State of the union address, 2004

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Bend it like beckham was first of all a very rare example of a non-US film that made a commercial success in the US. Second, it's an inferior example of both British and European cinema. Third, it made far less money than the average US movie.

not at all there are others like 'Leon', and several others i meantioned below. and as you say such things are considered inferior but it sells. i don't know what your definition of a good movie is, but such 'inferior' movies are the ones that also gets sold since it takes in the most common denominator. if anything, this shows that by having less of eurocentric taste and go for broader audience, european movies have a good shot at US market too, not to mention rest of the world.

also, given the cost it took to make that movie, and couple it with your argument about foreign export being pure profits, it falls into one of those movies that are made available because they were successful in european markets.

i also think that average money that US movies make is not as good as it seems. some movies(like the ones with Sylvester Stallone) tend to have negative total profit since their cost of production is much higher than revenue they get. Hollywood is not having profit parties all the time.

Again, as I said, it's a matter of proportion. Compare the number of US movies going in European theatres and the number of European movies going in US theatres. Not to mention if you make a comparison between for instance Malaysia and the US.

The US market is large enough to make the movie business profitable. It gives the opportunity to pollute foregin markets by selling expensive movies at incredibly low prices. And by that a complete domination of the market is achieved, killing off any competition.

If you want a direct example of such a method, look at Internet Explorer vs. Netscape. Microsoft is now dominating the market by giving away IE for free, something that Netscape could not do profitably.

In the same way USA uses its economic and political weight to exterminate any domestic products in other countries. And such methods destroy the entire principle of market economy where what the amount you pay is proprotional to the value of the product.

Quote[/b] ]yes it is the point. there are people who are going to pay to see US movies. if there are none, then there won't be 'Yankee Invasion'. there is no reason to beleive that european producers are not capable of making movies that will appeal to such demographics you described above.

People are going to pay to see US movies because there is no alternative for the broad masses. The US is selling expensive movies at much lower prices than they cost to produce in the first place thus eliminating any commercial competition. To even exist, European film industry is highly subsidized. Now Europe can afford that, but third world countries most certainly can't. And as an effect the domestic industry never even has a chance to start as it could never be commercially competitive.

If I started to sell Jaguar cars in the US for $10/car then general motors, ford et al would all go bankrupt. And it would be a very nasty blow to the US industry. US made cars would soon be history as no commercial profit could possibly be made.

Quote[/b] ]better product that will be better in competition. it's always easier to drag someone down than to make better of yourself. competition makes things work. economics says so, and even Karl MArx applied the logic to his ideaology, claiming that class war will lead to better society(eventually ruled by proletiats).

Exactly, and it aint competition when you pollute the market by selling products for a price far lower than the production cost.

Quote[/b] ]although it is somewhat ridiculous, France had some restriction on language used in its domestic movies and tv shows. isn't that something? it's not like europeans are brainless zombies who follow orders and watch US movies.

It's to help prevent the mechanisms mentioned above.

Quote[/b] ]a contradiction. you mentioned that people are getting bombarded with americanization and fall into it. however, you claim that they are not happy with it. if those people do not mind watching better product such as a nice european movie and shell out money for them instead of some lousy US movie, this would be an argument that would work, but said fact is they worry about 'americanization' but they also contribute to it.

It's not at all a contradiction. People see the effects of the americanization and are worried. And they are worried becuase there is no fair alternative as we are bombarded with goods at prices under the market value. People see that the domestic industry is destroyed and that the culture is hollowed out through a dominiation of US music, movies etc

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Again, it's a question of ratio. The US exports so much more than anybody else, that comparisons are pointless.

kinda funny cause US's trade deficits is still larger.

You are an economist, you should know better than to make such an off-hand remark. The trade deficits is because of the large amount of imported natural resources such as oil, gas, iron etc And those go always by the market price.

Quote[/b] ]If it has proven itself to the initial market, it will be sold. take a look at 'Idol'. Simon Cowell started out from UK, and it was sold to a lot more countries including US. what is the result? some Norweigian winning the 'World Idol', another product of franchise. It started out as a show in UK, but it managed to get shown from a lot of nations.(oh the horror! )

It's one sad piece of crap that originated in europe: "reality-tv". It is however, unlike most US movies not draped with flags and other nationalistic and "patriotic" imagery. And the productions are local. The US version is made in the US. The Swedish version is made in Sweden etc So it's not comparable.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]The US market is large enough to make the movie business profitable. It gives the opportunity to pollute foregin markets by selling expensive movies at incredibly low prices. And by that a complete domination of the market is achieved, killing off any competition.

yes, and what is stopping from EU to make their market profitable? if europeans spend their money on europeans and make it profitable there is no stopping of european movies coming to US described with the method ou menationed a la 'dumping'.

second, there is no reasons to have Europeans make movies as they view it. "Enemy at the gates" was made by a French director, and LOTR was made by a New Zelander. incidently it costed 200 mil to make LOTR(or something close to that). are you implying that no european was daring enough to take on the project? look at Harry Potter. it did well in almost all parts of the world.

Quote[/b] ]If you want a direct example of such a method, look at Internet Explorer vs. Netscape. Microsoft is now dominating the market by giving away IE for free, something that Netscape could not do profitably.

ah yes, bless the idiots who don't know how to choose a better browser. this is just like Ford and BMW argument. most people will get Ford since it works, but afficionados will get BMWs. european movie makers can make BMWs, but whrn it comes to making a Ford, it is not a favorable option for them.

Quote[/b] ]In the same way USA uses its economic and political weight to exterminate any domestic products in other countries. And such methods destroy the entire principle of market economy where what the amount you pay is proprotional to the value of the product.

what is market economy and priniciple thereof? right price for right buyers and sellers. the only other constraint is that it should be price takers on obth sides. and frankly, i don't see why european film makers are not able to understand that when they make competitive products, such can be outweighed.

Quote[/b] ]People are going to pay to see US movies because there is no alternative for the broad masses. The US is selling expensive movies at much lower prices than they cost to produce in the first place thus eliminating any commercial competition. To even exist, European film industry is highly subsidized. Now Europe can afford that, but third world countries most certainly can't. And as an effect the domestic industry never even has a chance to start as it could never be commercially competitive.

becuase they already recouped enough from US market? why can't european film makers make something that will sell here and then 're-import' to europe?

Quote[/b] ]If I started to sell Jaguar cars in the US for $10/car then general motors, ford et al would all go bankrupt. And it would be a very nasty blow to the US industry. US made cars would soon be history as no commercial profit could possibly be made.

but if you can sell a Jag fir that much, so can ford(or better). in that case both will bleed. and prospect of mutual destruction will lead to more reasonable competition.

Quote[/b] ]Exactly, and it aint competition when you pollute the market by selling products for a price far lower than the production cost.

and nobody is stopping from other suppliers to do the same.

