Friday, February 20, 2004
Interesting article on Iran
You can see it here.
It's really a shame that the reasonable majority is being sat upon by an unreasonable minority (that sounds weird, but I'll leave it, cuz this is a blog). Iran has a long history of tolerance and openness dating back to the Persian empire. Iran would be a dynamic addition to global culture...if only it's leaders would let them.
I find it interesting that most young Iranians have little problem with America. The older generation probably still remembers that America helped Britain install the Shah as a way to stop the nationalization of Iranian oil companies. That was a Bad Idea ™, and we've been paying for it ever since. For younger Iranians, though, America's past policy foibles are ancient history. It's like people today having an antipathy for the Japanese because they bombed Pearl Harbor.
I'd be all for getting rid of trade sanctions and letting Iran make its own decisions if its current government weren't playing with beakers of uranium and plutonium. When did the possession of nuclear weapons become a status symbol in the developing world? They have STATUES of nuclear missiles in Islamabad, and Khan, the guy who ran the biggest nuclear arms smuggling ring EVER, is considered a hero in Pakistan (truth be told, I find Khan to be just about the most evil person currently living; who the f*ck lines their pockets by helping to spread nuclear weapons technology?).
Even so, I think we have far less to fear from Iran, our supposed enemy, than Pakistan, our supposed ally. It's pretty clear that a majority of Iranians want freedom and progress. It seems that a majority Pakistanis want some approximation of the Taliban to take over in Pakistan (though three cheers for Musharraf, who is finally doing something to end the conflict over Kashmir).
You can see it here.
It's really a shame that the reasonable majority is being sat upon by an unreasonable minority (that sounds weird, but I'll leave it, cuz this is a blog). Iran has a long history of tolerance and openness dating back to the Persian empire. Iran would be a dynamic addition to global culture...if only it's leaders would let them.
I find it interesting that most young Iranians have little problem with America. The older generation probably still remembers that America helped Britain install the Shah as a way to stop the nationalization of Iranian oil companies. That was a Bad Idea ™, and we've been paying for it ever since. For younger Iranians, though, America's past policy foibles are ancient history. It's like people today having an antipathy for the Japanese because they bombed Pearl Harbor.
I'd be all for getting rid of trade sanctions and letting Iran make its own decisions if its current government weren't playing with beakers of uranium and plutonium. When did the possession of nuclear weapons become a status symbol in the developing world? They have STATUES of nuclear missiles in Islamabad, and Khan, the guy who ran the biggest nuclear arms smuggling ring EVER, is considered a hero in Pakistan (truth be told, I find Khan to be just about the most evil person currently living; who the f*ck lines their pockets by helping to spread nuclear weapons technology?).
Even so, I think we have far less to fear from Iran, our supposed enemy, than Pakistan, our supposed ally. It's pretty clear that a majority of Iranians want freedom and progress. It seems that a majority Pakistanis want some approximation of the Taliban to take over in Pakistan (though three cheers for Musharraf, who is finally doing something to end the conflict over Kashmir).
A Soviet-style election
The Soviet Union used to have elections. However, all the candidates were members of the communist party, and the list of candidates were chosen by leading party officials. Furthermore, once elected, those officials had little power, as the real power was held by leaders in the party who weren't elected.
That's a bit like what's happening in Iran. The conservatives have decided who they will allow to run, and not surprisingly, most of the people who don't agree with them have mysteriously failed to pass muster. Furthermore, the real power is in the hands of an unelected Supreme Ayatolla (Khamenei). So, in the end, the elections are completely meaningless.
Iran is, for all intents and purposes, a religious dictatorship, and I always find it funny when dictatorships try to pretend that the election is truly free and open. Who do they think they are fooling? They certainly aren't fooling Iranians, as all signs point to the fact that few Iranians will bother voting in the election.
Iran will be free when its people decide they want to be free. Georgia (the former soviet republic, not the American state), Czechoslovakia, Hungary, South Korea, Taiwan, Chile, etc. all became truly free and democratic places when enough people got together and told their government (who they outnumber) enough is enough. Dictatorships often endeavor to keep their people as divided as possible in able to avoid any such sentiments. Saddam Hussein's terror network made everyone mistrust everyone else, making it hard for spontaneous mass movements of the sort that pushed Shevardnadze from power (Georgia) to happen. Iran isn't run by psychopaths the way Iraq was, but they might start to move closer to that model as people grow increasingly frustrated with an ineffective minority that just so happens to run the country.
