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: Dayuhan who wrote (51333)	8/15/1999 11:24:00 AM
From: Michael M	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Hello Steven -- thought I'd try to get in a word or two between tropical storms. Beginning to wonder if you ever sleep. Re. issues of Russian expectation: WHO led them to believe a market economy would produce a paradise? Wasn't me. I think many of these "dreams" sprang straight from their own longings and desires.....and naivete. Maybe you can ask the VOA vet to clarify degree of official U.S. complicity. You are absolutely correct in noting that the expectations existed. I was east of the divide around the time of its collapse and will attest a strong and widespread state of anticipation -- just short, it seemed, of waiting for a liberating army to march down the street and start handing out candy and nylons. You knew that situation was destined for the dumper right from before the start. Even the locals who would agree with you didn't believe what they said -- they were waiting for the GOODIES! One result that does seem greatly appreciated is the right (in many places) to now own property. For all the disappointment and unrest (the latter, in no small part, the result of political exploitation), I don't believe property rights are going to be easily surrendered. I can't resist an outburst here -- I have great respect for many in the U.S Foreign Service (and a pal or two) but, on balance, think we might do well to stand down for a year or two and start over. There are far too many hyper-educated, self indulgent, ivory tower types (admittedly, they mix well with foreign counterparts) in U.S. missions abroad. They focus too much on their own bureaucracies and neuroses and petty complaints about the primitives. When they put on sensible shoes and cross the pale, you can almost bet there's a little village that sells "interesting pottery" near whatever they're "visiting" for a few hours. They often do little or no good (or worse) in the countryside and among the proletariat. More on this (maybe a LOT more, some other day). There is truth in immigration having benefits for both sides but I hardly agree that we take only the "useful" ones. Without debating the usefulness of any immigrant, I believe it's not usually a case of which ones to take -- most simply come. I'm against that. As far as another country paying key people in our government to dump our interests in favor of theirs -- I really wish Janet Reno would get off her very large butt on this very subject. I would think liberals, conservatives and libertarians alike would like to know the full story re. Clinton and China. I agree with you that international conflicts of interest are best addressed when a clear understanding of differences is present and a sincere effort is made to find the win-win solution. I am not ready to agree, in advance, that compromise is desirable in every case. Muscling them to the mat also has its place -- as does blowing their heads off, as a last resort. Great deal of precedent for this. We agree completely re. goofs and learning from them. May take us longer to agree on what's a goof.