Quote[/b] ]People see the effects of the americanization and are worried. And they are worried becuase there is no fair alternative as we are bombarded with goods at prices under the market value. People see that the domestic industry is destroyed and that the culture is hollowed out through a dominiation of US music, movies etc

and yet they still buy american prodcusts instead of buying their own. the problem wit hfilm argument is that people worry about it BUT they go see it anyway.

Quote[/b] ]You are an economist, you should know better than to make such an off-hand remark. The trade deficits is because of the large amount of imported natural resources such as oil, gas, iron etc And those go always by the market price.

so is the ticket price for films. if europeans make better movies that fit their taste instead of something that tastes like Big Mac, the market power will leverage against the cheap sell outs.

Quote[/b] ]It is however, unlike most US movies not draped with flags and other nationalistic and "patriotic" imagery. And the productions are local. The US version is made in the US. The Swedish version is made in Sweden etc So it's not comparable.

there, see how you are? your argument starts with how american products are all 'draped with flags and other nationalistic and "patriotic" imagery'. you immediately presume that US products are tools of 'Americanization' and develope arguments from that.

as you said, the 'Idol' shows are locally priduced, but that doesn't mean that Cowell, a Uk citizen cannot make money off of it, which eventually goes to UK budget through taxes. by not interjecting any european or american taste, the show was able to appeal to wide audience, and it worked.

and i feel so sorry or Sweden for having 'Idol'. It was bad enough Norway had one, now Sweden...

[Tex -USMC- 0]

yes, and what is stopping from EU to make their market profitable? if europeans spend their money on europeans and make it profitable there is no stopping of european movies coming to US described with the method ou menationed a la 'dumping'.

second, there is no reasons to have Europeans make movies as they view it. "Enemy at the gates" was made by a French director, and LOTR was made by a New Zelander. incidently it costed 200 mil to make LOTR(or something close to that). are you implying that no european was daring enough to take on the project? look at Harry Potter. it did well in almost all parts of the world.

All of those projects were financed, advertised, and distributed through the American film mechanism, though.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]All of those projects were financed, advertised, and distributed through the American film mechanism, though.

You´re owned by Germany

Hollywood / Germany

[toadlife 3]

In Europe after thousands of years of wars and fighting we've concluded that nationalism ain't all that great. So being force-fed other people's nationalist patriotic imagery ain't all that popular.

Yes. Now instead of trying to force your ideals on others, you force them on your own people. I give France's rediculous headscarf ban as Exibit A and their forcing of governement employees to stop using the word "E-Mail" as Exibit B. The behaviour is the same. Only the target differs.

The reason we cling to our constitution in an almost "sexual manner"   is that when politicians try and pull that crap on us it shelters us from such BS.

Quote[/b] ]It's very noticable even when you discuss things with the most progressive American liberals. There is a certain foundation that is a holy cow, not to be touched or questioned. And it's hardly surprising as an effect of a long term exposure to a system that defines patriotism as the ultimate virtue.

From time to time Gallop and other pollsters will do polls of Americans and ask "Are you happy?". Every time a majority say "yes". I'm not sure of the actuall numbers but I think it like 70/30. Perhaps we are so resistance to radical change, because what we have works for us? We see other nations who are in the shitter, and we can't help but think "Gee they'd be a lot better of if they we more like us."

Quote[/b] ]We have a bit more history and experience. We've been experimenting with different forms of government for thousands of years. We've gone to war an endless number of times. Basically we've reached the conclusion that there are no quick-and-dirty solutions to things. There is no absolute set of ultimate values etc

You speak as if America was founded by a bunch of aliens who were dropped of at plymouth rock by via spacehip. The founders of the U.S. descended from same people today's Europeans descend from.

[Pipski 0]

A lot of these arguments overlook the fact that a proportion of US shows are bought by European (and other) stations because they are actually very, very good. e.g. Simpsons, West Wing, Oz, 6 Feet Under, Sopranos, Malcolm In The Middle, Friends (if you like that kind of thing), Frasier, Band of Brothers (joint with Beeb) etc. etc. There's a lot of dross too but these days we in the UK are the kings of exporting trashy TV. For every Cold Feet, the Office or Phoenix Nights we churn out a Who Wants To Be A Moron, The Weakest Moron, Morons In Their Eyes or Pop Moron. Thanks to which we now have a reputation for producing the worst telly on the planet. And we had to beat competition from the likes of Jerry Springer to win that title, so we must be bad!

Films too. Hollywood turns out some unpardonable garbage and is unbearably self-congratulatory and insular but most years there's some good stuff comes out of there too. No point in blaming Americans, or even Hollywood, if moo-eyed multiplex audiences pay to watch crap.

What p***** me off is that the door swings one way. American networks / studios / whichever souldead goons it is that make these decisions are so frightened of foreign TV and films that they would rather remake them, set in America and featuring Americans than show the original. Cause, you know, if an American audience had to try and empathise with a foreigner their fragile little heads might just explode. e.g. Dear John, `Til Death Us Do Part, Cracker (ffs Cracker!). And if you're going to film a foreign book (High Fidelity, 101 Dalmations) be sure to relocate that action and characters to the US. Most of the time this kind of thing is just small-minded and annoying but at other times it seems, to my slightly paranoid brain, to border on racism. e.g. lots of anti-French sentiment in America, studio committed to making a contemptible hash of a film version of The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen ---> decision to axe French character from the film and replace with mind-bogglingly inappropriate American one. As well as relocating the action to NY (natch).

So, except for the occasional show that sneaks in under the radar America gets much less from us than we get from them. I'd be a lot more annoyed about it if I lived in America `cause I'd be the one missing out on some really decent films and shows. Whereas when the Americans make something cool, we all get to see it. Without having to remake it!

[denoir 0]

Ok, one at a time. First:

Ralph:

You are missing the point entirely. The basis for a working market economy is that you sell your products above the price it costs you to produce them. In case of Hollywood movies, they are dumped at prices far below production cost thus eliminating all possible domestic competition. It's the export equivalent of import tariffs, which are by WTO definitions illegal because they violate the basic principles of market based free trade. It's not all that difficult to understand.

The movies are sold in USA at a market price above production cost, while internationally they're sold at a price under the production cost. For you in that other country to produce something of equivalent quality, it would take much more money than what the American product costs. And it's not something that can be solved through competition as the products are being sold for much less than the cost to produce it.

And we're doing it too! Just not movies. The EU is really rogering most of the thrid world through our Common Agricultural Policy. We're selling milk from cows that are so subsitized that they make more per year than half of the world's population. And I'm not going to defend it: it's bad and I want it changed.

As for movies and music used for Americanization - don't be silly. It's one of the main charachteristics of US made movies. And quite often it's used to distort history. Take Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers, both excellent productions. Very historically correct, apart from one tiny little detail: they give the impression like the Americans were the only fighting force on the ground in Europe. This could not be further from the truth. A minority of the forces liberating Europe were American.

Ok, now toadlife:

Quote[/b] ]From time to time Gallop and other pollsters will do polls of Americans and ask "Are you happy?". Every time a majority say "yes". I'm not sure of the actuall numbers but I think it like 70/30. Perhaps we are so resistance to radical change, because what we have works for us? We see other nations who are in the shitter, and we can't help but think "Gee they'd be a lot better of if they we more like us."

Bangladesh happiest nation in the world. USA is number 46.

And we see another striking example of a combination of both lack of knowledge and wrong assumptions.

Given this information, would it not be right to transform USA more to be like Bangladesh?

Also a nice illustration of the cultural differences. I'm pretty sure that if you put Americans in the system that makes the people of Bangladesh so happy, that the Americans would not be so very happy. So what on earth makes you assume that the people of Bangladesh would be more happy if you put them in an American system?

Quote[/b] ]You speak as if America was founded by a bunch of aliens who were dropped of at plymouth rock by via spacehip. The founders of the U.S. descended from same people today's Europeans descend from.

Well, sort of. They were for the most part a bunch of weirdoes kicked out of Europe for one reason or another. Needles to say that when you build a new society top-down that you'll lose the institutional historical memory of that society. As according to

National Geographics only 16% of the Americans could point to Sweden on a map (actually, even worse - select from four possible answers), I assume that the average American's knowledge of European history is fairly limited.

Edit:

Pipski:

Well put. That's exactly what I'm talking about. It gets quite absurd when they do a remake of a European movie, Americanize it and then sell it back to Europe  

[toadlife 3]

Bangladesh happiest nation in the world. USA is number 46.

And we see another striking example of a combination of both lack of knowledge and wrong assumptions.

Given this information, would it not be right to transform USA more to be like Bangladesh?

Yes, Professor. Please tell me I'm stupid some more.

The polls I was referring to are not the polls you are referring to. Simple as that. I don't think I was making a false asumption.

I've never seen nor heard of the poll you are referring to. The polls I remember seeing were specific to Americans and done by americans. Also, they didn't focus on income of the polled.

Polls depend alot on what exactly was asked, and how it was asked and who was asked the questions, and how the data is interpereted.

I'd be interested in a link to the exact questions asked in that poll, and a description of who they polled.

I'll leave heresay statistics out of my arguments in the future.

Quote[/b] ]Well, sort of. They were for the most part a bunch of weirdoes kicked out of Europe for one reason or another.

Yeeeeah. Similar to how Austrailia was founded by a bunch of criminals right? They must be clueless too then.  

[denoir 0]

The polls I was referring to are not the polls you are referring to. Simple as that. I don't think I was making a false asumption.

I've never seen nor heard of the poll you are referring to. The polls I remember seeing were specific to Americans and done by americans. Also, they didn't focus on income of the polled.

Polls depend alot on what exactly was asked, and how it was asked and who was asked the questions, and how the data is interpereted.

I'd be interested in a link to the exact questions asked in that poll, and a description of who they polled.

I'll leave heresay statistics out of my arguments in the future.

Quote[/b] ]Well, sort of. They were for the most part a bunch of weirdoes kicked out of Europe for one reason or another.

Yeeeeah. Similar to how Austrailia was founded by a bunch of criminals right? They must be clueless too then.  

Ah, yes the natural assumption that a poll made by Americans for Americans would be representative of the world!

Well, as you requested, here is the poll in question. It's called the "World Value Survey" and is done by the University of Michigan. You have a complete set of polls, the data and the methodology used.

The exact question about happyness goes like this:

Quote[/b] ]V11. Taking all things together, would you say you are:

[READ OUT]

 

1.                    Very happy

2.                    Quite happy

3.                    Not very happy

4.                    Not at all happy

9              Don't know [DO NOT READ OUT]

And apparently quite a few nations are happier than Americans. So why do you feel the need to help them when they're happier than you already?

I'll tell you why. It's a modern version of what Europe did a couple of centuries ago with converting "poor heathens" into good Christians.

Quote[/b] ]Yeeeeah. Similar to how Austrailia was founded by a bunch of criminals right? They must be clueless too then.  

Yeah something like that. Although I think that Australia had a bit more continuity since they were and still are member of the British Empire. Not that it matters in any way today, but the point that I'm making is that America is not just a branche of Europe gone wild, but actually has a system and history of its own. Those that moved to America did their best to forget Europe. They were starting a new fresh country. They weren't interested in history and that opinion is reflected even today.

There is such a thing as a institutional memory. Plus as I said, it has a lot to do with your citizens learning history as well. When you are taught in detail about the hundreds of war on our just our little continent, then you tend to be more sceptical when somebody suggest that a new war will bring a good solution. America for one reason or another doesn't have that collective memory. And hence the the difference between the hawkish position of the US and the dovish position of EU.

(Very simplified of course, but I hope you get the point)

[Tex -USMC- 0]

The way I look at it is this: I'm not unsympathetic to the idea America shoulders more than its fair share of criticism for all the ailments of the world, but at times I can't help but see instances where those arguments are at least given credence, if not completely vindicated. For example, when I came home from school today, who did I catch wrapping up his hour on the Fox News Channel other than Neil Cavuto, pipsqueak-in-chief, rattling off a disgusting diatribe against Europe in toto. He railed against European courts indicting Microsoft on anti-trust charges (go figure), Europe's collective aerospace initiatives hurting American aircraft manufacturers (this from a free-market champion), and wrapped up by referring to an entire continent as "sycophants, cowards, hypocrites, and swindlers", ending with something along the lines of "How do you like that, Jacques?" It was quite literally mind-boggling. I know it's just one guy, but I also know that people watch his show and agree with him, and that these peoples' votes count just as much as mine do. Here I was thinking we could share a comfortable mutual contempt from across the ocean and still have our cold-war era alliances to fall back on.

[denoir 0]

@ Jan. 28 2004,01:32)]The way I look at it is this: I'm not unsympathetic to the idea America shoulders more than its fair share of criticism for all the ailments of the world, but at times I can't help but see instances where those arguments are at least given credence, if not completely vindicated. For example, when I came home from school today, who did I catch wrapping up his hour on the Fox News Channel other than Neil Cavuto, pipsqueak-in-chief, rattling off a disgusting diatribe against Europe in toto. He railed against European courts indicting Microsoft on anti-trust charges (go figure), Europe's collective aerospace initiatives hurting American aircraft manufacturers (this from a free-market champion), and wrapped up by referring to an entire continent as "sycophants, cowards, hypocrites, and swindlers", ending with something along the lines of "How do you like that, Jacques?" It was quite literally mind-boggling. I know it's just one guy, but I also know that people watch his show and agree with him, and that these peoples' votes count just as much as mine do. Here I was thinking we could share a comfortable mutual contempt from across the ocean and still have our cold-war era alliances to fall back on.

