Skip to comments.
The New Protectionists
opinionjournal ^
| March 10, 2006
| WSJ
Posted on 03/10/2006 12:33:17 PM PST by groanup
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
The New Protectionists - How to create a real security crisis.
Friday, March 10, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
Dubai Ports World finally threw in the kaffiyah on its American operations yesterday, agreeing to sell them "to a U.S. entity." We hope that entity turns out to be Halliburton, if only for the torment that would cause certain eminences on Capitol Hill.
Dubai Ports was susceptible to this political stampede because it was an Arab-owned company buying port operations, which Democrats have played up as uniquely vulnerable. But this is also the second such mugging of a foreign investor in recent months, following last year's demagoguery against a Chinese company's bid to buy Unocal, a middling American oil company. If Members of Congress want a real security crisis--a financial security crisis--they'll keep this up.
What's especially dangerous here is that we're seeing the re-emergence of the "national security" protectionists. They were last seen in the late 1980s, when Japan in particular was the target of a political foreign-investment panic. The Japanese were buying Pebble Beach and Rockefeller Center, and so America was soon going to be a colony of Tokyo. A Japanese bid for Fairchild Semiconductor of Silicon Valley was seen as a threat to American defense. Those fears seem laughable now. But here we go again, with new targets of anxiety.
snip
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial
KEYWORDS: dpworld; dubai; newprotectionists; oldsellouts; ports; protectionism; wsj
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 521-540, 541-560, 561-580, 581-590 last
To: Toddsterpatriot
Does their purchase of Treasury debt allow higher government spending? A'hem. Not a good thing.
Whose side are you arguing for again?
581
posted on
03/21/2006 12:45:16 PM PST
by
Paul Ross
(Hitting bullets with bullets successfully for 35 years!)
To: Paul Ross
A'hem. Not a good thing.Did I say it was? We're talking about GDP and how it's calculated. Math is involved. Over your head.
582
posted on
03/21/2006 12:47:26 PM PST
by
Toddsterpatriot
(Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
To: Toddsterpatriot
Did I say it was?From the context, you do imply that. English. Must be over your head.
583
posted on
03/21/2006 12:49:17 PM PST
by
Paul Ross
(Hitting bullets with bullets successfully for 35 years!)
To: Paul Ross
English. Must be over your head. So says the guy who doesn't understand the difference between foreign currency and US Treasuries.
584
posted on
03/21/2006 12:50:36 PM PST
by
Toddsterpatriot
(Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
To: Paul Ross
The capital flow issue? What issue? you contradicted your own source. Are you deliberately lying or are you so dense that you're not aware of that which you speak-th? Mankiw's text was the source of my understanding of the NX = NCO ( and, by logical extension - but only to some, I gather, the net imports = net capital inflow) identity(ies).
585
posted on
03/21/2006 5:34:00 PM PST
by
LowCountryJoe
(I'm a Paleo-liberal: I believe in freedom; am socially independent and a borderline fiscal anarchist)
To: Toddsterpatriot
GDP = Consumption + Domestic Investment + Governmental Spending + Net Exports
well that's one way to calc GDP. However you can calc GDP this way too: GDP=Consumer spending(C)+Industrial spending(I)+governmental spending(G)+net exports so taking this view. The outsourcing of jobs decreases C because less jobs means less consumer spending by those who lose their jobs which usually takes years to show up due to additional sources of income that consumers can tap(i.e unemployment benefits, home lines of credit, family, other government benefits, etc). Outsourcing also decreases I because the companies are spending the money in China and India building infrastructure instead of within this country. It does increase G because governments have to spend more on food stamps, welfare benefits, unemployment costs, reeducation costs etc. While at the same time decreasing the tax base therefore we see the increase in federal deficits. Outsourcing also decreases net exports because we now have to import what we use to make. So in what way is outsourcing good. The only way outsourcing is good is to company profits which after buying off Congress with 100 million tax breaks most of those profits do not find their way into the general American population because outsourcing also depresses wages her at home. And outsourcing can be tied DIRECTLY to Free trade because if it was not for the elimination of tariffs companies would not have a profit motive to outsource their jobs.
586
posted on
03/22/2006 3:04:59 AM PST
by
unseen
To: unseen
GDP=Consumer spending(C)+Industrial spending(I)+governmental spending(G)+net exports Where is investment in your formula?
587
posted on
03/22/2006 6:52:46 AM PST
by
Toddsterpatriot
(Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
To: LowCountryJoe
You contradict Mankiw's explicit axiomatic conclusions, and his charts. So it is you who are apparently "lying".
Why do you think I found your finally, at long last producing one source... to be so rewarding...but not to you. It exposes your hyperventilating contentions for what they are to the opponents of your twaddle...gross misunderstasnding and misconstrual on your part.
No wonder you seldom if ever try to produce support for your poppycock. Your own sources contradict you!
588
posted on
03/22/2006 9:57:33 AM PST
by
Paul Ross
(Hitting bullets with bullets successfully for 35 years!)
To: Paul Ross
Okay, then...answering those two "true/false" question should be a piece of cake. I'm looking forward to it - you gathering the necessary spine, that is.
589
posted on
03/22/2006 5:40:58 PM PST
by
LowCountryJoe
(I'm a Paleo-liberal: I believe in freedom; am socially independent and a borderline fiscal anarchist)
To: Paul Ross
pinging once again because you managed to dodge the majority of it the first time around: big surprise there.
590
posted on
03/22/2006 5:49:59 PM PST
by
LowCountryJoe
(I'm a Paleo-liberal: I believe in freedom; am socially independent and a borderline fiscal anarchist)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 521-540, 541-560, 561-580, 581-590 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