Serious question: Where is Colombia's interest?

Monpirri says on Oct 12, 2007, 19:09:

In trade both parties, or both countries really interested will benefit!
For instance, let’s say you and I, and let’s make believe that you are country and I'm another one.
I have oil, fruits, and coal just to make the list short. You have buses, laptops and rubber, so you export what I need and I export what you need. I buy 20,000 buses and you buy 10 million worth of coal.
You’ll benefit in the export because you have to increase production and make a sale, I'll benefit in the export because I have to increase production a make a sale and when the demand increases in production, the business generates more jobs. Does it make sense so far?

Ok, just take a look at other countries that are currently involved in trading with the US, or are importing and exporting to any other country in the world. By the way, importing and exporting is a centuries-old trade.

I think when trade does not work is when I want to export to you at a lower and substandard price because I'm a voltiarepa which means I just want to be your friend no matter what chaos I could cause to the economy or morale, I will do anything and everything for peanuts because I just want you to be very happy with me, you know I love you kind of stuff and I do not give a damn about the rest or the damn country.
Bottom line, as long as the trade agreement is fair to both parties we have a successful business.
I’m sorry for the silly humor and I hope someone with expertise in international trade will help you with a better explanation.

Annette Taddeo for US Congress 2008

Bill Turley says on Oct 12, 2007, 19:46:

Think about poultry In the US chicken legs are very cheap, boxes of legs for about 40 cents
and bigger turkeys are less than 30 cents per pound. In Colombia retail prices are $2/lb for legs and $4/lb for turkey
If you are a poultry producer, the TLC is bad
If you are a housewife trying to feed her family it is good.

The turkey production will never move to Colombia, Beltsville takes care of that. With chicken only by adopting the artificial methods used in the US ( hormones and force feeding) can chicken production compete. It would be a tragedy to lose the gallinas available in the country.

Mr. Bill Somondoco

Monpirri says on Oct 12, 2007, 19:58:

Yep, I have heard the chicken/hormone story many times here and on the other site. I believe is the credo of persons who are not in favor of trading with the US. But, come on, let's look at this venture with a global sense of mind and forget it about the damn chicken with hormones. I do not think that's the ONLY raw material they have on the table for trade, there are dozens of other things for exporting or importing that will help both countries.
If trading with a developed country is not good for Colombia, why other countries are doing well as we chat here?
MAC

Annette Taddeo for US Congress 2008

Monpirri says on Oct 12, 2007, 20:03:

Mr. Bill Somondoco, I thank you for your comment and I apologize if sounded arrogant or upset. ;>)

Annette Taddeo for US Congress 2008

Tinto (Moderator) says on Oct 13, 2007, 05:46:

I've had this debate with Rubito. You can look it up here, or better yet, the FDA or USDA sites. For over 50 years, the use of hormones in chicken feed has been illegal in the U.S.

Now, if you want to say most of the chickens in the U.S. are grown in 'factory farm' conditions, that's true, but there are also multi-billion dollar chicken companies in Mexico, Brazil and elsewhere using the same methods and exporting around the world. I'm not familiar with chicken production in Colombia; I don't know what the chicken houses look like or how much space each bird has, but I do know they eat imported corn and soybean meal from the U.S. Frankenfood corn and soybean meal. And since the evil European and American chemical/pharmaceutical/veterinary care companies all have sales offices in Colombia (a few of them have production facilities, too) the chickens might be eating MEDICATED FRANKENFOOD!

And all of this without a free trade agreement "forcing" the importation and use of these products. Strange, huh?

Bill Turley says on Oct 13, 2007, 06:14:

You guys missed my major point If you are a producer of chickens and turkeys TLC BAD
If you are a consumer of poultry TLC GOOD

Mr. Bill Somondoco

Tinto (Moderator) says on Oct 13, 2007, 06:27:

In the early years, you might be right, Bill, but I don't think it HAS to be that way long term. Poultry production is not a high tech enterprise and it doesn't require a huge amount of capital. I fail to see why the Colombian producer is at such a disadvantage. By the way, NAFTA has not decimated the Mexican poultry industry.

U.S. poultry producers do not receive government subsidies. They are successful because they are hyper efficient and the chicken feed is sometimes grown literally in their back yard. Colombians have to import feed, but then they don't have to ship refrigerated or frozen product thousands of miles to their customers. And if they built chicken houses in the right year-around climate, they wouldn't have the huge costs that some American producers have heating and cooling the chicken houses. Colombians also have a low cost labor advantage in their slaughterhouses and egg packing plants.

dwmte7 says on Oct 13, 2007, 07:09:

high production poultry farms are alive and well in colombia. those chaps are not living in the dark. take a ride up to barbosa, about 40 miles north of medellin, and on your left about a mile or two before barbosa, is a very large poultry facility. their methods, although not as highly mechanized as the u.s., are clearly designed to maximize the poundage per day factor and deliver to the markets as economically as possible. it is odd, that the prices for chicken are as high as they are in colombia ???. never figured that out. here you can buy a 10# bag of leg quarters for .45 cents a lb. there, one chicken--small--will cost you that. you figure. there are clearly import obstacles in place, otherwise large scale producers in mexico and the u.s. who produce poundage at appx the same price would have their chicken on the shelves in exito and candelaria. but we needs remember that poultry and other animal food products are only a few of the countless thousands of products ready to cross borders, free of levies. this is not a simple, cut and dried, fair trade program. here we are, twenty years into opened trate agreements with mexico and we're both still ironing out our various postures in the issue. an equal amount of time will pass before a really functional agreement is in effect.

look at cars in colombia. for the price of a taxi there you can buy a cad deville here. again, you figure. it's all corrupted by the status quo--controlled by the have's--in colombia. a used car can cost you more.

the end of all this so called negotiation is nowhere in sight. don't be looking for big opportunitities anytime soon. remember well, the have's in colombia control everything. and they have no intention of giving up that control for the common good. at least not in my lifetime. anytime you can have all the workers you need without putting out a dime, we're not gonna see changes in this system easily. people live and work on the fincas for a PLACE to live. they can grow their own vegis and sell some of their products for a little cash, but they don't expect money from the landowner.

dwmte

Monpirri says on Oct 13, 2007, 07:40:

Colombia have been trading with other countries as well and with Chile they have been enjoying a solid good trade as well for several years.

Annette Taddeo for US Congress 2008

poco says on Oct 13, 2007, 15:53:

Quote: here we are, twenty years into opened trate agreements with mexico and we're both still ironing out our various postures in the issue. an equal amount of time will pass before a really functional agreement is in effect.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
At least it got started.

Canada / US trade was LARGER than China / US until this month. Anyone ever hear that? Canada doesn't appear that they've suffered a whole lot.

---------As an affluent, high-tech industrial society in the trillion-dollar class, Canada resembles the US in its market-oriented economic system, pattern of production, and affluent living standards. ,,,,, The 1989 US-Canada Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (which includes Mexico) touched off a dramatic increase in trade and economic integration with the US. -----

Link: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.ht...

Free trade as it is being applied to Colombia isn't free trade in the strictest sense. Nooooooooo,, it gets political because REQUIREMENTS are attached that have NOTHING much to do with free trade. US congress does NOT think Colombia has done enough to rid the Country of armed conflict, union leaders, etc , . Gezzzzzzzz

Link to another article because it would be difficult to answer a specific question when everything is effected. http://www.policynetwork.net/main/article.php?article_id=816

Yep,, even chickens may get cheaper THEY ARE EXPENSIVE and YES everything in D7's post is correct as far as I'm concerned (but I get the right to read it again).

