Budapest Business Journal: “EU authorities have said they will award about €1mln in subsidies to cover some of the costs of distilling 500,000 hectolitres of unwanted wine, about one-sixth of this year’s harvest, business daily Világgazdaság reported.”

I just caught (what was probably a rerun of) Thomas Friedman on MSNBC with Tim Russert discussing The World Is Flat. In one segment, Friedman argued that the US government ought to impose a gasoline tax so as to spur investments in alternative energy technologies, because he thinks that the 21st century will be “green” and if American corporations don’t develop the technology, then companies in India or China will.

A few questions:

If Friedman has a foresight that others lack, then why is he asking for a governmental mandate instead offering venture capital to alternative energy entrepreneurs?

How does Mr. Friedman know that the national welfare gains from having green inventions produced in Detroit instead of Mumbai will outweigh the welfare losses of the gas tax?

Why is Friedman afraid of other nations’ companies producing inventions in highly profitable industries? Does he believe in national competitiveness?

It’s always fascinating to spot new comparative advantages:

In the race to attract global drug companies seeking a suitable destination to do clinical research, India could well pip its dragon competitor. And the India-advantage literally lies in its genes.

The country has a heterogeneous mix of people, unlike China’s homogenous population and this could tip the balance in favour of India, said Mr Swapan Bhattacharya who heads TCG Lifesciences.

Several gene types such as Caucasians, Mogoloids and Australoids can be found in India, explained an industry representative. So if a company is looking for different gene pools in a single location, India stands to gain. [Hindu Business Line]

Recall that ethnic fragmentation has also been found to be detrimental to economic growth.

Tyler Cowen posts a Nobel short list. I’m cheering for Bhagwati.

The global liberalization of factor movements is a messy, selective and uneven process. Capital might be flowing more freely than persons:

A study of global visa regimes has signalled that governments will have to reconcile their push for democracy, free trade and open-market globalisation with the increasingly restrictive and inequitable visa curbs on free movement of people. The study says that visa restrictions have created a system that ”is one of highly unequal access to foreign spaces, reinforcing existing inequalities”.

When it comes to enjoying visa-free travel to foreign countries, passport holders from rich nations form an exclusive club of 25 countries facing the fewest restrictions for going abroad, according to the research conducted by Dr Eric Neumayer, a geographer from the London School of Economics. [Bangkok Post]

Tom Palmer catches the broken window fallacy being promoted in regards to hurricane Katrina.

Update: Bastiat’s Window has plenty more instances.

India: “Calling himself a liberal in social philosophy, the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, today said Marxism captures two very important aspects for the progress of a nation… These insights of Marxism must guide any development policy design, the Prime Minister said.”

Vietnam: “Pham Chi Lan, senior advisor to the Research Commission, a socio-economic think-tank advising the Prime Minister, was objecting to some analysts’ suggestion that the government would soon let world prices determine domestic fuel prices… ‘I think we cannot do that as fuel is a very sensitive product, with a great bearing on the economy,” she said. “It needs government supervision.’”

Here’s a week’s worth of reading: Business Week has devoted an entire issue to India and China.

Peter Mork of Economics With A Face has an excellent piece on his encounters with Cuban entrepreneurs. Check out some of his other recent entries for more stories and photos.

Donald Sull of the London Business School has a column in tomorrow’s Financial Express on the viability of firms from developing or newly industrialized countries that pursue international expansion to compete with developed nation companies:

Recent Chinese bids reveal a much broader phenomenon: the rise of fiercely competitive companies from the crucible of emerging markets, including India, Brazil and Mexico as well as China. These emerging market champions pose a much greater threat than most western managers recognise…

The harsh environment overwhelms the majority of emerging market companies. The few that survive the brutal process of Darwinian selection, however, emerge as fierce competitors that excel at efficiency, innovation and risk management. Having conquered local markets, they have strong incentives to expand abroad. Global expansion allows them to tap new markets, spread risk geographically, build economies of scale and compete in many places with multinationals…

The most critical element of these emerging market champions is their diversity. Here the facile analogy with Japan is at its most misleading. Japan’s push towards globalisation was co-ordinated by the government’s trade ministry, targeted at a handful of industries, and pursued by similar companies coming out of the same cosy home market. Emerging market champions, in contrast, vary in headquarter country and industry as well as their strategies to go global…

Executives who lull themselves to sleep with reassuring bedtime stories about Japan may sleep well for now. But they risk waking up to a very unpleasant reality.

Read the full piece for examples of innovative firms and more myth-busting.