• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why is globalization a bad thing?

Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I have recently started studying about Latin America and particularly the Brazilian Auto industry which is a good case study for what has happened through most of South America that is an economic boom and their arrival on the global market as a strong competitor.


To put this in perspective I've recently been studying the Brazilian automobile industry.

Recently their economy was tanking so they set up a tripartite system in which the representatives from the labor, capital, and state agencies set up a forum in 1992 (called the Sequotor forum).

In this forum they discussed matters of the economy instead of just allowing the market to solve its own problems.

It gave everyone a voice but also the state legalized monopolys for bussinesses.

This system was very similar to European socialism and FDR's New Deal it brought them out of there economic depression, however, the lack of competition, which is the engine that makes an economy run, caused stagnation of the economy. This in turn caused serious inflation (which simply put decreases the value of currency like in the Soviet Union just before their economy collapsed)

In 1993 they realized that reform was necessary so they deregulated the market to allow for competition, since then their economy has sky rocketed and has not gone down below the initial boom that had occured during the socialist reforms.

Since then they have embraced the free market and are competitive on a global scale.

Brazil along with Argentina led the way in the formation of the Mercosur (common market of the south) trading block under the treaty of Ascuncion along with Paraguay Uraguay and now Venezuela.

Since then other countries, such as Mexico, and other trading blocks, such as the EU, have been allowed to have associate member status under the Orarau Preto treaty of 1995.

These trading blocks are finally tearing down the provincional borders which Latin America resulted to following their independence from Spain. It seems that finally after 200 years Bolivarios dream of a Unified Latin America is becoming a reality.

It's a very exciting time for Latin America, their economies are booming and Democracy is flourishing in a region that has long been plagued by tyranical militant regimes.

This is why I believe that if you give people a free market Democracy will be the natural progression, so, when people critisize China as being communist I say just give it time.

Now my question is should we enter into a major trading agreement b/w all the nation of the Americas both North, South and Central, as well as major economic powers in Asia, such as, Japan, and much of South East Asia and Australia?

It seems to me that if this this major trading agreement could be reached our economies would soon come to dwarf by comparison the EU (and hay while we're at it we could give them assosiate status) and this would, also, force China to allow for even more economic and political reforms to compete.

It's been said that the major obstacle to an FTAA (Foriegn trade of the Americas Agreement) has been the American people and Washington themselves, because they are skeptical of the stability of the members economies, however, I feel that the EU as a model, that in such an agreement the benefits would outway the disadvantages.

So hopefully after the success of NAFTA and hopefully CAFTA (knock on Wood) the American people will realize that it will be good for all parties involved, especially the U.S..
 
Last edited:

teacher

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
5,980
Reaction score
30
Location
Nomad.Got a couch,beer,meat,cute daughters,Batman
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
In 1993 they realized that reform was necessary so they deregulated the market to allow for competition, since then their economy has sky rocketed and has not gone down below the initial boom that had occured during the socialist reforms.


This is why I believe that if you give people a free market Democracy will be the natural progression, so, when people critisize China as being communist I say just give it time.

Now my question is should we enter into a major trading agreement b/w all the nation of the Americas both North, South and Central, as well as major economic powers in Asia, such as, Japan, and much of South East Asia and Australia?
Yes.
It's been said that the major obstacle to an FTAA (Foriegn trade of the Americas Agreement) has been the American people and Washington themselves, because they are skeptical of the stability of the members economies,
No, because these countries take our low skill jobs and too many Americans are to stupid to do anything other than factory work.

So hopefully after the success of NAFTA and hopefully CAFTA (knock on Wood) the American people will realize that it will be good for all parties involved, especially the U.S..
Nah, they'll whine that the Latinos are taking all the put screw "A" in hole "B", repeat, jobs, instead of turning off American Idol and picking up a book.

Imagine the progress humanity could make if the whole world was at our level.

