>I just don't get this. A country goes into debt; it's being cut off by intl
>creditors. Under the Nathan plan, The IMF gives them a loan or organizes
>debt reduction only insofar as production is now geared to domestic
>consumption (that is they turn inward, go away as I put it earlier); and if
>they don't, the AFL CIO will raise trade barriers to prevent any import
>surge if the country instead tries to export its way out of crisis.
This isn't entirely fair. The AFL-CIO also supports debt relief and financial regulation that it thinks - whether it's right or not is another story - would narrow world income inequality and reduce the risks of crisis. Trying to export your way out of crisis is a desperation maneuver that is deflationary and mainly benefits capitalists and rentiers. Mexico tried to export its way out its 1995 crisis; is that an inspiring model?
Lots of people in the South, none of whom could be called social imperialists, believe that a shift from export-oriented to domestic-oriented development would be a good thing. Are you so blinded by hatred of the AFL-CIO that you can't see the common ground there? Or do you disagree with Samir Amin and Patrick Bond?
Doug