#Raul Prebisch

[probablyasocialecologist]

We cannot understand industrialization outside the history of colonialism, and its relationship to a system of accumulation of surplus value – capitalism. Following the insights of Samir Amin, Celso Furtado, Raul Prebisch, Eric Williams, Utsa and Prabhat Patnaik, and Walter Rodney, amongst others, this perspective characterizes the seemingly apolitical process of industrialization as linked the violence of primitive accumulation, commodification, exchange, and war. That is, the slave trade, the colonization of the United States, the erection of colonial plantations in Africa, the Caribbean, Asia, and Latin America, all contributing the raw materials, food items, and export markets which subtended the low-waged process of European and eventually US industrialization. These processes, whose echoes are still reverberating, produced a massive amount of CO2 emissions. Furthermore, contemporary patterns of exchange, although not occurring under direct colonial patterns of control, are still unequal on South-North lines. That is, trade between formally independent states, based on the seemingly efficient price system, hides a new mode of control. An hour of labor in the North continues to receive a far higher reward than an hour of labor in the South, even when using similar or identical technologies, and northern products exchange for ever-increasing amounts of southern resources over time. As a result, wealth concentrates in the North, in part because wages and profit concentrate there, and produce and reproduce social-economic polarization within the world system.

[icedteapee]

YEAH BAYBEEEEE I get to talk about Raul Prebisch’s theory of unequal exchange in my Crusades paper let’s goooooo

[politicnews]

Sudakah Kita Melihat Kembalinya Fasisme yang Abadi

Björn Höcke adalah musuh publik nomor satu di Jerman saat ini. Setidaknya itulah yang disarankan media Jerman. Höcke adalah eksponen terkemuka sayap “völkisch” dari Alternatif untuk Jerman (AfD), partai populis sayap kanan radikal negara itu. Dan Höcke adalah seorang fasis. Itulah yang diputuskan pengadilan provinsi Jerman beberapa bulan yang lalu. Namun ini tidak mencegah pemilih di Thuringia, negara bagian Höcke, untuk mendukung AfD dalam pemilihan regional musim gugur ini.

Höcke bukanlah kasus yang luar biasa. Pada awal 2018, sebuah artikel di Medium mengklaim bahwa Wakil Presiden AS Mike Pence adalah anak poster "fasisme Kristen," yang, menurut penulis itu, sedang meningkat di Amerika. Beberapa tahun sebelumnya, seorang politisi sayap kiri terkemuka menyerang Marine Le Pen, pemimpin Front Nasional, bertanya mengapa Prancis adalah satu-satunya negara yang ingin memiliki "fasis" yang memimpin pemerintahannya. Tuduhan yang sama diajukan terhadap Matteo Salvini, pemimpin La Lega di Italia, yang, ironisnya, sejak kemunculannya pada 1990-an sangat menentang fasisme.

Membuat Italia Hebat

Dalam keadaan seperti itu, mungkin pantas untuk mengingat kembali apa itu fasisme dan mengapa menyamakan orang-orang seperti Höcke dan Salvini dengan fasisme sama saja dengan menyepelekan ideologi. Fasisme, setidaknya dalam versi Italia-nya, adalah gerakan revolusioner, yang berasal dari kaum kiri radikal. Benito Mussolini, orang kuat fasisme, mulai sebagai seorang Marxis yang berkomitmen. Untuk sementara waktu, ia adalah editor Avanti, surat kabar Partai Sosialis Italia, pada saat sosialis masih radikal dan percaya pada revolusi global.

