I expect them to go after short term profits with no regard for impacts on America, world political stability, or, for that matter their own long-term finacial stability. Why should I expect any different? That is how they always behaved. They are totally incapable of restraining themselves. That is why there is a need for some government regulation.

Why should they have to, or need to, "restrain themselves" at all? So they can measure up to your idea of global fairness?

Airbus is heavily subsidized and probably could not compete otherwise (sure seem to be a lot of the falling out of the air).

Can you cite an example of this for us?

A corporation exists to make money, but maximum profits at the expense of economic stability is unwise. Remember the story about the farmer who killed the goose to get the golden eggs? America is that goose. The eggs will keep coming at their own pace, you can't rip them out all at once.

Your analogy is a little confused at best...how does the pursuit of "maximum profits" alter economic stability? Do you mean the corporation's stability or are you referring to the US economy, or do you have any idea what you're talking about? Do you think we would have a stronger national economy with more govt restriction? Is the farmer supposed to be US industry? So, US industry is supposed to have killed America in some metaphorical way, trying to grab more than its fair share of golden eggs? So you want to provide subsidies to these murderers? What about non-US businesses, are they stealing any of our eggs? What if the non-US business builds a better product, should we be stuck subsidizing inferior US goods? Should we roll back the clock to 1978 to see how that worked out for the US auto industry? Should all competition be stopped at the border? Does the concept of supply and demand in a worldwide econonmy mean anything to you?

How would you feel about McDonald / Douglas if they had opened an aircraft factory in Japan in 1942? You dance with the one that brung ya'.

Your arguement loses a lot of credibility when you throw spurious statements like this into the discussion. I have no idea what point you're attempting to make here, in 1941, the US govt placed an embargo against Japan on steel and oil, that would take care of my Japanese aircraft factory. Are you talking about placing govt restrictions upon Corporations doing business with countries with whom we fighting a war? I don't think you'll get much arguement there, but how does this have anything to do with the assertions that you made above?

Corporations have a long history of being helpful to US intelligence. Or is that just another example of Big Brother?

"When they are spying on American citizens, yes."

Most US corporations do the majority of their business and receive that majority of their profits, from outside of the US. I suspect that those contacts that are made by US business abroad are much more valuable to US intel than lists of phone calls made from US lines to those in Pakistan, just using it as one example. If it means spying on US traitors, I'm ok with that too.

Us corps donate millions to non-profits and charities in this country.

"And receive tax deductions for those contributions."

So because US corporations get a $ 0.35 tax deduction on each $1.00 they pay out for charitable purposes, you think that's a self serving act on their part? I guess even if they try to do something decent, for some people they're still damned if they do and they're damned if they don't