Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DugwayDuke
Your theory is flawed. We are, vis-a-vis China, getting poorer. Hence, both your assumptions and model don't comport with reality. E.g., The converse of your attack on protectionism is not happening. If your model was true, we HAVE to be getting richer. We are not.

IBM is not reorganizing itself in a helpful way. It is the kind of reorganization more consistent with going out of business altogether. The securities market clearly thinks so.

We should already be getting richer as a country. We are not. We are hemmorhaging wealth in a one-way street to China along with the productive capacity, capacity, engineering, and skills. All that is mounting up on our side is IOU's, Checks drawn on blue sky, and continually confounded and dashed hopes of "buying" a piece of the Chinese "market." It will never happen.

Why? Because the Chinese government intends to make sure that nothing that happens actually benefits U.S. industry. Nothing. This whole excercise is an attempt to bring a huge "wrecking ball" to the U.S. economy...and never let it get back up again as an industrial threat to communism.

215 posted on 12/12/2004 10:54:18 AM PST by Paul Ross (Debunking Poohbah thoroughly and completely for 4 years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies ]


To: Paul Ross

"Your theory is flawed."

It's not my theory. "Free trade" is the generally accepted theory among almost all competent economists.

"We are, vis-a-vis China, getting poorer."

Really? I thought we were paying them 'slave wages' to build our nic-nacs. How does a 'slave' getter richer than his master?


217 posted on 12/12/2004 1:32:34 PM PST by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson