The Mapmakers Petition
This could have also been labelled as from the files of
“anti-trust is not about consumers.” Apparently, a mapmaker in France
has successfully sued and won damages from Google for unfair competition, ie from providing Google Maps for free.
Just as in the Microsoft anti-trust case and just about every anti-trust case in history, companies who brought the suit are really trying to stop an up-start competitor from trashing their business model, but they have to couch this true concern in mumbled words about the consumer. Specifically, they raise that ever-popular boogeyman of jacking up prices once the monopoly is secured. The next time this happens, of course, will be the first time. Its a myth. For example, in Google’s case, left unsaid is how they would jack up their prices when at least two other companies (Bing, Mapquest) also provide mapping services online for free.
Just as in the Microsoft anti-trust case and just about every anti-trust case in history, companies who brought the suit are really trying to stop an up-start competitor from trashing their business model, but they have to couch this true concern in mumbled words about the consumer. Specifically, they raise that ever-popular boogeyman of jacking up prices once the monopoly is secured. The next time this happens, of course, will be the first time. Its a myth. For example, in Google’s case, left unsaid is how they would jack up their prices when at least two other companies (Bing, Mapquest) also provide mapping services online for free.
The Media and Cancer Risks
The old saying goes, “where there is smoke, there’s fire.” I
think we all are at least subconciously suceptible to thinking this way
vis a vis the cancer risks in the media. We hear so much about these
risks that, even if the claims seem absurd, we worry if there isn’t
something there. After all, if the media is concerned, surely the
balance of evidence must be at least close – there is probably a small
risk or increase in mortality.
Not so. Take cell phones. We have heard for decades concern about cancer risk from cell phones. But they are not even close to dangerous, missing danger levels by something like 5 and a half orders of magnitude.
Not so. Take cell phones. We have heard for decades concern about cancer risk from cell phones. But they are not even close to dangerous, missing danger levels by something like 5 and a half orders of magnitude.
Cell phones do not cause cancer. They do not even theoretically cause cancer. Why? Because they simply do not produce the type of electromagnetic radiation that is capable of causing cancer. Michael Shermer explains, using basic physics:
…known carcinogens such as x-rays, gamma rays and UV rays have energies greater than 480 kilojoules per mole (kJ/mole), which is enough to break chemical bonds… A cell phone generates radiation of less than 0.001 kJ/mole. That is 480,000 times weaker than UV rays…If the radiation from cell phones cannot break chemical bonds, then it is not possible for cell phones to cause cancer, no matter what the World Health Organization thinks. And just to put the “possible carcinogen” terminology into perspective, the WHO also considers coffee to be a possible carcinogen. Additionally, it appears that politics and ideology may have trumped science in the WHO’s controversial decision.
The Ultimate End of Social-Democratic Labor Policy
When a country- Increases the minimum wage, and therefore the minimum skill / productivity needed for a job
- Adds substantially to the costs of labor through required taxes, insurance premiums, pensions, etc
- Makes employees virtually un-fireable, thus forcing companies to think twice about hiring young, unproven employees they may be saddled with, good or bad, for decades
- Puts labor policy in the hands of people who already have jobs (ie unions)
- Shift wealth via social security and medical programs from the young to the old
The bitterly ironic part is that when these folks hit the streets in mass protests, it will likely be for more of the same that put them there in the first place.
Want to argue that such policies are hurting workers rather than helping? Good luck, at least in Italy
Pietro Ichino, a professor of labor law at the University of Milan and a senator in the Italian legislature, is known as the author of several “neoliberal” books and studies recommending that the Italian government relax its extraordinarily stringent regulation of employers’ hiring and firing decisions. As Bloomberg Business Week reports, that means that Prof. Ichino must fear for his life: “For the past 10 years, the academic and parliamentarian has lived under armed escort, traveling exclusively by armored car, and almost never without the company of two plainclothes policemen. The protection is provided by the Italian government, which has reason to believe that people want to murder Ichino for his views.”Memo to US: Don’t get cocky, you are going down the same path
Update: Interesting and sort of related from Megan McArdle
An apparent paradox that frequently puzzles journalists is that Europeans work fewer hours than workers in the United States, while in some countries, hourly productivity appears to be the same, or even higher, than that of American workers. This is not actually a paradox at all. Much of the decline in European hours worked per-capita came in the form of unemployment. Rigid labor laws which make it hard to fire (and thus, risky to hire) shut less productive workers out of the market, particularly the young, and those who had been displaced due to disruptive industry change. So does anything that raises the cost of labor, like, er, loads of mandatory vacation and leave. When you exclude your least productive workers from the labor force, your measured hourly productivity will be higher, particularly if you use metrics like GDP per hours worked.
No comments:
Post a Comment