Yea, this works. And we so support free trade spreading that we let other countries have unfair trade practices to jump start their country. The old, smart, rich, white men in charge allready know and encourage this. What are you doing talking big, long term, picture aroud here? You'll just be ignored. 1/24:54.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I really don't know how you can say that about Brazil. There GDP has been a rollercoaster since it took a nose dive in 94ish.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kelzie said:
I really don't know how you can say that about Brazil. There GDP has been a rollercoaster since it took a nose dive in 94ish.
You're thinking of Argentina but due to the success of the Mercosur agreement the other nations took some of the slack and their economy has stabilized.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
You're thinking of Argentina but due to the success of the Mercosur agreement the other nations took some of the slack and their economy has stabilized.
No I'm not. Boy, do not tell me what I'm thinking. Both Russia and Brazil had a financial crisis in 94 or 95 as a direct result of the Asian Financial Crisis. Another happy outcome of your globalization. Look up Brazil's GDP. Rollercoaster.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Or here. We'll see if I can figure out this whole picture uploading thing.





Can anyone else see that?
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
In 1993 they realized that reform was necessary so they deregulated the market to allow for competition, since then their economy has sky rocketed and has not gone down below the initial boom that had occured during the socialist reforms.
Wow this doesn't look very good for you. The economy bit the dust, like what, 2 years after they deregulated it? Ouch. No stablity, no steady growth...tell me what exactly globalization is supposed to be doing?
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kelzie said:
Or here. We'll see if I can figure out this whole picture uploading thing.





Can anyone else see that?
Upon closer inspection you're right I already knew this infact I just learned it today when I was doing the study but it was in 92 that inflation hit an all time high because it was not until finance manager Cardossa became president in 03 and did away with the tripartite system that the state laxened control over the economy and allowed for competition and got inflation under control that was caused by the stagnation that occurs in purely socialist countries: here's a better specs sheet from the CIA world fact book


Possessing large and well-developed agricultural, mining, manufacturing, and service sectors, Brazil's economy outweighs that of all other South American countries and is expanding its presence in world markets. From 2001-03 real wages fell and Brazil's economy grew, on average, only 2.2% per year, as the country absorbed a series of domestic and international economic shocks. That Brazil absorbed these shocks without financial collapse is a tribute to the resiliency of the Brazilian economy and the economic program put in place by former President CARDOSO and strengthened by President LULA DA SILVA. In 2004, Brazil enjoyed more robust growth that yielded increases in employment and real wages. The three pillars of the economic program are a floating exchange rate, an inflation-targeting regime, and tight fiscal policy, all reinforced by a series of IMF programs. The currency depreciated sharply in 2001 and 2002, which contributed