BK> the big arguement here is that govt should be run like a
BK> business. So, business men take over the govt and think only
BK> about how they can profit in the short run.

 We went through that "business" ploy a few elections back. It's what
an incumebnt government *has* to say... we are really good at running
the economy and these other guys couldn't run a Mom and Pop store.

 I have to admit that I am impressed by your Republican Party. I
never would have thought that anyone could turn a war hero into a
liability! This shows true genius... and a total lack of decency or
honour but hey, that's politics.

BK> but Clinton also signed NAFTA, which contradicts that whole
BK> principle. And NAFTA has, so far, proven to be a disaster for
BK> both the US and Mexico.

 And we've just signed a FTA with the US. Aaargh!

 I understand why Clinton thought NAFTA it was a good idea. He was
worried about the EU and China forming blocs of their own, and assumed
NAFTA was the answer. The problem with foreign companies setting up to
use cheap labour offshore is that the factory is cheap and the plant
is designed to fly in and out in a Boeing. It doesn't help the cheap
country long-term, and it murders the local employementy market.

 If you need the perfect way to build a poor country up, look at
Singapore, or even Hong Kong.

BK> Don't give Clinton too much credit. Even he bought into the
BK> business line too much.

 Of course he did... but which World leader doesn't, nowadays? In
Singapore, btw, Lee Kuan Yew was 100% business, but at the same time
he was a patriot whose main concern was his people. It really comes
down to the leader's vision. Weak men get pushed but those around them
and tend to take the easy path,even when it goes against what they
truly believe. Clinton was flawed, obviously, but compared to this
latest dill you have running the show, he was the two Roosevelts in
one!

Regards,
Bob
        

--- BQWK Alpha 0.5