From: walker@superman.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.us.constitution
Subject: Re: Review and Comments on #United We Stand#
Date: 25 Sep 1992 18:50:45 GMT
Reply-To: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center

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THis is an old and outdated law which was designed to regulate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.


|> (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.

|> (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
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot