UN Flunks Economics Again

[Cyclotron]

I suppose I just don't find the idea of quotas on what people hear, watch, or see very palatable. It's not thinking, as you say, only in terms of market - I think people should see what they want. The problem is that there are many people who want to see many different things, and - short of a country-wide polling process - the only way to gauge that is by what people buy. So, you see, as far as I'm concerned the market is a means for discovering these things, not a way of looking at culture. I wouldn't want to make everybody listen to what I like, or even make everybody listen to the things I thought were more culturally valuable or more "American."

I can appreciate how such quota systems revitalize local music, and that is a problem. This is probably a poor comparison, but I live in Austria right now, and I can assure you that I would much rather hear some traditional Austrian music while I am here than the same old crap transplanted from American top 40 charts. Perhaps if I were Austrian, this would anger me a lot more than it does now, and I would want the government to step in.

However, this is not a human right, nor is it an issue for the world body. It is not a human right for the UN to play global nanny state and tell me what music I should spend my time listening to because it's culturally valuable. For all the Austrians that want to hear music from Austrian artists on the radio, there are probably some - if not more - who think that, say, U2 is better and don't care about new Austrian music.

Thus, while I like to think I understand why other people like the idea of quotas, I can't bring myself to do the same. For me, it's not an economic issue - I simply don't want my government - or the world "government" - to tell stations or movie theatres what to play. I consider myself an active and interested enough person to seek out what I want, and try new things that aren't presented to me on mainstream American radio and TV. I think that this is my responsibility, and I'm comfortable with that - I neither want nor need 'help' with it, and I don't think the government or UN should be giving it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is interesting that others are admitting their 'culture' is inferior. If it was so powerful and strong, why does it need protection?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Japher
way to contradict yourself

I guess I should have add the smiley

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
...
Thus, while I like to think I understand why other people like the idea of quotas, I can't bring myself to do the same. For me, it's not an economic issue - I simply don't want my government - or the world "government" - to tell stations or movie theatres what to play. I consider myself an active and interested enough person to seek out what I want, and try new things that aren't presented to me on mainstream American radio and TV. I think that this is my responsibility, and I'm comfortable with that - I neither want nor need 'help' with it, and I don't think the government or UN should be giving it.

Well said. I feel the same way in general.

On the other hand, I must admit I am getting a fair amount of perverse pleasure listening to Americans ***** and moan about how unfair this is. This admin is **** when it comes to playing fair on trade issues so it is good to see mud in their eye.

[Spiffor]

Cyclotron:

I understand what you mean. However, I think you are mistaken by the fact that you haven't experienced the quotas.

Quotas aren't censorship, nor are they works the government forces you to hear. For two reasons:
1) They aren't targeted. Censorship is when a country says: "this particular song is harmful to the state - don't ever air it". Forced art is similar: "this particular song is beneficial to the state - air it". This is not what happens in France. The radio stations can choose among all songs in the world, and among all songs in France (which are numerous enough so that they can never air a song if they so wish). As such, we continue to have theme radios. And you won't ever hear the latest chanson on a rap radio.

2) The radios have about 60% aitime where they can air whatever they want without any restriction in their choice, and there are plenty of radios. If you hate the song currently airing (whether French or not), you can switch to another similarly-themed radio, just like it was before the law. It is very unlikely that you will only listen to French music if you muse through the frequences.

I would like to react to something:

[this is not] an issue for the world body.

It is. The US exerts strong pressure on the WTO to liberalize services internationally, including cultural services. If the EU (or any other country) signs a bulk agreement that contains an item liberalizing culture, it will mean that France's support to its cultural industry, France's quotas etc. will be illegal as per the international law.

It's not only the WTO. There is currently an agreement in the making called the GATS, which among many other things would result in France being forced to subsidize every filmmaker deciding to make a movie in France, regardless of the nationality or of the cultural content of the movie (because, obviously, fair subsidies apply equally to everybody, not only to those who please the state for whatever stupid reason).

It is extremely important to use an international body to stop that tide. Otherwise, other international bodies will get the tide in favour of pure market forces.

[Colon™]

France has a pretty decent homegrown sector of rappers and electronic music artists. I don't see what they need protection for.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Colon
France has a pretty decent homegrown sector of rappers and electronic music artists. I don't see what they need protection for.

All the rest?

We have seen the revival of chanson these last few years, a genre we thought was dead with Brel, Brassens and Ferré gone. However, this genre isn't famous abroad, since it heavily relies on French language rather than music.
There has also been a revival in French rock. In particular, local variations which please me mucho.

BTW, If you're looking for other genres which can stand on their own legs on the market, don't forget idol crap. Like in many other countries, France's idols are a domestic stock. They suck all the same, but they suck en français, s'il vous plaît!

