1. The U.S. and the the E.U. dish out humongous subsidies to their farming sector. 2. Pressure groups can get "punitive" tariffs imposed easily - witness the recent steel fiasco. 3. The mere fact that the US feels the need to set up individual free trade agreements with specific countries shows that their market is NOT free to other countries. I rest my case.
I'm not bashing the US; the EU is just as bad, if not worse. The said thing is, though, that while protectionism may benefit a small subsection of the business world, it hurts the economy as a whole. And nobody seems to understand that simply opening your economy up will benefit you, even if other countries don't reciprocate.
> However, if all of the first-world countries come together to enforce fair trade rules, then it wouldn't matter. Actually, it's largely the first world countries that are responsible for unfair trade, not the third world countries. They are the ones that are suffering more as a result of it.
Made up example: If the Windward Isles - impose a 100% tariff on US cars, that will cut US car output by three cars per year;) On the other hand, if the US or EU impose a tariff on Sugar Cane / subsidises its sugar producers, that effectivley ruins the Windward Isles' economy. Full stop.
Of course, proetectionism actually hurts everyone, apart from a few special interest groups. But we'll discuss that another time.
Complain to the director, producer, famous actors. If enough people write to the people with influence, explaining that they bought the DVD, tried to play it, and gave up in disgust to return it to get their money back, they will listen.
But heck, you have no god given right to watch a movie, even if you like it. It's a commercial transaction; if you don't like the terms, you don't have to go ahead with it. You can, however, negotiate, or at least put pressure on the producer.
You laugh, but under the UK Data Protection Act an organisation that stores personal data on you must tell you what it is so you can check it. So in theory, you could use that to get your data back....
Yes, in the UK, under the RIP act, you can be sentenced to moderate jail time for not giving up your key. This is supposed to stop terrorists, child molesters and drug smugglers from using encryption.
Of course, any drug-smuggling terrorists with a penchant for child-molesting will immediately surrender the keys to incriminating information. Why would he take up to three years vacation at her Majesty's pleasure for encryption, when he could easily get 18-25 or even life for his real offences?
It's because of well thought out, useful laws like this that crime is virtually unheard of on our sunny islands! Thank you New Labour!
> It is bizzare to believe that on a day-to-day basis, an individual student learns less MATH in the United States simply because the USA is a large country. What do you expect? He probably learned math in the U.S.;)
> The US is HUGELY egalitarian. In most countries if you don't try, or fail they tosss you out of school, in the US, they let you stay and hold back everyone else.
I'd take the opposite conclusion: in most European countries, the state pays (largely) for University education, so if you are from a poor family it's much easier to go to University than in the U.S. Hence the U.S. would count as less egalitarian in my book.
No, no, no, there are lots of winners: The casino, the casino, and the casino.
Face it, anyone who gambles in a casino "to win" is a mug. Although the odds are a bit better than lottery, so are the stakes.
Two exceptions: Poker, where you're trying to find bigger mugs than yourself, and blackjack, where you can theoretically get an edge on the house. In practice, it's difficult, tedious, and a career that will be terminated as soon as you get successful.
I'm sure someone's throwing stones, bottles and molotov cocktails at YOU you won't protect yourself.
I've been on the receiving end of watercanons before, so while I wouldn't claim that the police are angels, it's usually a small bunch of idiots on the demonstrator's side that cause the problems.
>The corps only have as much influence as the local governments allow them. And, of course, the customers. Don't like what shell / nestle / smithkline are doing? Don't buy their products, and organise a boycott - heck, it works. Corporations do not exist as evil tools of world domination, even if it sometimes looks that way. They exist to make money for their shareholders, and they depend on customers to do that.
>In the past, many governments have "nationalized" industries to deal with that and other problems. And, AFAIK, nationalisation has always and everywhere been an abject failure. I hope there is a counterexample, but I haven't found one yet.
> Cash now flows faster and easier than workers do....In order to equalize it, you can remove restrictions on people moving and living where they want to or slow down the transfer of cash.
Slow down the movement of money? Not in the real world. Have a look at the transaction volume of the FX market; any country that seriously impeded that would simply be routed around, to use that famous internet metaphor, and wither.
I'd be all for removing restrictions on the movement of people, though. "Economic Migrant" is such a nasty term these days; people forget that e.g. the U.S. was mainly populated by these nasty economic migrants that we want to shut out so badly.
Globalisation is about free trade, which actually benefits the 3rd world countries tremendously. Generally much more so if they are democratic, but that is a separate issue.
