backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 11 comment(s) - last by oTAL.. on Aug 31 at 1:31 PM

A commentary on how television has evolved since its inception, part 2, with focus on the future, convergence and social impacts

(Editor's note -- This is final part of a two part series first published last week.)

The rise of digital television (DTV) with high definition programs (HDTV) is enhancing the standard TV. Soon, broadband wireless networks, enabled by technologies like WiMax and the 3rd and 4th generations of mobile phone networks, will allow global access to many TV channels without requiring satellites, by receiving television broadcasts over IP. This will eventually lead to a planetary TV network, in contrast with the current predominance of country specific TV channels.

The use of sensitive ads enables advertisers to precisely reach their targets. Instead of broadcasting the same advert to millions of people worldwide, these ads will precisely tailor the audience on each device, increasing advert effectiveness and revenue stream.

TV’s marriage with the Internet is also taking place and the two are becoming closer every month. “The distinction between television and video is becoming murkier and murkier”, said John Miller, the chief marketing officer for the NBC Universal Television Group, after the announcement of a deal with YouTube to promote NBC’s television lineup. With Hollywood finally embracing the digital era after a long period of hesitation, in September of 2006 the iTunes Store began offering feature-length movies. As of August 2007, Apple’s catalogue includes over 300 TV shows and 500 movies.

Another promising technological marriage is also taking its baby steps. Television on cellular phones is being implemented throughout Europe using DVB-H (Digital Video Broadcasting – Handheld) and, to a lesser extent, DMB (Digital Multimedia Broadcasting). While DMB is mostly on test trials, DVB-H has already been commercially launched in a few countries, with many more planning to do so in the following months. These services are to be made commercially available by mobile phone operators, requiring consumers to pay a fee, which will be divided with the broadcasters. IPTV is also a blooming technology and by the end of 2006, there were over 1500 free IPTV channels available. Merging these two concepts is MobiTV, a company offering IPTV on your cellular telephone for a monthly fee. When this technology becomes common, anyone may have the comfort of enjoying their favorite programs, along with interactive services and entertainment, regardless of their location in our planet. This truly worldwide mobile TV network is the future of television.

Social impacts

The social impact of television is undeniable. It is one of the major contributors to the global village concept and brings information from around the world to every home in modern society. Together with the Internet and newspapers, it forms the backbone of the so-called Second Superpower, a term originating from a 2003 article, by Patrick Tyler, in the New York Times.

Following the global anti-war demonstrations of 2003, the world’s public opinion equated to a second superpower, with a political influence rivaling that of the United States of America. This influence has been felt repeatedly in recent times, with a notable example being the independence of East Timor. This country came to self-determination largely because of the televised images of the Dili massacre, which were shown worldwide, and the public outcry that ensued.

Still, the influence of television isn’t always positive. Its power to mesmerize the masses as been exploited many times, and although the analysts have trouble agreeing on which situations can be considered as such exploitations, the vast majority agree that it has happened. This is nevertheless a controversial subject, as it is not uncommon for people to use their influence, or expertise, in order to manipulate the media.

By controlling three of the Italian private TV networks with approximately half the national viewing audience, Silvio Berlusconi had a large advantage over his opponents, allowing him to gain the elections in Italy, despite his questionable ethics. On the other hand, respected journalist Edward R. Murrow used his position as host of the television show See It Now, to help bring an end to McCarthism and the aggressive witch-hunts perpetrated in the USA during that time.

However, not only politics are important when it comes to television. Even TV commercials have an impact in most people’s everyday life, and in 1991, recognizing the potential harm and influence of television ads; the Swedish government imposed a total ban on advertising to children under twelve.

Still, warnings of the potentially nefarious effects of television in children and weak-minded individuals had started decades before. In Minow’s speech of 1961, it was stated that, by spending as much time in front of the TV sets as they spent in their schoolroom, the influence of the programming became extremely important in many children’s development as healthy human beings.

In the U.S., the National Institute on Media and the Family revealed that U.S. children watch an average of 25 hours of television per week, amidst studies indicating this habit interferes with the educational and maturational process. A New Zealand study involving one thousand people, from childhood to 26 years of age, indicated that the more an individual watched television, the less likely he was to finish school and enroll in a university. In 2002, an article in Scientific American indicated that compulsive television watching presented many similarities to other forms of addiction, a discovery supported by reports of withdrawal symptoms among families forced, by circumstance, to cease watching.

Rating wars led TV to lower quality standards, generally broadcasting programs pitched at low intellectual level, while corporate influence led to propaganda designed to keep the status quo and manipulate the masses.

In “Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business” (1985), a controversial book by Neil Postman, the author distinguishes the Orwellian vision of the future depicted in “1984” from the one offered by Aldous Huxley in “Brave New World”. While in “1984” totalitarian governments seize individual rights, in Huxley’s book people medicate themselves into bliss, voluntarily sacrificing their rights. Postman sees television's entertainment value as a wonder drug for the contemporary world, leading mankind to surrender its rights in exchange for entertainment.

Television is also a means for isolation. While in the past, watching TV was mostly a collective activity, it is increasingly becoming a means of seclusion. So-called couch potatoes spend most of their time sitting in front of their television sets relegating social contact.

The modern way of life in western society is especially prone to this kind of situation. People are given the possibility of comfortably living for years without leaving their homes. Although social contact is important to a healthy development of the human psyche, the new-networked society allows some people to work, shop, and get entertainment without leaving their homes, though all this is done in a socially neutered way.

These people are a modern type of hermit, lacking any type of social abilities, and are mostly disinterested in all matters that do not directly affect them. While this type of situation is not caused by television nor the Internet, current society facilitates the aggravation of these symptoms, allowing socially inept people to willingly isolate themselves. The recent boom of portable consumer electronics such as laptops, mp3 players and cellular telephones created yet a new form of social reclusion, leading to an increasing disconnection between people sharing the same physical space. Skip Clarke published an article in which he suggests that the capability to be connected to the entire world, instead of connecting people with the reality around them, fosters isolation from the ones physically close.

It is a fact that social interaction with surrounding human beings used to be much more important to ordinary people than it is today. An intercontinental plane trip, in which a person shares the same physical space with others for an extended period of time, used to be a regular place to strike a conversation with a stranger. As time goes by, more people hide behind their laptops and portable entertainment systems, which allow them to sit in excess of 10 hours next to a person without exchanging any words.

With the rise of television and other forms of entertainment in portable packages such as cell phones, this situation may be aggravated, leading to an increasing difficulty in social interaction. Isolated people tend to be egotistical and, if the current tendency increases, modern society may find itself in distress as the social tissue crumbles under the weight of increasingly self-centered individuals, unwilling to communicate with a fellow human being and with no desire to reproduce, due to the sacrifices a family implies.

The democratic system stands on the basic principle that the benefit of many outweighs the benefit of one, and for a democratic society to properly function, there must be an active interest for the well fare of the community in at least a small part of the population. The possible negative effects of the globalization of television as a mean of entertainment and political propaganda cannot yet be predicted.

Conclusions

It is fundamental to acknowledge the power and influence of television over society. It is true that TV’s position as the central hub of entertainment in a household is largely threatened by the new technologies, and there is a need for evolution to avoid it becoming obsolete. Still, instead of replacing television, the new technologies will find their own place and, as both evolve, they will surely be able to complement and enhance one another.

However, the importance of television is not the medium but the content. As Edward R. Murrow so eloquently said, “This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire, but it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box.” Governments, parents, and society should strive for a healthy use of television. Cultural programs should be stimulated, children programming should be heavily regulated, and oriented towards education, and schools should absorb the concept of healthy TV habits and teach them to young children. It would serve the public to have an organization responsible for measuring not the ratings, but the quality of a network’s programming, in order to properly compensate those who commit to the public interest.