Well, for what it is worth it's always difficult with generalizations. When you start stereo-typing you're bound to treat some people unfairly. On the other hand if you don't generalize then there are no patterns to see, no conclusions to be made and no discussion possible.

I'm writing this as sort of a disclamer as I'm perfectly aware that the generalizations that I make don't fit in on all Americans or even all Americans posting here.

For instance when I stated that American knowledge of European history wasn't that good, I was for instance perfectly aware that Tex indeed has a solid knowledge of it. I believe that the claim is correct in the relative statistical sense.

What I'm saying is that you shouldn't feel personally attacked when I say "Americans this", "Americans that" etc

The only possibility of highlighting differences is by making generalizations, so I hope you'll cut me some slack when it comes to that.  

Anyhow, here's the Cavuto segment transcript: [ FOX ]

Quote[/b] ]If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: I will never give you diet advice. I mean, do I look like a guy who should be piping up at a restaurant, "Hey, buddy, try the salad?"

No, I don't think so.

So imagine my shock at learning the European Commission (search) is set to fine Microsoft (search) for anti-competitive behavior.

The Europeans say Bill Gates and Co. broke European competition law and should be punished.

Let me see if I get this straight. The socialist governments that cradle their companies are going after an American success story that cradles its windows.

This, from the people whose idea of free trade is keeping American products out and their own grossly subsidized products in. And whose Airbus industry is a consortium, largely financed by and supported with European government money. No wonder these guys can bid so low on plane contracts.

This from the people who bemoan our deficits but don't say boo about their own.

Who say we should watch our economic recovery, when we're growing three times faster than they are.

Who say our tax cuts are too much, while their long-suffering people endure taxes too high.

Yes, we have our problems. But who the hell are you to judge?

The way I see it, unless I'm Bruce Jenner, I won't tell you what to eat. And Europe, unless you're the envy of the world, quit lecturing to our part of the world.

Because news flash, Jacques ... no one cares!

We are many things in this country, but smarmy, lying, jealous, sycophant-ish, afraid-of-competition, socialists we are not.

We have a saying in this country: If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. I say, stay in the kitchen. Right now, food is just about the only thing you are good at.

The text above has a number of logical consistency flaws, but I'll skip going through them as they sould be pretty obvious and also irrelevant to this discussion.

I think it is good to post it as an example of anti-Europeanism. You won't find any equivalent anti-American rants in European mainstream media. On the other hand, this text reminds me of Rush Limbaugh's hateful political little rants. And it's basically the same language used to desribe any of his opponents, such as liberals in general.

Still, I've seen some very disturbing things on FOX that can't be described as anything but racist. (example) And it is disturbin that this is the most watched news channel in the US.

We'll see how this whole Euro-American relationship develops. I'm hoping that this is a temporary situation. Although it can't all be blamed on Bush. There have been some significant changes in the last years. Europe used to be pretty irrelevant to the US as no single European country had the economic, political and military power that could affect US policies in any way. With the EU, that equation is changing rapidly. Only a couple years ago, it would have been imaginable that the dollar would be replaced as the world's strongest currency. But here we are today with the euro having the first place. The joint EU industrial power has started to show its teeth as well (Airbus for example) and has become a serious competitor to US companies. And then there's the developing EU defence pact that the US is so strongly opposes. It's still has quite a bit to go, but when in place the EU will have the strongest military force in the world - roughly twice the size of the US military. Those are serious issues that threaten the US position as a sole superpower that can dictate political and economic terms as it wishes.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]All of those projects were financed, advertised, and distributed through the American film mechanism, though.

You´re owned by Germany

Hollywood / Germany

arrrgghh!!! not again!

denoir:

Quote[/b] ]You are missing the point entirely. The basis for a working market economy is that you sell your products above the price it costs you to produce them. In case of Hollywood movies, they are dumped at prices far below production cost thus eliminating all possible domestic competition. It's the export equivalent of import tariffs, which are by WTO definitions illegal because they violate the basic principles of market based free trade. It's not all that difficult to understand.

and you are missing the point that when the product enters market for sales/transaction, the interaction of consumer and producer decided how much will be sold at how much price. the 'dumping' may work in some cases, but if you look at hollywood closely, it's a tough market. most firms barely break even, and if they are lucky, they will make money, but not in billions you think of(that would work for whole industry, not individual ones). many movies here cost minimum of 1 million dollars to make, and not all of them end up on screen or make enough to break even.

my point is that european directors can get a project that will also sell to american audience since it is a big market. make money here, then take it back, or if you make money in europe they can dump it here for all i care.

it's problem of attitude not market. those who criticize US movie industry more or less want to keep their own position safe and drag others into same mold.

Quote[/b] ]As for movies and music used for Americanization - don't be silly. It's one of the main charachteristics of US made movies. And quite often it's used to distort history. Take Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers, both excellent productions. Very historically correct, apart from one tiny little detail: they give the impression like the Americans were the only fighting force on the ground in Europe. This could not be further from the truth. A minority of the forces liberating Europe were American.

oh yes, and i beleive that people will fall for that. there will be some, but when you look at people they are aware of it. for example, U581, with Mathew McCaughnerhy(sp) and Bon Jovi. the Engima was retrieved by Brits not US, but the movie says it was US soldiers. now that's a blatant example, but in case of BOB or Ryan, if european producers stop sitting on their ass and make something that is equivalently marketable, i bet it will sell here in US too.

[ralphwiggum 6]

What p***** me off is that the door swings one way.  American networks / studios / whichever souldead goons it is that make these decisions are so frightened of foreign TV and films that they would rather remake them, set in America and featuring Americans than show the original.  Cause, you know, if an American audience had to try and empathise with a foreigner their fragile little heads might just explode.  e.g. Dear John, `Til Death Us Do Part, Cracker (ffs Cracker!).  And if you're going to film a foreign book (High Fidelity, 101 Dalmations) be sure to relocate that action and characters to the US.  Most of the time this kind of thing is just small-minded and annoying but at other times it seems, to my slightly paranoid brain, to border on racism.  e.g. lots of anti-French sentiment in America, studio committed to making a contemptible hash of a film version of The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen ---> decision to axe French character from the film and replace with mind-bogglingly inappropriate American one.  As well as relocating the action to NY (natch).

it also goes both ways. i watched Lock, Stock , and Two barrels by Mr. Madonna, and honestly had hard time understanding it, to certain degree. so internal jokes needs to be localized and that usually kills the movies. for example, Just Visiting, a hilarious film from France was remade. result? a very bad idea.

would you know when you suddenly hear when Robin Williams says, "I feel like i'm in white Bronco"? most non-US people will not know this punch line referring to OJ Simpson car chase(and thank god that it was on the day they were showing David Hasselhoff's concert in Atlantic City on TV).

fortuantely, there are plenty of chances for foreign film too. Crouching Tiger and Hidden Dragon did well despite forcing people to read subtitles, and countless others did too.

