Your reply says nothing of "compensation," or "property rights," and only marginally relates to the
mechansim for dispute resolution contained in CAFTA. In other words, regardless of how rude you believe I am you have
failed to respond, as I suspected you would. Perhaps it would have been easier to simply call your assertions false, but politely?
As for GE doing business with a terror-sponsoring state, that is a matter of U.S. foreign policy. GE is not an individual, it is an "it." It will do business where it feels it can make a profit, until it is told otherwise.
You can attempt to place public pressure on GE to divest, much like Nike was pressured about sweat-shops, but you will likely find few recruits here, and your energy would best be directed at the Legislative and Executive branches of government. In any case, I am more concerned with your notion that GE will be placed at some sort of a competitive disadvantage by the passage of CAFTA. On this thread at least, I prefer to discuss economics.
"Your reply says nothing of "compensation," or "property rights," and only marginally relates to the mechansim for dispute resolution contained in CAFTA. In other words, regardless of how rude you believe I am you have failed to respond, as I suspected you would. Perhaps it would have been easier to simply call your assertions false, but politely?"
http://www.sice.oas.org/TPCStudies/USCAFTAChl_e/Matrix10.htm
- Well, the establishment of international tribunals is there in the legalese, Chapter 10. I thought that was what you originally challenged me about. There's the link, research it, and refute it if you think it's incorrect:
http://www.sice.oas.org/TPCStudies/USCAFTAChl_e/Matrix10.htm
Several Republican congressman also say authorization for tribunals are in there. You can call them (and me) moonbats, if you so choose.
I suppose doing so, makes it easier to ignore the assertion about tribunals being conducted under the auspices of the U.N.
http://www.sice.oas.org/TPCStudies/USCAFTAChl_e/Matrix10.htm
>"In any case, I am more concerned with your notion that GE will be placed at some sort of a competitive disadvantage by the passage of CAFTA."<
_Perhaps you misunderstand my comments. I don't wish to see our corporations hampered, or forced offshore, by excessive regulation.
I merely used GE as an example, in that; just because a business wants to do something, it doesn't mean that it has the best interests of America, in it's business plans.
It's not in America's best interests to have companies like Loral and Hughes giving supercomputers or satellite launch technology to Communist China....and it's ALSO not in the interests of our country to give foreign corps the power to take our laws to an international tribunal.
If you want to bring business back to America, then support the abolishment of the federal income tax system, including abolishing all corporate tax.
I support the FairTax, and elimination of all corporate tax, which would bring more offshore business back to this country then all the "managed trade agreements" (1.) in the world.
1. (Milton Friedman said that these trade agreements are not "free trade agreements, but "managed trade agreements.)