"Socially optimum? If something is worth something to someone, they will acquire it at the lowest rate they possibly can. That is the social optimum."
Do you know what the social optimum is? It is the added aggregate utility of everyone in the economy as a function of music produced. This function is bounded, and possesses a maximum, this maximum is the social optimum. The social optimum is not a price, but an amount.
The marginal cost of producing music is still high, though decreasing, and as long as artists are not compensated for the utility they create, they will under produce music.
"The alternative? Shut down half the Internet, put strict controls on everything at the ISP level, criminalize people who download music, and force everyone to pay $15 for CDs. Give the music industry has no reason to innovate. Watch the free market fail."
I don't see why this is so. If RIAA lawsuits were handled in small claims court for a much smaller sum, and were levied against more people, I have a feeling that downloading would go down. Not only that, but if we shorted copyright times, the amount of sharing that would be illegal would drastically decrease.
Sure, there will always be some music played. However, the equilibrium music production reached when the only incentive to produce is one's own joy is less than the amount that produces a social optimum.
When someone plays music, it benefits people who listen to the music as well as the producers. In an ideal world, people who listen to the music would prefer to pay the musician for extra music then have no extra music at all. So in order to achieve socially optimal music production, artists need to be compensated for the utility they bring listeners.
To some extent, this is done by the prestige and fame system, but this seems to create rather curious incentive structures and marginal effects.
Not that this justifies the RIAA stance, there is quite a bit of evidence that our copyright system actually discourages production by allowing artists to live off the earnings of previous songs. Even if it is against the immediate interests of listeners and artists, we need to create an incentive structure that is best for society.
Personally, I think that we should reduce copyright times to 4 years, as research has shown that period maximizes the incentive to produce music. Marketing can be expensive, so sometimes musicians will release their music free, but that is their choice. At the same time, fines for downloading copyrighted materials should be decreased drastically, to about two times the purchase price, so that the dispute can be handled in small claims court, minimizing transaction costs.
"Because if internation trade switches to using other currency, all the US dollars held by foreign countries would flow back into the US and cause rapid inflation."
Considering that this would most likely happen over a prolonged period(barring a sudden Chinese sell-off), the Federal Reserve could just cut back monetary supply growth in order to compensate for the influx of dollars, leaving the overall number of dollars the same as it otherwise would have been.
"But since international trade is made in US$, the US can simply print money and buy foreign goods, something other countries can't do without causing inflation."
Individuals do not have the power to print money to buy foreign goods, only the Government does(And for the most part, they don't). The Dollar's status as a reserve currency increases the demand for US dollars, and this drastically decreases the interest rate we need to pay on treasury bonds.
I look at increased ability to incur debt as a bad thing.
"Suppose the US and the UK decide that since between the two countries, they control the majority of the worlds disposable cash and band together. Now with this finite amount of credits, they buy credits in their auction at first cheaply. Then they don't stop buying but buy excess with the idea of reselling them at a higher costs. Poorer countries can be bid out of the process really quick. So suppose you expemt them from the process. They everyone puts thier polition down there and nothing is gained. But suppose you don't exempt them. Suppose they have to bid anyways. Instead of selling the carbon credits, we force them no to manufacture anything and al the carbon credits they do have has to goto home heating and cooking. So we sell them electricity, force them to impost the goods because we control all the industry power (with the carbon credits) and charge them a rate more then what it costs us to get. Then this payout back to the countries based on population is a net loss for them because it directly effect the net costs of any good we export to them by virtue of the carbon costs to manufacture, grow, or otherwise produce it. All you have done is cripple entire countries and added a layer to what is already the norm."
None of that would be necessary. As the price of carbon credits go up, income transfers to third world countries also go up. But the price fixing scenario is unlikely, as it does not happen for a multitude of other commodities, and would take massive cooperation between numerous people(which creates game theoretic issues).
"The only big stickling point of your system is that there is a finite amount of credits instead of an infinite amount. but it doesn't reduce anything. All it does it create hardships."
Global warming creates hardships too. It will reduce pollution, directly down to the number of credits issued.
"SO suppose there are rules outlawing that. so then you have an outside organization dictating what a sovereign country can and cannot do when it comes to providing for it's own people. I'm not willing to even consider that."
There is nothing new about that, I don't see how that is any different than the UN, WTO, etc. Are you against the international ban on CFCs too?
"Once a country is out of carbon credits and cannot produce carbon emission they cannot develop cleaner technology to get those emissions down.'
A country cannot be "out" of credits, they are transferable. Anyone with cash can buy them.
