|
|
| Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User
|
|
| Support uws |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: David Mandelzys on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 02:10 PM CDT |
"And if they leave, you're back to the same place you were before they came in. I still don't see how a country with a multinat is worse off than one without."
Eureka! but that's what I'm saying, that's why it would be more beneficial to implement policies that would NOT allow companies to just to pick up and leave.
Attaching conditions to access of the domestic market (ie. trade protection), forming and protecting home grown industries, and creating planned trade with mutual benefits for all parties involved are the way to do that.
I'm not advocating isolation by any means, but there's a BIG differnce between trade and absolutely free trade.
Look at how Canada/US developed for a good example of more effective development models.
"Secondly, the companies can't keep moving forever. There are a finite number of countries in the world. And when they move, they leave behind a trained work-force that someone else can take advantage of, especially when we are dealing with knowledge techs, as is the case with this EWB project."
But there are also a finite number of jobs, and we don't live in a situation of full employment (another condition for the Ricardian model to work).
"Finally, I can't help but contrast your approach to the one described in this NY Times article. It paints a rather different picture, and to be honest, I'm more inclined to its perception of reality than yours."
That's because the view I'm expressing is completely opposed to what Friedman has to say.
I agree with Sarrofest on this one, these posts are deffinately no where near the best critique of the Washington concensus out there, Sarrofest care to share why you think Friedman is wrong? (and which of my conclusions you contest )[ Parent ]
|
| |
|
