Sorry, but I just couldn't resist another anti-American post

[robinturner]

Few people outside the U.S.A, and even fewer inside the U.S.A., realize how much the rest of the world are propping up its sagging economy. Whether it is relatively rich countries who provide markets massaged by U.S. protectionism, or poor countries who provide slave labour (where would Nike be without all those kids in Asia?) we are all the Wonderbra of the American economy.

This means in effect that the world is paying a tax to support America. Given that Bush is trying to railroad us into a war that hardly anyone in the world wants, I have this to say to the American government:

"No taxation without representation!"

Comments

[harpersromo.livejournal.com]

As an American, let me say this: I agree quite a bit with what you're saying, but keep in mind there are A LOT OF US who aren't pleased either with this direction. Politically and morally bankrupt. And as for the economic angle that you mention, I should add that it would do us -- the United States -- a world of good if the minority of wealthy did NOT ship the work over to 3rd-world countries because that continues to screw up employment here. But the thickheads who voted for W. can't grasp that here.

[circumambulate.livejournal.com]

I'm not personally in favor of Shrub's little war, but your post is ridiculous. The US runs a trade deficit with every industrialized nation - roughly $30-40 Billion a month. Who's supporting who's economy?? And, perhaps you should ask all those poor asian kids how they would feel if well-meaning folks, such as yourself, took away their jobs. In 99% of the cases, that child would return, as nothing more than an unwelcome burden, especially if the child is female, to a family that was dependent on that income, and with access to no education. Is there exploitation of labor in poor countries? Sure. Is there anything uniquely American about it? Umm, no.

[solri.livejournal.com]

You're forgetting imperialism (believe me, as a Brit, I know all about it, as we were world champions in this field some time back). India was one of the wealthiest countries in the world before we turned up.

I accept that part of the economic dominance of Western countries is due to their own efforts, particularly their efforts to free themselves from religious dogma and despotism. If you want to industrialise, you should first force your king to accept a constitution, or better still, chop his head off. Then you execute a few priests/mullahs to show them who's boss. Then you pass laws to guarantee property rights, then pass other laws to restrict the potential of your newly-created urban proletariat to rock the boat. At the same time you build up your army and navy, and invade any despotic, superstitious, undeveloped country that's blocking free trade. Ooops.

Of course Third World countries have to whore themselves out to First World countries, and you're right that this is not uniquely American: European countries used to abuse the Third World in spades, and still do when given the chance, but America does it so much better. So subtle ... we used to go and massacre the natives then set up a colonial government; the U.S.A., having massacred it's own natives, settled for economic pressure and "regime change" (I've lost track of the number of countries that America has invaded and/or destabilised). Iraq is nothing new: apply economic santions (causing, according to U.N. estimates, around half a million deaths) then call for "regime change". We've seen it all before in South America.

Even if we leave aside political and military pressure, the First World, and America in particular, have enough resources to dictate whatever economic terms they want. Under capitalism (or perhaps under any system) the more powerful party will generally arrange things so that any freely negotiated contract is to their advantage (even while benefitting the other partner in the short term). In the short term it benefits the families of child labourers to have them employed by companies subcontracting to multinationals, since if they weren't, they'd be working for some local guy who'd pay them even less. I would rather take to armed robbery than put my child in a factory where she or he would be worked senseless and beaten on any occasion, but that's a personal thing.

So would the children making Nike trainers be happy if they lost their jobs because bleeding-heart liberals boycotted Nike? Well, maybe, but their families certainly wouldn't. On the other hand, if someone were to kidnap some of the Nike executives responsible and force them to stich shoes for twelve hours a day, there would be a lot of smiling faces in Asia. Like nineteenth-century British industrialists, upper-class Americans love the idea of hard work, but in practice ...? (And please don't tell me that sitting in board meetings trying to decide which company to asset-strip is hard work - that's just boys' games. Hard work is the stuff you do in fields, factories and mines).

[solri.livejournal.com]

Good call. I sometimes forget that my "I hate America" posts could be misinterpreted as "I hate american people." Unlike some Europeans, I don't find most americans to be brash, uncultured, gung-ho imperialist, materialist etc. etc.. Almost all of the Americans I know here are well-educated, polite, warm, considerate and generally left-wing - in other words, a pleasure to be around. There again, maybe that's why they're not in America any more. Whenever my hapkido teacher goes home to the States, he comes back seriously scared - and this is a man who saw the Bosnian civil war first-hand. It's not just the politics - where he comes from (Maryland) there isn't a lot of politics anyway - it's things like the fact that three-quarters of the businesses in his hometown are out of business. I may have focussed in my post on how America is screwing the rest of the world, but I forgot to mention how much Bushonomics is screwing ordinary Americans.

Incidentally, a number of my American friends who went home for the holidays were asked ny serious airport security personnel why they were coming back. It seems that even living in a Muslim country (even one that's supposed to be one of America's allies) makes you a potential terrorist.

[hyperina.livejournal.com]

yip the protectionism is pretty heavy-handed and inconsiderate of other countries..... seems they can dish it out but they can't take it

and let's not even bring up the M word.....
not the Mc word, the M word
and not even the microsoft M word, the other M word....

