Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
Right, there are people, those who would directly benefit from letting the cattle, agricultural, and timber industries in, that want such "progress." But much like the "progress" we saw centuries ago in England and America, these levels of "progress" were not necessarily indicative of the entire populous (you can bet your life it certainly isn't the small Brazilian farmer who will benefit).
|
Oh yes it is. Tariffs, my boy, tariffs. We ban the Brazilian farmer from competing in our markets, which means that has a lower income. Even if you are referring to the movement of corporations to Brazil, the farmer would probably make a higher wage working for the company. Empirical research + theoretical analysis indicates this.
Quote:
Nations such as...Uganda? Tanzania? These countries were World Bank/IMF babies. Uganda was to be the model for free market progress. "Whu happened?"
"Protectionism" and "anti-globalism" are hardly what's keeping Africa down....
|
Uganda and Tanzania are so economically superior than their protectionist peers, it's a joke.
Take a step back and look at the whole of Africa. It's hardly a nation of "World Bank/IMF babies". Then compare to Uganda and Tanzania. Or, more appropriately, to the Tigers.