Date: Wed Apr 30 11:59:02 2008
Sender: Just Oz
Okay. Here's my take on John McCain:
Things I like about McCain:
-- Judges will be more conseravtive than under a Dem
-- He is committed to winning in Iraq, Afghanistan, GWOT
-- McCain has vowed to block all earmarks
-- McCain will make Bush's tax cuts permanent
-- He is good on guns and will protect 2nd Amendment rights
-- He is a man of word. I don't always like his word, but he follows it.
Things I don't like about McCain:
-- He has brought along side him a lot of Cham-Cons ( Chamber of Commerace
Conservatives) who care more about "free trade" than American jobs.
-- He has bought into the BS known as Human Caused Global Warming
-- He pushed and passed an anti-free speech law known as Campaign Finance
Reform which means that normal groups can't have commercials, but if you are
rich, you can start a 527 and launch commercials.
-- His idea of "working with Democrats" means giving in to Ted Kennedy
So what is my response. Simply because of how much better he will be than
Barak or Hillary on the first two points above (in things I like), he's going
to get a $250 donation from me for his candidacy as soon as I get my rebate
check from the government.
Date: Wed Apr 30 12:32:13 2008
Sender: Just Oz
oops ... left out AMNESTY under a list of things I don't like.
Date: Wed Apr 30 19:06:53 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
What does committed to winning in Iraq mean?
Sitting there indefinately, doing nothing? or calling people cowards who just
don't see the point in spending billions of dollars on people who don't want
our "help" in the first place.
Whats the point? I for one, no longer care about Iraq, and think it is a total
waste of time and resources.
It's been 5 years, there is no changing the "hearts and minds"- their culture
is in the stone age and it will be 20 years before the average Iraqi has the
cognitive ability to function properly in any type of free governement.
Date: Wed Apr 30 19:33:09 2008
Sender: Just Oz
AJ -- your comment that there has been no change in the hearts and minds
ignores the facts that even most Dems agree.
When the surge started and in particular the embedding of soldiers close to the
population, there was a huge amount of change in the attitude towards
Americans.
Now a days, we're seeing a lot of tip offs from Iraqis who aren't on any kind
of payroll and that is the kind of thing that changes things.
In addition, just this past month a large group of the Iraqi Al-Qaida leaders
were captured.
More details are here:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/publiusforum/2008/apr/30/two_recent_success_in_wot_you_didnt_hear_about_in_the_media
Date: Thu May 1 06:13:10 2008
Sender: Jeff Luddingsmash
My take on Oz' comments
Judges will be more conseravtive than under a Dem
-->Probably a non-issue in my book.
He is committed to winning in Iraq, Afghanistan, GWOT
-->Being "committed to winning" scares me a bit, especially when both of these
wars might be unwinable.
McCain will make Bush's tax cuts permanent
-->I'm all for tax cuts.
He is good on guns and will protect 2nd Amendment rights
-->This is a big negative in my opinion.
He has brought along side him a lot of Cham-Cons ( Chamber of Commerace
Conservatives) who care more about "free trade" than American jobs.
-->I am all for free trade. It's high-time America stopped protecting some of
their older industries and focused instead on capital/technology-rich
industries. However, organized worker groups usually win out over unorganized
consumers so this protection is likely to continue.
He has bought into the BS known as Human Caused Global Warming
-->Good for him. I'm more concerned about those that are hell bent on
discrediting Human caused Global Warming.
My position on this election is as follows. I like McCain. If Billery wins I
will probably support McCain. If Obama wins I will go into this election as an
undecided, and could easily swing Dem or Rep.
Date: Thu May 1 13:41:36 2008
Sender: Bill Edwards
I didn't realize you had moved to the US Jeff. Welcome!
Date: Thu May 1 14:04:46 2008
Sender: Jeff Luddingsmash
Bill, sometimes I wish I could move. Just don't tell Blackie.
I like the warmer climate in the States. I also like the fact that you have a
score of major cities to choose among. In Canada we only have a couple.
Date: Thu May 1 15:04:11 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
"However, organized worker groups usually win out over unorganized consumers so
this protection is likely to continue."
Just wondering how much "protection" you think the US uses? What are their
like 750 factories or something that have relocated on the Mexican border since
NAFTA? Unions can't keep a factory from moving....... just drive through Ohio
or PA.
