Skip to comments.
China overtakes United States as top destination for foreign investment
channelnewsasia.com ^
| 23 September 2004 0213 hrs
| AFP
Posted on 09/22/2004 10:35:07 PM PDT by Destro
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 221-222 next last
To: LowCountryJoe
101
posted on
09/26/2004 12:40:16 PM PDT
by
Destro
(Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
To: 1rudeboy
My argument against so called free trade is @ 97.
102
posted on
09/26/2004 12:41:13 PM PDT
by
Destro
(Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
To: oceanview
. . . the investments in china for the semiconductor industry alone are immense, they will have own the industry in less then 10 years. I cannot believe that your typical protectionist did not wail that Samsung outsourced the following jobs to the United States.Austin, TX, May 2, 2003 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., the worlds leader in advanced semiconductor technology, today announced plans to expand its Austin facility to become one of the most advanced semiconductor plants in the United States through a three-year investment in cutting edge equipment and facility upgrades. Samsung Austin Semiconductor currently produces 128 and 256-megabit DRAM memory chips, most commonly found in home computers and workstations.
Source
To: Destro
I purchase things that I don't produce on my own. I do this by means of a currency (the USD) so that I do not have to barter my goods or services directly with someone else; that would be way too costly to find someone willing to trade with me directly. I, of course, am a "Marxist" because I trade freely with other people. I am not alone either. Everyone I happen to know is a "Marxist" too. Well, except for the union-loving, competition fearing, market hating, government-meddling advocate protectionists here at the FreeRepublic; they are nowhere near being Marxist - not even in the least bit!
104
posted on
09/26/2004 12:46:56 PM PDT
by
LowCountryJoe
("How the Far Right Has Been Left [and] Behind" - PJB)
To: Destro
sounds like the new Japan.
105
posted on
09/26/2004 12:48:28 PM PDT
by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! NOV 2, 2004 is VETERANS DAY! VOTE!)
To: Destro
To: Destro
Hey Destro, Read what Marx said very carefully, because he makes some points that should generally interest you. Also keep in mind that when he says "liberals" he is not talking about what the term "liberal" has come to mean today. A "liberal" in his time was someone who believe in limited government, free market activities, and individual freedoms. Next, notice how torn he is about endorsing trade. He does not like it but he does see it as a means to destroy a country's sovereignty - hence the final paragraph quote of his. but his conclusion about this was all wrong because he ignores the very thing that he mentions earlier in his speech...which is, the freedom of capital flow. Take another look at it. But, this time, do not just isolate a quote, instead internalize the whole concept. It does seem that Marx may have been correct in many of his conclusions...all except the final one that he makes.
107
posted on
09/26/2004 1:07:54 PM PDT
by
LowCountryJoe
("How the Far Right Has Been Left [and] Behind" - PJB)
To: 1rudeboy
Samsung outsourced the following jobs to the United States... That's great, but the article we are discussing on this thread is that China has overtaken America as the beneficiary of this type of investment.
BTW I do not argue for protectionism, but rather that the US government work to make this country more competitive, and hold other countries to the trade agreements they make. IE Tariffs are a necessary evil to respond with when trading partners subsidize their currencies. Don't you agree?
To: Last Dakotan
BTW I do not argue for protectionism, but rather that the US government work to make this country more competitive, and hold other countries to the trade agreements they make. IE Tariffs are a necessary evil to respond with when trading partners subsidize their currencies. Don't you agree? We have a pretty crappy record regarding our ability to stick with our end of a trade agreement's terms so perhaps we should remove the timber from our own eye here. We also do our fair share of subsidization.
Who should be making us more competitive, government? How about ourselves and our country's own business owners. I do not trust an economy in the sole hands of the government...government does nothing with efficiency in mind.
109
posted on
09/26/2004 1:19:40 PM PDT
by
LowCountryJoe
("How the Far Right Has Been Left [and] Behind" - PJB)
To: LowCountryJoe
Who should be making us more competitive, government?If you believe we are a democracy, the people are the government. IE demanding a NRST is a start.
To: Destro
Free Trade = Marxisim.Ronald Reagan and even Adam Smith himself were free trade advocates.
Ergo, either Reagan and Smith were Marxists, or your dilettantish offerings in the economic section of this marketplace of ideas are just as worthless as your foreign policy offerings.
111
posted on
09/26/2004 1:29:31 PM PDT
by
Hoplite
To: Last Dakotan
You apparently did not notice that I was responding to someone who brought-up the industry.
As for tariffs, we could stop taxing U.S. corporations on their world-wide income (nobody else does) with the same result, and none of the baggage.
To: 1rudeboy
I'm for stopping taxation on corporations period.
To: Hoplite
114
posted on
09/26/2004 1:45:39 PM PDT
by
Destro
(Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
To: Hoplite; LowCountryJoe; 1rudeboy
115
posted on
09/26/2004 1:56:39 PM PDT
by
Destro
(Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
To: Last Dakotan
If you believe we are a democracy, the people are the government... Holy crap, I cannot believe that you resorted to that. I know this but by you reasoning, then, it was OK for the legislators of the era to collectively agree with FDR and establish "The New Deal". After all, it was the government and the government is us, right?
How about we either argue protectionism - like you originally started off doing - or you concede that maybe the "traders" make some points that are difficult to refute.
So, with that said, was the NRST statement of yours a diversionary change-up that allows you to spin your way out of the line of debate, or, was it something else. By the way, I do believe the NRST sound pretty darn good about now. I do, however, believe in a solution that I've developed and linked to on my FreeRepublic "homepage".
116
posted on
09/26/2004 1:57:25 PM PDT
by
LowCountryJoe
("How the Far Right Has Been Left [and] Behind" - PJB)
To: Destro
And I'm a freedom of speech realist - proscribing the yelling of "Fire" in movie theaters or issuing verbal threats is no more a pro censorship stance than was Reagan's reacting to the economic realities of the day in his course of action.
He was at heart a proponent of free trade.
Our trade policy rests firmly on the foundation of free and open markets. I recognize ... the inescapable conclusion that all of history has taught: The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides of human progress and peace among nations.
117
posted on
09/26/2004 2:05:03 PM PDT
by
Hoplite
To: Destro
Please read posts #20 and #89 on this thread (written by me). You might learn something. And then, any further commentary by you, to us, might be properly understood by which way you want things to be. Multiple John Kerry type stances may work for political purposes but they do not hold when discussing money and accounting identities.
118
posted on
09/26/2004 2:09:23 PM PDT
by
LowCountryJoe
("How the Far Right Has Been Left [and] Behind" - PJB)
To: Hoplite
Reagan - a case of rhetoric vs. reality.
Examining Reagans Record on Free Trade
by Sheldon Richman, June 21, 2004
The following article originally appeared in the May 10, 1982, issue of The Wall Street Journal. Copyright Dow Jones and Company, Inc.
Hardly anyone was surprised when the Reagan administration imposed quotas on sugar imports last week. This is at once remarkable and understandable. Its remarkable because Mr. Reagan wants to be known as a free-trader. Indeed, he lists as heroes some of historys foremost free-traders: Frederic Bastiat, Richard Cobden, Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek, all of whom would find import quotas odious.
And yet the blasé response is understandable because the imposition of quotas is consistent with the Reagan record and the neo-mercantilism of his predecessors (he had already raised the basic tariff on sugar imports and imposed a new import fee). Historians certainly werent surprised; the Republicans are the traditional party of high tariffs.
119
posted on
09/26/2004 2:13:02 PM PDT
by
Destro
(Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
To: Destro
Hey, I know what Destro: Instead of writing something yourself, just do a google search and post excerpts of the first article that looks like it supports your position.
That way you can pretend to be part of a discussion without having to actually understand the issue.
Trade protectionism is for the weak of spirit and mind. If our producers can't compete fairly, our government has no business subsidizing their inefficiency with our consumer's money. We've got the most productive workforce on the planet, that is reason enough to remove as many barriers to free trade as we can.
120
posted on
09/26/2004 2:59:41 PM PDT
by
Hoplite
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 221-222 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson