<html>
<body>
Ted et al<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Mr. Holmquist's comments I do
not think were meant to be a literal precise academic quantitative
analysis. With a phrase like "every nook and cranny from
Moscow Mountain to Paradise Ridge and beyond..." the reader should
be able to understand this is hyperbole to make a point, and is not meant
literally. </blockquote><br>
<b>I would hope you are right. Nevertheless, my statements stand
and do defuse the "unfettered growth argument".<br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Also, the Chinese Communist
Party is a small group of people in China who rule that country with
methods that violate human rights. When you write "I do not
accept the notion that it is appropriate for a small group of people to
impose or define the standards of living or quality of life for me or
anyone else." and then continue with gushing optimism about the
wonderful developments capitalism is bringing China, without mention of
China's human rights violations, the denial of free speech and political
organizing, the kangaroo courts imposing the death penalty, the gulags
holding dissidents in horrible conditions, the repression of religious
freedom, and the ethical implications of US corporations conforming to or
assisting in these human rights violations, I wonder how consistently you
are applying your ideology, your set of ethical rules, given the apparent
internal contradictions. </blockquote><br>
<b>A clever approach for your argument, but I stand by my statement
. I did write that "I do not accept the notion that it is
appropriate for a small group of people to impose or define the standards
of living or quality of life for me or anyone else." Perhaps
it was not obvious, but I do prefer to confront China (and if fact
transform China) and its oppressive policies using the positive
persuasion of free market and free enterprise economics. The only
other options would seem to be a "cold war" approach or a
"hot war" approach. It would surprise me to learn that
you would prefer either of the latter two options. Again, my
experience over the past decade or so of working with numerous Chinese
students (most of whom return to their homeland) is that there is
mounting pressure on the Chinese to be involved in global trade - and the
US trained Chinese will be formidable competitors. They will learn,
probably much quicker than we did during our industrial revolution, that
how you treat people will define how well you can compete in the world
marketplace. The contemporary history of the global economy is
quite clear - US corporations have paved the way. Firms like
WM!<br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I won't labor the ethical
problems with Wal-Mart's overseas operations, given that they have
already been presented on Vision2020, but consider a different view of
the "progress" US Internet related corporations are making in
helping China to "democratize" on the Internet An
argument can be made that US corporations are assisting in keeping China
a dictatorship, that in fact the labor pool that US corporations exploit
in China is being kept under control (think what might happen to this
stable compliant labor pool if a democratic freedom movement swept over
China?) with censorship and propaganda that in effect renders US
corporations in compliance with Chinese totalitarian tactics. Even
pro-business US politicians think these corporations need regulating
regarding the ethical violations they are committing in China: <br>
</blockquote><br>
<b>Well, if you can define a better strategy for tempering the conflict
between totalitatian/communist regimes and free <br>
enterprise/consumer driven democracies than engaging their economy with
ours please speak up - let us all hear about <br>
it. Oh, please be sure to acknowledge that China is now Idaho's number 1
export trading partner. Should we stop selling our products to
them? Should we stop buying their products.?<br><br>
<br><br>
</b></body>
</html>