It must be remembered that the airwaves are public and that broadcasts should use that medium for the improvement of civilization. Television has been, in general, beneficial to current society, and it should continue to be so during the following decades. However, the concerns about the decaying quality of programs are well funded, as the constant pressure of ratings lowers the average quality of broadcasted shows. State sponsored incentives should be created in order to reverse this trend.

As in many other issues, the most important answer to this problem is education. Parents and teachers should play an active role in transmitting healthy habits and controlling addictive behaviors, allowing for the future generations to adapt to the wonders of new technologies and their beneficial consequences.

Democracy and society depend on human interaction. While the evolution of television and new technologies may be paramount in nourishing it, when properly used, it can also neuter social contact in a gradual, almost invisible way.

As Murrow himself would put it: "Good night, and good luck."


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Not no But Hell NO!
By Misty Dingos on 8/27/2007 2:11:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
State sponsored incentives should be created in order to reverse this trend.
And end up with the WWBBC? Great just great. That would kill TV or HDTV or even 3DHDTV with Sensoround. The real reason that programming standards have dropped isn't ratings its revenue. Higher production standards mean lower profits. Reverse that and you have reality TV which are among the cheapest programs to produce. The cost to produce American Idol are a pittance in comparison to the shows profits. Your cast shows up for free and if they ever do make any money they give Fox a cut for their entertainment life. And now game shows are the big primetime market now. Cheap to make and geared for the empty headed masses.

You want higher quality programming? Make all programs pay for themselves. You want to watch a program you pay. No commercials. Just programming. You will watch the wheat fall from the chaff soon enough. You want parents to pay attention to the crap being shoved into their kids brains? Make them pay for the programs. How much you want to bet that the kid will be playing outside and loosing weight instead of eating yet another bag of chips and chugging another liter of corn syrup flavored with water that has been dyed brown. Use the same method for consumption of console and computer games and the kids that still play would be all day would be few and far between. Honestly I do not expect anyone to agree with me about the gaming but some of you were thinking “Hey if I had to pay for Desperate Housewives I don’t think I would watch it.” Would some shows last for a while longer, sure. But only the ones people would be willing to pay for would be around long enough to notice.




RE: Not no But Hell NO!
By oTAL (blog) on 8/28/2007 6:26:26 AM , Rating: 2
First of all I did not say that the British system is the right solution. (But I do believe British TV is a little better than American TV.)

There are many possible ways, and some of those may have not even crossed our minds - that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Couldn't there be a non-profit institution that measured the sociological value of TV programming and awarded a rating for programs? That would inform the citizens of the value of what they are watching. Just a guideline like the movie ratings.

There are many ways in which you can improve the quality of the current programming and the best one is to give the networks the responsibility to do it! And then grade them for that! Then you could even reward or penalize them accordingly... or not...

Choice is good, but informed choice is way better and that's where I believe we should start.

The principal that the airwaves belong to the people is the most important part here. Those should be used responsibly and society should hold weight over them.

In some countries, TV networks (both public and private) have to give government candidates equal air time for their campaign. That allows each and every candidate to pass along their message without having to spend fortunes in "donations". That obviously has its price, but it's also not a bad idea at all.

We all know political "donations" aren't really donations. But politicians need those bribes to even have a chance... this way the people give them the chance so they don't have to sell their souls.

Truth is we need to clean up our airwaves... Let's worry less about violence and nudity on TV and let's worry more about the gratuitous violence and nudity. Shindler's List is pretty violent - can anyone dispute it's value?

Let's use TV to spread ideas, to stimulate thought. Let's not have it turn us to zombies.

Most of all, let's try something different! If it doesn't work we'll try something else!


RE: Not no But Hell NO!
By James Holden on 8/28/2007 12:16:56 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the BBC did give us Doctor Who. I would be appalled if we could get such quality programming out of NBC/CBS/ABC... FOX.

But look at not-for-profit channels in the US? (I know you're not from the US oTAL so sorry if the analogy misses). PBS? They have some neat things about space once in a while, but the majority of the channel is a soapbox for whoever donates enough money to get a program.

quote:
Let's use TV to spread ideas, to stimulate thought. Let's not have it turn us to zombies.

I almost exclusively watch History Channel, Science Channel and National Geographic channel. I'd like to think I'm stimulating thought, but there is something I dislike about all those shows -- they lie to you! Damn the facts, sometimes they just say stuff to make a better program.

Great points oTAL, I wish someone had the answers.


RE: Not no But Hell NO!
By Misty Dingos on 8/28/2007 1:02:57 PM , Rating: 2
First things first I used the BBC to exemplify just how bad TV can be when run by bureaucrats for the edification of the people. British TV may or may not be better than TV in the US but it certainly isn’t free of government oversight.

Second TV programming is already rated for content. And let us not forget the V chip forced down the throat of the consumer by people afraid of the TV programming content. And who did the forcing? Politicians and bureaucrats that’s who. The V chip is the result of people not willing to control their own appetites. It is like blaming McDonalds because you are fat.

Personally I do not want any sociologist monitoring programming content. The average sociologist is mind numbed busy body with delusions of self importance and intellect. Give them actual power and the down fall of western civilization would surely follow as a result of their dividing up of the various groups of humanity according to their politically correct meddling.

Do the people own the airwaves? Yes. Should providers lease bandwidth from the people? Yes. Should they have to justify their choices for programming? No farther than their profitability. If they can’t pay for the lease they should be replaced by someone who can.

The fantasy of a “Fairness Doctrine” (giving every candidate equal airtime) is as unworkable as most other liberal philosophies. What we have now is sound bite politicians that spend millions to spin every issue to each audience segment they reach. The current debate format is a perfect example of the modern politician’s election scheme. Ten candidates show up, don’t debate anything just give five second sound bite answers. You want to hear political debate? Put Hillary and Romney in a life raft in the middle of the ocean and leave them for a week. Sure leave a camera running and give them some water but guess what eventually they will discuss something of substance. But it isn’t a very practical or nice debate format.

Whenever someone calls for equal time or a “Fairness Doctrine” what they are saying, whether they believe it or not, is that they want some form of censorship. Just to remind everyone censorship is bad because more and more folks are thinking a little censorship isn’t bad. Well they are WRONG any censorship is bad. Once you start stifling speech it is lots easier to stifle ideas. Free Speech isn’t fair but it does have the ring of truth far more often than censorship.

Are politicians bought and paid for by political contributions? Sure are. And I am willing to bet that neither you nor I are going to be able to get the pigs out of the trough anytime soon. Money and power have been corrupting politicians since there have been politicians.

The concept that TV should be used to illuminate only and not to vegetate is a naïve one. The ugly truth is that the average person does not want illumination they want vegetation. Trying to “fix” TV because it turns minds to mush is like blaming a beer bottle for you getting drunk and embarrassing yourself.

And finally we do not need to clean up the air waves. If you don’t like what is on change the channel or turn it off.


RE: Not no But Hell NO!
By oTAL (blog) on 8/29/2007 6:02:37 AM , Rating: 2
On most of the things you debated my points, there isn't much I can say. We have different opinions and I can see where your coming from. Still, when you say that although things suck there's nothing we can do about it, I believe that we can, at the very least, try....

One point you made I agree. Blaming TV networks for the couch potato society is exactly
quote:
like blaming McDonalds because you are fat.


And you know what? I do believe that, on that very same subject, more information would allow people to make better decisions.

MacDonald's should not be allowed to market themselves to young children and should not be allowed to have playgrounds inside. They create an image of happiness and they deceive children into obesity.

It's like cigarettes all over again!!

