Just as raw material costs would greatly increase if rich countries stopped producing them too - you seem to be ignoring the rather pertinent fact that rich countries also produce raw materials, and that raw materials produced by rich countries are also cheap.
Yes. And if the rich countries would stop production of everything except raw materials, they would no longer be rich.
If it was profitable to put a factory to manufacture sneakers in Cameroon, someone would do it, and to hell with the IMF. Why don't they? Is it because of Cameroon's debt? Is it because of the IMF? No, it's because corruption and bad governance make investing in a factory in Cameroon far too risky. Remove those risks, and foreign investment would pour in.
But the IMF (or rather, the industrial powers, using IMF as a tool) keeps these countries from such development. Corruption will always be rampant in dog-eat-dog societies. It's completely delusional to believe that one day these governments will suddenly become efficient and free of corruption, when the societies are still wretchedly poor.
To fight corruption, we have to fight poverty at the same time. This means establishing more advanced industries. Having a foreign investor start a sneaker factory is of little help by the way, as the profits will all leave the country and will not be re-invested. At any sign of increasing wages, the factory will move to the next poor country. It can never be the solution, and although I don't think governments should actively work to
prevent such 'investment', it should be no object of desire either.
No protectionism would be needed either, because foreign investment could create first-rate capital to make profitable products and sell to foreign markets at a profit.
Such capital would typically be of none or very little advantage to the country, however.
How low? What's their average tarriffs? Give me some figures.
Among the lowest in the world. I gave you three examples. Now it's your turn.
No, it's true NOW. Our exports are indeed balancing our imports. What you fail to understand is that there's a foreign demand for American currency, which we are exporting. Foreign investors want to own dollars, and they will pay for them. There's no "long run" involved: the balance exists right now.
Well, the US is not (majorly) financing its trade deficit by printing more dollar bills, as I hope you're aware. The deficit causes the US to be more and more indebted to other countries, or other countries owning a greater and greater share of former American assets. However, this is besides the point. Of course a poor country investing to create an industry needs immediate financing, loans for example.
Yes it does. Your only conception of its failures is false, because you don't realize that currency is also a product, which is also in demand.
I suggest you read Adam Smith's
Wealth of Nations. Most of this book is dedicated to countering this false belief, and Smith does so excellently. Money - whether it is gold, dollar bills, or whatever - is a symbol, not a value by itself. A country cannot finance itself by exporting money, nor can it get rich by amassing it. By exporting dollars - in effect, taking loans or selling property - the US is getting neither richer or poorer. If the value exchanged for it is used for investment, there is no harm. But if it is used for consumption - as evidenced by the trade deficit - it makes the US poorer indeed.
Again, you KEEP being wrong about this. It doesn't MATTER if those countries became industrialized: they would STILL sell raw materials for cheap, because raw materials are ALWAYS cheap. It is to our advantage for them to get richer, because then they'll be able to buy more stuff from us, and provide more valuable stuff to us in exchange. That's exactly what's happening with China: it's becoming wealthier, and that's making America, its number one trading partner, richer as well. Nobody with a clue wants any countries to remain poor. And they aren't remaining poor because of any conspiracy, or control, from outside. They remain poor because of bad governance and internal social problems.
I agree completely. However, the bad governance is very much the result of unwise policies imposed by the IMF et al. Of course there is no conspiracy. Although there is a lot of hush-hush surrounding negotiations in the WTO (that are often tied to direct or indirect threats involving the IMF), these demands are well known. And there is of course no evil plan to keep poor countries in domination. They only have that effect because of their short-sightedness. And they are short-sighted because our governments prioritise short-term, immediate interests in production of raw materials, to the detriment of industrialisation of these countries.
The IMF can do nothing about these failures.
The IMF can pull its hands off, allowing these countries to fail on their own, or succeed on their own. We could even be of some help, but not being of so much hindrance would be a good start.
I would love to see you try.