Something like 70% of Iran is under the age of 30. Unemployment among this group is pushing 30%. Iran is also a relatively poor nation, though not in the poverty league of some African nations. However many ways you slice it, the Iranian experiment in theocracy is a failure.
People don't want to be poor. They might manage to convince themselves that they are living the way God wants them to live for a little while, but they eventually will start to ask whether God is REALLY asking them to be poor. That's always the problem with leaders who say that they are speaking with authority from God. Eventually, people start to ask if the people saying that are just badly misguided (if not outright liars), particularly when results on the ground are so poor.
The Soviet Union used to have elections. However, all the candidates were members of the communist party, and the list of candidates were chosen by leading party officials. Furthermore, once elected, those officials had little power, as the real power was held by leaders in the party who weren't elected.
That's a bit like what's happening in Iran. The conservatives have decided who they will allow to run, and not surprisingly, most of the people who don't agree with them have mysteriously failed to pass muster. Furthermore, the real power is in the hands of an unelected Supreme Ayatolla (Khamenei). So, in the end, the elections are completely meaningless.
Iran is, for all intents and purposes, a religious dictatorship, and I always find it funny when dictatorships try to pretend that the election is truly free and open. Who do they think they are fooling? They certainly aren't fooling Iranians, as all signs point to the fact that few Iranians will bother voting in the election.
Iran will be free when its people decide they want to be free. Georgia (the former soviet republic, not the American state), Czechoslovakia, Hungary, South Korea, Taiwan, Chile, etc. all became truly free and democratic places when enough people got together and told their government (who they outnumber) enough is enough. Dictatorships often endeavor to keep their people as divided as possible in able to avoid any such sentiments. Saddam Hussein's terror network made everyone mistrust everyone else, making it hard for spontaneous mass movements of the sort that pushed Shevardnadze from power (Georgia) to happen. Iran isn't run by psychopaths the way Iraq was, but they might start to move closer to that model as people grow increasingly frustrated with an ineffective minority that just so happens to run the country.
Something like 70% of Iran is under the age of 30. Unemployment among this group is pushing 30%. Iran is also a relatively poor nation, though not in the poverty league of some African nations. However many ways you slice it, the Iranian experiment in theocracy is a failure.
People don't want to be poor. They might manage to convince themselves that they are living the way God wants them to live for a little while, but they eventually will start to ask whether God is REALLY asking them to be poor. That's always the problem with leaders who say that they are speaking with authority from God. Eventually, people start to ask if the people saying that are just badly misguided (if not outright liars), particularly when results on the ground are so poor.
Well, Duh
Kofi Annan has stated the obvious, that full elections can't happen before the handover of Iraqi power in June, because Iraq is chaos right now and it would just be a bad idea to try to run an election in the midst of it.
I had zero doubt that that would be the conclusion, simply because the people at the UN aren't stupid. Still, the declaration is a bit like the end product of a commission sent to study what color the sky is.
Kofi Annan has stated the obvious, that full elections can't happen before the handover of Iraqi power in June, because Iraq is chaos right now and it would just be a bad idea to try to run an election in the midst of it.
I had zero doubt that that would be the conclusion, simply because the people at the UN aren't stupid. Still, the declaration is a bit like the end product of a commission sent to study what color the sky is.
Modern day witch trials
It sucks to be Martha Stewart. The government is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars prosecuting her for an insider stock sale that netted her a mere $60,000 more than if she had waited till the next day (after the ImClone bad news had been officially released). The investigation has knocked hundreds of millions of dollars from the net worth of her company.
All this, because she lied about using an insider stock tip. I guess the government was in a bit of a bind. Obviously, Ms. Stewart broke the law. I don't have any doubt that she did, in fact, act on an insider tip. Furthermore, she absolutely refused to admit she did that, so the government couldn't just fine her (there are such things as settling out of court, something Ms. Stewart SHOULD have done, along with loud and public Mea Culpas). The only way to force her to pay for breaking the law was to take her to court.
Still, this seems like an awful lot of money to spend on proving that Martha Stewart is lying. I don't see any alternative given Ms. Stewarts confusing desire to play chicken with the US government. Still, kind of foolish.
If she goes to jail (and she probably will, because it looks like she is going to lose big), it will be more for forcing the government to spend all that money taking her to court rather than just admitting the obvious and putting an end to it.
It sucks to be Martha Stewart. The government is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars prosecuting her for an insider stock sale that netted her a mere $60,000 more than if she had waited till the next day (after the ImClone bad news had been officially released). The investigation has knocked hundreds of millions of dollars from the net worth of her company.
