>>cc, just say no to internet porn!
Inquired Justin:
>Apropos of what, Carrol? --jks
Peter was speculating as to the cause of Carrol's wrist injury, Justin. I defend Carrol against this slander, of course. Typing out all those fusillades of uncomradely bile would be enough to strain any wrist, I'm quite sure.
Averred Doug:
>In other words, if the data don't tell you what you want to hear,
>redefine and rework the data until they do.
A bit unfair, I think, Doug. You gotta have categories if you're gonna count stuff. And categories get constructed by someone, and for some reason. If we count daily local newspapers as the domain of competition, Sydney has two. If we categorise broadsheets and tabloids as two domains, then there's no competition in Sydney at all. If we include other media (national newspapers, suburban giveaways, electronic media, other reading materials) the picture is different again. If we do it on the criteria of discourse analysis - say, the variety of ideological presuppositions across reading options, well, there's another result again. And so on.
Mused Justin:
>It is interesting that "politicised: in the sense of pursuit of
>self-interest--in this highly individualistic country--is a swear word.
>Somehow, when the government is concerned, it's somehow bad to have interest
>groups struggling for advantage, whereas in the market, self-interest is
>applauded. Anyone have any ideas about why?"
I remember Herbert Gans made much of American culture's expectation of high and selfless standards in the public service ('the halls of power'), whilst, as the market regulates all who practise exclusively in her embrace, good clean self-seeking is by definition the regulating principle. I think that the notion of 'power' is culturally recognised in the realm of politics, but not in the realm of economics, where, of course, we have a continuum of equally powerless traders at work. Daft, really ...
Cheers, Rob.