Poco, Colombias foremost expert on Chickens:

"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov

Lcacique says on Oct 13, 2007, 16:06:

The kind of things that I worry about in instances like this is that they are rarely fair. I heard somewhere that Colombia used to produce somewhere around 80% of their own food crops in the 70's and now they import that percentage from Western countries due to the fact that Western agriculture is subsidized; therefore, Colombian agricultural industries cannot compete. Is this good for Colombia? Who knows, it is difficult to say. Are the goods in the market cheaper as a result, benefiting consumers? Maybe. However, when you consider how vital this industry was to Colombia, it means that many people inevitably lost their jobs. Is that good? Are their enough alternatives for these people: new training in other fields of employment, education, jobs in other sectors, etc. Colombia is home to the second largest population of internally displaced, partly because the rural areas have been crushed by unfair competition (amongst other things: violence).

It is difficult to judge what kind of influence these types of agreements will have on developing countries and it depends on a host of other circumstances. Unfortunately, it usually has a negative impact in many cases. My economics teacher, a conservative, thinks that our policies towards Latin America have had negative consequences more often than positive ones. Me, I'm still learning, but I tend to agree with him given what I've learned so far.

As for why Colombia would enter such an agreement if it doesn't benefit the country as a whole? They might do it because it benefits those who are making the decisions.

Monpirri, I agree. Free trade is good in general; however, it depends on the terms right? I hope that what is decided will have a positive result for everyone. Hopefully, the U.S. is not just looking out for itself. I also wish our military spending through Plan Colombia would be diverted to other services like education and investment in infrastructural changes. Colombians are very gifted and intelligent people, and the U.S. should help invest in their betterment instead of solely focusing on the military. Helping the economy in Colombia is a multifaceted issue, hopefully the leaders are aware of that and that they have everyone's interests in mind.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

poco says on Oct 13, 2007, 16:11:

Quote: I also wish are military spending through Plan Colombia would be diverted to other services like education and investment in infrastructural changes.

Dream on,, I can just see the US congress saying,, GUYS,, lets give Colombia a big educational / infrastructure boost and send them ??????????? is it 500,000 million per year now? and they'll never need to pay it back.

"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov

fecherklyn says on Oct 13, 2007, 17:06:

Lcacique,

You have got the closest to the question I was really trying to ask....basically I was (probably very unclearly) asking are these trade agreements fair?

Why do I ask this?

Some nations have complained the agreements have not really benefitted them (E.g. Mexico, I understand).

Some nations suggest the USA pushes trade agreements because the mechanics are always in their faveur (Chavez and the "left" are so convinced).

Even little me asks myself what can Colombia possibly export to the USA? (Especially, if many domestic industries in the USA are protected by subsidies?).

Because of the above, there are many people in Colombia who ask themselves why should we try to accomodate a "free" trade agreement with the USA which will only allow the "have its" to obtain fashion mode jeans, Ipods, etc. cheaper than now whilst our clothes/flower manufacturers will still not get a "fair" into to the USA markets because of protective subsidies?

My question is whether or not sceptics have the right to ask the above question?

Tinto (Moderator) says on Oct 13, 2007, 17:15:

Fecherklyn, I think you have some misconceptions about which side is protecting which industries. An example: The Colombian flower industry would not exist at its present size were it not for the ATPA.

http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Development/Preference_Programs/ATPA/Section...

Flower growers in the state of California would love to have "their" market back, but it's gone to the Colombians and Ecuadorians (85% of Colombia's flowers are sent to the U.S. duty free). In effect, Colombia has had a free trade agreement with the U.S. for 16 years but it's only in one direction (to Colombia's benefit). The proposed agreement lowers tariffs in both directions and, yes, it will help some U.S. industries to export more to Colombia, by lowering Colombia's protectionist tariffs.

Trade agreements are always a mixed bag. There are winners and losers, some temporary, some permanent. And Colombia, whether it is negotiating with the U.S., the E.U. or China is always going to have less leverage than the other guy. That's where regional trade blocks and/or the WTO can come in - to level the playing field - but not enough countries can get along for a sufficient amount of time to expand these regional and global agreements. So we're stuck doing bilateral deals...

Monpirri says on Oct 13, 2007, 17:38:

Lcacique, right on!

"Hopefully, the U.S. is not just looking out for itself. I also wish our military spending through Plan Colombia would be diverted to other services like education and investment in infrastructural changes. Colombians are very gifted and intelligent people, and the U.S. should help invest in their betterment instead of solely focusing on the military. Helping the economy in Colombia is a multifaceted issue, hopefully the leaders are aware of that and that they have everyone's interests in mind."

Annette Taddeo for US Congress 2008

Monpirri says on Oct 13, 2007, 17:43:

Fecherklyn,
"Some nations have complained the agreements have not really benefitted them (E.g. Mexico, I understand)." Where do you get this information? I believe you are 100% wrong.

Annette Taddeo for US Congress 2008

fecherklyn says on Oct 13, 2007, 18:11:

Tinto, thank you for the info regarding the flower trade market. Exactly what I was trying to ascertain....how much of heresay is (1) correct and (ii) representative of the whole picture?

Monpirri, "I believe you are 100% wrong about Mexico". Sorry Monpirri, I read it somewhere but have no idea now. However, it raises an important point...."What should one believe of all one hears and read"?". Again, this comes back to my main question: "Are trade agreements fair and equitable...and how can one judge?"

Chavez calls Colombia "crazy" to enter into a "pact" with the USA and goes so far as to withdraw Venezuela from the Andean Pact because of it. But the Colombian Govt feels it is for Colombia's good and lobbies the Senate to approve it. Who is right?

Surely in this day and age we have the means to monitor the performance of an agreement (contract) and determine if it met its objectives? When I was in finance this was a normal part of the post-operative auditing of a contract. If one can do this at corporate level...why can one not do it at national level?

poco says on Oct 13, 2007, 18:19:

Quote: to obtain fashion mode jeans, Ipods,

While paying the 16% national sales tax? This would HELP the poor.




Wonder if Colombian chicken ranches will go out of business? Will the poor benefit from chickens at half price? I wonder if Colombian chicken farms will purchase more machinery and modernize their facilities to better compete? I wonder if Colombia will purchase machines and equipment they will NEVER be able to manafacture? I wonder if medical devices and prosthesis will be cheaper?

I missed the first one and I wonder if there are more naked protesters in my future?

"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov

dwmte7 says on Oct 13, 2007, 19:32:

oddly enough, i spent my first seven years in univ. thinking i wanted to be an economist...much to my disillusion, i was to discover their was no more room for another galbraith or a harrington....and i damn sure didn't want to work in industry or teach.....sooooo i went back to the big U of berk and studied textiles and saved my soul.
most of the questions about how does it help colombia (ns) the answer is, it doesn't. it proves economically favorable to the already rich and priviledged as they profit from increased cooperation with the u.s. as for the populace...they suffer. and will suffer more. plan colombia just provides agent orange to defoliate an already decimated agribusiness in rural colombia and im not just referring to drug crops...rather, all crops. the rural poor can't begin to be a force in the agricultural business and there's no way that REAL agribusiness can flourish in the short term in colombia because of the geophysic character of the landscape. only tool and die and industrial, chemical, plastics and manufacturing receive favorable tariff adjustments that in and of themselves, don't translate into $$ for the workers. on the contrary, because of the status quo in colombia, the propensity to keep the lower class in it's position and prevent the development of an upwardly mobile middle class is so deeply ingrained in the rich and landed, that they are blinded to the long term benifits such upward mobility would produce throughout the economy...including their own bottom line. pity. but this problem of greed is so pernicious that colombia is and will be, stuck in the mire of a third world mentality for a long time to come. all you have to do is hang out with a few of the truly wealthy awhile and you will sense first hand what i mean. they are, to a man, adamently against anything which will change the serfdom which they so enjoy. the same is alive in mexico, where there are more billionaires than there are in the u.s. you figure.

dwmte

Monpirri says on Oct 13, 2007, 19:59:

Fecherklyn, if you want to talk to me please quote the exact words the way I said it, do not alter or modify what I have said. This is what I said, ""Where do you get this information? I believe you are 100% wrong."
And this is what you changed and quoted me as saying, "Monpirri, "I believe you are 100% wrong about Mexico". Sorry Monpirri"
To truly learn about the results of the trade with current countries and the US you have to go to the local super market stores in the US and mainly now in Texas to see what I am talking about.

