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: craig crawford who wrote (1215)	3/28/2002 1:15:04 PM
From: Ahda	Respond to of 1643

absolutely. foreign countries often devalue their currency in an effort to make their exports more competitive. this is a protectionist measure, but nobody ever complains when other countries engage in protectionist measures against the united states. (except maybe our treasury secretary, who i seem to recall recently calling the japanese protectionist for devaluing the yen). it's always the big bad americans who are starting trade wars by becoming protectionist. this is the same crap we heard regarding the great depression. america caused a global depression of trade by putting up trade barriers and the rest of the world retaliated. never mind the fact that war-torn countries in europe moved away from the gold standard first and massively devalued their currencies in an effort to export and inflate their way out of war debts. it was all america's fault for the protectionist smoot-hawley tariffs that came later. apparently american consumers had an obligation to provide europe with a job, just like american consumers today have an obligation to give the rest of the world a job. In my opinion specific Nations are only the accidentally residential place of wealth. Governments that assist and do no prevent growth are the preferred fields for those residents. American consumers have no such obligation their obligation is to themselves; the corporate obligation is for profit where the world becomes the fabrication place only due to the variance in labor unit cost. The competition for the less cost labor unit created for the American consumer not only technology that reduced costs but external sources of labor that again reduced costs. Politicians have a very different venue than economists. Politicians must be voted in. That voting in requires proof to their constituents that they love each and every one of them, the result of which is smoot-hawley tariffs. Providing the rest of the world with jobs is a very difficult subject to address as America comes from the rest of the world. Where family ties are strong the American consumers are sending funds back to their native land. To mandate that Americans must support other nations is foolish, it is putting our nation in the same position as the British Commonwealth and the colonies subsequent revolt. World growth cannot be created by mandated government intervention. perhaps free trade is not the root cause of the decadence i'm speaking of, but it surely looks like a symptom that can be treated. Free trade is goods producing. I prefer not to speak of decadence in terms of free trade or I put myself in a position of judging others cultures, which has nothing to do with economic production but the politician who must have the people love him or he hasn't a job. I will say the largest fault of our own culture is we advertise primarily to youth and we only do so as years create wisdom and fewer sales. how long do you think it will take before the exploited people of the third world revolt after seeing the decadence of the west pumped into their countries via cnn? especially after they figure out that our decadence is financed by their own slave labor? to the enrichment of their despotic leaders? perhaps the revolt against the west has already begun with the terrorists over in the arab world, who despise us to the core. I hope those that can afford TV in the third world are more educated and there of turn it off or use it for amusement. Moral labor laws fall under the politician clause. If you have no money to feed your children or self and have an opportunity to make some the answer is visible right there. I do not feel that established corporations go into other nations to create slave labor the cost of living in that nation is usually far less. The movement into that nation creates jobs, however I firmly believe that same movement due to lower dollars elsewhere does take jobs from this nation. This is called currency and the opportunity clause. My own feeling in regards to the Arab world is why are Arabs not investing in Arabs? Why doesn't the wealth of these peoples get together to develop a plan for education and growth for the all? The irony of this is I believe is the terrorists are terrorizing the wrong people. It is their wealth that invests outside instead of in self that has created many of their problems. Paupers and Kings is not an answer for growth. in 1949 the top one percent in this country held 21% of the wealth. free trade took hold in this country after world war two with the signing of the GATT treaty, income taxes took their place, and today the top one percent in this country holds 40% of the wealth. rampant protectionism (a form of socialism) isn't the answer, but neither is rampant free trade, which simply results in the frequent socialist demands for transfer payments we see today. Your consensus on wealth clearly portrays my fears. Do I approach this from humanitarian standpoint or from a protectionism standpoint? Poverty has been around for centuries the business world has a need of profit as well as the US has a need for rounded diversification in its economy. Tariffs are not the long-term solution the labor unit and the quality derived from it has to be. In my opinion there is nothing that governs this whole globe quite as significantly as the mathematics of currency.