Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GraceZ who wrote (20509)	1/5/2005 3:38:12 PM
From: NOW	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

where is the due respect? you did not even address the substance of her point.

To: GraceZ who wrote (20509)	1/6/2005 2:30:50 AM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

"absolute advantage" A most interesting topic. I'm going to have to give this some thought. My current view is that China is not a normal "developing nation" and is at an advantage over Western Nations, maybe because thier politicians have a more practical view of their jobs. Typically though, Western Nations exploit developing nations. I do not regard myself as a socialist btw. I am in business for myself and have two jobs. One in an uncompetitive state owned monopoly, the other an almost free market business that imports quality goods from SEA and elsewhere. I got out of the manufacturing business, on the "if you can't beat 'em, join them" principle -g- In principle, I would say free trade is an agreement on trade that fits onto a single page of A4. The trade between Canada, Mexico and the USA is not "free trade" for example. Subject 51596

To: GraceZ who wrote (20509)	1/6/2005 9:16:20 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

Countries benefit enormously from free trade, both countries, otherwise they wouldn't engage in it. That is, as you so eloquently put, total bullshit. Most developing countries find themselves heavily indebted to Western countries before they even ponder the question of opening up their markets to their companies. By then, the choice is no longer free. That pressure is generally enough, but if not, there is always bribes on Swiss bank accounts to convince governments that "free markets are in their best interests". Or did you think it is in any country's best interests to let huge US corporates in so that they can sell for a loss for years if necessary to garner market share and put mom & pop stores and brands out of business, meanwhile having nothing to say as the US slams quotas on THEIR basic exports like textile and steel? You obviously have not been present in the initial stages of a developing country's market experience. Try it, and then let's see how much of your "they open up their market to Colgate and Coca Cola and Marlboro because they terribly want to" remains. Free markets are a great idea if both trading partners are on equal footing. When one side is far less developed in terms of technology and capital, it is merely exploited as a market by the other, until such a time as it can compete with the other one. By then, of course, certain industries are gone, in most others giant brands have majority market share, and there are underlying dependencies in place from which the country will never recover to a self-sufficient position. So, yeah, you love free markets, so do I. We both live in them and make good money out of them. But that does not mean we can lie about what free markets mean to a developing country. That is just sick.