On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:23:47 -0400, NOYB wrote:


Mutually Assured Destruction with economics instead of nukes? Sounds like
we're in the second Cold War already.


LOL Pretty close to it. Although the whole theory of a "Global Market"
is that trading partners would have less antagonisms, not more. Still, it
seems to be working. Who knows what our relations would be like with
China these past thirty years? Since Nixon went to Bejing they have
seemed relatively peaceful.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:23:47 -0400, NOYB wrote:


Mutually Assured Destruction with economics instead of nukes? Sounds
like
we're in the second Cold War already.


LOL Pretty close to it. Although the whole theory of a "Global Market"
is that trading partners would have less antagonisms, not more. Still, it
seems to be working. Who knows what our relations would be like with
China these past thirty years? Since Nixon went to Bejing they have
seemed relatively peaceful.

I see China benefitting from our trade relationship, but I don't see the
U.S. benefitting...particularly in the long run. Sure, in the short term we
have cheap toasters and microwaves available at Wal-Mart...but we've lost
tens of thousand of manufacturing jobs in the process. The advocates of
free trade with China claim that it will open up a huge market (1.6 billion
Chinese) for U.S. products...but does anybody really believe that the
Chinese will completely open their markets to foreign
products...particularly once they start building commercial airplanes, etc.?
I don't.

The Chinese have waged economic warfare on the U.S. for the past decade, and
we haven't even started to fight back.

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 20:09:54 -0400, NOYB wrote:


I see China benefitting from our trade relationship, but I don't see the
U.S. benefitting...particularly in the long run. Sure, in the short term
we have cheap toasters and microwaves available at Wal-Mart...but we've
lost tens of thousand of manufacturing jobs in the process. The advocates
of free trade with China claim that it will open up a huge market (1.6
billion Chinese) for U.S. products...but does anybody really believe that
the Chinese will completely open their markets to foreign
products...particularly once they start building commercial airplanes,
etc.? I don't.

Hey, I didn't say I agreed with the Global Market theories. It seems to
me we are giving it away, but closing the door now is a little late and it
isn't just China. This has been going on for several decades. Look, I'm
an American and I believe in the Red, White and Blue. Multinationals with
free flowing capital only fly the $green$ flag.

The Chinese have waged economic warfare on the U.S. for the past decade,
and we haven't even started to fight back.

Fight back? Hell, we are the reason China is an economic powerhouse.
Before Nixon's visit, China was a Third World country. We opened the
door. We encouraged capital to go to China. Perhaps, we were a little
too successful.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:23:47 -0400, NOYB wrote:


Mutually Assured Destruction with economics instead of nukes? Sounds
like
we're in the second Cold War already.


LOL Pretty close to it. Although the whole theory of a "Global Market"
is that trading partners would have less antagonisms, not more. Still, it
seems to be working. Who knows what our relations would be like with
China these past thirty years? Since Nixon went to Bejing they have
seemed relatively peaceful.

Trading partners? China is trying to take over the world and they have
chosen to do it economically. China's businesses are not independent from
government oversight and control.

We are in a hot economic war with China.

Bert Robbins wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:23:47 -0400, NOYB wrote:



Mutually Assured Destruction with economics instead of nukes? Sounds
like
we're in the second Cold War already.


LOL Pretty close to it. Although the whole theory of a "Global Market"
is that trading partners would have less antagonisms, not more. Still, it
seems to be working. Who knows what our relations would be like with
China these past thirty years? Since Nixon went to Bejing they have
seemed relatively peaceful.


Trading partners? China is trying to take over the world and they have
chosen to do it economically. China's businesses are not independent from
government oversight and control.

We are in a hot economic war with China.


If that's the case, you're getting your ass whupped daily.

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:23:47 -0400, NOYB wrote:



Mutually Assured Destruction with economics instead of nukes? Sounds
like
we're in the second Cold War already.


LOL Pretty close to it. Although the whole theory of a "Global Market"
is that trading partners would have less antagonisms, not more. Still,
it
seems to be working. Who knows what our relations would be like with
China these past thirty years? Since Nixon went to Bejing they have
seemed relatively peaceful.


Trading partners? China is trying to take over the world and they have
chosen to do it economically. China's businesses are not independent from
government oversight and control.

We are in a hot economic war with China.
If that's the case, you're getting your ass whupped daily.

What would you do, Don, get your ass whipped trying or just stand around
with you thumb up your ass.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:23:47 -0400, NOYB wrote:



Mutually Assured Destruction with economics instead of nukes? Sounds
like
we're in the second Cold War already.


LOL Pretty close to it. Although the whole theory of a "Global Market"
is that trading partners would have less antagonisms, not more. Still,
it
seems to be working. Who knows what our relations would be like with
China these past thirty years? Since Nixon went to Bejing they have
seemed relatively peaceful.


Trading partners? China is trying to take over the world and they have
chosen to do it economically. China's businesses are not independent
from government oversight and control.

We are in a hot economic war with China.
If that's the case, you're getting your ass whupped daily.

What would you do, Don, get your ass whipped trying or just stand around
with you thumb up your ass.


Bert, Don has nothing to offer here but to follow Harry and validate
everything he says or to try and defend Canada as he is doing here. I
cannot ever recall him posting on topic about boating. Best to ignore him.

*JimH* wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:23:47 -0400, NOYB wrote:



Mutually Assured Destruction with economics instead of nukes? Sounds
like
we're in the second Cold War already.


LOL Pretty close to it. Although the whole theory of a "Global Market"
is that trading partners would have less antagonisms, not more. Still,
it
seems to be working. Who knows what our relations would be like with
China these past thirty years? Since Nixon went to Bejing they have
seemed relatively peaceful.


Trading partners? China is trying to take over the world and they have
chosen to do it economically. China's businesses are not independent
from government oversight and control.

We are in a hot economic war with China.
If that's the case, you're getting your ass whupped daily.

What would you do, Don, get your ass whipped trying or just stand around
with you thumb up your ass.


Bert, Don has nothing to offer here but to follow Harry and validate
everything he says or to try and defend Canada as he is doing here. I
cannot ever recall him posting on topic about boating. Best to ignore him.

Bert, JimH has nothing to offer here but following JohnH and validate
everything he says or to try and defend Fritz. I cannot recall him
posting on topic about boating. Best to ignore him.

wrote:

Bert, JimH has nothing to offer here but following JohnH and validate
everything he says or to try and defend Fritz. I cannot recall him
posting on topic about boating. Best to ignore him.


Thank you! That was very good, timely advice. We need more of this in
wrecked.boats

*JimH* wrote:
Bert, Don has nothing to offer here but to follow Harry and validate
everything he says or to try and defend Canada as he is doing here. I
cannot ever recall him posting on topic about boating. Best to ignore him.


You mean that Bert never posts about boats? Don certainly does, but you
didn't notice because you don't pay attention.

DSK