From: clyder@gn.apc.org
Date: Wed Nov 06 2002 - 08:35:42 EST
Quoting Alejandro Valle Baeza <valle@servidor.unam.mx>: > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> > <html> > <head> > <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"> > <title></title> > </head> > <body> > I agree with Paul: in general unequal exchange is a misleading discussion. > Amin and Emannuel did several mistakes. By example, Emannuel ignored > the > tendency to sell products at similar prices in world markets despite > huge > differences in productivitys. Latina American structuralism pointed out that > terms of trade was against LA and they extracted a critical vision against > spontaneous growth during Postwar years previous to Neoliberal Era (80 and > 90). I agree with Paul that this is not unequal exchange or more > precisely > that it does not imply impoverishment by international trade.<br> > However, the relationship between impoverishment and international > trade > is a very important issue. I see recently a BBC program about > slave labor > in world. In India, by example, there are 300 000 child working > in tapestry > 20 o 21 hr by day without payment! Coconut industry is Africa > uses a lot > of slave labor also. The BBC said: every time coconut price decrease > more > slaves are required. Hence the link between impoverishment and > international > trade is obvious. My view is that the normal operation of law of value > is > enough to explain such link and unequal exchange is not necessary.<br> > <br> That is my view too, though I am not sure I understand quite how the law of value operates in cases where there is slave labour in the poorer country. My first thought is that it would not lead to a transfer of value to the purchaser of the commodity but to a higher rate of profit to the slave owner - who will usually be resident in Africa or India. > <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" > href="mailto:clyder@gn.apc.org">clyder@gn.apc.org</a> wrote:<br> > <blockquote type="cite" > cite="mid1036508882.3dc7ded24b32b@setup.greennet.org.uk"> > <pre wrap="">Quoting gerald_a_levy <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" > href="mailto:gerald_a_levy@msn.com"><gerald_a_levy@msn.com></a>: > > </pre> > <blockquote type="cite"> > <pre wrap="">Re Paul C's [7898]: > > </pre> > <blockquote type="cite"> > <blockquote type="cite"> > <pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" > href="http://global.so36.net/en/2002/09/386.shtml">http://global.so36.net/en/2002/09/386.shtml> > </pre> > </blockquote> > <pre wrap="">This basically says that the price of primary products > from > Africa has declined relative to other commodities. > That hardly establishes the existence of unequal exchange. > </pre> > </blockquote> > <pre wrap="">Good point. What is required to empirically demonstrate > the existence of unequal exchange? > > </pre> > </blockquote> > <pre wrap=""><!----> > This seems to be based on Amins old theory of unequal exchange > which when I read it in the 70s struck me as complete rubbish. > > > </pre> > <blockquote type="cite"> > <pre wrap="">Does the following, from Gernot Kohler, meet or fail that > test? > <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" > href="http://csf.colorado.edu/wsystems/archive/papers/kohler/kohler3.htm">http://csf.colorado.edu/wsystems/archive/papers/kohler/kohler3.htm> > > In solidarity, Jerry > > > > </pre> > </blockquote> > <pre wrap=""><!----> > > </pre> > </blockquote> > <br> > </body> > </html> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 07 2002 - 00:00:01 EST