All this, because she lied about using an insider stock tip. I guess the government was in a bit of a bind. Obviously, Ms. Stewart broke the law. I don't have any doubt that she did, in fact, act on an insider tip. Furthermore, she absolutely refused to admit she did that, so the government couldn't just fine her (there are such things as settling out of court, something Ms. Stewart SHOULD have done, along with loud and public Mea Culpas). The only way to force her to pay for breaking the law was to take her to court.
Still, this seems like an awful lot of money to spend on proving that Martha Stewart is lying. I don't see any alternative given Ms. Stewarts confusing desire to play chicken with the US government. Still, kind of foolish.
If she goes to jail (and she probably will, because it looks like she is going to lose big), it will be more for forcing the government to spend all that money taking her to court rather than just admitting the obvious and putting an end to it.
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
China's Weird Obsession
China is turning up the volume in its rhetorical attack on Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian's attempt to hold a plebiscite. It would ask Taiwan's citizens if they should demand that missiles aimed at Taiwan be removed. China sees it as engaging in creeping separatist activities, and as prelude to an eventual referendum to separate Taiwan from China. They fear that once the referendum pandora's box is opened, someone will manage to put separation from China on the ballot, and the Taiwanese will express democratically what has long been obvious they want: official separation from China.
It's sort of strange for China to declare Taiwan an irrevocable part of the Chinese motherland, particularly since China has played no part in development there since 1948. Then again, China is fairly prickly about border issues. They invaded Tibet based on some historical claim to the country, and have staked a claim to large parts of Kashmir (the region over which Pakistan and India have waged three wars, though India contests the claim). Why they should want a bunch of land in the middle of desolate mountains is anyone's guess.
Then again, China is a country whose empire lasted over 2000 years. I don't imagine that they managed that by being open to local demands for autonomy. That's a cultural habit that isn't going to be broken in one generation, even if they aren't sounding as militaristic as was the case when Mao urged Chinese onwards with visions of reconquering its rebel province.
Either way, one has to ask Taiwanese whether they are REALLY willing to risk an invasion on a principle. Taiwan is, for all intents and purposes, independent. They have their own elections, they manage their own foreign policy, and the Chinese can't do anything but glower menacingly from across the Taiwan straits. It's like fighting for that promotion that gives you a new title at work, without changing your job responsibilities, compensation, or even giving you a better parking place.
Granted, an independent Taiwan might get a seat at the UN, but so what? Taiwan isn't hurting by remaining a "theoretical" part of the Chinese motherland. It simply isn't worth the blood and tears to fight over something so unnecessary.
Chen, of course, is a politician, and politicians like to win elections. As John Edwards is showing, playing the demagogue is a good way to win them. Let's just hope that Chen's gambit doesn't backfire.
China is turning up the volume in its rhetorical attack on Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian's attempt to hold a plebiscite. It would ask Taiwan's citizens if they should demand that missiles aimed at Taiwan be removed. China sees it as engaging in creeping separatist activities, and as prelude to an eventual referendum to separate Taiwan from China. They fear that once the referendum pandora's box is opened, someone will manage to put separation from China on the ballot, and the Taiwanese will express democratically what has long been obvious they want: official separation from China.
It's sort of strange for China to declare Taiwan an irrevocable part of the Chinese motherland, particularly since China has played no part in development there since 1948. Then again, China is fairly prickly about border issues. They invaded Tibet based on some historical claim to the country, and have staked a claim to large parts of Kashmir (the region over which Pakistan and India have waged three wars, though India contests the claim). Why they should want a bunch of land in the middle of desolate mountains is anyone's guess.
Then again, China is a country whose empire lasted over 2000 years. I don't imagine that they managed that by being open to local demands for autonomy. That's a cultural habit that isn't going to be broken in one generation, even if they aren't sounding as militaristic as was the case when Mao urged Chinese onwards with visions of reconquering its rebel province.
Either way, one has to ask Taiwanese whether they are REALLY willing to risk an invasion on a principle. Taiwan is, for all intents and purposes, independent. They have their own elections, they manage their own foreign policy, and the Chinese can't do anything but glower menacingly from across the Taiwan straits. It's like fighting for that promotion that gives you a new title at work, without changing your job responsibilities, compensation, or even giving you a better parking place.
Granted, an independent Taiwan might get a seat at the UN, but so what? Taiwan isn't hurting by remaining a "theoretical" part of the Chinese motherland. It simply isn't worth the blood and tears to fight over something so unnecessary.
Chen, of course, is a politician, and politicians like to win elections. As John Edwards is showing, playing the demagogue is a good way to win them. Let's just hope that Chen's gambit doesn't backfire.