to a dramatic current account adjustment: in 2003 and 2004, Brazil ran record trade surpluses and recorded its first current account surpluses since 1992. Productivity gains - particularly in agriculture - also contributed to the surge in exports, and Brazil in 2004 surpassed the previous year's record export level and again posted a current account surplus. While economic management has been good, there remain important economic vulnerabilities. The most significant are debt-related: the government's largely domestic debt increased steadily from 1994 to 2003 - straining government finances - before falling as a percentage of GDP in 2004, while Brazil's foreign debt (a mix of private and public debt) is large in relation to Brazil's small (but growing) export base. Another challenge is maintaining economic growth over a period of time to generate employment and make the government debt burden more manageable.
GDP (purchasing power parity):
$1.492 trillion (2004 est.)
GDP - real growth rate:
5.1% (2004 est.)
GDP - per capita:
purchasing power parity - $8,100 (2004 est.)
GDP - composition by sector:
agriculture: 10.1%
industry: 38.6%
services: 51.3% (2004 est.)
Labor force:
89 million (2004 est.)
Labor force - by occupation:
agriculture 20%, industry 14%, services 66% (2003 est.)
Unemployment rate:
11.5% (2004 est.)
Population below poverty line:
22% (1998 est.)
Household income or consumption by percentage share:
lowest 10%: 0.7%
highest 10%: 48% (1998)
Distribution of family income - Gini index:
60.7 (1998)
Inflation rate (consumer prices):
7.6% (2004 est.)
Investment (gross fixed):
19.8% of GDP (2004 est.)
Budget:
revenues: $140.6 billion
expenditures: $172.4 billion, including capital expenditures of NA (2004)
Public debt:
52% of GDP (2004 est.)
Agriculture - products:
coffee, soybeans, wheat, rice, corn, sugarcane, cocoa, citrus; beef
Industries:
textiles, shoes, chemicals, cement, lumber, iron ore, tin, steel, aircraft, motor vehicles and parts, other machinery and equipment
Industrial production growth rate:
6% (2004 est.)
Electricity - production:
339 billion kWh (2002)
Electricity - consumption:
351.9 billion kWh (2002)
Electricity - exports:
7 million kWh (2002)
Electricity - imports:
36.58 billion kWh; note - supplied by Paraguay (2002)
Oil - production:
1.788 million bbl/day (2004 est.)
Oil - consumption:
2.199 million bbl/day (2001 est.)
Oil - exports:
NA
Oil - imports:
NA
Oil - proved reserves:
13.9 billion bbl (2004 est.)
Natural gas - production:
5.95 billion cu m (2001 est.)
Natural gas - consumption:
9.59 billion cu m (2001 est.)
Natural gas - exports:
0 cu m (2001 est.)
Natural gas - imports:
3.64 billion cu m (2001 est.)
Natural gas - proved reserves:
221.7 billion cu m (2004)
Current account balance:
$8 billion (2004 est.)
Exports:
$95 billion f.o.b. (2004 est.)
Exports - commodities:
transport equipment, iron ore, soybeans, footwear, coffee, autos
Exports - partners:
US 20.8%, Argentina 7.5%, Netherlands 6.1%, China 5.6%, Germany 4.1%, Mexico 4% (2004)
Imports:
$61 billion f.o.b. (2004 est.)
Imports - commodities:
machinery, electrical and transport equipment, chemical products, oil
Imports - partners:
US 18.3%, Argentina 8.9%, Germany 8.1%, China 5.9%, Nigeria 5.6%, Japan 4.6% (2004)
Reserves of foreign exchange and gold:
$52.94 billion (2004 est.)
Debt - external:
$219.8 billion (2004 est.)
Economic aid - recipient:
$30 billion (2002)
Currency (code):
real (BRL)
Exchange rates:
reals per US dollar - 2.9251 (2004), 3.0771 (2003), 2.9208 (2002), 2.3577 (2001), 1.8301 (2000)
Fiscal year:
calendar year

