-----Mensagem original----- De: lbo-talk-admin at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-admin at lbo-talk.org]Em nome de uvj at vsnl.com Enviada em: sábado, 11 de outubro de 2003 22:21 Para: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Assunto: Re: RES: [lbo-talk] Henwood: Collapse in Cancun
Alexandre Fenelon wrote:
> -For strategic reasons they can´t afford their agriculture being ruined
> -by cheap 3rd world products. I don´t like the subsidies, but I doubt
> -they will be ever lifted. And if the lifting of their subsidies is
> -conditioned to continued openess of third world countries to imports
> -and foreign investment from rich countries, then I would say it is
> -a very bad settlement to us.
My impression is that a vast majority people in agriculture in the "Third World" consists of farm labourers/marginal peasants who buy food and don't grow and sell it. (At least that's how things are in India. I don't about Brazil.) Would they not benefit if food prices were to fall?
Ulhas
-That´s a good question, and I have no answer for it. A fall of agricultural prices -would, of course, benefit poor people who don´t leave on agriculture. On the other -hand, it would even worsen terms of trade between rich and poor nations (who depend -on agricultural exports), by forcing them to sell more and more grains at less and -less profits. I would also harm farmers who sell their production (the majority of -Brazilian farmers produce all of their food plus some small excedents to be sold -in the market....I´m surprised by your data on India). -I think the question of terms of trade is of utmost importance. The unfairness of -the international trade system is that third world countries NEED to get hard -currency, so they´re in a situation where they must sell their products by very -small (or not at all) profits. The end of the almighty dollar would help a lot.... -so I oppose any policies that result in further deterioration of terms of trade. -It would be good to look at
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/DH14Dj01.html
China exported 4.07 billion pairs of shoes in 2001, up 2.55 percent from the previous year. But the value of those exports, US$10.1 billion, was an increase of only 2.48 percent over 2000. Actual value growth per unit, then, was a negative. Guangdong province is China's largest shoe-making region, with annual production at around three billion pairs, accounting for almost a third of the world's total. Assuming the number of Chinese workers making shoes to be constant, Chinese productivity dropped in the shoe industry in 2001. The only way productivity could have remained the same or improved would have been if the Chinese shoe industry had cut workers, thus contributing to China's growing unemployment problem.
Imports from China are resold in the US at a greater profit margin for US importers than that enjoyed by Chinese exporters in production for export. In part, this has to do with the inflated distribution costs in the importing country (US) because of overvaluation of its currency, and the higher standard of living in the US made possible partly by Chinese exporter credit. Thus a $2 toy leaving a Chinese factory is a $3 part of a shipment arriving at San Diego. By the time a US consumer buys it for $10, the US economy registers $10 in final sales, less $3 in imports, for a $7 addition to gross domestic product (GDP). The GDP gain to import ratio is greater than two, in this case two-and-a-third. The GDP gain to export ratio is zero if the $2 export price becomes part of the importer's capital account surplus. If 50 percent of the $2 export price is used for paying return to foreign capital, then the ratio is in fact negative. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 23/09/03