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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (34053)	4/28/2008 11:45:49 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217837

excellent development, especially as persia formally enlists in the shanghai cooperation organization, whereby attack on one is attack on all, and all for one and one for all, a fine organization inspird and co-organized by cb ilaine's friend, comrade putin, whose sould is much appreciaed by wastrel bushleaguers, or so they thought wrong the world is becoming safer, presumably, accordingto cb ilaine, as russia's influence grows, and according to maurice mq, as india's democratic needs are met all excellent, i guess :0)

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (34053)	4/29/2008 1:04:20 AM
From: Rolla Coasta	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217837

Iran, Pakistan, India are sharing the same common interests. It is a very big deal as far as Iran is concerned

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (34053)	4/29/2008 2:31:23 AM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217837

just in in-tray quote and after locking in those gains-time to re-examine globalization? Lawrence Summers in todays FT: "But I suspect that the policy debate in the US, and probably in some other countries as well, will need to confront a deeper and broader issue: the gnawing suspicion of many that the very object of internationalist economic policy – the growing prosperity of the global economy – may not be in their interests. As Paul Samuelson pointed out several years ago, the valid proposition that trade barriers hurt an economy does not imply the corollary that it necessarily benefits from the economic success of its trading partners. When other countries develop, American producers benefit from having larger markets to sell into but are challenged by more formidable competition. Which effect predominates cannot be judged a priori. But there are reasons to think that economic success abroad will be more problematic for American workers in the future. First, developing countries increasingly export goods such as computers that the US produces on a significant scale, putting pressure on wages. At the same time, rising global prosperity increases the rewards accruing to the already highly paid producers of intellectual property goods such as films, where the US has a comparative advantage. Second, the growth of countries such as China raises competition for energy and environmental resources, raising the price for Americans. Third and most fundamentally, growth in the global economy encourages the development of stateless elites whose allegiance is to global economic success and their own prosperity rather than the interests of the nation where they are headquartered. As one prominent chief executive put it in Davos this year: “We will be fine however America does but I hope for its sake that it will cut taxes and reduce regulation and put more pressure on young people to study in the ways that are necessary for it to be able to keep competing successfully.” unquote