Narcosis said:
Still waiting for your response to my last post, but instead you came back with your "default" response.
If you do take responsibility for what goes on in your country why don't you acknowledge it and not try to put spin on the subject at hand by flag waving and chest slapping like a good ole boy.
The mere fact you underestimate our ability to progress on our own by even underestimating the wealth of natural resources we posses, is proof that you can't see beyond your own propaganda.
I had stated in my post that we (Latin Americans) lack the will to group and work together and help each other become the sleeping giant that we are,(mea culpa), but you ignored that and came back with the same old political line that we are responsible for our own past.
If you really mean what you said about taking responsibility for what your country does why don't you admit to your country's role in the Latin American past/present? Instead you resort to saying we are US bashing, a very effective way to get the least intellectual members of this forum to jump-in and whistle dixie in your support.
NOTE: The terms, "YOU" and "YOUR" are rendered in the PLURAL for the sake of clarity and are NOT intended to be directed toward/at any single individual.
Well, partner, I was just taking a page out of your own book and to show you how you have been interpreted in the past!
That said, let's get down to the business of discussing the pro's and con's of dollarization for the DR.
You might be very surprised that I really don't support such a move at this time. It wold be entirely too expensive a proposition for this nearly bankrupt nation to take on. They, by your own admission, have the US$ reserves to make the transition in a manner that would be beneficial.
As to the effects of such a move, I really think that it would be primarily psychological since most of the products currently on the market are imports to begin with and are paid for in $US at the point of shipping; whether that originating point be Japan, Europe, USA or where ever. All these points of origin demand payment in dollars since it has become an (and in most cases the only) international medium of exchange. It is an economic convenience, nothing more, nothing less. Importers pay in US$ which are then converted by the recipients into their own currency or leave it to pay out(or collect) the balance of payments within the international marketplace.
And YES, the US is ONE of your trading partners, But not the ONLY ONE. The DR does a MASSIVE business with China, Taiwan and Japan! These are your MAJOR sources of Elictrical and Automotive products, NOT the US!
What trade reciprosities do you have with those nations, who, by the way, glean MOST of your dollars into their coffers, judging by the trade names/marks that I see in the Supermercados, Ferriterias, etc in Santiago and Santo Domingo.
Although I haven't read the proposed Free Trade Agreement which is being touted by the US, I have absolutely no doubt that the US negotiated from a position of strength and in those areas which they were most desirous of fulfilling to their advantage. You would do the same in their shoes. Maybe your negotiators caved in too soon, I have no way of knowing since I wasn't there.
Your(plural) idea of there being a Latin American Community, modeled after the European Union, is a good one and very well may be the solution to the many economic problems that have, and will continue to beset the arena. But, when you speak of loss of sovergnty, that would be one of the results of such a union and I'm not sure that Latin Americans (like the Southern US Americans in the US of Civil War times and subsequent) would give up their nationalistic feelings in order to form such a union. Europe worked on that problem for decades before arriving at a consensus.
Regarding the FTA and the subsidies furnished to the American farmers. Those subsidies have been a fact of life and survival to the farmer since the 1930's when they were first promulgated. Those subsidies have allowed the farmer to conduct extensive crop and land improvements, thereby creating larger productions on fewer acres, creating a better quality product, effecting desease resistant fruits and vegetables; I could go on and on. But the overall effect has been seen and passed on to those who wish to take advantage of the progressive methods thus evolved.
For the most part, the vegetables in this area can't compete with similar US products because the quality isn't up to US grading standards of form, size, nutritional content and being desease free. Your melons, cocao, and the like being a few of the exceptions. Your oranges and other citrus products would be graded as "juicers" only due to the unclean appearance of skin rust alone.
NOT that they are any less sweet and juicy, but by visual condition. Celery doesn't have the thick, white fullness that is the standard in the US, but has a very thin and underdeveloped stalk. All this explanation is not intended as denigration, but instead, in explanation of why your produce would not be accepted on the US market. Thus, the argument of subsidies is irrelevant by definition. I hope you both see and accept that point.
The allusion to subsidising the Air carriers (more correctly, the US Flag Carriers) is not a very good analogy in the face of the numerous carriers that have retired from the scene over the years. Initially the US Postal guaranteed that a carrier of mail over certain routes would break even, but not any more. That the US offers monetary incentives to those Flag Carriers today is not debated by me. I don't entirely agree with the methodology nor the philosophy. Only the fact that the American Public DEMANDS that such convenient transportation facilities be "supported" by the "guvment" is an arguable scenario. My comment is, 'let them sink or swim by their own efforts".
However, since all European and Asiatic nations which have Flag Carriers in competition offer subsidies to those carriers, it becomes a "fact of life" and can't be dealt with at my level except through protestations to my congressman. I stand mute on the subject as herein discussed.
As to the IMF, World Bank, and other lending institutions, I have this to say.
These are institutions who have outlived their usefulness since they have abrogated, essentially, their original mandate. They have taken on a cloak of holding out a bone to a hungry dog, then demanding the dog come back for more later on when that bone proved to be insufficient to it's needs. They don't demand that the funds lent be used for a specific purpose, nor ask why the loan is necessary to begin with. They don't act responsibly in the light of irresponsible fiscal policies of the borrowing nation. In my estimation, that is fraudulent lending. No other comment.
Your right! I keep saying, "Get your own house in order before you attempt to tear down mine". I mean that with all my being.
In a Democracy, it is our responsibility to act as watchdogs over the government we elect to assure ourselves that that government is acting in our best interests. To lazily lay around and let your country go to the dogs is absolutely unforgivable. And that is what has happened. I'm sorry if that hurts and is offensive, but there it is. No amount of fruitless rationalization will change the fact, whatever the cause.
The policies of your government AND mine can be changed. We, in the US, are constantly protesting government actions/policies of one form or another and eventually those actions/policies will be changed. At least, we're taking those actions incumbent upon us as citizens and that is what it takes to keep any government in line with what it's citizens want. That's Democracy.
In a way, I feel that I'm preaching to the choir, because I know we all have the same goals, ideals and basic beliefs. It's just that we may, at times, focus on the external instead of the internal.
Texas Bill
