SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (72332)6/25/2001 2:08:07 PM
From: Frank Pembleton  Respond to of 116760
 
>>The HUI is up sharply. That is quite bullish.

We still haven't broken out of that range yet, look for a pull back/buying opps shortly. :)

Regards
Frank P.



To: Rarebird who wrote (72332)6/25/2001 2:28:42 PM
From: long-gone  Respond to of 116760
 
<<The HUI is up sharply. That is quite bullish. >>

Member of HUI being bought by non-member.



To: Rarebird who wrote (72332)6/25/2001 5:13:26 PM
From: long-gone  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 116760
 
More of the coming trade wars?
The Washington Times
www.washtimes.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Open road for Mexico trucks
Hugh Aynesworth
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Published 6/25/01

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LAREDO, Texas - They come by the hundreds, lumbering along like big, fire-breathing monsters an almost nonstop parade of huge semis, easing across the International Bridge here.
There might be dozens queued up at one time as federal, state and local investigators saunter forward to examine them or let them continue on their journey. These drivers are Mexican nationals, manning rigs owned by Mexican trucking companies, delivering freight to the United States.
At present they are required to enter and unload their cargoes within 20 miles of the U.S.-Mexican border. U.S. trucking firms then reload and deliver the cargo the rest of the way, to places like Milwaukee, St. Louis, Seattle, New York or Washington.
But the scenario is about to change later this year. At least that´s what the Bush administration has in mind. Proposed regulations from the Department of Transportation (DOT) and its Federal Motor Safety Carrier Administration announced May 1 caused a furor as long-time critics -- some who simply do not want Mexican trucks driving on U.S. highways -- said the rules were not tough enough to ensure safety and would eventually cause havoc on our highways.
"We´re going to fight this thing the whole way," said Bret Caldwell, spokesman for the 1.5-million-member International Brotherhood of Teamsters in Washington, perhaps the strongest group fighting against opening the border.
Others predict the new proposals will ignite such opposition that Congress might get involved and the expected opening of U.S. highways to the Mexican truckers by the end of the year might be delayed -- again.
Earlier this month, 10 Democratic senators sent a letter to President Bush asking him to reconsider his plan.
Granting access to unsafe Mexican trucks "could seriously jeopardize highway safety, road conditions and environmental quality," the letter said.
But the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday reaffirmed the administration´s proposals on Mexican trucks, voting along party lines to reject an amendment by a Democratic member to toughen the proposed safety standards.

New rules on the table
In this most important city of about 172,000 -- which saw almost one-third of the 4,545,015 Mexico-to-U.S. truck crossings in the entire nation last year --things seemed pretty much as usual.
A handful of inspectors work long hours, trying to weed out trucks considered hazardous. They don´t have the manpower to get to most of those that chug by.
Many drivers complain that they have to wait too long, and that their incomes are substantially harmed when forced to lose several hours a day here and there.
"That is exactly what we expected," said one inspector here, asked to comment on the proposed regulations, which are now in the 60-day public comment period and are subject to revisions. "Now we just need to get on with our job."
"This whole thing is a bad joke on the American people," said Jorge Cantu, a retired Customs Service agent who lives in Pharr, near the border. "Everyone was worried about drugs and Washington never gave us adequate funding to beat that element. Still don´t have it in hand. Now the main concern seems to be the truck drivers. Does anybody really believe cracking down on truck operators is as important as stopping the avalanche of illegal drugs?"
There are many factors involved in this current brouhaha, some of them readily apparent, others not so well defined. Safety is but one -- but it is the most obvious one for critics to make a case about. Less defined, but often mentioned, is the fear that once the Mexican drivers gain access to our highways they will eventually take the jobs of American drivers.
The first two planned regulations deal with how Mexican companies can be certified, either to drive just within the four border states -- Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona or to gain full access to the entire nation. The third requires that the Mexican firm asking for certification would be checked in a wide variety of areas, including an in-depth examination of its safety performance and safety management controls.
On the safety front, the new proposals led to immediate speculation that the Mexican firms were going to get far more leeway than many American policy-makers, unions and politicians consider prudent.
The new rules would allow the Mexican trucking companies to apply to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for permission to operate in the United States. Within 18 months, inspectors would audit the companies´ entire safety program, including records of their drug and alcohol testing, and vehicle maintenance and repair.
When asked whether Mexican trucking companies could potentially have access to U.S. roads for a full 18 months before having to undergo a safety audit, Dave Longo, DOT´s public affairs officer, said, "The check will be very thorough, and it could be within two weeks after they get operating authority, but most probably within the first 18 months. And if it would take longer than 18 months, they would still have a conditional operating authority until we do actually perform that safety audit."
When the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was adopted in 1994, part of that agreement specified that transportation among Mexico, the United States and Canada would be wide open. Drivers and rigs from companies from any of those nations would have free access to the highways and byways of the other two.
At first the Mexican drivers were to have access only in the four border states, but by 1999 they were to have complete roaming permission to drive anywhere.
It didn´t happen.
Critics complained that Mexican operatives, often barreling along with less-than-safe equipment and with drivers often untrained and overworked, would endanger Americans and themselves. It was widely pointed out that the trucking industry in Mexico, save for a few notable exceptions, has never successfully been monitored, much less supervised.
The Clinton administration for five years refused to allow the Mexican truckers in except to commercial unloading zones near the border towns. Some of these zones are as close to the border as 5 miles, others as much as 20.
Mexico has complained, but not all that loudly, in part, some say, because the U.S. government was lending it billions to help bail out a failing Mexican economy. Finally an official complaint was made to NAFTA and in February an international trade mediation group ruled that the United States had, indeed, breached its NAFTA responsibilities and that it must quickly get into compliance.
President Bush, who as governor of Texas complained bitterly about the Clinton administration´s failure to allow the Mexican firms access, has said he hopes things can be worked out so that NAFTA becomes the international trade entity it was designed to be. His fiscal year 2002 budget allocates and the House Appropriations Committee recently approved $88 million for the construction of additional inspection facilities at the border.

