-----Mensagem original----- De: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]Em nome de Ulhas Joglekar Enviada em: domingo, 12 de janeiro de 2003 03:22 Para: lbo-talk Assunto: Re: More on Hardt & Negri from Brennan
Both China and India have nuclear weapons which gives them greater autonomy.
-Agree with you.
It is important to climb up on a "technological ladder" all the time, so that you reduce the technological gap and achieve greater autonomy. India can design, fabricate and commission complex systems like supercomputers, satellites, rockets, nuclear reactors, large ship (containers with 100,000 tonne capacity), software systems etc.. This wasn't possible 50 years ago.
-Yes, this was only possible because you had state owned enterprise and -national private enterprises.
If we consider a longer perspective, South East Asia can be seen to have achieved a great reduction in poverty.
-Not to mention South Korea and Taiwan. But those countries still followed -protecionist policies. When they started to open their markets, there -was a dramatic crisis, and the largest country of Southeast Asia had -a serious crisis who probably make them lost a significant portion of -previous gains.
The flight of productive capital takes place over a longer period. "Hot money" is very mobile. How is capital accumulation financed in Brazil? Foreign savings account for about 10% of the total accumulation in Indian economy every year. That's not excessive.
-From 1994-2001 we had foreign investment near to 4-7% of our GDP (this will -give something like 20-35% of our overall investment). Many of those -investment was in fact related to privatization. We followed disastrous -policies that led us to have current account deficits near 4% of GDP. -Those were financed by foreign investment. How is your current account -situation. How much of your industry is owned by state and foreign enterprises?
The problem is that even "national capital" is no less prone to capital flight. Swiss banks and various tax havens are being used.
-From 1994-2001 we had foreign investment near to 4-7% of our GDP (this will -give something like 20-35% of our overall investment). Many of those -investment was in fact related to privatization (ie, it didn´t increase -productive capacity)
No. What is this "fiscal war" in Brazil? Again, the problem is that Indian domestic businesses also have an unending appetite for state subsidies and tax exmeptions.
-In the middle-late 90´s the states started to offer tax exemptions to -attract foreign enterprises (mainly automobile industries). In some cases -the amount of subsidies offered reached US$250 million for only one plant -(this agreement was after cancelled by the worker´s party after they won -the elections in Rio Grande do Sul state, so the FEDERAL government offered -Ford US$500million in subsidies plus tax exemptions to move the plant to -another state). This policy was devastating for my country, since we have -bankrupt states and a auto industry with 50% of productive capacity unused.
> -That´s the trouble. As you start to open the economy, obey international
> -rules for intelectual property and trade (eg, enter in the WHO)and allow
> -the denationalization of your economy, you will lose your autonomy.
It's possible to build globally competitive plants and enterprises, if a) domestic market is large enough to support large capacities. e.g. Asia's largest petroleum refinery is in India. (capacity 27 million tonnes p.a.), and b) if there is access to developed country markets. US has a trade deficit of $500 bn. China has benefited from access to US and Japanese markets.
-Agree with you. As I said both countries are taking the best profits they -can from globalization since the opening of their economies is being cautiously -controlled. This however, can change if this opening goes to far.
Even capitalism in one country in impossible. I don't think socialism in one country makes sense today. Not that it made any in sense in 1920s.
-But capitalism with relative autonomy is possible. Developed countries are -very cautious in not surrendering that relative autonomy. Agree with you that -socialism in one country isn´t possible (althought it made some sense in the -30´s, due to the international economic crisis). A reason for the failure of -both socialism and third world nationalism is the lack of international -cooperation among countries who followed those paths.
Alexandre Fenelon