[circumambulate.livejournal.com]

It was not my intention to either marginalize the exploitation of third-world labor, nor the effects of economic imperialism. My point was, rather that any country, when it goes through the process of industrialization, does so on the backs of its poorest citizens. At a certain point, they become prosperous enough to support a burgeoning middle class who, having risen from poverty themselves, make it socially unacceptable to continue to completely exploit those on the bottom rung. Unfortunately, I don't think that this system can be artificially accelerated simply because any extra capital that was pumped into those countries would simply find its way into the pockets of those in power. At a certain point, it's up to the governments of those countries to begin to protect their citizens, whether through duress, or conscience. India, Korea, or Mexico would be fine example of countries in which this has, or is starting to occur. Additionally, the US has fairly strict laws regarding the use of foreign labor, by US companies, and for the most part, I think most large companies try to abide by them. One of the reasons that I work for the company that I do is that they are quite deliberate in pumping educational, and infrastructure, improvement capital into those countries in which they do business. Of course, that business is high-tech, so they don't really have much choice, since it's at least semi-skilled labor. I'm not attempting to be an apologist, the US has much to atone for, in the world that surrounds us, but we also do a great deal of good, and are not the avaristic demons that many would like to make us out to be, at the moment.

Which brings me to an additional point, and that is that there are plenty of real problem areas to be poked at when it comes to US foreign policy, and our consumer culture, without resorting to distortion, over-simplification, and hyperbole. When an argument is made, like your original post, it's so skewed to one side as to simply make it easier for what may be legitimate points to be marginalized, and discarded. You only make easier the job of those who would oppose you.

[solri.livejournal.com]

My point was, rather that any country, when it goes through the process of industrialization, does so on the backs of its poorest citizens. At a certain point, they become prosperous enough to support a burgeoning middle class who, having risen from poverty themselves, make it socially unacceptable to continue to completely exploit those on the bottom rung

That's pretty much what I was saying. There are basically three models for industrialisation. One is the traditional liberal capitalist one we both described. The second is centralised, Stalinesque forced industrialisation which was very popular until recent times (and is to blame fro much of the sorry state of the world - Western capitalists are not the only culprits). The third has elements of the previous two, a sort of neo-Confucian corporate model, as practiced in many of the Pacific rim countries and some Muslim states. On the whole this has been the most successful model, though how much of this is due to the model itself and how much to the kind of societies who find it attractive. The "Tiger" economies started out with several advantages: a paternalistic, collectivist culture, a successful agricultural base which could sustain industrialisation, and a lack of serious colonial exploitation (Japan was pushed around a lot but never actually colonised, the Koreans were only colonised by the the Japanese, and Hong Kong and Singapore actually benefitted by being part of the British Empire, since they became major trade and communication centres).

Applying that model in other countries has met with mixed success. Arab states propped up with oil revenues can't really be counted. Malaysia and, much more so, Indonesia lacked the cultural and political consensus required. Turkey applied the model very successfully in the early days of the Republic, managing to modernise both economically and culturally with astonshing speed, but this was enabled only by charismatic leadership and the existence of a dedicated intellectual/bureaucratic elite. When politics became more populist, corruption and political instability mushroomed, hence the mess Turkey is in today (and has been since the 1960s).

Unfortunately, I don't think that this system can be artificially accelerated simply because any extra capital that was pumped into those countries would simply find its way into the pockets of those in power

You're right - simply injecting capital rarely does much good, and often makes things worse. It's bad enough when it takes the form of straight handouts, but when it's tied to economic "reform" it can be positively disastrous. Funnily enough, Britain is one of the few countries that took a loan from the IMF and survived, though it's arguable that the economic depression, slashing of public services and draconian privatisation of the 1980s were at least partly the result of the Labour Party putting the country in hock in the 1970s. Britain could handle it because it was a wealthy industrialised democracy; developing countires have been less fortunate.

Development aid is probably best achieved through super-national bodies and NGOs, rather than national governments. However, you are right that responsible companies can have a good effect. One reason why it's important to expose the bad guys like Nike is not just to get those companies to change their practices, but to ensure that companies who do try to play by the rules aren't put at an unfair disadvantage.

As an example of how things could work, I am currently employed by two different foundations: Bilkent University in Turkey, and the Centre for British Teachers. Both are not-for-profit organisations, but economically viable: the former is a private university which also wholly or partly owns a number of companies (mainly in construction and retail); the latter provides a variety of educational services, both in the UK and around the world. Since neither are beholden to shareholders and are responsible to but not controlled by their respective governments, they've managed to do a lot of good work (including providing me with a modest living!).

[solri.livejournal.com]

Which brings me to an additional point, and that is that there are plenty of real problem areas to be poked at when it comes to US foreign policy, and our consumer culture, without resorting to distortion, over-simplification, and hyperbole. When an argument is made, like your original post, it's so skewed to one side as to simply make it easier for what may be legitimate points to be marginalized, and discarded. You only make easier the job of those who would oppose you.

Remember that a lot of my posts are just letting off steam rather than serious attempts to change people's opinions, though frequently they turn into more serious and balanced discussions. My days of political activism are long past - I'm a watcher, not a slayer. What I do try to do is support those who are more motivated and capable than myself when it comes to changing the world. This can take a lot of forms, one of which is deliberately pissing people off!

(I had to put this in a separate comment, as the original coment exceeded the LJ character limit - boy am I verbose today!)

[solri.livejournal.com]

There's another evil M? Who's that - eMineM?

[hyperina.livejournal.com]

don't make me say it....

m
o
n
santo

p.s. shhhhh!

[circumambulate.livejournal.com]

Well, now you've gone and done it. You've forced me to add you to my friends list!

[harpersromo.livejournal.com]

I took no offense, friend. I'll just say this: the U.S. does produce a higher volume of knuckleheads but that's only because our continent is so much bigger by comparison.
I'll add, too, that the racism here has become more insidious -- the bigots are having to become more clever at hiding their bigotry while still weilding it.

[solri.livejournal.com]

Me too you!