Different standards
As in many complicated situations involving politics, money and environmental concerns, there apparently is no easy answer to this festering problem.
Federal, state and local authorities in U.S. border states have been strained trying to make sure that unsafe Mexican rigs don´t even make it inside the border areas. Many blanch at the suggestion that traffic could double or even quadruple in months to come.
"We can´t examine one out of 10 properly now," said a Texas Department of Public Safety officer here who asked not to be identified. "We just don´t have enough people. God knows what will happen when the floodgates open."
Some see it as a "Catch-22" situation. The average Mexican trucker drives an older vehicle, is not required to keep it maintained, drives several hours a day longer than his American counterpart and makes a lot less money. Those who actually get snagged at the border usually get a warning (in minor cases), a ticket (which could cost their company) or have their vehicles impounded (in case of serious defects, etc.).
There is no way to check on drivers´ records in Mexico. Its database of drivers is still under development. Critics also say there is no Mexican agency authorized to intercept a dangerous rig on the highway, whereas in the United States trucks are routinely halted and forced to take whatever safety measures authorities demand. Even small town cops have such authority.
One of the most mentioned drawbacks concerning Mexican drivers is that they often drive until they are dangerously tired. U.S. truckers are required to rest eight hours after driving 10 and have detailed logs to prove they do.
Though most of the Mexican long-haul trucks are fairly new, official figures from government sources here paint a rather stark picture of maintenance and repair. A DOT report from May said 36 percent of Mexican trucks that entered the United States last year were ordered off the road by inspectors for such violations as faulty brakes and lights. This compares with a 24 percent rate for U.S. trucks.
They operate no weigh stations in Mexico, nor do they currently limit how long a driver can be behind the wheel. However, the same DOT report says that Mexico has made some progress in its safety requirements, issuing a standard for a vehicle- inspection program and a rule requiring drivers to log hours of service.
Robert Collier, a reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle, recently rode with a Mexican driver on an occasionally harrowing 1,800-mile run from Mexico City to Tijuana.
Mr. Collier said his driver was "skillful, with lightning reflexes honed by road conditions that would make U.S. highways seem like cruise-control paradise," but noted that often his driver "was steering through a thick fog of exhaustion." The 46-year-old driver, said the San Francisco reporter, drove three straight 21-hour days, sleeping but seven hours in all and staying awake with coffee, listening to CDs and talking on his CB radio.
The truck, owned by a large Mexican company, Transportes Castores, was a 6-month-old, Mexican-made Kenworth.
But Mr. Collier noted that the whole trip was made with a cracked windshield, something that would have been ticketed in the United States.
Marcos Munoz, vice president of Transportes Castores, said that while his company is excited about the opening of the United States to his countrymen, many other Mexican operators want no part of it. He said that while his company one of the largest has modern trucks and good maintenance, "only about 10 companies here could meet the U.S. standards."
CANACAR, Mexico´s national trucking industry association, opposes the open border policy, saying U.S. firms will eventually take over the country´s trucking industry. Mr. Munoz expects that U.S. companies will buy out the larger Mexican truck outfits and crush smaller ones.
Juan Carlos Montemayor, who runs a 40-year-old Monterrey trucking company called Transportes Pesa which operates 75 trucks, said he didn´t think he would ever live to see a completely open border for his industry. Mr. Montemayor is 38 years old.
He said Mexican firms like his will probably set up U.S. subsidiaries and operate like several large U.S. trucking companies have done recently in setting up Mexican corporations to handle Mexican operations.
Mr. Montemayor said he understood the Teamsters´ worries about safety problems, calling their charges "true, but amplified."
"There will not be an invasion of unsafe Mexican trucks on U.S. highways," he told The Washington Times, adding, "only the most capable and modern companies are willing to do that.
"Our best course of action," he added, "is to make alliances and continue the same way until our economy lets us compete freely." Mr. Montemayor said Mexican trucking firms must pay at least 25 percent more for the same truck bought in the United States because of heavy Mexican taxes on new vehicles and because interest rates in his country are currently about 27 percent.
"How can they expect us to buy new trucks at those rates?" he asked.
Mr. Montemayor admits drivers in Mexico seldom keep log books, but he added, "That might be the easiest to resolve." He said a Mexican driver often works 14 hours a day.(cont)
asp.washtimes.com



