Here's a sample of what I wrote:
result of a better economy for the Latin American countries that utilized its ideas. “ISI. . .was not financially self-sustaining. In essence ISI policies led to a greater consumption of resources than the saving generated by the economy permitted.”[1] ISI was also exclusionary: “In many Latin American countries the benefits of ISI were limited to a minority of the population. Even the most successful Latin American economies left vast segments of the population behind.”[2] Another problem with ISI “was its limited dynamism. . .The limited dynamism was due to the fact that the industry remained sheltered from the competitive forces that normally lead firms to the actions required to become more efficient, more productive, and more innovative. Markets work through competitive pressure.”[3] Peter Kingstone reiterates the facts: “Inefficiency wastes the resources of a society, limiting the wealth that the economy creates and the opportunities it can create for work or investment.”[4] Because of the governmental involvement in the way of manipulating exchange rates, limiting the competition of exports within their economies (which makes companies and workers complacent), and ever-increasing inflation ISI was not sustainable over time.
Free market ideas seem to create more prosperity than closed markets. “In a closed economy, the potential growth is limited by the size of the internal market. Protection prevents new firms from entering to compete with existing one. . .”[5] Kingstone also states, “Protected firms enjoy guaranteed markets and as a result do not feel the need to invest in new technology or to become
No comments:
Post a Comment