Henry, Exactly. The imperialists have always "celebrated" free trade when they had the guaranteed "competitive posture" to win in "free competition", although even when celebrating "free trade" there are all sorts of de facto protectionist trade regimes and practices under the surface. In other epochs, they have formally abandoned "free trade" doctrine in favor of "limited protectionism" usually under the banners of infant industry, tit-for-tat and "national security". As in "Alice Through the Looking Glass": "When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less." "The question is, said Alice, whether one can make a word mean so many things." "The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master, that's all." Here is a nice little example of neoliberalism, "free trade", "free exchange" and "globalism". At the Blackfoot Reservation in Browning Montana, and this applies to virtually every Reservation in the US, non-Indians are appropaching very poor Indians to lease their lands. Now this sounds like a little "mutual benefit" and "trickle down" because the poor Indians are too poor to capitalize and ultilize their allotted lands and of course the non-Indians cannot purchase allotted Tribal lands (unless they are first de-Tribalized) and of course, as the Libertarians say, "all exchange must have been mutually beneficial otherwise it would not have taken place." Right? Well, the non-Indians lease a large section of Indian land for around $700 per year, and in less than a week they get back around $40,000. How is this done? Well, after leasing the lands at unconscionable terms (neoclassicals don't recognize the concept of unconscionability or duress through power/information differentials) they go to the Department of Agricultural [Pork] and get $40,000 for promising NOT to grow crops they never intended to gorw, have no inputs to grow and have never grown. Neat eh? Now actually, of the $40 per acre in Agricultural Price Suport payments, $28 is supposed to go to the land owner and $12 to the leasee, but the Indians never see anything but the original $700 to set up the scam. The Department of Agriculture, BIA, Tribal "Officials" all know about this among the many scams and of course "commerce is commerce, "free" exchange is "free exchange". This is how neoliberal globalism works "Free" competition among unequals with the definitions of "free", "competition", "protected property", "acceptable rate of return", "risk premium" and the rules and institutions for arbitrating disputes all defined and run by and for those inexorable destined to "win" in forms and processes of competition set up by themselves--the imperialists and ultra-rich. The only real trickle-down is some droppings and largesse and positions for those "intellectuals", politicians, media-types and academics who whore and toady for them by providing the rationales and theoretical justifications for a game as rigged as anything the most corrupt casino could deliver. Jim Craven -----Original Message----- From: Henry C.K. Liu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 1999 5:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:7874] Re: RE: Re: Re: Law of Value & Information Jim, I don't disagree in the larger perspective. My point was that the US does not even play according to her own rules, whether they are just or not. After the US sets up a game of "win I take, lose you give," she still needs to cheat. That is being kleptomaniacal. Henry "Craven, Jim" wrote: > Response: > > Under capitalism, the only "obscene" profit rate is that which is less than > could have been gotten regardless of the real costs to real people. > > Under neoclassical paradigm: 1) the existing distributions of wealth, > incomes, technology, information are assumed as GIVEN; this means that the > existing order is assumed as a given with any comment on its unjustness > being a "normative" question not within the purview of economics; 2) pure > competition or near pure competition is assumed: freedom of entry/exit, no > buyer or seller large enough to affect "market" price as a result of having > influence over "market" supply and demand, homogeneous products, perfect > information, perfect mobility of productive "factors" etc (the pure > competition assumption is often lifted but selectively not to violate the > fundamental contrived syllogism); 3) productive entities or "nations" > specialize and trade according to "comparative advantage"; 4) economic > agents are bounded "rational", calculating, competitive, maximizers or at > least "satisficers", individualistic, egoistic, acquisitive; 5) market > signals are sent and received through competitive markets, rationally > interpreted and rationally acted upon; 6) concepts such as history, power, > sexism, racism, class consciouness/interests, class nature of the State, > imperialism etc are etherial, non-operationalizable and ad hoc factors not > to be incorporated into any analysis of GENERAL dynamics and outcomes; 7) > causality is linear and unidirectional with ultimate independent and > dependent variables; 8) hysteresis and feedback effects (making > undirectional causality, ultimate independent/dependent variables and > ultimate singular outcomes in new equilibria impossible) are assumed away; > 8) causes of changes in the ultimate "exogenous variables" are assumed not > to be discussed and/or under the scope of inquiry of "economics"; > > dE-->dD-->dShortages\ /-->dQd \ > -->dPrice /-->Smaller-->dPe-->dQe > dE-->dS-->dSurpluses/ \--> dQs Surpluses > Shortages > > So "exogenous" forces/variables--> endogenous equilibrating processes--> new > equilibria in prices and quantities. > > All that challenges the contrived syllogisms and tautologies of the > neoclassicals (in the real world such as sexism, racism, history, > differential power, differential access to/enforcement of property rights, > differential factor mobility, asymmetric information, commodified > information meaning differential acces to and control over information, > class nature of the state, etc) is summarily assumed away to construct the > fantasy world of the neoclassical and to set up the intended > (contrived)syllogisms: Efficiency =...., unbridled/unregulated capitalism = > ... > ergo capitalism = efficiency, freedom etc... > > Neoliberalism is even worse in that the fetish for de jure and assuming > away, ignoring or even denying the very different and contradictory de facto > underneath the veneer/facade of de jure, and preaching "level playing > field", "free competition", "free trade" etc, when assuming the GIVENS means > assuming as GIVEN, monstrous inequalities that can only--inexorably--lead to > widening further inequalities (de jure "free trade/competition" among highly > unequal competitiors in competitive/trade regimes defined and run by and for > the most powerful can only produce, de facto, anti-competition, anti "free > trade/competition"), as in my favorite Brecht poem, what is assumed as GIVEN > is the existing order, the existing power structures, the existing > ideologies, the existing myths and lies, the existing asymmetries and the > existing trajectories and trends in favor of the interests of the already > obscenely wealthy and powerful. > > It is all bullshit with very ugly consequences and trajectories flowing from > the policies and ideologies of imperialism and their neoclassical/neoliberal > ideological/theoretical pimps. > > Jim Craven > > -----Original Message----- > From: Henry C.K. Liu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 1999 2:34 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:7868] Re: Re: Law of Value & Information > > The four key elements in the issue of fair value in global trade are > intellectual > property (IP), technology, information and pricing. > In classical exchange, price is determined by cost and demand which under > free > trade conditions will reach equilibrium to provide the optimum price and the > largest sales. > But free trade is a myth, and the US is the leading opponent of it in > practice > while being the leading proponent of it in rhetoric. > > The rationale for IP is that it is needed to subsidized the coming stream of > new > technology. But as the Microsoft anti-trust case had demonstrated, IP > inhibits new > technology more than it is generally recognized. The same is evident in > medical > drugs. The only arena this inhibition does not exist is in military > technology > where the technological imperative still governs. > The fundamental criteria for a free market is the equal availability of > information > to all participants. When information is packaged and sold as commodities, > free > market becomes the casualty. > Last year, I had the opportunity to exchange views with a former US Trade > Representative during which I advances the notion that when two economies of > uneven > technological development trade, the concept of countervailing surplus in > favor of > the less advanced economy is just. Otherwise it would be structural > economical > imperialism. Needless to say, my view was politely noted but did not get > very > far. Happy to say, more and more developing nations are taking the view in > their > trade negotiations with more advanced countries. > > As for intellectual pirating, this is a serious and controversial issue. > The reason it is so widely practiced by most less advanced economies, China > being > only the latest to join the club, early America participated until it became > technologically matured as with Japan and Taiwan, is that there is a > widespread > view that the current intellectual property rights regime is not fair toward > late > comers. > China, for example wants to claim retroactive IP rights on the compass, > gunpowder , > paper making, etc., for a period of 50 years starting now, to compensate for > her > loss due to the absence of an international IP regime during her epoch of > high > inventiveness. > When a law is unjust, it invites widespread disobedience. > How about an international affirmative action program for IP. > IP amnesty for Third World for 50 years? > It will speed up global development and the advanced economies will also > benefit > more than they will lose. > > As for predatory pricing, the world needs an obscene profit law that > restrict > profit to a reasonable say 20% of added incremental cost of production. > This > requirement can easily be factored into the pricing models of the MNCs. > > Henry C.K. Liu
