discrimination accusations.
And there you go again with the decline theory. Again I repeat: The French Revolution happened in the late XVIII century. Over two hundred years ago. This separation between church and state happened then. Mind you, then it was much worse than it is now, because religious orders were persecuted. Now people are free to follow their religion.
And thus we hit Godwin's Law. This thread is now closed. I won't answer nor read anymore.
Once and again, you are taking the message of the government personally, even after I've explained the origin, proven it is older than any person alive and not targeted specifically at Muslims. In simpler terms, the French government is saying: "France is a lay country.". The rest is consequence. Unfortunately for your anger, persecution feelings and generic tendency to blow things up, we are not persecuting Muslims.
I'm talking you hear me but do not listen. Sorry, I quit banging my head against a hard place. Save these texts and re-read them when you gain a bit more perspective into the world. I recommend studying another culture's history. If you resent Europe for some reason, study China history from Confucius (~500BC) to Mao. Observe the effect of religion in their society, their reaction and the result
You definitely do not understand the result of living in a lay country. Sunday mess is mandatory for catholics. Vote is mandatory for French citizens. Imagine there is an election requiring all-day presence on a sunday. Catholics must forfeit mess and attend the election.
Don't like it? Easy. French is a democracy. Vote for a candidate that supports a religious government. Good luck.
BTW, I am educated in Islam even if not a follower. I've read and studied the Koran. The passage you refer is by no means accepted universally. Not that it makes any difference in the discussion...
No need to concede to me. Study my points and you'll find out I'm right and your opinion is based on the false premise that Muslims are persecuted in France.
And herein lies the root of your misunderstanding. You missed the first phrase of the first article of the constitution:
Laïque, which I can only translate to English as lay, means non-affiliated to the church. You disregard that this lay stand in the constitution is strong enough to have made it to the first phrase of the text. In fact, it is so strong that there are countless reflections of the lay stand in individual laws. One of which is the prohibition of religious symbols in schools.
You say it is discrimination, because it's a prohibition affecting religious people and not atheists. It's a nonsensical argument. Atheists aren't affected because the law affects religion and religious symbols, which do not constitute part of an atheists life. It's a bit like saying that prohibition of drinking in the street is discriminatory because it affects alcohol drinkers only. It would be discriminatory if it singled out a group. It does not. It establishes a rule that everyone must follow. And it affects the vast majority of Frenchmen.
You do understand that this is the same kind of rhetoric used by suicide terrorists who blew themselves up in the WTC. It's frightening to see so much blind faith.
Europe has long reached the enlightenment that blind faith produces blind horror. I won't use present events or Muslim History as it would put you in the defensive. Look at European/Christian history (I'm Christian btw, not atheist). Look at our own History, with witch hunting, torture, holy wars and it's obvious that blind faith produces powerful leaders. If History has taught us something is that power *always* corrupts. Religious leaders are human and corruptible as humans are.
Religion quality is not at stake here. The central tenet of Christianism is "Love others as you love thyself" or, put another way "Do unto others as you would do to yourself". There is no best life objective than that. Well, this same religion produced horror over and over. This only stopped when religion no longer attracted power. After it ceased to be in power, the Vatican became a center of goodwill and peace.
Church and State separation is a good thing. Europe has achieved it, the Muslim culture didn't get there yet. Measures to defend it are needed, may be inconvenient, but are being applied with a reasonable level of good sense. I really do not understand how the Muslim world takes this as a personal attack.
What you don't seem to grasp is that in France, as in all of western Europe, religious law abides to civil law. If there is a contradiction between civil and religious law, people must follow civil law. This is a cultural difference between Europeans and middle-easterns. In France, as in Europe, if religion mandates a scarf and civil law forbids it, people should obey civil law and go bare-headed.
Is it correct? I'm sure you think not, I obviously think it is. I'm not discussing it, as I'm not discussing how high should a decent skirt be. It's a cultural difference. I'm stating, and please agree with me, that current law hierarchy is the result of events over two centuries old. It's the result of European History. It is a cultural marker of Europeans, which was already present generations before the Muslims who generated a ruff about the scarf arrived in France.
As European women respect Muslim decency standards, it is expected that Muslims - as all other religious believers - respect the culture of host countries. It's common sense.
To cap, I'll explain the religious symbol prohibition: It was instated to force the separation between state and church, in times when the church was perceived as having too much power. It's a leftover. I don't think it's needed anymore, but I doesn't do any harm either.
