Changing the policies of an oppressive foreign government is not the job of a business - their job is to make money. Political change is the job of governments and international organizations like the UN.
QUOTE]
I lied, I must answer this.
Hungary (after change from communist to "democratic" country) wanted, to preserve their culture and like, wanted to pass a law stating: minimum 51 percent of all TV, cinema programmes must be European origine, and minimum 21 percent must be Hungarian origine.
USA association of producers I belive (MPAA) called World Bank. Then World bank said Hungarian government if government pass that law, World bank will not grant some loans and some contracts between bank and Hungary.
Just one example how (big) business use politics for earning money.
So, yes, business do use politics for their benefit, so business can use beside their money, also political influence for doing something good for people on this planet. They simply don't want to do that.
Regards
I don't think this is really a good example. The USA association of producers may have called the World Bank, but they did not create the rules the World Bank uses to determine loans. These rules are made by the World Bank for good economic reasons - that kind of economic protectionism is not a good way to promote free trade.
... These rules are made by the World Bank for good economic reasons - that kind of economic protectionism is not a good way to promote free trade.
Hungary (after change from communist to "democratic" country) wanted, to preserve their culture and like, wanted to pass a law stating: minimum 51 percent of all TV, cinema programmes must be European origine, and minimum 21 percent must be Hungarian origine.
USA association of producers I belive (MPAA) called World Bank. Then World bank said Hungarian government if government pass that law, World bank will not grant some loans and some contracts between bank and Hungary.
Just one example how (big) business use politics for earning money.
So, yes, business do use politics for their benefit, so business can use beside their money, also political influence for doing something good for people on this planet. They simply don't want to do that.
Regards
Haris, you remind me of certain discussions about the status of French in Québec. When bill 101 was passed, it forced companies doing business in Québec to label their products in French, and to translate everything that was not a trademark. Some companies even went so far as to pick a French name for their organization.
We also have laws regulating content on TV & radio. There has to be a certain ratio of French v. English channels, for instance.
So what's happening these days is that there is some talk in the economic circles to pressure against bill 101, because it would be a "barrier to commerce." However, because the right decisions were made early enough, the French language is ingrained enough in the culture of many enterprises, and the smarter ones actually realized that they would make MORE money by being cool with the dominant language of the province.
France never did anything like that, even though they are the most important French-speaking country. Perhaps that's because they have a stronger position and did not suffer linguistic threats the way we do.
All of this to say that there is a double standard between G8 countries and those who are not part of the club. Hungary deserves as much as Québec does to preserve its own cultural specificity, and demand that foreign companies play fair with their internal regulations. Maybe we should team up with them.
Michel,
Ah, but do you not realize that the very venue which you use to post the above proves the irrelevancy of Bill 101?
We now live in a world where anyone with a broadband internet connection (of which Canada has amongst the highest level of "saturation") can listen to, see or read media content from anywhere in any language one chooses! This isn't the 1960's when Canada first started with "content laws"; nor the following decade when the Francophonie revolution in Quebec began.
Who cares about controlling broadcast-media language content in a digital narrowcast world?
And that's just the Internet. Think about satellite TV. Go to Saudi Arabia and look at all those dishes on the houses. Do you really think they're tuning into the Imam, or the Disney Channel? Perhaps it's "Sex in the City"?
The language police in Quebec, and the content police in Canada, generally - have lost the war despite winning the battle with those old laws.
So, what will you do now? Shut down access to broadband internet to prevent someone in Ste. Jovite from listening to fundamentalist Christian preachers in Alabama rant and rave about Latino illegal immigrants to America?
Bill 101; "cultural content laws" etc. are irrelevant - the Internet changes all!
There's a difference between the Internet and the TV waves. Offerings on the airwaves are fundamentally limited by the technology. Same thing with public space: it's the environment in which you live. The Internet is "infinite" in a certain way. It's like the postal system. Or the series of tubes that used to be common in New York: you don't have to monitor content in there.
It's also about offering services in French: telling "Speak White" to your customers doesn't cut it anymore.
Where have I said that bill 101 should apply to the Internet? Juste quote me the passage from my previous post that says so, s'il vous plaît. And how would the Internet invalidate the need to keep the public space in French, French advertising on the streets, French schools, or any other thing we've won over the last decades?
Oh, and by the way, you should stop taking film pictures: digital just invalidated that, and you're using the very tool that makes it irrelevant, the computer.
I don't see this as an 'anti-globalism' diatribe and fail to see the relevance of who sells more cars in the USA. It's a simple question: given items of similiar quality, should one make one's purchase choices solely on cost?Reading the bizarre anti-globalism diatribe here creates a certain irony in that today it was announced that Toyota has now surpassed Ford to take over the number two position in US vehicle sales volume.
There's nothing wrong with choosing to be a provincial backwater. Just remember, though; it has its downside.
I don't think money is everything. Like my female colleague said once: "F... the higher sallary if I am not able to see my children during the week".
I can't resist
It is interesting how biggest promoters of globalism are people, countries, istitutions, who try to force rest of the world to accept theire values.
I don't want to look at Paris Hilton every now and then on cover. I don't want to see Larry King interview "Survivor" winner every week. I don't think that boob which fell out during Super bowl finale few years ago made chidren frustrated and sexualy perverted.
Time TV stations used to talk about that boob would be much better spent if they talk about workers rights, uninploiment, health institution access, education access, and other important things.
If you don't want people to think, best way is to give them to eat, and entertain them. Well, I don't want to accept that as my value of life. I do want to think, and to criticize, and to fight against what I see as wrong. I don't want to live in world which say "You are OK so don't think about others"
I do want to listen sevdalinka (traditional music of urban muslims in Bosnia) and don't want to let big international producing companies to force me to listen what they release. And if those companies start release sevdalinka CDs, I don't want to let them to tell me which version of sevdalinka is OK to listen and which is not.
I think political correctness is a way to prevent discussion about important things. I do want to know if someone think that I am less man because I am invalid. I prefer that instead of talking with someone who will lie in my face.
If someone (individual or institution, including government) treat people in underdevelop countries as slavery, and if they use excuses like "that treatment is important to our economy", I don't give a damn what they say. They are simply slave owners.
I don't think monmey is everything. Like my female colleague said once: "F... the higher sallary if I am not able to see my children during the week".
I don't think what is considered as western demokracy is suitable for everyone.
So, yes, antiglobalism is just fine with me.
Regards
Dear PE,You see that this is a conundrum that is impossible to explain here even though I have tried.
PE
I'll no doubt be accused of America-bashing, but few if any European employers could get away with the very short holidays (vacations) that are the norm in the United States. I'm not saying either is better: if people want to work all the hours God sends, and earn lots of money, don't let me stop them. But if they want to work hard enough to live comfortably, not luxuriously, and take a bit more time off, don't let anyone stop them either.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?