Reply With Quote
What's the issue here?
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071127/D8T68TNG1.html
o foreign control of our assets (and yes, I know Chinese financial ins utions already have a pretty nice chunk ac ulated as well).
Does anyone in D.C. have a ing clue?
What's the issue here?
"Wall Street rebounded Tuesday after the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority said it will invest $7.5 billion in Citigroup Inc. (C) - a vote of confidence for the nation's largest bank, which has suffered severe losses amid the ongoing crisis in the mortgage market."
i think thats the issue
And?
People dont like foreign interests controlling american companies. Look at the dubai port fiasco as proof. At least i think thats what this article was posted.
Daimler really had me worried for a time.
Anyways, there's not much there there. But I guess everyone needs a bogeyman.
So now we're fighting them over there so they can buy and own our homes here - check.....
Daimler is a German company. Germans are white Europeans. That's OK. People from Abu Dhabi are brown Muslims who probably all have explosives tied to their belts.
when our dollar falls in value, we get foreign investors. japan did it before, we were told japan was taking over the world, etc.. blah, blah, blah...
And when that happened, UK investors bought up far more than the Japanese did, but again, the British are white and English-speaking to boot.
So does that mean we will have suicide collectors?
I'm not worried about it. The same thing was said when Japan began investing in the US. Now they are one of the larger employers in the Country. And from what I've heard the investment the Abu Dhabi Investment in Citigroup doesn't mean they will control anything.
Globalization cuts both ways. But here's a supreme example, Arabs buying influential %age of a top US bank, exposing the hypocrisy of globalizers' "globalization" smoke-screen of enriching themselves, not matter if everybody else is ed over.
Of course, the Arabs will be able to influence the bank's policies, just like any other significant investor. Did anybody think all the Arab/Persian/VZ power from oil $Bs wasn't going to be used?
Previous drops in $ saw 10s of $Bs of purchases by foreigners of US properties and financial instruments, somehow the US survived and thrived.
Who would complain about the $Bs that are/could flow in to USA as foreigners try to profit from buying up real estate after Greenspan's/housing's burst r/e bubble, compounded by a weak $ ?
Americans love to around in, exploit, occupy other countries, think they have a God-given right to around in other countries, but they don't like America being invaded by foreigners, legal or illegal. "free market" only works in one direction for such Americans.
As always, the American position is "what's good for the foreign goose is bad for the domestic gander".A bunch of jingoistic, chauvinistic, hick primitives.
Last edited by boutons_; 11-29-2007 at 10:49 AM.
How true, how true. Same song different verse. What do
you think people do with dollars, put them under their
bed. They invest them or buy things with them. Both
things are good for our country.
And Dan, if they own the homes, they wont destroy them,
now will they? But they wont own the homes to begin
with.
Some people need to learn a little bit more about basic
economics.
Im going to have to side with ahf on this one
Stunning revelation.
So we basically traded 11% of Citibank for a bunch of oil. You can say that there's nothing wrong with that, but eventually we are going to have to stop trading capital and debt for goods. Either we make a conscious effort to do that, or the dollar will do it for us.
The problem is that we've become so import dependent: from 2001 to today the US dollar index has dropped nearly 40% from 120 to 75. Meanwhile the trade deficit has gone from just over $400 billion to about $750 billion - nearly an 80% increase. How far does the dollar have to drop to make this inevitable correction? That's the trillion dollar question.
People with little understanding of economics standing hand-in-hand on the stupid side of an issue? What a shocker.
Though it's not quite to the extreme you've painted it in.... ^^^^ that right there is more than half of the problem.Globalization cuts both ways. But here's a supreme example, Arabs buying influential %age of a top US bank, exposing the hypocrisy of globalizers "globalization' smoke-screen. Of course, the Arabs will be able to influence the bank's policies, just like any other significant investor.
Previous drops in $ saw 10s of $Bs of purchases by foreigners of US properties and financial instruments, somehow the US survived and thrived.
Who would complain about the $Bs that are/could flow in to USA as foreigners try to profit from housing's burst bubble, compounded by a weak $ ?
Americans love to around in, exploit, occupy other countries, think they have a God-given right to around in other countries, but they don't like America being invaded by foreigners, legal or illegal. "free market" only works in one direction for such Americans.
As always, the American position is "what's good for the foreign goose is bad for the domestic gander".
The U.S. promotes capitalism only when there is a vested interest for itself. If some other country (especially if they are "non-whites" as Extra Stout pointed out) expounds on those capitalistic principles people here get all upset.
They can't have it both ways. But I guess that's the problem - they really don't understand capitalism.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
