UN Flunks Economics Again

[Cyclotron]

Using your nonexistent, "whatever I feel like" definition of an "opiate," well, I suppose anything can be compared to drugs. That justification is vague and worthless, much like this UNESCO anti-US circle jerk.

As is raising children, something TV has a big impact on.

Good parents don't raise their kids with TV. It's not America's fault if you're bad parents.

[Sirotnikov]

Good parents don't raise their kids with TV. It's not America's fault if you're bad parents.

[VetLegion]

Good parents don't raise their kids with TV. It's not America's fault if you're bad parents.

Why did Janet Jackson's *** rock America? And TV network had to apologize and got a fine and whatnot. Federal intervention because of a ***.

You want to defend free market of TV products using USA as an example of it? Don't be ridiculous. You regulate yours (FEA, FAD, FCC, what is it I forgot) and then you regulate it some more to make it fit the needs of your society.

If, say, Turks feel that Beverly Hills is bad stuff, they are free to ban it. Or BBC documentaries about physics. Or Holywood movies. Anything. It's their decision, as is yours to ban nudity.

[Seeker]

The Lumiere brothers invented movies in France. So the French 'dominated' the 19th century cinema market..........then the Germans and Russians had to step in and show them how to make real movies...and then 'Hollywood' came along when film production companies moved to, at the time, cheaper and more scenic california.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Why did Janet Jackson's *** rock America? And TV network had to apologize and got a fine and whatnot. Federal intervention because of a ***.

Because, like most nations on earth, there are many idiots in America who care about that sort of thing. It's not as if America doesn't have its share of bad parents too.

You want to defend free market of TV products using USA as an example of it? Don't be ridiculous. You regulate yours (FEA, FAD, FCC, what is it I forgot) and then you regulate it some more to make it fit the needs of your society.

If, say, Turks feels that Beverly Hills is bad stuff, they are free to ban it. Or BBC documentaries about physics. Or Holywood movies. Anything. It's their decision, as is yours to ban nudity.

You're right. They can ban it if they want - but UNESCO is not the place to do it. Censorship should not be enacted using the excuse of "cultural preservation." Call it for what it is - censorship. The UN has better things to do.

[VetLegion]

You know how the Israeli music, film and other culture industries dealt with the huge storm of american culture products in the 80s and 90s, taking up revenues and stealing the hearts and minds of Israelis?

They got better

Like hell they did . It is pretty silly to claim that art gets better because of market pressure, I think. More market oriented, maybe. But that is not that deterministic either.

And I would be very surprised to see a development like this:

1991 - Israeli movies 15% ticket revenues, Holywood 85%
2003 - Israeli movies 40% ticket revenues, Holywood 60%

I doubt you know the exact figures off top of your head, but I can bet my Apolyton subscription that its more like 15%->17% than anything else, if anything happened at all.

Also, are Israeli movies sponsored by the government? I think they are at least partially. Not very market of them

[Cyclotron]

Britain's representative to Unesco, Timothy Craddock, said the wording was "clear, carefully balanced, consistent with the principles of international law and fundamental human rights"

This is what I'm talking about. It doesn't have anything to do with human rights and he damn well knows it. It has to do with, as the French culture minister said, money. That's why this is lame. Can you get that?

[VetLegion]

I was a bit surprised why UK was backing this.

[Seeker]

Anyone noted the recent upsurge in Korean cinema over the last decade?

They've made some pretty decent films, some of which have been adapted.

The Korean government does subsidize it's film industry in the following way: Any cinema must show a certain percentage of 'native' movies.

I believe this is based on the 'incubator' idea of subsidies, that a native industry needs to be put in a green house for a short period, until it can compete on its own, and then can be transplanted into the competitive garden.

[Cyclotron]

VetLegion, I'll give you a hint: for the same reason France is.

[VetLegion]

Seeker, that is what the French do too. Spiffor argued that it has helped French music and movies to flourish.

In fact, in that last discussion about this, I think I argued against Spiffor, saying that people should have a right to choose

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
Censorship should not be enacted using the excuse of "cultural preservation." Call it for what it is - censorship. The UN has better things to do.

Might be away for the French to escape the WTO?

[Cyclotron]

I don't know much about France's limits, but do the quotas actually prevent specific programming and movies from getting over, or is it just reduced frequency of American programming?

Living in America has given me a poor background in this, as we don't watch that-there foreign stuff much. I don't think I have any specific problems with quotas designed to encourage French filmmakers.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Might be away for the French to escape the WTO?

Have they been trying to do that?

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Might be away for the French to escape the WTO?

I think it's exactly that (though, not only the French). Countries are voicing through UNESCO to get some extra weight behind the push to exempt cultural stuff from free trade.