h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Are you talking about giving food away? Exactly how many American farmers is THAT going to put out of work? We as a nation have the highest GDP per capita in the world by far. That's because our market is extremely efficient and because there are a lot of us. But our population is not the biggest reason we as a nation produce over $8,000 per PERSON per year in GDP. India has twice as many people, and they produce less than the GDP of Texas! It's because they are inneficient. I'd much rather live in an efficient economy than an inefficient one, and giving away food to the world would put us out so fast your head would spin! What needs to happen is that nations who are starving need to admit they need economic help and let someone show them the way to a free market! Some countries are just stubborn when it comes to their government, but if they would just have an open mind and start caring about their people, they could earn a living for themselves as a nation and put bread on their own table.

Thanks.......

TYPO WARNING...I MEANT TO PUT $32,000, NOT 8,000!!!!!!!!!!! SORRY, I JUST WOKE UP!
kg

Linus

It is true we send rubbish but we can only sell what people want to buy. You can't get advertisers money if they don't think people won't watch it. Better commercial programming dies a paupers death becasue people don't watch it. The advertisers are aware of that.

By the way I would love to see Shortland St. or Neighbors?

I don't understand the reference to Shortland street or Neighbours.....

My comment was meant in the same sense as Two Bit's. He seems to feel that ideally American farmers should concentrate on feeding American's hungry. I feel that this is not incompatible with the world's farmers successfully feeding the world, since the world produces several times more food than is needed. Distribution is the key.

Both of us recognise that in practice American farmers will feed the person who pays them the most money, regardless of nationality. Yet we were both taking an idealistic perspective, though it does seem we have differing ideals.

> "What needs to happen is that nations who are starving need to admit they need economic help and let someone show them the way to a free market!"

Starvation in Russia want up drastically when it switched to capitalism. Ditto with many other countries. It is far from clear that free markets are the best way to feed the poor in a country. Indeed, there is good evidence that unrestrained free markets act to *increase* inequality and poverty.

Also, free markets increase the likelihood of food shortages. For example, free markets act to increase the likelihood of desertification, and are especially efficient at destroying fish stocks. The fish example is particularly nasty - as the number of fish decreases, the price per fish increases hyperbolically, so the number of fish killed per year remains steady until all fish are killed. That's economic fact, and it's a problem which *cannot* be solved in a proper free market. The best solution anyone has found to date is to use a quota-system - an essentially communist solution.

As mentioned in another forum, in the fine traditions of "globalisation" and "the market rules" most farmers from the US and Europe should walk off their farms. Farm subsidies distort the market and penalise efficient countries. Indeed, one could say this is why some people believe some Americans speak with forked tongues.

On June 21 EC agriculture commissioner Frans Fischler issued a statement claiming that substantial increases in government support for US agriculture severely undermine the credibility of frequent US statements on the need for a global reduction in agricultural support. He also claimed that direct support to US agriculture has increased by 700 percent since 1996.

Those following agriculture issues and the important discussions on agriculture taking place in the World Trade Organisation and the OECD are aware that American government assistance to its farmers remains less than one-half that provided by the EU. The most respected indicator of support to the agriculture sector, the OECD's producer support estimates (pses), provides the following comparisons in its just-released report: in 1999 the EU provided $114.5 billion in producer support which was the equivalent of 49 percent of gross farm revenue. The comparable figure for the US was $54 billion in producer support or 24 percent of gross farm revenue.

The comparable figures for New Zealand are a big fat ZERO. That's right folks, NZ farmers, the world's most efficient, are not subsidised.

Bring on the level-playing field.

Food was just an example. Although, I don't think we should be subsidizing farmers and agribusiness.

My point was that a nation has to take care of its own first. All other things being equal, an American life is more important to me than that of foreigner.

Under ALL circumstances TBTP Moron?

Hi all
Today I came to read and not write but this deserves an answer I think.
Your line of thinking here is how great the USA is one economy etc. What I have never understood is why there are still *reservations* for American Indians in this *efficient* 32.000 dollar a year GDP. Or maybe the Indians are not Americans afterall? Why *aid* other countries while conditions in the reservations are no better than most "developing" countries? Do the street-walking Americans KNOW about what goes on to their fellow citizens before their very eyes? Or again, maybe these Indians are just not Americans. OK, natives to some they are!
Just wondering. Just wondering.

No, that's why I wrote, "All other things being equal."

No offense, but the United States is my nation. As nations go, my primary concern is the preservation of this country, its citizens and residents.

We have reservations because we're obligated to provide them by treaty. Indians are sort of a special class of people in this nation. They're citizens, but they also have some privileges that other citizens don't have. The reservations are, in some ways, treated as separate nations. Odd legal things come up. For instance, many reservations can have casinos, because state laws apply to the reservations in a different way than they do to the rest of the state. They can also tap into special entitlement programs.

Indians are free to leave the reservations if they wish, and they can return later. No one is holding them there.

They might be free to leave the reservations but they are not free to go back to their traditional land though.

Not that this situation is unique to America we have our own problems in Australia as well


As for TV, Who ever asked before, no you definately DON'T want to watch Neighbours, but i agree tv is rulled by advertising and the lowest common denominator meaning good shows are few and far between.

American farmers efficient? Why do they put massive tarriffs on Australian lamb then?

