Isolationism

[longtooth]

But we did once have a national identity, or at least a commonality that held us together.

Now, not so much.

Perhaps there was none better than our post WWII persona.

The victors.

Our 'winning' that conflict allowed us to write history for a period of time.

Began to unravel during the 'Nam-era.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

I think I might settle for merely having a national identity - we currently don't as far as I can see.

Please don't take this the wrong way. But how can you expect America to have a national identity when we are taught from a young age that we are supposed to be all inclusive of other cultures and other ideas?

Sure it sounds grand in thought, and there are some excellent practical applications of it as well... after all American's technology has tended to be blends of other technology but with our distinct taste on it. But it seriously erodes peoples national identity... It's like that funky lookin VW that someone posted in the other thread, sure your all together, but WTF are you?

Edited March 2, 2009 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[longtooth]

Please don't take this the wrong way. But how can you expect America to have a national identity when we are taught from a young age that we are supposed to be all inclusive of other cultures and other ideas?

Sure it sounds grand in thought, and there are some practical applications of it as well. But it seriously erodes peoples national identity... It's like that funky lookin VW that someone posted in the other thread, sure your all together, but WTF are you?

Contrasted with the island nation of Japan perhaps?

Little chance of mistaking their homogeneous nature.

In addition, both China and Japan, to name two, are ancient societies with long memories and an impeccable adherence to the concept of honor.

Our tenth grade students can't even spell "honor". (exaggerating of course)

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

So Camino, i take it you are on a fact finding mission to try and put together a plausible case for isolationism without the traditional implications of protectionism and overly strong nationalism? Not a bad topic to endeavor on, I've spent some time trying to think of a similar scenario myself in the past.

Edited March 2, 2009 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[balthazar]

>>"The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans, or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality than with the other citizens of the American Republic.

The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country."<< --- Theodore Rosevelt, New York City, October 1915

>>"I believe in nationalism as the absolute prerequisite to internationalism. I believe in patriotism as the absolute prerequisite to the larger Americanism. I believe in Americanism because unless our people are good Americans first, America can accomplish little or nothing worth accomplishing for the good of the world as a whole."<< --- TR

In my personal opinion, tho I am not a student of the intricacies of the term or the practice, it is liberalism that has played a tremendous role in allowing 'hyphenated Americanism' to undermine the fabric that used to bind this country together. Sure- there are numerous other factors and contributors, but -again; IMPO- liberalism has consistantly pushed Americans to look abroad, to chastize & blame ourselves for who we are, to continually atone for who we are, to work toward the towering blame we've accumulated at nearly every turn at the undeniable cost of that 'American fabric'.

-- -- -- -- --

One more ~

>>"If an American is to amount to anything he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride in his own work, instead of sitting idle to envy the luck of others. He must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can, and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs."<< --- Theodore Rosevelt, January 1897

Upon reading this, can anyone NOT be driven to consider the current direction of politics governing this nation ??

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Very nicely stated Balthazar!

I've found that if you mutter any semblance of that idea in public, you will be labeled a racist or intolerant... another product of modern American liberalism... i doubt classical liberalism has a problem with it though, any hardcore libertarians around here wanna chip in?

Teddy is a bit of an oddball, i don't agree with some of the things he did (*ahem* income taxes), but he does have some great sayings and ideas if you feel like sifting through them.

Edited March 2, 2009 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[regfootball]

I'm seeing this idea as a counterpoint to blind globalism based on a least-common-denominator averaging of all things social and financial.

Independence is key.

A vibrant, imaginative, and inventive culture need not pander to this overbearing tyranny of multitudes.

how do you pull this off when most of who was just elected and holds highest office is in face a product of least common denominator and blind group think?

[regfootball]

>>"The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans, or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality than with the other citizens of the American Republic.