Of course people should be allowed to eat whatever they want, and they should be allowed to watch whatever program they choose, but we should force information down their throat when they do so!

Like this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_packaging_war...
and this
http://img.search.com/thumb/9/9d/Cig.packet.750pix...

You shouldn't be able to make a business out of harming society using deceptive practices! You can make that business if you are honest about it. I have nothing against tobacco companies right now. Their product kills, but everyone knows about it!

I do have something against McDonald's! They make many children fat and unhealthy, and they condemn them to a life of low self esteem and unhappiness. And they keep trying too look healthy!!

Is that debatable? Of course! Could something be done about it? Well... if nothing had been done about cigarettes, wouldn't the world be a little worse than it is now?

I would suggest you watch "Super Size Me". It may not change your mind about McDonald's, but it brings up a couple of interesting points and it's a good documentary (although, at times, a Michael Moore kind of documentary).


RE: Not no But Hell NO!
By Misty Dingos on 8/29/2007 11:52:19 AM , Rating: 2
You know I really don’t have a problem with McDonalds as a company or its practices. I don’t think that their advertising is deceptive. I don’t personally eat at fast food restaurants on anything like a regular basis. Does McDonalds trick kids into having fun at their restaurants with playgrounds and funny cartoon like characters? No I think that they are providing a pleasant experience for their customers.

Comparing the fast food industry to the cigarette industry is disingenuous. Eating at McDonalds is not addictive. Smoking is. Parents make a choice every time they take their children to a fast food restaurant. Once a smoker is addicted to cigarettes they no longer have the same power of choice over that habit. If today everyone in the country decided not to buy McDonalds food, McDonalds would soon be a memory. The American Cancer Society sponsors the Great American Smokeout every year and cigarettes are still being sold and consumed in the USA. They have been doing this nationwide since 1977 and over 20% of Americans are still addicted to smoking.

You want to change McDonalds into a tofu and salad bar with half sized veggi-burgers served with a dose of exercise? I just don’t see the need. If people want to stuff a fat laden burger into their kids face everyday of the week then it is the parent that is destroying their kid’s potential not McDonalds. I don’t think it is the burden of government to regulate the behavior of the law abiding citizens. Nor do I want that to be the case. The more any government interferes in the lives of its citizens the less free they are. I have absolutely no interest in living in a nanny state that shepards its citizens from cradle to grave.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CB56...

Trying to foster a child’s self esteem is a vacuous argument. Children that overcome difficulties will go farther than children that are coddled from birth so that they “feel better about themselves”. The idea that if little Johnny or Jenny never have a bad experience in their little lives, that they have perfect childhoods without conflict, angst or issue they will some how be more fulfilled or better people is utter lunacy. A life without measure is a life wasted. Does this mean that some people are not going to get the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Yes. I am fine with that. I recognize that there will always be poor people and that there will always be rich people. I don’t despise either. They are the products of the decisions they have made throughout their lives. I would hope that no matter what their station in life is that they are happy.

This very discussion that we are having is proving much of what I am say to be true. Because you and I are not calling each other names and resorting to low tactics, common in politics, but that we exchange ideas and debate realities we sharpen each other’s wit and argument. Impassioned speech need not be painful or unproductive. It seems though that we have left your discourse on the future of television far behind.


RE: Not no But Hell NO!
By oTAL (blog) on 8/29/2007 2:05:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This very discussion that we are having is proving much of what I am say to be true. Because you and I are not calling each other names and resorting to low tactics, common in politics, but that we exchange ideas and debate realities we sharpen each other’s wit and argument. Impassioned speech need not be painful or unproductive. It seems though that we have left your discourse on the future of television far behind.


Yeah, we did! But I do find our current discussion interesting, and I'm feeling sharper by the hour, so I'll keep it up. =P

Fast food is, in some ways, addictive. The process is not simple and does not work the same for everyone.