Japan escapes the spider web
Japan's economy is finally emerging from the economic doldrums. Japan has been in a recession for OVER 10 YEARS (and Americans thinks they have it bad). Japan's recession has lasted so long that they started to suffer from deflation (prices start to go down), which might sound like a good thing, but is actually WORSE in many ways than inflation (people have less incentive to buy, leading to a vicious circle of ever-deepening recession).
There are a number of reasons for Japan's long recession, both cultural and government policy related, but what I think is interesting (and which isn't mentioned in the CNN article) is one of the reasons they are emerging from their slump: booming demand from China.
Japan has been doing a number of things to reduce costs and corporate debts, all of which are important, but they've been trying those kinds of things for years. What's different is that they now have a 1.3 billion market on their doorstep that is rapidly growing and seems to have a nearly bottomless demand for new - and imported - products (that makes it sound like Japan suddenly moved itself next-door to China. What I mean is that China is now a MUCH more important market for goods, particularly now that it is in the WTO). GM's (the car company) recent revival was built on strong profit growth in China. China is now its fastest growing market, bar none.
Either way, Japan's revival is good for the global economy. Japan has a 4.1 trillion economy, or just under half the size of the American one. That's a lot of consumers to add to global demand for products. That, combined with booming China, can only mean Good Things ™.
Japan's economy is finally emerging from the economic doldrums. Japan has been in a recession for OVER 10 YEARS (and Americans thinks they have it bad). Japan's recession has lasted so long that they started to suffer from deflation (prices start to go down), which might sound like a good thing, but is actually WORSE in many ways than inflation (people have less incentive to buy, leading to a vicious circle of ever-deepening recession).
There are a number of reasons for Japan's long recession, both cultural and government policy related, but what I think is interesting (and which isn't mentioned in the CNN article) is one of the reasons they are emerging from their slump: booming demand from China.
Japan has been doing a number of things to reduce costs and corporate debts, all of which are important, but they've been trying those kinds of things for years. What's different is that they now have a 1.3 billion market on their doorstep that is rapidly growing and seems to have a nearly bottomless demand for new - and imported - products (that makes it sound like Japan suddenly moved itself next-door to China. What I mean is that China is now a MUCH more important market for goods, particularly now that it is in the WTO). GM's (the car company) recent revival was built on strong profit growth in China. China is now its fastest growing market, bar none.
Either way, Japan's revival is good for the global economy. Japan has a 4.1 trillion economy, or just under half the size of the American one. That's a lot of consumers to add to global demand for products. That, combined with booming China, can only mean Good Things ™.
Bugger
John Edwards, the populist, came in a strong second in the recent Wisconsin primary.
Edwards doesn't bother me as much as Dean, but I really get edgy when you get a major party candidate talking about manufacturing jobs going overseas because of free trade agreements. Such short term thinking is dangerous.
Think about it: is it REALLY beter for America to keep Mexico poor? Would we not benefit from a Mexican economy that is about as rich as our own (there's 100 million people in Mexico)? Would people in Illinois start to place trade barriers on Mississippi to prevent jobs from leaving Illinois? The standard response is: Mississippi is AMERICAN, and thus whole different standards of morality and ethics apply to them.
Bullshit (and I can say that, as this isn't an article for ZDNet). Ignoring for the moment that the economy AS A WHOLE benefits from lower cost manufactured inputs (where would Dell, the biggest computer company IN THE WORLD, be without lower-cost computer parts?), it is simply UNETHICAL to tell people in third-world nations that we aren't allowed to trade with them because American worker short-term interests matter more than their short, medium and long term interests.
This isn't a question of being a patriotic American. It's a matter of being an ethical human being. Foreigners have as much a right to other American's dollars (and remember, OTHER Americans are CHOOSING to give them those dollars) as American workers in Mississippi. And if you read much Hayek, choosing not to create such arbitrary distinctions between the trade-favored "us" and the non-trade favored "them" (a distinction built entirely upon a completely random accident, namely, the spot on the globe upon which you were born) has ramifications for world peace.
The crazy thing is, we don't just try to protect ourselves from poor nations. We put trade barriers to farm products from OTHER RICH NATIONS. We recently negotiated a massive free trade deal with Australia. Whole categories of manufactured goods will be allowed to flow between Australia and the United States, duty-free. The area that escaped such liberalization, however, is farm products.
