Wednesday, March 27, 2002
I'm sure a bunch of people have already commented on this, and my comments simply adds to the heap, but the recent suit seeking reparations for the descendants of slaves has a number of problems. First, none of the people who would receive reparations were, themselves, slaves. It's one thing to give money to people who endured an injustice themselves. It's tenuous at best to give money to someone three or four generations removed from the person who actually endured the injustice.
Second, let's say money from a bank robbery which took place in 1850 was used to build an office building. The descendants of the people whose money was stolen discover evidence in 2002 that the office building in question was built with that money. They therefore decide to sue the present occupants of that office building for damages. That's similar to a class action lawsuit suing Aetna for actions undertaken by Aetna management (or whatever they were named then) 150 years ago.
Companies, particularly old ones, are like houses. Blaming the present occupants of a company is like blaming the present occupants of a house for actions undertaken by inhabitants 150 years ago.
Third, think of all the injustices which have happened over the years. The British conquered Ireland, killing millions either directly or indirectly through famine. They did something similar in Quebec, which lead to the mass migration of French speakers who ended up in Louisiana. American Indians arguably endured worse than American slaves, as they were slaughtered almost to the point of extinction. Mayans and Incas have cause for complaint against Spain.
A lawyer might suggest that it would be difficult to find companies who directly or indirectly had any part in these atrocities, and they would be right. However, that is a LEGAL distinction. It makes NO sense to penalize one person for another's actions. That is, essentially, what the suit is trying to do.
I, personally, refuse to pay money for actions I had no part in. I never enslaved anybody, just as the people who currently work at Aetna never insured any plantations slave population. Though I'm sure it will be argued that the money from those insurance policies in some way went into the construction of the current corporation, the effect of forcing Aetna to pay damages will be borne by current employees, shareholders and policyholders, none of whom had any part in those decisions. That's fundamentally unfair, and though it is certainly less unfair than what happened to Africans forcibly brought to America to become slaves, it is still unfair. Fairness would have involved compensating the people who were slaves 100 years ago. Compensating people who were never slaves with money from people who never enslaved (or never provided insurance to slave owners) isn't fair.
Second, let's say money from a bank robbery which took place in 1850 was used to build an office building. The descendants of the people whose money was stolen discover evidence in 2002 that the office building in question was built with that money. They therefore decide to sue the present occupants of that office building for damages. That's similar to a class action lawsuit suing Aetna for actions undertaken by Aetna management (or whatever they were named then) 150 years ago.
Companies, particularly old ones, are like houses. Blaming the present occupants of a company is like blaming the present occupants of a house for actions undertaken by inhabitants 150 years ago.
Third, think of all the injustices which have happened over the years. The British conquered Ireland, killing millions either directly or indirectly through famine. They did something similar in Quebec, which lead to the mass migration of French speakers who ended up in Louisiana. American Indians arguably endured worse than American slaves, as they were slaughtered almost to the point of extinction. Mayans and Incas have cause for complaint against Spain.
A lawyer might suggest that it would be difficult to find companies who directly or indirectly had any part in these atrocities, and they would be right. However, that is a LEGAL distinction. It makes NO sense to penalize one person for another's actions. That is, essentially, what the suit is trying to do.
I, personally, refuse to pay money for actions I had no part in. I never enslaved anybody, just as the people who currently work at Aetna never insured any plantations slave population. Though I'm sure it will be argued that the money from those insurance policies in some way went into the construction of the current corporation, the effect of forcing Aetna to pay damages will be borne by current employees, shareholders and policyholders, none of whom had any part in those decisions. That's fundamentally unfair, and though it is certainly less unfair than what happened to Africans forcibly brought to America to become slaves, it is still unfair. Fairness would have involved compensating the people who were slaves 100 years ago. Compensating people who were never slaves with money from people who never enslaved (or never provided insurance to slave owners) isn't fair.
Tuesday, March 26, 2002
A recent CNN article claims the new Galileo system will make economic sense, but as usual, fails to provide any details. Galileo is supposed to be a European competitor to GPS, which is already free to anyone who wants to use it. How, pray tell, will Galileo compete with free, and how many private investors will really sign up for this thing?
My opinion is that this is a public works program, and yet another example of European governments attempting to engineer a healthy economy. It doesn't take a research grant to figure out that everyone working on this project will be European.
If this were simply a way for Europe to have a more active space program, I would have few problems with it. NASA has become downright complacent (and wasteful) since the end of the cold war, and could do with a bit of healthy international competition. However, this is just throwing money into a well. At the very least, build something which DOESN'T already exist. This is on par with sending a robot probe to mars which does the exact same thing as a US probe just so that they could say they have a European probe circling mars.
My opinion is that this is a public works program, and yet another example of European governments attempting to engineer a healthy economy. It doesn't take a research grant to figure out that everyone working on this project will be European.
If this were simply a way for Europe to have a more active space program, I would have few problems with it. NASA has become downright complacent (and wasteful) since the end of the cold war, and could do with a bit of healthy international competition. However, this is just throwing money into a well. At the very least, build something which DOESN'T already exist. This is on par with sending a robot probe to mars which does the exact same thing as a US probe just so that they could say they have a European probe circling mars.
Monday, March 25, 2002
I've been a bit slow to update my blog of late on account of the fact that I was writing a new article for ZDNet. The article is going to deal with Japan's and Korea's approach to dealing with their telecom monopolies, which differ dramatically from America's approach. Their approach has been, for the most part, to end protection and allow the market to heal itself rather than call in government to "fix" a problem they caused in the first place.
However, government CAN do useful things for the economy. Some of Korea's policies are particularly inspired, as this article discusses:
The policy program's first target is Korean children, who by 2001 will take computer classes from 1st grade in LAN-connected labs at 10,000 schools nationwide. The government also has their mothers in mind, having established institutes to train some 2 million housewives in the use of the Internet. "It's nice for us to know we're not being left behind," says 30-year-old Mun Yu-kyoung, a Seoul homemaker who took a government-sponsored computer class with two of her friends. "Learning how to use the Internet was an empowering feeling. I feel more young and modern and I can finally understand most of what my son is talking about." Riding on the success of the housewives' classes -- a Ministry of Information and Communications poll showed that 65.5 percent of the women who completed the course went on to use the Internet regularly at home -- programs have been put in place that will bring some 20,000 military personnel, 150,000 farmers, and 20,000 young farmers and fishermen online by 2003. Also in the works is the "Silvernet Campaign," a bid to decipher the mysteries of computing for citizens 55 and older. "We have the time and money to educate them, and we want to reach these people," says Kim Byung-kyu of the Korea Network Information Center, a research body that works closely with the government to formulate social Internet policies. "Everyone is now aware that the Internet is an integral part of life, and that education in this area is crucial."
In other words, the Korean government is actively trying to make your average Korean a better consumer. Such a policy is MUCH more useful than clumsy government attempts to build effective companies. Granted, the Korean government still attempts at times to use its influence in the economy to the benefit of the Korean "chaebol," but such errors are becoming less frequent as the government absorbs the lessons of the Asian financial crisis and continues the deregulation of its economy. Today, Japan looks like a water buffalo compared to nimble South Korea. Korea is willing to make the changes that Japan, due to rich nation inertia, seems unable or unwilling to make.
However, government CAN do useful things for the economy. Some of Korea's policies are particularly inspired, as this article discusses:
The policy program's first target is Korean children, who by 2001 will take computer classes from 1st grade in LAN-connected labs at 10,000 schools nationwide. The government also has their mothers in mind, having established institutes to train some 2 million housewives in the use of the Internet. "It's nice for us to know we're not being left behind," says 30-year-old Mun Yu-kyoung, a Seoul homemaker who took a government-sponsored computer class with two of her friends. "Learning how to use the Internet was an empowering feeling. I feel more young and modern and I can finally understand most of what my son is talking about." Riding on the success of the housewives' classes -- a Ministry of Information and Communications poll showed that 65.5 percent of the women who completed the course went on to use the Internet regularly at home -- programs have been put in place that will bring some 20,000 military personnel, 150,000 farmers, and 20,000 young farmers and fishermen online by 2003. Also in the works is the "Silvernet Campaign," a bid to decipher the mysteries of computing for citizens 55 and older. "We have the time and money to educate them, and we want to reach these people," says Kim Byung-kyu of the Korea Network Information Center, a research body that works closely with the government to formulate social Internet policies. "Everyone is now aware that the Internet is an integral part of life, and that education in this area is crucial."
In other words, the Korean government is actively trying to make your average Korean a better consumer. Such a policy is MUCH more useful than clumsy government attempts to build effective companies. Granted, the Korean government still attempts at times to use its influence in the economy to the benefit of the Korean "chaebol," but such errors are becoming less frequent as the government absorbs the lessons of the Asian financial crisis and continues the deregulation of its economy. Today, Japan looks like a water buffalo compared to nimble South Korea. Korea is willing to make the changes that Japan, due to rich nation inertia, seems unable or unwilling to make.
