We entered the global market only in the end-'80s, and that was because imports became more liberal.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Trade liberalization can be contagious, and the opening of markets regionally can spark progress multilaterally as well.
During the boom years of the 1990s, globalization emerged as the most significant development in our national life. With NAFTA and the Internet and big-box stores selling cheap goods from China, the line between national and international began to blur.
It was good to launch the economy in the '50s. Japan did this; China did this; even South Korea did this. All the East Asians did this - import substitution. I think all countries followed import substitution in the '50s and in the '60s, but I think by the '70s, countries were getting out of that first phase of the strategy.
I certainly believe that we gain through open trade and liberalisation.
It's interesting that when economic times were the hardest, that's when many people embraced liberalism.
America is becoming more and more dependent upon imports from foreign manufacturers than we are exports from our country in all fields: in appliances, in clothing, even food. This year America may become for the first time in its history a net food importer.
Old ideas of not trading because 'they won't open their markets to us' miss the entire point of allowing goods to be imported into the United States - because we want and need them and because someone here believes that the good or service received in exchange for our dollars creates value for them.
With liberalisation, Indian industry gained international exposure because of which it became imperative for companies to rework their strategies to become globally competitive.
In the '80s and '90s, China went through a giant change. It needed all resources. At the time, I was in the recycled paper business, and I realized the China market was a blank slate.
Globalization was a deep trend pushed by technology and right ideas, as much as anything else.
No opposing quotes found.