Australia has one of the freest and least-subsidized farming industries in the world, and that makes their products EXTREMELY competitive in global markets (economies work that way; if you protect, you end up with a bunch of less competitive companies that have difficulties without protections). The beef industry managed to ensure that import quotas were raised by a mere 1.6%. The dairy industry managed an equally pusillanimous 2% increase in quotas. That's peanuts compared to the sugar industry (who are lobbying against the new Centrall American Free Trade Agreement due to concession to cane-growing industries in the region), which managed to scotch all discussion regarding liberalization in sugar imports.
Americans pay 3 times the world-market price for sugar, which, obviously, causes problems for industries that USE sugar (kind of like steel tariffs harmed the 13% of industry that USED steel to favor the less than 1% that produced it). The situation is getting sufficiently severe that sugar-consuming industries in America are trying to build a lobbying counterweight to sugar industry lobbyists. Businesses are closing in places like Chicago (apparently, the sweet-making capital of America, if not the world, according to the Economist) because the price of sugar is too high.
Back to the point: Edwards is engaging in shameless demagoguery. To be sure, he's far less shameless than Dick Gephardt ever was (thank GOD he was knocked out of the race early), but lots of people seem to think the best thing for America is to prevent competition with other nations. Edwards, in the interest of winning the nomination, is perfectly willing to tell them they're right. That's the textbook definition of a demagogue, and I have to wonder if his desire to get elected is trumping his ability to think rationally on the subject.
That's why I take heart in Kerry's waffling in the subject. He HASN'T been completely clear on his position vis a vis free trade. But then again, he probably can't be. His voting record is very pro-trade, which speaks to some part of his brain that understands the importance of trade for America. He just can't come out and say "I support free trade" because that won't win him the Democratic party nomination.
At least, that's what I hope is going on in Kerry's head. He could in fact have a General Electric waffle iron in there. Who knows? But like I said, someone who has voted as consistently in favor of trade MUST have some principles that guided him over the years.
Voting is a bit like hitchhiking. The guy in the car stopping to pick you up might SEEM nice, but there isn't any way to be sure that they aren't, in fact, axe-murderers.
John Edwards, the populist, came in a strong second in the recent Wisconsin primary.
Edwards doesn't bother me as much as Dean, but I really get edgy when you get a major party candidate talking about manufacturing jobs going overseas because of free trade agreements. Such short term thinking is dangerous.
Think about it: is it REALLY beter for America to keep Mexico poor? Would we not benefit from a Mexican economy that is about as rich as our own (there's 100 million people in Mexico)? Would people in Illinois start to place trade barriers on Mississippi to prevent jobs from leaving Illinois? The standard response is: Mississippi is AMERICAN, and thus whole different standards of morality and ethics apply to them.
Bullshit (and I can say that, as this isn't an article for ZDNet). Ignoring for the moment that the economy AS A WHOLE benefits from lower cost manufactured inputs (where would Dell, the biggest computer company IN THE WORLD, be without lower-cost computer parts?), it is simply UNETHICAL to tell people in third-world nations that we aren't allowed to trade with them because American worker short-term interests matter more than their short, medium and long term interests.
This isn't a question of being a patriotic American. It's a matter of being an ethical human being. Foreigners have as much a right to other American's dollars (and remember, OTHER Americans are CHOOSING to give them those dollars) as American workers in Mississippi. And if you read much Hayek, choosing not to create such arbitrary distinctions between the trade-favored "us" and the non-trade favored "them" (a distinction built entirely upon a completely random accident, namely, the spot on the globe upon which you were born) has ramifications for world peace.
The crazy thing is, we don't just try to protect ourselves from poor nations. We put trade barriers to farm products from OTHER RICH NATIONS. We recently negotiated a massive free trade deal with Australia. Whole categories of manufactured goods will be allowed to flow between Australia and the United States, duty-free. The area that escaped such liberalization, however, is farm products.
Australia has one of the freest and least-subsidized farming industries in the world, and that makes their products EXTREMELY competitive in global markets (economies work that way; if you protect, you end up with a bunch of less competitive companies that have difficulties without protections). The beef industry managed to ensure that import quotas were raised by a mere 1.6%. The dairy industry managed an equally pusillanimous 2% increase in quotas. That's peanuts compared to the sugar industry (who are lobbying against the new Centrall American Free Trade Agreement due to concession to cane-growing industries in the region), which managed to scotch all discussion regarding liberalization in sugar imports.
Americans pay 3 times the world-market price for sugar, which, obviously, causes problems for industries that USE sugar (kind of like steel tariffs harmed the 13% of industry that USED steel to favor the less than 1% that produced it). The situation is getting sufficiently severe that sugar-consuming industries in America are trying to build a lobbying counterweight to sugar industry lobbyists. Businesses are closing in places like Chicago (apparently, the sweet-making capital of America, if not the world, according to the Economist) because the price of sugar is too high.
