4 ms·
Venezuela or Nicaragua. Though obviously the departure isn't necessarily the choice of the corporation in either of those cases. Well, in Nicaragua I'd say the
by lukeschlather 16y ago
Venezuela or Nicaragua. Though obviously the departure isn't necessarily the choice of the corporation in either of those cases.
Well, in Nicaragua I'd say the most recent event was the hurricane, and so regulation wasn't the cause of industry's (tourism's) departure. But I still stand by the general theme, that multinational corporations are engaged in something of a bait-and-switch, even if there's no intentional malice behind it.
And in Venezuela, one can blame Chavez, but clearly his platform resonates with people because of a pattern of exploitation, even if Chavez himself turns out to be merely a new vector for exploitation.
- yummyfajitas 16y agoI agree that corporations departing can cause (or be caused by) a bad economy. But neither of your examples are part of the chain of events you described: Investment -> growth -> higher wages -> low-wage seeking investment leaving -> decline I fully agree with all steps in this chain besides the last. As you say, Nicaragua was a natural disaster and Venezuela was an unnatural disaster. I agree that both of these things can cause a nation to decline, and can also cause foreign corporations to flee the country. But I wasn't asking whether disasters can harm a country and also chase away foreign investment.