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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (209462)	10/31/2004 12:52:56 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1576097

I'm not sure I buy that argument. Places like Singapore are doing well, China has the fastest growing economy and I wouldn't place either as hotbeds of freedom. Singapore is more economically free then most countries with the same overall level of freedom. China is much more economically free than it used to be. This extra freedom has helped growth but the level of freedom, and the level of economic development still lag the US or Western Europe by a lot. Tim

To: TigerPaw who wrote (209462)	10/31/2004 8:22:09 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576097

Re: below I'm not sure I buy that argument./i> is not a coincidence that all of the most politically free countries are near the top of the list of economic successful countries. The Index of Economic Freedom shows that throughout the world, nations with more economic freedom are wealthier than nations with less economic freedom. The correlation between economic freedom and wealth, moreover, is strong. There are no wealthy nations that have little economic freedom. While there are some relatively poor nations that have high economic freedom, these are nations that only recently embraced economic freedom and are growing rapidly now in response. ... Economically, only capitalism could deliver the goods. Politically, only democracy could satisfy our desires for respect.<i/i> virginiainstitute.org If you want to end corruption you would not want to send a traitor who met four times with the enemy and lied about it to the Whitehouse. You would not want a person who orchestrated the Vietcong playbook in the US and lied about it to the Whitehouse. You would not want to send a person who put the interests fo family businesses above the interests of the soldiers to the Whitehouse. You would not want to put a man who voted against his own standards of internationalism in 1991 to the Whitehouse. If you reject corruption, then you reject Kerry. Do what is best for the world and best for the US, send Bush and Cheney back to the Whitehouse.