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