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 Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Big Bucks who wrote (24980)	10/7/1998 1:07:00 AM
From: Paul V.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Big Bucks, The Fed and politicians will want domestic peace and relative tranquility in industry and the labor force. In any case, there are tough decisions to be made and acted upon and I don't think any politician worth his salt will do anything to aggrevate US workers/voters. If a choice has to be made it will be for the overall benefit of US economic/political interests, even if it is at the expense of foreign concerns/agenda. What is going to keep corporations from merging on a global scale like Chrysler and other corporations? An European example would be Germany which is manufacturing many of their cars in Mexico. Respectfully, I just do not see that tariffs are a benefit except for an futile effort to try and protect US wages. However, I don't believe a protectionist policy will work today with how fluid goods and services with technology can move freely by satilite, fiber optics, etc. An example, is AMAT. Why did AMAT build plants in Asia? One, that is where the greatest growth potential is and second that is where cheap labor is located so that we the stockholder can reap a greater return in our portfolio's. Just my $.02. Paul V.

To: Big Bucks who wrote (24980)	10/7/1998 9:11:00 AM
From: Katherine Derbyshire	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

The thing about protectionism is that it cuts both ways. Help a farmer by blocking cheap Asian rice, and you hurt a programmer or a stockbroker because Asia can't buy from him. Prevent civil disruptions in the US, and you cause or exacerbate them in Asia. Worst case, you have a major war in Asia that ends up killing American soldiers. In your scenario, (which I happen to mostly agree with) there will certainly be political pressure favoring protectionist policies, and at least some such policies will probably pass. That doesn't make them a good idea. Katherine

To: Big Bucks who wrote (24980)	10/7/1998 3:52:00 PM
From: Paul V.	Respond to of 70976

Big Bucks,Good points, but how are Japanese banks/financial institutions going to make any return on their capital, certainly not in Japan or Asia. US securities are the only safe haven for them to invest in where there is safety as the world monetary system/deflation continues reducing the intrinsic value of their capital assets. You make good points as always. There are no easy solutions. I just do not know how we can isolate ourself (US) and make it. If we have no customers then what will happen to our products (goods and services). Just think of the farmers in the country who have killed their cattle since feeding the cattle was to expensive to raise. With the grain farmers do the same when they do not have a greater supply and now demand do to the lack of exports. During the agricultural age I probably would have agreed with you but the genie is out of the bottle. Just think of it it. You as a technology guru and I as a investor in technology have enabled all of us, corporations and personally to communicate almost instantly anywhere in the world or invest anywhere in the world. And, IMO, it will only get faster and more efficient. Note, I did not say more effective.<g> Paul V.