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: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (40829)	11/4/2003 6:14:33 PM
From: TobagoJack	Respond to of 74559

Hello Haim, <<For global commerce to succeed those concepts should be taken into account even that in some case the peasant in SE Asia needs the work, but that should not inflict major dislocation and unemployment in Europe or North America>> (a) Global commerce may not succeed (b) Depending on what turns out to be <<major dislocation and unemployment>> <<A reasonable balance must be found to satisfy both parties needs......... and not by destroying others lives and means of existence ....... moderate transition will bring prosperity to all economic war will bring destruction ..... no one wins>> ... I have no disagreement with this, but add a caveat, that 'things do not always work out'. Chugs, Jay

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (40829)	11/4/2003 9:30:37 PM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 74559

<<there is no way that a country can survive only on services and R&D.>> Agreed. there is place for only one Switzerland. I look at it under a historic and human nature perspectives: <<There should be a balanced approach just buying the "cheapest product" does not cut it. There are many social / economic ramification that must be taken into account.>> We make buying decisions based on cost-effectiveness and value for money, we wouldn't buy a product or service on altruistic basis. Meaning we don't owe the stakeholders (producer/provider, its employees, shareholders, supplier and the communities they live in) a standard of living. <<One of the more important achievements of civilization is tolerances and consideration of other people needs.>> If there is a way for monopolizing profits stakeholders do it. It doesn't need foreign nations. Within national boundaries, monopolies extract profits from the market, in detriment of the economy as a whole: monopolies of telecoms, petroleum, and protectionist measures are cases in point. Another is lobbying power for selected sectors, energy and telecoms being cases in point. <<Gone are the days that raiding the next tribe supplies are acceptable as a mean of survival.>> Sorry, Haim, these days aren't gone. If conditions are right, countries capital supplies are raided in broad day light. Asia 1997 and LATAM 1982 onwards. <<For global commerce to succeed those concepts should be taken into account even that in some case the peasant in SE Asia needs the work, but that should not inflict major dislocation and unemployment in Europe or North America.>> That has been the position of developing countries for decades. They didn't think that progress elsewhere should be done in detriment of their own economic needs. Opening markets, cutting barriers, cutting subsidies to uncompetitive sectors are examples of meausres they wanted implemented to develop. Look to Doha or Cancun just a few weeks ago to see where they've got. It didn't work for developing countries in the past. It won't work for the developed ones now. Expect no mercy. <<A reasonable balance must be found to satisfy both parties needs......... and not by destroying others lives and means of existence ....... moderate transition will bring prosperity to all economic war will bring destruction ..... no one wins>> You are taking a page off developing countries defenses book, using it, today, in defense of developed countries. We are homo oeconomicus, driven by the gain. That's the way I think the script will play on.