Tut, tut - not all Americans hate us Brits, but 'Hollywood' certainly does. In any given movie,or TV cop show, we can tell who the villain(s) is/are.. It will be the woman, the foreigner or the Brit.. especially anyone who is all three! (Latest example.. Joan Collins(!) in a piece of dreck called Pacific Palisades, which we saw part of when channel surfing late last night - playing one of TVs favourite characters, the awful, domineering, sly, devious downright evil Mom of a character called Laura, amusingly played by Kimberley Davies an Australian late of Neighbours!)Gary Oldman is typecast as 'the bad guy' in things as diverse as 'Lost In Space' (the movie) and Disney's "the Magic Sword" a kids' animated movie we saw last week. Amusingly many of the 'British' villains are played by Australians (Colin Friel), New Zealanders (Cliff Curtis, Lani Tupu, Sam Neill) or South Africans (Arnold Vosloo) especially in made in NZ things like Hercules and Xena. Not to mention Jeremy Irons in the Lion King, and the well known horror story of Dave Prowse. As he was over 6' tall, he was hired to play Darth Vader in Star Wars, but forbidden to play Vader's voice - he's a Northerner and with a strong Liverpool accent, wld be unrecognisable to an American audience as 'British'. So darth Vader's fruity evil Brit voice was provided by James Earl Jones! Dave Prowse is reportedly still hacked off about it after all these years! I laugh to see Colin Friel and Arnold Vosloo referred to by other characters in their respective movies as 'evil British' - to a non-American the marked difference between Australian and English accents is obvious, but Americans are notorious for their tin ear for accents.Witness the fact that on 20 Minutes, 60/60, Dateline and CNN as played on NZ TV, there are sub-titles for Middle Eastern, Indian or African speakers. These don't need sub-titles, but are perfectly understandable, to us. I get the impression that Americans can't be sure of understanding anyone 'non-Western'; I've seen even Dutch people (perhaps the easiest accent in the world(!) sub-titled!

*sigh* Della, no disrespect intended, but quite possibly some of the reason that many people with alternate accents are subtitled here in the US is that a lot of our citizens and other residents don't speak English (or American ) as their native language. And there are a lot of different 'native' dialects within our country. Maybe they are just doing that so as many people as possible will be able to understand what's being said. A lot of us are used to listening to the language in different accents and dialects. That's no reason not to clarify it for those who aren't. Is it really such a big deal?

Ah, yes, the famous American expertise in accent-matching which saw Sean Connery (Scottish) cast as a Spaniard and Christophe Lambert (French) as a Scot in Highlander. And James Doohan, an Irish Canadian, cast as Scotty. And Sean Connery again cast as any kind of foreigner (e.g. Russian submarine captain, Irish policeman) on the grounds that he has "an accent" - all accents being, of course, the same.

But sub-titling of non-UK accents has started on UK TV, I have found myself reading the titles only to slowly realise that the person is speakig understandable english - I feel cheated and insulted by the TV news who have decided I may not understand it.

Another example of the dumbing down of UK TV to meet USA TV

ChawkE

You do not need to be a rocket scientist to work out why Yank-based TV companies appear to make more successful shows (in English) than most other countries.

The law of averages

The more shows a country makes the more chances it has of coming up with a hit.

It also means the Yanks make more rubbishy shows than other countries.

Not just the Americans who have a tin-ear for "British" accents. I once saw a Russian film, that featured a British diplomat. The diplomat spoke many of his lines in english - with an American accent. At one point, he was harrassed by Russians and jumped on a table with a union jack and said (American accent) "This is the flag of my country". Oh dear

Eddie Izard has a great routine about why the Americans cast the English as villains (which comes down to our colonialism) and he expands it to explain why Frenchmen in US films are always so cool - to repay the debt of honour to General Lafyette! "Dress to Kill" - check it out.

Incidentally it the Union Flag, not the Union Jack. It's only a Jack if it's flying on a ship. If your going to be nationalistic you should at least get it right, and following todays football game it's great to see those Union Flags flying upside down all around town tonight.

Ok so we´re back in the fly-F*****g business again (see post 310).

What is wrong with subtitles?I agree with ?? who said that it helps as many as possible to understand the message,i.e. if I sit somewhere where it´s loud (a bar maybe) and there happen to be something "interesting" on-well, nice to have subtitles as i would feel stupid to hush on people .Also deaf people I think are happy about subtitles.In Sweden they subtitle in different colors, so u can see who is talking, and they subtitle phones ringing and knocking on doors etc.

And not to forget; u can put music on and turn down the tv so as to listen to music watching tv and being on the internet at the same time.
So what´s the big deal about subtitles?

Come to think about it, there´s probably too little subtitling around these days. It might be a conspiracy to withhold information from as many as possible....? Ok I´m getting out there now, I know

I DO think it´s irritating that I can´t help reading the subtitles even though i don´t have to, but hey! that´s a western luxury-problem that once again lead us to the afore mentioned national passtime "Fly-F*****g".

Ladies and Gents,bye for now

T´mershi Duween

THIS MESSAGE HAS NOT BEEN SUBTITLED DUE TO LACK OF RECOURCES.

o there's nithing wrong with subtitles for all the reasons you mention, all UK news have teletext subtiltle available, but only if you want/need them.

Subtitling someone with a foriegn accent just because some people couldn't be bothered to stop being stupid for a few minutes and concentrate a little harder seems patronising and even slightly racist to me. The automatic assumtion that we cannot understand someones accent becuase it isn't the normal one is insulting to me anyway.

ChawkE