Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (46733)	7/23/1999 11:01:00 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Why should you be surprised that business interests support the one-China policy? Taiwan will be a trading partner of the US no matter what political policy we follow. China, with its huge and mostly untapped markets, will most likely be hostile to businesses (and governments) which support Taiwanese independence. Why would McDonald's, or Ford, or Exxon, or any major corporation risk their access to the biggest consumer market in the world for some political position? That's what I mean when I say that money has no ideology. You are quite right - money has no ideology. And you've touched on a fact that makes the claims by certain political parties that China "bought" the Clinton administration nonsense. The Chinese government doesn't have to buy the Clinton administration. The Exxons, Lorals, McDonalds, etc. already did it long ago. Bruce

To: The Philosopher who wrote (46733)	7/23/1999 11:16:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Christopher, we seem to be talking at cross-purposes. Or we are using words to mean completely different things. I am not "surprised" that business interests support the one-China policy. What I WAS surprised at was that you omitted their role altogether when you discussed China policy, and treated the "debate" as if it were some sort of either/or, disembodied two-sided dialogue between abstract "liberal" and "conservative" principles, detached from a real-life context. I quoted the passage only in order to make the point that, in my opinion, you had left at least half of the dialogue out. Joan