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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (8210)	9/5/2001 1:36:56 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

I think it's symptomatic of another issue, one I've raised before numerous times on different threads, but never elicited a response. It's difficult for a company which is required to comply with certain laws to compete with one which is not subject to similar laws. In the US, employers have to comply with the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the Environmental Protection Act (EPA), wage and hours laws, minimum wage, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), worker's compensation laws for injuries in the workplace, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Family Medical Leave Act, and scads of other acts. I understand that in Europe some countries also mandate vacation times, which are not mandatory in the US. Other countries do things differently - instead of putting the social burdens on the employer, the government is responsible, e.g., in China and Canada, health care is provided by the government, not the employer. In China, it's ok to fire a worker whose eyesight is no longer 20-20 - that would be illegal in the US. China, Korea, Viet Nam, Indonesia, etc., don't have ADA, nor minimum wage, nor OSHA, nor EPA, nor ERISA, etc., etc., If the US electorate thinks these laws are good things, what - if anything - do we do about the fact that companies which produce goods in countries that don't have these laws can produce goods cheaper? To speak of the "free market" in this situation is illusory.

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (8210)	9/5/2001 1:43:45 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

'free trade is just a label for managed trade' - yeah, no such thing as true freedom anywhere, just shuck your clothes and light up a homegrown doobie on the steps of any legislature and you'll find that out quick ... so ok, 'managed' - it's being mismanaged in this case, they cannot hope to impoverish an entire province and substantial parts of other provinces without repercussion .... US companies enjoy considerable net benefit from relatively free 'managed' trade with this nation, at the same time that their captive consumers are getting gouged by this penalty imposed on our production efficiency - quid begets pro, action stimulates reaction, tit forces tat - this trade war is only in its opening stages, and not being an innately militaristic people who cruise about the planet looking for peasants to napalm and rob, we are only now beginning to examine the question of 'what do we do next?' ... here is one suggestion that the most moderate of our unemployed forestry people would reject out of hand as being too limited a response - #reply-16299948 'As governments become increasingly socialist' - actually the opposite direction was the case in this province up to the date on which we were attacked by this US 'Commerce' department bar to commerce - we just voted out the socialist regime that had ruled here for nine years or so, the seats in parliament are now 77-2 against them, something like that, it was quite a decisive mandate and stimulated great hope for positive change here ... however at the moment we are attacked from without and must band together in the most unlikely of alliances, delaying at minimum and quite likely decaying such near-term progression as we would rather have been able to accomplish