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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (27822)	1/10/1999 9:30:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 108807

Bob, Lost track of the post in which you worried over the baddies in the third world getting their hands on American money, but a few things you ought to consider: Back in the early part of the century, when labor unions were agitating for a bigger slice of the pie, employers protested that higher wages achieved through collective bargaining would bankrupt corporate America. They were, of course, totally wrong. The workers took their money to the store and spent it, and the money flowed straight back to corporate America. The third world today is a huge hive of pent-up demand, just waiting to be released. Any money that America can spend to promote real development in the third world (and I do NOT think that the current system of foreign aid accomplishes this) is going to be very well spent indeed. You might also want to consider how much money was forcibly removed from third world economies during the days of colonialism, and what effect this has had on the current economic divisions in the world. An example: at the close of World War II the Philippines was virtually forced (won't go into the means here) to adopt a treaty which gave all American goods duty-free access to the Philippines, but placed strict quotas on Philippine exports to the US. American citizens were allowed to engage in any form of business in the Philippines and to repatriate their earnings; Filipinos were not given equivalent rights. There was a good deal more, but you get the drift. The agreement was eventually rescinded after a group of American economists concluded that it was bankrupting the country and promoting Communist rebellion, but the damage to the economy in a critical phase was extraordinary. This happened many, many, times, in many, many countries, and the net result was a huge forced transfer of wealth - practically (and in many cases literally) at gunpoint - from third world countries to the US. Do you really think (some do) that the Arab/US rift is because of US support for Israel? Or because for so many years Western Oil companies regarded the Arab governments as pawns to be dictated to? Do you really blame the small countries for wanting to set some rules, and for wanting those rules to protect their interests? When you see anti-American sentiments, don't just assume that they come from Commies or anti-Christians. Look a little deeper, and try to understand why they exist. BTW, the stretch from US troops serving in peacekeeping forces under UN command to the notion of UN troops rounding up Christians for detention strains credulity more than a bit. The only means the UN has to compel anybody to comply with any agreement is arguing that compliance has an element of self-interest. They do not have any coercive force that can be wielded without cooperation from the nation providing the force, and that is not likely to change. Steve