Free trade, and how it is understood by Anglo-Saxons

[Dinner]

OK, Spiffor. In your opinion why does the French economy continually perform under perform then if it isn't the high expenses and over regulation? Why was it that in the 1970's the UK had a very similiar socialist inspired model for their economy and also was an economic under performer but after the economic liberalizations of Thatcher their economy (surprise, surprise) suddenly got dramatically better?

[Fake Boris]

Didn't they trade economic stagnation for gentrification and a housing bubble?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Oerdin
OK, Spiffor. In your opinion why does the French economy continually perform under perform then if it isn't the high expenses and over regulation? Why was it that in the 1970's the UK had a very similiar socialist inspired model for their economy and also was an economic under performer but after the economic liberalizations of Thatcher their economy (surprise, surprise) suddenly got dramatically better?

Oil crisis + North Sea oil

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Solomwi

As one of your preferred Anglo-Saxons, I'd agree, but add that where we do so, we do so to our own detriment. I'd love to see an American administration take Milton Friedman's advice and unilaterally eliminate the current barriers to free trade, inviting (but not coercing) other countries to do the same. I don't see it happening anytime soon, and probably not in my lifetime. There's too much political hay to be made in protectionism and ***-for-tat sniping for that.

When I read J.E.Stiglitz, I think that there is room for hope.

[Solomwi]

Maybe, but hope for what, exactly, remains the question.

[Drake Tungsten]

The French Drake is silly.

I prefer to think of myself as whimsical.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I prefer to see it as following the guidance of the greatest general and leader since Alexander the Great rather than the received wisdom of provincial fools in powdered wigs who care more about hunting foxes than protecting the rights of the "common man".

Alexander the Great was a Megalomaniac Despot more along the lines of Hitler than an enlightened fellow.

[Drake Tungsten]

Alexander was pretty enlightened compared to his peers. Same goes for Napoleon. Hitler, OTOH...

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Alexander was pretty enlightened compared to his peers. Same goes for Napoleon. Hitler, OTOH...

Enlightened compared Epaminondas and the other Boeotieons who rescued people from slavery/Helotage whereever they went? Pfff.


He and his family were a bunch of megalomaniac *******s who moved in, and the only change of the status quo was that the peasants had to serve/venerate him instead of whoever it was he just removed.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I'm not clear on one point: why aren't Europeans allowed to own more the 25% of an American airline in the first place? That's silly...

National Security Reasons, I suspect. This way the American government can call up the airlines as a strategic lift reserve in the event it goes really-balls up.

[Kuciwalker]

They could do that anyway.

[Lonestar]

the point is, they don't ant a foreign country or organization have a significant influence on a national security asset, ya dig?

[Drake Tungsten]

Enlightened compared Epaminondas and the other Boeotieons who rescued people from slavery/Helotage whereever they went?

They weren't Alexander's peers. Darius and other leaders of foreign states were...

[Solomwi]

If things got that balls-up, I'd imagine the foreign country/organization would lose said influence pretty damn quickly. In the meantime, they'd have run it to benefit themselves, which should leave it in no worse shape than had it been in American hands, ceteris paribus.

Given that taking over a single airline in order to cripple it and deprive our government of that potential resource in the unlikely event we'd need to call on it seems an awfully inefficient way to go about hurting the U.S., I don't see where the harm of foreign ownership lies on the national security front.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I'm not clear on one point: why aren't Europeans allowed to own more the 25% of an American airline in the first place? That's silly...

I'm going to take a wild stab at it and guess that the original justification had to do with national security or strategic interests of some sort.

Oops. Didn't see Lonestar's response.