[denoir 0]

and you are missing the point that when the product enters market for sales/transaction, the interaction of consumer and producer decided how much will be sold at how much price.

The minimum price being the cost of production, or the company goes under. But they're selling it under the production cost, killing any chance of domestic production since it would cost more to make something of equivalent quality.

Do you really think that under any chance a country like say East Timor could produce a movie like LOTR, when it's whole GDP is lower than the production cost of the movie  

So why should they invest any money into a domestic film industry when clearly they can't afford to make any quality movies. So what happens is that they don't get a chance of expressing their culture through movies, but get the American culture imported.

Quote[/b] ]

my point is that european directors can get a project that will also sell to american audience since it is a big market. make money here, then take it back, or if you make money in europe they can dump it here for all i care.

The problem is that there is no EU film industry to speak of. You have various national production companies, but nothing that could get the kind of money that the US production companies are investing. Possibly in the future if a European industry emerges, rather than the local national ones, but until then there is no possibility of competition.

And if that goes for Europe, you can imagine what situation the rest of the world is in.

Quote[/b] ]if european producers stop sitting on their ass and make something that is equivalently marketable, i bet it will sell here in US too.

Same as above. They don't have the money to do something like that.

Quote[/b] ]fortuantely, there are plenty of chances for foreign film too. Crouching Tiger and Hidden Dragon did well despite forcing people to read subtitles, and countless others did too.

Let's take a look at the top lists, shall we? Tops at the box office in the US:

Quote[/b] ]

1. The Butterfly Effect (US)

2. Along Came Polly (US)

3. Win a Date with Tad Hamilton! (US)

4. Big Fish (US)

5. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (US)

Ok, no foreign films there.

Let's take look at the Swedish tob box office:

Quote[/b] ]

1. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (US)

2. Rĺnarna (SE)

3. Love Actually (UK)

4. Finding Nemo (US)

5. Skenbart (SE)

That's two domestic movies and three foreign.

[ralphwiggum 6]

could you please stick to one theory? at one point you claim that US movies make enough money domestically and can afford to sell the movie at lower price in EU, now you are claiming that the price was way lower than producing to begin with.

if it hasn't been made clear, here's the mechanism to make money in movie business through out this discussion.

1.make a movie that appeals to primary market

2.if enough money is made, you can afford to sell it for less

if this is the strategy used by US film industries, there is no reason why european industries could do that too. make a nice charming movies, suceed in Us, re-import it back to EU, while making money in both regions. unfortunately, they can't think of good ones due to some reason i guess.

Swedish box office.

Quote[/b] ]1. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (US)

2. Rĺnarna (SE)

3. Love Actually (UK)

4. Finding Nemo (US)

5. Skenbart (SE)

notice that unlike your claim there are 2 domestic movie on the top 5. if you count UK as a part of europe( ) it's 3. see the problem? there are 2 domestic movies, not zero domestic movies. i know nothing about those two since 1)i don't speak Swedish 2)they won't sell it here in US. if the two movies are sold in US and appeal to audience here, it will make money. and when they make money, they can afford to go on a project that would be costly.

Quote[/b] ]Do you really think that under any chance a country like say East Timor could produce a movie like LOTR, when it's whole GDP is lower than the production cost of the movie

too bad. life is not fair. you are under impression that domestic movie is god given right, but it isn't. you have to work and be competitive since it is a marketable product.

and from US box office:

Quote[/b] ]1. The Butterfly Effect (US)

2. Along Came Polly (US)

3. Win a Date with Tad Hamilton! (US)

4. Big Fish (US)

5. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (US)

only one of them is shown in Sweden right now, and is in top 5. do you seriously think first 3-4 will be sold in Sweden?(i pray to god they don't - it's travesty). it's not like Holywood is after world domination like Ikea and if you want to talk about domestic film industry working, take a look at India's Baliwood. they make more profit(partly due to cheap production cost), but more because they appeal to their consumers.

Quote[/b] ]So why should they invest any money into a domestic film industry when clearly they can't afford to make any quality movies. So what happens is that they don't get a chance of expressing their culture through movies, but get the American culture imported.

see the problem? a quality movie may not have to be an expensive production. with lack of quality movie in US, european producers of the 'older experienced europe' can teach 'young child' a thing or two about good scripts.

[toadlife 3]

Ah, yes the natural assumption that a poll made by Americans for Americans would be representative of the world!

No, my only assumption is that a poll done by Americans for Americans would best represent Americans. I never said anything about other countries. You are the one that brought the comparisons with other countries up. I'd like you to name a low ranking country in any of these polls where the people of that country don't have any desire to emigrate to the United States, or even 'sad' ole' Britain.

Quote[/b] ]Well, as you requested, here is the poll in question. It's called the "World Value Survey" and is done by the University of Michigan. You have a complete set of polls, the data and the methodology used.

The exact question about happyness goes like this:

V11. Taking all things together, would you say you are:

[READ OUT]

1. Very happy

2. Quite happy

3. Not very happy

4. Not at all happy

9 Don't know [DO NOT READ OUT]

And apparently quite a few nations are happier than Americans.

First of all, that data is not from the original poll you posted. I didn't ask you to find a new poll that would most closely follow the results of the original poll you posted. I wanted the source of the orginal poll that is gave such strikingly different results from the other polls which I have seen.

Here are some other polls, which confirm that I wasn't making any false assumptions. Note that I never said anything to the effect of "American's are the happiest people in the world".

http://www.msnbc.com/news/974827.asp?cp1=1

http://www.hvk.org/articles/0400/25.html

http://www.opendemocracy.net/themes/article-7-653.jsp

http://www.mrweb.com/drno/news2837.htm

http://my.webmd.com/content....0_nb_03

From one of the articles..

Quote[/b] ]People in Latin America, Western Europe and North America are happier than their counterparts in Eastern Europe and Russia, according to a British study. An analysis of levels of happiness in more than 65 countries by the World Values Survey shows Nigeria has the highest percentage of happy people followed by Mexico, Venezuela, El Salvador and Puerto Rico...

As for why we should want to help countries that are happier than us, that question dodges the point completely. Do you really think the people of North Korea or Iraq or Iran are actually happier than Americans? We're not targeting Mexico, or Venzuela, or Puerto Rico, were looking at coutries where people are brutally oppressed.

[denoir 0]

No, my only assumption is that a poll done by Americans for Americans would best represent Americans. I never said anything about other countries. You are the one that brought the comparisons with other countries up.

No, you brought it up. To quote you:

Quote[/b] ]From time to time Gallop and other pollsters will do polls of Americans and ask "Are you happy?". Every time a majority say "yes". I'm not sure of the actuall numbers but I think it like 70/30. Perhaps we are so resistance to radical change, because what we have works for us? We see other nations who are in the shitter, and we can't help but think "Gee they'd be a lot better of if they we more like us."