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/br.html
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Now here compare that to the UK look at their GDPs:

:
The UK, a leading trading power and financial center, is one of the quartet of trillion dollar economies of Western Europe. Over the past two decades the government has greatly reduced public ownership and contained the growth of social welfare programs. Agriculture is intensive, highly mechanized, and efficient by European standards, producing about 60% of food needs with less than 2% of the labor force. The UK has large coal, natural gas, and oil reserves; primary energy production accounts for 10% of GDP, one of the highest shares of any industrial nation. Services, particularly banking, insurance, and business services, account by far for the largest proportion of GDP while industry continues to decline in importance. GDP growth slipped in 2001-03 as the global downturn, the high value of the pound, and the bursting of the "new economy" bubble hurt manufacturing and exports. Output recovered in 2004, to 3.2% growth. The economy is one of the strongest in Europe; inflation, interest rates, and unemployment remain low. The relatively good economic performance has complicated the BLAIR government's efforts to make a case for Britain to join the European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). Critics point out that the economy is doing well outside of EMU, and they cite public opinion polls that continue to show a majority of Britons opposed to the euro. Meantime, the government has been speeding up the improvement of education, transport, and health services, at a cost in higher taxes.
GDP (purchasing power parity):
$1.782 trillion (2004 est.)
GDP - real growth rate:
3.2% (2004 est.)
GDP - per capita:
purchasing power parity - $29,600 (2004 est.)
GDP - composition by sector:
agriculture: 1%
industry: 26.3%
services: 72.7% (2004 est.)
Labor force:
29.78 million (2004 est.)
Labor force - by occupation:
agriculture 1.5%, industry 19.1%, services 79.5% (2004)
Unemployment rate:
4.8% (2004 est.)
Population below poverty line:
17% (2002 est.)
Household income or consumption by percentage share:
lowest 10%: 2.1%
highest 10%: 28.5% (1999)
Distribution of family income - Gini index:
36.8 (1999)
Inflation rate (consumer prices):
1.4% (2004 est.)
Investment (gross fixed):
16.2% of GDP (2004 est.)
Budget:
revenues: $834.9 billion
expenditures: $896.7 billion, including capital expenditures of NA (2004 est.)
Public debt:
39.6% of GDP (2004 est.)
Agriculture - products:
cereals, oilseed, potatoes, vegetables; cattle, sheep, poultry; fish
Industries:
machine tools, electric power equipment, automation equipment, railroad equipment, shipbuilding, aircraft, motor vehicles and parts, electronics and communications equipment, metals, chemicals, coal, petroleum, paper and paper products, food processing, textiles, clothing, and other consumer goods
Industrial production growth rate:
0.9% (2004 est.)
Electricity - production:
395.9 billion kWh (2003)
Electricity - consumption:
337.4 billion kWh (2003)
Electricity - exports:
2.959 billion kWh (2003)
Electricity - imports:
5.119 billion kWh (2003)
Oil - production:
1.957 million bbl/day (2003 est.)
Oil - consumption:
1.692 million bbl/day (2003 est.)
Oil - exports:
1.498 million bbl/day (2001)
Oil - imports:
1.084 million bbl/day (2003)
Oil - proved reserves:
25.41 billion bbl (2003)
Natural gas - production:
105.9 billion cu m (2001 est.)
Natural gas - consumption:
92.85 billion cu m (2001 est.)
Natural gas - exports:
15.75 billion cu m (2001 est.)
Natural gas - imports:
2.7 billion cu m (2001 est.)
Natural gas - proved reserves:
714.9 billion cu m (2003)
Current account balance:
$-33.46 billion (2004 est.)
Exports:
$347.2 billion f.o.b. (2004 est.)
Exports - commodities:
manufactured goods, fuels, chemicals; food, beverages, tobacco
Exports - partners:
US 15.3%, Germany 10.8%, France 9.2%, Ireland 6.8%, Netherlands 6%, Belgium 5.1%, Spain 4.5%, Italy 4.2% (2004)
Imports:
$439.4 billion f.o.b. (2004 est.)
Imports - commodities:
manufactured goods, machinery, fuels; foodstuffs
Imports - partners:
Germany 13%, US 9.3%, France 7.4%, Netherlands 6.6%, Belgium 4.9%, China 4.3%, Italy 4.3% (2004)
Reserves of foreign exchange and gold:
$48.73 billion (2004)
Debt - external:
$4.71 trillion (2003)
Economic aid - donor:
ODA, $4.2 billion (2004)
Currency (code):
British pound (GBP)
Exchange rates:
British pounds per US dollar - 0.5462 (2004), 0.6125 (2003), 0.6672 (2002), 0.6947 (2001), 0.6609 (2000)
Fiscal year:
6 April - 5 April
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
in 2003 and 2004, Brazil ran record trade surpluses and recorded its first current account surpluses since 1992. Productivity gains - particularly in agriculture - also contributed to the surge in exports, and Brazil in 2004 surpassed the previous year's record export level and again posted a current account surplus.
Who cares about the trade surplus? Their GDP, the most accurate measure of economic strength, blows. And according to your source, it declined even further in 04.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
As of 2004 they are about on par with the UK remarkable for a South American country AND they have a higher growth rate.
Dude, their labor force is three times the size. And growth rate? Just time for the next hill in the roller coaster. They have no stablity.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kelzie said:
Who cares about the trade surplus? Their GDP, the most accurate measure of economic strength, blows. And according to your source, it declined even further in 04.
Ya but they're still able to compete on the world market look at in relation to the U.K. and then compare their growth rate to ours:

The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $40,100. In this market-oriented economy, private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions, and the federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace. US business firms enjoy considerably greater flexibility than their counterparts in Western Europe and Japan in decisions to expand capital plant, to lay off surplus workers, and to develop new products. At the same time, they face higher barriers to entry in their rivals' home markets than the barriers to entry of foreign firms in US markets. US firms are at or near the forefront in technological advances, especially in computers and in medical, aerospace, and military equipment; their advantage has narrowed since the end of World War II. The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. The response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 showed the remarkable resilience of the economy. The war in March/April 2003 between a US-led coalition and Iraq, and the subsequent occupation of Iraq, required major shifts in national resources to the military. The rise in GDP in 2004 was undergirded by substantial gains in labor productivity. The economy suffered from a sharp increase in energy prices in the second half of 2004. Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups.
GDP (purchasing power parity):
$11.75 trillion (2004 est.)
GDP - real growth rate:
4.4% (2004 est.)

