Cheers,
gadgettechblog.com

Caos und Arbeitlos

Der Machtkampf zwischen Continental und Schaeffler eskaliert. Conti-Aufsichtsratschef Hubertus von Grünberg trat jetzt mit sofortiger Wirkung zurück.

«Es zeichnet sich ab, dass Continental weiter Schaden nimmt«, sagte der 66-Jährige gestern in Frankfurt nach einer Sitzung des Aufsichtsrats des Autozulieferers. «Wir laufen Gefahr, in das Schaeffler-Problem hineingezogen zu werden.« Von Grünberg kritisierte, die schwer angeschlagene Schaeffler-Gruppe sei der Forderung nach einem tragfähigen Zukunftskonzept nicht nachgekommen und stattdessen auf Konfrontationskurs gegangen.

Der Herzogenauracher Autozulieferer, der wegen der auf Pump finanzierten Conti-Übernahme hoch verschuldet ist, wies die Vorwürfe von Grünbergs zurück. Grünberg habe das Vertrauen im Aufsichtsrat verloren, hieß es. Die Besprechung eines Zukunftskonzeptes habe bei der Sitzung in Frankfurt überhaupt nicht auf der Agenda gestanden.

We don't know all of the conditions, but we know with near certainty the preventing rampant communicative diseases is a requirement for economic growth. Giving money directly for vaccinations, mosquito nets, etc will predictably save lives and . Likewise Kiva. So I don't think this claim really adds up. Surely one person with thousands of dollars to spend, could find a useful use for it if they tried, even if the estimated probability of actually saving a life is p= 0.9 rather than 1.

“Another difference is that you are the one acting directly to save the drowning child, whereas there are multiple intermediaries between you and the poor child — an international charity, an official aid agency, a government, a local aid worker.”

To a determinist utilitarian this rigthly makes no difference. If I push a rock, which hits another rock which then stops an out of control train and saves a child – am I less responsible because of the extra intervening rock? No way.

If my giving money makes it possible for someone else to save a life that rightly otherwise would have been lost, as an individual chooser I have made all that difference myself.

A nice explanation of the phenomen:
http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monke…

btw, I'm selfish

The basic idea is simple. When having skills pays, people are more likely to develop them. If brain drain was a problem in general, then places that “export” a lot of skilled workers ought to lack them. But this doesn't seem to be true. Places that “export” lots of skilled workers, like nurses, often have as many or more than places that won't let citizens leave. How can this be? Because if there is a foreign market for your skills, you are more likely to seek training in the first place. The possibility of earning higher wages abroad creates an incentive for local talent to seek training. There are lots of complexities, but that's the logic of it.

More generally, development ought to be about the welfare of individuals, not the GDP of regions enclosed by arbitrary colonial boundaries. Countries don't own people, and it isn't OK to trap individuals inside political borders, where they will be much poorer, so that they have no alternative but to contribute to the local economy.

I'm not saying that people who improve their skills shouldn't be free to move to wherever they can maximize their opportunities, and I believe it would be immoral to prevent them (unless their education was subsidized, in which case I think it is reasonable to extract promises that they stay). And I don't want to minimize the real gains that accrue to those who do make it out. But while I think there are compelling reasons to encourage, or at least not prevent emigration, i'm not sure that it doesn't make many people actually worse off who don't have the skills to get out because it leaves many with fewer spillover benefits of being around educated, talented folks. Thoughts?