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.

Pastimes : CNBC -- critique. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Yogizuna who wrote (12685)	12/2/2003 10:40:52 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

Re: "And as for the present version of so-called "free trade" being a "race to the top, tell that to millions of Americans who lost their jobs, or taken big cuts in pay, or have to work longer hours with less health benefits... That my friend, is a race to the bottom!" A race it may be. But to presume to know we should protect the status quo jobs(as you would given your present druthers), is a treacherous presumption indeed. As a so-called "conservative," it is odd how strongly I believe in change occuring naturally as Free Markets adjust employment opportunities(but hey, it winds up helping us all by finding efficiencies worldwide. It cannot cause jobs per se to cease. It will allow more goods to exist to divvy up). I did not say the present version of Free Trade is a race to the top or the bottom. That aside, jobs which have moved to Mexico, for instance, are certainly fewer than would otherwise be the case, thanks to Nafta, as expected here. Since Mexico's tarriffs were much higher on our goods than were ours on their goods, therefore moving to an even playing field only favored American jobs in balance, by a wide margin. If left alone without the imposition of Nafta, things could only be worse overall. Re: "No, unfortunately, most likely it will not help, but in fact mean the death of more Americans when the time comes for the inevitable showdown." Again, defeatism, but THAT aside, you offer naught but a contrary statement which doesn't negate my reasoning which directly indicates otherwise. Without Free Trade, it will be far more likely that truly it will be "increasingly apparent the leadership will not change enough to prevent a major military confrontation with us within the next 25 years or so." The better off people are, the less likely they are to rock the boat. I've shown the benefit to the poor the world over, and you've not addressed that argument either. Dan B.

To: Yogizuna who wrote (12685)	12/5/2003 8:21:07 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

"In any case, it is far too late for that now with China, as it is becoming increasingly apparent the leadership will not change enough to prevent a major military confrontation with us within the next 25 years or so" That is an assumption about future history, a very risky proposition. Far more have lost their butts on such assumptions than have been even nearly right. I can remember when it was common to assume that the Cold War MUST end in a large nuclear; the only question was how soon. I'd say corruption of Communists has been working much better than bombing them into oblivion.