Date: Sun Jun 12 2005 - 16:50:42 PDT
LONG RANT, DELETE IF NOT INTERESTED!!!
In a message dated 6/10/2005 10:44:13 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
"The only fear to fear is fear itself" - Sir. Winston Churchill.
also said by fdr right after dec7 1941
Actually, Napoleon Hill wrote that. He is the author of "Think and Grow
Rich." It is attributed to many others (mostly FDR) but now you know the truth.
I have tried to remain out of this discussion, but as you will read, I
First, I am not defending Matt, he can do a fine job of that himself,
however, you should know that he is from the Detroit area which has been devastated
by outsourcing and foreign "unfair" competition.
Here is the issue as I see it. Let's take China as an example, certainly
not the only one, but a reasonable example. Were you aware that foreign
businesses need government approval before being able to set up shop in China? Not
true here in the states. Anyone can buy land and start a business. Try
that in China, or Japan. It is not possible without government approval. The
South Americas have protectionism as do almost all other countries.
The Netherlands actually have the most investment in the US followed by the
French, Britain and way down the list Japan and China. Most, not all, US
corporations are shareholder owned and the majority of the stock holders are
An interesting tidbit. While John Kerry talked about losing jobs to foreign
companies or outsourcing. Heinz quietly moved all of their plants overseas
and now have no plants in the US. Hmmm.
A free economy has produced more prosperity than the world has ever known.
Not just the US, but England, France, Germany, Japan, Australia, Indonesia,
India, on and on they all benefit from a free market based economy. The
issues that confuse and confound us here in the US, ok me at least, is that while
for instance the Japanese produce tons of vehicles in the US and employ US
workers the profits of the corporation are returned to Japan. So what? Well,
it makes it difficult to have corporate loyalty when the community at large
does not benefit beyond the jobs. Sure they support charities and other do
gooders, but at what expense. If the American companies have a $1600
disadvantage partially due to supporting retired workers, how is it a free market?
You see, their own markets are not "free." The only economy that is is the US.
Britain is not, the closest is the Swedish. I am all for a free economy
and buying my clothes for the least amount of money. What I cannot support is
altruism in any shape or form. If you follow something to its natural
conclusion it tells a lot. If you follow altruism to its logical conclusion you
would have everyone wanting to give and no one willing to take. It falls
apart. Are there improvements that can be made? Heavens yes.
There are natural laws. For example, a thief, a murderer, and the Pope are
in a canoe in the middle of the lake and it tips over. The Pope better be
able to conform to natural laws and swim because the lake doesn't care that he
is the Pope, the thief and the murderer have just as good of a chance of
surviving, even better if they know how to swim and he doesn't. There are
natural laws that can not be changed. One is that all men are created.
Unfortunately, they are not all equal. Some are born without hands or feet, or
whatever, but they are created nonetheless. Regardless of your belief of who,
what, or how man was created or evolved, it is true that it is a mind blowing
event. Miraculous indeed. All children view these issues with wonder. Infants
of all species are inherently "cute." It is designed that way for survival
issues. Yes, some mothers eat their young, but again moving to the logical
conclusion, they would soon be extinct if it were the norm.
OK, instead of starting a 101 course in politics (defined as how we treat
each other), let me quote a famous American, "can't we all just get along?"
Apple will survive and grow, but they are an anomaly. Most will agree that
they have the best product, but they do not have the biggest market share.
How can that be? It is a complicated issue and the answer is even more
confounding, so I will leave it as a question, in the case of the immovable object
coming up against the irresistible force, who wins?
There is a logical answer.
-- This is the NewtonTalk list - http://www.newtontalk.net/ for all inquiries Official Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/ WikiWikiNewt for all kinds of articles: http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 13 2005 - 11:00:01 PDT