Date: Thu May 1 17:52:49 2008
Sender: Jeff Luddingsmash
"Just wondering how much "protection" you think the US uses? What are their
like 750 factories or something that have relocated on the Mexican border since
NAFTA? Unions can't keep a factory from moving....... just drive through Ohio
or PA".
You're right, a union can't keep a company from moving. But it can pressure a
government to increase tariffs on imports. That's the type of protectionism I'm
talking about.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to single the USA out. I was just trying
to show that: a) I support free trade (so does McCain, according to Oz) and, b)
unions are more organized than consumer groups and are therefore stronger
lobbyists.
Date: Thu May 1 17:55:20 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
Sugar ethanol tariffs are part of what is increase both gasoline and food
prices. Lowering the sugar ethanol tariff would increase competition because
Petrobras would become a major player in the United States.
Date: Fri May 2 07:28:44 2008
Sender: Red Burley
I have yet to hear any convincing argument that free trade is a good thing. How
do lowering safety, quality and environmental standards benefit the American
consumer? Especially when that same consumer can no longer buy things, because
they lost their job when it was moved to Mexico?
This may sound fascist to some people, but I think our "national trade policy"
should be the following: Do everything possible to help American companies
crush all foreign competitors, and make the world OUR customers!
Date: Fri May 2 09:44:07 2008
Sender: Jeff Luddingsmash
Red, here is one argument for you... the poorest countries in the world have
the highest tariffs. Take a good look at Africa and you will find bunch of
countries with very high tariffs.
"How do lowering safety, quality and environmental standards benefit the
American consumer?"
-->Free trade does not have to mean lower standards. And lower prices do
benefit the American consumer. It also benefits businesses that rely on foreign
products as raw materials.
"Especially when that same consumer can no longer buy things, because they lost
their job when it was moved to Mexico?"
-->Free trade also creates jobs. Countries will tend to gain jobs in areas
where they have an advantage and lose jobs in areas where they at
adisadvantage.
Take South Korea as an example. They used to specialize in textiles. Eventually
they moved on to Ship Building. Soon after, they moved into high tech stuff.
With each jump older industries tended to move to other poorer nations, but the
economy continued to grow.
"Do everything possible to help American companies crush all foreign
competitors, and make the world OUR customers!"
-->lol!
Kidding aside, "helping" usually comes in the form of subsidies or tariffs.
Other countries tend to frown on this sort of thing, and often take action by
implementing subsidies and/or tariffs of their own. In the end, this hurts both
economies.
Of course, tariffs also hurt the American economy because the cost of good
rise. This makes it very difficult for American companies to compete on the
global market (not the best way to make the world your customer).
Date: Fri May 2 10:43:53 2008
Sender: Red Burley
Jeff, your arguments would make sense if all countries were playing by the same
rules. Certain countries (*coff* *coff* *China!* *coff*) seem to get a free
pass when they dont play fair.
As for environmental and product safety concerns, again I say (*coff* *coff*
*China!* *coff*).
Date: Fri May 2 11:18:04 2008
Sender: Jeff Luddingsmash
Red, I agree with you on your comments regarding China. That being said, I
think our governments are part of the problem because they want access to the 1
billion plus people in the China market.
Just about every country is guilty. And nobody really does much about it
because they're afraid of being cut off. (May I also add that it's a complete
joke that they were given the Olympics).
The problem isn't free trade. It's governments unwillingness to piss China off
because they are afraid they'll lose access to one of the largest markets in
the world.
Date: Fri May 2 17:44:13 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
Jeff, if you look at the stock market, you understand very quickly why the
government is afraid to piss off China.
If it doesn't have connection to China or something China wants or consumes,
it's not going up. Domestic retail, bleh. Old-school tech, bleh. Oil, gas,
mining, ag, basic materials, and Chinese companies. With very few exceptions
(Google, Apple, MasterCard), that's what's been moving over the past year or
so. Cut American companies off China and either they'll get killed or they'll
make themselves no longer American companies.
Date: Fri May 2 18:04:47 2008
Sender: Jeff Luddingsmash
Hey I agree with you Henry. 1 billion people is a huge market. Nobody wants to
get cut out of that. You can hardly blame countries for bending over for China.
But going back to my original point. Free trade is not the problem. In fact,
increase tariffs on Chinese goods will likely only result in Chinese tariffs
going up on American goods.
Date: Fri May 2 18:10:55 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
No disagreement.
I'm just saying that if not for China's consumption, the U.S. economy and
millions of shareholders (over half the country owns stock, highest rate in
history) would be completely sunk.
