Oh? Many poor countries are at least resource rich. Africa has everything from chromium to oil.
They take our money and give it to the poor countries so that they will make something to trade with us,even if we don't want it.
That's not what the article says. They're talking about strengthening market conditions, not actually giving them industry. $2.7 billion wouldn't put industry into all the poor countries in the world.
While it might be charity, if private individuals were putting up their own money to do this, its WELFARE when our government pays for it.
It's expanding the market for American goods. But then again you're against trade, so you don't give a stuff about things like that. Even if it means that people might have more work in the United States in the future. You'd rather linger in some fantasy of autarky than actually admit that greater trade might be good for people. That alone would be just sad. But if people like you were ever in charge of policy, a lot of people's lives, in the United States and elsewhere, would be wrecked by the consequences of what you propose and cherish.
We don't need to ALLOW them to participate in the market. Don't you "free traders" talk about dropping all tariffs and allowing real competition?
Yes you do need to allow them into the market. The United States is not a free trade fantasy by any means - there are tarriffs and regulations about what any other nation sells to you. Sugar being a prime example - sugar is so bolstered by subsidies and protectionism that the Lifesaver factory moved from the USA to Canada because sugar is not protected in Canada, and therefore cheaper.
As it stands you phony "free traders" would rather give them handouts, our jobs through outsourcing, and our manufacturing and agriculture through offshoring. Your system stinks, rather badly I might add.
What we want is the following -
If these were in place already, there wouldn't be a need to assist any other country to catch up or gain market entry. It is precisely people like you who slow progress towards greater market freedoms, and thus prevent wealth creation. Which is a damnable, awful thing.
Ivan
This is all a sham, scam - pick your adjective.
The whole point on this side of the free trade equation is to use free trade as an excuse to market bust. The fact of the matter is that in the worker vs business game of supply and demand, workers in this country had the upper hand and were making gains over the long run. To Bush, Clinton and the globalists, that's bad. Afterall, "what's good for business is good for the economy.." right.. How do you turn workers having the upper hand into being good for business? Do you let the market work? Or do you interfere and undercut the workers in order to give the side out advantage back to business...
Simple and easy to understand. You undermine the US worker while feeding them crap about how good this is for the world economy and world trade.. They weren't elected to worry about a world economy or free trade. They were elected to look out for the best interests of the American people. Instead, they're looking out for the interests of Corporations and the very wealthy and undermining the rest of us to do so.
Welcome - to the world of Shadowrun!