|
I think the issue here is not so much about US policy as it is neo-liberal globalism, but the two issues certainly overlap.
When you say "interdependence" Izzy, you have to realise that the dependence - when dealing with nations of highly disparate economic wealths - is usually very much one way. Let's face it, the US can exist just fine without Brazil as a trading partner, yet Brazil - like most of the other Latin American countries - relies heavily on its trade with the US. Now in a truly laissez-faire global market, the rules of "comparative advantage" would kick in here and ensure a relatively balanced trade-agreement: for instance, the US is more capable than Brazil at producing finished products (especially technology based products, and products such as cars that require a prohibitively large amount of capital/machinery to produce) yet Brazil is probably more capable at producing primary produce. So the relationship in a truly free market would be thus: Brazil sells the US primary produce/natural resources cheaper than the US can produce it, the US sells Brazil back the finished products that Brazil would otherwise be unable to produce due to either lack of access to the required technology or the prohibitively high costs of attaining the capital necessary for production. So, in this sense, there is a symbiotic relationship of sorts in a truly free-market global economy: each nation, theoretically, can offer something to another nation that is either cheaper or of a higher quality (and they would then specialise in this production) in exchange for goods they would struggle to produce efficiently themselves. As I said, this is the nature of economic comparative advantage.
However, in the real, neo-liberalistic world, this relationship is not quite so balanced and any claim to "interdependency" in severely diminished. Firstly, there are protectinist policies implemented by first-world nations, economically secure enough to introduce tarrifs that protect industries far more inefficient than their equivelent industries overseas. To use an example, Australia and the US supposedly had a free-trade agreement, where Australia would export beef to the US (which is - supposedly anyway - produced at a far lower cost and of a higher quality than US beef) freely (i.e. without protectionist tarrifs imposed on the goods once they hit the US shores) in exchange for US goods to be exported to Australia without any tarrifs on those goods at this end. Recently, however (can't remember when, though, or if the decision has since been overturned or not) the US introduced a 20% tarrif on Australian beef imports in order to protect US farmers, unable to produce beef as efficiently as their Australian counterparts. By doing this, the US would have theoretically stimulated domestic economic growth (by pumping money into the agricultural sector of the economy) and cut back the trade deficit, by reducing imports (as Australian beef would be made artificially more expensive, causing American businesses to purchace US produced beef instead) while maintaining the same level of exports to Australia. Now you may say that the US had every right to do this (I may not even disagree) but the action results in two hard truths:
1) Free trade is not as free as we suppose and the neo-liberal globalism the US purport to champion is decidedly only implemented where it suits them.
2) The concept of "interdependency" is eroded when we condsider that stronger nations are able to make other, weaker nations dependent on their exports by beginning with a free-trade agreement, affording the weaker nations the opportunity to pursue "competitive advantange" by putting all their economic eggs in one basket (focusing on specific areas of production under the assumption that everything else can be attained by trading away these products) but then pulling the carpet from underneath their feet by introducing protectionist measures which ensure export levels remain constant (as the weaker nations are now dependant on the stronger nations for many goods) while imports are reduced.
So that's how protectionist measures erode "interdependency" but perhaps more damaging to this concept (and to global economic equality) are the policies implimented by organisations such as the World Trade Organisation (who set up global trade policies) and the World Bank (who fund the economic projects in under-developed nations). Essentially, in order to become a member of the WTO and to receive assistance from the WB, a nation must open up its economy to investors world-wide: that is, it must set up a stock-exchange, it must sell it's currency on the world-market and so on. In addition, high degrees of privitization - the selling off of state owned assets to investors, both domestic and foreign (such as "banks, insurance firms, telecommunications companies, tour operators, hotel chains and transport companies") - are entry level requirements. The theory behind it is that all countries are thus on a level playing field from the beginning, each required to trade freely with all other nations and each benefitting from this free access to comparitively cheaper goods and services as a result. The reality, however, is quite different.
Take for example the Asian market of the mid-late 90's. They opened their markets up to foreign investment (primarily private investment) and experienced a short-term benefit. To use Thailand as an example, they sold off state-owned property and company shares to foreign investors and used the money to fund their economic development, much of it going into the construction of hotels and other tourist resorts (tourism being one of their major industries). What they failed to realise, though, is that they were essentially using other people's money to fund these projects, thus the very foundation of their (quite rapid) economic growth was fragile from the very beginning. All of a sudden then, the economy began to stumble and at the very hint of things going awry, the investors started to pull their money out, and the whole situation snow-balled. The market stalled, investors pulled out, the market got worse as a result so even more investors pulled out and so on. Thailand was then the catylist for one of the most catastrophic regional economic collapses since the depression as nation by nation had all the money they'd used to fund their industrialisation pulled from under their feet. 10, 20, 50 years of economic growth evaporated in a few months. All of a sudden these nations were left in a situation where there was no money left in their economy, and they didn't even own many of the remaining foundations of this economy, sold off to foreign investors in the throws of a neo-liberalistic epiphany. And that's the fundamental problem with insisting that these policies are best for nations - their entire development is essentially based on the whim of wealthy investors, who will jump ship the second their investment is put at risk. You can't rely on businesses and corporations to stick around in a sinking economy when there are more lucrative opportunities elsewhere. So basically all the Asian nations who submitted to these global policies were left bankrupt and in a far worse shape than before these policies were implemented. But surely, you say, they could just resist these policies if they have such dire consequences?
It's not quite that easy. Consider, once again, Brazil. The president resists the "aid" of the organisations responsible for policing the implementation of these global policies, and Brazil gets shut out by the more powerful advocates of such policies. All of a sudden - as neo-liberalism spreads its tenticles more globally - poorer nations are being forced to trade on the terms dictated by more powerful nations, or being prevented from trading at all. The dependency is entirely one way - if Brazil doesn't want to play by the rules of "global trade" it gets shut out of the loop, with minimal loss to the more powerful nations, yet at a massive cost to itself (as it is not self-dependant - the US can import coffee from somewhere else, but where is Brazi going to get its automobiles from?). Let me use a rather crude example:
A farm produces primary produce and sells it to the city, so that it may acquire things only the city can produce (obviously the farm doesn't have the means to produce computers or TVs like the city does). Time goes by and the city eventually dictates that in order for this exchange of goods to continue, the farm must open itself up and allow citizens of the city to purchase certain items on the farm. The farm is, of course, powerless to resist because the city can always buy wheat from a more complicit farm in the area, but there's only one city the farm can sell its goods to. So the farm agrees to these conditions and sells off its tractor - and for a while everything's great! The farm uses the money it receives from the sale of the tractor to increase the sizes of its paddocks and to give the farmhouse a long overdue renovation all the while being able to use the same tractor to cultivate the crops. "Wow", thinks the farmer, "what's the catch?".
Out of nowhere though, a drought strikes the area, and the farmer fails to yield as many crops as he'd like. The owners of the tractor decide that using the tractor on that farm is no longer profitable, so they take it away and use it on another more fertile farm. Now the farmer's stuffed: he has no crops to yield and nothing to yield them with! He can't even buy back the tractor because he used all that money to expand his enterprise! So, with no other options left, he goes to some citizens from the city and gets a loan from them. With it he buys a new tractor and his farm is back up and running again. However, the drought continues and the farmer is hamstrung - he can't produce enough to pay back the people who lent him the money. So the interest debts mount up and up and up. So, with no other option left - and with the loan sharks beating down his door - he takes out a hefty loan from a bank just to make sure he can pay back the interest owing on the money he borrowed from the citizens. Even though the drought ends and he can start producing decent crops again, all the profits he makes are just directed straight back to the bank and to the citizens to repay his loans. As a result his farm cannot grow, though the city - and the competing farms - do. As a result his farm becomes stagnant and uncompetitive and everything begins to collapse back upon itself..... all this just because the city forced him to sell his tractor!
Anyway, I think I've made my point. And before anyone accuses me of being a capitalist hating communist, allow me to just say this: I agree with capitalism - I don't think its benefits can be denied. It's just this kind of capitalism (i.e. the neo-liberal kind) that I disagree with.
Hopefully rupert can add something to all this....
___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/
|
). Nonetheless, there are several areas of neo-liberal globalism that need to be addressed, and this is a start:
