The Protect Domestic Employment argument has historically been one
of the strongest arguments for protection. The argument is that if protection
levels were not in place/reduced, the level of unemployment would rise.
But it also argues, in it's strongest form, that increases in protection would
promote higher employment in the U.S.
A few points of qualification are needed:
- There can be no denying that if protection levels were reduced in the U.S.
there would be in the short run an increase in the level of unemployment...there
can be no denying that much of this would be structural unemployment. So in the
short term, the tendency is to increase protection to maintain jobs.
- However, in the long run, no tariffs have the potential to create more
jobs. Protection divers resources into relatively inefficient industries and
away from relatively efficient uses. This misallocation of resources will
reduce the rate of economic growth.
So, continued protection will, in the long run, reduce the rate at which jobs
can be created.
Voting is compulsory in Australia. You have to (to avoid a fine) go to a polling centre, and register your vote. All federal, state and local elections/plebicites/referendums are compulsory.
This makes voter participation rates around 85% to 90%, excluding those who refuse to vote, and those who just make their vote an invalid one.
Once upon a time, techies told us that this was only a passing phase, that their products were just too complicated to have simple on-off switches like a TV. But while the machines grow quicker and fancier, they improve hardly at all in ease of use. The first computer system I was trained in 22 years ago came with two pages of instructions. Yesterday, I was handed a 53-page binder.
What was it...a typewriter?
True.
But courts in other jurisdictions would be following this decision intently.
Example: The Australian High Court's decision that the legal practice of terra nullius was invalid set a precedent that was followed by many other judiciaries.
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds like a lot of coin that will fit in :)
I, for one, welcome our new furry white overlords.
Microsoft has a psychologist?
"Yeah, let's sue Microsoft for not using SCO IP!" -- Darl
Heh. I have no faith in Ellison after the Network Computer.
Obligatory UserFriendly link: here.
The Protect Domestic Employment argument has historically been one of the strongest arguments for protection. The argument is that if protection levels were not in place/reduced, the level of unemployment would rise.
But it also argues, in it's strongest form, that increases in protection would promote higher employment in the U.S.
A few points of qualification are needed:
- There can be no denying that if protection levels were reduced in the U.S. there would be in the short run an increase in the level of unemployment...there can be no denying that much of this would be structural unemployment. So in the short term, the tendency is to increase protection to maintain jobs.
- However, in the long run, no tariffs have the potential to create more jobs. Protection divers resources into relatively inefficient industries and away from relatively efficient uses. This misallocation of resources will reduce the rate of economic growth.
So, continued protection will, in the long run, reduce the rate at which jobs can be created.
Actually, you see a lot of pork barrel legislation.
Most of it's not too bad, it's mainly tax cuts and welfare expenditure.
Voting is compulsory in Australia. You have to (to avoid a fine) go to a polling centre, and register your vote. All federal, state and local elections/plebicites/referendums are compulsory.
This makes voter participation rates around 85% to 90%, excluding those who refuse to vote, and those who just make their vote an invalid one.
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
IN SOVIET RUSSIA - http fetches you!
What, he pulled it out of his ass?
If only people would actually make sense when they posted a /. comment.
It's good to dream, isn't it?
Once upon a time, techies told us that this was only a passing phase, that their products were just too complicated to have simple on-off switches like a TV. But while the machines grow quicker and fancier, they improve hardly at all in ease of use. The first computer system I was trained in 22 years ago came with two pages of instructions. Yesterday, I was handed a 53-page binder. What was it...a typewriter?
Ha ha very funny. Rate my comment overrated! ... Damn you.
It's a hard drive...a hard drive i tell you!!
Obligatory UserFriendly comic.
True. But courts in other jurisdictions would be following this decision intently. Example: The Australian High Court's decision that the legal practice of terra nullius was invalid set a precedent that was followed by many other judiciaries.
The DMCA is a record company! God forbid!
Nyah.
Here's the obligatory funny comic about Larry Ellison: here