Her argument is counterproductive. With supply and demand dictating resource distribution in a free market, dictators would no longer have the opportunity to make irresponsible economic decisions. Government intervention cannot compete with the checks and balances inherent in a market economy. A dictator stays in power by killing competition, which leads to inefficiency, increasing prices, and underdevelopment. On the other hand, multinational corporations stay in power by beating competition, and this results in increased efficiency, lower prices, and greater consumer choice.
Profit maximization leads to consumer satisfaction.
Multinationals should be a welcome alternative to a dictatorship's counterproductive motives. By choosing to encourage foreign investment in such technologically sophisticated industries as television sets or computers, a Latin American country may actually be postponing any real hope of development. This confused logic, when implemented, only stunts economic growth. Any profits these corporations realize from cheaper production costs will be passed along. If produced there, prices will fall, output will expand, and profits will increase.