One of the things that's really keeping the 3rd world down is the subsidy culture of the EU and the US. There's simply no way a 3rd world farmer can compete with, e.g., subsidised European sugar on the world market.
If you're lobbying for workers' rights in the 3rd world, and right to union representation, I'm right behind you.
But the parent poster only wanted to protect the jobs in his backyard: >That's not a good idea if you want to maintain the standard of living of your population. and I object to that hypocrisy.
Silly me, there was me thinking that WWII was about Germany and Japan aggressive empirebuilding, not to mention pursuing their racist policies.
Time to rewrite those history books.
As for >The people of India don't want you there, and they don't want to be part of your global vision. The same is true for practically every other non-European country in the eastern hemisphere.
Funny, it always seems to me that most people want a western livestyle, a nice house, tv, fridge, car, internet access, and lots of money wherever I've travelled. Including India. Preserving local customs comes way behind clean water,
>The difference is that we used to IMPORT the raw materials from other countries and MANUFACTURE the finished goods here.
>Now, we setup factories in 3rd world countries and have them import the raw materials and then we import the finished goods.
>That's not a good idea if you want to maintain the standard of living of your population.
So now those poor people in foreign countries can actually have some qualified jobs in manufacturing, rather than just mining and farming like they were previously forced to? And why is that a bad thing?
It's even better - you can have friends all over the world. Which is very nice indeed.
Of course, it's not for everyone - I also have friends that have never really left the small town we grew up in; if that's what they want to do, let them do it. Personally I prefer to travel, and would love to work in yet another country for a couple of years.
As for having kids, that would actually be one good reason for moving abroad: We'd be able to afford a full-time nanny. It only potentially becomes a problem once they get to school age, and even then there are plenty of good international schools these days. Although from what I hear a good Indian school is probably better than most European or American schools these days;(
Slashdot Mirror
>Where's your proof?
1. The U.S. and the the E.U. dish out humongous subsidies to their farming sector.
2. Pressure groups can get "punitive" tariffs imposed easily - witness the recent steel fiasco.
3. The mere fact that the US feels the need to set up individual free trade agreements with specific countries shows that their market is NOT free to other countries. I rest my case.
I'm not bashing the US; the EU is just as bad, if not worse. The said thing is, though, that while protectionism may benefit a small subsection of the business world, it hurts the economy as a whole. And nobody seems to understand that simply opening your economy up will benefit you, even if other countries don't reciprocate.
> However, if all of the first-world countries come together to enforce fair trade rules, then it wouldn't matter.
;) On the other hand, if the US or EU impose a tariff on Sugar Cane / subsidises its sugar producers, that effectivley ruins the Windward Isles' economy. Full stop.
Actually, it's largely the first world countries that are responsible for unfair trade, not the third world countries. They are the ones that are suffering more as a result of it.
Made up example: If the Windward Isles - impose a 100% tariff on US cars, that will cut US car output by three cars per year
Of course, proetectionism actually hurts everyone, apart from a few special interest groups. But we'll discuss that another time.
I hope you've returned them for a refund, and written to the band to complain!
Complain to the director, producer, famous actors. If enough people write to the people with influence, explaining that they bought the DVD, tried to play it, and gave up in disgust to return it to get their money back, they will listen.
But heck, you have no god given right to watch a movie, even if you like it. It's a commercial transaction; if you don't like the terms, you don't have to go ahead with it. You can, however, negotiate, or at least put pressure on the producer.
Of course you can work as a techie in the financial industry - and it seems to pay better than techie jobs elsewhere.
You laugh, but under the UK Data Protection Act an organisation that stores personal data on you must tell you what it is so you can check it. So in theory, you could use that to get your data back....
Yes, in the UK, under the RIP act, you can be sentenced to moderate jail time for not giving up your key. This is supposed to stop terrorists, child molesters and drug smugglers from using encryption.
Of course, any drug-smuggling terrorists with a penchant for child-molesting will immediately surrender the keys to incriminating information. Why would he take up to three years vacation at her Majesty's pleasure for encryption, when he could easily get 18-25 or even life for his real offences?
It's because of well thought out, useful laws like this that crime is virtually unheard of on our sunny islands! Thank you New Labour!
I think you've got that the wrong way round. Cold surfaces, warm air => condensation.
> ;)
It is bizzare to believe that on a day-to-day basis, an individual student learns less MATH in the United States simply because the USA is a large country.
What do you expect? He probably learned math in the U.S.
> The US is HUGELY egalitarian. In most countries if you don't try, or fail they tosss you out of school, in the US, they let you stay and hold back everyone else.
