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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (33004)	2/11/1999 5:59:00 AM
From: MacCoy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I'm not buying your defense. It is axiomatic that in a two-party [LBJ, ~LBJ] system of compromise politics, there will always be quid pro quo. 1) The politicians likely to benefit directly were the ~LBJ. Their voters believed in active anti-communism. This was too little plus, for such a great movement. Either escalation was from LBJ's loose wiring or someone gained. The several indications I previously stated together add up to the gain going to Industry, the indirect backers of ~LBJ. 2) He indeed used pump-priming with his Great Society. A different [more powerful?] sector was primed by the war effort. Pump-priming of this magnitude was unknown in peacetime--he had to curry all support. 3)Free-trade is truly the orthodox line. To grievously alienate his single greatest supporter, the Unions, there had to be good quod in the deal--he could have left it to a latter ~C. Where did Clinton put this CR to use? 4) It is true Mexico, and Latin America would be culturally problematic. With the kind of money we poured down Vietnam, and the years since WWII that we've sent aid of all sorts, and the money we've spent fixing our problems created by their problems, I find it difficult to imagine we could not have a different culture there by now. 4b) Specialization...wasn't that once known as Merchantilism. Poor, overseas colonies provide cheap goods for the advanced country to make finished goods, adding on the greater profit, then returning these needed goods at a price that will keep the colonies without any breakout from the loop? The difference now is we don't send their governor and their plantation owners only have our skin, not our passport. Seriously, condemning the workers there to lowest possible wage, and basing the criteria on Geography, is twice unsound. Not paying them our going rate for the same work sounds like a real reason. Not improving them as we did W. Europe seems a willingness to Not pay this wage. Without this deliberate exploitation, specific profits would have plummeted. Had their economy been advanced, or had No country been kept in such extremis, textile making would be an integrated part of an advanced society, making wages above starvation. So, the Vietnam war and Free Trade and Foriegn policy overall are the Democratic President's chips in the political game. The foreign policy chips were used to the advantage of economic interests here, whether war-time profit or colonization. A rational foreign policy would be to have raised our neighbors to advanced nation status. All would gain, and neighbors would become cooperating, interacting allies.