The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country."<< --- Theodore Rosevelt, New York City, October 1915

>>"I believe in nationalism as the absolute prerequisite to internationalism. I believe in patriotism as the absolute prerequisite to the larger Americanism. I believe in Americanism because unless our people are good Americans first, America can accomplish little or nothing worth accomplishing for the good of the world as a whole."<< --- TR

In my personal opinion, tho I am not a student of the intricacies of the term or the practice, it is liberalism that has played a tremendous role in allowing 'hyphenated Americanism' to undermine the fabric that used to bind this country together. Sure- there are numerous other factors and contributors, but -again; IMPO- liberalism has consistantly pushed Americans to look abroad, to chastize & blame ourselves for who we are, to continually atone for who we are, to work toward the towering blame we've accumulated at nearly every turn at the undeniable cost of that 'American fabric'.

-- -- -- -- --

One more ~

>>"If an American is to amount to anything he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride in his own work, instead of sitting idle to envy the luck of others. He must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can, and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs."<< --- Theodore Rosevelt, January 1897

Upon reading this, can anyone NOT be driven to consider the current direction of politics governing this nation ??

what do you expect with most of the teachers teaching our kids being lefties? start em young.....and then it gets worse at university level.

you won't ever see any nationalist movement any time soon, because the educators in general in this country push left. why do you think so many rights send their kids to private school? even if they can barely afford it?

all this said, the world is too interconnected now, we cant be overly isolated. its like having a crack house on your street, no matter how nice the rest of your neighbors are you have to pay attention to what is going on at the crack house because if you don't it will come back to harm you in some way.

[balthazar]

>>"what do you expect with most of the teachers teaching our kids being lefties? start em young.....and then it gets worse at university level. you won't ever see any nationalist movement any time soon, because the educators in general in this country push left. why do you think so many rights send their kids to private school? even if they can barely afford it?"<<

Oh; what I expect is what's happening, and exactly for the reasons you list.

Doesn't make it right or for the better.

>>"...the world is too interconnected now, we cant be overly isolated."<<

Maybe not, be we can be more isolated than we are now, which is not at all.

Besides, the quotes I posted don't point to isolationism, they point to nationalism. However, it may very well take some degree of isolationism to return to a degree of nationalism.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Besides, the quotes I posted don't point to isolationism, they point to nationalism. However, it may very well take some degree of isolationism to return to a degree of nationalism.

I like to think of it the opposite way. We should maintain free trade and the Global economy and the benefits it brings, but to create nationalism gives people additional drive to be able to produce goods within the United States because of the pride they take in making things in the US while using technology and other methods gained from seeing how other countries produce to be able to compete even on pricing.

Where there is a will, there is a way.

[regfootball]

i see few examples of a younger set that cares about the health of the country, instead of themselves, guitar hero, cell phones, and all of that.

Edited March 2, 2009 by regfootball

[balthazar]

But without nationalism first, how are people going to develop pride in producing in the U.S. ?? That pride will overcome some of the 'disadvantages' associated with things such as 'higher prices for U.S.-made goods", but it needs to be motivated first somehow.

Tech & other methods of production are readily available for observation/emulation without most of the so-called "free trade" we current endure.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

But without nationalism first, how are people going to develop pride in producing in the U.S. ?? That pride will overcome some of the 'disadvantages' associated with things such as 'higher prices for U.S.-made goods", but it needs to be motivated first somehow.

Tech & other methods of production are readily available for observation/emulation without most of the so-called "free trade" we current endure.

perhaps, but at the cost of reduced efficiency overall.

US products that can exceed in quality and compete in price should be the clear winners in our economy, they must be brutally efficient to be able to compete with foreigners but also receive a "bonus" for being homegrown. There is a lot of pride in accomplishing that task, a task that people should take to heart as the fruits of their own labor and ingenuity.

Protectionism as law is never the answer, however a more subtle protection through culture is definitely a viable alternative.

[loki]

Protectionism as law is never the answer, however a more subtle protection through culture is definitely a viable alternative.

so true. good ideas and good products come from good competition... laws that limit competition degrade the quality of those goods. this could also go for wages.

the Intellectual Property laws need to be revised too, i think, i think many others think that too.

[Oracle of Delphi]

My advice, buy the cave house ...

[Camino LS6]

So Camino, i take it you are on a fact finding mission to try and put together a plausible case for isolationism without the traditional implications of protectionism and overly strong nationalism? Not a bad topic to endeavor on, I've spent some time trying to think of a similar scenario myself in the past.

That about sums it up.

Once an idea gains enough momentum in my mind I have no choice but to explore it.

[Camino LS6]

I like to think of it the opposite way. We should maintain free trade and the Global economy and the benefits it brings, but to create nationalism gives people additional drive to be able to produce goods within the United States because of the pride they take in making things in the US while using technology and other methods gained from seeing how other countries produce to be able to compete even on pricing.

Where there is a will, there is a way.

Many great ideas, comments and quotes since I last looked in on this thread.

I have to believe that something along these lines is all but required as soon as the Obama era comes to its end.

I'm looking ahead.

[pow]

To me, the prospect of isolation, of turning inward, scares me. It puts into mind Cuba, North Korea, to a lesser extent, Russia; the ratcheting protectionism and extreme nationalism during the Great Depression that lead up to World War II - and to this teenager, the United States has always stood for the opposite of that - deeply international, highly inclusive, and free; a global superpower open to investment, where the brightest minds and ideas come together.

Excessive isolationism closes off a nation from other ideas, creating an intellectual and social abyss. It fosters extremism and scapegoating, reinforcing fear and paranoia. Yes, some elements of international competition seem a bit daunting, but without it, I would imagine an isolated nation too boring and homogeneous to succeed, and my quality of life would turn for the worse.

I do agree the U.S. is no longer in a position to meddle with other countries' affairs - we no longer have the money, resources, energy, or standing needed to police the world. We have our own issues to deal with at home. Other nations have grown, and while the U.S. obviously remains a populous and important country, our sphere of influence will inevitably diminish.

But retreating to complete economic nationalism would be a disaster, IMO. Unemployment would shoot up, economic development would halt, and the world will become a far more hostile, war-prone place.

I don't believe the globalization model has failed - but rather government leaders have failed at being responsive to their constituents' concerns about globalization. The benefits of trade and free markets need to be distributed to more of the population, not just the elite. A stronger social safety net - one that includes education and retraining - would protect laid-off workers, without starving the economy of future opportunities.

Europe and Japan have long subsidized inefficient producers, at great loss to social welfare. With our more populist president, the United States is likely heading down the same path (to a much lesser extent), yet I think it's an inevitable and needed balance. I think of my impressions of Italy - not much economic growth, little incentive for mobility, a bit of restlessness, but a traditional way of life is maintained - with nice food, lots of small businesses and farms, a good standard of living, so long as you're an Italian national. It's a slightly depressing yet romantic view, as we hand the torch to the next superpower of the 21st century, content with our own past successes.

[Camino LS6]

To me, the prospect of isolation, of turning inward, scares me. It puts into mind Cuba, North Korea, to a lesser extent, Russia; the ratcheting protectionism and extreme nationalism during the Great Depression that lead up to World War II - and to this teenager, the United States has always stood for the opposite of that - deeply international, highly inclusive, and free; a global superpower open to investment, where the brightest minds and ideas come together.

Excessive isolationism closes off a nation from other ideas, creating an intellectual and social abyss. It fosters extremism and scapegoating, reinforcing fear and paranoia. Yes, some elements of international competition seem a bit daunting, but without it, I would imagine an isolated nation too boring and homogeneous to succeed, and my quality of life would turn for the worse.

I do agree the U.S. is no longer in a position to meddle with other countries' affairs - we no longer have the money, resources, energy, or standing needed to police the world. We have our own issues to deal with at home. Other nations have grown, and while the U.S. obviously remains a populous and important country, our sphere of influence will inevitably diminish.

But retreating to complete economic nationalism would be a disaster, IMO. Unemployment would shoot up, economic development would halt, and the world will become a far more hostile, war-prone place.

I don't believe the globalization model has failed - but rather government leaders have failed at being responsive to their constituents' concerns about globalization. The benefits of trade and free markets need to be distributed to more of the population, not just the elite. A stronger social safety net - one that includes education and retraining - would protect laid-off workers, without starving the economy of future opportunities.

