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 (1166)	3/19/2002 8:49:01 PM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 1643

Pearly, I'm sure you are correct. I discovered the exchange between you and Craig, and didn't have time to read half of it. I'd thought I'd begun to gleen that you were taking the stance I now see you clearly are, but assumed I was wrong when I read the lines I confronted you with there. At any rate, I think your are correct, and that indeed, the evidence is overwhelming. Despite Craig's attempts, I for one have seen no evidence that Free Trade is a prescription for disaster, quite the opposite, and nothing but the opposite. He speaks of free trade fantasies to me, but the only fantasy I see is the notion that any country, even the strongest of countries, can be self-sufficient in the "produced within" sense that Craig, Pat B., and so many others are so concerned with where war is concerned. I know that war or not, the impossible remains impossible, despite all the tariffs the world of imagination can conjure. Thanks very much for the clarification, Dan B

To: maceng2 who wrote (1166)	3/21/2002 1:49:28 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1643

>> The point I was trying to stress is that cheaper corn meant cheaper food in turn means industrial workers could be fed more efficiently which meant competitive industrial products << no one will deny that flooding britain with cheap food imports meant people could be fed more efficiently, and therefore be left to pursue other tasks. the question that arises is, how destructive to the culture was the massive abandonment of agrarian interests in favor of industrialist interests. eventually it wasn't just food that britain became reliant on. britain pursued unilateral free trade in many other areas as well. this heavy reliance on imports obviously led to a greater discourse with foreign nations in order to satisfy the unquenchable desire of the populace for foreign goods. it appears that this led britain down the path of imperialism, which led to the abandonment of their "splendid isolation" and dragged them into both world wars. now most people will say the world wars led to the decline of the british empire. i don't really dispute this. war is a quick way to destroy an empire. but there begs a deeper question. what brought about the cultural decline that led to the involvement in the wars in the first place? why couldn't britain have stayed out of those wars? was there something compelling them to get involved? in regards to the united states, are there things like our massive reliance on oil that entangle and embroil us in wars where we don't belong? >> Contrary to what Craig is saying the UK did well out of "free trade". << oh really? where is britain today compared to where it was a century ago? what has free trade done for your empire? >> All the evidence, it's so overwhelming it's difficult to ignore, clearly indicates Britain continued to expand it's wealth and power into the beginning of the 20th century. << you could say the same thing about the united states. you could say we are where britain stood a century ago. we are taking the exact same path. unilateral free trade, imperialism, global hegemony, intervening in places where we don't belong, all to satisfy the hungry desires of wanton consumers who are addicted to cheap imports. we have emerged from the "splendid isolationism" of the 30's and 40's and now we have made all sorts of entangling alliances and war guarantees around the world. i believe the term is "imperial overstretch". writing checks around the world we can't cash. september 11th was just the first example of that overstretch, and i suspect it won't be the last. so yes, you could say the united states heading into the 21st century is in the same position britain stood at heading into the 20th century. unchallenged. unrivaled. but where was britian just half a century later? will the united states be relegated to the same diminished position a half century from now? >> The demise of the British Empire had several causes, not one of them related to a lack of import tariffs imho. << well since you are british i would be interested to hear your reasoning. i think all great nations collapse when the culture collapses. i think free trade was a contributing factor or at least a symptom of the decline in culture that led to britain overstretching its empire to the point where it could not sustain it.