Said1
Gold Member
shadrack said:Free trade zones are a group of countries that agree to eliminate tariffs, quotas, and preferences on most goods. It's similar to a customs union, like the EU, but different in that members don't necessarily have the same policies toward non-members. FTZs are also a designated part of a country. Most FTZs in the third world countries are setup with the rationale that the zones are attractive to foreign direct investment. Many corporations are given tax breaks as additional incentive and the government bureaucracy is minimized by outsourcing this function to the FTZ operator. They also hope that FDI will result in the transfer of technologies (the backward link you were talking about). The results of FTZs are mixed.
EPZs are a FTZ. The term export processing zones was coined by the Worldwatch Institute. The prime focus is generating export revenues.
In some states, like Jamaica, companies outside a FTZ can apply for FTZ status and become a single entity free zone. These businesses are 100% tax free.
I see you've been studying, very good. You're very close, although EPZs are usually designated to areas within a free trade zone. They are similar, but not the same. If a mulitnational has to import everything required in the production of a product, there has to be an incentive to do it. Face it, all countries offer incentives, this is a common practice.
Economic "links" take time, espeically when you are working from the ground up in most cases.
Yes, it is very clear.
Did you do it? What country did you read up on? I'm seriously interested.
What did you reckon the WTO would have to say that would change anything that I have been saying? The WTO loves free trade and everything is going great! The WTO is not a Christmas tree used to hang every good cause. They leave the good fight up to other organizations. You have to learn to let those organizations place blame of human rights abuses on those who commit those abuses and engage in corrupt behavior. Believe it or not this is often multinational corporations.
Look up Mexico vs. USA, in regards to Tuna fishing. Mexico had a case against the USA, but Mexico dropped it. The WTO will help if there is valid reasons.
clever
I know, I kill me!
You see, this is where you come in: you have to let me know what youre asking for and why.
I did let you know, remember?
The article is not about the dangers of foreign ownership. Every oil operation in Nigeria is a joint venture where majority ownership is Nigerian. You may hate that its nationalized, but there are many countries with nationalized industries. The problem isnt nationalization. The problem isnt foreign ownership. The problem is multinational corporations using sophisticated legal and financial means to circumvent the bounds of standards......and yes they use the NIGERIAN legal system to do this. You take center nation's legal systems for granted and have the nerve to say Nigerian standards arent western standards.
Transnational oil companies are not following Nigerian law. The Nigerian government is too weak (for lots of reasons) to represent its people properly and provide proper mechanisms of redress that are acceptable by international standards. The oil corporations doesnt act because they say its Nigerias responsibility, so they dont provide mechanisms of redress and actually participate in leveraging the Nigerian people using the peoples own court systems. The WTO doesnt act because its not their job to address these complaints. NGOs step in to bring everything to everyones attention. Meanwhile, sludge is spilling, water is polluted, locals are pitted against one another (by corporations using financial means), civil war is brewing, and the UN places sanctions on Nigeria. My question to you is whos going to step up? Should the US step up and provide oversight of its firms that operate in other countries and provide a mechanism of redress for the people of Nigeria? This corruption has been going on for decades. Different Nigerian governments have come and gone so its difficult for me to accept that we should pin the blame on the corrupt Nigerian government. Its insulting to the people of Nigeria, frankly, because to take this view implies that the government is not only a representation for the people but that it is often coupled with the view that government is a representation of the people. It is this notion that I have a problem with. Colonialism, cold war, isolation of the wealthy are heavily to blame.
If you plan to continue this debate, I strongly urge to go back and read what you have written, and the article you posted. You may notice they do not coincide with a lot of what you've written above. Some of it doesn't even make sense!
By the way, have you ever looked at the reforms that the WTO, World Bank, and IMF implement? Have you ever considered who the complainants were that prompted these reforms?
Yes I have seen the reforms, and no I've never wondered who the complainants were since they are probably coming from all sides.
not so clever
No, you're not so clever, I see you came back with nothing.
Of course theyre not exempt. I was trying to point out that you offer a loaded statement. No one thinks that anyone should be exempt because of poverty. Have you ever read any complaints from NGOs, ILO, and others? They never exempt anyone of responsibility because of poverty.
My turn again: Since I'm like you, and too lazy to go back and read previous posts, could you please tell me what your point is?
A loan is a loan is a ridiculous statement. I think the terms of a loan make a huge difference in whether it is or isnt affordable. This whole debt thing is throwing me off, anyway. What are you trying to get at with the whole debt thing? Are you claiming the effect of a grant is an indebtedness? If so, isnt that an example of using sophisticated legal and financial means?
I mentioned development aid. You must have evidently taken that as commercial loan. To be considered a concessional loan(which is what ODA is), the transaction must be administered with the promotion of economic development and have a grant element of at least 25%. A grant element of 100% would be a simple donation.
Hopefully nations will follow through on their promises.
No, I didnt think you meant commercial loan. A loan has to be paid back, regardless of it's nature. The 25% grant element comes with strict stipulations, as do the aid payments even if they are in the form of a loan. If the stipulations are not met on time, the borrowing nation gets NO money, and is still in more debt. Since you changed your mind about debt, I suppose it's not worth discussing anymore right?
eats shoots and leaves
Bite me.
You got a lot of nerve calling a low blow when you've been mostly cursing the past several posts.
Get bent loser. I was laughing at you making fun of my spelling and grammatical errors, since yours were even worse.