Christians do not make a fuss over it because of History. It's a direct result of the French revolution. It is no longer mandatory to wear a cross, because Europeans in general have weakened the weight of religious power on the society. Muslims haven't. They can do however they please in their land. They can't, however, criticize the history and costumes of other countries.
I believe Europe is better off without religious power meddling with society. This historic evolution is a positive evolution. Hence, I believe Europe should defend that religious independence. I congratulate the French for doing so openly. There is nothing to criticize in their stand.
We openly receive foreigners, as long as they understand and respect our culture, as much as we (Europeans) understand and respect their culture in their land.
As an exercise, imagine what would happen if a french woman decided it's her right to wear a miniskirt in a Muslim country.
If they're smart, they'll just leave at the ITER door. That's a big IF...
Offtopic, but I must answer. The EU shouldn't be doing squat about those Brits. The EU was opposed to the Iraq war, and the Brits went there anyhow and digged their own hole. Why should French or German or Swedish soldiers risk their neck saving dimwits? Let the Brits do the phone call to Bush now...
You're getting it wrong. There's no penalty for regional pricing. That's common practice over here too. The penalty is for enforcing regional pricing. There can be no import/export barriers within the EU. I, in Portugal, must be allowed to purchase anything from a German online (or offline) store. There are exceptions, naturally (sadly I can't order pot from Amsterdam ;)
>7p>
It's only harassment of American companies because the EC is already done with the European ones. Siemens, most of the utilities, Vodafone and a huge slew of others were already fined by the commission. It's that now the concept of a unified market is assimilated and almost no EU company breaks the rules. Now the same treatment is being applied to foreigners.
Actually, if the EC can be accused of anything, it's of being lenient against foreign companies for over a decade. I'm glad it's stopping.
You must be very very young my dear. Having lived a bit longer and experienced the alternative, where national governments and companies fixed import taxes and regional prices the way they wanted, I can assure you: If companies have their go, consumers get raped all the way to the bank.
Apple can try to defend itself using other tactics, but invoking the contract with the labels won't stick for sure. The EC regards only how the product is presented to the consumer, it does not deal with how the company came to get hold of it. From the EC point of view, Apple is enforcing regional discriminatory pricing for goods, which is something strictly forbidden by the Rome Treaty.
They can use discriminatory pricing, but they can't forbid me, a Portuguese, from purchasing a song from the German iTMS. Not that I could do that, they speak gibberish out there ;-)
We have differing points of view, to a point where I can't sway your opinion. I'll just close reinforcing my position. I do believe I am right.
Point by point:
1) Japan was an economic miracle because it grew at two digit rates for decades. China is doing the same. India has some social bumps to solve, but has the potential for the same rates. Naturally, the conditions are different -- no keiretsu, a communist past among many others -- but the end result is solid. High rate sustainable growth. The miracle label will be stamped afterwards.
2) Disparity between classes was very high in pre-industrial japan. By the end of WWII japan was almost feudal, with very large agricultural classes. Except in hindsight, it was worse than China and India are nowadays. The emperor ruled with supposed divine powers!!
3) Not 40 years. Japan took 20 years to reach western living standards. By the early 70s they had a solid industry and economy, by the end of the 70s they surprised the US with unprecedented levels of industrial efficiency, directly affecting at least the automotive industry. Look at Chinese products, and you'll recognize the same telltale signs: Cheap, low quality products, high efficiency. They will travel up the road of quality now, as it's the natural evolution to higher market penetration. And they are doing so with western capital, much as Japan did.
Japan did crash in the 90s, in no small part due to problems relating to rapid growth, but this does not affect my line of reasoning.
4) This is a US-centric view. You seem to miss the difference in scale between US and eastern economies. There's no way the US and Europe can maintain power over an economy as large as China/India, once it grows. Take a look at this presentation for a reality check: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHWTLA8WecI
It's a direct observation of the environment around me. There's no statistical foundation to my claim, and I may be skewed by the fact that European companies are more resistant to offshoring. Further, experiences obviously vary according to the remote partner quality.
However, since you referred macroeconomic benefits, you've touched a chord and I have to answer. One of the reasons I believe outsourcing is past its peak is a macroeconomic effect. India and China are replaying the growth that Japan had after the second world war. The advantage of studying History is that we already know how this will play out. In the next ten years, you will observe:
- India and China will approach western living standards, and hence western wages. GDP yearly growths in the two digits for a couple of decades tend to have that effect.
- More important, India and China will rise in the chain of value, with their own brands, their own companies, and move away from selling raw labour
Their rise will cause extreme ambiental and economic pressure, namely in energy source scarcity, but that is another subject entirely. It's the only major difference between the rise of Japan and this new rise of the east.