Dedikasi Mussolini pada internasionalisme sosialis tiba-tiba berakhir dengan awal Perang Dunia I. Ini tidak mengejutkan. Sebelum perang, kaum sosialis Eropa dengan penuh semangat menentang militerisme. Namun, begitu permusuhan dimulai pada tahun 1914, hampir semua partai sosialis dari negara-negara besar - dari Jerman hingga Inggris - mendukung upaya perang masing-masing negara. Pelajaran yang bisa diambil dari pengalaman ini adalah bahwa solidaritas internasional adalah suatu kehilangan proposisi. Itu adalah nasionalisme yang memobilisasi dan mengumpulkan massa. Giliran nasionalis berarti kelas bawahan ke tujuan nasional. Ini terbukti menjadi pilihan yang fatal, pada akhirnya berkontribusi pada perpecahan antara sosialis / sosial demokrat dan komunis, yang akan menghantui gerakan sosialis selama beberapa dekade mendatang.

Di Italia, itu mengarah ke gerakan sayap kiri ketiga: Partai Fasis Nasional Mussolini. Secara etimologis, fasisme berasal dari dua kata: fasia Italia dan fasces Latin. Fascio adalah singkatan dari "bundel" - sekelompok individu yang memiliki kecenderungan serupa yang terikat erat, mirip dengan gagasan Vladimir Lenin tentang kaum revolusioner yang berdedikasi. Fasces adalah kata jamak yang berkonotasi dengan sebatang kayu / tongkat yang dibawa oleh lictores, yang berfungsi sebagai pengawal para hakim Romawi kuno. Fasces melambangkan otoritas dan yurisdiksi hakim - yaitu, kekuatan negara.

Fasisme adalah kombinasi antara fasia dan fasces - sekelompok individu yang berdedikasi berkomitmen untuk membangun negara "totaliter" yang kuat atas nama keutamaan bangsa. Mussolini memperjelas bahwa ia bermaksud “untuk menghancurkan Italia lama dari liberalisme dan demokrasi yang dekaden dan melahirkan seorang Italia muda yang baru, jantan,”. Setelah meninggalkan ide revolusi sosial, ia sepenuhnya menganut gagasan revolusi nasional yang ditujukan untuk meningkatkan status quo internasional.

Ini di belakang gagasan yang disebarkan oleh kaum fasis bahwa Italia adalah "negara proletar" - sebuah negara yang relatif terbelakang dari negara-negara "plutokratis" Eropa yang besar (terutama Inggris Raya), yang mencegah Italia dari menyadari potensi ekonomi dan statusnya sebagai kekuatan besar. Konflik berikutnya adalah antara inti dan pinggiran. Gagasan ini kemudian diadopsi oleh para ekonom Amerika Latin, seperti Raul Prebisch, sekretaris jenderal pertama Konferensi PBB tentang Perdagangan dan Pembangunan, untuk menjelaskan "keterbelakangan" relatif Amerika Latin. Dengan demikian, tidak mengejutkan bahwa para pemimpin populis Amerika Latin terkemuka seperti Juan Perón dan, sampai batas tertentu, Jorge Eliécer Gaitán terkesan oleh fasisme, bahkan jika yang terakhir menganggap Mussolini sebagai sosok yang “konyol”.

Tujuan Mussolini adalah agar Italia mengejar ketinggalan secara ekonomi dan militer serta mengubah negara itu menjadi kekuatan utama dunia. Ini tercermin dalam kebijakan ekonomi fasis, yang berpusat pada perencanaan pusat, regulasi berat, dan proteksionisme. Mengingat akar ideasional fasisme, tidak mengherankan bahwa ia sangat memusuhi individualisme ekonomi, liberalisme dan kapitalisme laissez-faire, bahkan jika Mussolini terpaksa membuat kompromi di bidang ekonomi.

Secara umum, kebijakan ekonomi fasis adalah sosialisme murni, seperti halnya promosi kesejahteraan sosial. Seperti dikatakan Sheri Berman, fasisme pada 1930-an "berbicara tentang kebutuhan sosial dan psikologis warga negara untuk dilindungi dari kerusakan kapitalisme pada saat para aktor politik lainnya menawarkan sedikit bantuan." Fasisme mengusulkan solusi "sosialis nasional" untuk kesulitan yang dialami oleh warga biasa - solusi yang hampir tidak orisinal. Wakil Prancis Boulangist dan penulis terkemuka Maurice Barrès telah memajukan program serupa sedini 1890 dalam upaya untuk menarik pemilih kelas pekerja di distrik pemilihannya, kota Nancy di Lorraine.

