Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site qantel.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!gabor
From: gabor@qantel.UUCP (Gabor Fencsik@ex2642)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: America-bashing
Message-ID: <502@qantel.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 10-Aug-85 04:52:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: qantel.502
Posted: Sat Aug 10 04:52:09 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 13-Aug-85 01:09:44 EDT
References: <3366@drutx.UUCP> <260@SCIRTP.UUCP>
Reply-To: gabor@qantel.UUCP (Gabor Fencsik@ex2642)
Organization: MDS Qantel, Hayward, CA
Lines: 50

In article <260@SCIRTP.UUCP> Todd Jones writes:
>                                             ... we must
> address the very real reasons why America is perceived
> as a global leech ...

> Americans are largely ignorant of the extent to which our
> prosperity is dependent on the oppression of non-Americans.

Undoubtedly the West is prosperous and the Third World is not. Are we
rich BECAUSE they are poor? Those who think so point to past sins of
colonialism and the exploitative nature of North-South economic
transactions in the present.

Now it is true that the various brands of colonialism have made the
Third World poorer (although there are exceptions). But are they the
source of Western prosperity, past or present? If so, how did
Norway and Switzerland become rich countries in the last 100 years?
How come Japan's economic takeoff began AFTER their imperialist
phase has ended?  

Economics is not not a zero-sum game. An excellent collection of case
histories on prosperity and stagnation can be found in 'Cities and the
Wealth of Nations' by Jane Jacobs. This quote is from the chapter
'Transactions of Decline':

  'Successful imperialism wins wealth. Yet, historically, successful
   empires such as Persia, Rome, Byzantium, Turkey, Spain, Portugal, 
   France, Britain, have not remained rich. Indeed, it seems to be the
   fate of empires to become too poor to sustain the very costs of
   empire. The longer an empire holds together, the poorer and more
   economically backward it tends to become. [ ... ] Yet if imperialism
   wins wealth for imperial powers, as it undoubtedly does, how can 
   this be? A paradox.'

  'I am going to argue that the very policies and transactions that are
   necessary to win, hold and exploit an empire ... lead to their 
   stagnation and decay. Imperial decline is built right into imperial
   success. The policies and transactions that make the decline of
   empires inevitable are all killers of city economies. They fall into
   three main groups: prolonged an unremitting military production;
   prolonged and unremitting subsidies to poor regions; heavy promotion
   of trade between advanced and backward economies.'

The case histories deal with Uruguay, Iran, Tennessee, Japan, Ghana and
others. One of the virtues of the book is the good clean fun Jacobs is
having at the expense of professional economists. Lots of facts, few
political axes to grind.

-----
Gabor Fencsik               {ihnp4,dual,nsc,hplabs,intelca}!qantel!gabor