BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
State ownership is not a good way of controlling funds

While it may be true that the state is often a bad manager of assets and businesses in this case the state is not usually involved in the management of the assets. This is being done through the wealth fund which is often in large part run by people whose background is in finance rather than in government. This use of external independent asset managers in itself should be enough to ease worries over state control.[1] Because SWFs don’t seek to have control over the majority of the businesses they invest in discredited government economic planning is not an issue.[2] Indeed SWFs are operating much more like private companies than state owned enterprises. [1] Mezzacapo, Simone, ‘The so-called “Sovereign Wealth Funds”: regulatory issues, financial stability and prudential supervision’, 2009, p.46. http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/publication15064_en.pdf [2] Rose, Paul, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds: Active or Passive Investors?’, 2008. http://thepocketpart.org/2008/11/24/rose.html
SWFs represent good economic management by countries with surpluses

In many cases sovereign wealth funds are not even good for the states that own them. Almost all are emerging economies with limited financial expertise available to them, and they are not equipped to invest the money wisely. This has led to SWFs paying inflated prices for dodgy western companies, whose share price has subsequently collapsed, resulting in the loss of billions of dollars of national wealth for example China Investment Corporation lost $500million on Blackstone, Qatar Investment Authority may have lost as much as $2billion in its attempt to buy Sainsburys.[1] Surely it would be better to invest the money at home, or even return it to their people in the form of lower taxes. [1] The Economist, ‘The rise of state capitalism’, 2008. http://www.economist.com/node/12080735
Restricting SWFs is protectionism

Fears about the unrestrained influence of sovereign wealth funds will likely stimulate wider protectionism anyway if effective regulation is not introduced. Protectionist politicians may exploit fears of foreigners to restrict any kind of foreign investment, and seek to build up national champions as a defensive measure. This risks losing all the economic benefits of globalisation, such as opportunities to unwind financial imbalances and to spread expertise, while directing capital to areas where it can have the greatest impact. Better to regulate SWFs now for fear of a greater backlash later.
SWFs can harm national security

Sovereign wealth funds raise worrying issues about national security. Unlike mutual funds or private equity groups, which seek only to maximise their investors’ returns, SWFs must be regarded as political entities. Rather than passively holding their assets, they may seek to use their purchases to gain access to natural resources, advanced technologies, including those crucial to our defence, or other strategic sectors.[1] For example Gulf states are using their SWFs to invest in food and natural resources from Latin America.[2] They may engage in economic nationalism, shutting factories in western countries to give an unfair advantage to their own industries[3]. While it has not yet happened they may even attempt economic blackmail, threatening to turn off the lights through their control of energy companies and utilities if governments do not fall in with their foreign policy aims. Allowing countries such as China, Russia and various Gulf states to buy up western companies at will is potentially very dangerous. Even if we regard these states as friendly at the moment, there is no guarantee that they will stay that way, especially as none of them share our political values. [1] Lyons, Gerard, ‘State Capitalism: The rise of sovereign wealth funds’, 2007, p.14 http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/111407_Lyons.pdf [2] Pearson, Samantha, ‘Sovereign wealth funds: Foreign cash has its drawbacks’, 2011, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e5e4f274-6ef5-11e0-a13b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz... [3] Balin, Bryan J., ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds: A Critical Analysis’, 2008, p.4, http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/11501.pdf
State ownership is not a good way of controlling funds

The ownership of important businesses by sovereign wealth funds runs counter to the economic policy pursued by almost every government over the past 25 years. In the 1970s many states owned nationalised industries as part of an attempt at socialist economic planning that has now been discredited. State ownership distorted incentives, interfered with management and produced decades of underinvestment, poor service to consumers, and national economic failure with the most extreme example being the Soviet Union itself. Since the 1980s countries everywhere have followed the example of Thatcher’s Britain and privatised their industries, freeing them to compete efficiently and to generate more wealth and jobs than they had ever done in state hands. Going back to state ownership of business is a dangerous backward step, especially as it is now foreign governments that are doing the nationalising.
SWFs represent good economic management by countries with surpluses

Sovereign wealth funds are highly beneficial for states with large financial surpluses. Traditionally they have been run by resource-rich countries which wish to diversify their assets to smooth out the impact of fluctuations in commodity prices on their economies and revenues. The fund can then be drawn down then prices are low.[1] Indeed 30 of 38 SWFs in 2008 were established for such a stabilization role.[2] By holding investments abroad, oil-rich countries such as Qatar and Norway have also built up valuable national reserves against the day when their fossil fuels eventually run out. Kiribati, a pacific island country, put aside wealth from mining guano from fertilizer. Now the guano is all mined but the $400million fund boosts the island’s GDP by a sixth.[3] In any case, allowing all the income from natural resources into your domestic economy is well known to lead to wasteful investments and higher inflation – better to manage the revenues responsibly by using them to create wealth for the future. More recently many Asian countries with big current account surpluses and massive government reserves have sought higher returns than they could get through more traditional investment in US Treasury bonds. Again, this is a responsible strategy pursued by states seeking to do their best for their citizens. [1] Ziemba, Rachel, ‘Where are the sovereign wealth funds?’, 2008, http://qn.som.yale.edu/content/where-are-sovereign-wealth-funds [2] Lipsky, John, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds: Their Role and Significance’, 2008. http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2008/090308.htm [3] The Economist, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds Asset-backed insecurity’, 2008. http://www.economist.com/node/10533428
Restricting SWFs is protectionism

Restricting the activities of sovereign wealth funds is a form of protectionism, which is itself likely to stimulate further demands for barriers against globalisation. Western countries oppose protectionism when it is from other countries preventing western companies investing so it would be hypocritical to want protectionism against those same countries buying the firms that want so much to invest in emerging markets.[1] It should be remembered that almost 40% of SWF assets are controlled by SWFs from advanced industrialised states.[2] As a result SWF investments abroad contribute to greater economic openness around the world. By exposing emerging economies and authoritarian states to developed world standards of transparency, meritocracy and corporate social responsibility, they will help to spread liberal values and raise standards. They will also give many more nations a stake in international prosperity through trade, encouraging cooperation rather than confrontation in foreign policy, and giving a boost to liberalising trade deals at the WTO. Finally as with all protectionism there is the risk that the SWFs will pull out their wealth and not invest as a result of protectionism resulting in lost jobs or jobs that would otherwise be created going somewhere more hospitable to SWFs.[3] [1] The Economist, ‘The rise of state capitalism’, 2008. http://www.economist.com/node/12080735 [2] Drezner, Daniel W., ‘BRIC by BRIC: The emergent regime for sovereign wealth funds’, 2008, p.5. http://danieldrezner.com/research/swf1.pdf [3] Ibid, p10
Sovereign wealth funds can undermine economic independence

Sovereign wealth funds are not new and they are still only a tiny part of the global financial system. They represent only about 2% of global traded securities, and are dwarfed by other financial actors such as mutual funds, or private equity groups and hedge funds.[1] What is more, in comparison with these other players in the global financial system, SWFs are long-term investors looking many years, even decades into the future. This means that they are likely to bring calm, rather than irrational volatility to markets, as they will not be rushed into dumping assets based on a few months of bad data. [1] The Economist, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds Asset-backed insecurity’, 2008, http://www.economist.com/node/10533428
Sovereign Wealth funds are not transparent

Transparency is a good thing, but it would be unfair to single out sovereign wealth funds for special punishment over this issue. Hedge funds and private equity groups are even less transparent than SWFs, and their influence in the global economy is much greater.[1] Some countries (e.g. Norway) already operate very transparent investment strategies. Many have agreed to the Santiago Principles which encourage transparency and disclosure of financial information.[2] It is likely that other countries will come over time to follow their lead voluntarily, as it is in the interest of their own citizens to see that the state is managing their money in an efficiently and honestly. [1] Avendaño, Rolando, and Santiso, Javier, ‘Are Sovereign Wealth Funds’ Investments Politically Biased? A Comparison with Mutual Funds’, 2009, p.9. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/0/44301172.pdf [2] Ibid
Free speech is as much about being able to receive the ideas of others as it is about expressing one’s own.

We know from the work of educational psychologists that different people acquire knowledge in different ways. For example, some sighted language learners learn more effectively visually, other aurally. The evidence mentioned in the introduction suggests that this is no less true for blind students with those without access to Braille scoring less well in exams than those with it. This becomes an issue of free speech when by compelling people to acquire information in a certain way means that they either have less access to that information or less chance of effectively digesting it. For those for whom are proficient Braille is their preferred medium,[i] despite there being alternatives for communication[ii], it is their only medium for text, and is useful for using computers which may use a braille display.[iii] However, even if this were just a matter of preference, it would be odd not to treat this as a free speech issue; allowing people access to information in a way that is not only possible but comfortable and convenient is at the heart of most forms of information distribution. A majority of people receive their news online but newspapers still exist because some people prefer them. It would be possible for readers to access information via microfiche but would be so inconvenient that it is rarely used. It surely makes sense to see new delivery systems for information as an opportunity to expand, not reduce, the methods available for both imparting and receiving information. [i] ‘Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking and Technology Did You Know?’, University of Washington, 2000, http://www.washington.edu/doit/Faculty/Strategies/Academic/Adaptive/dyk_computers_at_case_study.html [ii] Deafblinduk.org.uk. Types of Communication. [iii] Singh, Reeta, ‘Blind Handicapped Vs. Technology: How do Blind People use Computers?’, International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Vol. 3, Issue 4, April 2012, http://www.ijser.org/researchpaper%5CBLIND-HANDICAPPED-VS-TECHNOLOGY-HOW-DO-BLIND-PEOPLE-USE-COMPUTERS.pdf
Braille should be offered the same protection as minority languages.

