Rande Is . . . HOME Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Rande Is . . . HOME

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: paret who wrote (57334)	2/28/2006 12:32:21 PM
From: Rock_nj	of 57584

I agree, the security risk of allowing our port terminals to come under arab control is real and unecessary, even if remote. The only legitimate arguement for the letting the port deal go forward is protecting free markets. I think we should be more interested in protecting our citizens from a massive and devastating terorist attack with a nuclear weapon or similiar weapon of mass destruction device than protecting the obscure concept of the "free market". Why should we try to protect the "free market" in ports anyway? The free market is rarely applied in other portions of our economy in the pure sense. Almost all industries benefit from government bastardization or subsidation of their markets in one way or another. The oil trade, for example, is anything but a truly free market. The government has chosen winners and losers in the energy business for decades and routinely allocates $100 Billion plus per year in military protection to protect the free flow of oil. That is a government sponsered bastardization of the energy markets that has the result of affecting which energy technologies succeed and which ones fail; oil has undoubtably been the big winner from these government policies.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next