Dwmte7, Chile has been doing very well with their agriculture trade why can't Colombia do the same?

Annette Taddeo for US Congress 2008

Lcacique says on Oct 13, 2007, 21:23:

Listen, this is not directly related to economics, but I'd like to address a response to my comment about how I feel the U.S. should divert some of the funds that go to purchasing helicopters, weapons, and chemicals through Plan Colombia to other services. Poco, you are right the U.S. would NEVER do it. However, I think it would be a much better policy decision than the current one. Destroying rural areas with poison only creates more poverty, more suffering and more guerillas. It also is likely to cause more coca cultivation (which it is intended to stop) because people are forced to harvest something quickly that they can profit from in order to buy the food they once harvested for themselves. In addition, the eradication or fumigation makes coca less available; therefore the price goes up and more peasants will choose to produce it. So, your comment that the U.S. would be losing money by diverting funds to other projects is lost on me. Current policies are extremely wasteful, more so than the things that I had in mind. They actually might see a return on the things that I mentioned.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

poco says on Oct 13, 2007, 21:59:

Quote: mexico, where there are more billionaires than there are in the u.s. you figure.


Dwmte7: You were doing sooooooo well with the chickens. I want you to know I love seeing statements of ""facts""???? and ONLY ON RARE occasions do I see one with such an outstandingly erroneous statement.. PS: I did figure,,, this is rich, mean poor.

2006
Fact: Mexico 10 --- that's TEN.
-----
Fact: Sweden 5 --- that's FIVE
------
Fact: Switzerland 23 --- that's TWENTY THREE

Fact: United States slightly less than 300 (too many to count accurately)

Casts doubts on your other opinions and credentials:

"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov

dwmte7 says on Oct 14, 2007, 04:28:

sorry poco....that was a comment on the news of recent.

dwmte

dwmte7 says on Oct 14, 2007, 04:30:

however, poco, the recent public discovery of mr. carlos slim somehow makes up a large portion of the differential.

thanks for pointing out my error.

dwmte

fecherklyn says on Oct 14, 2007, 07:14:

Monpirri,

Sounds like my reply upset you. It shouldn't have.

I used the words in quotation (", " ) to point you back to the comment you had made that I wanted to address (Being lazy, I only quoted part of your comment). I then started "Sorry Monpirri...." as I was apologising for not remembering exactly where I had read about what I had stated. In short, I was politely answering your question.

Calm down.

Monpirri says on Oct 14, 2007, 07:46:

Ok, as long as you are aware that you unintentionally changed what I've said.
Thanks

Annette Taddeo for US Congress 2008

poco says on Oct 14, 2007, 09:41:

Quote: sorry poco....that was a comment on the news of recent.

That's OK, Haven't seen you make similar statements in the past. News,, The modern equivilent of Grimms Fairy Tales.


You're high on my list of reliability, entertaining and thought provoking posts. Oh, honest is important. Quite a few would have edited their post and they know who they are.

Added this link: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/10/07billionaires_The-Worlds-Billiona...

Maybe a person could look at the location of the country, read the profile, see how they made their money etc. I'd bet most live in a country with some amount of free trade.

Sweden has almost the identical PERCENTAGE amount of Billionaires as the US. Go figure ?

"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov

dwmte7 says on Oct 14, 2007, 12:51:

what's the population, 2,000,000,,,just kidding.

dwmte

Robert Jorge says on Oct 14, 2007, 23:51:

I want to know where you can buy chicken in the US for 40 cents a pound. I am extremely frugal, and I stock up when I find whole chickens for 74 cents a pound. I did notice chicken was relatively expensive in Colombia. But the beef is dirt cheap compared to the US. Most cuts of beef at Walmart, here in Destin, are 4 to 6 times more expensive than in Colombia.

One pollo broaster in Villavo, with papas and platano is 11 mil. When I was there that was $4.50 US. Now $5.50. That is a good buy for gringos, but for the average Colombian family, that is pretty expensive. Maybe a once a week treat.

--"I believe in making the world safe for our children. But not for our children's children, because I don't think that children should be having sex." - Jack Handy

dwmte7 says on Oct 15, 2007, 07:02:

hello, robert....that's a walmart price. and it's not whole chicken. it's leg quarters. a ten # bag is $4.00 to $4.50 a bag...depends on the day. my wife doesn't like cutting up chicken so i buy the bag. usually a chicken will be about 3.50 to 4.00. where's destin?

dw

dwmte

Man Tequila says on Oct 15, 2007, 08:14:

Must feel the love pretty often then?

Aunque no me creas/ si me lo propongo/ lograre olvidarte/ porque a fin de cuentas/ no soy tan cobarde./ Y termino todo una de estas tardes/ no sera dificil buscar algún sitio donde refugiarme/ donde nunca mas vuelvas a encontrarme. (Polo Montañez)

slguy says on Oct 15, 2007, 09:30:

Interesting thread. I've often wondered the exact same thing as the OP. Who really benefits from the deals?

I studied economics in university (lo, those many years ago) and despite my best efforts, my only answer is "depends".

Too many variables, too many defintions of "benefits".

Us capitalists would argue that when trade increases, it's good for everyone. Because, more business means more jobs. (yea, yea - maybe not jobs where everyone can live in Estrata 6, but some income is better than none, isn't it?)

Our leftist brethern would argue that most trade deals only benefit "the rich and landed oligarchy", whoever that is. (does that include anyone who has a finca for weekends? How big must this land be, to earn that label? Or is just living in Rosales enough to be called an oligarchist? Depends, I guess...)

Personally, I think economic data on free trade's impact is like the Bible - you can pick and choose data to support whatever position you want to take. So - the "chicken pricing guide" is as accurate as anything available.

How much is a whole chicken in Cartagena these days? ;)

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

bill230 says on Oct 15, 2007, 09:50:

understand that.

Robert Jorge says on Oct 15, 2007, 11:01:

dwmte7, pm sent. I don't want to further irritate GIB, talking about chicken legs rather than acres of abandoned greenhouses.

--"I believe in making the world safe for our children. But not for our children's children, because I don't think that children should be having sex." - Jack Handy

poco says on Oct 15, 2007, 13:37:

Quote: Destroying rural areas with poison only creates more poverty,

For over 5 years I’ve lived in a Rural FARMING AREA and we’re not talking being outside or even close to a city. There are farms EVERYWHERE, from one acre to huge multi thousand acre farms with on site processing plants.

Nice thought but that’s WAS NOT and IS NOT happening. Number 1, MILLIONS of folks have been displaced from their farms. One group says plant coca or die, another group say if you plant coca you’ll die. So, rather than dying, they leave. THIS HAPPENED BEFORE PLAN COLOMBIA. The area where I live is under military control and there is NOT,, listen UP,,, NOT ONE industry EXCEPT farming. There are some coffee processing facilities nearby. Farming is HARD and LOW PAY work. A majority of the younger locals are REQUIRED to move to a city to find a job. Which is OK because ANY kind of job is better than being a worker on a farm. SAME THING happened to the US and that’s a FACT because I grew up on a farm.

No area has been destroyed with poison sprayed with AIRPLANES during plan Colombia. Ha,, (no - LOL) MUCH more powerful chemicals are being sprayed on crops right NOW with AIRPLANES. Not to kill them, to increase production. These chemicals are OUTLAWED in the US. Dursban and Lorsban are in routine use and you’re worried about ROUNDUP? Give me a break or maybe you’d like to witness 50 more years of civil war? I think the US finished the civil war in what? 5 years and 500,000 dead.

I’d say that pouring huge amounts of coca processing chemicals into the streams, water tables, AND national forests where the drug trade has been given immunity is MUCH worse. Plan Colombia were/are spraying ROUNDUP a chemical used to kill weeds and sold to US consumers in quantities that might be in the hundreds of thousands of gallons or MORE.

I haven’t seen this addressed on this site or anywhere for that matter, but one effect is the LOCAL coca growers association (LOL) is FORCED TO MOVE. Where do they move? An AREA they don’t CONTROL. Now then, these coca producers who have been FORCED to move have a choice, do they ""throw in"" with who rules the NEW territory? Not usually because the controlling faction does NOT need them, in fact they are persona non grata and will probably be killed by the ""rulers of that fiefdom""?.

One effect has been to breakup the enormously powerful drug lords into less powerful drug lords and they have less influence on the national political entities and some what to the population in the area.

BTW: This is a link to the United States based Colombian embassy. At least they seem to furnish links to articles (LOL). They have links directing folks to articles about the subject of this post.

http://www.colombiaemb.org/opencms/opencms/



PS: A whole chicken (4 pounds) in a rural area, roasted on a rotisserie with the grease draining into a 5 gallon plastic can is 8,000 pesos. The grease is used to feed the pigs.

A live chicken (Pollo) that weighs about 7 pounds on the hoof, will sell for hopefully 18,000 pesos around christmas, probably 12 to 15 right now. The girl I'm with is raising 20 pollos (not those scrawny, tough hens) and three ducks. I've asked for a photo.

Cost of a 3 day old chick is 2,200 pesos, 6 days 3,200. Photo of the crop selection a few years ago.

"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov

dwmte7 says on Oct 15, 2007, 16:47:

very nice post, poco, you should join the establishment...become a senador or something along those lines. at least you have a serious grip on the realities and problems. keep typing.

dwmte

slguy says on Oct 15, 2007, 17:01:

jajajajajajaa

Honestly, I wasn't trying to sound like an economist. I don't even think of myself as an economist, it's just what a lot of my coursework was years ago.

But it is true that "who benefits?" in this case is just broad a question to answer well.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

Lcacique says on Oct 15, 2007, 20:16:

Poco,

You're smoking crack if you actually believe what is posted on the embassy page. The Embassy has no bias at all in this matter, do they? That would be like asking the government of Argentina in the seventies and early eighties if they were involved in all of the disappearances. Or better yet, asking the US government during the Vietnam War if Agent Orange/Dioxin posed any health risks to US soldiers (a product made by Monsanto, who makes Roundup, and Dow Chemical).

It is widely known that what is being sprayed in Colombia is not simply Roundup. The talking heads refer to it as glyphosate or, as you chose, Roundup because it is the main ingredient. In addition, it is a legal herbacide. More importantly, it implies that it is safe because the product is legal and used in the US.

In an academic article form 2005 that was printed in the "Journal of Drug Issues," Volume 35 issue 1, the author studied information that was provided by the US State Department and Colombia's National Police concerning both the concentration of glyphosate found in the product used in Colombia as well as how much was applied to each hectare. They found that the "dosage is the equivalent of an application of 3,700 grams (3.7 liters) per fumigated hectare. The figure corresponds to almost 500 times the dose recommended by the laboratory." Even at normal doses, glyphosate has been attributed to increased problems in human reproduction. Not to mention the fact that additional chemicals are added to this product, most likely increasing its toxicity.

I agree that the chemicals used in the drug trade are extremely toxic as well, but fumigating has not resulted in a dramatic reduction in cultavation. As I stated earlier, it generally provides extra incentive to produce more. That is simple economics. Scarcity=a price increase=increased production. If there is a success in reducing coca cultivation in one area, production simply moves to another area. You could blow up Colombia and the loss in production would simply be offset by gains in other countries. In addition, those countries might not be as friendly to US policies as Colombia.

As for getting rid of drug lords, it is an interesting concept. I agree that some high profile cartel members have been caught as of late. However, the paras co-opted the industry long ago and they aren't going anywhere. The demobilization was a joke and it only made them more powerful as they have increased their political power.

Quote: "Give me a break or maybe you’d like to witness 50 more years of civil war?" The civil war existed long before the cocaine trade. I assume that you are thinking that taking away coca will dismantle the guerillas. Maybe. However, there are other ways to make money. Drugs are not the solution to ending the civil war, which in my opinion has been going on for longer than 50 years.


Wow, you live in a flourishing farming area in Colombia. That is nice. There are even small farms. Neat. Is that intended to imply that there is some sort of equitability in the division of land? That's a real positive outlook. I've never heard that one before.

Sure people leave the farms to go to the city to find work. Sure city jobs beat the hell out of slaving away in a field all day. But it is the call of bright lights. You are implying that there are jobs to be had in the big cities. And many of my friends in Colombia would disagree that "any" job is satisfactory. Some actually would like to have a little security, enough money to eat well and to pay rent. Unfortunately, there are many, many, many people struggling to get by in Colombia. Moving more people in to the cities will only make a big problem worse.

Nevertheless, it is obvious that we do not see eye to eye. I'm not going to waste my time anymore.

p.s. I should mention that I applaud the rebuilding efforts that you took part in. At least I think that was you.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

Robert Jorge says on Oct 16, 2007, 01:09:

I know the flower industry is hurting down there. I can report that most (all) cut flowers sold in Winn Dixie, Publix, and Wal Mart up here are either Colombian or Equadorian. So a lot of flowers are still coming into the US from Colombia. Anyway, I hope no matter what happens, things work out for the benefit of both countries.

--"I believe in making the world safe for our children. But not for our children's children, because I don't think that children should be having sex." - Jack Handy

Lcacique says on Oct 16, 2007, 09:46:

77% of all imported flowers to the US come from Colombia. Imports of flowers have risen 60% since 2002. Colombia is the second largest exporter of cut flowers right behind Holland. 17% of US imports of flowers come from Ecuador.

Don't try to manipulate want I'm saying into some sort of claim that I think Colombians should stay in rural areas working on farms. I just simply think it is wrong to go to another country and spray chemicals (even if they were safe) on legal/illegal crops in areas that are largely populated by peasants.

I would love to see other industries take off in Colombia. I would love to see a dramatic increase in high paying urban jobs. I would love to see the influx of rual citizens being easily absorbed by the cities with minimal negative consequences. I would love to see a higher standard of living for Colombians. And, by the way, I would love to see an end to the civil war. However, one should be extremely critical of any trade policy between an industrialized country and a developing country because the industrialized country is in a postion to demand more from the trade.

As for clothing, I think it is great that they are producing clothes. Those are not necessarily the best jobs, but they pay better than many others I would assume. My only worry is that they will be forced to compete with the asian factories which have a greater abundance of cheap labor. Mexico watched many of their maquiladoras shut down after NAFTA as firms moved to China.

Obviously there will be gains and losses. As I stated before, I simply hope that the agreement will benefit the majority of Colombians and not just the elite minority.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

Monpirri says on Oct 16, 2007, 09:54:

"77% of all imported flowers to the US come from Colombia. Imports of flowers have risen 60% since 2002. Colombia is the second largest exporter of cut flowers right behind Holland. 17% of US imports of flowers come from Ecuador." I agree! and soon I'll be going to Colombia to buy more flowers. :>)

Annette Taddeo for US Congress 2008

Desideria (Moderator) says on Oct 16, 2007, 09:55:

Lcacique, you're expressing my very own concerns about trade agreements between two hugely unequal partners. Just like you, I'd love to see Colombian agriculture, industry, commerce and services develop and bloom and produce jobs and sustenance to all Colombians; poor, middle-class, wealthy. I fail to see how that will happen if the trade agreement with USA will become reality.

