From: breinhar@access.digex.com (Robert B. Reinhardt)
Subject: Re: Review and Comments on #United We Stand#
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:48:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.185045.4033@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.013358.8641@access.digex.com>, breinhar@access.digex.com (Robert B. Reinhardt) writes:
>|> ============UNITED WE STAND==========
>|> 
>|> I don't know how many of you read Perot's book,
>|> "UNITED WE STAND," but I thought I would offer
>|> some of my opinion on it.  For 118 pages, I
>|> didn't have too much disagreement with it.
>|> (NOTE: although I did read the book cover-to-
>|> cover, I did not do a point-by-point analysis
>|> of it.)  Here are the few things that I found
>|> a problem with (from some notes I took while
>|> I was reading it):
>|> 
>|> (a) Maintain the emphasis on competitiveness but,
>|> do it without the isolationist policies and that type of
>|> rhetoric that seems to permeate the text.
>|> 
>
>This statement seemes to conflict with (d).  Competitiveness is
>a key factor.  We have been to long competing with ourselves and
>all of a sudden it is not our own companies that have the edge.
>
>
>|> (b) I find his opposition to the Sherman
>|> Anti-trust law to be a bad position to take.
>|> Although, it may seem to benefit big business
>|> in the short run, it will eventually hurt
>|> competitiveness in the long term and hurt the
>|> consumer/citizens/voters.
>|> 
>
>THis is an old and outdated law which was designed to regulate
>big buisness to keep them from becoming monopolies in particular areas.
>It would still be applicable today if our international "friends" would
>do the same.  They don't so why should we unnecesarrily (sp) hamstring 
>our own efforts to become competitive in the global market place.  For
>example, would it really be a bad thing if Ford and GM got together and
>developed an electric vehicle which they could market. It would reduce
>the financial risk that either of them had to take.  The same with
>ceramic engines and other emerging technologies which may seem to much
>of a risk for a single company to exploit.
>
>If it did not work I am sure another anti-trust law could be passed.

>|> (c) Too much emphasis on doubling our standard
>|> of living.  It may be worthwhile to look at
>|> that in retrospect, but I don't think we should
>|> implement policies that encourage Americans
>|> to think they have an inalienable right to live
>|> high and then higher on the "standard of living" scale.
>|> I'm not saying that improvement isn't important.  What
>|> I am saying is that fixing a % increase per decade
>|> (or something) should not be a target of policy.  Just,
>|> increase to whatever the needs are.  Whatever is left
>|> over -- reinvest.  The cycle will take care of itself.
>|> 
>
>I don't think this was the emphasis.  I think this was just an example
>of what the decline of our economy means.  Ok and maybe a little of 
>what a strong economy could mean.

You could be right.  It was just an observation.  I am still
trying to figure out "who" Perot is during all of this.
>
>
>|> (d) He promotes trade isolationism, does not seem to
>|> have a global vision of anything. (A global vision
>|> is something of personal interest to me, and I'm
>|> concerned that he doesn't exhibit any).
>|> 
>
>Again, this refutes what you said in (a).  He does not promote
>isolationism, IMHO, but does say that if other countries are not going
>to open their market places to american goods why should we open
>our market places to theirs.  I believe the pacific rim countries
>are the worst of the lot in this case.  If we let Japan sell VCR's
>here why shouldn't they let us sell VCR's there.

I completely agree with you on this, I was thinking of other
global issues that concern me more, such as world unity and
world peace.  I know that's not part of the platform he's
running on or running against.  But, I would have liked to
see his viewpoints (or at least rhetoric) in this area.
>
>|> (e) Not strong enough in reducing the number of U.S. forces
>|> that we maintain overseas.  We should only leave "token"
>|> forces where there seems to be a need and let other countries
>|> finance their own defense.  Not only can we save money that
>|> we are just wasting right now (and borrowing it in order to
>|> waste it).  For example, partly (if not wholly) what
>|> contributes to the "imbalance" people talke about between
>|> the economic growth of U.S. vs. Japan vs. Germany in the
>|> past ~40 years is obvious.  By treaty and such, those
>|> countries could not even build the armed forces that we
>|> could, and furthermore didn't have to because we guaranteed
>|> their security.  They're not going to pay us back for that,
>|> and they'll be happy to receive the interest on bonds we
>|> had to take out to finance that defense for them.  Today, not
>|> only don't they need to have the cold-war level of forces in
>|> place, but we don't either.
>|> 
>
>At the moment I do not believe that the stability of eastern europe
>really allows us to actually pull many troops out of the area over the 
>next five or so years.  The Soviet Union may have disentigrated but 
>it left such chaos that the situation may even be more dangerous now
>than in the past.  Maybe you got it right that the number of troops
>that WE maintain is too high.  Let the individual countries pay for our
>protection until they can muster their own forces.  Again stability is
>what is needed, both political and social.
>
>|> (f) Also, I get the overall tone of pro-big-business,
>|> anti-consumer-rights from Perot.  I would be interested to
>|> know whether or not he would veto the cable regulation bill,
>|> and family leave (I can't remember if these were mentioned
>|> in his book or not).
>|> 
>
>I don't think Perot is pro-BIG-buisness I think he is just pro-
>buisness.  Remember he started a small buisness competing against the
>biggest of the big.  I don't know if he could be classified as anti-
>consumer-rights,  since his position is to make America the best quality
>producing country in the world.  I personally, IMHO, think that the 
>consumer-rights thing has gotten to far out of hand anyway.
>
>Just my opinion.
>
>Doug

Here again I think you could be right.  This is some more of me
trying to get to know Perot better, without the pleasure of
meeting him and working with him.  The biggest "consumer rights"
peave I have may be a bit more general.  I am concerned about the
way we allow big business, monopolies particulary to manipulate
our lives (such as the latest monopoly entrant -- cable TV).  I,m
not against Cable TV per se, but do have argument with a lot of
how it is operated.

I have been a Perot supporter from day 1 (the original Larry King
show), and never jumped ship.  I'm still here trying to get people
motivated and am very interested in seeing a third party come from
all of this.  I think Perot should spend some of his money to
maintain and support this movement regardless if he "runs" or not
(which he is because he is on all the ballots) and whether or
not he wins.  This is an unprecedented opportunity in America and
we must sieze the moment.

Rob (breinhar@access.digex.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot