"Regional integration seems to be replacing GATT. With the apparent collapse of the Seattle and Doho Rounds, regionalism is stepping in to move free trade where multilateralism has stalled. Regional integration in Europe (namely, the EU) has caused a new impetus for regionalization. NAFTA and the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI), have had an overall positive economic affect, so it seems natural that other American nations would want to integrate.
However, geopolitical factors would present strong opposition. Venezuela, for example, may voice politically stimulated opposition to an FTAA. Also, agricutlrual or even infant industry may resist an FTAA, because their lack of comparative advantage would hurt their business if trade became freer.
Consumers, though, should universally support FTAA, assuming they understand the true dynamics of regional integration. They would have more choices as new markets open, and competition should make prices more attractive.
Industries with low factor specificity could in the long run be introduced to more technological innovations, and gradually gain a larger market share in areas where China has dominated.
Americans who calim that NAFTA has cost them jobs should realize that China actually lost more jobs between '95 and '02. In a nation such as the U.S., unemployment is mainly affected by monetary policy, not globalization. Additionally, most jobs lost are caused by increased presence of technology, not by free trade.
A FTAA can be successful if properly implemented. Many developing countries with "infant industy" could be paralyzed by trade integration if they do not follow property monetary policy. In order for FTAA to succeed in the long-run, it must be implemented gradually, giving developing countries time to adjust, prepare, and shift resources to areas wehre they have a competitive advantage regionally."
And another essay, addressing debt relief policy. And yes, I made up a word and misspelled a few others. Its becoming evident that I depend on spell-check more than I though. Anyways, these little essay things are worth typing out, to me, because I like to read old things that reflect of me at another time.
Publish PostDebt relief is not the key to worldwide development. Nor does it promote a more stable financial system. Proponents of debt relief are blinded to the political implications that affect its overall usefulness. Lottery winners rarely use their winning to invest wisely and with a view to the future. Rather, the money is spent lavishly on short-term conveniences. By the same token, rulers in developing countries are not faithful stewards of the aid. Debt relief if affected in like manner.
The IMF should reevaluate its role to worldwide development. Short term fixes rarely contribute to sustainable development. IMF money should not be used for debt relief. Instead, money should be focused on areas which will promote long-term development and stability.
Debt relief carries an impression of benevolence which looks good politically. However, few people realize the ineffectiveness of debt relief to worldwide development. Foreign aid focused on sustainable development, not debt relief, is vital to the goals and virtues of the IMF.
Developing countries should be approached on a case-by-case basis, with a view toward investment that will stimulate trade and economic activity. Leaders in developing countries will need to cooperate accordingly. This will not be easy, but with support from the OECD, developing states can be persuaded to adopt strategic trade and investment policies that will even bring added stability to the sphere of international finance.
Those who continue to receive debt relief become dependent and complacent, while lenders grow more and more frustrated at the squandry [sic] they observe. Debt fatigue will soon set in, and the developing states will find it harder to acquire money. The IMF should shift from debt relief to sustainable development. This action realigns IMF policy with its purpose; worldwide development and international financial stability.