"Man made Co2 is a very small amount of Co2 in the atmosphere and that is being claimed to be the problem. And of that we are only going to reduce a very small amount of it."
Man-made CO2 increases in the last 30 years make up 35% of the overall atmospheric CO2 content. We will reduce it over a period of time, to whatever climate scientists think is necessary.
"You cannot distribute Carbon credits based on the population density."
The entire point of that is to facilitate income transfers to third world countries(otherwise they would not join). Initial allocations do not really matter, as Coase's theorem proves, as transaction costs to transfer credits are very low.
I think your confused about the program I am advocating. The current system of voluntary offsets is absurd, and nothing but collective back-patting. We can both agree on that.
Let me describe my ideal system: Every year, carbon credits are auctioned to the highest bidder by an international body, proceeds are divided among participating nations on the basis of population. These transferable credits MUST be purchased for any CO2 that is produced. The number of credits decrease every year, at a pace decided by a council of Economists and Climate scientists.
The benefit of this system is that since the credit goes to the person willing to pay the most, carbon usage will go to the most productive marginal use. This ensures that we get the most efficient economy for a given amount of carbon.
"Which is something that was made up out of the blue. There is no empirical evidence suggesting carbon credits will have any effect out side your made up scenario. There is nothing showing it reduces Co2 and there is nothing remotly suggesting that it would have any influence on climate change one way or another."
It would obviously reduce CO2 emissions. If we only issue a certain number of credits, CO2 production will go down to that level. Most climate scientists agree that we should cut CO2 emissions.
"Your house in Miami beach isn't going to flood. You will be dead and gone by the time global warming causes that."
That is not true. My home in Miami Beach is right across the street from the beach, and somewhat below sea level. All it will take is a hurricane to flood it(whether or not such a hurricane can be attributed to Global warming is debatable, but I was trying to illustrate an example).
"And it won't be because the electric CO refuses to use clean coal technology, it will be because exponential growth in the population which places and more then exponential demand on electricity and other utilities."
Yes, but carbon credits would fix that too. Regardless of the cause, CO2 emissions will go down to the number of credits sold. There are simple infrastructure changes we can make that can drastically reduce CO2 at a very low cost, and credits will give us an incentive to utilize them.
"In the real world, people are supposed to have somewhat of a perspective of the real world. In this credit fallacy, it seem as if all the kooks come out of nowhere thinking they are making a difference of some sorts."
Let me repeat this: In a credit system, total CO2 emissions are equivilent to the number of credits sold. The supply of credits can be brought down to any level you'd like.
"It never existed before and only exists today because people are attempting to lock into a guaranteed market for profit."
No, it exists as a means to decrease CO2 emissions and mitigate Climate Change.
"The radio spectrum and land at least off something tangible that can be effected by others trespassing on the property."
When someone produces CO2, the corresponding pollution causes economic damage to me. because the CO2 producer does not suffer the economic damage caused by his actions, he pollutes more then the level that is optimal for the overall economy.
Liberty is a wonderful thing, but when my house in Miami Beach gets flooded because a coal factory refuses to use Clean-Coal technology, he is impacting my liberty.
So don't fall behind pseudo-anarchist simplifications about coercion. In real world, freedoms often interfere with each other, and government Coercion, taxes, and regulation, is often necessary to prevent citizens from infringing on each others freedom.
I agree with the gist of your argument, but I don't think carbon taxes are very wise. One of the advantages of the carbon credit system is that because credits are sold to the highest bidder, the CO2 that we do use will be for the most productive use possible.
This is opposed to a carbon tax, where marginal incentive to conserve is irrespective of the productivity of the firm. There is no reason that carbon would be allocated to the most efficient producer. Also, we do not know the price elasticity of carbon, so decreasing emissions with any degree of precision requires much guesswork.
"Simply impose a tax on carbon emissions - probably a few cents per. kg carbon. This will provide a direct incentive to lower emissions, that doesn't become smaller as technology advances."
This is problematic, as we don't know the price elasticity of carbon. Without that, we could not really set the tax.
Carbon credits are a great solution if we decrease the number sold every year.
"The problem with that is I don't think charging taxes for behaviors are legitimate taxes. What they are actually doing is attempting to tax a fraction of the population because they know it won't be enough to kick the powers to be out of office come the next election cycle."
Carbon credits are not taxes, they are property rights. How is the ability to buy land, or the ability to buy a piece of the radio spectrum, any different than a carbon credit?
"So the simple way of capping carbon emissions, is to cap the supply of carbon based fuels."
Most CO2 emissions do not come from fossil fuels(though they are a large part). Cement production, Industrial processes, certain agricultural tilling practices, and waste disposal combined make up a majority of human based CO2 emissions.
CO2 from fuel is equally bad as CO2 from cement, hence the need for carbon credits.
"the IS NO COST to emitting carbon that anyone can quantify as yet, so your building this whole retarded carbon trading scheme on NOTHING but speculation, and you know what happens to markets which over speculate?"
There is a very high chance that the costs of global warming will be enormous: Increased hurricanes, flooding, decreased agricultural productivity, and even the possible shutdown of the north Atlantic current.
Each of these things have at least a 1% chance of occurring, and would lead to economic damage that FAR outweighs any cost of reducing CO2 to very low levels.
So the best thing to do? Let a conference of climate scientists decide which level of C02 is necessary to avoid global warming(this will most likely be far lower than now). We then auction off a certain number of credits per year(like we do with SO2) to the highest bidder, working our way to our goal over the course of a decade or two.
He is referring to demand if there was no artificial scarcity of supply. If we offer more credits than the industry was going to produce anyway, nothing would change. On the other hand, if we decrease supply artificially through government action, then demand(if there was no scarcity) would be higher than the allowed supply.
I never liked the idea of giving current polluters credits, it always seemed to me like corporate welfare. But the carbon credit idea is very elegant, and only needs a minor modification.
Here is my idea: In the beginning of every year, the UN(or any other international body) auctions carbon credits to the highest bidder(every year, the total number of credits left up to auction is a certain percentage lower then the year before(say 25%)) on an open market(Like the US currently sells treasury bonds), that give owner of a credit the legal authority to pollute a certain amount of C02. The proceeds from this auction are then distributed to participating national governments on the basis of population.
Of course, keep in mind that most CO2 emissions do not stem from Gasoline or coal. Cement, agriculture, the Chemical Industry, and other assorted industrial processes make up the majority of greenhouse gas emissions. These credits would cover those processes too.
This plan would massively distribute wealth to third world countries(most likely on the order of 300 billion per year), and I consider that a good thing(it is also necessarily, to make sure that they would enter the agreement). But most importantly, the highest bidder for a carbon credit would be the firm that would profit the most off of that credit. This insures that we will have the best possible economy for any given amount of carbon.
"It isn't going to the people who need it. It's a real false idea that the major problem in these extremely poor countries is lack of money."
No, lack of capital is the root cause of nearly every economic problem in the third world. Short term interest rates in Africa are extremely high(75% or higher), and this shuts down nearly all economic ventures on the continent. A massive expansion of micro-loan programs, providing government subsidized loans, would do quite a bit more then food aid.
"There actually is aid, more than you'd think. The problem is that aid can't be taken to the people who need it."
No, the problem is that the aid does not do anything to promote development. Food aid does get distributed fairly well to Africans, the West has a lot of experience with that. But most aid has been limited to buying food, and possibly medicine. This aid exists(rightfully) to keep African people from starving to death.
The type of aid that might help Africa, toward infrastructure, has sadly been limited. The aid that has been given, has mostly been done toward useless grand projects that benefit Western corporations. Africa desperately needs to refurbish their train system(which has not been updated since the 19th century), and build a highway system. America should fund a massive transportation infrastructure project, coupled with investment in financial infrastructure(Setting up stock exchanges).
Most importantly, we need to eliminate agricultural subsidies, admit more African students into our country, and lower tariffs against the developing world.
"These are the real problems here, not the lack of aid. Watch Blackhawk Down sometime. That opening sequence with people being gunned over food aid? That shit really happens."
No, it really does not. Most of Africa is not starving. Most places in Africa have reasonably effective security, and officials that are just as corrupt as ones in much richer Asian countries.
""Just send the money over there in cash form.""
This has never actually been tried. I have a feeling that if we dropped hundred dollar bills from helicopters, this would work far better than the food aid we've been trying.
"Poor countries are poor because they are run by thieving bastards, not because they lack money."
I don't really buy this. Corruption is more of a side effect of poverty then a cause. Right after the 1950's, Africa had the same per-capita income as East and South Asia, while Asia actually had more corruption(as measured by the international corruption index). 60 years later, South Asia is much richer then Africa.
There are many examples of countries growing under the stress of severe corruption: Thailand, India, Pakistan, and 90's era Russia, just to name a few. There are even examples of corrupt nations growing under civil war(Sri Lanka).
