Welcome to Gaia! ::

Just garnering opinions. So lets play a little hypothetical.

You're in control of a medium sized state, lets say, somewhere between France and Canada in terms of power, influence and resources.

As its leader, you get to set the foreign policy. The climate is much like it is today. Mostly capitalist states in the first world, and mostly despots in the third world, and a few spots of different ideologies here and there.

First of all, your country isn't self sufficient in and of itself without sacrificing multiple luxuries and its first world status. So you have to trade at least a little.

But aside from that, do you trade? Do you trade with governments that are sympathetic to you? Do you unleash the imperial whip on little guys that could supplement you? How do you approach trade? Will you join, or at least try to join the WTO (they will force you to make certain liberalisations of your economy to gain membership)?

How about foreign investment? Are you going to tariff the hell out of foreign companies? Stop them altogether? Force them to build domestic production facilities?

TEL ME AL UR SECRITS

I've played too much Civ 4 to know that formal alliances are terrible and will get you killed in the long run.

I'd have to say that If I could, I'd focus government resources on energy and agriculture, and trade for manufactured goods from Socialist countries, or countries with a HIGH level of government employed workers like Cuba. They need energy to get up to a first world, we need other raw materials/manufactured goods.

I'd like to really see my country develop a massive recycling program as well as an automated agricultural system in the heart of cities, to maximize land away from the urban populace (for things like military, nuclear/wind/solar plants).

Good Idea?

The agriculture market is one of the most flooded markets on the planet. By focussing yourself on agriculture, you would be competing with every other third world country, and a few big time first world ones. You'd have to have a very attractive production rate versus quality and price to compete with the other sellers.

Trying to have different countries focus on certain areas isn't a bad idea though. The problem is if you have a falling out with that nation, that nation crumbles due to its own civil troubles or other such things, you lose an entire industry. So I hope you have a fall-back plan.

Massive recycling is something many capitalists desire too. So, I'd have to say if you can get it functioning efficiently, more-so than any recycling plans in effect today, then more power to you. Though, I think it should be a secondary objective in comparison to producing food, shelter and various modern, first world needs.

My internationalism not yours. Didn't we have this argument? It's also a style of globalisation that many support. Not a weird commie happy happy joy joy fest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalism_(politics)

Internationalism is a form of globalisation. I'm afraid you're mistaken in that respect.

Gracc clearly said he was against multinational economic groups such as the WTO. That's not a purely neo-liberal group. In fact, it allows plenty of provisions for Keynesian nations, and other groups critical of unrestrained capitalism.

So yeah, you're unfortunately mistaken. He railed against internationalism. Which in a sense, is just regional or community based economic ties. I'm sure if they were all Neo-Trotskyist love fests he'd be all for it, but that isn't the point.

The nations of the EU only have loose moral and ideological ties, they range from semi-socialist to hyper conservative. One example I can think of is a rule of no death penalty to gain membership. That's internationalism.

How can a poor individual possibly be expected to have the cement to build a house? Plus whatever resource it is you're demanding for them to hire the labour?

Oh screw that. How can you possibly maintain a first world status if you've completely cut yourself off to the first world. You think if the third world had to choose between making sanctions on you to please the capitalists, or trading with you despite, they will choose you? Sounds like 'North Korea here we come' is your slogan.

I don't think the nationalism, despotism and aristocrats in established African, Asian or South American nations would allow for such a merger. So how exactly are you going to convince them to surrender all their power, influence and individuality to you in return for more resources? It's basically like you're suggesting that the USA go to a third world nation and say 'You can become our 51st state".