You are saying that because an American poll made by Americans for Americans say that Americans are very happy, that America is a happy place and you like to help less happy people to become happy. Well, whopidoo for you.

I pointed out that your assumptions were flawed as it implicated that Americans were very happy compared to others and that they of course would share your opinion on what constitutes happyness.

Quote[/b] ]First of all, that data is not from the original poll you posted. I didn't ask you to find a new poll that would most closely follow the results of the original poll you posted. I wanted the source of the orginal poll that is gave such strikingly different results from the other polls which I have seen.

Yes it is. Read the bloody text. The one that I posted first was an article from the 1999 World Happyness Survey AKA World Value Survey. It is exactly the same thing, made by the same people, using the same methodologies.

Quote[/b] ]I'd like you to name a low ranking country in any of these polls where the people of that country don't have any desire to emigrate to the United States, or even 'sad' ole' Britain.

Every single country of those on the list (apart from Puerto Rico perhaps). Wow you really are full of yourself. This is exactly the delusions that I'm talking about. Talk to some Russians here and they'll tell you what they think of USA.

They have a desire to move to USA that is about as great as your desire to move to Nigeria.

Quote[/b] ]Here are some other polls, which confirm that I wasn't making any false assumptions. Note that I never said anything to the effect of "American's are the happiest people in the world".

http://www.msnbc.com/news/974827.asp?cp1=1

http://www.hvk.org/articles/0400/25.html

http://www.opendemocracy.net/themes/article-7-653.jsp

http://www.mrweb.com/drno/news2837.htm

http://my.webmd.com/content....0_nb_03

If you had bothered to read, you'd see that the first in your list is the same link as I provided (WVS). The first article posted was the 1999 results of that survey. The indian one is very questionable due to the small number of countries that participated. The American one is, well, American, so you can't compare it to the rest of the world.

Quote[/b] ]As for why we should want to help countries that are happier than us, that question dodges the point completely. Do you really think the people of North Korea or Iraq or Iran are actually happier than Americans?

Iraq right now, no. Iran and North Korea, quite possible. What you don't seem to understand is that there are very different perceptions of happyness. What Americans are happy about is obviously not the same thing what Nigerians are happy about. Having three cars and eight television sets is not the measurement of happyness for everybody.

Quote[/b] ]We're not targeting Mexico, or Venzuela, or Puerto Rico, were looking at coutries where people are brutally oppressed.

Of course you are targeting them. You are targeting everybody, which is the point of this discussions. Through your economy, politics and military you are force-feeding people American ideals. I hate to write things twice, so read my discussion with Ralph on how it is done.

[denoir 0]

could you please stick to one theory? at one point you claim that US movies make enough money domestically and can afford to sell the movie at lower price in EU, now you are claiming that the price was way lower than producing to begin with.

No, I never claimed that the price was lower to begin with. They are sold at market prices, above production value in the US. They are sold under production value abroad, polluting the market there.

Quote[/b] ]if this is the strategy used by US film industries, there is no reason why european industries could do that too.

It is as I said, because there is no european film industry. To make movies you need cash and there are no pan-European big producers.

Quote[/b] ]see the problem? a quality movie may not have to be an expensive production. with lack of quality movie in US, european producers of the 'older experienced europe' can teach 'young child' a thing or two about good scripts.

A movie that brings in a lot of cash generally costs a lot of cash to do. Now don't bother giving a few exceptions, I'm aware that there are exceptions but in GENERAL to make something that appeals to the general public you have to dump a lot of cash into fancy explosions and SFX.

But that is all besides the point. The point is that when you sell products cheaper than it would cost to produce them, you are preventing any competition. And it is exactly that way an Americanized culture replaces a local one. Which is the point of this discussion.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]It is as I said, because there is no european film industry. To make movies you need cash and there are no pan-European big producers.

wow. and i thought 'le pact des loupes' was made in France. guess not. it was American film.

Quote[/b] ]But that is all besides the point. The point is that when you sell products cheaper than it would cost to produce them, you are preventing any competition. And it is exactly that way an Americanized culture replaces a local one. Which is the point of this discussion.

there is NOTHING that prevents ford or jag cutting their price below producion cost. both can do it. and for films, if you have a good storyline, it will sell in most cases.

Quote[/b] ]No, I never claimed that the price was lower to begin with. They are sold at market prices, above production value in the US. They are sold under production value abroad, polluting the market there.

how about a nice european film do well on EU market then do the same price dumping here? would that work? the road leads both ways, and there is no reason why european's 'superior' films can't make it here. not all here are slack jawed yokels you know

Quote[/b] ]A movie that brings in a lot of cash generally costs a lot of cash to do. Now don't bother giving a few exceptions, I'm aware that there are exceptions but in GENERAL to make something that appeals to the general public you have to dump a lot of cash into fancy explosions and SFX.

and you need general public that buys it. it's not like US film industry is forcing individual movie goers to watch american films. it's because its something europeans choose to do. maybe they got tired of over-melodramatic movies, or they just want to kill time.

i guess in europeans's mind, it is better to give euro-centric movie than american one. like Shakespeare, Beethoven, Mozart.

[denoir 0]

how about a nice european film do well on EU market then do the same price dumping here? would that work? the road leads both ways, and there is no reason why european's 'superior' films can't make it here. not all here are slack jawed yokels you know

There is a very good reason and that's because there can't be such a thing as a bloody European film. We have 12 different languages in the EU and there will be 10 more. These are 22 different markets and 22 different flavours of movies. It doesn't work both ways since not everybody speaks Latvian. The US is one big market where you can raise a lot of cash to make a movie. In the EU there are 22 small markets where you can't raise a lot of cash and the movie won't have too much appeal outside the specific group that speaks the language.

The effect of that is that the price of producing a Latvian action flick will be considerably higher then to import a US film. As a result no Latvian action films will be produced and instead all the Latvians will be watching American flag-waving patriots spewing out American dogma instad of watching Latvian flag-waving patriots spewing out Latvian dogma.

It's a question of cultural hegemony. And all the little Latvian kiddies will be watching the All-American hero doing All-American stuff in an All-American patriotic way and they will as kiddies do want to do the same. The net effect is that the Latvian culture gets supressed.

[toadlife 3]

Quote[/b] ]You are saying that because an American poll made by Americans for Americans say that Americans are very happy, that America is a happy place and you like to help less happy people to become happy. Well, whopidoo for you.

I pointed out that your assumptions were flawed as it implicated that Americans were very happy compared to others and that they of course would share your opinion on what constitutes happyness.

