[PEN-L:32720] RE: Re: Re: Re: Maquiladoras not beneficial

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

Title: RE: [PEN-L:32719] Re: Re: Re: Maquiladoras not beneficial

Ian:
> Not long after 9-11 there was a  "town hall" type meeting in Europe
> featuring a woman from the Council on Foreign Relations [if I remember
> correctly] that was broadcast on late night radio in Seattle.  Anyway, she
> brought up the US as the world's cop [strange how the imperialists see
> their role] while the cost of doing so fell on US taxpayers, Europe, Japan
> Canada etc. reaped the benefits in terms of social safety net  expenditures
> that didn't have to go to weapon systems. She asserted that over time,
> those countries standard of living would simply surpass the US, if they
> haven't already because the weapons systems etc. were only going to get
> more and more expensive and this could, in turn lead to a  resentment on
> the part of US taxpayers vis a vis those countries and that when that day
> comes, watch out.

this is the standard way that the US imperialists see it: the US provides "international public goods" from which the other countries -- including the totally dominated ones -- benefit. The countries that don't go along (e.g., deGaulle's France, Schroeder's Germany) are "free riders." As in the usual public goods story, if the state (read: the US) doesn't get some payment from the beneficiaries (the other countries), the public good is not just under-produced but can go away altogether. So coercion (taxes) are justified.

Jim