NAFTA Years Later

[SlowwHand]

Tell us about the water theft, Zen.

[Plan Austral]

Water Theft???
What is that?

[Master Zen]

For the record I have no idea what Slowwhand says because he's (and will continue to be) in my Ignore list.

Lonely isn't it?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Plan Austral
Water Theft???
What is that?

They were taking more water than they were legally allowed to.

[Dinner]

Master Zen: We're you the one who claimed the lining of the All-American canal (which runs parallel to the US/Mexican border in the Imperial valley was a theft of water from Mexico? I think I head someone make that argument here at 'poly a while back. As I recall he's agrument got thouroghly torn to pieces.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Arrian
Interesting points by Master Zen.

I think the most important one to note is the fact that many successful economies started out with protectist policies on their local industries (I seem to have hazy memories of some hefty tariffs used by the US back when we were a backwater ) and later opened up.

Yes, I always use the Korean and Taiwanese examples since most people seem to believe these countries were always "open" and that is what made them successful. Wrong. Korea and Taiwan had what is called selective proteccionism, i.e. they had various 5-year plans and said, for example, ok, steel is going to be a vital industry, so we'll protect it until it becomes mature, and then we'll open it to foreign competition. So, industry became strong due to the protection and was set to compete later on. The case of shipyards is even more impressive, the government aided Hyundai to set up Korea's first major shipyard and ordered ALL Korean companies to buy only Korean ships. After a while this law was loosed but look at it now, Korea has the worlds largest commercial shipping industry.

The problem with latinamerican industrail countries like Mexico, Brazil and Argentina is that we NEVER opened. Protecctionism gave a huge boost to our industries at first, but leave it for 20-30 years and you end up with inefficient corrupt firms which are too used to government aid to survive on their own.

So, IMO, the best industrial strategy is pick-n-protect, but always knowing that you will open up in the end. That's the only way to compete with the mature economies of the 1st world. This, however, might be more difficult with the smaller countries which have a very small domestic economy. In Mexico we could do it as we have 100 million consumers, but say, Nicaragua or El Salvador would have to rely more on free trade, mind you a fair and just free trade.

Makes sense to me. However, are the rich nations obligated to not retaliate if a poor nation protects its industries? So if Mexico wanted to really get into steel production, and set up high steel tariffs, should the US return the favor or do nothing (yeah, right, the steel industry here would go beserk)?

Oh definitely. There's no reason not to retaliate that way, in fact it is perfectly legal to do so. But it would make no difference since steel trade would have practically ceased due to Mexico's initial protecction in this example. For the time the protection is in place, only trade would be in specialized steel products for which each country has a comparative advantage but not much else. I would never expect any country NOT to retalliate under conditions like these. Gotta love those trade wars!

I'm actually asking, btw. What do you all think about that issue? On the one hand, it is in our long-term interests to see the 3rd world become more prosperous, but in the short-term, protectionism for their local industries would hurt us. Further, if no retaliatory protectionism is used, will those 3rd world nations not come to expect preferential trade deals (think of it in terms of a government entitlement. People get PISSED if the government is giving them something, and then it stops. Doesn't matter if it was "fair" for them to get it in the first place)?

Complex issue.

-Arrian

I agree but thing is, behavior changes when you now there is a finite length for the protection. In the Korean example, the government made it abundantly clear that it would not protect forever, this was precicesly the incentive to become efficient as there would be a time which they could not count on government support and would have to perform on their own. Thus, firm efforts have that time span to become efficient.

Also, I'm not so sure how much it really is for the 1st world's perspective that the 3rd become prosperous. World power after all is measured in terms of economic ---> tecnological --> military potential. Once economic prosperity is achieved, the rest follows sooner or later...

Anyway, you are right, it is a complex issue and one that deserves a lot of thought and debate.

-MZ

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Master Zen: We're you the one who claimed the lining of the All-American canal (which runs parallel to the US/Mexican border in the Imperial valley was a theft of water from Mexico? I think I head someone make that argument here at 'poly a while back. As I recall he's agrument got thouroghly torn to pieces.

Nope, not me. I never make silly arguments, much less do I argue about things I don't know, and the water issue is not my forte.

I have no clue where Imperial Valley is anyway...

[Arrian]

Also, I'm not so sure how much it really is for the 1st world's perspective that the 3rd become prosperous. World power after all is measured in terms of economic ---> tecnological --> military potential. Once economic prosperity is achieved, the rest follows sooner or later...

True. Then again, I really meant looooooong term. I think it is in our interests to reduce the economic disparity in the world. If that results in more military balance, so be it. Frankly, as an American, I'm not so sure that our military supremacy is really working to our benifit.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Master Zen
For the record I have no idea what Slowwhand says because he's (and will continue to be) in my Ignore list.

Lonely isn't it?

I am??
That's tacky of you, and unfortunate for you, also.
Sometimes I get in a good one.






(someone will have to tell Zen he's tacky.)

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


I am??
That's tacky of you, and unfortunate for you, also.
Sometimes I get in a good one.






(someone will have to tell Zen he's tacky.)

How's this Sloww?

[SlowwHand]

Thanks!


Damned water-thieving Mexican.

[Master Zen]

I think the optimal condition for the 3rd world, from the 1st world's perspective is to poor but not dirt poor. Dirt poor countries need assistance and aid, and end up with a hoard of poor immigrants to your borders and it will seem cruel not to give aid or refuge to them. However, semi-poor countries don't need aid but are not a future threat either.

Anyway, that's my paranoid, new-world-order conspiracy, point of view. Which if you think like people like Bush or Cheney is not that far-fetched.

-MZ

[Master Zen]

Indirectly quoted from DinoDoc's quote

quote:
Originally posted by SlowwHand


I am??
That's tacky of you, and unfortunate for you, also.
Sometimes I get in a good one.






(someone will have to tell Zen he's tacky.)

Touché

I'd rather not argue with people who apparently are immune to any form of mod reprisal for their flames and insults, because Sloww, if I had said half the things you have in the previous weeks I'd have my ass banned.

As long as I am constrained by having to watch what I say when others have no such constraint, I'll rather leave arguments with these people for other days.

-MZ

[Dinner]

Zen: You're right about how Korea made effective use of the "pick & protect" method but this was primarially predicated upon the US and other rich countries allowing easy access for Korean made goods into their markets. The US did this as a way of subsidizing south Korea during the Cold War but I think that is a fairly unique historical situation.

You sure won't find the US acting so generously now that the Soviet threat is gone so it is unlikely other countries will be able to make as extensive use of the "pick & protect" method as SK and Japan did during the cold war. The most likely method to work now is bilateral free trade agreements though that method will most likely take longer to create large competetors in key industries; over all the economy will most likely grow faster since free trade promotes foreign investment.

[SlowwHand]

You're joking, or blind.

I react to flames, and I get banned.
Ask Che. Ask Imran. Ask Doc. Ask anyone.
Hell. Ask MtG. That OTHER Mexican.

Little bastard has done it more than once.