Page 5 of 7

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:03 pm
by Grim
Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States, in 1919 wrote:"Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused."
This is no controversial perception but something that has been recognized at the highest levels since at least the early 20th century.

:book:

Wow!

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:06 pm
by bobby408
Wow! Thanks for the quote because that honestly helps me with MANY of my arguments. Out of curiosity, where did you find this quote? From another book?

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:12 pm
by Grim
Noam Chomsky, On Power and Ideology

I'm not sure in this case if I should have quoted Chomsky, I don't think I necessarily had to as the quote is originally from a third party of sorts. Great book worth the read.

:book:

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:30 pm
by bobby408
Thanks. I am halfway through my second Noam Chomsky book "Hegemony or Survival." The first was "Necessary Illusions." Chomsky really punches you hard with the realism in his books. It's excruciating pain sometimes!!

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:57 pm
by Robert Tulip
Grim wrote:
Susan George, [url=http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/econ101/neoliberalism.html][u][i]A Short History of Neoliberalism: Twenty Years of Elite Economics and Emerging Opportunities for Structural Change[/i][/u][/url] wrote:"So what happened? Why have we reached this point half a century after the end of the Second World War? Or, as the organisers ask, "Why are we having this conference right now?" The short answer is "Because of the series of recent financial crises, especially in Asia". But this begs the question--the question they are really asking is "How did neo-liberalism ever emerge from its ultra-minoritarian ghetto to become the dominant doctrine in the world today?" Why can the IMF and the Bank intervene at will and force countries to participate in the world economy on basically unfavourable terms. Why is the Welfare State under threat in all the countries where it was established? Why is the environment on the edge of collapse and why are there so many poor people in both the rich and the poor countries at a time when there has never existed such great wealth? Those are the questions that need to be answered from an historical perspective.'
:book:
Grim, the reason why the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank so-called “force countries to participate in the world economy” is that those countries themselves wish to have access to financial credit, but their credit ratings are so bad that they cannot borrow except on Bank/Fund terms, which typically require basic standards of governance as lenders of last resort. Countries only go to the Bank and the Fund when they have previously stupidly borrowed large amounts of money and then wasted it or allowed their rulers to steal it. It is the "responsibility" that goes with the "rights" of sovereignty. I agree the World Bank is somewhat culpable though, in that over the years it has believed the lies that governments have told it when they said they would use their loans productively.
The welfare state is under threat because it is paid for by the taxes of the private sector, and is often unaffordable. As well, giving people unearned money reduces their incentive to work. The reason why there are so many poor people is that capitalism has enabled population growth through its development of modern scientific health and agriculture.
Susan George has no proposals with any practical merit as far as I have seen.
bobby408 wrote: Milton Friedman... does sound like he really has reason in his studies, and it is my mistake for assuming him to be part of the neoliberalist policies. I must remember that the neoliberalist people that have been in power for a while now pick and choose what "theories" work for them and justify their policies. Of course, they will leave out the rest of Friedman's teachings if it doesn't work for them.
Thanks Bobby. Your comment illustrates the difference between the theory and practice of neoliberalism. The theory, for which Friedman was largely responsible, is a sound way to generate sustainable economic growth, but the practice, through the Reagan-Bush era, has been to take those elements of the theory that immediately benefit the extreme rich and ignore the rest. It is hardly surprising that people assume the practice applies the theory.
About globalization, I agree with you that globalization is the right way to help the poor IF it is done the right way. What if you could look at it from a different point of view?? What if what is really going on is the "framing" and "selling" of globalization by "a certain nation" and what they are really doing is making all-out war to KEEP their domination of resources, Keep their domination of global-world hegemony, and KEEP third-world nations poor just because it benefits them? There are MANY case studies that PROVE this "certain" nation does NOT want other countries to thrive because that would not just mean a new "rival" for power, that would also mean that other third-world countries would have new hope that they could change the way things are (which is domination by U.S. interests in a new economic-colonial way) into a country that thrives and many U.S. officials call this a "virus!". What if things are that cynical and that evil in the world today??? I HATE the fact this might be true. It makes me SICK to my stomach to think that reality is this way. I DONT LIKE it this way but EVERYWHERE I LOOK, everytime I go after the truth honestly and without blinding myself to my emotions and past perspectives, I see proof of reality this way and I shake my head and I die a little more inside...
I don’t believe the USA is so venal. A good counter-example is South Korea, which in the 1950s was as poor as Africa but is now a member of the OECD, the world rich club. The US supported South Korea because South Korea supported the US capitalist approach. Just think, if Vietnam had taken the same view as South Korea it would now also be a rich country. Unfortunately Vietnam lacked leaders like Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew with a vision of capitalist progress.
I don't believe your implication that the US wants to keep countries poor. However, this general support for economic growth does get tied up in politics, with the prime example of Israel, who I think do want to keep Palestine poor. Unfortunately the politics of hatred and mistrust overwhelms the potential for security through mutual prosperity.
The trouble is that the poor countries need to come to the party by implementing policies that will generate sustainable growth.
RT

