|
 Monday, March 17, 2003
I think that free market capitalism is the best model we have for any economy. It has the proper bottom-up approach and a good negative feedback. It can use some tweaks from time to time, usually government induced. I just wish I was convinced that the current government believed in a worldwide free market, that it would play by the same rules as others. I am afraid that it will just want to play by its own rules rather than compromise. After shreding Kyoto, starting a war, imposing tariffs, why are we going to abide by any complaints from Europe? 11:11:57 PM 
|
|
Why No Free-Trade First Downs?. One of the (few) good things about Republican administrations is that they generally find it much easier to move the free-trade ball forward than do Democratic administrations. Or, at least, they did until this one.
Is the Bush Administration's failure to make progress on free trade due to ineptness or to malevolence? Do the High Politicians simply not care? Or do they care, but have no idea about how to run international economic policy?
I haven't had anyone explain to me what is going on inside the West Wing, at least not in any fashion I find convincing...
U.S. Unilateralism Worries Trade Officials: ... [Semi-Daily Journal]
There are many reasons that the EU is distraught over our behavior and this is one of them. Our government feels free to do whatever it wants because no one can stop it, even when its own behavior is detrimental to its long term needs. I expect trade wars to be next. That will show those French. As the State Department web pages say about the Smoot-Hawley tarrifs passed in 1930: More generally, Smoot-Hawley did nothing to foster trust and cooperation among nations in either the political or economic realm during a perilous era in international relations. Followed by this passage:The United States generally assumed the mantle of champion of freer international trade, as evidenced by its support for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Our government's view to do it alone appears to be willing to toss off this mantle. Read the article today and 5 years from no. I certainly hope we do not repeat the 1930s. 11:06:43 PM
|
|
Steve Lawrence's paper online or invisible has bee .... Steve Lawrence's paper online or invisible has been referred to before in this blog. But its conclusion is so important that the paper is worth highlighting again:
"Articles freely available online are more highly cited. For greater impact and faster scientific progress, authors and publishers should aim to make research easy to access."
His paper concludes:"Free online availability facilitates access in multiple ways, including online archives, direct connections between scientists or research groups, hassle-free links from email, discussion groups, and other services, indexing by web search engines, and the creation of third-party search services. Free online availability of scientific literature offers substantial benefits to science and society. To maximize impact, minimize redundancy, and speed scientific progress, author and publishers should aim to make research easy to access." [FOS News]
In the March issue of Information Today, Dick Kase .... In the March issue of Information Today, Dick Kaser interviews Pieter Bolman about open-access initiatives. Bolman is vice-president and Director of STM Relations at Elsevier and former CEO of Pergamon and Academic Press. Kaser lobs some softballs, and Bolman hits them. A valuable window into what commercial publishers are thinking about the prospects of open access and how publishers have been misunderstood by researchers and librarians. [FOS News]
Two views - one from a 'proprietary' publisher and one who promotes open access. Which one will win? My view - The day of the $8000 yearly subscription business model is over and publishers will have to readjust to compete. 10:49:53 PM
|
|
Two very different views of current affairs:The Five Lessons of 911
Casuistries of Peace and War You know, this war IS different. Never before have we had the technologies to move information around so rapidly, to form smart mobs so effortlessly. What used to take thousands of committed partisans can now be initiated by tens. The anti-war demonstrations are just the beginning of what can be accomplished using these tools. Creative flow can be achieved almost at will. I firmly believe that the next century will find us applying these technologies to virtually ALL aspects of our lives. The faster we make the shift to the new paradigm, the faster we can get on with it. The greatest changes occur under the greatest stresses. It is not a coincidence that the last real period of international terrorism that struck the US was before, during and after WWI (Americans dies due to a terrorist bomb in Wall Street, we lost one president to a terrorist assassination, and had a world war started by a terrorist.) Much of the 20th Century was spent dealing with the causes and consequences of this problem. I hope it will not the as long a part of the 21st. 10:41:35 PM
|
|
|
|
|