I'd take the opposite conclusion: in most European countries, the state pays (largely) for University education, so if you are from a poor family it's much easier to go to University than in the U.S. Hence the U.S. would count as less egalitarian in my book.
Only because there's no competition, dude.
So Grammer is a synonym for Miller?
No, no, no, there are lots of winners: The casino, the casino, and the casino.
Face it, anyone who gambles in a casino "to win" is a mug. Although the odds are a bit better than lottery, so are the stakes.
Two exceptions: Poker, where you're trying to find bigger mugs than yourself, and blackjack, where you can theoretically get an edge on the house. In practice, it's difficult, tedious, and a career that will be terminated as soon as you get successful.
What's changed (in Europe at least) that it used to be three to four channels of crap; now it's 85 channels of it.
I refuse to use any language that would take that as code rather than noise.
I'm sure someone's throwing stones, bottles and molotov cocktails at YOU you won't protect yourself.
I've been on the receiving end of watercanons before, so while I wouldn't claim that the police are angels, it's usually a small bunch of idiots on the demonstrator's side that cause the problems.
>The corps only have as much influence as the local governments allow them.
And, of course, the customers. Don't like what shell / nestle / smithkline are doing? Don't buy their products, and organise a boycott - heck, it works.
Corporations do not exist as evil tools of world domination, even if it sometimes looks that way. They exist to make money for their shareholders, and they depend on customers to do that.
>In the past, many governments have "nationalized" industries to deal with that and other problems.
And, AFAIK, nationalisation has always and everywhere been an abject failure. I hope there is a counterexample, but I haven't found one yet.
> Cash now flows faster and easier than workers do....In order to equalize it, you can remove restrictions on people moving and living where they want to or slow down the transfer of cash.
Slow down the movement of money? Not in the real world. Have a look at the transaction volume of the FX market; any country that seriously impeded that would simply be routed around, to use that famous internet metaphor, and wither.
I'd be all for removing restrictions on the movement of people, though. "Economic Migrant" is such a nasty term these days; people forget that e.g. the U.S. was mainly populated by these nasty economic migrants that we want to shut out so badly.
Globalisation is about free trade, which actually benefits the 3rd world countries tremendously. Generally much more so if they are democratic, but that is a separate issue.
One of the things that's really keeping the 3rd world down is the subsidy culture of the EU and the US. There's simply no way a 3rd world farmer can compete with, e.g., subsidised European sugar on the world market.
If you're lobbying for workers' rights in the 3rd world, and right to union representation, I'm right behind you.
:
But the parent poster only wanted to protect the jobs in his backyard
>That's not a good idea if you want to maintain the standard of living of your population.
and I object to that hypocrisy.
Silly me, there was me thinking that WWII was about Germany and Japan aggressive empirebuilding, not to mention pursuing their racist policies.
Time to rewrite those history books.
As for
>The people of India don't want you there, and they don't want to be part of your global vision. The same is true for practically every other non-European country in the eastern hemisphere.
Funny, it always seems to me that most people want a western livestyle, a nice house, tv, fridge, car, internet access, and lots of money wherever I've travelled. Including India. Preserving local customs comes way behind clean water,
Dude - if DVD region coding (which sucks, agreed) and power adaptors are your main problem, you have it wayto easy ;)
BTW: get a laptop. You know, little computers that fold up. Much more convenient that lugging that CRT on the plane.
>The difference is that we used to IMPORT the raw materials from other countries and MANUFACTURE the finished goods here.
>Now, we setup factories in 3rd world countries and have them import the raw materials and then we import the finished goods.
>That's not a good idea if you want to maintain the standard of living of your population.
So now those poor people in foreign countries can actually have some qualified jobs in manufacturing, rather than just mining and farming like they were previously forced to? And why is that a bad thing?
Yes, I would feel very happy employing someone at the local going rate, or perhaps a bit higher if I felt it was warranted. How is that exploitation?
It's even better - you can have friends all over the world. Which is very nice indeed.
;(
Of course, it's not for everyone - I also have friends that have never really left the small town we grew up in; if that's what they want to do, let them do it. Personally I prefer to travel, and would love to work in yet another country for a couple of years.
As for having kids, that would actually be one good reason for moving abroad: We'd be able to afford a full-time nanny. It only potentially becomes a problem once they get to school age, and even then there are plenty of good international schools these days. Although from what I hear a good Indian school is probably better than most European or American schools these days
So you lost the library's books and refused to pay the replacement cost, and you're surprised they don't trust you to give you more books?
Grow up. Pay the fine.