Again, NO. Given that we have the power to influence the world, I was giving an example of why we might want other nations to have what we have. Having other nations that share our values is in our national interest, and that is not a bad thing. You are the one to bring up that fact that some of these surveys show other countries as being 'happier' than us. The fact that the first survey you pointed to was complete rubbish was not my problem.

As for what constitutes happiness, I'm sure that being able to support yourself and your family, and not live in fear is pretty universal measure for happiness across the globe. I'm only making the assumption that people who live under dictatorships, in constant fear, and in total poverty are not particularly happy people.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]First of all, that data is not from the original poll you posted. I didn't ask you to find a new poll that would most closely follow the results of the original poll you posted. I wanted the source of the original poll that is gave such strikingly different results from the other polls which I have seen.

Yes it is. Read the bloody text. The one that I posted first was an article from the 1999 World Happyness Survey AKA World Value Survey. It is exactly the same thing, made by the same people, using the same methodologies.

I did read the bloody text, and it's quite clear that either...

a) They are different surveys

b) One of them was carried out by blind monkeys

c) One of the sources is twisting the results.

After a look on page with the methodology of the World value Survey, I found that in March, 1998, it was carried out by MORI. MORI's results showed the U.S. as being ranked 13th, Bangladesh 22nd, and India 40th. The first article you posted was from 1999. It states that the survey was carried out by "London School of Economics professors". It shows Bangladesh ranked 1st, India 5th, and the U.S. 46th.

Please explain to me how, within one year of each other, two different Organizations from Britain could carry out the exact same survey with the exact same methodologies and get such strikingly different results.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]I'd like you to name a low ranking country in any of these polls where the people of that country don't have any desire to emigrate to the United States, or even 'sad' ole' Britain.

Every single country of those on the list (apart from Puerto Rico perhaps). Wow you really are full of yourself. This is exactly the delusions that I'm talking about. Talk to some Russians here and they'll tell you what they think of USA.

Do have any data to support those assertions, or that just the consensus of your Russian friends who were rejected by the U.S. immigration services?

Quote[/b] ]If you had bothered to read, you'd see that the first in your list is the same link as I provided (WVS). The first article posted was the 1999 results of that survey. The Indian one is very questionable due to the small number of countries that participated. The American one is, well, American, so you can't compare it to the rest of the world.

Ah yes. "If it's from America, then it has to be wrong." That's a handy assumption to carry into a debate.

Quote[/b] ]Iraq right now, no. Iran and North Korea, quite possible. What you don't seem to understand is that there are very different perceptions of happyness. What Americans are happy about is obviously not the same thing what Nigerians are happy about. Having three cars and eight television sets is not the measurement of happyness for everybody.

Quote[/b] ]We're not targeting Mexico, or Venzuela, or Puerto Rico, were looking at coutries where people are brutally oppressed.

Of course you are targeting them. You are targeting everybody, which is the point of this discussions. Through your economy, politics and military you are force-feeding people American ideals. I hate to write things twice, so read my discussion with Ralph on how it is done.

Please! There is a difference between forcing our movies, and music upon them, and supplying them what a products that they want. Even in a Saddam Hussein controlled Iraq, American movies were hugely popular with the people. Other countries simply want our goods, and if there are some culture/ideals attached to them, then so be it. We're simply trying to make a buck. I had no idea capitalism was so offensive to you.

We import quite a bit of Austrailian music, TV shows, ect. into the U.S. I suppose we should be angry at the aussies forcing their culture upon us?

[denoir 0]

Again, NO. Given that we have the power to influence the world, I was giving an example of why we might want other nations to have what we have. Having other nations that share our values  is in our national interest, and that is not a bad thing.

Of course it's in your bloody national interest, but it's not in theirs.

Quote[/b] ]You are the one to bring up that fact that some of these surveys show other countries as being 'happier' than us. The fact that the first survey you pointed to was complete rubbish was not my problem.

Was there any problem with it apart from you not liking the truth that it showed? Never mind - we can use the other one that ranked the US 16th. It doesn't change anything at all. Your assertion was that you wanted to share your jolly hapyness with the world because you are so much happier than the rest. And I'm showing you data that it ain't so.

Quote[/b] ]As for what constitutes happiness, I'm sure that being able to support yourself and your family, and not live in fear is pretty universal measure for happiness across the globe. I'm only making the assumption that people who live under dictatorships, in constant fear, and in total poverty are not particularly happy people.

And it would be a completely wrong assumption. How do you account for Nigerians being the most happy nation in the world?

Quote[/b] ]

I did read the bloody text, and it's quite clear that either...

a) They are different surveys

b) One of them was carried out by blind monkeys

c) One of the sources is twisting the results.

After a look on page with the methodology of the World value Survey, I found that in March, 1998, it was carried out by MORI. MORI's results showed the U.S. as being ranked 13th, Bangladesh 22nd, and India 40th. The first article you posted was from 1999. It states that the survey was carried out by "London School of Economics professors". It shows Bangladesh ranked 1st, India 5th, and the U.S. 46th.

Please explain to me how, within one year of each other, two different Organizations from Britain could carry out the exact same survey with the exact same methodologies and get such strikingly different results.

Never mind, can we settle on the 16:th ranking and use it as a reliable poll?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]I'd like you to name a low ranking country in any of these polls where the people of that country don't have any desire to emigrate to the United States, or even 'sad' ole' Britain.

Every single country of those on the list (apart from Puerto Rico perhaps). Wow you really are full of yourself. This is exactly the delusions that I'm talking about. Talk to some Russians here and they'll tell you what they think of USA.

Do have any data to support those assertions, or that just the consensus of your Russian friends who were rejected by the U.S. immigration services?

Actually I don't really have any Russian friends, but from what I've seen in Russian media, on the net and on this very board the Russian opinion of America is not very high, to say the least. But since you brought up the claim that the people of the world are dying to move to America, do you have any data? Do you have anything at all to show besides a national ego the size of St Paul's Cathedral and the credibility of a shaven aardvark pretending to be an elephant?

I feel that I should show this point to you (if I manage to fight the irresistive urge to move to the US before I end typing this). Here is the top 25 immigration top list: Migration Rate. Oh dear, it doesn't look quite like the US made it. Well, I suppose that not all that many choose to move to the US after all. And as you can see many countries, such as Irland, Luxemburg, Monaco, Lichtenstein, Croatia, Australia, Canada, New Zeeland are western countries. I know for a fact that the European countries have far stricter immigration laws than the US.

Oh dear - look at that, I managed to type all this, without succumbing to my burning desire of moving to the States.

Quote[/b] ]Ah yes. "If it's from America, then it has to be wrong." That's a handy assumption to carry into a debate.

No, you brother of FSPilot! The people that were polled were Americans. So it can't very well say how the Russians are feeling, now can it? The Gallup study was done to compare how Americans felt about America and the point was to compare the results with polls from earlier years, also done in America. So you can't bloody well go comparing that result to the result of studies where equal questions were presented to a multinational collection of individuals.