When you eat high caloric foods, or when you drink sodas with lots of sugar, your body produces certain chemicals that make you feel happy. Think of the satisfied feeling you get when you've eaten a tasty burger at McDonald's.

Endorphins can be addictive because of the positive reinforcement you feel when you have a high level and because of how depressed you can feel with a low level.
There are many ways around this, like physical exercise, eating healthy food, and even, sometimes, merely being distracted from food.

Yet, especially for children, sodas and fast food can be very addictive. The positive and negative reinforcements act with much more power on them since healthy adults have learned how to control their impulses. When you indulge those impulses they gain strength and after a time, you can't really be happy when you're resisting...

Fast food and sodas are less addictive than many other things, but they are addictive (even TV can be addictive).

Although I am fit, I can relate to that addiction. I started to understand it more recently after a change in lifestyle (started working).

When I don't eat for long hours I start to feel a little down. Things look grimmer. I can see the big picture, and the big picture sucks. It's not that my perception of the world is in anyway distorted, but it's like seeing the half-empty glass when I usually see it half-full.

At the same time I feel hungry, but those things aren't really connected in my brain. I consciously learned that if I eat that feeling will go away and I'll go back to my cheery "life is great I want to live forever" mood.

I also learned that eating two apples usually solves that problem. And that regular meals and exercise avoids it.

Still, it gave me some insight to what life can be for all the fat bastards out there. You feel miserable until you eat. You feel good during. And then you feel guilty and miserable after your finished. It sucks!

And when you're obese by the time you are 15, I will give you less than 1% chance of being fit as an adult. It's not like you'll be fit if you loose 10 Kgs. You'll still be fat... People give up on that...

Governments should protect their children when their parents aren't up to the job. It already does that for drugs, alcohol, driving, etc. Those could be legal for children if everyone was a good parent. No need to make them illegal.

As for self-esteem, I had a low one growing up and it sucked. I can tell you that I was a worse person - although not by much. I was, for example, a lot more selfish.
I am on the other side of the fence right now and I have a very high self esteem. Getting out of adolescence and being lucky on how some things turned out drove me here. I am very happy and I am a better person in many aspects of my life.

If I happened to be fat during adolescence, I don't think I would have gone through that change, and right now I'd be an unhappy, low self-esteem fat person. And maybe that would make me eat more....

From your link:
"Also, a poor self-image is a risk factor for certain eating disorders, especially bulimia--a connection one of us (Vohs) and her colleagues documented in 1999."

I can't really picture myself fat as I believe I learned about choices and consequences very early - never smoked a cigarette, never had drugs... by choice! I get along with people with those habits and I never try to impose my choices on them, but I believe I'm happier with the ones I made.

Would I impose those choices on children? The choices that would lead to a healthy balanced life? Damn hell yes!!
If they want to f*ck up their life then make them turn 18 first!!
Most of all I'd try to make them understand why those choices are the right ones, and I believe adults that try and push the wrong choices on them should be stopped.

This is long enough already..... ;)
I'll wait for you answer tomorrow. =)


RE: Not no But Hell NO!
By Misty Dingos on 8/30/2007 1:30:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Governments should protect their children when their parents aren't up to the job.

Government belongs to the people and not the other way around. Children are not property of the state and to think that way can lead to a whole host of draconian measures that the state or government needs to protect its wards.

Bear in mind that what the basic requirements that a modern democratic national government fulfills.

1. Keep the citizens safe from outside harm. e.g. invasion from another nation or international terrorism.
2. Provide a coherent system of laws and courts to police aberrant behavior of criminals. e.g. put thieves and murders in prison.
3. Provide a coherent system of laws and courts to resolve disputes between citizens. e.g. civil court system.
4. Resolve international disputes, make international treaties and regulate international trade.
5. Provide for common sense regulation of such industries and activities that may impact the general well being of the citizenry. e.g. ensuring the safety of food, drugs sold within the borders of the country, ensuring for the safe disposal of industrial waste.
6. Some form of national disaster response organization.