The issue of the protection of minority languages is a difficult one for most governments as it is usually argued that most speakers of such languages also make use of the dominant language and, where they don’t, they should learn for their own good. For example French speakers in Canada must also learn English.[i] However, there are senses and experiences that are uniquely held within a community and expressed within those languages. In many ways Braille functions in similar ways, a shared experience between those who read it, a bond between users and, for the most part, denied to outsiders. By its nature, it is tactile and speaks in a way that is not true of audiobooks prepared for a wider market. In purely practical terms there is relatively little difference between reading speeds in Braille and listening to audiobooks (about 130 against 150 wpm).[ii] Learning Braille also has immense practical benefits, not least of which is being employable, 90% of those who are braille literate are employed compared to 33% of blind people who are braille illiterate.[iii] It seems simply strange to insist that those who have already lost one form of access to the wider world – indeed the method most widely used in that world – should be denied another simply because it is deemed to be cheaper, easier or ‘better for them’. Indeed such an action is deeply redolent of the debate over minority languages. Although not all of the blind community prefers to use Braille, many of them do and that would seem sufficient reason to respect it as an important way in which they interact with the world, and receive and impart ideas – the twin pillars of free speech[iv]. [i] Burnaby, Barbara J., ‘Language Policy’, The Canadian Encyclopedia, 1996, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/language-policy [ii] Reading Braille. RIDB Crenwick Centre. [iii] Ouellette, Matthew David, ‘Low Cost, Compact Braille Printing Head For Use in Handheld Braille Transcribing Device’, Mechanical Engineering Master's Theses. Paper 41. p.2 http://hdl.handle.net/2047/d20001224 [iv] Guidelines on the use of minority languages in the broadcast media. Minority Rights Group International.
The attacks on Braille are part of a wider move against the physical book.

The death of the book has been predicted with virtually every technological innovation and yet, it remains one of the most widespread and recognised means of communication in the world, with physical book sales representing about 80% of total book sales[i]. There are many reasons for this, its communicability, its physicality, it history and associations. Whatever the reasons for its enduring success, it remains one of the great design achievements of humanity as a species, comfortably alongside the wheel, the screw and cash. Whatever the reason for this enduring success, it has it and the latest set of doomsayers may well go the way of the rest. Perhaps the greatest reason for its enduring success is that the book is silent. The reader gives voice to characters and charts their own way through fiction or selects their own phrases for emphasis in non-fiction. There is nobody – actor or director – between the reader and the author. If that applies to the printed word it applies equally or more to Braille. It is notable that the decline in braille literacy has led to a decline in poetry and literature output by the blind community.[ii] In turn, it is surely part of the author’s right to speak freely that they speak directly to their reader. [i] Ebooks Popularity is Rewriting Sales History. Carol Memmet. 5 September 2011. USA Today. [ii] Ouellette, Matthew David, ‘Low Cost, Compact Braille Printing Head For Use in Handheld Braille Transcribing Device’, Mechanical Engineering Master's Theses. Paper 41. p.2 http://hdl.handle.net/2047/d20001224
It is not a case of insisting that there are other or better options; there are other or better options. Equally, there is no need to ‘predict’ the death of the physical book; it is dying. Increasingly specialist publishers, such as Dorchester Publishing

The introduction makes reference to the seventy-two volume ‘pocket’ dictionary. It’s an excellent example.[i] With printed text, many previously cumbersome physical books – the Complete OED, the Encyclopaedia Britannica and others – are now only available in digital format.[ii] Nobody is suggesting banning Braille or even discouraging it, simply following the possibilities offered by technology for easier, cheaper and more portable formats.[iii] If there were a huge market for Braille it would survive but clearly enough people are happy with other formats for it to require subsidy and support. This means, inevitably, that the taxpayer will end up footing the bill despite there being cheaper alternatives that are increasingly popular. As with any technological change – or any major societal change for that matter – there are those who will find that change easy and others who will find it more difficult. For those who find it impossible – such as deaf and blind students – clearly other alternatives need to be provided but it seems sensible to look to the technologies of the future to fulfil those needs rather than those of the past. [i] Engelhart, Katie, ‘The importance of Braille literacy’, Free Speech Debate, 6 July 2012, http://freespeechdebate.com/en/case/the-importance-of-braille-literacy/ [ii] Britannica Editors, ‘Britannica’s Digital Milestones’, Encyclopaedia Britannica Blog, 13 March 2012, http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2012/03/britannica-digital-milestones/ [iii] Listening To Braille. Rachel Aviv. New York Times. 30 December 2009
If the information is accessible in another format, it is wrong to claim that this is an issue of free speech.

To argue that this is a matter of the infringement of the right to free speech is not only wrong but offensive to those who have had that right genuinely curtailed. A stifling of free speech is about cutting off people’s access to ideas, denying them the right to take those ideas and present them to others. The slow, natural death of Braille does not do that. Fewer than one in ten blind children now learn Braille[i]. Those who wish to continue to use Braille can do so just as those who prefer to write a letter rather than send an email can do so. Both groups however, accept that it is likely to become more expensive and exclude them from the rest of society as others adapt and new technologies become the norm. The information and ideas are there, they are available in a format that is available, even if it is not the format of absolute preference. The technology is available, many prefer it, those who don’t are free not to use it. [i] “The Death of Braille” – Appropriate or Ominous? Neatorama.com. 26 February 2010.
Readers of all kinds are adapting to books being produced in new formats, publishers need to respond to this decline.

The current shift in publishing is unlike any other that has gone before, e-books are not like the TV, the Record player or the radio as all of these could only reproduce books in heavily edited form. The change is shown by ebook sales having outperformed printed book sales on amazon in the UK for the first time.[i] Against braille it is audio formats that are the biggest threat, the tape machine, the Walkman, the CD, Mp3, Mp4 and so on. All of these can reproduce books, unedited, in a format that allows the listener to proceed at their own pace, jump back and forwards and so on – just as a book does. Earlier technologies had problems with quality, and each in turn was initially expensive. As they became more commonplace, quality improved and the price fell. Both of these have now coincided to create technologies that allow the listener the ultimate convenience. Returning to the example given in the introduction, the CNIB library. Canada is a big country and Braille books are cumbersome. How much easier to email someone an MPEG, which they can have within seconds. The digital age offers huge benefits to all but none more so than to those with sensory impairments. Its possibilities really are only bounded by our imagination. [i] Malik, Shiv, ‘Kindle ebooksales have overtaken Amazon print sales, says book seller’, The Guardian, 6 August 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/aug/06/amazon-kindle-ebook-sales-overtake-print?newsfeed=true
Free speech is as much about being able to receive the ideas of others as it is about expressing one’s own.

Free speech may well be about the ability to receive ideas as well as express them but in neither case is it about how those ideas are expressed or received. To suggest that a state that refuses to provide a movie studio to any of its citizens who requests one is somehow suppressing their right of free expression would clearly be ridiculous. The state has a duty to guarantee the right, not the methodology.
Braille should be offered the same protection as minority languages.

The Opposition is perfectly happy to be attacked for making life easier for people with disabilities by taking down barriers that separate them from the wider population. There a parts of any community that prefer to do things in a certain way, however governments rarely commit to guaranteeing all preferences, instead they guarantee a basic level of service provision and then offer choice where possible and affordable. This is true in education and welfare right through to national defense – militaries, except the US, tend to specialise and rely on allies for other operations.
The attacks on Braille are part of a wider move against the physical book.

It is not a case of insisting that there are other or better options; there are other or better options. Equally, there is no need to ‘predict’ the death of the physical book; it is dying. Increasingly specialist publishers, such as Dorchester Publishing which focuses on paperbacks,[i] will only produce e-books as it cuts out the actual cost of printing and, therefore, the opportunity cost of remaindered copies. [i] Trachtenberg, Jeffrey A., Mass Paperback Publisher Goes All Digital’, The Wall Street Journal, 6 August 2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703309704575413611289773690.html
It is not a case of insisting that there are other or better options; there are other or better options. Equally, there is no need to ‘predict’ the death of the physical book; it is dying. Increasingly specialist publishers, such as Dorchester Publishing

The suggestion that seven million dollars is an excessive expenditure on a resource for 836,000 is extortionate is simply nonsense. That’s a little over eight dollars a head, hardly likely to break the bank. To say that a government is not discouraging the use of something by making it harder to access is simply untrue. Of course if a resource is harder or more expensive to access, people will be discouraged from using it.