To: Rarebird who wrote (72332)6/25/2001 10:36:35 PM
From: long-gone  Respond to of 116760
 
needed read
The Contradictions of Capitalism
The Dearth of Rational Discussion
by Jim Peron
We can’t win. We advocates of individual rights, free markets and limited government simply can’t win the intellectual debate with the Left. And the reason for it is that there is no intellectual debate with them. And there can’t be such a debate since the Left is simply not open to rational discussion. They know that capitalism is inherently evil and nothing that is said, no evidence that is presented, no facts that are marshaled will convince them otherwise.
Fabians
Consider this example. The Fabian socialists were founded in 1883, the same year that Karl Marx died, when a small group of “intellectuals” gathered at 17 Osnaburgh Street in London to hear some lectures on the promised new world order of socialism. From this meeting was formed the Fabian Society, dedicated to the willfully slow evolution of a socialist society in England.

The Society was named after the Roman general and dictator Quintus Fabius Maximus who fought, and laid the groundwork for the defeat of, Hannibal. In Fabian Tract No.1 the Society explained its strategy:

“For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius did most patiently when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays; but when the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or your waiting will be in vain and fruitless.”

The credo of the Fabians said that the society “consists of Socialists” who will work to destroy private property, free markets and individualism.

Fabians were a strong, if not the strongest, influence on the British Labour Party and used the likes of George Bernard Shaw and Sidney and Beatrice Webb to spout its propaganda on the virtues of Stalinism and Soviet Communism. Its list of members read like the Who’s Who of British intellectualism and included RH Tawney, GDH Cole, Harold Wilson, Harold Laski, Oswald Mosley (the founder of British fascism), Bertrand Russell, Clement Attlee, John Strachey, Stephen Spender, George Orwell, and others.

For over a century the Fabian Society has continued to promote a Marxist agenda for the various countries of the world. At the turn of the last century the Fabians would wax eloquently on the virtues of socialism and the vices of capitalism. They never tired of telling anyone who would listen how capitalism would lead to poverty and misery for the bulk of England's workers. They promised that only a socialist, centrally planned society, could achieve wealth and prosperity. The workers, noted the socialists, could never find happiness and self-satisfaction as long as they were entrenched in the poverty of a capitalist economy.

One hundred years later the Fabian Society stills exists. And not long ago, on BBC World, I watched a documentary series entitled “Big Ideas”. It was billed as an antidote to the pessimism of the politically correct. In truth it was hardly that at all. Instead the entire show concentrated on an “economist” who represents the Fabian Society. So what do the Fabians have to say 100 years later? Will they continue with their rhetoric of the last century and castigate capitalism for leading millions into poverty? Of course not. The laughter from the millions of “workers” viewing the show on their color televisions would drown out their rhetoric.

Capitalism Causes Too Much Prosperity
Instead this Fabian went on about how the wealth of capitalism doesn’t lead to happiness. This “economist” lamented the luxuries of the average worker. He ridiculed those who work hard to get ahead in the world. And he said that this problem was clearly the fault of capitalism. It seems that capitalism leads to prosperity. In fact it leads to too much prosperity. People start seeking out luxuries, and status symbol consumer goods, as a result.

When it was pointed out to him that individuals who didn’t want to work hard didn’t have to do so, he was unpersuaded. The problem with the wealth of consumer capitalism is that the system itself forces people to compete. The individual who wants to drop out, perhaps to read the works of Marx, can’t do so because of the structure of the system. He is a victim of capitalism. People should, instead, be free to concentrate on the “important” things, by which he means things which he thinks are important.

And, of course, the solution to this structural problem was the “social ownership” of the means of production. He wanted regulations and laws to prevent rampant competition and wealth-gathering.

Now just about one century ago his forerunners in the Fabian Society were saying that capitalism leads to poverty and that only socialism can create wealth for the workers. Turning a blind eye to a century of rhetoric, today’s Fabians are attacking capitalism for creating too much wealth. A century ago the worker, living in poverty, would never find happiness. Today the Fabians argue that happiness is illusive because of the temptations of the riches created by capitalism.

