From: utzoo!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re: economic coercion, Phillipines, Chil - (nf)
Article-I.D.: inmet.68
Posted: Wed Apr 20 03:26:23 1983
Received: Fri Apr 22 21:10:45 1983

#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!nrh