UN Flunks Economics Again

[Odin]

Originally posted by MORON
You people don't really want the US to achieve culture victory do you....especially considering how sucky their culture is

at least go for space victory or something......

The US is going for the Domination Victory. The EU is trying to win by Diplomatic or Culture victory.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by Spiffor

This is a nice little troll of yours

Moi?[/Miss Piggy voice]

Originally posted by Spiffor
This question is irrelevant.

Au contraire, it is extremely relevant. Peter Jackson is a non-US producer who benefitted greatly from the distribution system UNESCO seeks to restrict.[/irony]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The resolution is about the principle of allowing the countries to defend their cultures as they see fit.

See #4 above?

Originally posted by Spiffor
This is even more clear cut for TV series. French TV series and other TV shows are tailored for the French audience. Maybe we sell them in other francophone countries, but that's it.

My neighbor, who was in the US diplomatic corps, lived in France for years, and travels there frequently, tells me that French TV series are utter crap. Perhaps that is his taste. Perhaps that is what comes from having a protected market.

Originally posted by Spiffor
the whole debate here is not about economics

Which is precisely my point, merci. Its almost never "about economics". Its always some excuse or other to avoid economics. Other examples that come to mind, in addition to the ones I mentioned a couple pages back:

• Bananas: The EU had geographic quotas on imported bananas. This was justified on the grounds of "commercial and cultural ties" to former colonies. We had to drag you through the whole WTO process to allow larger, more efficient Central American producers to compete.
• Energy: EU countires have gasoline taxes that are far above what is necessary to offset externalities or pay for roads. These taxes could be construed as tariffs on imported oil, but have been justified on the grounds of "energy security" or some such claim. (I won't complain too loudly about this policy, since the US, Canada, and other countries are unintended beneficiaries.)

As I said before, I would be a whole lot more convinced that "its not about economics" if I heard the argument a whole lot less.

Originally posted by Spiffor
France made significant sacrifices within the EU so that the CAP stays untouched until 2013.

And now you are being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the global community.

Originally posted by Spiffor
Chirac is an unilateralist *******. He is to the EU what Bush is to the world.

Thanks for the perspective. Are there any other major French polticians whose views are different?

Originally posted by Odin
The EU is trying to win by Diplomatic or Culture victory.

No cultural victory for the cheese-eating surrender monkeys, 'cause we've got Jazz.

edit: formatting

[Fake Boris]

more efficient Central American producers to compete.

You mean the American latifundia?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Bananas: The EU had geographic quotas on imported bananas. This was justified on the grounds of "commercial and cultural ties" to former colonies. We had to drag you through the whole WTO process to allow larger, more efficient Central American producers to compete.

These producers are probably controlled by large US agro-businesses. Which means that there is a good chance that these bananas are subsidised. Even if they don't, the workers on these plantations are heavily exploited by these US companies.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Au contraire, it is extremely relevant. Peter Jackson is a non-US producer who benefitted greatly from the distribution system UNESCO seeks to restrict.[/irony]

So what? I really don't see how you consider your question any relevant. In case you haven't understood, this UNESCO decision won't lead to homogenous protectionist laws, that will all target the only US, and leave alone the rest of the world.
The UNESCO decision allows countries to use protectionist measures (or more accurately, it prevents the WTO from destroying this possibility) in order to defend their cultures. There is no reason to believe that the US will be singled out, and that every cultural protuct that dodges the US will be a.o.k.

So, in short, the people at UNESCO don't give a rat's ass about Peter Jackson. And they don't give a rat's ass about the practicalities of the protectionism.

My neighbor, who was in the US diplomatic corps, lived in France for years, and travels there frequently, tells me that French TV series are utter crap. Perhaps that is his taste. Perhaps that is what comes from having a protected market.

The French TV series suck, and they are not in a protected market. AFAIK, there are no quotas on TV, which is why the TV afternoons are filled with cheapo American crap TV series.

Which is precisely my point, merci. Its almost never "about economics". Its always some excuse or other to avoid economics. Other examples that come to mind, in addition to the ones I mentioned a couple pages back:
[...]
As I said before, I would be a whole lot more convinced that "its not about economics" if I heard the argument a whole lot less.

This is simply another perspective than the American one. In the American thought, almost everything in life is about economics (there are even economic models about the choice of a partner and the choice to have children). In most other countries, economic is but one part of life, not the almost entirety of it.

Culture is one item among many others that is not inherently economic, and that shouldn't be treated as a mere ware, subject only to the laws of the market.

Of course, in your perspective, you could tolerate that maybe one or two items are like that, but you cannot imagine that your perspective is actually completely skewed, and that a huge bunch of human activities escape pure economics. As such, when you often hear that "it's not about economics", you immediately believe that it's a show of bad faith. When it is actually simply another perspective.

One that happens to be sensible

(I agree that the banana thing was purely about economics and realpolitik. I find all your other examples, however, either to be justified or irrelevant - the protection of national champions had nothing to do with culture)

Thanks for the perspective. Are there any other major French polticians whose views are different?

There are two parties that seriously favour giving up more sovereignty to the EU (the Greens and the Centrists are serious federalists). There are many personalities who think we should imitate the US and Britain (for example, the mabitious right-winger Nicolas Sarkozy). There is a very important difference in style between the Gaullists and pretty much every other politician.

[Kuciwalker]

So what? I really don't see how you consider your question any relevant. In case you haven't understood, this UNESCO decision won't lead to homogenous protectionist laws, that will all target the only US, and leave alone the rest of the world.
The UNESCO decision allows countries to use protectionist measures (or more accurately, it prevents the WTO from destroying this possibility) in order to defend their cultures. There is no reason to believe that the US will be singled out, and that every cultural protuct that dodges the US will be a.o.k.

There's a very simple reason to believe the US will be singled out: we're the single greatest producer of cultural products by a huge amount. Any restrictions disproportionately affect us even if they are applied across the board.

[DinoDoc]

There is no reason to believe that the US will be singled out, and that every cultural protuct that dodges the US will be a.o.k.

French culture minister Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres said nations had a right to set artistic quotas because 85% of the world's spending on cinema tickets went to Hollywood.

[Kuciwalker]

This is simply another perspective than the American one. In the American thought, almost everything in life is about economics (there are even economic models about the choice of a partner and the choice to have children). In most other countries, economic is but one part of life, not the almost entirety of it.

Ironic, given that it's economics that have brought several European nations below the replacement rate...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
There's a very simple reason to believe the US will be singled out: we're the single greatest producer of cultural products by a huge amount. Any restrictions disproportionately affect us even if they are applied across the board.

Again, what has it to do with Peter Jackson?

Adam Smith is asking this uestion as if the UNESCO had just written a law saying "American movies are rejected, other movies are free to go wherever they please". A law that would hurt Peter Jackson as an American, but not as an NZian.

Yet, this is not what happened. So, considering that the protectionist laws are not universally in place now, and considering that they will change from country to country, I don't see the usefulness of his question. It's not like anybody in the world can give an actual answer to it.

I admit his question is a nice troll though

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

There is no reason to believe that the US will be singled out, and that every cultural protuct that dodges the US will be a.o.k.

French culture minister Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres said nations had a right to set artistic quotas because 85% of the world's spending on cinema tickets went to Hollywood.

Yes, and the day Bollywood takes over the world, the big bad industry will be Bollywood. You guys happen to be the big bad guys right now because you are the ones who happen to be inundating the world with your culture. But the day you stop to be the top dog, you'll be ignored, and the new top dog will be targeted. Duh.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Yes, and the day Bollywood takes over the world, the big bad industry will be Bollywood. You guys happen to be the big bad guys right now because you are the ones who happen to be inundating the world with your culture. But the day you stop to be the top dog, you'll be ignored, and the new top dog will be targeted. Duh.

This post seems to be a valid reason to believe that the US will in fact be singled out.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And is in fact being singled out right now, DD .

[DinoDoc]

Which makes me curious on what basis Spiffor claims that there is no reason to believe that the US will be singled out.

[KrazyHorse]

Well, all I can tell you is that CanCon legislation makes no mention of keeping American media out; it treats all foreign media as equal...

[Kuciwalker]

Which country do you think that affects the most?