Of course we shouldn’t forget that one complaint that socialists loved to voice was that capitalism led to monopoly. They were utterly convinced (by what we will never know) that a market economy would mean less and less competition as time went by. Eventually competition would disappear altogether and the poor consumer would be at the mercy of ruthless profit-mongers. Yet a century later the Fabians are condemning capitalism for creating too much competition. The poor entrepreneur doesn’t have time to smell the roses, red ones of course, along the way. Either capitalism is guilty of dog-eat-dog competition or it results in monopoly without any competition. Have I missed something?

Capitalism Destroys the Planet
Of course the Green allies of the Reds have similar complaints. We all know that capitalism is destroying the planet Just take the matter of “non-renewable” resources. The Greenies love to argue and complain about how capitalism is taking natural resources and using them all up. A non-renewable resource is obviously a resource that, once used, vanishes. A lump of coal that is burnt is no longer a lump of coal and is thus non-renewable. It doesn’t matter that all the known natural resources that are commonly used by man have known supplies that will last us for centuries. The fact is that a resource that is non-renewable must disappear someday — or so they assume. Now there are many reasons why this is simply not true. But let’s grant the Greens their premises for a moment. Capitalism is evil because it uses resources which are destructible.

But that’s not all. Capitalism is also evil because it creates resources that are not destructible. If you think they get upset when modern society uses a non-renewable resource just look how they act when renewable resources are used. Plastic is evil because it doesn’t degenerate. But what are the choices? Under any economic system some resources have to be used. We can use resources that are destroyed — but that is evil. Or we can use resources that are not destroyed — but that's evil as well. As Professor Peter Beckman noted, the Green has a unique argument: “If it is nonrenewable, don’t use it, use something indestructible instead, if it is indestructible, don’t use it either. Nothing is feasible except the two possibilities he has set his heart on: a return to the caves or doomsday.”

Of course we’ve seen this “damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t” logic from Greenies before. Take the issue of the rain forest as an example. We have been warned by Greenies that man’s incursions into the rain forest may bring us to the brink of disaster. Lurking behind some fern could be a new, deadly virus unknown to mankind. Contact with said virus could lead the destruction of humankind since people may not be immune to such diseases. No, it is far better that man avoid the rain forest altogether, except for those primitive tribes who have learned how to live in harmony with nature.

But don’t forget there is another reason the rain forest must be saved. After all who knows what miraculous medical cures could be found in the leaves, roots, or barks of indigenous plant life? We may find the cure for cancer there. Well, that is unless a deadly virus kills us all first.

Capitalism Enslaves Women
The Feminist Left, building on old Marxist theories, attacked capitalism because it enslaved women as breeding machines. It seems the capitalist bosses needed surplus babies to help keep wages down. After all, the greater the number of potential “workers” the less they will have to be paid. In fact classical Marxist theory argued that such workers would be paid only enough to survive on so as to maximize the profits of the capitalists. So capitalism forced women into becoming breeding machines.

Now if you read the anti-capitalist ranting of John Gray you find that capitalism does just the opposite. Instead of forcing women into becoming subservient breeding machines for their husbands the problem is that capitalism liberates individuals from families. Instead, people are free to leave their family behind and strike out on their own. The entire sense of family and community that the “old” world exhibited is being destroyed and the culprit is capitalism. The anti-capitalist Marxists said markets created the nuclear family while the anti-capitalist conservatives are claiming that markets destroy the nuclear family.

Trade Causes Poverty; No Trade Causes Poverty
If you dare to point out the dismal results of socialism, say in Cuba, the Left has a response: Cuba is poor because it is denied access to the trading markets of the West. The US embargo on Cuba has impoverished that island nation. The problems of poverty in Cuba are not rooted in socialist economic theories but in trade embargoes. It is a given that Cuba would be much richer as a nation if it were allowed to participate in market globalization.

But then we should remember that the Third World is poor because it isn’t embargoed. The problem there is that the West trades with these countries and such trade is inherently impoverishing. So trade with Third World countries creates poverty but the lack of trade with Cuba is responsible for poverty. Take your pick.

Capitalism to the Left is what Satan is to the fundamentalist Christian. It is the eternal scapegoat and explanation for all that goes wrong in the world. Whatever social problems exist in the West are, of course, all due to the evil nature of capitalism. And whatever problems exist in Marxist nations are the result of the evil nature of capitalism as well. People are poor —blame capitalism. But blame capitalism if they are “too” rich. The fact is that in the theology of the Left, either of the Red or Green variety, capitalism can do no good. And once you abandon reason for theology there is no rational debate possible.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Peron is the author of Die, the Beloved Country?, a book exposing the misrule by mismanagement of the African National Congress during its first term of office in South Africa. He recently finished an expose of the Mugabe regime: Zimbabwe: the Death of a Dream. He can be contacted at peron@gonet.co.za.


zolatimes.com