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 ...
A better queston I have as a conservative is why do I care? Perhaps these industries are more profitable than a casino or department store chain? I don't know and I don't care.
But it is good to see the Republican party embracing more of its big government roots. Within a generation the rest of conservatives will have left the Republican party and will have either begun returning the Democrats to their small government origins or have started their own party.
Sigh..., I'm so sorry but what in the hell does that have to do with anything? Are you going to tell me that the military protection of the crown made Hong Kong an economic powerhouse? If that were the case then North Korea should be gilded, the Soviet Union should be my next investment. We are trying to talk about economics..., what the hell. Government education.
Some of my money goes to the U.S. retailer. Check.
Some of my money goes to the U.S. government. Check.
Some of my money goes to the U.S. transporter/U.S. distributor. Check. Some of Nestle's profits go to the U.S. government. Check. Some of Nestle's profits go to capital investment in the U.S. Check.
Some of Nestle's profits return to the U.S. as dividends. Check.
--where they are taxed again by the U.S. government [don't get me started]AND I GET THE CHOCOLATE I WANTED.
Name a country that is economically, but not politically free.
I think you've blinded him with logic.
Now let's see what happens when I buy a Swiss chocolate bar (say, made by Nestle in Switzerland).
Some of my money goes to the U.S. retailer. Check.
Some of my money goes to the U.S. government. Check.
Some of my money goes to the U.S. transporter/U.S. distributor. Check.
Some of Nestle's profits go to the U.S. government. Check.
Some of Nestle's profits go to capital investment in the U.S. Check.
Some of Nestle's profits return to the U.S. as dividends. Check.
--where they are taxed again by the U.S. government [don't get me started]AND I GET THE CHOCOLATE I WANTED.
I don't even like chocolate, but I couldn't bring myself to use Heineken as the example.
I could never get into Heineken. Now I only drink American beer, traitor. LOL!
My old boss used to drink Becks from 9 AM until 9 PM, with a small break to get some work done. Of course that was before the Crash. I used to drink for 6 hours a day before the Crash. Ahhhh, good times.
Which crash? The real one in '87? Or the "tech" one in, when was it, '99?
Source: The Heritage Foundation
'87. Can you believe we had to stop drinking at lunch after that one? And no more 4 hour lunches either :^(
You should take a look at the second chart I posted. Be careful, it's gonna hurt.
Now the protectionists will claim that more tariffs/restrictions will make us freer and richer. Of course they're bad at math.
The UAE want's to be a high tech haven. They want to get into the aerospace industry. They don't want to support their country with a McDonalds franchise. They've looked at their options and they've decided where they want to be in 20 years. They don't want to be running Applebees in the USA. If you'd taken the time to learn a little about the UAE, you'd already know this. It's not some nefarious plot against America.
Incomes follow freedom... Not the other way around. Flooding an oppressive regime with money only makes it more effective at repressing its citizenry. WWI & WWII would have both been impossible (or at least, less severe) had it not been for a booming pre-war German economy (lets not forget Hitler was put into power democratically).
Couldn't agree more that there is a direct correlation, but you've put the cart before the horse. A great deal of China's economic growth has nothing to do with freedom. Their monetary policy, obstacles to foreign competition, and prohibitions on foreign land-ownership are as much responsible for the boom as anything else.
In other words; China's economy is growing faster relative to ours because their government engages in very effective protectionist policies.
In an absolutely free market, wealth will flow directly towards the unwealthy, no matter what the level of perceived 'freedom'. Some measure of protectionism is necessary to maintain our position in the world. Otherwise, the country with the highest population wins. Period. The End.
Placing money in the hand of your enemy is just providing him the means to purchase the knife that will, sooner-or-later, and as sure as sunset follows sunrise, be buried in your back.
You do realize, don't you that the tax would still be passed on to you? Companies do NOT pay taxes. Every tax imposed by our government is passed directly on to the consumer. Say we get rid of Chinese merchandise and I have to pay $40 for a tshirt instead of $25. Does that raise my standard of living? Did protectionism help the average "citizen" of the Soviet Union?
Do you have any numbers showing a sudden surge? Or is it a surge of news coverage?
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.