[Cyclotron]

I would argue that there isn't in effect much difference between restricting a certain kind of music to X amount of air time and completely banning it. In either case, the government is intervening in a place where I feel it should not be, by telling media stations - and, by extension, me - what the government thinks is best for me, or best for the nation. Censorship, perhaps, was not the right word.

As per the international role, you are clearly much more well versed on this than I, so I have little to say. However, I don't agree with the "GATS" as per your description - I should think that France should be allowed to subsidize, categorically, what it wants. That is an issue for the French people to decide, and nobody else. If that were what this UNESCO convention was defending - the right of governments to freely subsidize who they want to - then I would be in total agreement. However, the agreement as it stands goes far beyond that (I'm not sure if it even covers that specific issue), to conceivably limit our exports. That's when this whole thing does become a trade issue, and that is when it falls out of the jurisdiction of UNESCO, IMO.

Personally, I wonder what exactly was in the amendments proposed by the US that were turned down - it is unfortunate that a more moderate agreement couldn't be reached that would protect internal subsidies without this alienation of the US. As much as I'm sure you love to see the American government squirm - I admit, I think it's funny too - it's unfortunate that a world body must force a convention that, when viewed by people like me, seems clearly either blatantly greedy or just mean-spirited.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by DanS


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.

.

Are you saying that a free market network should have no obligation whatsoever to the truth as long as they don't libel someone?

I like opinion pieces and in fact have no objection to the CBC or BBC presenting them just as a private broadcaster would.

But I also believe that organizations that purport to present the "news" to the public, SHOULD have an obligation to the truth. If not, why wouldn't they just make up some news stories??

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't see why the Americans here are getting so pissed about this. It's just more proof of how much better our culture is than the rest of the world's. The French et al. can't even get their own people to support French movies and artists over American ones in a fair fight, so they have to stack the deck in their favor. And I'm willing to bet that American culture will continue to be more popular in France than French culture even after they change the rules. The French populace knows what's good and what's not, even if their government doesn't.

America, **** yeah!

[Adam Smith]

After hearing the arguments in favor of the UNESCO agreement, I still don't see how people are made any better off if they are restricted in the purchase of safe, legal goods and services that they would apparently prefer.

I would be a lot more sympathetic to the "its not a market issue" argument if this argument, or one of its close cousins, were not raised for virtually every import you can imagine. Just a few additional examples I am aware of:

• French restrictions on agricultural imports have been justified on the grounds that small country farms are "part of french culture".
• UPS and Fedex were kept out of Germany for more than a decade because Deutch Poste was "an essential unifying factor in Germany".
• US flag airlines were restricted for years in flights to France and other European destinations because "Air France occupies a unique place in aviation history, and is part of our national heritage".
• Entry into the banking industry in France was restricted to protect a "national champion" firm (Credit Lyonaise IIRC). Small wonder that banks could get away with charging a 25% fee to cash a travelers check.
• Entry into the pharmaceutical industry in France was also restricted to protect a "national champion" firm (Sandoz, IIRC).
• And lastly, my personal favorite, for years US and European ski manufacturers were unable to sell in Japan because "Japanese snow is different".

After hearing this argument for about the tenth time, it is hard to see it as anything more than thinly veiled protectionism.

[notyoueither]

Does the US government not undertake some activity in certain industries under the umbrella of 'national interest'?

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I don't see why the Americans here are getting so pissed about this. It's just more proof of how much better our culture is than the rest of the world's. The French et al. can't even get their own people to support French movies and artists over American ones in a fair fight, so they have to stack the deck in their favor. And I'm willing to bet that American culture will continue to be more popular in France than French culture even after they change the rules. The French populace knows what's good and what's not, even if their government doesn't.

America, **** yeah!

What about the 147 other nations?

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Adam Smith

• French restrictions on agricultural imports have been justified on the grounds that small country farms are "part of french culture".
• UPS and Fedex were kept out of Germany for more than a decade because Deutch Poste was "an essential unifying factor in Germany".
• US flag airlines were restricted for years in flights to France and other European destinations because "Air France occupies a unique place in aviation history, and is part of our national heritage".
• Entry into the banking industry in France was restricted to protect a "national champion" firm (Credit Lyonaise IIRC). Small wonder that banks could get away with charging a 25% fee to cash a travelers check.
• Entry into the pharmaceutical industry in France was also restricted to protect a "national champion" firm (Sandoz, IIRC).
• And lastly, my personal favorite, for years US and European ski manufacturers were unable to sell in Japan because "Japanese snow is different".

After hearing this argument for about the tenth time, it is hard to see it as anything more than thinly veiled protectionism.

All this is old when not wrong : Sandoz is a Swiss firm.
US protectionism is still living.

[DanS]

He's thinking Sanofi. Honest mistake.