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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (13009)	2/22/2006 11:08:09 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542945

I don't see that much of a problem. I see this making us look tough on security, as well as actually making us (probably) a bit more secure. Not only do we get the benefit of the ADT sign in the front yard ( you know, the benefit of having the alarm system sign on the law is part of the protection you get), but we actually get to minimize our port contacts with a country that has not been all that secure wrt terrorism. Does it send a negative signal to Muslims in general? You bet. But I think this signal is a positive. This isn't about invading anyone- it says "If we find your government and it's citizens associated with terrorism, your entry in to our markets will be limited, if we deem you a risk." That's a message I can live with. I much prefer it to simply invading countries- and I think it might be a bit more effective, and a lot cheaper.

To: Lane3 who wrote (13009)	2/22/2006 7:37:21 PM
From: thames_sider	Respond to of 542945

I'd also point out that it's hardly a great advert for 'capitalism' and 'let the markets decide' if the state intervenes when it doesn't like the market decision. I'd expect this kind of dirigisme from the French government, maybe, but I'm disappointed to see such posturing from US representatives who should really know better. One might almost call it socialist, implying that the state knows better than the market... Britain is often being pointed at now as having the most 'open' of the market economies among major nations, in that there appear to be no "national champions" or "no-go" areas which cannot be privatised and sold. And so if its owners see fit to flog off P&O, once a proud flagbearer of Britain (literally) - well, why should the US intervene when they were happy to let Carlyle clean up by buying much of Qinetiq for a song and then sell it off to whoever? Basically, if you push and praise market forces then this should not come with the caveat "so long as we like what happens". Regulate but not over-rule. <edit> obviously I am playing devil's advocate here. I don't like the sale of irreplaceable assets or natural monopolies, and I think that the market is not the appropriate decider here because there ought to be too many non-monetary considerations.