ku

Yes, but not as much. It's harder to move a good across a nation border than it is to move it within national borders. Do understand that I don't advocate full unrestricted capitalism. Some restriction is necessary. Don't you think that, as the behavior of corporations within a nation is regulated to a degree, the behavior of nation-states should also be regulated? Too much freedom for nation-states is analogous to too much freedom for corporations. Well, history isn't one of my core competencies, by from my reasonably good understanding 19th and 20th century saw the rise of the nation-state. Before this most nation-states were just vague tribes and ethnic groups. There was little political organization to the extent we see today. Globalization and the establishment of a world government wouldn't necessary destroy any culture. Culture thrives in an environment of commercialization. Walk into the city and you will notice a wide choice of different "cultures," from Japanese restaurants to McDonald's. Japan is highly Westernized, yet within the country there is much Japanese food, Japanese clothes, and so forth. If you have time, watch the video at Creative Destruction: How Globalization Is Changing the World's Cultures from the Cato Institute. Within a nation there is wealth redistribution from the most wealthy to the least wealthy, yet on an international level this doesn't happen. Americans and Australians deal with spiralling obesity while children in third-world countries starve. If the same thing happened within a country there would be cries of inequality, yet at an international level it is different. Many people identify themselves according to the nation-state to which they belong, yet each individual is also a member of the human species. That there is emphasis on the nation-state as a source of identity leads to differential treatment of people based on nationality. Everyone has different values on what is important, and I respect that, but I believe that each individual is valuable, and the American principles in the sactity of life and liberty are compatible with these values. So either Western Civilization brings in non-Westerners into their civilization or Western Civilization expands into non-Western territory to make Western Civilization global. To not believe in the sactity of the individual and to instead to focus on the issue at the level of the nation, i.e. to say that nations are natural units, is like saying that a dictatorship has the rights to existence because through the dictatorship a nation-state is formed. But under a dictatorship individual liberties are ignored. Of course there are problems. What if the World Government is corrupted? Then there is no escape unless you leave the planet. To prevent this a thorough system of checks and balances needs to exist. So of course there are pros and cons, but it seems like the pros do outweigh the cons. There is no reason why the whole world can't be developed. Under similar economic conditions there is convergence. If you look beyong the superficial differences among humans that is "culture" and see poverty, torture, etc, you'll notice that there is a greater imperative than the mere preservation of clothes and customs.

I was referring to Mein Kampf for sale, in Arabic, although I think this is referring specifically to sales of Hitler's book in England's Arab population. It is a pity though that after Jews went through Nazism they now deal with Islamofacism. Out of the frying pan and into the fire, it seems. Remember that you can't prove something by giving a source. I could easily publish something by myself and then quote it as "proof."

I've heard very little about this issue. Do French-speaking Canadians think they have the right to form a separate nation-state simply because of language differences? It raises the issue of what sort of differences are needed for the formation of a separate nation-state. For example, what legitimizes or delegitimizes Taiwan being separate from China?

I think what matters with the Holocaust is the big picture, that so many were killed simply for being Jews. The subject is taught in schools today I presume in the hope that history won't repeat itself. But after 911 there has sadly been a resurgence in anti-Semitism, mainly in the Arab world. Adolf Hitler's book Mein Kampf is most rapidly selling in the Middle-East today.

What do you think may be an argument against this point by DiLorenzo: “…the theory of predatory pricing assumes the prior existence of a ‘war chest of monopoly profits’ that the predator can use to subsidize its practice of pricing below average cost. But how does that war chest come into being if the firm has not yet become a monopoly?” From http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-169.html

I'm a Howard voter, but understand that his hardline on immigration is a shame. Peter Costello will likely be a better alternative. I understand, however, that Howard is a politician and as a politician he needs mass appeal and to do so he might have to, as the political jargon goes, appeal to the "redneck vote." You only have to look at the numbers to see Howard's true agenda. Immigration has increased substantially since he came into power and attitudes in Australia are changing as well. In 1995 about 70 percent oppose increases to immigration, and now only 30 percent oppose increases to immigration. This means that my dad, a factoryowner, is able to employ cheaper and better labor.

I have heard that cracking fingers or knuckles does not cause arthritis, but if you crack your fingers/knuckles very often, are there any other adverse health effects? Is there any way someone addicted to finger/knuckle cracking can stop it?

Would it be accurate to say that a field of mathematics like calculus more intensively draws on visuospatial intelligence while a field of mathematics like probability more intensively draws on analytical intelligence?

How do you know what limits to put when double integrating. For example for the joint probability distribution function [math]f(x,y)= \begin{cases} 2 & \mbox{if } 0 \leq y \leq x \leq 1\\ 0 & \mbox{elsewhere} \end{cases} [/math] we want to calculate the marginal probability density function of X which is [math]f(x)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}f(x,y)dy = \int_{0}^{x}2 dy = 2x[/math]. How come 0 and x are used as limits? Why couldn't we have picked, say, 0 and 1?

