Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
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]
Whose research?
America is a heavy importing nation. We turn small countries, such as Jamaica, into heavy exporting countries. They export their crops, and then buy the very same ones from us at a higher price.
A higher wage means little if they can't afford products, and besides, it's not productive or stable to base their income on that of a fickle corporation that will simply leave their country in its race to the economic bottom. In many cases, the farmers don't even get a fair compensation for their land when an agribusiness eats it up. 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.
Quote:
|
Uganda and Tanzania are so economically superior than their protectionist peers, it's a joke.
|
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.
2. Your argument was that protectionism is what's keeping Africa poor. This is naive, simplistic, and wrong. Africa suffers from many ills, namely disease, famine, post-colonial meltdown, poor economic planning on the part (especially) of the IMF, and so on. There's no quick simple cure for Africa, despite whatever magic healing tonic you might be peddling off of lp.org.
Patrick Moore is a wanker who shares the same vision of "progress" as neo-liberals like Thomas Friedman. He's a staunch supporter of GMO foods, which is a big part of where his split with the "environmental movement" comes from. He's yet another utopian who thinks that GMO crops will end hunger and make everyone rich. Right.