Arafat's guerrillas shot 7; world silent.

[Sirotnikov]

Is it me, or was this thread hijacked by MtG and folks?

Get your own thread

Or split this one into two... :cute"

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Your point is a good one but there is really not enough evidence to prove your final point, that an economy grows fasters eventually. Some of these protectionist countries grew at rates like 7-8% decade yearly averages during the 50s-70s and without the level of income inequality today.

Yes, but you are forgetting that inflation was often very high during this period in Latin America. That means many countries so the 8% growth cut in half, often even worse then that, by inflation.

you would have to mathematically grow even more than before to achieve the same level of comprehensive prosperity as much of that extra growth would only favor a minority.

I'm not buying that argument at all. Long term people will have more competetion so they will pay lower prices for just about everything. Many, many economists have showing that the net positive effects of those lower prices outweight net positives of high domestic production (most likely inefficient) with the resulting higher prices do to lack of competetion. In short lower prices mean people get to have a higher quality of life with their existing pay check and it means the country as a whole will have more domestic capital available to invest into businesses; businesses which will actually have sizable markets in which to sell their goods due to the free trade enviroment.

However, much of this investment (most of it i'd say) is still foreign owned, and does not benefit the host country in anything other than national accounting reasons due to the fact that the poor institutional framework hinders any economic spillovers that this investment potentially carries.

Intially it is foreign owned, but, like in Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand (all examples with in the last 20 years) the spill over of the economic growth caused by foreign investment means domestically owned start up are able to take off. All three of these countries have followed the free trade system and have benifeted greatly and now you see a plethora of locally owned companies. Do you think they could have done that if they walled themselves off from International capital? I think not.

Frankly, I think the object of any country is to increase the product of its nationals, not those of foreign countries.

Of course. We are simply discussing the best way to accomplish that goal. I'm saying free trade and your, apparently saying with High trade barriers.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Oerdin

Yes, but you are forgetting that inflation was often very high during this period in Latin America. That means many countries so the 8% growth cut in half, often even worse then that, by inflation.

Inflation got worse in the mid-late 70's and 80's. Plus, growth figures for a long enough time span are usually given in inflation-adjusted terms, which means an 8% growth is preciesely that, 8%.

I'm not buying that argument at all. Long term people will have more competetion so they will pay lower prices for just about everything. Many, many economists have showing that the net positive effects of those lower prices outweight net positives of high domestic production (most likely inefficient) with the resulting higher prices do to lack of competetion. In short lower prices mean people get to have a higher quality of life with their existing pay check and it means the country as a whole will have more domestic capital available to invest into businesses; businesses which will actually have sizable markets in which to sell their goods due to the free trade enviroment.

Don't buy it, I'm not selling it

Your argument is the classic argument that pro-free market economists always give. I'm not saying it's wrong, every side of a story is both right and wrong, especially in economics where things are never truly right ever. We have had this debate during the last couple of years in Mexico on the issue of agricultural trade barriers having been finally knocked down this year. The problem is that this PoV does not take into account the unemployment situation of these people who are suddenly displaced by foreign competition.

Now add to this the fact that the US and Europe haven't eliminated their agro subsidies which means trade barriers on that side are still up. Do you honeslty think it is fair we should have to compete with farmers which receive thousands of dollars of subsidies a year? Of course not, pardon me but that is NOT free trade, and then so what if chicken and meat is cheaper imported, our farmers will be driven out of business, and having a job is more important than none at all.

Secondly, it is not convenient for strategic reasons, and oh yeah, believe me that the US is not the only country which should use the "national security" excuse every time, every country has the right to it. Here in Puebla where I live is the largest Volkswagen plant outside of Germany. Every New Beetle driven in the US is made here. Some estimates suggest that as much as 90% of the state's industrial economy is tied to the Volkswagen plant, usually in terms of local suppliers and parters. Should VW one day decide that it will be cheaper to move this plant to Western Samoa, we will be royally ****ed. Yes, totally ****ed.

