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 : Steve's Channelling Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zakrosian who wrote (27814)	9/18/2001 10:33:02 AM
From: Jdaasoc	Respond to of 30051

refund to subsidize their gas-guzzling or chose to buy a more fuel efficient car and spend the savings on something else. Part of the savings could be put into stock market. The basic question individuals have to ask is how much should we live for today vs we save for tomorrow. Trinq at 0.23; 30y bond yield up to 5.517 the movement form bonds to equities may be starting at the low prices. The latest rate cut and PIMCO action may signal future reversal of direction of interest rates.

To: Zakrosian who wrote (27814)	9/18/2001 10:39:38 AM
From: James Calladine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 30051

REPEATED FROM ANOTHER THREAD: Good post! And Greg, and others, please do not interpret as what I am going to say as: -- sanctioning the horror of last week -- support of terrorists -- support of Bin Laden The recorded FACT is that for many years the US has had a very PRAGMATIC foreign policy which could be summed up as "looking after our interests". In the case of many of the poorest countries of the world this "interest" has been commercial (United Fruit in Central America) or strategic (Oil in the Middle East). This pragmatic approach has led to supporting whatever local "strong-man" is in charge at the time (providing that "strong-man" can be brought round, by whatever means to supporting US interests. Sometimes the means have been money, sometimes arms, sometimes other "considerations". That has led to backing(in one way or another) such "horses" as: -- Marcos in the Philippines -- Noriega in Panama -- Bin Laden in Afghanistan -- Contra rebels in Central America -- The Shah of Iran -- Saddam Hussein in Iraq -- The "Royal Family" in Saudi Arabia -- the profoundly corrupt regime in Malaysia Such people are happy enough to accept assistance which will bring them into power or keep them in power. But very often they have little or no interest in the poor and disenfranchised of their country and any local opposition to them has to go underground. Terrorist activities arise as a form of opposition and the terrorist groups vilify the US because of its support of what IS a dictatorial, corrupt and absolutely non-democratic regime. That has become the position of the US, over and over again. From the point of view of the local opposition it is just another form of "imperialism" such as earlier practiced by: -- the British -- the Dutch -- the French -- the Portugese -- the Spanish -- the Romans -- Genghis Khan The US is NOT alone in this. Virtually all of the European major powers have, for example, done virtually the same thing in Africa. And the British are just as skilled at the game as the Americans, except that they do not have the same clout, so the British and the Americans tend to work together. The World Bank, to a significan degree has been a major support to such activities. At root, some of the issues are: -- do we have any real interest in the welfare of the local people? -- do we have any real interest in human rights? -- how do we balance commercial and strategic interests against that? It will NOT be done by each "rich" power acting unilaterally relative to its interest alone. It might be done by: -- COOPERATION of the major AND minor powers -- TOLERANCE of differences of culture, religion, world views etc. Believe it or not, not everybody wants to be exactly like Americans, Canadians, Europeans! The greatest hope in the present situation is some sort of progress towards this. The "eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth, "vengeance is mine", "nuke-em" point of view has been extensively tested and has been found (to be gentle) wanting. If it would work in this present situation, and end terrorism of the kind we experienced last week, I would be in favor of it. But it won't. Namaste! Jim

To: Zakrosian who wrote (27814)	9/18/2001 11:15:35 AM
From: brightness00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 30051

How about considering a dollar a gallon gas tax (at the pump) that is then returned to the taxpayer either in a rebate or through a tax cut. Drivers can then either use their refund to subsidize their gas-guzzling or chose to buy a more fuel efficient car and spend the savings on something else. Good in theory. In practice, however, as that dollar make its way down the State/Federal Capitol lobbies, how many cents will be left intact? After all, even for the wellfare program, a fund theoretically designated for the poorest of poor, out of every dollar spent, only 13 cents actually reach the designated recipients, the rest having been lost in the paper shuffle. Now we are talking about a a refund to "rich" infidels who drive their "rich brats" in "unconsciounably humongous" SUV's. Besides, why should people live in the country side and have to commute long distance subsidize who live in the cities and keep monstrous garage queens.