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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DavesM who wrote (240497)	3/21/2002 12:43:27 AM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 769670

Re: "from what I've read so far, it seems that the Congress of the United States was more responsible for the failure of his North America and Asian trade enterprise, than either the Japanese or Chinese." That's good stuff..refreshing my memory. I'm sure Hill was correct in his assessment of OUR destruction of free trade with China. In fact, as my memory comes back, I recall having read it just that way, and fear I've extrapolated beyond my bounds a good bit. However, I do think that the point remains, 'twas fouled up trade, not opium, that left China in the dust. Dan B

To: DavesM who wrote (240497)	3/21/2002 1:40:46 AM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 769670

Did you see those numbers in your link(and I thank-you very much for it)? Re: ". In 1896, American exports to Japan were only $7.7 million; but nine years later, with Hill in command, this figure jumped to $51.7 million." And..."The Hepburn Act, though, said rates had to be made public, applied equally to all shippers, and could not be changed without thirty days notice. American exports to Japan and China dropped 40 percent ($41 million) between 1905 and 1907, and we will never know how much trade, domestic and foreign, was lost elsewhere." Ok. Back-up Dan. This is the story I recall, not one in which China refused imports(although I'm not yet ready to abandon that notion altogether, it still rings a bell and may have come into play at some point, with SOMEthing). You look at the growth of asian trade reported, and imagine a world where-in it was not thwarted as above, and then you have to wonder- with China twisting in the wind as you've outlined, with warlords and foreigners mucking up the works, but presumably accepting Hill's affordable goods- what would have become of China and of Mao and/or Mao policies if trade had not been thwarted? Anyway, despite my poor memory and significantly false digression, it seems clear to me that this is just another example of the veracity of what ought to be a par for the course notion. The notion that, Freedom Works, Dan B