GDP - per capita:
purchasing power parity - $40,100 (2004 est.)
GDP - composition by sector:
agriculture: 0.9%
industry: 19.7%
services: 79.4% (2004 est.)
Labor force:
147.4 million (includes unemployed) (2004 est.)
Labor force - by occupation:
farming, forestry, and fishing 0.7%, manufacturing, extraction, transportation, and crafts 22.7%, managerial, professional, and technical 34.9%, sales and office 25.5%, other services 16.3%
note: figures exclude the unemployed (2004)
Unemployment rate:
5.5% (2004 est.)
Population below poverty line:
12% (2004 est.)
Household income or consumption by percentage share:
lowest 10%: 1.8%
highest 10%: 30.5% (1997)
Distribution of family income - Gini index:
45 (2004)
Inflation rate (consumer prices):
2.5% (2004 est.)
Investment (gross fixed):
15.7% of GDP (2004 est.)
Budget:
revenues: $1.862 trillion
expenditures: $2.338 trillion, including capital expenditures of NA (2004 est.)
Public debt:
65% of GDP (2004 est.)
Agriculture - products:
wheat, corn, other grains, fruits, vegetables, cotton; beef, pork, poultry, dairy products; forest products; fish
Industries:
leading industrial power in the world, highly diversified and technologically advanced; petroleum, steel, motor vehicles, aerospace, telecommunications, chemicals, electronics, food processing, consumer goods, lumber, mining
Industrial production growth rate:
4.4% (2004 est.)
Electricity - production:
3.839 trillion kWh (2002)
Electricity - consumption:
3.66 trillion kWh (2002)
Electricity - exports:
13.36 billion kWh (2002)
Electricity - imports:
36.23 billion kWh (2002)
Oil - production:
7.8 million bbl/day (2004 est.)
Oil - consumption:
19.65 million bbl/day (2001 est.)
Oil - exports:
NA
Oil - imports:
NA
Oil - proved reserves:
22.45 billion bbl (1 January 2002)
Natural gas - production:
548.1 billion cu m (2001 est.)
Natural gas - consumption:
640.9 billion cu m (2001 est.)
Natural gas - exports:
11.16 billion cu m (2001 est.)
Natural gas - imports:
114.1 billion cu m (2001 est.)
Natural gas - proved reserves:
5.195 trillion cu m (1 January 2002)
Current account balance:
$-646.5 billion (2004 est.)
Exports:
$795 billion f.o.b. (2004 est.)
Exports - commodities:
agricultural products (soybeans, fruit, corn) 9.2%, industrial supplies (organic chemicals) 26.8%, capital goods (transistors, aircraft, motor vehicle parts, computers, telecommunications equipment) 49.0%, consumer goods (automobiles, medicines) 15.0% (2003)
Exports - partners:
Canada 23%, Mexico 13.6%, Japan 6.7%, UK 4.4%, China 4.3% (2004)
Imports:
$1.476 trillion f.o.b. (2004 est.)
Imports - commodities:
agricultural products 4.9%, industrial supplies 32.9% (crude oil 8.2%), capital goods 30.4% (computers, telecommunications equipment, motor vehicle parts, office machines, electric power machinery), consumer goods 31.8% (automobiles, clothing, medicines, furniture, toys) (2003)
Imports - partners:
Canada 17%, China 13.8%, Mexico 10.3%, Japan 8.7%, Germany 5.2% (2004)
Reserves of foreign exchange and gold:
$85.94 billion (2003)
Debt - external:
$1.4 trillion (2001 est.)
Economic aid - donor:
ODA, $6.9 billion (1997)
Currency (code):
US dollar (USD)
Exchange rates:
British pounds per US dollar - 0.5457 (2004), 0.6139 (2003), 0.6661 (2002), 0.6944 (2001), 0.6596 (2000); Canadian dollars per US dollar - 1.3014 (2004), 1.4045 (2003), 1.5693 (2002), 1.5488 (2001), 1.4851 (2000); Japanese yen per US dollar - 108.13 (2004), 116.08 (2003), 125.39 (2002), 121.53 (2001), 107.77 (2000); euros per US dollar - 0.8048 (2004), 0.8866 (2003), 1.0626 (2002), 1.1175 (2001), 1.08540 (2000)
Fiscal year:
1 October - 30 September

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Ya but they're still able to compete on the world market look at in relation to the U.K. and then compare their growth rate to ours:
Dude, a growth rate doesn't mean a whole lot if it isn't steady. Actually, I take it back. And unsteady growth rate is a sign of a unstable economy.

