Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
You have proven yourself to be a fool. They export excess produce. We cannot compete within their food markets because they sell their products at such cheaper levels. I don't know what you've been reading, but no respectable economist will tell you such a thing.
|
Try Joseph Stiglitz for one. He was chief economist for the World Bank, which you cited as a credible research institute. He is a Nobel prize winner in economics, and he also served on Clinton's economic advisory council. I realize he isn't a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, but he'll do.
I gave you a substantive example. Another thing you might want to check out is a documentary called "Life and Debt" on Jamaica. Real people, real numbers, and real footage of what SAPs (or whatever they're called now) and trade agreements have done to nations such as Jamaica. Who deems it "excess" produce you little fucking brat? Stop reading cooked fucking numbers from the IMF and the bullshit Cato Institute, and start looking at the faces of real human beings.
Quote:
1) A higher real wage always means that they can afford more products. Did you miss the real part, or do you not know what a real wage is?
|
You said "higher" wage. A higher wage means relatively nothing if products are inaffordable.
Quote:
2) It's perfectly productive and stable. When corporations congregate in such countries, wealth increases - and, hence, education.
|
Where is the wealth accumulating? Where are these people going to school? When are they going to school? I mean, Christ, Jamaica looks like heaven compared to other places. If a corporation comes in, and as you say, pays a HIGHER wage, it will run other businesses out, and discourage domestic industry. It will stifle people and growth, since domestic business clearly can't compete with corporations that are given "free trade zones" in agreement with the native governments. When the corporation grows weary, or sees a better buck to made, they will pull out, leaving that country and those dependent people high and dry.
Quote:
The only reason these companies leave is because they find that workers are demanding higher wages, which only occurs because of advancements in the national economy. You act as though there is only one international within a country at a time
and that this is an immediate and costless process.
|
1. Many corporations often do corner markets, or regions of a market. They deal through greedy private contractors anyway, such as the Van Heusen dress shirt company in Guatemala. The workers were promised a holiday bonus roughly five years ago, and about a week before Christmas, the plant was closed. The reason they cited was a "discontinuation of the brand," even though I worked for them, saw the brand they produced, and realized that this was a crock of shit. So the workers had no jobs, and Van Heusen opened up another factory with a different contractor within the same region. It re-hired all of the same workers predominantly, excluding of course the rabblerousers who dared to ask for higher pay and shorter work weeks.
2. Corporations do NOT NOT NOT leave simply do to the betterment of everybody. This is a lie.
Quote:
Quote:
In many cases, the farmers don't even get a fair compensation for their land when an agribusiness eats it up.
|
That would mean that their land was taken away from them. Sounds like a lack of property protection to me.
|
It's a lack of government infrastructure, which is the exact same reason corporations pick these countries in the first place. But you missed the point-- farmers get screwed on all ends. Yeah, that was the point.
Quote:
Quote:
Many countries, look for example at soy bean production in South and Latin America, don't have well established property rights and documentation. Many farmers in 3rd world or economic "south" nations are simply industrious minded folks who avoid the inevitable red tape and inefficiency of their governments. Long story short-- No land, no property, means no chance for sustainable growth. The company town didn't work here in America, and it won't work in the third world, either.
|
Then they need to establish property, don't they? These countries are not the types to invite internationals anyway.
|
What the FUCK are you talking about??? These are EXACTLY the kind of countries agribusinesses go to. Why PAY a fucking peasant a fair amount for his land, when the government will just let you TAKE IT...!?
Quote:
Quote:
1. Uganda, for instance, much like your "tigers", have demonstrated temperance and self-judgement when it comes to the guidance of the SAPs. Their success is attributable to smart, regulated growth, NOT wide open markets.
|
You make me laugh. These countries are far from protectionist tariff-havens with ultra-regulated markets. It could be argued that they are even more economically liberal than we are.
|
One brief example-- [OAO nerdy Cato geek voice] "statistical studies showed that Uganda should add school fees to all those who wanted to send their children to school, and that it would have no effect on enrollment"[/end nerdy OAO Cato geek voice]
Thankfully, Uganda ignored the economic management advice provided by the IMF, and simply did away with all fees. School enrollment soared, including girls. People, not corporations, made a decision for the betterment of one another. No, these countries are
not extreme protectionists, but being blind free trade zealots isn't what helped them thrive, either.