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:57 pm
by Grim

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:02 pm
by Grim
Robert Tulip wrote: Grim, the reason why the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank so-called “force countries to participate in the world economy” is that those countries themselves wish to have access to financial credit, but their credit ratings are so bad that they cannot borrow except on Bank/Fund terms, which typically require basic standards of governance as lenders of last resort. Countries only go to the Bank and the Fund when they have previously stupidly borrowed large amounts of money and then wasted it or allowed their rulers to steal it. It is the "responsibility" that goes with the "rights" of sovereignty. I agree the World Bank is somewhat culpable though, in that over the years it has believed the lies that governments have told it when they said they would use their loans productively.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid= ... yNcP&hl=en

Tip of the spear RT tip of the spear. Rationalize whatever will make you feel better, your words on the subject mean less and less to me as your 'practical merit' is unimaginative and prosaic. Step out of the box here RT, your grasp of history is as weak as your ability to look to the future. As again you deceptively blur the distinction between capitalism and neoliberalism as if nothing has already been said on the subject. Please try to remember that ignorance is ignorant.



http://www.globalissues.org/video/730/l ... d-part-two

I guess I should apologize for making the assumption that you are well enough informed to think realistically. My bad RT my bad.

:book:

Th exception

Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 2:26 pm
by bobby408
Hi Robert,

Thanks for your frank reply. I appreciate your depth of belief, passion, and knowledge on the subject. About South Korea, this is definitely the exception, not the rule. This information is from another previous thread about a similar subject:
President Camacho wrote:Every developing nation is using China as a model to grow - like India.

Imagine how much goods would cost if there were 2.4 billion people - who made the same amount you do, all bidding for the same goods you want to purchase. There's no way to fulfill the needs of all those people plus those of the rest of the globe. It's insanity. These countries need to be kept poor and backwards. They need to be exploited by not introducing globalization. We need to depress their wages and get them used to earning a living by mining their raw materials and selling to us for beads and trinkets.




A potential powerhouse like China must not grow and reap the benefits of globalization because that would mean their dangerous competition with us and, therefore, a new rival. For the same reason of "rival containment," they did this to Nicaragua, Mexico, Guatemala, Panama, etc. Whats relevant here is that IF one, or all these countries, grew and became prosperous, OTHER countries would want to emulate these nations. This flux of increasing power of other nations is TOTALLY unacceptable. Basically for exactly the same reasons you have in your quote. There are certain exceptions where the U.S. has increased the power of other nations, but this is always the exception, not the rule. They did this with South Korea but ONLY to discredit North Korea and, therefore, communism. What better way to discredit it then by economically strangling North Korea, and making S. Korea more economically powerful. This will show the world that communism brings poverty and capitalism brings prosperity. In conclusion, I do agree that globalization should bring prosperity to the world, but as you even said, this is not the case.

Re: Th exception

Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 6:49 am
by Robert Tulip
bobby408 wrote:A potential powerhouse like China must not grow and reap the benefits of globalization because that would mean their dangerous competition with us and, therefore, a new rival. For the same reason of "rival containment," they did this to Nicaragua, Mexico, Guatemala, Panama, etc. Whats relevant here is that IF one, or all these countries, grew and became prosperous, OTHER countries would want to emulate these nations. This flux of increasing power of other nations is TOTALLY unacceptable. ..There are certain exceptions where the U.S. has increased the power of other nations, but this is always the exception, not the rule. They did this with South Korea but ONLY to discredit North Korea and, therefore, communism. What better way to discredit it then by economically strangling North Korea, and making S. Korea more economically powerful. This will show the world that communism brings poverty and capitalism brings prosperity. In conclusion, I do agree that globalization should bring prosperity to the world, but as you even said, this is not the case.
No, South Korea's prosperity is not the result of the USA "making" it happen. It is the result of the Korean's own efforts and sound institutions. Any poor country that emulates South Korea's emphasis on hard work, sacrifice, saving, investment, education and rule of law can become rich, with the caveat that places with bad geography, for example land-locked African countries, or with mean neighbours, such as Gaza, face extreme barriers to their development.

It is in the interest of the USA for everyone to be rich. Abundance for all enables people to fulfill their potential through peaceful economic development rather than through crime and war. I can understand why you believe your conspiratorial ideas, and yes it is true that multinational corporations are often corrupt and exploitative. However, blaming the USA for poverty in Latin America ignores the extent to which poverty is entrenched by domestic institutions in those countries. The Spanish legacy of gross inequality was not imposed by the USA. The only thing "strangling" North Korea is its own incompetent government.

I disagree that the world cannot support universal wealth. In the next decades we will work out how to unlock the vast abundance of resources and energy in the world oceans so that human wealth and protection of the environment can go together.

RT

Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 2:47 pm
by richards1000
It is in the interest of the USA for everyone to be rich. Abundance for all enables people to fulfill their potential through peaceful economic development rather than through crime and war.
Hear, hear, Robert. I think this is a fine summary of U.S. economic policy respecting other nations. The U.S. A.I.D. Website, http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/economic_ ... index.html , expresses this policy in the following words: "Economic growth is key to transforming the developing world. It is the only way for poor countries to reduce and eventually do away with extreme poverty. Economic growth is the surest way for countries to generate the resources they need to weather global crises - from unstable markets for finance to those for energy and food - and to address their own illiteracy, poor health and other long-term development challenges."