💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › kevin-carson-fair-and-balanced.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:44:52. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Fair and Balanced
Author: Kevin Carson
Date: July 26, 2005
Language: en
Topics: globalization
Source: Retrieved on 4th September 2021 from https://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/07/fair-and-balanced.html

Kevin Carson

Fair and Balanced

Lest anybody think I’m getting soft on the Globalization Institute, I

just couldn’t let this twaddle slide. Paul Staines writes:

It should, two centuries after Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations,

be axiomatic that to alleviate poverty, developing economies need to

grow faster, and the poor need to benefit from this growth. Trade can

play the key role in reducing poverty, because it boosts economic growth

and the poor tend to benefit from that faster growth. Yet this is

sometimes disputed by anti-capitalism/anti-globalization fanatics who

put their ideological values before the needs of the developing world,

caring more about opposing capitalist corporate symbols then raising

living standards.

No, it should not be axiomatic.

First of all, neoliberals don’t even have a clear idea of what “growth”

is measuring. I’ve said it before, but here it is again: A great deal of

nominal “growth” probably reflects activity that was formerly

unmonetized (in the subsistence, barter or gift economy). As an example,

I repeat--once more--the case of British colonial policy in East Africa.

The colonial administration evicted the native peasantry from some 20%

of the best land in Kenya, and gave it to settlers. At the same time,

they imposed a poll tax on the native population to force subsistence

farmers into the wage market. I’d guess that the nominal GDP, measured

in official currency, probably exploded upwards as a result of that.

Right now Third World cities are similarly being flooded by landless

peasants, evicted by landlords acting in collusion with authoritarian

governments and Western agribusiness corporations. And they’re bidding

each other down to almost nothing, competing for sweatshop jobs.

Meanwhile, the incomes of the landlords profiting from cash crop

agriculture, and of the comprador bourgeoisie getting rich from the

sweatshops, are exploding upward. See any parallel?

Conversely, imagine if those same peasants returned to the land that was

rightfully theirs, made use of biointensive farming techniques and the

kind of intermediate technology that’s adapted to decentralized village

economies, and met most of their consumption needs bartering in local

LETS systems. I’m guessing that official GDP would fall to almost

nothing--but the real quality of life would be almost incomparably

better.

Second, “trade” as such is neither good nor bad. If there’s more of it

going on because externalizing the cost side of the ledger on the state

makes it artificially profitable, it’s bad: it’s a form of inefficient,

subsidized activity, crowding out more efficient small-scale producers

for local markets. If it’s genuinely more efficient, even when all costs

are fully internalized (as, you know, Adam Smith favored), it’s a good

thing. My own guess is that there’d be a lot less “trade” if all that

trade genuinely took place on the free market, instead of on the

government teat.

Whereas anti-globalization zealots are today very much marginalised from

the mainstream, a more respectable body of opinion argues that free

trade can be economically disruptive and damage livelihoods in the

short-term.

This last sentence, if it makes any sense, must assume an unstated minor

premise: that “globalization” is equivalent to “free trade.” Staines is

quite sensible not to make such an assertion explicit, because--as I’ve

already shown--it’s utter nonsense.