Not the point though. What has globalization done for them? Numbers don't lie. After they deregulated, their economy tanked, and they haven't recovered since then.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kelzie said:
Dude, their labor force is three times the size. And growth rate? Just time for the next hill in the roller coaster. They have no stablity.
You also have to consider that they have only adobted free market reforms for 10 years now the U.S. and U.K. have been doing it for the last 250 the UK even longer than that. Of course they're not perfect but imagine the potential, my proposal is more of a long term big picture kind of deal.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kelzie said:
Dude, a growth rate doesn't mean a whole lot if it isn't steady. Actually, I take it back. And unsteady growth rate is a sign of a unstable economy.

Not the point though. What has globalization done for them? Numbers don't lie. After they deregulated, their economy tanked, and they haven't recovered since then.
No their economy tanked before they deregulated it due to the stagnant socialist economy brought on by lack of competition, deregulation is the only thing that's gotten inflation under somewhat of a control. For example the Soviet Unions economy didn't fail because they deregulated it, they deregulated it because it failed.
 
Last edited:

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
You also have to consider that they have only adobted free market reforms for 10 years now the U.S. and U.K. have been doing it for the last 250 the UK even longer than that. Of course they're not perfect but imagine the potential, my proposal is more of a long term big picture kind of deal.
Well, their track record sucks so far. I think you're being a little too optimistic.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No their economy tanked before they deregulated due to the stagnant socialist economy brought on by lack of competition, deregulation is the only thing that's gotten inflation under somewhat of a control. For example the Soviet Unions economy didn't fail because they deregulated it, they deregulated it because it failed.
Prove it. Find the GDP before deregulation.
 

teacher

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
5,980
Reaction score
30
Location
Nomad.Got a couch,beer,meat,cute daughters,Batman
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So what Kelzie, are you an isolationist? We could economically rape most any country in the world if we so desired. We take economic hits from countries that we help develop to raise their quality of life because it's the right and moral thing to do. When these counties diversify enough to compete in multiple markets they can overall take a hit in specific items and survive over all. Years ago my middle daughter was in a car accident. A helicopter was there in 20 minutes. Most other countries you lay in a ditch and bleed. We are changing that for the world. Free trade helps them get into the big game. And as countries get better off in their standard of living they have more to lose by going to war and being dicks. How many Iraqi women know the temperature that water takes us the least volume? Educated wealthy people are peaceful people. I read once that no two countries with McDonald's have went to war.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
teacher said:
So what Kelzie, are you an isolationist? We could economically rape most any country in the world if we so desired. We take economic hits from countries that we help develop to raise their quality of life because it's the right and moral thing to do. When these counties diversify enough to compete in multiple markets they can overall take a hit in specific items and survive over all. Years ago my middle daughter was in a car accident. A helicopter was there in 20 minutes. Most other countries you lay in a ditch and bleed. We are changing that for the world. Free trade helps them get into the big game. And as countries get better off in their standard of living they have more to lose by going to war and being dicks. How many Iraqi women know the temperature that water takes us the least volume? Educated wealthy people are peaceful people. I read once that no two countries with McDonald's have went to war.
Good book. Regardless. I'm not believing it on your word. The Brazilian economy sucked once they globalized. Prove that it can help a country.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kelzie said:
Prove it. Find the GDP before deregulation.
Here you go:

Per Capita GDP/GNP: 2,540

GDP/GNP Million: 388,000

GDP/GNP Growth Rate %: -4.60

Inflation rate %: 1795.00

Labor force: 57,000,000

Unemployment rate %: 4.40

Budget expenditures Million: 48,200.00

Budget revenues Million: 36,500.00

Industrial growth rate %: -8.90

Exports Million: 31,400.00

Imports Million: 20,400.00

External debt Million: 122,000.00


http://www.theodora.com/wfb/1992/brazil/brazil_economy.html
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
GDP/GNP Growth Rate %: -4.60
Compared to the 13% drop after they deregulated, that's pretty good.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kelzie said:
Compared to the 13% drop after they deregulated, that's pretty good.
How do you mean look at the first figures I gave you on Brazil the real growth GDP in 2004 was 5.1% as opposed to -4.6% in 1992 which was before the deregulation of Cardossa in 1993-4.
 
Top Bottom