You will note that this list does not include providing for retirement income, medical care, residences, clothing, protection services, or indigent income. Confusing societal desires with government responsibilities is a common problem these days. It would be nice if someone made us save money so that we could retire and enjoy our later years without burdening our families but it should not be the responsibility of the government to ensure that desire. We need to take responsibility for our own actions, needs, wants and desires. The government should provide the security so that we can achieve our own ends not mandating the course of our lives.

The issue of proper child care is seeming complex but the solution is actually simple. Children are the responsibilities of their parents. If the parents are unwilling or unable to care for their children the children should be removed from the care of the parents and placed in the care of other responsible adults in the community that will care for them. Until such time as the parents willing or able to care for their children. In a free society we do not interfere in the breeding habits of our citizens. This, obviously, leads to a certain amount of chaos. We either accept that or start meddling in the lives of others.

When government engages in activities other than what is on the list they start to restrict freedoms that we should all hold dear. You don’t need freedom to be happy but you do need freedom to be free.


RE: Not no But Hell NO!
By oTAL (blog) on 8/31/2007 1:31:30 PM , Rating: 2
Ok... I see where you are coming from. Your views are towards minimalistic governments that input all freedoms and responsibilities on the individuals. Minimize government role whenever possible and that way you don't have to deal with the inefficiencies.

I am more of a middle of the road person.

I believe in basic universal healthcare, including family planning; governments should take care of the insane, the chronically ill, and those unable to survive by their own means.

I believe in government intervention on many subjects towards the greater good - anti-smoking campaigns; maximum roaming tariffs for the euro zone; sexual education campaigns;

I believe in basic universal education for everyone and scholarships for those who are able to proceed to higher education and have the desire to do so.

I believe the government should set minimum wages and should save a minimum retirement for you, taken from your salary. Reasons:
* When the economy sucks people will take any job they can that allows them to live and they will try to survive their day to day not worrying about the future;
* Many people are irresponsible about their finances;
* Age is inevitable and people will grow old. If they have not saved up I believe they should not be left to die if they cannot work for their food.

Although I see all of those things I mentioned as unnecessary, I believe them to be fair, good, and positive for a society. This will have costs for the most productive members of society, and that may feel unfair. It is a price I believe is worth paying.

I would be making WAY more money in the USA right now. I am educated and a highly skilled IT professional and yet I would be low middle class by American standards.
My girlfriend is a nurse and her wage would be considered laughable in the USA.

Still, if given the choice to be randomly born to any family in the US or in my country I would not think twice - my country would win. I was given free health care and free education (17 years of almost free education) throughout my life. Now I am paying for others to have that and it sucks. Yet, if I was born on a poor family in the USA I would not have had 1/10th of the opportunities I would get in a low income family in my country.

Although my parents are both educated and I live comfortably, I feel good that my country (as well as most other European countries) allows people with very low income to study without going through hell. Some of my friends at the university were poor. Few had to quit because of that, and those that did, did it because they were not being successful in their studies (poor kids can't have the luxury of flunking classes...)

I was educated in one of the best engineering universities in Europe and paid very little for that. Those who are able to pay are now paying €700 per year of tuition.
People who are poor are given money to study, as long as they have good results.

In conclusion, I believe governments should intervene for the greater good. It may be less efficient in many ways, but I think it turns out to build a fairer society.

Anyway. This was a nice conversation and I enjoyed it very much. If you wish you can mail me to the e-mail on the article.


:)
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/27/2007 1:48:50 PM , Rating: 2
"Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business" -- One of my favorite non-fiction reads. Definitely recommended for anyone getting in, or already in the media industry.

Keep up the good work Nuno!




RE: :)
By oTAL (blog) on 8/27/2007 1:54:27 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks Kris!

And thank you to anyone brave enough to read this far! ;)


"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot