331–340 of 343 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As irrelevant as Australia, Japan, Canada, South Korea? I think I could handle that.
Exactly - the UK currently has comparable GDP per capita to tiny middle of nowhere commonwealth economies like New Zealand. Yet they have the fundamentals to be at least at Australian and Canadian levels of prosperity.
> The proposals will require that streaming services give over at least 30% of their on-demand catalogues to original productions made in each EU country where a service is provided (individual EU Member States could choose to set the content bar even higher, at 40%) 30% for each country seems really high to me. As usual for regulation, there will likely be high unintended consequences. While in the US and elsewhere…
Its not as if Netflix is the creme de la creme of cinema. Netflix already sucks outside the US. Outside the US, there's far less content, and there is either way a lot of filler content anyway. What is going to happen is that Netflix will get the rights to stream (hopefully quality) local movies and series. That's gonna differ per country in EU. For example, some movies get broadcasted once or twice on public TV and…
Netflix from my understanding can pay less upfront for rights to well known movies outside the U.S. (https://flixed.io/newest-best-netflix-movies/).
The problem with Netflix from a non-U.S. region viewer is its lackluster offering of native language movies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly - the UK currently has comparable GDP per capita to tiny middle of nowhere commonwealth economies like New Zealand. Yet they have the fundamentals to be at least at Australian and Canadian levels of prosperity.
I hope you're right and the UK will prosper, but so far it fights imaginary enemies instead of conducting well thought out reforms.
Too many politicians in the UK are trying to ensure the economy tanks when the UK leaves the EU.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you back up your claims with any evidence?
Here is a starting point for your research. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ha-Joon_Chang He has written a lot on this subject. Also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Jacobs Jane Jacobs is another who writes very clearly on the role protecting home markets ply in development. Anecdotally, Victorian Britain was full of indignant stories about Yankees stealing intellectual property. One of the reasons Dickens conduc…
1. Protectionism resulted in greater economic growth for the US, Germany, Japan, and China.
The example of China is particularly egregious since it was China's economic liberalization reforms in the 1980s and 1990s, including opening up to foreign investment and lifting protectionist policies, that resulted in massive economic growth and massive poverty reduction.
2. There is a positive correlation between protectionism and development in African countries. This is ironic because protectionism is a major source of harm for African countries. From the introduction of [5]:
In recent years, as African governments and development advocates have stepped up their campaign to reform the trade policies of rich countries, the issue of agricultural protectionism has come to the forefront. This is a highly divisive issue, with rich countries resisting poor countries' demands for major changes... Critics highlight the hypocrisy of rich countries giving lip service to free trade while maintaining tariff barriers and paying subsidies to their farmers. Their argument that agricultural protectionism places an unfair burden on Africa is becoming a mainstream view.
There is a consensus among economists that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare [1][2][3][4], so rapsey's extraordinary claim to the contrary requires extraordinary evidence. As Gregory Mankiw says [6], "Few propositions command as much consensus among professional economists as that open world trade increases economic growth and raises living standards."
[1] https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/675410
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/upshot/economists-actuall...
[3] https://piie.com/newsroom/short-videos/why-after-200-years-c...
[4] https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/2004/09/...
[5] https://www.jstor.org/stable/40209918
[6] http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/05/outsourcing-redux.htm...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you live in a theoretical world with no basis in reality.
Really? Are you saying comparative advantage doesn't exist?
Our economies are largely service and manufacturing based. Is one country better at programming, manufacturing, cooking, etc. then another? All of these things are taught and developed. Any country can become good at any of these service or manufacturing jobs. China is a manufacturing powerhouse, but so is the US, Germany and South Korea.
China and South Korea both had extremely clear strategies set forth by their governments to develop a manufacturing base over the past 30 years. What point in there in some comparative advantage theory? Nothing is innate and unchangeable. Just good economic policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is a starting point for your research. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ha-Joon_Chang He has written a lot on this subject. Also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Jacobs Jane Jacobs is another who writes very clearly on the role protecting home markets ply in development. Anecdotally, Victorian Britain was full of indignant stories about Yankees stealing intellectual property. One of the reasons Dickens conduc…
Again, I see no data that supports rapsey's claims, namely that 1. Protectionism resulted in greater economic growth for the US, Germany, Japan, and China. The example of China is particularly egregious since it was China's economic liberalization reforms in the 1980s and 1990s, including opening up to foreign investment and lifting protectionist policies, that resulted in massive economic growth and massive poverty…
Not lifting completely, just enough to facilitate economic growth. Importing anything in the US, EU or China is process full of protectionist policies and tariffs that you must overcome.
The proof is in the pudding. The right amount of protectionism has proven to work in every successfully developed country. There are NO exceptions.
> "Few propositions command as much consensus among professional economists as that open world trade increases economic growth and raises living standards."
Economics would not be the first field with a popular theory that is complete nonsense that whenever tried has only resulted in catastrophe. Because it only works well in mathematical models instead of the read world.
Funny how all those economists have not convinced a single developed country to believe their theories and put them into practice.
Everyone here actively despises the local film industry. We do not need to inflict Dutch television on the world. Thats torture. Good shows should earn their ratings, not be force fed- if your culture is so great France and Germany you wouldn't need these subsidies. Netflix is not a public broadcaster.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it will pretty much never be cost-efficient to make a German language movie with a limited market compared to a English movie. No matter how great it is. It is even worse for smaller countries like Finland or Netherlands. There will NEVER be comparable ratings for a Dutch comedy show vs Modern Family with a global audience. So unless regulated, investments will shift to…
Not to mention, that this is one of the reasons we still have borders, wars, etc, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But, isn't this literally the point of the European common market? Germans make the best pretzels, Italians make the best olive oil, and French make the best cheese, and all the countries can share their exports with each other with no trade barriers. Why should protectionism be embraced for cultural exports when the EU was literally established to eliminate protectionism for other exports?
Because "Freedom to speech" and "Freedom of thought, conscience and religion" are basic human rights.