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 : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: frankw1900 who wrote (4550)	6/19/2002 12:01:24 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24758

Some days I should keep my fingers off the keyboard. One step back. nationalpost.com{5E8CDB55-C691-4BA1-8E74-718E7672E8C3} Ontario makes u-turn, hikes taxes Eves to annul law he brought in 3 years ago requiring referendum for tax increases Robert Benzie National Post Tuesday, June 18, 2002 TORONTO - Ontario's Conservative government yesterday tabled a record $65.5-billion budget that turned its back on the legacy of former premier Mike Harris, delaying promised tax cuts, raising spending and increasing taxes despite a law requiring provincewide referendums on such increases.

To: frankw1900 who wrote (4550)	6/19/2002 12:50:58 AM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24758

The US economy is so large and complex that despite the effects on it of its tariffs and subsidies, it will grow and be an attractive market for ROW and if ROW wants to participate in US growth, then they have to deal with US's subsidy=tariff & tariff=subsidy by removing their own tariffs and subsidies. If they want to advantage their local producers they can do it by lowering taxes. Is that it? Yep. Are there other upsides? Yes. Am I missing it altogether? Nope. If I did get it, then Morck is incorrect with this: "Meanwhile, Mr. Bush is preparing a legacy that may match that of Herbert Hoover, who helped turn the recession of 1929 into the Great Depression by setting up the towering trade barriers of the 1930s." He's dead wrong. He's trying to cast Bush according to his own left leanings. That's the drift in all of his writings. It's so easy to talk their talk, but it's impossible for them to talk what works. In his more scholarly works he can't play fast and loose trying to sell what he believes lies within the taste of the masses. Don't be fooled by his lip service to the contemporary swing away from socialism. You can see that in this double talk: Thus, Japanese governance practices did not assign effective control rights to residual claimants. This, we argue, led to a widespread misallocation of capital that mired Japan in excess capacity and liquidity problems. Assign effective control rights to residual claimants? What drivel. Corporate governance has little to do with Japan's problems. Japan has one core problem: their inexorable pursuit of neo-mercantilism. That may have some far-fetched relation to governance issues, but Morck can't blow it up into his extreme conclusion, at least not anywhere outside Hahvahd.