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: Ilaine who wrote (8400)	9/7/2001 12:24:32 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Logging back on to "park" this idea - re: protectionism. In the late 1920's and early 1930's, Stalin, who needed foreign capital to industrialize the Soviet Union, was unable to borrow money abroad because they had repudiated too many loans and otherwise proved themselves to be a bad credit risk. So what they did was speed up the collectivization of the Ukraine, force the entire population, essentially, to grow wheat, which they were not allowed to eat, causing a terrible famine, and then dumped it on the world market, collapsing wheat prices globally, which was one of the triggers of the Great Depression. It's not well studied, perhaps because there are no reliable sources inside the Soviet Union as far as I can tell, and perhaps because the people who collected statistics in the 1930's were socialists or sympathizers. Certainly the famine, for generations, was only discussed by conservatives, e.g., Koestler's "Darkness at Noon." But there is no doubt that it happened. So to say that dumping only hurts the country involved in the dumping is untrue. No honestly run company can compete with products produced by killing the people who produced them. An extreme case, but it proves the point.

To: Ilaine who wrote (8400)	9/7/2001 12:45:09 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 74559

Not sympathizing with the husband CB. Once again you attribute some idea to me which I don't have. My idea was that the husband and wife might be fighting and the husband thought he would get back for something else [probably stupidly and perhaps greedily and selfishly]. Husbands and wives fighting in court is bad. Husbands and wives have a long history of who did what when and who owes what etc. Which is not to say that some men and some women are not greedy crooks who need a judge to crunch them. It seemed to me that it was possible the WIFE might be better off if some other solution than tormenting the husband could be found; because they probably will have contact in future and interchange, especially if there are children involved. Unless they are having fun as I did with the landlord, they are perhaps better to have a discussion off-site, with a third party to help discussions. I guess your knee-jerk reaction precludes any ideas of ethical, moral and better resolution. Modern art isn't a rip off. It is only a rip off if somebody is FORCED to pay for it. I am surprised you don't see the difference. Didn't I write that? I have been to many art galleries around the world and enjoy all sorts of art. Including modern art. Including lines on paper. Once again and always, you attribute motive and ideas which are incorrect. It is the theft which is bad. If it's a voluntary payment and not fraud [such as lying about who the artist is] it is NOT a rip-off. But nevertheless, much of it is nonsense. 47 bricks in a row on the floor! You get a kick out of that? I think plenty of artists snicker up their sleeve as they pocket a good commission. Like plenty of tv evangelists. Mq