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 : Commodities - The Coming Bull Market -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maceng2 who wrote (1077)	3/13/2002 6:34:36 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1643

>> Well, if you are an American yes. If not...well maybe. Yes the "furrener" has to be concerned with the American "well being" to trade, but only on a reciprocal basis. No point otherwise << ok i am speaking from the point of view as an american. >> American "well being" is dependant on lots of advantageous trading positions earned over the centuries. Well earned too, but they have to be maintained, otherwise the empire crumbles imho. << yes, the way to maintain those trading positions is to negotiate from strength, not weakness. imo, tariffs (or threats thereof) are an effective tool to bargain from a position of strength-- that is to say, we will not be taken advantage of. >> You really have to be myopic to the ultimate degree in USA business not to understand this. I will say a few words... Microsoft. Dell. Cisco. Any other major multinationals spring to mind? Geezus. << it's not so much a question of are we dependant on to global economy. the truth is, other countries are more dependant on us than we are on them. so they have more to lose from a trade war, even though a trade war is not really good for anyone involved. so my point is, we can impose tariffs to protect ourselves and our foreign trading partners may squawk and whine, but there is nothing they can really do about it if we show resolve. unfortunately we lack resolve in many instances. >> Lets condense this a little. I believe in fair trade << likewise >> Sure slavery can serve "the best interests of Great Britain" but I am not interested in supporting slavery, especially child slavery. I diverge with Buchanen on that point if he supports such an idea << buchanan supports just the opposite. it's the free traitors who are perverting capitalism into a global exploitation of labor and the environment. >> Just because it occurs outside the USA is no reason to support it. Especially in an indirect way (I see no evil) << you are making the case against free trade. free trade allows gm to fire american workers who are not exploited when they are paid $20/hr to move their plants to mexico where they can exploit mexicans who will work for a fraction of the cost. of course free trade exploits the environment as well, and that's why you see so many environmentalists out protesting wto conferences. >> I am sorry, Buchanen mentioned that the USA manufactured 40+% of the worlds goods in one sentence, and then said import tariffs and world trade had nothing to do with the 1930's world depression in the next. Gimme a break. << what does the united states manufacturing 42% of the world's manufactures have to do with the great depression?