Europe and Japan have long subsidized inefficient producers, at great loss to social welfare. With our more populist president, the United States is likely heading down the same path (to a much lesser extent), yet I think it's an inevitable and needed balance. I think of my impressions of Italy - not much economic growth, little incentive for mobility, a bit of restlessness, but a traditional way of life is maintained - with nice food, lots of small businesses and farms, a good standard of living, so long as you're an Italian national. It's a slightly depressing yet romantic view, as we hand the torch to the next superpower of the 21st century, content with our own past successes.

Quite simply, no.

That's not good enough.

No surrender mentality allowed. :AH-HA_wink:

[CSpec]

To me, the prospect of isolation, of turning inward, scares me. It puts into mind Cuba, North Korea, to a lesser extent, Russia; the ratcheting protectionism and extreme nationalism during the Great Depression that lead up to World War II - and to this teenager, the United States has always stood for the opposite of that - deeply international, highly inclusive, and free; a global superpower open to investment, where the brightest minds and ideas come together.

Excessive isolationism closes off a nation from other ideas, creating an intellectual and social abyss. It fosters extremism and scapegoating, reinforcing fear and paranoia. Yes, some elements of international competition seem a bit daunting, but without it, I would imagine an isolated nation too boring and homogeneous to succeed, and my quality of life would turn for the worse.

I do agree the U.S. is no longer in a position to meddle with other countries' affairs - we no longer have the money, resources, energy, or standing needed to police the world. We have our own issues to deal with at home. Other nations have grown, and while the U.S. obviously remains a populous and important country, our sphere of influence will inevitably diminish.

But retreating to complete economic nationalism would be a disaster, IMO. Unemployment would shoot up, economic development would halt, and the world will become a far more hostile, war-prone place.

I don't believe the globalization model has failed - but rather government leaders have failed at being responsive to their constituents' concerns about globalization. The benefits of trade and free markets need to be distributed to more of the population, not just the elite. A stronger social safety net - one that includes education and retraining - would protect laid-off workers, without starving the economy of future opportunities.

Europe and Japan have long subsidized inefficient producers, at great loss to social welfare. With our more populist president, the United States is likely heading down the same path (to a much lesser extent), yet I think it's an inevitable and needed balance. I think of my impressions of Italy - not much economic growth, little incentive for mobility, a bit of restlessness, but a traditional way of life is maintained - with nice food, lots of small businesses and farms, a good standard of living, so long as you're an Italian national. It's a slightly depressing yet romantic view, as we hand the torch to the next superpower of the 21st century, content with our own past successes.

This is a very good post. Economic protectionism is suicidal for prosperity, or at least any economic growth. We don't want to seal ourselves in a time capsule. I spent the last semester in France, and economic growth has been stagnant for years and years, with huge government handouts and high taxes and very little new investment or innovation. America is the most innovative and prosperous country on earth because of our willingness to take risks and our long-term economic outlook. But there are some things that are better done at home than abroad, such as spending hundreds of billions of American dollars to build up Iraq while letting New Orleans rot after Katrina.

[Camino LS6]

Whoa!

Put the brakes on guys.

This is not about protectionism. In fact, it isn't about isolationism in the traditional sense.

Read some of the earlier pages if you missed them.

[regfootball]

a nice hefty tax on shipping might stall the desire to produce EVERYTHING in China.

at SOME point its gotta become cost prohibitive to ship &#036;h&#33; from halfway around the globe to here and still be affordable. that's the tipping point we need to reach.

funny, but lots of greenies also support free trade. odd, considering all the energy wasted to ship &#036;h&#33; half way around the world.

even our retailers are becoming foreign based (Ikea). our car companies, retailers, beer companies. Don't worry, it won't become a worry for the social ass elite until we start seeing all our banking and insurance and medical go overseas. I am sure some bastard is trying to figure out how to get rich off doing that some time soon.

[Camino LS6]

I'd like to do more with this tonight, but I'm stupid - tired after plowing.

It will have to wait.

[balthazar]

Back at being a blade jockey? Plenty of time there to muse over the world's itches.

Just about 8 hours behind the wheel for me last night / this morning.

-- -- -- -- --

It's easy to run to an extreme on the matter (>>"...retreating to complete economic nationalism..."<<), but there are a thousand degrees of 'in-between' before we went that far. Japan is far more isolated economically & culturally than the U.S., yet even they are not 'completely isolated'. No one is advocating a worse-case scenario.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

To all the recent posts.

WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING PROTECTIONISM.

In fact most of the posts seem to be classical liberalist or an older strain of conservatism.

[CaddyXLR-V]

America is the most innovative and prosperous country on earth because of our willingness to take risks and our long-term economic outlook.

There's one of the big problems I see coming. Our government is regulating the ability to take risks out of our economy. Not only that, but our economy is becoming so heavily regulated, that it further increases the cost to do business here, making it even cheaper to do overseas and just ship the end product back here.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

There's one of the big problems I see coming. Our government is regulating the ability to take risks out of our economy. Not only that, but our economy is becoming so heavily regulated, that it further increases the cost to do business here, making it even cheaper to do overseas and just ship the end product back here.

Yep, just look at California for proof of that.

[loki]

To all the recent posts.

WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING PROTECTIONISM.

In fact most of the posts seem to be classical liberalist or an older strain of conservatism.

i seem to hear Taft being brought up as the last of that kind ...that got to the oval office.

maybe isolationism has to much stigma... would insulationism be a better term? lol you know..when it gets cold or the door is open too long, we gotta take action...? lol

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

maybe isolationism has to much stigma... would insulationism be a better term? lol you know..when it gets cold or the door is open too long, we gotta take action...? lol

Actually i think what most of us are proposing amounts to little more than non-interventionalism, with some nationalistic strings.

[loki]

Actually i think what most of us are proposing amounts to little more than non-interventionalism, with some nationalistic strings.

yeah.. i was just making up new words.

[G. David Felt]

Isolism or protectionism is not the answer How every you want to call it or say it is wrong when you think that THE WHOLE IDEA is to promote democracy / capitalism via a free market.

Now there DOES NEED to be some Oversight so that you do not end up with the current financial mess that is causing this current depression due to excessive deregulation and that is the hard part of balancing, but the fact still remains it starts with the leaders of each and every company having faith in their product / service and striving to make it the best in the world with a focuse on LONG TERM Quality and Growth.

The short term instant award that so many people think they should always get has to change. NO ONE is promised to have everything, but we all have the oportunity to earn it all. Some are smart and some just lucky, pure chance that they fall into a setup that makes them rich.

The global economy has changed so much that we cannot go back without turning this country into a 3rd world nation due to how many things are no longer under our control and are produced out of this country.

What we can do is produce high quality products at competitive pricing with features that beat the competition so that people want to buy American, they feel pride that American products are the best in the world and no reason to buy from anyplace else.

Start a campaign of information about Quality USA Built products and you will win the info war as people will think about the info and eventually change. Not everyone, but many will.

Edited March 3, 2009 by dfelt

[CaddyXLR-V]

Isolism or protectionism is not the answer How every you want to call it or say it is wrong when you think that THE WHOLE IDEA is to promote democracy / capitalism via a free market.

Now there DOES NEED to be some Oversight so that you do not end up with the current financial mess that is causing this current depression due to excessive deregulation and that is the hard part of balancing, but the fact still remains it starts with the leaders of each and every company having faith in their product / service and striving to make it the best in the world with a focuse on LONG TERM Quality and Growth.

The short term instant award that so many people think they should always get has to change. NO ONE is promised to have everything, but we all have the oportunity to earn it all. Some are some are smart and some just lucky, pure chance that they fall into a setup that makes them rich.

The global economy has changed so much that we cannot go back without turning this country into a 3rd world nation due to how many things are no longer under our control and are produced out of this country.

What we can do is produce high quality products at competitive pricing with features that beat the competition so that people want to buy American, they feel pride that American products are the best in the world and no reason to buy from anyplace else.

Start a campaign of information about Quality USA Built products and you will win the info war as people will think about the info and eventually change. Not everyone, but many will.

More regulation is definately not the answer

[G. David Felt]

More regulation is definately not the answer

But some is clearly needed as I stated in my post of the financial mess that Shrub and his administration created with the excessive DeRegulation. A balance between the two.

