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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rarebird who wrote (56293)	7/15/2000 7:39:21 PM
From: d:oug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116825

<<What takes place in my home...is...not subject to "political-economic policy" enforcement...Rarebird>> ok, and i wish not to debate your personal situation, just to make an observation that you have stated many time the fact that television usage in your home is limited based on your conclusion that it delivers not which you classify as correct and also a possibility to harm if received. The above my words, not yours, as you only stated that very little t.v. watching is done at you residence, and the above is my reading between the one line you posted. Using you as a real peson, I ask a hypothetical question about another person who considers what you do, as to represent what we tag as role models. This is 180 degrees from the Ron Reece's role model, as Ron puts forth his posts with hidden instructions that all he says is truth until proven wrong, and your stand is that it's each and every person's responsibility to understand what truth is, and then apply it. So hypothetically a person asks you to help explain his state of confusion. Question: That which is broadcasted through the television is a product of that you called "political-economic policy", which is simply, using those expressions "the real world" and "reality" that you have but no choice but to accept and enter and interact with. You will ofcourse mention that your thought process is seperate, but I will mention that no matter what thoughts you decide as correct, that you are limited and restricted in how you can implement what you decide as correct, based on the rules and regulation of laws and other persons reactions to what you do or say. Guess the real question is as follows from a saying. "Know you enemy." What better way to do that is there than to receive that information already packaged for greatest impact and manipulation effect than the t.v. ? Surely you admit that its an ongoing study to keep up with an ever changing incorrectness, as the pool of this incorrectness is large and deep with constant exchanges as when a bad is not working it will be replaced with another variant of bad to fit the situation to either corrupt good or hurt the good. doug

To: Rarebird who wrote (56293)	7/15/2000 8:45:54 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116825

I agree that the history of the World has always debated the concept of Free Trade and has sometimes, unfortunately opted for Protectionism. But that does not mean that Free Trade should not be viewed as a basic human right in a Democracy, I'm sorry Rarebird... I would definitely have to disagree with you. Free trade principles can exist in any capitalist economy (or even in a mixed economy to a lesser extent although that may sound odd). However, Free Trade, to be truly thus, must be FAIR TRADE. That means that govt subsidies, currency manipulations (to gain an exporting edge), and labor relations must be comensurate. Now for economies such as the US and EEC, or even Japan, all of which share comparable economic bases, there should be little preventing their respective govts from adopting tariff free trade relations. They are operating from substantially the same "playing field" with wages, per capita GNP, and quality of living being almost indistinguishable from one another. But then we have the problem of nations with massive quantities of cheap labor available to them (eg: China, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico.. etc), poorly defined political structures, overly incestuous governmental/business relationships, and a willingness to subsidize entire industries to gain marketshare.. Now Pat Buchanan has some very good points about how NAFTA has created conditions where US manufacturing jobs have been lost to cheaper labor. But then again, on a domestic level, we see the same process occur as factories leave one section of the country for cheaper locales in other states (usually drawn by favorable local tax exemptions to boot). The point is that democratic govts may be the best proponents of free trade, but that hardly makes them any less interested in protecting their local parochial interests when it chooses them. And if I'm not mistaken, Pinochet, while dictator of Chile, was aggressively pursuing free trade principles and capitalistic reforms. What IS required is transparency in these relationships, with proper steps taken to insure that the weaker economy takes the necessary steps to avoid using its cheap labor as an economic weapon to the disadvantage of the stronger economy. I'm a firm advocate of free trade. But that trade must be fair and take into consideration the nation who is opening up their markets to developing economies. Regards, Ron