[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Whose research?

IMF, World Bank, UN, various economists...

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.

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.

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.

There are so many errors here.

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?

2) It's perfectly productive and stable. When corporations congregate in such countries, wealth increases - and, hence, education. And when education increases, higher level jobs can be taken. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The truth is quite clear. The economic liberals in Africa have progressed despite their ills. The protectionists have suffered from stagflation. Draw your own conclusions.


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.[/quote]