UN Flunks Economics Again

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Flubber


True-- Are you claiming there should be a higher standard for "news" at a public broadcaster. ??

Of course.

[Spiffor]

This is a great victory for cultural diversity. It is an immense achievement, and I'm very proud that most countries in the world decided to take steps in order to defend their cultural heritages, instead of letting these cultures be destoyed by some sacrosanct "market"

Unesco

[Flubber]

Originally posted by DanS


I should certainly expect so!

That is actually sad. Why should public ownership mean that things presented as "facts" are held to a higher standard.

Facts should be facts but that I guess would be some form of ideal world that has never existed.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
Here is the last paragraph of a text in support of this I found on Radio Canada International.

The United States disagrees with the text. The US tends to view culture in market terms rather than in terms of cultural diversity. The strong presence of Hollywood films and American television shows is overwhelming in many countries and crowds out local productions. The purpose behind Canada's efforts, and the efforts of other countries, is not to work against Hollywood films but to allow countries an even chance to talk about their own stories on their own airwaves, to show their own films, write their own books, and to exchange their works with other countries rather than having limited options in the world. Judging on the international reaction to Canada's stand on the issue, it appears UNESCO will accept its new definition as part of a new international law to protect cultural diversity.

http://www.rcinet.ca/rci/en/chroniques/10092.shtml

Ding ding ding.

If the US sees culture only in terms of market, fine by me. As long as it doesn't let the world's cultural heritage go to waste because of that definition. Live in your definition of culture, nobody prevents you to do so

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Flubber
That is actually sad. Why should public ownership mean that things presented as "facts" are held to a higher standard.

Because government money shouldn't go to blatantly partisan programming.

[DanS]

In fact, it's you who are seeing culture only in terms of market. Who's been wagging their tongues about market share?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Ding ding ding.

I thought that was a well articulated viewpoint, even if I don't agree with it. I'm glad I got something right.

If the US sees culture only in terms of market, fine by me. As long as it doesn't let the world's cultural heritage go to waste because of that definition. Live in your definition of culture, nobody prevents you to do so

Why is it that the prevalence of Hollywood will "let the world's cultural heritage go to waste?"

I also dispute the idea that America, or its government, views culture in terms of market - that, IMO, is a false characterization. Rather, the US government in this case is just trying to protect a major part of its export economy, films. There's no basis to read some deeper meaning into it about our conception of culture.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by DanS
But I've already told you why their perceptions are incorrect. Why are they disadvantaging their other home-grown industries by setting up barriers to Hollywood?

The books have to balance!

Wouldn't the same argument work in reverse wrt softwood lumber? and I don't believe the U.S. has had balance books in quite some time.



Oh and while I haven't read the details of this convention, I seriously doubt that it would be anything other than a minor annoyance for Hollywood. People will still flock to the latest blockbusters in Toronto and Calgary as they always did.

Plus enough "Hollywood" movies are now made in Canada that they could probably stick a "made in Canada " label-- I believe Brad Pitt has been in and around Calgary for close to 3 months

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
Ah, well. French cinema still continues, and some of it is quite good - I don't know what they're compaining about. Sounds like common greed to me.

The only reason why French cinema is any livelier than other European cinemas (save the British cinema, which is also lively) is because we have non-market mechanisms to defend it and promote it.

In international bargainings, the US has long intended to remove all non-market mechanisms in services, including cultural services. France has long resisted it, and it was called the "cultural exception" (something at which the US is seething).

If we went with the US demands during international bargainings, the French movie industry would be as nonexistent as the German one today. This is why we grant so much importance to the "cultural exception".

Today is great news. Since it is the US that is isolated, and not France, it means that we don't have to fight an uphill battle anymore. We are finally on the winning side on this one, and we'll continue to be able to produce quality movies.

And with any luck, this decision will encourage countries to defend and promote their cultures like we do ours, and I'll get to see more movies from across the world

[DanS]

Wouldn't the same argument work in reverse wrt softwood lumber?

Yes. Of course.

and I don't believe the U.S. has had balance books in quite some time

Sure we have. The difference is made up in investment. Nobody wants to buy into their own country's economy, so they buy into ours.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Flubber
Oh and while I haven't read the details of this convention, I seriously doubt that it would be anything other than a minor annoyance for Hollywood. People will still flock to the latest blockbusters in Toronto and Calgary as they always did.

That may well be. The position of the government is not neccessarily that the prop is bad - in fact, I belive they ok'd an initial draft before they rejected the final. Their objection is that the wording is too vague, and has the potential to be an annoyance for Hollywood.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
I also dispute the idea that America, or its government, views culture in terms of market - that, IMO, is a false characterization. Rather, the US government in this case is just trying to protect a major part of its export economy, films. There's no basis to read some deeper meaning into it about our conception of culture.

'Tis very possible. I don't really care about the deep caracterization of culture in the US society (though if 'Poly is anything to go by, it's much much more market riented than the French one )

[Cyclotron]

Today is great news. Since it is the US that is isolated, and not France, it means that we don't have to fight an uphill battle anymore. We are finally on the winning side on this one, and we'll continue to be able to produce quality movies.

And with any luck, this decision will encourage countries to defend and promote their cultures like we do ours, and I'll get to see more movies from across the world

I fail to see how this will help you continue to produce quality movies. Internal subsidies to film companies are entirely different than a convention that could actively block our exports. I think the support France gives its arts is wonderful, and I wish our government would do the same - what I object to is France, not the US, treating this like a trade issue.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by DanS

Nobody wants to buy into their own country's economy, so they buy into ours.

Wow- What an amazingly inaccurate statement

[DanS]

Originally posted by Flubber
That is actually sad. Why should public ownership mean that things presented as "facts" are held to a higher standard.

Facts should be facts but that I guess would be some form of ideal world that has never existed.

This post just plain perplexes me. I don't send any money to Fox. They can do whatever they please, this side of libel. However, I do send money to the federal government, which is supposed to be neutral and unbiased.

The PBS Newshour adheres to this philosophy strictly and is respected because of it.