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 : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (37601)	8/31/2003 4:50:10 AM
From: maceng2	Respond to of 74559

Hi Mqurice, I am fairly sure, just reading your post, that Britain should dump the EEC and go it alone. It would make life so much easier for us. We are, like Japan and Hong Kong, well placed for trade. We don't need no European Union. A preferred trade agreement with Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and a few African Countries (If they behave themselves) should do it. We all speak the same language and can discuss things in an enlightened manner. Get into a discussion on opposing views yet not lose sight of the goal. While I am going through this political metamorphosis, you should of course buy some gold miner shares -ggg- /edit... But we should base our currency on the Euro though... Now I like THAT idea a lot -ggg- //edit edit. No maybe not.. Still thinking about it. Now I wonder if??? Hmmmmm..

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (37601)	8/31/2003 5:42:00 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Re: I used to think "free trade" meant being allowed to buy and sell multinationally. I didn't realize it included no tariffs. The whole idea of the free traders at the WTO is to lower tariffs. As many U.S. politicians have pointed out to no avail against the NAFTA and WTO crowd, the U.S. became strong because it had protective tariffs to nurture home grown industries and prevent other countries from dumping goods. At that time, in the 19th Century, the British would have happily crushed the nascent steel, railroad rolling stock and textile industries of the day. They were the quintessential neo-liberals of the day. Thank god the wise men in Washington didn't listen to this rapacious bunch of free traders. Otherwise we might still be the sort of ruined nation that free trade has created in Argentina.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (37601)	8/31/2003 7:19:19 AM
From: mcg404	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74559

Mq: < I started life as a government enthusiast, thinking it obvious that a single supplier, preferably publicly-owned, is the most efficient and orderly way to run a railroad and most businesses.> While the elimination of redundancy might make a government-regulated utility more efficient than a free market alternative, isn't 'stability' a more important consideration? Are there not some human needs (power, food, water) where we might place more value on stable supply than ultimate efficiency? And therefore be willing to accept the bloat, waste, inefficiency of government regulation? And how, in a free market system, do we make a peaking plant that might operate a few days a year a profitable proposition to a merchant power provider? (since he is going to be accused of gouging when he charges hundreds of times the base load rate) John