On the other hand, people might not be starving due to high food prices.
Date: Fri May 2 19:29:28 2008
Sender: Jeff Luddingsmash
So we agree that no matter what the US does, China is still stickin it to our
friend Red. ;)
Date: Fri May 2 20:33:25 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
Pretty much. When you have a billion people, something like 15% of the world's
population, you're never wrong, especially when those people are becoming
increasingly consumptive (if that's a word). India is similar, though not as
insistent on the rapidity of their development.
It's my opinion that aside from the period the Chinese spent closing themselves
off to the world, for most of the history of civilization, China has been the
preeminent power. They were the first to farm, the inventors of gunpowder, the
first to utilize horses for transport and military uses (well, the Mongols
were, and Kublai Khan was as much Chinese as he was Mongolian), and the first
trade route from Europe to Asia led to China. China was actually the first
major civilization to explore the seas on a wide scale but decided to
discontinue their explorations at one point and eventually became the
discovered rather than the discoverers. IMO this was a very key difference in
the transfer of power and wealth from Asia to Europe. Europe discovered sources
of wealth, power and opulence that enhanced itself, whereas Asia didn't. The
other difference IMO was in the leveraging of religion to increase wealth and
influence, also related to the exploration angle.
So, to me, what's happening now is simply the process of the world returning to
the track it was on before the Chinese closed themselves up and limited their
own development. Eventually it will be China, as well as Vietnam, South Korea
(really more developed than China now, just on a smaller scale), and Indonesia.
Date: Sat May 3 06:28:59 2008
Sender: Red Burley
Im not against trade with China, if they would agree to play on an even field.
Right now, the US trade policy amounts to "thank you sir, may I have another".
What I think is absurd, though, is we have free trade with a country which is a
true threat to our national security . . . and yet we treat tiny, hapless Cuba
like a leper colony.
Date: Sat May 3 07:24:57 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
Here's the key things.
What can we do to make China do what we want, besides blow them up? And if the
liberals get in, they'll slash the military, and so we'd be even more powerless
to change their behavior.
The real fact of the matter is the U.S. just doesn't matter that much anymore
in the global economy. We're still big, but we're not more important than
Europe or China or India or the Middle East. Brazil is moving up on that group
fast and may become more important than all but the US and Europe soon.
Date: Sun May 4 11:07:04 2008
Sender: Jeff Luddingsmash
Speaking of Brazil... I juts got back from a business trip in Brazil. I have to
say, it's a hole. It's economy as a whole might be growing, but so are the
shanty towns. The difference between rich and poor is staggering. Plus it's so
dangerous, you can't even walk the streets after dark. And polluted.
Women are stunning but I would never want to live there.
Date: Sun May 4 12:34:36 2008
Sender: Kyle Mayhugh
The sooner America accepts that its global economic hegemony is near and
realize this is not the worst thing that could happen, the better.
Would it be nice if it could continue? Sure. Is it worth all the stupid things
we might do to try to keep the status? Nope.
Date: Sun May 4 12:37:46 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
"U.S. just doesn't matter that much anymore in the global economy"
The US is still the #1 consumer on oil by about 3x anyone else- and the #2
consumer on just about everything else (wheat,steel etc)
So to say the US doesn't matter is quite a bit off base.
Date: Sun May 4 12:57:39 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
Jeff, I can only guess at what you say, but it must be better than it used to
be because Brazil is booming. But of course it is still way behind the US,
Caribbean and Europe in terms of per capita wealth.
AJ, what I mean is American retail and manufacturing is mediocre to be kind,
our banking and currency systems are trash, and our consumption is flat and
even slightly decreasing in oil demand.
But yet, economies in places like India, China, Korea, Singapore, Indonesia,
Brazil, Chile seem largely unaffected by this. What America does isn't driving
the global economy anymore.
Date: Sun May 4 13:50:18 2008
Sender: Jeff Luddingsmash
Henry, you are correct in that Brazil is booming. However, a very small group
of people reap the benefit of this growth.
During my 2 1/2 week trip I visited 4 major cities. I discovered:
-A hotel in Rio that costs almost $1000 per night. A few blocks away there is a
Shanty town where most people earn about $1 per day.
-There are well over 1 million people living in Shanty towns in Rio.
-Every upper class home (and most middle) have electric fences and a guard.
-You have to show your passport to get into an office building. They also
photograph you before you enter.