Back to the point: Edwards is engaging in shameless demagoguery. To be sure, he's far less shameless than Dick Gephardt ever was (thank GOD he was knocked out of the race early), but lots of people seem to think the best thing for America is to prevent competition with other nations. Edwards, in the interest of winning the nomination, is perfectly willing to tell them they're right. That's the textbook definition of a demagogue, and I have to wonder if his desire to get elected is trumping his ability to think rationally on the subject.
That's why I take heart in Kerry's waffling in the subject. He HASN'T been completely clear on his position vis a vis free trade. But then again, he probably can't be. His voting record is very pro-trade, which speaks to some part of his brain that understands the importance of trade for America. He just can't come out and say "I support free trade" because that won't win him the Democratic party nomination.
At least, that's what I hope is going on in Kerry's head. He could in fact have a General Electric waffle iron in there. Who knows? But like I said, someone who has voted as consistently in favor of trade MUST have some principles that guided him over the years.
Voting is a bit like hitchhiking. The guy in the car stopping to pick you up might SEEM nice, but there isn't any way to be sure that they aren't, in fact, axe-murderers.
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
Bimbo Explosions
Why are we so obsessed with whom our presidential candidates sleep? We're not voting for pope.
Character my butt. Even Winston Churchill was said to have kept a mistress. LOTS of really smart people do funny things in their private life, with the operative word being PRIVATE.
Perhaps it's our tendency to want to tear to pieces the people who we've turned into superstars. It's like America's version of class warfare. We love it when people become big and famous, but love it even MORE when we get to kick them to the ground after they stumble. We take no prisoners in our public pillorying of famous people who made a mistake. Has some actor not had a good hit in a few years? There simply is NO end to the bad press about them, which tends to hasten their fall.
Why are we so obsessed with whom our presidential candidates sleep? We're not voting for pope.
Character my butt. Even Winston Churchill was said to have kept a mistress. LOTS of really smart people do funny things in their private life, with the operative word being PRIVATE.
Perhaps it's our tendency to want to tear to pieces the people who we've turned into superstars. It's like America's version of class warfare. We love it when people become big and famous, but love it even MORE when we get to kick them to the ground after they stumble. We take no prisoners in our public pillorying of famous people who made a mistake. Has some actor not had a good hit in a few years? There simply is NO end to the bad press about them, which tends to hasten their fall.
Fear of Migration?
The European Union is about to embark on a grand experiment in free trade. No, Europe isn't going to get rid of its Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which ladles billions in subsidies to rich European farmers (and accounting for 2/3rds of the European Union budget) and makes life extremely difficult for developing nations. Nor are they about to slash the hornets nest of anti-dumping duties which are used to keep things like bikes from Thailand out of European markets (though Europe isn't unique in that regard).
Rather, Europe on May 1st will add ten new members to the European Union, an economic area that promises tariff-free trade among member nations (among other things). Many of these nations are located in Eastern Europe, and have economies much poorer than those found in the rest of Europe.
One of the things that European Union membership guarantees is the right of any citizen of a member nation to live, and work, in any other member nation. In other words, Europe is about to find out the degree to which citizens of poorer nations will flow into richer nations when things like border controls and work permits are removed.
Granted, a number of nations, such as Sweden, have opted to delay full rights to new entrants for two years. Others, such as the United Kingdom, have not, and thus will be on the front lines in this social experiment.
A number of doomsday predictions have been made by those against further European integration, and even some who are in favor of it, suggesting that western Europe will be inundated by economic migrants. I, however, would NOT be surprised if the actual numbers are relatively low, simply because most people don't want to go through the trouble of removing themselves from the culture in which they were raised (or for that matter, the language) and transplanting themselves in a foreign country.
Moving to a foreign country is hard. You suddenly find you can't communicate as well as you used to, which is a source of stress. Even if they theoretically speak the same language (Irish and Brits do theoretically speak English), the whole cultural context within which communication takes place, such as references to TV shows you saw as a kid or experience of stores that are popular in the home country, is gone. You are an outsider, and no matter how long you spend in that country, you will ALWAYS be the outsider.
Most people wouldn't want to do that, and so most would prefer to stay in their home country, even if they could make more money by moving elsewhere.
There are, of course, a few caveats. Countries whose home situation is particularly miserable are more likely to want to take advantage of the ability to move to a richer nation, simply because the likelihood of leading a happy life is so much lower. I don't imagine many in the Republic of Congo would stay home, though their ability to afford leaving would be low giving how poor the country is.
Countries with whom you maintain open borders (and open labor movement) should be places where economies are healthy and growing. Most people don't NEED to be as rich as the west, though they like to know that there country is growing fast enough that, someday, the will at least get close.
However, European nations opened their borders to each other, and - big surprise - MOST still decided to stay in their home country. I imagine the same situation would exist if Europe were to open its borders to Americans (or vice versa), or to Japan, or even to South Korea. Most wouldn't bother to go through the trouble of moving to a foreign country, and so the effect would be practically non-existent.
It's worth noting that before the Great Depression, strict residency controls and work permits were not an issue. Someone coming from Europe could work in America, and vice versa. Work permits were part of the whole protectionist agenda dreamed up by world governments at the time, many aspects of which (such as the Smoot-Hawley tariffs) so decimated world trade that they were responsible for dragging the world even deeper into an economic slump.
Of course, some might point out that I'm a person who likes to travel - and work - in foreign countries, and so I'm biased in favor of more lax work permit regulations. Fine, I am. It doesn't mean I'm not right.
The European Union is about to embark on a grand experiment in free trade. No, Europe isn't going to get rid of its Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which ladles billions in subsidies to rich European farmers (and accounting for 2/3rds of the European Union budget) and makes life extremely difficult for developing nations. Nor are they about to slash the hornets nest of anti-dumping duties which are used to keep things like bikes from Thailand out of European markets (though Europe isn't unique in that regard).
Rather, Europe on May 1st will add ten new members to the European Union, an economic area that promises tariff-free trade among member nations (among other things). Many of these nations are located in Eastern Europe, and have economies much poorer than those found in the rest of Europe.
One of the things that European Union membership guarantees is the right of any citizen of a member nation to live, and work, in any other member nation. In other words, Europe is about to find out the degree to which citizens of poorer nations will flow into richer nations when things like border controls and work permits are removed.
Granted, a number of nations, such as Sweden, have opted to delay full rights to new entrants for two years. Others, such as the United Kingdom, have not, and thus will be on the front lines in this social experiment.
A number of doomsday predictions have been made by those against further European integration, and even some who are in favor of it, suggesting that western Europe will be inundated by economic migrants. I, however, would NOT be surprised if the actual numbers are relatively low, simply because most people don't want to go through the trouble of removing themselves from the culture in which they were raised (or for that matter, the language) and transplanting themselves in a foreign country.
Moving to a foreign country is hard. You suddenly find you can't communicate as well as you used to, which is a source of stress. Even if they theoretically speak the same language (Irish and Brits do theoretically speak English), the whole cultural context within which communication takes place, such as references to TV shows you saw as a kid or experience of stores that are popular in the home country, is gone. You are an outsider, and no matter how long you spend in that country, you will ALWAYS be the outsider.
Most people wouldn't want to do that, and so most would prefer to stay in their home country, even if they could make more money by moving elsewhere.
There are, of course, a few caveats. Countries whose home situation is particularly miserable are more likely to want to take advantage of the ability to move to a richer nation, simply because the likelihood of leading a happy life is so much lower. I don't imagine many in the Republic of Congo would stay home, though their ability to afford leaving would be low giving how poor the country is.
Countries with whom you maintain open borders (and open labor movement) should be places where economies are healthy and growing. Most people don't NEED to be as rich as the west, though they like to know that there country is growing fast enough that, someday, the will at least get close.
However, European nations opened their borders to each other, and - big surprise - MOST still decided to stay in their home country. I imagine the same situation would exist if Europe were to open its borders to Americans (or vice versa), or to Japan, or even to South Korea. Most wouldn't bother to go through the trouble of moving to a foreign country, and so the effect would be practically non-existent.
It's worth noting that before the Great Depression, strict residency controls and work permits were not an issue. Someone coming from Europe could work in America, and vice versa. Work permits were part of the whole protectionist agenda dreamed up by world governments at the time, many aspects of which (such as the Smoot-Hawley tariffs) so decimated world trade that they were responsible for dragging the world even deeper into an economic slump.
Of course, some might point out that I'm a person who likes to travel - and work - in foreign countries, and so I'm biased in favor of more lax work permit regulations. Fine, I am. It doesn't mean I'm not right.
Monday, February 16, 2004
Stack 'em like firewood
To those who haven't been to Europe in awhile, there's been a revolution in travel that has been introduced by deregulation of the airline industry (well, somewhat, as national champions still get most of the berths at major airports). Discount airlines have made getting around Europe laughably cheap. I can fly to Paris from Geneva for about 25 euros each way. Granted, I'd have to fly in the middle of the week, but the price rarely goes above 100 round trip.