Membela Perlombaan

Dalam bahasa kontemporer, fasisme digunakan sebagai istilah umum yang mengacu pada serangkaian fenomena, dari ekstremisme sayap kanan ke neo-Nazisme - keduanya terkait erat dengan xenofobia dan rasisme. Secara historis, lambang xenophobia dan rasisme lebih sering daripada anti-Semitisme, yang dicontohkan oleh perselingkuhan Dreyfus di Prancis akhir abad ke-19. Ironisnya, setidaknya pada awalnya, fasisme sama sekali tidak anti-Semit. Ini tidak mengejutkan, mengingat hubungan lama Mussolini dengan Margherita Sarfatti, yang bukan hanya kekasihnya, tetapi juga individu "yang menciptakan basis ideologis dan filosofis fasisme antara 1913 dan 1919."

Sampai akhir 1930-an, anti-Semitisme tidak mendapat tempat dalam doktrin fasis. Faktanya, Franklin Hugh Adler menyatakan bahwa sampai tahun 1938 - ketika rezim fasis memperkenalkan undang-undang rasial - “Italia hanya dapat dianggap sebagai filosemitik.” Yahudi Italia, minoritas kecil sekitar 44.000, diizinkan untuk bergabung dengan Partai Fasis Nasional, dan mereka melakukannya. begitu. Sejumlah orang Yahudi memegang posisi penting dalam gerakan ini, yang paling menonjol Guido Jung, yang menjabat sebagai menteri keuangan dari tahun 1932 hingga 1935. Mussolini sendiri tidak merasa jijik terhadap anti-Semitisme Adolf Hitler. Ini semua berubah dengan dimulainya Perang Dunia II pada tahun 1939 ketika Mussolini memutuskan untuk menyerah pada Hitler. Ini terbukti sebagai kesalahan fatal yang akhirnya berakhir dengan jenazah Mussolini digantung di sebuah pompa bensin di Milan.

Mussolini percaya bahwa "postulat doktrinal" fasis memiliki "karakter universal." Dia bahkan yakin bahwa fasisme akan "datang untuk mengisi abad sekarang [yaitu, abad ke-20] dengan dirinya sendiri bahkan ketika Liberalisme mengisi abad kesembilan belas." Pada 1932, koran partai meramalkan bahwa dalam 10 tahun ke depan, Eropa akan menjadi fasis atau setidaknya "fasis."

Mussolini tidak sepenuhnya salah. Pada periode pascaperang, perencanaan pusat, intervensi negara dalam ekonomi, perluasan negara kesejahteraan dan ekonomi Keynesian berkuasa di seluruh Eropa Barat. Namun dia salah dalam meyakini bahwa fasisme akan mampu mengubah sifat manusia secara fundamental, menciptakan manusia fasis baru - keras seperti granit (granovesù granitica yang dinodai dalam "Amarcord" karya Federico Fellini, dominan dan agresif, siap untuk mengorbankan dirinya demi kebaikan bangsa yang lebih besar dan dengan demikian mampu membangkitkan kembali kejayaan Kekaisaran Romawi.

