Posted on 07/29/2006 4:45:54 AM PDT by A. Pole
[...]
The current round of trade talks was launched in 2001 at Doha, Qatar, an authoritarian location conveniently off- limits to protesters.
[...]
The trade agenda has been set by business elites who would impose one economic model on the world -- the model of laissez-faire. This model rejects more than a century of Western history, during which democracies have relied on government regulation and social investment to temper the instability and income extremes of a pure market economy. The elite model would also coerce Third World countries to give up their successful development strategies, in which government helps local business develop new technologies and markets, and fledgling economies are sheltered from foreign speculation.
To the extent that Third World countries have already given in to US pressures, results have often been disastrous. East Asia's economic meltdown of 1998 was largely caused by too abrupt an opening of local financial markets. Speculative capital poured in, overheating local economies; then, when the winds shifted, it poured right out, sinking economies that were otherwise sound. Much the same thing happened to Mexico.
Current trade rules make it too easy for global business to deny workers in both poor and rich countries the fair fruits of their labors, despite rising productivity. US multinationals outsource in search of cheaper labor. China runs a huge trade surplus, in part by denying its workers fundamental rights and decent wages. This puts downward pressure on wages in the United States, Europe, even Mexico.
[...]
It embarrasses free-trade ideologues that the most successful emerging economies like Japan, Korea, and more recently Brazil, India, and China, have generated their own domestic savings and entrepreneurs, and have not relied much on foreign investors. This has both produced high rates of growth, and insulated them from imported instability.
[...]
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
If that's how you feel.
If the Japanese for instance are building new plant and equipment for our industrial infrastructure, obviously that is win for us Americans.
However, if the debt is being used solely for current consumption to be paid off later, (remember when it was the Republicans who talked about future generations paying off debts?) I don't see the gain.
Simply trading assets like stock in existing US based companies (and their future revenue streams) for the consumption of foreign goods is very problematic.
Please review my #20, and highlight what you find "problematic."
You'd know more about whether you're a fool than I would, but please don't speak for the rest of us.
You're saying that we got a "trade deficit" and this is bad. Maybe you're talking about the Current Account or maybe you're talking about exports and imports. Whatever. Hopefully we can all agree that something like unemployment or real wages is important. Please tell us why a "trade deficit" is important.
Please tell us why US taxpayers must pay for "globalization"?
The U.S. net international investment position at yearend 2005 was -$2,693.8 billion (preliminary) with direct investment valued at current cost, as the value of foreign investments in the United States exceeded the value of U.S. investments abroad (table 1). At yearend 2004, the U.S. net international investment position was -$2,360.8 billion (revised).
The -$333.0 billion change in the net investment position from yearend 2004 to yearend 2005 was largely due torecord private net foreign purchases of U.S. securities, including U.S. Treasury securities, and to depreciation of most major foreign currencies against the U.S. dollar, which lowered the dollar value of U.S.-owned assets abroad. The impact of these net purchases and exchange-rate changes was largely offset by price appreciation of U.S.-held foreign stocks that surpassed by a large amount price appreciation of foreign-held U.S. stocks.
The story is supposed to be that "free trade" was moving jobs out of the US and into Mexico.
we've got a $15 billion trade deficit with Mexico, 300,000 jobs have gone south,
Pat Buchanan, ..opposed NAFTA and a lot of the jobs going to Mexico
That's not FDI, friend.
Definition: FDI stands for Foreign Direct Investment, a component of a country's national financial accounts. Foreign direct investment is investment of foreign assets into domestic structures, equipment, and organizations. It does not include foreign investment into the stock markets. Foreign direct investment is thought to be more useful to a country than investments in the equity of its companies because equity investments are potentially "hot money" which can leave at the first sign of trouble, whereas FDI is durable and generally useful whether things go well or badly. [emphasis added]
Source
The U.S. net international investment position at yearend 2005 was -$2,693.8 billion (preliminary) with direct investment valued at current cost, as the value of foreign investments in the United States exceeded the value of U.S. investments abroad (table 1). At yearend 2004, the U.S. net international investment position was -$2,360.8 billion (revised
FDI is a subset of your "net international investment" figure. Understand now?
You were wrong.
Beats me too.
If you build a factory here, the government will tax and regulate it. If you build your factory overseas, the Federal government will insure it for you.
Then I am not the one misunderstanding. It's the BEA that isn't using the very definition they signed on for in the convention.
OPIC is a self-funding agency.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.