http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0216-30.htm

Friday, February 16, 2007

Mystery: How Wealth Creates Poverty in the World

By Michael Parenti

There is a "mystery" we must explain: How is it that as corporate 
investments and foreign aid and international loans to poor countries 
have increased dramatically throughout the world over the last half 
century, so has poverty? The number of people living in poverty is 
growing at a faster rate than the world's population. What do we make 
of this?

Over the last half century, U.S. industries and banks (and other 
western corporations) have invested heavily in those poorer regions 
of Asia, Africa, and Latin America known as the "Third World." The 
transnationals are attracted by the rich natural resources, the high 
return that comes from low-paid labor, and the nearly complete 
absence of taxes, environmental regulations, worker benefits, and 
occupational safety costs.

The U.S. government has subsidized this flight of capital by granting 
corporations tax concessions on their overseas investments, and even 
paying some of their relocation expenses---much to the outrage of 
labor unions here at home who see their jobs evaporating.

The transnationals push out local businesses in the Third World and 
preempt their markets. American agribusiness cartels, heavily 
subsidized by U.S. taxpayers, dump surplus products in other 
countries at below cost and undersell local farmers. As Christopher 
Cook describes it in his Diet for a Dead Planet, they expropriate the 
best land in these countries for cash-crop exports, usually 
monoculture crops requiring large amounts of pesticides, leaving less 
and less acreage for the hundreds of varieties of organically grown 
foods that feed the local populations.

By displacing local populations from their lands and robbing them of 
their self-sufficiency, corporations create overcrowded labor markets 
of desperate people who are forced into shanty towns to toil for 
poverty wages (when they can get work), often in violation of the 
countries' own minimum wage laws.

In Haiti, for instance, workers are paid 11 cents an hour by 
corporate giants such as Disney, Wal-Mart, and J.C. Penny. The United 
States is one of the few countries that has refused to sign an 
international convention for the abolition of child labor and forced 
labor. This position stems from the child labor practices of U.S. 
corporations throughout the Third World and within the United States 
itself, where children as young as 12 suffer high rates of injuries 
and fatalities, and are often paid less than the minimum wage.

The savings that big business reaps from cheap labor abroad are not 
passed on in lower prices to their customers elsewhere. Corporations 
do not outsource to far-off regions so that U.S. consumers can save 
money. They outsource in order to increase their margin of profit. In 
1990, shoes made by Indonesian children working twelve-hour days for 
13 cents an hour, cost only $2.60 but still sold for $100 or more in 
the United States.

U.S. foreign aid usually works hand in hand with transnational 
investment. It subsidizes construction of the infrastructure needed 
by corporations in the Third World: ports, highways, and refineries.

The aid given to Third World governments comes with strings attached. 
It often must be spent on U.S. products, and the recipient nation is 
required to give investment preferences to U.S. companies, shifting 
consumption away from home produced commodities and foods in favor of 
imported ones, creating more dependency, hunger, and debt.

A good chunk of the aid money never sees the light of day, going 
directly into the personal coffers of sticky-fingered officials in 
the recipient countries.

Aid (of a sort) also comes from other sources. In 1944, the United 
Nations created the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund 
(IMF). Voting power in both organizations is determined by a 
country's financial contribution. As the largest "donor," the United 
States has a dominant voice, followed by Germany, Japan, France, and 
Great Britain. The IMF operates in secrecy with a select group of 
bankers and finance ministry staffs drawn mostly from the rich 
nations.

The World Bank and IMF are supposed to assist nations in their 
development. What actually happens is another story. A poor country 
borrows from the World Bank to build up some aspect of its economy. 
Should it be unable to pay back the heavy interest because of 
declining export sales or some other reason, it must borrow again, 
this time from the IMF.

But the IMF imposes a "structural adjustment program" (SAP), 
requiring debtor countries to grant tax breaks to the transnational 
corporations, reduce wages, and make no attempt to protect local 
enterprises from foreign imports and foreign takeovers. The debtor 
nations are pressured to privatize their economies, selling at 
scandalously low prices their state-owned mines, railroads, and 
utilities to private corporations.

They are forced to open their forests to clear-cutting and their 
lands to strip mining, without regard to the ecological damage done. 
The debtor nations also must cut back on subsidies for health, 
education, transportation and food, spending less on their people in 
order to have more money to meet debt payments. Required to grow cash 
crops for export earnings, they become even less able to feed their 
own populations.

So it is that throughout the Third World, real wages have declined, 
and national debts have soared to the point where debt payments 
absorb almost all of the poorer countries' export earnings---which 
creates further impoverishment as it leaves the debtor country even 
less able to provide the things its population needs.

Here then we have explained a "mystery." It is, of course, no mystery 
at all if you don't adhere to trickle-down mystification. Why has 
poverty deepened while foreign aid and loans and investments have 
grown? Answer: Loans, investments, and most forms of aid are designed 
not to fight poverty but to augment the wealth of transnational 
investors at the expense of local populations.

There is no trickle down, only a siphoning up from the toiling many 
to the moneyed few.

In their perpetual confusion, some liberal critics conclude that 
foreign aid and IMF and World Bank structural adjustments "do not 
work"; the end result is less self-sufficiency and more poverty for 
the recipient nations, they point out. Why then do the rich member 
states continue to fund the IMF and World Bank? Are their leaders 
just less intelligent than the critics who keep pointing out to them 
that their policies are having the opposite effect?

No, it is the critics who are stupid not the western leaders and 
investors who own so much of the world and enjoy such immense wealth 
and success. They pursue their aid and foreign loan programs because 
such programs do work. The question is, work for whom? Cui bono?

The purpose behind their investments, loans, and aid programs is not 
to uplift the masses in other countries. That is certainly not the 
business they are in. The purpose is to serve the interests of global 
capital accumulation, to take over the lands and local economies of 
Third World peoples, monopolize their markets, depress their wages, 
indenture their labor with enormous debts, privatize their public 
service sector, and prevent these nations from emerging as trade 
competitors by not allowing them a normal development.

In these respects, investments, foreign loans, and structural 
adjustments work very well indeed.

The real mystery is: why do some people find such an analysis to be 
so improbable, a "conspiratorial" imagining? Why are they skeptical 
that U.S. rulers knowingly and deliberately pursue such ruthless 
policies (suppress wages, rollback environmental protections, 
eliminate the public sector, cut human services) in the Third World? 
These rulers are pursuing much the same policies right here in our 
own country!

Isn't it time that liberal critics stop thinking that the people who 
own so much of the world---and want to own it all---are "incompetent" 
or "misguided" or "failing to see the unintended consequences of 
their policies"? You are not being very smart when you think your 
enemies are not as smart as you. They know where their interests lie, 
and so should we.

Michael Parenti's recent books include The Assassination of Julius 
Caesar (New Press), Superpatriotism (City Lights), and The Culture 
Struggle (Seven Stories Press). For more information visit: 
www.michaelparenti.org. 


_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Reply via email to