Sunday, March 23, 2008
Monday, March 3, 2008
Free Trade And The Presdiential Politics
On the eve of the Ohio presidential primary, I want to reflect on a growing concern I have about Obama and Clinton concerning their stance on NAFTA and free trade. It seems that lately, as David Leonhardt points out in the New York Times, complaining about NAFTA and free trade is a rallying cry for democrats in the same vain as abortion is for Republicans. They love to complain about free trade but have yet to take any concrete steps to go the protectionist route, altogether.
Granted, being in Ohio, I have most likely heard such talk louder than others. The democratic candidates, for the past few weeks, have liked to point out that this state has been hit harder than most by the down economy. However, it is foolish to blame free trade. In fact, as a Wall Street Journal editorial points out, the likely culprit is protectionist policies, not free trade. "Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, a Democrat who supports Mrs. Clinton, blames his state's problems on President Bush. But Ohio's economy has been struggling for years, and most of its wounds are self-inflicted. Ohio now ranks 47th out of 50 in economic competitiveness, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council. Ohio politicians deplore plant closings even as they impose the third highest corporate income tax in the country (10.5%) and the sixth highest personal income tax (8.87%)."
It certainly does not appear that NAFTA and other such agreements hurt Ohio, as the column continues to point out that Texas, which is on the NAFTA front lines, has had enormous success, in no part thanks to staying competitive with taxes for individuals and corporations.
Does competition with other countries hurt Ohio's economy? Only so much as to glaringly point out Ohio's political deficiencies in competing on a domestic and global scale. However, it is also important to point out that this is no a problem only for democrats. After all, President Bill Clinton signed NAFTA, and Ohio is not exactly a blue state, with the previous governor being a Republican. However, free trade has turned into the cause célèbre of the democratic party.
Granted, being in Ohio, I have most likely heard such talk louder than others. The democratic candidates, for the past few weeks, have liked to point out that this state has been hit harder than most by the down economy. However, it is foolish to blame free trade. In fact, as a Wall Street Journal editorial points out, the likely culprit is protectionist policies, not free trade. "Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, a Democrat who supports Mrs. Clinton, blames his state's problems on President Bush. But Ohio's economy has been struggling for years, and most of its wounds are self-inflicted. Ohio now ranks 47th out of 50 in economic competitiveness, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council. Ohio politicians deplore plant closings even as they impose the third highest corporate income tax in the country (10.5%) and the sixth highest personal income tax (8.87%)."
It certainly does not appear that NAFTA and other such agreements hurt Ohio, as the column continues to point out that Texas, which is on the NAFTA front lines, has had enormous success, in no part thanks to staying competitive with taxes for individuals and corporations.
Does competition with other countries hurt Ohio's economy? Only so much as to glaringly point out Ohio's political deficiencies in competing on a domestic and global scale. However, it is also important to point out that this is no a problem only for democrats. After all, President Bill Clinton signed NAFTA, and Ohio is not exactly a blue state, with the previous governor being a Republican. However, free trade has turned into the cause célèbre of the democratic party.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
A debate amongst my friends deals with the ideal length of movies. I believe that the ideal movie length is 90 minutes. I also believe that this is a law of nature, just like the sun rises in the east, the sky is blue, and Ralph Nader will never be President. However, unlike the failure of the presidential aspirations of Ralph Nader, my movie rule is not absolute. A movie longer than 90 minutes is not, by default, a bad movie. Two movies that are still great, despite being 180 minutes or more are The Godfather and Lord of the Rings. It would have been hard for either movie to be as great as they were in only 90 minutes. In fact, it took two Godfather movies to tell the story in over 6 hours (no, I don't include the third movie) and it took 9 hours for the Lord of the Rings. However, these are examples of exceptions to the rule, and I stand by my 90 minute rule.
I am not going to make a list of movies that I feel should have been shorter or longer. Instead, I want the reader to think about recent movies they watched. Was it longer than 90 minutes? If so, could the movie have been just as good, or better than it was, if it was 90 minutes? Usually, the answer is yes. Losing a couple of unnecessary scenes or lines, or plot lines can go a long way to make a better story and a better movie. Unfortunately, directors feel that they need to include everything they shot into the final scene and editing is usually done to see what can be saved, not what should be cut.
I have told many friends about some of my laws of life, but I have decided to write them down so other may learn as well. My first law is related to movies. It is a simple formula, where the quality of a movie is directly proportional to the length of the movie. The ideal movie is 90 minutes long. That's it, any less and it most likely did not develop enough as a story or a movie. Any longer, and the film runs the risk of trying to do too much and be boring. That is not to say that any movie that is 90 minutes long is great nor am I saying that any movie longer than 90 minutes is crap. Some stories cannot be told in 90 minutes. However, the ideal is 90 minutes.
I am not going to make a list of movies that I feel should have been shorter or longer. Instead, I want the reader to think about recent movies they watched. Was it longer than 90 minutes? If so, could the movie have been just as good, or better than it was, if it was 90 minutes? Usually, the answer is yes. Losing a couple of unnecessary scenes or lines, or plot lines can go a long way to make a better story and a better movie. Unfortunately, directors feel that they need to include everything they shot into the final scene and editing is usually done to see what can be saved, not what should be cut.
I have told many friends about some of my laws of life, but I have decided to write them down so other may learn as well. My first law is related to movies. It is a simple formula, where the quality of a movie is directly proportional to the length of the movie. The ideal movie is 90 minutes long. That's it, any less and it most likely did not develop enough as a story or a movie. Any longer, and the film runs the risk of trying to do too much and be boring. That is not to say that any movie that is 90 minutes long is great nor am I saying that any movie longer than 90 minutes is crap. Some stories cannot be told in 90 minutes. However, the ideal is 90 minutes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)