$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', 'N')ow why do you believe that China and India adhere to the liberal free trade paradigm more closely than Latin America? Neither of those countries were forced to follow the Washington consensus like the bankrupt Latin American countries were. (It would be a bit circular to simply point at their success as an indication that they must therefore be more liberal.)
They have been just as liberal as everyone else in embracing free trade as the means to bring their country out of poverty. That they aren't puppets for Washington makes no difference as to their commitment to free trade. The governments of course want to remain in control as much possible, because if there is one thing governments are terrified about it is that people will figure out they don't need them. It has nothing to do with avoiding dislocation. Dislocation is necessary for progress. The more dislocation there is, the better. China builds a city the size of Philadelphia 
PeakOil is You
Why Trade liberalization could be part of the solution?
Re: Why Trade liberalization could be part of the solution?
by jaws » Sun 18 Dec 2005, 16:15:07
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')oth of these countries are very large countries. One advantage this gives to them over most Latin American or African countries is that the internal economy remains a much larger fraction of their overall economy as they open up to the world. This gives them the freedom and the ability to mitigate or avoid the worst aspects of the freer trade. Some bad aspects of freer trade are inherently avoided simply because they are so large. For example their economies are so diverse that when they open up to the world they do not expose themselves to the whims of a single commodity market.
-
jaws - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1228
- Joined: Sun 24 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Re: Why Trade liberalization could be part of the solution?
by jaws » Sun 18 Dec 2005, 16:24:27
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('coyote', 'H')ey, I agree with free trade in principle. But to say that it is going to solve everybody's problems to open up the floodgates and give megacorporations even fewer restrictions and consequences to worry about -- well, I think that's an attempt to vastly oversimplify an incredibly complex situation. I don't think the results would be good. Peace.
All those of you saying "I agree with free trade in principle but..." are bloody, flaming liars. You hate free trade. You hate how it changes society. Your definition of what free trade should be is not free at all. You want to preserve the old ways but get the profits from the new, and that's plain impossible. Stop wishing for it, you're just hurting people even more.
-
jaws - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1228
- Joined: Sun 24 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Re: Why Trade liberalization could be part of the solution?
by nero » Sun 18 Dec 2005, 17:58:56
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', ' ')That they aren't puppets for Washington makes no difference as to their commitment to free trade. The governments of course want to remain in control as much possible, because if there is one thing governments are terrified about it is that people will figure out they don't need them. It has nothing to do with avoiding dislocation.
You can apply the "washington consensus" set of policies without being under the thumb of Washington. I did not mean to imply otherwise.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'D')islocation is necessary for progress. The more dislocation there is, the better. China builds a city the size of Philadelphia every month. There's a government that embraced dislocation.
Dislocation, what a great euphemism for suffering. The amount of suffering associated with economic growth is highly variable. China recently killed 20 people protesting the expropriation of their farmland for a power station. Are you saying that that is an unfortunate but necessary event if you want to have fast progress?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'B')eing big makes no difference if you are one of the poorest countries in the world. You are vulnerable to the whims of markets as much as anybody else.
At any given level of prosperity:
Larger countries tend to have been able to extract much better deals from multinational and domestic corporations. (eg. China forces joint ventures on all foreign companies)
Larger countries tend to have more viable domestic businesses that can compete in the newly opened markets. (their big fish aren't so little by comparison)
Larger countries tend to have a more diversified economy. (larger geographical area more economic niches)
Larger countries tend to have stronger civil institutions (or else they would be ungovernable)
Larger countries have a disproportionate amount of power in trade negotiations
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'A')nd when did it become a bad thing for countries dependent on a single commodity to liberalize? These countries are the first to profit from free trade, since having a single superabundent resource in a small, closed economy is completely pointless.
I didn't say it was bad for the smaller country did I. I simply said the larger country had an advantage over the smaller country. Do you think that having a diversified portfolio of industries isn't just as important to sound financial planning for a country as for an individual?