Empirical studies show that most income differences among developing countries can be described by differences in Market Liberalization. In most African countries, Income taxes can be over 90%, most firms are state-owned, and import tariffs make importation nearly impossible.
The developing countries that have refrained from these policies(which were mostly adopted during the Non-aligned movement's heyday), have experienced tremendous gains relative to their neighbors. Chile, Botswanna, and Singapore are good examples.
The best thing we can do for these countries is to release import tariffs on them, eliminate agricultural subsides, and send over Economists to advise their governments. This would have a far larger effect than any aid.
Sounds interesting, but where would you get your usage data from? In my experience, the poking and wall writing is just a form of courtship and flirting, translated as quickly as possible to something else.
I know that I don't communicate with my closest friends through facebook, I either use IM or email. Assuming that Google could wrestle that data from AOL(since no one uses google talk), and integrates it with facebook, then the feature would be worth something.
I know you are joking, but I did a data analysis last year of the Myspace network. Most "spam" accounts have over 200 freinds, and my data showed that only 5% of accounts fit that description(and most of those accounts belong to hyperactive teenage girls).
Myspace spam is not prevalent enough to skew statistics.
I don't see any reason Macs would have a longer shelf-life then PC's, assuming that the proper IT security is in place(and considering this is a production environment, that should be so)
PC hardware, if properly bought and configured, should be just as reliable as Mac hardware. Otherwise, Mac would dominate the server market.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you know what the social optimum is? It is the added aggregate utility of everyone in the economy as a function of music produced. This function is bounded, and possesses a maximum, this maximum is the social optimum. The social optimum is not a price, but an amount.
The marginal cost of producing music is still high, though decreasing, and as long as artists are not compensated for the utility they create, they will under produce music.
"The alternative? Shut down half the Internet, put strict controls on everything at the ISP level, criminalize people who download music, and force everyone to pay $15 for CDs. Give the music industry has no reason to innovate. Watch the free market fail."
I don't see why this is so. If RIAA lawsuits were handled in small claims court for a much smaller sum, and were levied against more people, I have a feeling that downloading would go down. Not only that, but if we shorted copyright times, the amount of sharing that would be illegal would drastically decrease.
I don't really care at all about the artists well-being. But unless his compensation is linked to utility, he will under-produce music.
When someone plays music, it benefits people who listen to the music as well as the producers. In an ideal world, people who listen to the music would prefer to pay the musician for extra music then have no extra music at all. So in order to achieve socially optimal music production, artists need to be compensated for the utility they bring listeners.
To some extent, this is done by the prestige and fame system, but this seems to create rather curious incentive structures and marginal effects.
Not that this justifies the RIAA stance, there is quite a bit of evidence that our copyright system actually discourages production by allowing artists to live off the earnings of previous songs. Even if it is against the immediate interests of listeners and artists, we need to create an incentive structure that is best for society.
Personally, I think that we should reduce copyright times to 4 years, as research has shown that period maximizes the incentive to produce music. Marketing can be expensive, so sometimes musicians will release their music free, but that is their choice. At the same time, fines for downloading copyrighted materials should be decreased drastically, to about two times the purchase price, so that the dispute can be handled in small claims court, minimizing transaction costs.
Considering that this would most likely happen over a prolonged period(barring a sudden Chinese sell-off), the Federal Reserve could just cut back monetary supply growth in order to compensate for the influx of dollars, leaving the overall number of dollars the same as it otherwise would have been.
"But since international trade is made in US$, the US can simply print money and buy foreign goods, something other countries can't do without causing inflation."
Individuals do not have the power to print money to buy foreign goods, only the Government does(And for the most part, they don't). The Dollar's status as a reserve currency increases the demand for US dollars, and this drastically decreases the interest rate we need to pay on treasury bonds.
I look at increased ability to incur debt as a bad thing.
Other then the seniorage revenue and greater debt availability, why exactly is a worldwide currency flip a threat to the US economy
Sarcasm, I was directly quoting Bush.
Of course Archer. The smoking gun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud...
None of that would be necessary. As the price of carbon credits go up, income transfers to third world countries also go up. But the price fixing scenario is unlikely, as it does not happen for a multitude of other commodities, and would take massive cooperation between numerous people(which creates game theoretic issues).
"The only big stickling point of your system is that there is a finite amount of credits instead of an infinite amount. but it doesn't reduce anything. All it does it create hardships."
Global warming creates hardships too. It will reduce pollution, directly down to the number of credits issued.
"SO suppose there are rules outlawing that. so then you have an outside organization dictating what a sovereign country can and cannot do when it comes to providing for it's own people. I'm not willing to even consider that."
There is nothing new about that, I don't see how that is any different than the UN, WTO, etc. Are you against the international ban on CFCs too?
"Once a country is out of carbon credits and cannot produce carbon emission they cannot develop cleaner technology to get those emissions down.'
A country cannot be "out" of credits, they are transferable. Anyone with cash can buy them.
"Man made Co2 is a very small amount of Co2 in the atmosphere and that is being claimed to be the problem. And of that we are only going to reduce a very small amount of it."
Man-made CO2 increases in the last 30 years make up 35% of the overall atmospheric CO2 content. We will reduce it over a period of time, to whatever climate scientists think is necessary.
"You cannot distribute Carbon credits based on the population density."
The entire point of that is to facilitate income transfers to third world countries(otherwise they would not join). Initial allocations do not really matter, as Coase's theorem proves, as transaction costs to transfer credits are very low.
Let me describe my ideal system: Every year, carbon credits are auctioned to the highest bidder by an international body, proceeds are divided among participating nations on the basis of population. These transferable credits MUST be purchased for any CO2 that is produced. The number of credits decrease every year, at a pace decided by a council of Economists and Climate scientists.
The benefit of this system is that since the credit goes to the person willing to pay the most, carbon usage will go to the most productive marginal use. This ensures that we get the most efficient economy for a given amount of carbon.
It would obviously reduce CO2 emissions. If we only issue a certain number of credits, CO2 production will go down to that level. Most climate scientists agree that we should cut CO2 emissions.
"Your house in Miami beach isn't going to flood. You will be dead and gone by the time global warming causes that."
That is not true. My home in Miami Beach is right across the street from the beach, and somewhat below sea level. All it will take is a hurricane to flood it(whether or not such a hurricane can be attributed to Global warming is debatable, but I was trying to illustrate an example).
"And it won't be because the electric CO refuses to use clean coal technology, it will be because exponential growth in the population which places and more then exponential demand on electricity and other utilities."
Yes, but carbon credits would fix that too. Regardless of the cause, CO2 emissions will go down to the number of credits sold. There are simple infrastructure changes we can make that can drastically reduce CO2 at a very low cost, and credits will give us an incentive to utilize them.
"In the real world, people are supposed to have somewhat of a perspective of the real world. In this credit fallacy, it seem as if all the kooks come out of nowhere thinking they are making a difference of some sorts."
Let me repeat this: In a credit system, total CO2 emissions are equivilent to the number of credits sold. The supply of credits can be brought down to any level you'd like.
No, it exists as a means to decrease CO2 emissions and mitigate Climate Change.
"The radio spectrum and land at least off something tangible that can be effected by others trespassing on the property."
When someone produces CO2, the corresponding pollution causes economic damage to me. because the CO2 producer does not suffer the economic damage caused by his actions, he pollutes more then the level that is optimal for the overall economy.
Liberty is a wonderful thing, but when my house in Miami Beach gets flooded because a coal factory refuses to use Clean-Coal technology, he is impacting my liberty.
So don't fall behind pseudo-anarchist simplifications about coercion. In real world, freedoms often interfere with each other, and government Coercion, taxes, and regulation, is often necessary to prevent citizens from infringing on each others freedom.
This is opposed to a carbon tax, where marginal incentive to conserve is irrespective of the productivity of the firm. There is no reason that carbon would be allocated to the most efficient producer. Also, we do not know the price elasticity of carbon, so decreasing emissions with any degree of precision requires much guesswork.
This is problematic, as we don't know the price elasticity of carbon. Without that, we could not really set the tax.
Carbon credits are a great solution if we decrease the number sold every year.
2)The government gives certain tax breaks for oil usage, such as granting tax breaks for truck driving.
But this is somewhat weak, I would go with the stronger claim that the failure to charge them for carbon usage is a massive subsidy(as you mentioned).
Carbon credits are not taxes, they are property rights. How is the ability to buy land, or the ability to buy a piece of the radio spectrum, any different than a carbon credit?
My issue with this is that it does not stop global warming, it only assigns blame for it.
Most CO2 emissions do not come from fossil fuels(though they are a large part). Cement production, Industrial processes, certain agricultural tilling practices, and waste disposal combined make up a majority of human based CO2 emissions.
CO2 from fuel is equally bad as CO2 from cement, hence the need for carbon credits.
There is a very high chance that the costs of global warming will be enormous: Increased hurricanes, flooding, decreased agricultural productivity, and even the possible shutdown of the north Atlantic current.
Each of these things have at least a 1% chance of occurring, and would lead to economic damage that FAR outweighs any cost of reducing CO2 to very low levels.
So the best thing to do? Let a conference of climate scientists decide which level of C02 is necessary to avoid global warming(this will most likely be far lower than now). We then auction off a certain number of credits per year(like we do with SO2) to the highest bidder, working our way to our goal over the course of a decade or two.
He is referring to demand if there was no artificial scarcity of supply. If we offer more credits than the industry was going to produce anyway, nothing would change. On the other hand, if we decrease supply artificially through government action, then demand(if there was no scarcity) would be higher than the allowed supply.
Here is my idea: In the beginning of every year, the UN(or any other international body) auctions carbon credits to the highest bidder(every year, the total number of credits left up to auction is a certain percentage lower then the year before(say 25%)) on an open market(Like the US currently sells treasury bonds), that give owner of a credit the legal authority to pollute a certain amount of C02. The proceeds from this auction are then distributed to participating national governments on the basis of population.
Of course, keep in mind that most CO2 emissions do not stem from Gasoline or coal. Cement, agriculture, the Chemical Industry, and other assorted industrial processes make up the majority of greenhouse gas emissions. These credits would cover those processes too.
This plan would massively distribute wealth to third world countries(most likely on the order of 300 billion per year), and I consider that a good thing(it is also necessarily, to make sure that they would enter the agreement). But most importantly, the highest bidder for a carbon credit would be the firm that would profit the most off of that credit. This insures that we will have the best possible economy for any given amount of carbon.
No, lack of capital is the root cause of nearly every economic problem in the third world. Short term interest rates in Africa are extremely high(75% or higher), and this shuts down nearly all economic ventures on the continent. A massive expansion of micro-loan programs, providing government subsidized loans, would do quite a bit more then food aid.
"There actually is aid, more than you'd think. The problem is that aid can't be taken to the people who need it."
No, the problem is that the aid does not do anything to promote development. Food aid does get distributed fairly well to Africans, the West has a lot of experience with that. But most aid has been limited to buying food, and possibly medicine. This aid exists(rightfully) to keep African people from starving to death.
The type of aid that might help Africa, toward infrastructure, has sadly been limited. The aid that has been given, has mostly been done toward useless grand projects that benefit Western corporations. Africa desperately needs to refurbish their train system(which has not been updated since the 19th century), and build a highway system. America should fund a massive transportation infrastructure project, coupled with investment in financial infrastructure(Setting up stock exchanges).
Most importantly, we need to eliminate agricultural subsidies, admit more African students into our country, and lower tariffs against the developing world.
"These are the real problems here, not the lack of aid. Watch Blackhawk Down sometime. That opening sequence with people being gunned over food aid? That shit really happens."
No, it really does not. Most of Africa is not starving. Most places in Africa have reasonably effective security, and officials that are just as corrupt as ones in much richer Asian countries.
""Just send the money over there in cash form.""
This has never actually been tried. I have a feeling that if we dropped hundred dollar bills from helicopters, this would work far better than the food aid we've been trying.
I don't really buy this. Corruption is more of a side effect of poverty then a cause. Right after the 1950's, Africa had the same per-capita income as East and South Asia, while Asia actually had more corruption(as measured by the international corruption index). 60 years later, South Asia is much richer then Africa.
There are many examples of countries growing under the stress of severe corruption: Thailand, India, Pakistan, and 90's era Russia, just to name a few. There are even examples of corrupt nations growing under civil war(Sri Lanka).
Empirical studies show that most income differences among developing countries can be described by differences in Market Liberalization. In most African countries, Income taxes can be over 90%, most firms are state-owned, and import tariffs make importation nearly impossible.
The developing countries that have refrained from these policies(which were mostly adopted during the Non-aligned movement's heyday), have experienced tremendous gains relative to their neighbors. Chile, Botswanna, and Singapore are good examples.
The best thing we can do for these countries is to release import tariffs on them, eliminate agricultural subsides, and send over Economists to advise their governments. This would have a far larger effect than any aid.
I know that I don't communicate with my closest friends through facebook, I either use IM or email. Assuming that Google could wrestle that data from AOL(since no one uses google talk), and integrates it with facebook, then the feature would be worth something.
Myspace spam is not prevalent enough to skew statistics.
PC hardware, if properly bought and configured, should be just as reliable as Mac hardware. Otherwise, Mac would dominate the server market.