Quote[/b] ]Please! There is a difference between forcing our movies, and music upon them, and supplying them what a products that they want. Even in a Saddam Hussein controlled Iraq, American movies were hugely popular with the people. Other countries simply want our goods, and if there are some culture/ideals attached to them, then so be it.

Again, please read the exchange between Ralph and me. I have no desire to start this discussion from scratch just because you are too lazy to read a couple of posts.

Quote[/b] ]We're simply trying to make a buck. I had no idea capitalism was so offensive to you.

On the contrary, what I'm defending is market-economy based capitalism. It is the free trade and the market economy the US is destroying by polluting the market with products that are sold under production value thus eliminating all domestic production. Again, read my exchange with Ralph.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]On the contrary, what I'm defending is market-economy based capitalism. It is the free trade and the market economy the US is destroying by polluting the market with products that are sold under production value thus eliminating all domestic production. Again, read my exchange with Ralph.

I'd say it's more a matter of economies of scale in many situations- it isn't necessarily that we're selling products below value and using our massive base to absorb the hit in an effort to rub out competition, it's that we have in many cases managed to push our production costs down over the long run by taking advantage of any number of factors that allow us to produce more and more for less cost. Doesn't really change anything that you're stating, except the fact that we're actually making profits off of this 'pollution', as you call it, due to our economies of scale instead of losing money

[denoir 0]

@ Jan. 28 2004,07:53)]Doesn't really change anything that you're stating, except the fact that we're actually making profits off of this 'pollution', as you call it, due to our economies of scale instead of losing money

Indeed you are plus the people you are selling it too are getting very expensive stuff very cheap (in absolute terms). The down side is - well what I discussed with Ralph  - that the domestic industry gets rogered. That in turn leads to cultural depletion. But in many cases, such as movies it's very clear that it's a similar tactics used as Microsoft used agianst Netscape. You sell $5 million TV-shows for a couple of thousnad to TV-stations in poor countries. And the poor bastards of course can't compete with $5 million quality when they have a budget of Å3, two tomatoes and a rented sheep named Molly. Local production goes belly-up and the imported US production is used.

Basically it goes like this:

1. Domestic cultural products (movies, music, books) of country X are replaced by cheaper, better US products which get a complete monopoly.

2. The US products promote American ideologies and values and not to forget life-style (indirect product placement)

3. All the happy Xoninas get inspired by the only flavour of culture and values they are getting and go forth and purchase US products.

And quite soon X has become a mini-America losing all its unique cultural values and becoming yet another member of the All American Franchise. It's a very impressive virus-maneuver as the people of other countries are instrumental in furthering the destruction of their own culture.

[toadlife 3]

Quote[/b] ]Actually I don't really have any Russian friends, but from what I've seen in Russian media, on the net and on this very board the Russian opinion of America is not very high, to say the least. But since you brought up the claim that the people of the world are dying to move to America, do you have any data?

Where did I say you or anyone from a halfway decent country wanted to move to the U.S.?

My 'data' is based on people who I know or have known. Here is a short rundown: Three from Britain, one from Pakistan, one from India, one from Vietnam, one from Sweden two from Austraila, a few from Canada, many from China and South Korea and Japan, and many, many more from Mexico.

Most of the people I ahve met are college exchange students, but I've also know quite a few adults who moved here for work.

Except for the ones from China and South Korea and Japan, all of the other ones preferred the U.S. upon arriving and in the case of the Britons, Mexicans, some of the Candians, and my friend from Pakistan, they dreaded having to go back to their native country. Australian's spoke most favorably about their home nation, though both Aussie immigrants I know have no plans of ever moving back.

Mexico is a completly corrupt where one segment (the non-white segment) of the population is discriminated against heavily. In Mexico 1% of the population owns 99% of the country. As a rule, people who come here from Mexico only go back if they are running from the law, or visiting relatives.

The one from Pakistan was a very good friend, who worked under me as a student intern. Much of his family was already over here. He noted that everyone he knew wanted to emmigrate to the U.S. (or some other non-crappy country). One thing that he said that struck me is that many of the people he knew that "hated" the U.S. seemed to hate them because it represented something they couldn't have - not because of it's ideals. He was referring to friends of his who's parents couldn't afford to send them abroad for schooling. When he first got here, I asked him if he planned on going back to Pakistan after his schooling - his answer was the most resouding "no" possible. This coming from a person who was "rich" in Pakistan. Even though he was amoung the privledged over in his home country, he wouldn't go back for anything. It amazed him how orderly and effecient everything was and how little corruption (comparitively of course) there was among various government agencies. It was simply amazing to him how everyone could get along so well.

As for the exchange students I've met from Japan, Korea, and China I met, they were all very materialistic, and had little or no regard for the rules. Like my friend from Pakistan, they come from very privleged upbrining - yet they seemed to lack any ethics or morals. Almost all of them go back to their countries when they are either graduate or flunk out. I assum because trheir parents are mega rich and their life over there is very cosh and secure anyway. Many of the Asian exchange students end up flunking out.

As for the ones from Britain, the idea I get from them is that they just don't like the economic structure over there - plus they have some sort of way in, like a relative that already lives here. One thing they have all told me is that racism is much worse over there compared to the U.S.

As for the ones from Canada, again it's the economy. Lot's come down from British Columbia (It's initials stand for "Bring Cash", because everything costs a frikken fortune) - not becuase it's not a beautifull area, but because the economy sucks and there are NO jobs. Marijuana is Canada's biggest industry. Not exactly a stable career choice. I've been up to Canada several times. It's a very nice place, but I can see why some people choose to migrate south.

Those immigration statistics you quote miss the point. It's easy (financially) to move from Iraq to Qatar or Kuwait, or from Poland to Germany, but moving to the U.S. is not so easy if your not from Mexico. The point is, people who live in third world countries want to move to industrialized countries. Weather they move to Britain, German, Sweden, France or the U.S., the fact remains that they don't like where they are coming from.

On the contrary, what I'm defending is market-economy based capitalism. It is the free trade and the market economy the US is destroying by polluting the market with products that are sold under production value thus eliminating all domestic production. Again, read my exchange with Ralph.

If you're economy can't compete with American goods, then you should make better goods. if you make better good and you still can't compete, then slap some (more) trade tariffs on us.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

There are tons of imported products in the US, from foods to toys to clothes to cars.

It's nothing compared to the amount of goods that are exported to other countries. The ratio is the point.

The ratio of what? Currently we have a 30 billion dollar trade deficit, and that's extremely low compared to past years. In 1998 I think it was around 200 Billion. Are you talking about ratios with specific countries?

Quote[/b] ]Do you have anything at all to show besides a national ego the size of St Paul's Cathedral and the credibility of a shaven aardvark pretending to be an elephant?

Yet another not-so-suttle insult. You win. My ego is no match for yours.