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

Monpirri says on Oct 16, 2007, 09:58:

I wonder how the trade happened with other countries that were hugely unequal patners???

Annette Taddeo for US Congress 2008

Lcacique says on Oct 16, 2007, 11:04:

Another problem that one has to consider when it comes to these types of agreements is that developing countries often have very little that the industrialized countries want. Clearly they have some things, but often there are other devolping countries that have the same goods. Therefore, there is competition between the devoloping countries to try to produce, extract, cultivate in the cheapest manner possible to attract trade. On the other hand, industrialized nations have a wide variety of goods that the developing countries need and want. This creates a very unfair situation and it is why so many governments of developing nations agree to less than fair trade agreements, because industrialized nations do not need them as much as they need the industrialized nations.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

poco says on Oct 16, 2007, 12:53:

Lcacique Quote: You're smoking crack if you actually believe what is posted on the embassy page.

Nope; These are the links on the front page.

International crisis group. http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5115&l=1
Bunch of sneaky dope smokers?

Caracol Radio: http://www.caracol.com.co/noticias/494149.asp
Propaganda ?

Latin Business Chronicle: http://www.latinbusinesschronicle.com/app/article.aspx?id=1709
Capitalists the whole lot?

Letter sent to the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/lweb15colombia.html?_r=3&ore...
Alien conspiracy

Invitation to attend a speaking engagement: http://www.colombiaemb.org/opencms/opencms/extras/news_item.html?id=23...
Darn,, announcement of a speaking engagement, why? because reading your ideas is better, right?

Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/news/world/latinamerica/articles/2007/10/15/home...
I sure you can’t believe it.

Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119240961259058764.html?mod=googlenews...
More capitalist propaganda,, right?

Associated Press: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i17syAITvC41t92IJKTVvtmiH3ZAD8S98O8...
Ha,, I can tell you don’t put much faith in them either.

Latin Business Chronicle: http://www.latinbusinesschronicle.com/app/article.aspx?id=1704
Damn: TWICE they are linked,, bet you think it a conspiracy?

Miami Herald: http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/story/271889.html
I'm sure no one can believe this? But, but, but.. I’ve seen this drivel posted on PBH

Business and Technology: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003948217_tr...
I’d assume you are totally against this. Doubt if it fits your profile.

Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB119214401767756547-lMyQjAxMDE3OT...
I’d suppose you DON’T want this DANGEROUS information published.
USA today: http://www.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2007-10-11-cartagena-side_...
Another article refered to on PBH. Are you against unedited links?

There are more but you seem content posting your current delusions and I don’t want to impinge on your warm fuzzy feelings.

"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov

manINred says on Oct 16, 2007, 12:54:

Yes. Lcacique has hit the nail on the head.

Industries must take off in Colombia for the trade imbalance to dissipate (I believe at some point within the last few years it was something like 30bn exports and 200 bn imports between the states and latin america). The modernization theory clearly cannot apply, the dependency theory will not apply since it does not offer any feasible solutions.

How is Colombia to industrialize to the point where they can begin trading under the same terms that the North trades? Well, I'd be a millionaire if I had a definitive answer.

manINred says on Oct 16, 2007, 12:56:

Monpirri trade occurs worldwide between hugely unequal partners. The developed world (US/Canada, Europe, Australia) will never complain at the subordinate economic position that these developing countries are in. They (we, the north) want to keep their (our) priveleged positions at the top and keep their (our) lifestyles the way they are.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Oct 16, 2007, 13:07:

I'm not following you, ManInRed. There are a number of small countries that have done quite well, even before the WTO or some of the regional trading blocs were as established as they are today. Some of them had abundant natural resources, some of them didn't. What they all had, or decided was imperative to have, was the rule of law and educated citizens.

manINred says on Oct 16, 2007, 13:19:

Which small countries? Various studies have shown trends that (developing) countries with abundant natural resources often fair worse than countries without in terms of development. Why? I would have to look into it.

It came up recently when two posters were comparing Costa Rica to Colombia.

Lcacique says on Oct 16, 2007, 13:23:

Poco,

Is everything on the embassy a lie. No. Is it all propaganda? No. But the fact that they provide links to newspaper articles means very little to me. Those same newspapers run articles that provide support for my argument as well.

I could provide you with links to just as many articles, but what is the point?

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

Tinto (Moderator) says on Oct 16, 2007, 13:30:

Leaving the "resource curse" and the oil kingdoms/tyrannies out of things, here are a few off the top of my head:

Chile, New Zealand, Ireland (lots of EU welfare money, but they also cleaned up their act), all the Scandinavian countries, The Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Estonia, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore.

Some of the above have been developed for many years, some of them are fairly new in the rich world (or almost rich) club. All of them rely on trade - huge amounts of trade - for their prosperity, if not their very survival. Japan, for example, has no hydrocarbons to speak of.

Re the "good government" argument - look at Canada vs. Mexico and the relative levels of prosperity. One has capitalized on their relationship with their giant neighbor, one has not. Colombia, like Mexico, ought to be RICH -- proximity to the US, warm water ports on two oceans, next door to the Panama Canal, self-sufficient in energy, an abundance of water, food, mild climate, beautiful places/tourism potential, etc, etc. But until they stop the violence, build stronger institutions and stop spending so much money on their military, they never will be.

Lcacique says on Oct 16, 2007, 14:22:

Tinto, I agree with you. But as you yourself admit, many of those countries were already developed. Earlier you pointed out a key factor that applies to many of them: Education. S. Korea is a good example of this. They were once a labor abundant nation; however, the government placed a HUGE emphasis on developing human capital through education and training.

The four tigers that you elude to (Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and S. Korea) supported export-led industrialization strategies. They all initially utilized protective measures to support upcoming domestic industries; however, they moved quickly to reduce tariffs and other protective measures and encouraged/supported growth in manufactured goods where they had a comparative advantage. In addition, since they are involved in a larger market due to trade, they are able to take advantage of economies of scale (bigger companies are generally more efficient than smaller companies). Also they had low restrictions on imported goods forcing their domestic sector to compete which increases efficiency (keep in mind that they were competing in an area where they held a comparative advantage). The four tigers did see great benfits from their decision. The only problem with these cases is that if more and more countries follow suit, it will be difficult for industrialized countries to absorb the increase in products. Nevertheless, it has worked so far for the 4 tigers.

While Japan has no hydrocarbons, it is interesting that exports as a percentage of GDP for the nation is 13%, while Imports represent 11%. Therefore, trade only repesents 24% of their GDP. The US, exports=10%, imports=15% for a total of 25%. I found that pretty interesting. Canada the total =72%.

The situation depends heavily on the route that Colombia chooses to go as well as the terms of trade. Growth in most cases is and can be good. But simply looking at an increased national income does not mean that the country is better off if the division between the rich and poor has grown as well. There have been cases, like East Asia, where there has been growth and a decrease in poverty. It can be done.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

Lcacique says on Oct 16, 2007, 15:34:

Some of the links that you listed, Poco, are interviews with Bush and Condoleezza Rice. An article that regurgitates their points of view and quotes statistics that they have provided can not be considered empirical evidence. I stated the fact that I think the embassy might have a bias in the matter, so you provide me with links form their website that include articles with US officials as proof that they are not biased. Interesting. I guess that you think Bush doesn't have a dog in the fight. In addition, the credibility of our President is highly questionable considering the laundry list of documented fallacies that he so eloquently promoted over the last few years.

As i stated before, everything on the site is not false. But come on, they have an interest in all of this...of course they are going to provide, in large part, articles and information that support their agenda. They do not have to lie, they can simply neglect to tell the whole story. Is it a big conspiracy? No. It is politics and business, the way they have been played for quite sometime. In addition, my worthy adversary, at least I recognize that there is a whole lot of grey area in this matter. But you seem to want to dive head first into the bowl of Kool Aid. Be my guest!

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

juancegomez says on Oct 16, 2007, 16:55:

I also share a few of Lcacique's concerns, but I do believe that a free trade agreement negotiated with better terms could help at least alleviate some of them. Not that likely to happen but not impossible, IMHO.

poco says on Oct 16, 2007, 17:16:

Laci Quote: Is everything on the embassy a lie. No. Is it all propaganda? No. But the fact that they provide links to newspaper articles means very little to me. Those same newspapers run articles that provide support for my argument as well.

Makes me happy you understand my point that the Colombian Embassy has items linked to MANY CURRENT news sources and if you looked, much more. I see you might agree the bias is minimal.

Try the politics and war forum, although I've a suspicion you've been there.

"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov

Lcacique says on Oct 16, 2007, 17:23:

gringo, if you're replying to my comment about Colombia's flower trade, "Imports of flowers have risen 60% since 2002," that would mean that the study occured sometime after 2002. The study is from 2006. I believe that was last year.

http://www.fas.usda.gov/ustrade/USTImFatus.asp?QI

Thanks for your concern, though.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

dwmte7 says on Oct 16, 2007, 17:25:

the developed countries as mentioned above, conduct themselves in trade agreements, as do wealthy colombians when dealing with their economic lessers...the poor. they have no desire whatsoever to change the status quo.

this is not pequliar to colombia, but a reality worldwide. it's just that we're talking about colombia. don't look for much change soon. the campesinos today, will be campesinos, ten years from now. unless the tooth fairy has her way.

dwmte

poco says on Oct 16, 2007, 20:07:

Nice Link, i'll place it near my link to the CIA fact book Thanks.
http://www.fas.usda.gov/ustrade/USTImFatus.asp?QI

Laci Quotes: Wow, you live in a flourishing farming area in Colombia. That is nice. There are even small farms. Neat. Is that intended to imply that there is some sort of equitability in the division of land? That's a real positive outlook. I've never heard that one before.

Do you imply there is the existence of inequity in land division? Colombia has a History of property ownership by individuals. Living in a democracy (or republic) LOL requires the purchase of land.

Vast areas of land have been set aside for National Parks. This is a list. Not sure if it is current but there are maps linked.

http://gosouthamerica.about.com/library/nColombianatlparks.htm

There are areas where an individual can ""lay claim"" to land if he makes it sustainable. Las Gaviotas is one example. Uribe has stated he will transfer title of 100,000 MORE acres (45K–HA) when the area is secured from the FARC.

Obtaining a chicken in every pot requires some modicum of effort.


This edit added: Quote: They do not have to lie, they can simply neglect to tell the whole story.

This is nothing new and almost everyone has their own fairy tale. Gives you a starting point, burying your head in the sand is never productive.

"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov

Lcacique says on Oct 16, 2007, 22:28:

"Today, Colombia figures among the countries in the world with the most unequal distribution of land, a situation that has been both the objective and the result of armed conflicts and displacements; 0.4 percent of landowners own 61 percent of rural land. Instituto Geográfico Agustín Codazzi, 19 March 2004. More than 50 per cent of the population live below the poverty line, according to government statistics, with rural areas particularly hard hit (WB, 2006, p. 23; March 2002, p. 2). Comprehensive agrarian reform, which would improve their situation, has been blocked by an increasingly powerful alliance of government officials, the national army, landowners and their paramilitary protectors."

http://www.internal-displacement.org/idmc/website/countries.nsf/(httpEnvelopes)/7994964F3955C802C125719200585B76?OpenDocument


Similar data can be found most anywhere.

Ownership? How was that ownership obtained?

Colombia a Democracy? I guess. A democracy where political opponents are assassinated instead of debated.

Do you enjoy tennis?

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

Lcacique says on Oct 16, 2007, 23:23:

"Developing countries have been lectured about how government subsidies and protectionism distort prices and impede growth. But all too often there is a hollow ring to these exhortations. As developing countries do take steps to open their economies and expand their exports, in too many sectors they find themselves confronting significant trade barriers—leaving them, in effect, with neither aid nor trade. They quickly run up against dumping duties, when no economist would say they are really engaged in dumping, or they face protected or restricted markets in their areas of natural comparative advantage, like agriculture or textiles.

In these circumstances, it is not surprising that critics of liberalization within the developing world quickly raise cries of hypocrisy. Developing countries often face great pressure to liberalize quickly. When they raise concerns about job loss, they receive the doctrinaire reply that markets create jobs, and that the resources released from the protected sector can be redeployed productively elsewhere. But all too often, the jobs do not appear quickly enough for those who have been displaced; and all too often, the displaced workers have no resources to buffer themselves, nor is there a public safety net to catch them as they fall. These are genuine concerns. What are developing countries to make of the rhetoric in favor of rapid liberalization, when rich countries—countries with full employment and strong safety nets—argue that they need to impose protective measures to help those adversely affected by trade? Or when rich countries play down the political pressures within developing countries—insisting that their polities “face up to the hard choices"—but at the same time excuse their own trade barriers and agricultural subsidies by citing “political pressures"?

Let me be clear: there is no doubt in my mind that trade liberalization will be of benefit to the developing countries, and to the world more generally. But trade liberalization must be balanced, and it must reflect the concerns of the developing world. It must be balanced in agenda, process, and outcomes. It must take in not only those sectors in which developed countries have a comparative advantage, like financial services, but also those in which developing countries have a special interest, like agriculture and construction services. It must not only include intellectual property protections of interest to the developed countries, but also address issues of current or potential concern for developing countries, such as property rights for knowledge embedded in traditional medicines, or the pricing of pharmaceuticals in developing-country markets.

Trade liberalization must take into account the marked disadvantage that developing countries have in participating meaningfully in negotiations. For instance, as the new World Development Report points out, 19 of the 42 African WTO members have no trade representative at WTO headquarters in Geneva. In contrast, the average number of trade officials from OECD countries is just under seven.

In approaching the upcoming negotiations, moreover, we must look at them not in isolation, but in a historical context. We need to address suspicions born of a legacy of past power imbalances.

Moreover, we must recognize the differences in circumstances between developed and developing countries, differences to which I have already alluded. We know that developing countries face greater volatility, that opening to trade in fact contributes to that volatility, that developing countries have weak or non-existent safety nets, and that high unemployment is a persistent problem in many if not most developing countries. The developed and less developed countries play on a playing field that is not level. Thus, provisions that look fair on the surface may have very different and unequal consequences for the developed and less developed countries. Accordingly, the power imbalances at the bargaining table are exacerbated by the imbalance of consequences.

There are other dimensions relating to inequality of outcomes that I will discuss later in my talk, but there is one that I want to mention upfront. Standard economic analysis argues that trade liberalization — even unilateral opening of markets — benefits a country. In this view, job loss in one sector will be offset by job creation in another, and the new jobs will be higher-productivity than the old. It is this movement from low- to high-productivity jobs that represents the gain from the national perspective, and explains why, in principle, everyone can be made better off as a result of liberalization. This economic logic requires markets to be working well, however, and in many countries, underdevelopment is an inherent reflection of poorly functioning markets. Thus new jobs are not created, or not created automatically. Moving workers from a low-productivity sector to unemployment does not — let me repeat, does not — increase output. A variety of factors contribute to the failure of jobs to be created, from government regulations, to rigidities in labor markets, to lack of access to capital. But whatever the causes, they have to be addressed simultaneously if we are to make a convincing case for trade liberalization."

http://www.worldbank.org/knowledge/chiefecon/articles/geneva.htm

This is an old quote (admittedly gringoinbogota). Nevertheless, it is from the nobel prize winning economist and former chief economist of the World Bank. He has a little more credibility than I do on economics and I think his points are still valid today.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

Monpirri says on Oct 17, 2007, 06:34:

How much we know about Colombia?
Briefly, the rest you have to use your Spanish skills, between January and June, 2007 Colombian flowers reached 601 million usd this showed up a growth of 16.7 in reference to the same period in 2006....

Bogotá, 3 de octubre de 2007
La mayoría proviene de Europa del este, mercado que toma fuerza para las flores colombianas
Flores Colombianas

Desde hoy y hasta el 5 de octubre se realiza en el Centro de Convenciones de Cartagena la novena edición de Proflora 2007, la feria más importante de flores frescas que se realiza en América.
En esta oportunidad, Proexport participa con una delegación de 99 compradores internacionales en representación de 60 empresas provenientes de los mercados de Japón (19), Rusia (18), Canadá (18), Estados Unidos (15), Reino Unido (11), Letonia (8), Alemania (3), Bielorrusia (2), Chile (2), Suiza (1), Ucrania (1) y Austria (1).
Para María Elvira Pombo, presidente de Proexport, la delegación más grande proviene de Europa del este, mercado que cada vez toma más fuerza para las flores colombianas; Rusia por ejemplo, cobra cada vez mayor importancia dado que en 2001, éste era el quinto mercado de destino y para 2006 se ubicó en el segundo lugar con un crecimiento del 275 por ciento.
Entre enero y junio de 2007, las exportaciones colombianas del sector floricultor sumaron 601 millones de dólares presentando un crecimiento del 16.7 por ciento con respecto al mismo periodo de 2006. Las ventas de rosas frescas, flores y capullos frescos y claveles frescos fueron las de mayor importancia para el sector, afirmó Pombo.
El 81 por ciento de las flores colombianas tuvo como destino Estados Unidos, seguido por Reino Unido con 3.4 por ciento y en el tercer lugar está Rusia con 2,8 por ciento.
Proflora fue creada por Asocolflores en 1991, convoca a cultivadores, proveedores y distribuidores de flores de todo el mundo. Son 11.000 m² dedicados a mostrar la calidad, la variedad y la competitividad de la industria de la flor colombiana. Se realiza cada dos años y se consolida como uno de los eventos de la floricultura más importantes a nivel internacional.

Última Revisión: 2007-10-13

http://www.proexport.com.co/VBeContent/NewsDetail.asp?ID=8845&IDCompan...

Annette Taddeo for US Congress 2008

Monpirri says on Oct 17, 2007, 06:39:

Here are some more facts about Colombia trading partners.
We can see trade partners between small and big countries and there is nothing wrong with that as long as both partners share a mutual trading benefits.

Colombia's external sector
The United States is Colombia's largest trading partner. In 2005, the U.S. received 40% of Colombia's exports and provided 40% of its imports. The EU, Japan, and the Andean Pact countries also are important trading partners. Colombia's strategic location at the crossroads of the Western Hemisphere makes it an ideal export platform. Colombia-U.S. bilateral trade has more than doubled over the past decade, from $5 billion a year in the early 1990s to over $14 billion in two-way trade in 2005. The United States accounts for 41% of Colombia's total trade with the world. Colombia is the United States' fourth largest trading partner in Latin America, behind Mexico, Brazil and Venezuela.

Annette Taddeo for US Congress 2008

Tinto (Moderator) says on Oct 17, 2007, 06:53:

If you want the most recent info, go to the DANE site and look up something along the lines of comerical exterior. You can find information year-by-year, month-by-month, by individual countries and by broad product categories.

Monpirri says on Oct 17, 2007, 07:11:

GIB, I'm sorry where do you see that they are comparing to 2001?????
Do me a small favor translate for us the paragraph where you read comparison to 2001?

Annette Taddeo for US Congress 2008

Lcacique says on Oct 17, 2007, 07:12:

gringoinbogota, calm down. I understand that using the 2002 info is how they showed that there had been growth over that period. Nevertheless, the 2002 info had nothing to do with equating Colombia's 2006 export level to the US which was 77%. That to me sounds like they still have a pretty good command of the US market. Has it gone down a little as you suggest, maybe. I do not know. Until you drive across every square inch of Colombia, your eyeballs do very little for presenting empirical evidence.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

Monpirri says on Oct 17, 2007, 07:15:

And futhermore, in addition to 81% export of flowers to the US, England is in second place with 3.4% and Rusia with 2.8%

"El 81 por ciento de las flores colombianas tuvo como destino Estados Unidos, seguido por Reino Unido con 3.4 por ciento y en el tercer lugar está Rusia con 2,8 por ciento."

Annette Taddeo for US Congress 2008

dwmte7 says on Oct 17, 2007, 08:16:

tinto and gib...it's DIAN, not DANN or DANE. (departmento de impuestos y aduanas national).

DIAN has a very good reputation--at least in the past--for being a watchdog over corruption and waste in colombia. when under the leadership--fantastic leadership i might add--of dra. fanny kurtzman (the bulldog of bogota) she unvieled more corruption than you can shake a stick at. in fact, her investigations brought to light that bienstar familiar was the most corrupt ministry in colombia. some how resources ($$$) just disappeared. i think they re-appeared in the form of casas along the banks of el penol.

dwmte

Tinto (Moderator) says on Oct 17, 2007, 08:20:

The stats I'm referring to are found at the DANE website.

http://www.dane.gov.co/

DIAN might have some for tax/tariff related purposes but I've never looked there.

manINred says on Oct 17, 2007, 09:05:

"Chile, New Zealand, Ireland (lots of EU welfare money, but they also cleaned up their act), all the Scandinavian countries, The Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Estonia, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore."

Tinto, I see your point, but these (with the exception of Chile and partial exception of the South East Asian countires) are not developing countries. Developing countries of today cannot follow the same paths towards industrialization that the developed countries did.

Industry must be built, comparative advantages must be established, and the countries must move beyond exporting raw materials... in order to do that, industry must be developed and finished goods can therefore be exported and used domestically.

Failed experiments with Import Substitution Industrialization prove that this method of industrialization is not necessarily the answer. Do we want them to stop exporting cheap raw commodities? No. I want my cheap coffee, bananas, figs, wood, minerals, etc... I want my cheap everything, so do our industries. If the developing countries (gasp) start producing their own finished products, ones that compete with our domestic ones, what will happen? We lose our priveleged position in the international economy.

As long as you have the banana republics burdened by debt, this won't change.

dwmte7 says on Oct 17, 2007, 09:25:

tinto, apology earned, apology proffered. sorry.

gib...good point

dwmte

dwmte7 says on Oct 17, 2007, 09:37:

economies only flourish when their annual product is circulated within the economy, allowing multilication and growth.

it's interesting, since the 16th century, latin america ie mexico south to tierra del fuego, started it's economic life with the same resources as did north america, primarily, u.s. and secondarily, canada.

from my view, the reason they didn't develop was because they had a 'ladron' attitude and plundered all that they could and sent it 'back' to the king, the pope, et al. here in north america, we chose to keep everything here. it was re-invested perpetually since those early years and the growth that took place is self evident. the south is still 'theft driven' those in power stealing what they can and sending it abroad... somewhere else. us, europe, grand cayman, etc. thus, they perpetuate their own demise, economically.