[Camino LS6]

Actually i think what most of us are proposing amounts to little more than non-interventionalism, with some nationalistic strings.

It's all about where the focus is.

Right now (and for the forseeable future) ours needs to be right here.

[G. David Felt]

It's all about where the focus is.

Right now (and for the forseeable future) ours needs to be right here.

The focus that I believe was lost in the Stimulus bill is that we need to invest in this country that causes companies to hire. The bill covered billions to bail out both red and blue states that could not manage their own money and pay for extended unemployment benefits.

If they had taken the 800 billion and spent it on roads, infastructure and building upgrades. This would cause a Huge hiring boom as companies will need people to get this work done. Add on that all employees, both part time and full time must be covered with insurance and you have a win win situation for getting America back to work. Upgraded bridges, roads, electrical, etc. The amount of work that needs to be done cannot be accomplished in 1 or even 2 years so we are looking at long term hiring and growth with a country that ends up having one of the best infastructures in the world.

IMO

[Camino LS6]

The focus that I believe was lost in the Stimulus bill is that we need to invest in this country that causes companies to hire. The bill covered billions to bail out both red and blue states that could not manage their own money and pay for extended unemployment benefits.

If they had taken the 800 billion and spent it on roads, infastructure and building upgrades. This would cause a Huge hiring boom as companies will need people to get this work done. Add on that all employees, both part time and full time must be covered with insurance and you have a win win situation for getting America back to work. Upgraded bridges, roads, electrical, etc. The amount of work that needs to be done cannot be accomplished in 1 or even 2 years so we are looking at long term hiring and growth with a country that ends up having one of the best infastructures in the world.

IMO

On this we agree completely.

[balthazar]

>>"If they had taken the 800 billion and spent it on roads, infastructure and building upgrades."<<

While I'm not against improving infrastructure ... these jobs most frequently mentioned are all in one industry: construction. The white-collar financial world is crumbling into ruins- are data-entry & account managers expected to pour concrete & wire-tie rebar ??

In addition- roads, bridges & building upgrades are temporary jobs, and building upgrades in a time when more & more buildings are going empty sounds hopefully naive.

If there's any chance for this 'spending bill' to actually produce measurable results, if it's truely designed with real efficiently in it, you'd think the same people would be able to articulate specifically how... much, much better than they have to date.

[loki]

But some is clearly needed as I stated in my post of the financial mess that Shrub and his administration created with the excessive DeRegulation. A balance between the two.

if regs don't prevent fraud... they aren't needed. it's not the federal govt's job to give you hints on what to do and what not to do.

if it's not fraud prevention... it has to be state/local regs.

what you put your money in is best determined by you, or a person you trust with that power. other people should not beable to tell you what you can and can't do with your money( personal property)...fed notes aren't excatly personal property.

[CaddyXLR-V]

But some is clearly needed as I stated in my post of the financial mess that Shrub and his administration created with the excessive DeRegulation. A balance between the two.

Here's some information on that:

BB&T CEO's reasons for recession

Also it was under the Clinton administration that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were expanded.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Isolism or protectionism is not the answer How every you want to call it or say it is wrong when you think that THE WHOLE IDEA is to promote democracy / capitalism via a free market.

Is it? Last time i checked America is not a democracy (although it unfortunately seems to be progressing in that direction). Nay, America is a Republic... a system where the Rule of Law rules all of us, not mob rule (at least that used to be the case).

How is it our job to promote ANYTHING in this world? That is what we did following WW2 and that's what you have been indoctrinated in. How is it OUR job to get involved in others affairs?

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

If you had been reading most of our arguments, dfelt, you would see that pretty much none of us are arguing for protectionism.

Oh and i agree with the sentiments that more regulation is not needed. What IS needed is for the government to butt out of the economy and stop tinkering with it. This current fiasco is due in large part to the government making it possible for this to happen... and then when they could see what was happening... not doing anything.

[Camino LS6]

I think I'm going to try to lay out my ideas on this a bit better. I may post this weekend for anyone really interested.

[Camino LS6]

Sorry to all of my fellow thinkers in this thread, I've just been way too tired to properly collect my thoughts on this at the end of each day.

Survival first, philosophy later.