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.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bananawind who wrote (11789)	6/25/1998 12:23:00 PM
From: CDMQ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Could you please enlighten me what <ggg> and <bseg> mean? Thanx <(^^)>

To: bananawind who wrote (11789)	6/25/1998 1:06:00 PM
From: John Cuthbertson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

OT: Trade/protectionism Even in the case of so-called "unfair competition", I long ago decided that if some country wants to subsidize my consumption at the expense of their taxpayers, it is A-OK with me. Bring on the imports. Jim, One often hears this kind of statement from people who basically believe in the merits of free trade, but I think you need to think it through a bit further. Remember, economic theory tells us that free trade in both directions is the optimal situation for both trade partners. Therefore, any departure from that condition, say by one country implementing protectionist policies or subsidies, damages the interests of both countries. (Remember that most of us have to participate on both the consumer side and the producer side of the economic equation.) Well then, why should we meekly sit back and accept the damage to our economic interests caused by unilateral actions of the governments of our trade partners? Should we not seek to have them desist from such actions? To me, this is the logically consistent posture if you believe in the benefits of free trade. ==John