Yeah, of course watching too much TV can prevent you from doing other things like exercising, but if a child watches absolutely no TV while all the other kids around him do, then there are certain conventions and social customs that the kid who doesn't watch TV is deprive off. Don't you think? In a way the TV tells people what is normal behavior.

Do you think that there is good selfishness (like entreprenerialism) and then there's bad selfishness (like protectionism)?

I was reading http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24TV.html?pagewanted=print&position= and wondered whether the benefits of TV are known well enough. If you had children and deprived them of TV, what sort of behavioral damage would you expect? Would they be more like to become misfits?

I can understand how higher population can lead to greater crime on an absolute level, but I wonder if an increase in population would lead to diminishing crime rate, i.e. decrease in crime per capita as population increases?? _________________ http://members.fortunecity.com/ku20/oldindex.html

The purpose for government is to restrict freedom for the greater good. For example, firms within a nation-state are not allowed to form a cartel. This logic can be extrapolated to apply to countries or entities that operate across national borders. If there were a world government, we wouldn't have OPEC. It would not be beneficial if, within a nation, barriers to movement of cars, labor, etc were put up. Several giant walls crisscrossing America would not make businesses happy. Such barriers would result in lost trade opportunities. National borders are similar. However, because national borders have been around for a long time (about 200 years now for most countries) there are big differences in good and factor prices, culture, language, etc, so quickly bringing down barriers might create too much shock to the system. Gradual migration flows, globalization, dissemination of Western Culture, and so on may ease the way towards a borderless world.

When I refer to economics I'm referring to positive economics, not normative economics, so putting positive economics in the politics forum just wouldn't be appropriate.

This is from economics but it's mainly a math problem I'm dealing with. In this economic model we are dealing with two goods, textiles T and electronics E and two countries China C and Japan J. The lecturer put the images below up. The first image is a graph of the goods price ratio to the goods ratio. These is the relative supply curve. The countries are initially in autarky and after free trade both country J and country C move towards the world relative supply [math]RS^W[/math]. The second image below is the production possibilities frontier of country J, a graph of textile output to electronics output. What I want to know is whether the J and W in the second image are the right way around because I suspect that they are the wrong way around. I'm not sure if I've explained this clearly. If anyone knows about this topic in enough detail to compensate for my incoherence, I'd be grateful.

As mentioned, this sort of thing happens with exchange students. The smart students from developing countries come to Australian or US universities, gain knowledge, and then go back to the developing country with what they learnt. They benefits the country they came from. In Australia Indian and Chinese immigrants together make a significant proportion of the country's skilled migrants. Maybe sending immigrants out allows them to make more business connections, which can be helpful if these migrants return. Maybe countries accepting skilled migrants do so because of the business connections they have overseas. For example, with foreign direct investment in China, Americans send over Americans to China to work there because, among many reasons, they also have business connections, meaning that, for example, they will be able to source inputs like steel (assume car plant is made) from different parts of the world at better prices. If Americans simply poured money into Chinese firms (portfolio investments), the Chinese executives may not have these connections and will pay more for the steel. I think the best way to rid poverty in the world is to move slowly towards eradicating national borders and establishing a world government. Every single argument for a national government can be applied to justify a world government.

I think pretty much all nationalism is propaganda, but not all propaganda is nationalism. http://www.libertocracy.com/Webessays/nationality_state.htm

For two events [math]A_1[/math] and [math]A_2[/math], if [math]A_1 \cap A_2 = \emptyset[/math] then we say that [math]A_1[/math] and [math]A_2[/math] are disjoint. Does disjointedness differ to mutual exclusiveness? Are they both the same or are they different?

Maybe check out http://www.lottery.co.uk/genhtml/?page=scamtop

What do you mean by "real life"? Mathematics just allows you to analyse the natural world at a deeper level. Most people look at the world at a superficial level and so assume that math is irrelevent to "real life."

Let S be the event the father scores and the let R be the event the son reports correctly. The probabily of the father scoring is [math]P(S)=0.6[/math] and the probability of the son correctly reporting is [math]P®=0.8[/math]. I think we need to find the probability that the father scores given that the son reports correctly, which is [math]P(S|R)=\frac{P(SR)}{P®}[/math] and since S and R are independent [math]P(S|R)=\frac{P(S)P®}{P®}=P(S)=0.6[/math]. This right??

Interesting.

Asian guy, why don't you set an example and have many children. Then, when they are old enough to take IQ tests, sterilize those who get below 100. After all, it's only fair to sacrifice a child's future right to procreate for the sake of increasing average human IQ in the long term by 0.000000001 points.

Big media companies usually have reputations on the line, so to protect themselves they should be honest. Small internet sites can costlessly get away with propaganda. I've seen the links you've posted. They were racist sites.