[OPE-L:7925] Re: Re: Re: Re: unequal exchange and poverty in African countries

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 &nbsp;did several mistakes. By example, Emannuel ignored
> the
> tendency to sell &nbsp;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). &nbsp;I agree with &nbsp;Paul that this is not unequal exchange or more
> precisely
> that it does not imply impoverishment by international trade.<br>
> However, the relationship between &nbsp;impoverishment and international
> trade
> is a very important issue. I &nbsp;see recently a BBC program about&nbsp;
> slave labor
> in world. &nbsp;In India, by example, there are &nbsp;300 000 child working
> &nbsp;in tapestry
> &nbsp;20 o 21 hr by day without payment! &nbsp;Coconut industry is Africa
> uses a lot
> of slave labor also. The &nbsp;BBC said: every time coconut price decrease
> more
> slaves are required. &nbsp;Hence the link between impoverishment and
> international
> trade is obvious. &nbsp;My view is that the normal operation of law of value
> is
> enough to explain such link and &nbsp;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">&lt;gerald_a_levy@msn.com&gt;</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"
>         </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"
> 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