At 07:42 PM 1/6/02 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
>Then I'd be opposed to it. Indeed, from its founding the US invested in
>general infrastructure. Spending money on science and roads would then
>stop. Everything would be privatized...leading to monopolies. You don't
>really think that two streets would go to every house. :-)
Roads are corporate subsidies only by the most ridiculous definition of
corporate subsidy.
I'm talking about things like special treatment under laws, tax breaks,
below-market access to federal resources, etc.
>Well, because it would put our balance of trade even more out of wack. I
>realize that we can afford the present imbalance, but it seems that
>unilarerally dropping trade barriers would invite high trade barriers
>against our goods, because the countries that did this would end up gaining.
Why do countries gain by place barriers to trading with us?
Presumably countries who currently trade with us are not being made worse
off by the experience - if trading was making a country worse off, we would
expect that they would simply stop trading!
Personally, I love it when countries subsidize their own industries to make
them more competitive in international trade. Essentially foreign
taxpayers are paying money to make good cheaper for Americans! Only
humans could argue against taking a deal like that.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Our campaign against international terrorism does not represent some
sort of 'clash of civilizations.' Instead, it is a clash between
civilization and those who would destroy it." -Amb. Richard N. Haass
