The security imperative and free trade [Dubai Ports World]

The Taipei Times ^ | March 10, 2006 | Melvyn Krauss

[1rudeboy]

Interesting take on the DPW deal fiasco from an economic perspective.

[mtbopfuyn]

Experts argue that the probability of a terrorist attack because of the Dubai takeover is small.

Running a red light out in the boonies at 2 AM lowers the probability of hitting another vehicle, but I wouldn't want to chance it with my family.

[Crispus Attucks Patriot]

Globalism is wrong and a major threat to the continued existence of the United States of America as a free and independent nation....PERIOD.

[1rudeboy]

As the author argues, "the damage inflicted by [running a red light] might be tremendous."

[1rudeboy]

We sit astride two oceans, in the Northern Hemisphere. You must find a way to deal with it.

[Coldwater Creek]

The issue is dead, until the fallout begins. I sure won't blame Dubai!!!!

[Crispus Attucks Patriot]

If you believe in abandoning our sovereignity just to make a buck, you are no patriot and have a lot of gall calling yourself an American.

You cannot be a globalist and a patriot. The two are mutually exclusive.

[1rudeboy]

YOUR PLANET NEEDS YOU
Would you like to know more?

[jd777]

Our trade deficit hit a new all-time high this month

Can't you feel the protectionism?

[expat_panama]

If you believe in abandoning our sovereignity just to make a buck, you are no patriot and have a lot of gall calling yourself an American.

Wow neat!  Can I play?  How about this:

You are a revolutionary communist if you mindlessly blow yourself up obeying protectionist masters.

Personally, I think the font changes add a lot.

[1rudeboy]

Not any more than usual during an Election Year, and the Dems out of power.

[maryz]

to have a Dubai-based company run six US ports is a big mistake.

Too bad he doesn't know the deal never involved the Dubai company running six US ports.

[dead]

I think only economists were even looking at the oppostion to the DPW deal as a free trade issue.

[1rudeboy]

Small point, and not much of a factor (if at all) in his analysis, which is rather dispassionate.

[Crispus Attucks Patriot]

Even Smith and Locke understood that some protectionism was necessary. What's the purpose of gaining wealth if we lose our nation and our liberties?

The problem with you globalists is that you'd happily allow a One World Government to arise just to fatten your stock portfolios.

[american spirit]

You're wasting your time with some of these globaloney types.....my guess is some of these 'open border/guest worker/we are the world/kumbaya types' either employ or directly benefit from having US taxpayers pick up the tab for the living expenses of illegals working for minimal wages, directly benefitting employers who get to evade a whole lot of payroll taxes and whose favorite pastime is seeing county hospitals go broke.

[Toddsterpatriot]

What's the purpose of gaining wealth if we lose our nation and our liberties?

How does free(r) trade lose our nation or our liberties?

[1rudeboy]

I'm not sure that is entirely true. This author appears to recognize that the reaction of a typical protectionist, i.e., to frame everything as a question of national security (or nationalism--witness the word "patriot" being tossed-about above), carries significant weight in this case, even if the question itself might not have merit (an issue that he chooses not to address).

[1rudeboy]

Textbook ad hominem. Well done.

[Crispus Attucks Patriot]

When we sign away our sovereinity with things like NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA, and join globalist NGO's like the WTO.

I believe in the US economy, not a global one.

America first, last, and always.