In that case, the NAFTA bloc is larger than the EU, and in raw dollar terms, OPEC is probably larger than anyone.
"in raw doller terms" is a number slinking by the day so in that case it's only a question of time.:)
More seriously: NAFTA and OPEC don't negtiate as a bloc. THe EU does. The US doesn't have trade agreements with Germany, Italy etc. It has an agreement with the EU. Vice versa: Chili doesn't have a shiny new Free Trade agreement with NAFTA, it has one with the US.
While that's the theory that is taught in some PolSci classes the reality is (as always) a lot more muddled. There's the abuses of the commerce clause (Really? The federal government can decide on the legality of pot based of commerce?) there's the declaring war issue: almost every single war the US has fought since WO II wasn't authorized by congress. Even though the constitution is very explicit in who gets to decide to go to war. And that's not even beginning to address the abuses that have been committed by the most recent Bush administration (which I give a very low probability of being decisively rejected).
The EU/member state rules on the other hand are generally a) vague to begin with and b) when a compromise is found, the rules are usually changed officially shortly thereafter. Plus the combination of a semi supranational government with 27 different local constitutions makes for a vague rule set any day of the week.
The US is most certainly the largest economy in the world, still. Unless you count the whole of the EU as one economic unit, which I'll buy when the EU has one seat at the UN, one vote in the security council, etc...
What does having one seat at the UN etc. got to do with economic policy? The EU negotiates as one block with the outside world where economic treaties etc. are concerned. *That* is what makes it count as a single economic unit.
However, the problem is China and its vast natural resources. Japan, unfortunately doesn't have the natural resources to do this cheaply for very long. As China (and I suppose Korea) get their furnaces running, the customers will start looking to cheaper pastures.
I don't quite get how China's natural resources are important. There's a world market so resources cost the same for China as they do for Japan. The only thing cheaper in China is the workforce and a projecxt like this can't be made by throwing more, but cheaper employees at it.
Any new venture has to avoid getting unions, and it might just work.
ie: Consider Toyota vs GM/Ford/etc. The US isn't a bad place for manufacturing; it's only bad when you have obstacles.
The main problem for GM/Ford/Chrysler isn't the unions. It's the pension system, the healthcare system but most importantly the management which made bad choice aimed only at the short term for years.
It would depend on whether traveling through time would mean conservation of momentum. THough even if it did, there would still be little issues like the earth revolving around the sun (and the sun around the center of the milkey way).
I guess we should develop space folding before time?
No, if prices in software where transparant (and MS wasn't abusing it's monopoly) a version of Windows 2000/XP with WMP would be more expensive. The money they've spent on developing it has to come from somewhere. When car makers started introducing ABS or Airbags they didn't just throw them in for free to "improve the customer experience".
To be fair: from Apple' s point of view that's a bug, not a feature (good thing too since it's a very crapy feature, having to burn, rerip and encode instead of just being playable everywhere).
You don't just have rights in relation to the government. Rights also are related to other individuals. Actually, the whole point of having a government is that they can enforce your rights vis-a-vis others (so your neigbour doesn't jsut clb you ovewr the head if he wants your car/laptop/wife). For example Microsoft needs the EU to enforce their copyrights on European buisinesses.
I don't think it's a ongoing fine. From reading TFA and a few others the situation seems te be that Microsoft is being fined for dragging their feet on the implementation of the judgement (and for not following the spirit of the requirement at all by demanding redicilous payments and royalty fees).
I'd guess that they're also being fined to teach them a lesson not to do it again if the new invenstigations result in anything.
It is basis of capitalism, so we have to live with that. If you don't, try other system and see how savage actually people are.
erm... speculation, hell even a stock market in general is by no means a necessity for a functioning (even laissez fair) capitalistic market. a well oiled stock market had some significant advantages (liquidity, possibility for relatively small scale, spread out investments) but it also had a slew of drawbacks. It's perfectly possible to imagine a system that's very much capitalistic, but doesn't allow for quick speculation.
So Ford workers should just start their own company if they feel they're worth more than they are paid? No, when the contract is up their union renegotiates. If they disagree there's a strike. Why should this be different.
Beyond that writers aren't as interchangeable as ford workers and they don't "make" each product. They write once and the product is reproduced.
I'd be much more impressed with EU anti-trust efforts if they weren't pretty much aimed at non-EU companies. They're mostly a trade barrier rather than a legitimate regulatory body.
Fines are a percentage of earnings. Capped at 5%. That's actually quite a high percentage for a normal company (it's something like half the ROI for a well run company). Problem is that due to MS's de facto monopoly they make ridiculous amounts of money. A profit margin of more than 15% for several years should really be proof enough of monopolistic practices.
There are a slew of things legal in the US, but not in the EU -- and vice versa. There needs to be a uniform way to handle these things, just as aircraft certification is harmonized.
There tends to be little difference in things that are legal or illegal. At most the boudries are different. There's no need for a rigid, uniform system. COmpanies just have to abied by the rules in each market.
The writers aren't working for hire. They recieve money for (re)broadcasts en (a small amount) for DVD's. But no money for internet/digital sales. Which is the biggest reason dfor the strike.
Also I can't quite understand all these people who apparently feel that all the money from succesful series en movies should only go to non creative types.
Most holocaust denier laws don't actually outlaw claiming it didn't exist, but inciting hatred ore something of the kind. The point being that you don't go around claiming something that ridiculous without saying that the Jews were up to something. That doesn't make those laws ideal, but it makes the distinction clearer.
This "branch of Islam" is called Ahli-Sunnah and it is comprised of all Sunnis with at least a shred of knowledge of their religion.
Which apparently is only a tiny fraction, since it wasn't practices for quite a few centuries.
Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim relate that a man came to Ibn Abbas (Allah be well pleased with him and his father) and said, "My livelihood comes solely from my hands, and I make these pictures. Can you give me a legal opinion about them" Ibn Abbas told him, "Come closer,' and the man did. "Closer," he said, and the man did, until he put his hand on the man's head and said: "Shall I tell you what I heard from the Messenger of Allah, Prophet Muhammed (Allah bless him and give him peace) I heard the Messenger of Allah say, "Every maker of pictures will go to the fire, where a being will be set upon him to torment him in hell for each picture he made. So if you must, draw tress and things without animate life in them."
I seriously never understood how, in a religion where the prophet is very explicitly the last and only direct link to god, most laws were made by people who claim to know what he said.
Beyond that if I read this correctly wouldn't that mean you couldn't depict anything besides mountains, sea and rocks? Which in turn would mean extremely few people have followed this rule. Can we expect a request to remove all pictures of living beings on the internet everywhere any minute now? Wouldn't Chapter 21, verses 52 of the Korean be more useful for outlawing? "[Abraham] said to his father and his people: 'What are these images to whose worship you cleave?' They said: 'We found our fathers worshipping them.' He said: 'Certainly you have been, you and your fathers, in manifest error.'"
Though that would really mean the bad thing is the worshipping of the picture instead of the idea. So heathens making pictures wouldn't'; t matter.
And finally, why would any of this be of concern to non Muslims? As long as the depictions aren't defamatory (and frankly even then) why should they take the specific believes in to account. At most you could require them to give fair warning to Muslim believers.
I hate unions, I think they're by and large full of selfish, greedy people that don't give a damn about anybody not in a union.
This preception, which I've seem among more posters, is a big problem in keeping the big companies in their place. I can understand the sentiment, I was quite perplexed when someone explained the concept of "closed shop" to me. But Unions in general doen't have to be like that and many aren't. And even if they where at least they do help the employees who are in the union.
Speed cameras have done nothing to improve road safety, they exist purely to screw over motorists and suck out money which goes to the government's mates running the speed cameras.
Yes, that must be why introduction of speed cameras in Belgium reuslted a large decrease in accidents. Obviously reducing the number of people driving recklessly doesn't have any impact. </sarcasm>
I've never met anyone in the UK who drives (the majority of the adult population) and supports speed cameras; yet the country has been plastered with them. You may have missed it, but Britain is supposed to be a democracy, and when the majority are seeing something they don't want pushed on them by an authoritarian government, it should be no surprise that a minority decide to take things into their own hands.
Actualy I'd wager that most people are in favour of speed camerars -as long as they aren't the one caught on camera. If enough people cared about iut would probably change (or at least be a topic around election time). The fact that it hasn't shows the majority doesn't agree with you.
Slashdot Mirror
"in raw doller terms" is a number slinking by the day so in that case it's only a question of time. :)
More seriously: NAFTA and OPEC don't negtiate as a bloc. THe EU does. The US doesn't have trade agreements with Germany, Italy etc. It has an agreement with the EU. Vice versa: Chili doesn't have a shiny new Free Trade agreement with NAFTA, it has one with the US.
While that's the theory that is taught in some PolSci classes the reality is (as always) a lot more muddled. There's the abuses of the commerce clause (Really? The federal government can decide on the legality of pot based of commerce?) there's the declaring war issue: almost every single war the US has fought since WO II wasn't authorized by congress. Even though the constitution is very explicit in who gets to decide to go to war. And that's not even beginning to address the abuses that have been committed by the most recent Bush administration (which I give a very low probability of being decisively rejected).
The EU/member state rules on the other hand are generally a) vague to begin with and b) when a compromise is found, the rules are usually changed officially shortly thereafter. Plus the combination of a semi supranational government with 27 different local constitutions makes for a vague rule set any day of the week.
What does having one seat at the UN etc. got to do with economic policy? The EU negotiates as one block with the outside world where economic treaties etc. are concerned. *That* is what makes it count as a single economic unit.
I don't quite get how China's natural resources are important. There's a world market so resources cost the same for China as they do for Japan. The only thing cheaper in China is the workforce and a projecxt like this can't be made by throwing more, but cheaper employees at it.
The main problem for GM/Ford/Chrysler isn't the unions. It's the pension system, the healthcare system but most importantly the management which made bad choice aimed only at the short term for years.
It would depend on whether traveling through time would mean conservation of momentum. THough even if it did, there would still be little issues like the earth revolving around the sun (and the sun around the center of the milkey way).
I guess we should develop space folding before time?
Strangly this didn't stop the Mir from beging the record holder for space station duration.
No, if prices in software where transparant (and MS wasn't abusing it's monopoly) a version of Windows 2000/XP with WMP would be more expensive. The money they've spent on developing it has to come from somewhere. When car makers started introducing ABS or Airbags they didn't just throw them in for free to "improve the customer experience".
To be fair: from Apple' s point of view that's a bug, not a feature (good thing too since it's a very crapy feature, having to burn, rerip and encode instead of just being playable everywhere).
Uh, no. "Rights" are bestowed by the Flying Spaghetti monster.
May his noodly appendage protect our right to ketschup. Amen.
You don't just have rights in relation to the government. Rights also are related to other individuals. Actually, the whole point of having a government is that they can enforce your rights vis-a-vis others (so your neigbour doesn't jsut clb you ovewr the head if he wants your car/laptop/wife). For example Microsoft needs the EU to enforce their copyrights on European buisinesses.
I don't think it's a ongoing fine. From reading TFA and a few others the situation seems te be that Microsoft is being fined for dragging their feet on the implementation of the judgement (and for not following the spirit of the requirement at all by demanding redicilous payments and royalty fees).
I'd guess that they're also being fined to teach them a lesson not to do it again if the new invenstigations result in anything.
erm... speculation, hell even a stock market in general is by no means a necessity for a functioning (even laissez fair) capitalistic market. a well oiled stock market had some significant advantages (liquidity, possibility for relatively small scale, spread out investments) but it also had a slew of drawbacks. It's perfectly possible to imagine a system that's very much capitalistic, but doesn't allow for quick speculation.
The age of enlightenment is generaly considered to be the mid to late 18th century.
So Ford workers should just start their own company if they feel they're worth more than they are paid? No, when the contract is up their union renegotiates. If they disagree there's a strike. Why should this be different.
Beyond that writers aren't as interchangeable as ford workers and they don't "make" each product. They write once and the product is reproduced.
Fines are a percentage of earnings. Capped at 5%. That's actually quite a high percentage for a normal company (it's something like half the ROI for a well run company). Problem is that due to MS's de facto monopoly they make ridiculous amounts of money. A profit margin of more than 15% for several years should really be proof enough of monopolistic practices.
oh! Yes please! When can you start?
There tends to be little difference in things that are legal or illegal. At most the boudries are different. There's no need for a rigid, uniform system. COmpanies just have to abied by the rules in each market.
The writers aren't working for hire. They recieve money for (re)broadcasts en (a small amount) for DVD's. But no money for internet/digital sales. Which is the biggest reason dfor the strike.
Also I can't quite understand all these people who apparently feel that all the money from succesful series en movies should only go to non creative types.
There, fixed that for you.
Most holocaust denier laws don't actually outlaw claiming it didn't exist, but inciting hatred ore something of the kind. The point being that you don't go around claiming something that ridiculous without saying that the Jews were up to something. That doesn't make those laws ideal, but it makes the distinction clearer.
Which apparently is only a tiny fraction, since it wasn't practices for quite a few centuries.
I seriously never understood how, in a religion where the prophet is very explicitly the last and only direct link to god, most laws were made by people who claim to know what he said.
Beyond that if I read this correctly wouldn't that mean you couldn't depict anything besides mountains, sea and rocks? Which in turn would mean extremely few people have followed this rule. Can we expect a request to remove all pictures of living beings on the internet everywhere any minute now? Wouldn't Chapter 21, verses 52 of the Korean be more useful for outlawing? "[Abraham] said to his father and his people: 'What are these images to whose worship you cleave?' They said: 'We found our fathers worshipping them.' He said: 'Certainly you have been, you and your fathers, in manifest error.'"
Though that would really mean the bad thing is the worshipping of the picture instead of the idea. So heathens making pictures wouldn't'; t matter.
And finally, why would any of this be of concern to non Muslims? As long as the depictions aren't defamatory (and frankly even then) why should they take the specific believes in to account. At most you could require them to give fair warning to Muslim believers.
This preception, which I've seem among more posters, is a big problem in keeping the big companies in their place. I can understand the sentiment, I was quite perplexed when someone explained the concept of "closed shop" to me. But Unions in general doen't have to be like that and many aren't. And even if they where at least they do help the employees who are in the union.
I'd say that what you tend to end up with (without interference) is a monopoly or oligopoly.
Yes, that must be why introduction of speed cameras in Belgium reuslted a large decrease in accidents. Obviously reducing the number of people driving recklessly doesn't have any impact. </sarcasm>
Actualy I'd wager that most people are in favour of speed camerars -as long as they aren't the one caught on camera. If enough people cared about iut would probably change (or at least be a topic around election time). The fact that it hasn't shows the majority doesn't agree with you.