So, honestly tell my why we should be dependent on the market for these things? The market can betray you in an instant. There is no such thing as a "free market", they are always manipulated in some way or another.

Intially it is foreign owned, but, like in Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand (all examples with in the last 20 years) the spill over of the economic growth caused by foreign investment means domestically owned start up are able to take off. All three of these countries have followed the free trade system and have benifeted greatly and now you see a plethora of locally owned companies. Do you think they could have done that if they walled themselves off from International capital? I think not.

I specifically mentioned that a certain institutional framework is necessary for spillovers to occur. Sadly this is not the case in Latin America, whereas it has worked in the East. Now, you are actually incorrect in suggesting that Taiwan based its success on foreign investment. Both Taiwan and Korea actually based their success on internal, national economic development, not via FDI which were actually very much blocked from entry into their markets. I honestly don't understand why this popular notion of these two countries being "free trade" advocates emerge as it is totally false. Both of these countries had huge protectionist policies to defend infant industry, only after they matured did they gradualy open those markets. I call that strategy "pick-and-protect", as it is a selective system in which markets considered strategically important are protected and propped up.

Other asian tigers follwed the FDI route, mainly Thailand and Malasia which have not been as successful as Taiwan and Korea, thus proving the superiorty of a selective protectionist model.

Of course. We are simply discussing the best way to accomplish that goal. I'm saying free trade and your, apparently saying with High trade barriers.

Did I ever say high trade barriers? Please quote me. I have never advocated the unmeasured protectionism of our countries. Our mistake was not protecting industry, it was protecting them from TOO long, thus leading to corrupt inefficient industry. Had we simply protected them while still infant and having them known that after a certain time lapse the market would slowly open up, history would be much different.

Believing that free market by itself will solve the worlds problems is pure fallacy. Un unmeasured opening up of an economy will only lead to the shattering of small/medium industry and the gobbling up of national product and market by foreign enterprises. This is unacceptable, and it is even more unacceptable that our leaders agreed to this kind of model which has been shown to be a total failure in Latin America other than Chile which has a little secret: the most solid instituational base in the region. Other countries lack this. So, why force a model down our throats instead of adapating another to our particular needs and problems?

Finally, all this promotion of free trade by the US and other countries is just an excuse of economic imperialism which should be all but evident. Doesn't it strike you as surprising that during most of its history the US was the foremost practitioner of protectionist policies in the developed world? Yet now it want's to spread the joys of free markets to the world... Economics goes with the flows. Right now, globalization is "in". In the 50's protectionism is "in". In a few years perhaps protectionism will be back "in" and some of you will be arguing in favor of it...

[Panag]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Sharon isn't helping the peace process at all, but if there's someone who is an even greater burden it is Arafat.

Give it up Yassir, you were a fabulous revolutionary, now you're no better than Castro, sacrificing the well being of your homeland (which I begin to think you really don't give a crap about) just for a blind and childish stranglehold of power.

Do your people a favor, get the hell out of Palestine.

if he aint helping the peace process then why on earth is my desk so full of paper , ......

give it up , if you can post here you can also read the worlds news , .....

till this day the Sharon gov has done more then all the other govs so far , .....

because it aint on the side of the road in 20 by 40 billboards that does not mean there are countless amounts of hours put into the peace process , ......

do yourself a favor and dont post about something you dont understand , .... palestine is what , a geographical name given to our land by the romans , ..... that runs from north libanon to where abouts the suez canal is today from the shores of the med till past damas and amman , ......

[Panag]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Is it me, or was this thread hijacked by MtG and folks?

Get your own thread

Or split this one into two... :cute"

hi ,

yeah , since when does brazil , and a whole bunch of other things have anything to do with arafat , and Israel , .....

well there is one small connection , the bankaccount he has in rio ,......

have a nice day