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: Tom Clarke who wrote (73101)	1/26/2000 11:01:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I'm sure the motives are all of the very best, but comments like this one disturb me: ...a series of legal steps to compel our government to provide parity pricing for farm commodities, parity of currency issues to maintain parity prices, adequate supervision of concentrations and monopolistic practices in the market by vertically integrated corporations, and maintain fair and equitable foreign trade... I am not convinced that "providing parity pricing" for anybody is a role I want government to take on. And I have to wonder what their definition of "fair and equitable" foreign trade is. The third world producers whose products our farmers would like to shut out might have a somewhat different idea of "fair and equitable", as would the consumers, on whom the burden of subsidy will ultimately and inevitably fall. It seems that they are asking our government to do precisely what we are trying to get governments in Europe and Japan, among others, to stop doing.