Arafat's guerrillas shot 7; world silent.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Oerdin
We certainly screwed the West Germans when we liberated them.

Actually, US companies made a fortune off the artificially fixed 360 to 1 exchange rate imposed on the Japanese for the first two decades after the war, before realizing that the Japanese industrial base had matured enough to be the ones benefitting from access to the US market. From the late 40's to late 60's though, the US had a great ride in Japan and wrt Japanese products here.

[Ned]

Michael the Great, a well reasoned response. I also agree that to the extent US companies engage in bribery on the one hand, and the US government support the corrupt governments receiving the bribes, both the US companies and the US governments are wrong. However, it appears that we have turn our back on our corrupt past. Not only have we past the Corrupt Practices Act, we deliberately pulled the plug on certain dictators who had taken too much bribe money. I am thinking of a certain Marcos from the Pilippines for example.

So, MtG, you are, in the final analyisis, an American patriot!

BTW, what do you make of the not irrational argument that US businessmen must offer bribes because, after all, they are in competition with European, Russian and Japanese businesses?

[Ned]

To keep this off topic off topic discussion even more off topic, Zen, is there anything at all you see wrong with the Mexican government? And if so, how would you fix it?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Hasta la victoria siempre, pinche gringo.

Pinche, eh? So does that mean I get to start cursing in Spanish now without getting banned?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ned


At times, I admit, I don't now the facts involving US involment in Latin America all that well. What suggest is that we discuss them here whenever they come up. I find such threads educational and very enjoyable.

And, I really appreciate your input, Master Zen.

How can we discuss them when you yourself are admitting to trolling? I for one, despite my sometimes very heated arguments, have never said something I don't belive myself, and have never said it just to provoke or delight myself in the responses of others.

If you want to discuss, let's do so, but let's really stick to reasonable debate, not just mindless trolling.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I for one, despite my sometimes very heated arguments, have never said something I don't belive myself, and have never said it just to provoke or delight myself in the responses of others.

Well your no fun, are you?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ned
To keep this off topic off topic discussion even more off topic, Zen, is there anything at all you see wrong with the Mexican government? And if so, how would you fix it?

I can write pages and pages and pages on this. Believe it or not depite my slamming on US foreign policy, I can slam on the Mexican internal one even more.

Rather than answering your question, I'd like to rephrase it (so it'd be easier for me to answer it).

Zen, is the anything at all you see right with the Mexican government?

the answer is hardly.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Well your no fun, are you?

/me ponderes whether to become a mindless troller...


nah... no one would buy it

[MichaeltheGreat]

Give in to the dark side...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Master Zen


I can write pages and pages and pages on this. Believe it or not depite my slamming on US foreign policy, I can slam on the Mexican internal one even more.

Rather than answering your question, I'd like to rephrase it (so it'd be easier for me to answer it).

Zen, is the anything at all you see right with the Mexican government?

the answer is hardly.

Yeah, I laughed at that one too, pipope. About the only thing I see right with it is it's general lack of visibility, although it would be nice if they took their regressive taxes and made them as invisible as useful government services.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Yeah, I laughed at that one too, pipope

How dare you, gabacho!

[MichaeltheGreat]

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Actually, US companies made a fortune off the artificially fixed 360 to 1 exchange rate imposed on the Japanese for the first two decades after the war, before realizing that the Japanese industrial base had matured enough to be the ones benefitting from access to the US market. From the late 40's to late 60's though, the US had a great ride in Japan and wrt Japanese products here.

Those were the days. My father made $200 a month back then. Compared to the locals on Okinawa we were wealthy, with a full time nanny. I bought a friend of mine 8 birthday presents at the toy store for a dollar. Of course compared to Americans we were poor as hell. My dad couldn't afford high priced American stuff, so he was "forced" to buy a Sony reel-to-reel tape player, and a Panasonic 35mm camera.

[Arrian]

For the sake of trying to have an worthwhile discussion, I'd like to revisit the nationalization of foreign assets.

As MtG put it, the nationalization was a response to "having a hand in the cookie jar" - exploitive practices by US corporations in Latin America.

That makes a certain amount of sense to me, and given that I know a little History, it rings some bells with respect to the East India Company.

So here's the thing: provided we agree that nationalizing corporate assets isn't something to go to war over (and I'm sure there are those who disagree), what is the best way to prevent such situations from arising, and what is the best response if/when it does occur in the future? The way I see it, there are four options:

1) Do nothing. Status quo.
2) Slap an embargo on the offending country, hoping to discourage others from going the nationalization route in the future.
3) Don't do business in the 3rd world.
4) Pass legislation that regulates how US corporations act outside the US in an attempt to prevent exploitative practices that might lead to an extreme response down the road.

1 doesn't do much for me, 2 isn't likely to help anyone - even if it might "feel" good, 3 is laughable on its face. That leaves 4. But 4, even if the legislation is really well written ( ), guarantees nothing, and should it be passed into law and then a "nationalization" situation arises, the companies harmed would be at least somewhat justified in demanding US government assistance.... which brings us back to armed response.

Discuss, if you will.

-Arrian

[Spiffor]

You have forgotten #5 :
Congratulate the nationalizing country for having taken back their rights in the face of capitalist pigs