3 ms·
By talking about how the US and Britain had grown rich through trade and 'imperialist' protectionism and mentioning racism, the GP seemed to be implying that th
by rbarooah 15y ago
By talking about how the US and Britain had grown rich through trade and 'imperialist' protectionism and mentioning racism, the GP seemed to be implying that the poverty in China was somehow created by these western countries.
Aren't those modern "buy British" or "buy American" movements voluntary? Might there not be good reasons for supporting those who are economically tied to you by culture and legal jurisdiction?
- mseebach 15y agoThere is no possible way I can read the GP to mean that. He only mentions imperialism and racism after talking about, and with clear reference to, "Buy American". Most of the movements are voluntary for now, but not all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Buy_American_provision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestm... > Might there not be good reasons for supporting those who are economically tied to you by culture and legal jurisdiction? Yes and no. But if the support takes the form of a bail-out, you're just wasting your money while delaying the inevitable and making the eventual crash much more painful. If you instead let industries fizzle out over time, it's much easier for something to appear to take it's place.
- rbarooah 15y agoSo, do you disagree with the point in the original article about the bail-out of the auto industry preventing a much wider loss?
- rbarooah 15y agoGood grief. Downvoted multiple times without explanation? The original top-level article that this thread is about made what seemed to be a reasoned point at the end about the bailout of the auto-industry, and I am simply asking mseebach whether he disagrees with it, since he made reference to bailouts. Why on earth would that get downvoted?