Anyway, these airlines are pretty no-frill affairs. You have to be pretty careful about how much luggage you bring on a trip, because on a packed flight, they might not let you on. That's why I think it's funny that RyanAir is removing even more frills from an already threadbare experience. No seat pockets, no chairs that lean back, and NO WINDOW BLINDS (I didn't know those things caused problems).
Heck, why not just place us on wooden pallets, wrap cellophane around the whole pile, and ship us in cargo planes?
Cheap is good, though, and I'll put up with a heck of a lot on a 25 dollar flight to anywhere.
To those who haven't been to Europe in awhile, there's been a revolution in travel that has been introduced by deregulation of the airline industry (well, somewhat, as national champions still get most of the berths at major airports). Discount airlines have made getting around Europe laughably cheap. I can fly to Paris from Geneva for about 25 euros each way. Granted, I'd have to fly in the middle of the week, but the price rarely goes above 100 round trip.
Anyway, these airlines are pretty no-frill affairs. You have to be pretty careful about how much luggage you bring on a trip, because on a packed flight, they might not let you on. That's why I think it's funny that RyanAir is removing even more frills from an already threadbare experience. No seat pockets, no chairs that lean back, and NO WINDOW BLINDS (I didn't know those things caused problems).
Heck, why not just place us on wooden pallets, wrap cellophane around the whole pile, and ship us in cargo planes?
Cheap is good, though, and I'll put up with a heck of a lot on a 25 dollar flight to anywhere.
A moment of Zen
More pictures of galaxies, but to make you feel even smaller, whole FIELDS of them. Click on the slideshow button near the top of the page to see what I mean.
Fact is far stranger than fiction, at least if you spend any time in the world of astrophysics.
More pictures of galaxies, but to make you feel even smaller, whole FIELDS of them. Click on the slideshow button near the top of the page to see what I mean.
Fact is far stranger than fiction, at least if you spend any time in the world of astrophysics.
As Noted Previously...
America lags in stem cell research because, as the article states, of:
...the relative lack of money devoted to such research. The federal government limits what researchers can work on with taxpayer-funded grants. The Bush administration policy also forbids federal funding of all cloning research, even if the projects are intended solely to create stem cells like the South Koreans did.
“All the money for this work has dried up,” said Dr. Robert Lanza of Worcester, Mass.-based Advanced Cell Technology, the one U.S. company that has publicly attempted to clone for stem cells, albeit unsuccessfully. “We are lucky to still be in business. Our research has suffered immensely.”
Lanza said he’s been unable to work with human embryos since October because of the high cost of obtaining eggs and the company’s desperate need for investment.
As I noted in a previous post, if you believe that stem cell research is truly immoral, the falling behind in something immoral isn't so bad. Don't operate under the illusion, however, that America's moral problems with stem cell technology will have much of an effect on the wider world. They will continue charging forward in this new area of research, and companies devoted to this technology will be based in those countries.
America's competitive advantage has long been in high-technology, and the fastest growth these days is to be found in biotechnology, not the computing and hardware world in which America has proven historically dominant.
In other words, our decision to avoid stem cell technology WILL affect our economic future. That's not a trump card, but it is worth taking into consideration.
America lags in stem cell research because, as the article states, of:
...the relative lack of money devoted to such research. The federal government limits what researchers can work on with taxpayer-funded grants. The Bush administration policy also forbids federal funding of all cloning research, even if the projects are intended solely to create stem cells like the South Koreans did.
“All the money for this work has dried up,” said Dr. Robert Lanza of Worcester, Mass.-based Advanced Cell Technology, the one U.S. company that has publicly attempted to clone for stem cells, albeit unsuccessfully. “We are lucky to still be in business. Our research has suffered immensely.”
Lanza said he’s been unable to work with human embryos since October because of the high cost of obtaining eggs and the company’s desperate need for investment.
As I noted in a previous post, if you believe that stem cell research is truly immoral, the falling behind in something immoral isn't so bad. Don't operate under the illusion, however, that America's moral problems with stem cell technology will have much of an effect on the wider world. They will continue charging forward in this new area of research, and companies devoted to this technology will be based in those countries.
America's competitive advantage has long been in high-technology, and the fastest growth these days is to be found in biotechnology, not the computing and hardware world in which America has proven historically dominant.
In other words, our decision to avoid stem cell technology WILL affect our economic future. That's not a trump card, but it is worth taking into consideration.