GOD must have loved ladrones, he sure made enough of them

dwmte

Tinto (Moderator) says on Oct 17, 2007, 09:51:

But Jesus threw the money changers out of the Temple. Hmmm...GIB is a money changer (buying one currency and selling another).

;-)

dwmte7 says on Oct 17, 2007, 10:30:

today, i got a fricken headache in my temple.

dwmte

Monpirri says on Oct 17, 2007, 10:57:

How much do we know about Colombia?

COLOMBIA - CHILE AGREEMENT
In 1993, Colombia and Chile signed an "Economic Complementation Agreement"that entered into force in January 1994. The objectives of the Agreement are, among others, to stimulate greater economic complementation between the two countries, to create a wider economic market, to stimulate investment flows, and to increase and diversify reciprocal trade.
The Agreement covers the following topics: Tariff Reduction Program, Market Access, Rules of Origin, Technical Standardization, SPS Measures, Government Procurement, Foreign Investment, Intellectual Property, Trade Practices (Safeguards, Competition, Unfair Trade Practices).
The Agreement provides for the elimination of all tariffs and non-tariff barriers on goods beginning on January 1, 1994.

Annette Taddeo for US Congress 2008

dwmte7 says on Oct 17, 2007, 11:28:

monpirri....don't see too much in there that helps the gente...lots for the already rich, but for the campesinos and rural poor, just seems like more of the same.

just my take. ain't it always that way?

dwmte

Lcacique says on Oct 17, 2007, 15:47:

My info didn't come from DANG, DANE, DIAN or DIOMEDES...it came from the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE. I believe that they have a pretty good idea of what is coming into the country.

Look, I'm not advocating flower cultivation. I put the info up because people were talking about it.

Where is Poco? I bet you a bottle of Tapa Roja that he is looking for some more freakin' links to post.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

manINred says on Oct 18, 2007, 20:33:

Dwmte7, that's an interesting perspective.

I don't agree with the 'Ladron' point of view because the nature of the populations over time has changed. The Spanish colonized Latin America to spread the Christian word. They saw economic opportunities so exploited and pillaged the entire indigenous population, and all the land and resources. What happened was as follows: eventually the creoles (latin-american born white elites) got pissed when the Spanish wouldn't allow them freedoms they would allow spanish nationals who set up shop in la tierra nueva, so they pushed for independence. This was after a new population, a mestizo population, had emerged through much intermingling. They mobilized the indigenous and mestizo population in the hopes that they would have the manpower to defeat evil and repressive spain. So Spain, the ladron, was the enemy. What does this mean? The ladron is already an outside force. What changed... well, the structural inequities implemented by the Spanish remained, but domination of society changed hands to the creoles. Since has been an internal struggle between minority elites who have the aid of the international community (since it is in boths best interest) and the majority mestizo. Wealth redistribution has begun to occur, but the process is painfully slow.

What happened in North America was different. We just killed and decimated the native population and pushed them to the fringes after stealing all the land, so industrialization came easily. We emulated Britain and Europe, and didn't have a pushy, large population of protesting mestizo/indigenous that would 'hold us back'. We had the same 'ladron' philosophy, we just dealt with it more conclusively to make sure power remained in our hands.

Lcacique says on Oct 19, 2007, 13:57:

manlNred,

Kind of, but you make it sound like the spread of christianity was most important and, oops, they found economic opportunities. Therefore, they decided to exploit the economic opportunities. To me, that sounds backwards. They were exploring because of trade, looking for economic gains. Religion and saving the "savages" was secondary, though an IMPORTANT aspect. Heck, even the Church was in the pursuit of economic gains. They were the largerst landowners in the New World and they became the major source of loans which they utilized to make even more money.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

manINred says on Oct 19, 2007, 15:18:

I realize that, but the pretense of what they did when they discovered latin america was always religious, whether or not it was an excuse to exploit or not. I assumed that it is common knowledge that the Americas were discovered by accident, that they were searching a quick trade route to the east.

Obviously economic opportunities were always at the forefront of life in Latin America, and as I said, the primary reasons for which the Creoles eventually decided to sever ties with the Spanish Crown were economic (and I suppose to an extent, political). But as a new population emerged, a population that has come to represent Latin America, and this population has been the victim of subservient elite domination. I believe that this is indeed a microcosm of Latin America's role in the world economy.

They are, however, increasingly finding their feet, the nations of Latin America.

Robert Jorge says on Oct 20, 2007, 00:25:

So the Europeans that settled in the now US and Canada didn't "intermingle" or breed with the natives? It is very common for people in the southeast US to claim Cherokee heritage. The upper midwest Blackfoot and Souix. etc etc. I am not making light of what the whites did to the natives in the US, but I would say more than one or two fathered a child back in the day with an Indian mamasita.

--"I believe in making the world safe for our children. But not for our children's children, because I don't think that children should be having sex." - Jack Handy

Lcacique says on Oct 20, 2007, 12:52:

There was nowhere near the degree of intermingling in North America that there was in Latin America. Of course it happened. But many of the brits came over as families, that can not be said of the spanish migration to the Americas. Spanish women did not come until much later and even when they did a lot of the spanish dudes had a preference for the indian women because they bathed on a regular basis where as the spanish women stunk. I know that sounds funny but it is from a primary source written at the time.

manlNred, I do not disagree that Spain also wanted to convert the world to christianity; however, the main motivation was economic. Exploration was originally funded by private merchants who wanted to break the monopoly on trade held by the Arabs and Italians. Also, Spain was battling it out with Portugal for control over these new resource rich territories. They were not fighting them for access to savages to convert. In addition, exploration always followed the illusive path of El Dorado and similiar myths not because there were converts to be had but gold and other resources. Religion, to me, was a close second to economics in providing the impetus to conquer the new world. Especially since the conversion process was nothing more than another means of economic exploitation by way of the encomienda system.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

manINred says on Oct 20, 2007, 16:13:

Definitely, we agree Lcacique. But they definitely used religion as a means of justification.

Robert Jorge, there was some intermingling, but nowhere close to the same amount that occurred in Latin America. A Mestizo population (that has become the racial majority in most of Latin America) was borne in the New World of Central and South America, and the same cannot be said about North America. In Argentina and Urugauy they killed off most of the indigenous, and promoted European immigration to their countries, which it is much more racially homogenous (white) than any other latin american country.

I'll point out that it was the pope that eventually divided South America into the "Portuguese" part and the "Spanish" part with an arbitrary line, the name of which escapes me at the moment. Thus... Brazil, and the rest of the independent Spanish nations!

Lcacique says on Oct 20, 2007, 20:23:

It was called the line of Demarcation.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

Lcacique says on Oct 20, 2007, 20:26:

manlNred, I hope I didn't come off like I was arguing with you. You are absolutely right that religion was used as a justification. And it played a vital role in the conquest.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

Desideria (Moderator) says on Oct 21, 2007, 02:38:

That'd be the Treaty of Tordesillas, 1494.
This is a map of the Demarcation Line (partial)



Religion may have played a role also in North America as many European settlers were prohibited to marry Native Americans by their churches, in order to keep their protestant Lutheran/Calvinist/Whatever faith pure and untainted.

The Catholic Spaniards were not as particular with the religious aspect of procreation. :))

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

manINred says on Oct 22, 2007, 18:37:

Bartolome de las Casas wrote a piece called "A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies" and it is very, very shocking to read. He wrote with religious bias, but his is truly one of the only (relatively) objective pieces of writing that emerged from the time in the early 1500s.

This piece is very, very informative and clarifies the exact nature and extent to which economics and religion played a role in the region at the time.

What was ironic was that the Native Americans were perfectly willing to accept the Catholic faith as their own, but were slaughtered and subordinated nonetheless, much to the disgust of de las Casas.

A worthwhile read indeed.