-You can't walk the streets at night or you'll get mugged.
-In Sao Paulo they don't stop at lights at night.
-Shanty towns are war zones. Police don't go anywhere near them.
Not trying to disprove your points. Just trying to illustrate what life is like
in Brazil. Other than the amazingly hot women, it's a hole.
Date: Sun May 4 14:16:01 2008
Sender: Kyle Mayhugh
"Other than the amazingly hot women, it's a hole."
Sounds like a good tradeoff to me.
As The Onion put it: "Brazil: Humanity at its ugliest, people at their most
beautiful."
Date: Sun May 4 14:23:34 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
Interesting.
I know you're not trying to disagree. I appreciate the info. It seems that even
though Brazil is becoming much more prosperous, it still has a long way to go,
which is good for me since I'm looking at investment opportunities there.
Date: Sun May 4 15:33:13 2008
Sender: Bill Edwards
Jeff, I know where you are coming from. Several years a go I was engaged to a
gal from Brazil. Her family was filthy rich. She was from Bel Horantes (sp)
Date: Sun May 4 15:38:08 2008
Sender: Brian Dust
Belle Whorantes?
Date: Sun May 4 16:05:10 2008
Sender: Brian Dust
Henry - what investments are you considering?
Date: Sun May 4 19:11:22 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
I assume Bill refers to Belo Horizonte.
Brian, right now, nothing too exciting...same stuff that's done well lately.
There's a Brazilian ETF that is like 50% vested in Petrobras and Companhia Vale
do Rio Doce (Vale), two companies that have done very well for several years,
well enough to make me wish I had been in them then! But they're still
reasonably priced related to forward earnings IMO.
But I'm intrigued by the potential of Brazil. I don't know of another country
with the combination of being able to feed itself and export, power itself and
export oil and/or ethanol, low population density (plenty of room to grow) and
a government that fully supports capitalism.
China's already importing just about everything despite very good domestic
resource bases because it needs so much (providing opportunities for other
companies in other countries, including Vale, the Saskatchewan potash miners
and the bulk shipping industry), India never wasn't exporting to support its
own development and is one of the most densely populated non-island countries
in the world, and Russia can feed and power itself and has a low population
density, but their government's support of capitalist endeavors is highly
questionable. Some might also ponder if eventually pollution will curtail China
and India's pace of development.
That's not to say China and India aren't still good plays. They are
(especially, as mentioned, IMO playing on companies that are supplying what
China and India demand).
If any of your world travelers have any other emerging markets ideas I'd love
to hear them.
Date: Sun May 4 21:17:29 2008
Sender: Jeff Luddingsmash
Kyle, the onion was dead right. LOL!
Bill, I was in Belo for a few days on my trip. It was one of my favorite
cities. The people seemed more friendly.
Henry, one thing that also caught my attention in Brazil was the very high
price on foreign goods, and not just luxury goods either. It made me wonder
what their tariff rates are like.
As for investment opportunities in emerging markets, one booming area is
Sakhalin (Russia). My wife grew up there... big oil area. Anyhow, the real
estate market has like doubled in the past couple years.
Date: Mon May 5 04:09:45 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
Not sure about that Jeff. I'd like to hear/know more about the high prices for
goods in Brazil. What kind of goods did you notice being expensive?
On Sakhalin, Royal Dutch Shell was basically uninvited from further
participation in the project there and pressured to sell to Gazprom with the
Russian government accusing them of environmental violations. They sign an
agreement with Gazprom and voila! The environmental problems have been solved,
says Putin. It seems Putin and the Russians are attempting to nationalize their
oil and gas production. They're also bullying Europe with regard to their gas
pipeline through the Ukraine, with UKR in turn trying to play hardball with
RUS. Complicated mess I'm not sure I want any part of over there right now.
Date: Mon May 5 05:02:33 2008
Sender: Jeff Luddingsmash
High prices of goods in Brazil.... just about anything that wasn't from BRazil.
For example, mustard. Brazilian gross brand was about $3. Foreign brands were
about $10.
In a nutshell, I noticed that all the foreign brands were like double the price
of Brazilian brands. They were expensive by North American standards.
Date: Mon May 5 05:50:46 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
Will have to look into it.
Not sure it's necessarily a deterrent to investing in Brazilian companies, but
still worth knowing about. Thanks.
Dolphin Simulation Games is not responsible for the content of posts.
Please report any offensive messages to help@dolphinsim.com.
