nrh (04/20/83)
#R:uwvax:-82800:inmet:7800003:000:2907
inmet!nrh Apr 18 13:14:00 1983
Jeff Myers remarks:
This is a lucrative opportunity for such corporations
initially due to the very low wages they will have to pay, abundant natural
resources, etc. Typically, the underdeveloped nation's economy will grow,
but predominantly in the sectors which international capital pushes it.
The emphasis is on products which will sell well internationally, not on
those which will benefit the host nation in the long run. While the
corporations profit enormously, the host country gets a little piece of the
pie; as most of the labor in the country is expended on enriching the
international corporations, the purely local economic growth lags behind
the pace at which it might otherwise grow; the country is forced more and
more to import foodstuffs and other necessities, usually from the offending
imperialist nation. When international capital decides to leave or is
forced to leave by a population which is tired of enriching other nations
at its expense, the economy typically becomes a shambles. The country
finds itself without the indigenous industry required for self-sufficiency,
its land depleted because sugar-cane has been growing on it for years, and
not corn or wheat.
Indeed. The growth of such a local economy will lag behind behind
that nurtured by a company which carefully nurtures real capital growth
in the developing nation. Do you see anyone willing to do this? No?
Well then consider how fast the local economy will grow if NOBODY
steps in to buy (exploit) those resources.
I suspect that the "international capital" is unwilling to invest
in sectors where they see no return. Indeed, this is tough. Nasty.
When international capital is forced out by law, by industries
being nationalized, you might consider: who used force? Not the
capitalists -- they are being kicked out. Had the capitalists
indeed worked very hard at bolstering the country's economy,
they could have been kicked out anyhow, but the capitalists would have
gotten less, and the country kicking them out gotten more. I suspect this
would happen as soon as the capitalists (those dastards!) tried to
buy products they wanted (such as sugar cane).
Understand: I dislike rapacious behavior. I just think that criticizing
the capitalists by comparing the results of their actions with results
of actions that nobody would take (because nobody has an interest in taking
them) seems a little tough, even on capitalists.
It seems fairer to compare the results of their actions with the results
of their doing NOTHING, and here, indeed, you will find some people
who might have been better off had the capitalists stayed home. Then again,
the capitalists are not forcing anyone to deal. The native government
has all the guns.
Yours for fair flaming,
- Nat Howard
harpo!inmet!nrh
ima!inmet!nrhguy (04/20/83)
Correction: the native government has all the guns, except for the guns the
U.S. Marine Corps has. Several regimes which tried the aforementioned
expropriations in the early years of our century were gently admonished to leave
property owned by U.S. citizens and corporations alone by the aforementioned
organization.
Guy Harris
RLG Corporation
{seismo,mcnc,we13}!rlgvax!guymat (04/21/83)
I am going to fan flames here. The discussion in question is one of capitalist investment (or exploitation, take your pick) in less developed countries. Sometimes the governments of these countries nationalize the property of the investors. As our story continues ... From hou5a!hou5d!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!floyd!\ harpo!seismo!rlgvax!guy Wed Apr 20 14:09:14 1983 Subject: Re: economic coercion, Phillipines, Chil - (nf) Newsgroups: net.politics Correction: the native government has all the guns, except for the guns the U.S. Marine Corps has. Several regimes which tried the aforementioned expropriations in the early years of our century were gently admonished to leave property owned by U.S. citizens and corporations alone by the aforementioned organization. Was this such a bad thing? After all, the individuals/corporations involved had often made agreements or contracts, either with the government or with other individuals. The subesquent confiscation (what is nationalization) of the property of these persons is a violation of that agreement (be it explicit or implied). It is direct harm to the welfare of a U.S national who made an agreement in good faith ... and when it is a government involved, the crime is particularly bad. International law exists only as far as there are guns to support it or people willing to obey. In the lack of the latter, you need the former. I don't argue that the U.S is innocent. We had a particularly shameful, if ineffectual, example of that recently when, after closely supervised elections in El Salvador, a bady of our Congressmen suggested that we should try to influence or change the duly elected regime. We in North America are not aware of the state of the world outside of our borders; we might be horrified to see what kind of people are really out there. Ivan the Terrible, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin (a bumbling amatuer) Ferdinand Marcos (a dilettante), Adolph Hitler (a kid with a chemistry set), Mohamar Quadaffi (a penny--ante operator), . . . I don't see how, in good sense, we can consider the crimes of Nestle's (an over--eager promoter), Hooker Chemical (Love Canal) or IBM (JCL) to be in the same league. I suspect that most of these were things that were bumbled into. Nestle saw a market. Ivan the Terrible saw a way to torture human beings for pleasure, and on a daily basis. (puff, spark, puff, puff, sizzle) -!hou5e!mat Mark Terribile Duke of deNet