Stabilization of the economy is key to economic growth, especially in developing countries or newly industrialized countries, such as Thailand. I'm just saying that specifically in the case of Thailand before the Asian Economic crisis that some sort of control over FDI would prevent the havoc that followed after liberalizing its economy too quickly to foreigners--which had attracted unsound investments from the outside. At least, by keeping its barriers to investment high, it would be more stable than what had happened afterwards. Was there a reason to believe that Thailand's economy would be just as unstable as it was after the crisis if investment barriers were left unchanged before the crisis?
Every single economy in the world has some sort of command and control, but not all have a long history of failure. Only socialist and import substitution economies have a long history of failure. Thailand is neither of those.
Can someone please explain how an economy with a comparative advantage in bananas (Costa Rica, for example) can benefit from free trade? How could it reach economic success by selling bananas alone? Bananas don't make much of a profit. Its labor also doesn't provide much earnings either. Its workforce is not that educated. Is free trade universal? Please do not just say yes. I like more analysis and explanations on this one, and consideration for both sides of the debate.
Best, Celine