Re: [A-List] US Imperialism: What goes around, comes around

["Tariq Mahmood" <zaogir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 Joe Smith has slaves working for him in all these countries, clothing him.
These items would cost him many times more if produced in the US. In return
what does  Joe Smith pays, paper money. In actual fact worth nothing without
the imperial force behind that forces all to believe the US dollar to a be
genuine thing for exchange. How do you expect a country with such large
trade deficit to have its currency valued and cherished.

"Many emails arrived from Americans saying that their communities had
already been reduced to Third World status by the loss of jobs and the
arrival of Third World refugees and immigrants."

Not a Third World country, but a neo-colonial one. The immigrants and
refugees are put to work for low wages, with little rights and much
humilaition for the Americans. How do you feel challenged by Mehta from
Mumbai who while studying for his doctorate lives on 11 dollars a month for
meals and sharing his bunk with two others from other parts of India.

Who suffers in the end? There are two categories of consumers: consumers of
commodities / services and consumers of wealh. The consumers of goods or
services pay while the others gathers wealth.

Globalism helps the corporations that transcends national frontiers and do
not recognise loyalties.

Tariq
---------------

"annewilliamson" <annewilliamson@xxxxxxx> wrote:


 Paul Craig Roberts
 February 12, 2003
 Was it all hype?

 Was the "new economy" merely hype designed to sell overpriced stocks and
globalism? Many Americans think so. "Do something about it," their email
missives urge.

 That so many Americans still believe that the pen retains its power in our
corrupt society governed by organized interest groups indicates a refreshing
lack of cynicism. But there is frustration, too, on the part of many
Americans, who believe fellow citizens are impervious to the connection
between globalism and declining job opportunities and income growth in the
United States. The following paragraph, which has made its way around the
Internet, sums up the frustration:

 Joe Smith started the day early, having set his alarm clock (made in China)
for 6 a.m. While his coffeepot (made in China) was perking, he shaved with
his electric razor (made in Hong Kong). He put on a shirt (made in Sri
Lanka), designer jeans (made in Singapore) and tennis shoes (made in Korea).
After cooking his breakfast in his electric skillet (made in India), he sat
down with his calculator (made in Mexico) to check his budget for the day.
After setting his watch (made in Taiwan) to the radio (made in India), he
got in his car (made in Japan) and continued his search for an AMERICAN job.
At the end of yet another discouraging and fruitless day, Joe decided to
relax. He put on his sandals (made in Brazil), poured himself a glass of
wine (made in Chile), turned on his TV (made in Indonesia) and wondered why
he cannot find a job in America.

 U.S. communities are losing manufacturing jobs. Americans who used to make
things for a living now have part time jobs at Wal-Mart selling things made
abroad. Taught not to worry by "new economy" reassurances, Americans have
maintained their consumption by taking the equity out of their homes with
refinancings. In the past five years, mortgage debt has risen by 55 percent.
Total personal debt now stands at 100 percent of personal income. The United
States has made the transition from the accumulation of wealth to the
consumption of wealth.

 What is true for the individual in this case is also true for the country.
Massive U.S. trade deficits are being financed by giving foreigners our
assets. Every day, we hand over to foreigners another billion dollars in
Treasury bonds, corporate bonds, and real estate, and corporate equities.

When we hand over our assets to pay for our consumption of manufactured
goods, we also hand over the incomes that these assets produce. The interest
incomes from Treasury and corporate bonds, the profits, dividends and
capital gains from equity ownership, and the rents and capital gains from
real estate pass from American hands to Chinese, Japanese and other hands.
Thus, Americans are not only losing the incomes associated with the
production of the goods they consume, but also the incomes from the assets
that they no longer control.

 When I attempt to discuss this issue with my fellow economists, they cite
the case for free trade that Adam Smith made two and one-quarter centuries
ago and accuse me of being in the pay of corporate protectionists who want
to gouge consumers with high prices.

 These responses tell me that free traders have ceased to think. First of
all, there are no corporate protectionists. Corporations oppose protection,
because tariffs and quotas would reduce or eliminate the gains to their
bottom lines from their use of inexpensive foreign labor to manufacture
goods for the American market. High- and low-tech U.S. firms are not moving
to Asia because the U.S. government refuses to protect their American
markets. They are moving their plants to Asia because they can drive up
their earnings by hiring efficient Asian labor at a lower price per week
than Americans demand per hour.

 Second, Adam Smith directed his free trade argument against the belief that
countries should be self-sufficient and produce all of their own needs.
Smith said that incomes would be higher in every country if each specialized
in areas where they were most capable and satisfied demands for other goods
by trading.

 Smith said that the British should not subsidize the production of wine and
perfume with tariffs, but should concentrate where the British had advantage
and trade with the French for wine and perfume. Smith did not say that
British industry should relocate abroad and use cheap foreign labor to
produce for their home markets.

 For globalism to work, there needs to be a single currency and a single tax
system -- a one world political system. Trade between countries is not like
trade within a country. Trade between countries involves different
currencies whose values change if there are persistent trade deficits or
surpluses. A country that runs up a large trade imbalance due to its
importation of cheap manufactured goods suddenly finds the goods are no
longer cheap when the value of its currency declines. The companies that
outsourced to benefit from cheap labor suddenly find their profits impacted
when the currency in their home market devalues.

 For the United States, globalism has meant outsourcing. U.S. manufacturers
use Chinese labor to produce goods for the American market. American firms
locate their clerical and back-office operations in India, and so on. When
these goods and services flow back into the United States, they arrive as
imports. The United States is not building up manufacturing sectors,
agricultural sectors or service sectors capable of restoring balance between
imports and exports.

 There is nothing to bring the massive trade imbalance into balance except
currency collapse. As fewer and fewer things are actually produced in the
United States, even dollar collapse cannot spur exports sufficiently to pay
for our import dependence. The United States is being reduced to indebted
Third World status, a country that retails foreign made goods.

 Recently, I asked if the United States would be a Third World country in 20
years. Many emails arrived from Americans saying that their communities had
already been reduced to Third World status by the loss of jobs and the
arrival of Third World refugees and immigrants. They said I was optimistic
to believe that the United States had 20 years left as a superpower. 222

 Who is right, the American people who are experiencing globalism and its
effects or Washingtonians who hide behind theories while our country is
sold?

> ©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.