Menciptakan pria fasis baru berarti menghapus citra orang Italia sebagai “orang simpleton pendek dan gelap,” jika tidak lebih buruk. (Di AS, imigran Italia menjadi sasaran stereotip yang diilhami rasial, dengan kartun yang menggambarkan mereka sebagai tikus yang dipersenjatai dengan pisau dan pistol.) Dengan melakukan hal itu, ini berarti “mengkonfigurasi ulang” orang Italia sebagai bagian penting dari “ras Arya "

Ini adalah inti dari Manifesto of Race yang terkenal dari tahun 1938. Itu tidak hanya berusaha untuk membangun akar Arya dari Italia, tetapi juga bahwa orang Yahudi Italia tidak termasuk dalam “ras Italia.” Orang Yahudi Italia, seperti yang ditekankan oleh manifesto, tidak pernah berasimilasi, dan ini untuk alasan yang baik: Yahudi merupakan "elemen non-Eropa" yang secara fundamental berbeda dari elemen Arya yang berdiri pada asal-usul orang Italia. Karenanya rasisme sangat diperlukan untuk mewujudkan impian ekspansionis / imperialis Mussolini yang menggelikan, yang akhirnya berakhir dengan bencana.

[elcorreografico]

"¡Felices pascuas! ¡La Casa está en orden!"

"¡Felices pascuas! ¡La Casa está en orden!" (Por #MiguelÁngeldeRenzis)

(Por Miguel Ángel de Renzis) _ En el año 325, en el primer Concilio Ecuménico de Nicea se estableció que la Semana Santa comenzaría con el primer domingo de luna llena después del equinoccio del 21 de marzo.

En ese Concilio se decidió que Semana Santa puede caer entre el 22 de marzo al 25 de abril.

En el año 1987 la Semana comenzó el 19 de abril, y un levantamiento carapintada llevó a urgentes…

[baghasbudi]

Heterodox in Economic Development Theories

Pada pertemuan kedua kuliah ekonomi pembangunan madya, kita telah mengenal berbagai konsep dan teori pembangunan yang ditinjau dari beberapa aspek yang esensial. Dimulai dari teori neoklasik yang diampu oleh Adam Smith dan mampu mengguncang dunia dengan Laissez-Fairez nya lalu dilanjutkan dengan terobosan oleh J.M. Keynes dengan konsep Demand-Side Economicsnya yang mampu membawa sebagian besar negara bangkit dari keterpurukan The Great Depression pada awal abad 19, dan sekarang teori ekonomi neoklasik sedang dibangkitkan kembali oleh kaum kapitalis. Tidak hanya perkembangan teori ekonomi yang mengalami pembaharuan tapi juga indikator kesejahteraan global juga terus berkembang. Goals of Development yang dirilis oleh UNDP berkembang sejak tahun 1950an. Mulai dari modal fisik sebagai acuan pertumbuhan ekonomi yang bisa meningkatkan kapasitas produksi yang berujung pada peningkatan Produk Domestk Bruto. Lalu berkembang menjadi modal manusia dan modal sosial yang turut dipertimbangkan. Beberapa aspek yang turut berkembang dalam perkembangan pembangunan ekonomi selain 2 hal diatas, yakni sebagai berikut :

Akumulasi Modal

Negara dan Pasar

Intervensi Pemerintah

Reformasi kebijakan

Berkembang lebih jauh lagi, teori ekonomi pembangunan merupakan wadah/media berinteraksi antara ekonom dengan para peneliti sosial yang berusaha untuk menganalisa fenomena dan isu yang terjadi secara kronologis dan ilmiah. Hal ini mengakibatkan perpecahan antara cendekiawan yang berbeda “keyakinan” dengan cendekiawan lainnya. Hal ini diindikasi dengan adanya beberapa mazhab ekonomi yang terpecah menjadi 3 aliran, Yakni : (1) Aliran Konservatif, (2) aliran radikal reformis, (3) aliran kritikus reformis. Para cendekiawan ekonomi saling mengkritik mazhab lain yang dianggap tidak sesuai dengan fakta empiris dan tidak relevan dengan permasalahan yang terjadi. Sebagai contoh : Kritik kaum radikal reformis terhadap teori pembangunan generasi terdahulu mengemukakan bahwa teori ekonomi pmbangunan dahulu tidak bisa mengakomodasi solusi permasalahan karena beberapa aspek, yakni : adanya kekakuan harga, lag, surplus dan kekurangan, elastisitas yang rendah dari permintaan dan penawaran, serta pesimisme pada ekspor negara-negara berkembang yang lebih difokuskan pada sektor primer.

Adapun juga para ekonom dewasa ini juga mengkritik teori pembangunan terdahulu, poin pentingnya yakni sebagai berikut : Kurangnya konten empirik dari model ataupun saran-saran yang diberikan terkat dengan peningkatan pembangunan (Krugman, 1993), proses pembangunan yang hanya mementingkan modal fisik saja dan mengabaikan entingnya modal manusia dan peningkatan pada faktor produksi lain seperti teknologi, dll. dan adanya Government Failure.

Heterodoksi teori ekonomi pembangunan dimulai dengan pertentangan antara kaum strukturalis dengan kaum konservatif neo-klasik. Pada tahun 1950-1970an, PBB membentuk ECLA ( Economic Development of Latin America) yang bertujuan sebagai lembaga advokasi ekonomi regional dalam memajukan perekonomian amerika selatan. Banyak ahli ekonomi amerika selatan bahwa, perkembangan ekonomi itu adalah hal relatif yang pertumbuhannya terikat pada struktur manusia, budaya, politik, hukum, dan sosial. Raul Prebisch adalah ekonom latin amerika yang terkenal pada masanya. Ia lulus program master ilmu ekonomi pada Universitas Buenos Aires. Prebisch memfokuskan studnya pada mazhb neoklasik, dimana Prebisch dalam studi empiriknya menemukan bahwa terdapat keunggulan komparatif antara argentina dengan beberapa negara tetangga dalam melakukan ekspor – impor. Hal ini membuat ia menjadi seorang “Ricardian”, yakni seseorang yang menganut mazhab klasik yang berkiblat pada Teori keunggulan komparatif oleh david ricardo. Ia menolak sbagian besar ide adam smith dalam perdagangan internasional dengan pendekatan Keunggulan mutlak. Karena setiap negara tidak hanya punya spesialisasi dalam produk terttentu, namun negara juga harus efisien dalam membeli/impor dan memproduksi serta mengekspor produk lokalnya keluar negeri. Sebagai contoh, Produksi beras argentina pada akhir 1950 sangat kecil. Jika ingin berswasembada, penggunaan lahan yang masih belum efisien akan mengakibatkan harga beras akan melambung tinggi. Maka dari itu beras harus diimpor dari negara lain karena ada keunggulan komparatif yang dimiliki negara lain dan argentina dan bisa terus berdagang secara mutualisme.

Di Tahun 1949, Prebisch mendapat rekomendasi untuk bergabung dengan ECLA atas izin dari sekjen PBB. Dalam laporan yang berjudul Relative Prices of Eports and Imports of Underdeveloped Countries, dimana terdapat kesenjangan antara negara maju dan negara berkembang dalam mendapatkan keuntungan dari perdagangan internasional. Prebisch mengusulkan impor substitusi untuk menanggulangi masalah tersebut. Adapun penyebab kegagalan ECLA dalam mengatasi perdagangan internasional, yakni sebagai berikut :

Kegagalan diversifikasi ekspor dan dalam melanjutkan keberlangsungan roduksi bahan mentah untuk ekspor produk pertanian

Peningkatan utang luar negeri

Sektor pertanian domestik yang lemah, terlalu banyak impor sehingga devisa menipis

Banyak sektor publik yang dikuasai asing.

Adapun selain Prebisch, Ekonom bernama Hanz Singer (1911-2006) berkebangsaan jerman mnerima gelar doktor dari universitas Cambridge di tahun 19336. Ia adalah seorang Keynesian dan salah satu dari tiga ekonom yang membentuk departemen kebijakan ekonomi di PBB. Singer dikenal luas dalam publikasinya yang memfokuskan pada kritik terhadap neo-klasik. Hipotesis dan kritiknya dikenal sebagai Prebisch-Singer(P-S) Hipotesis.

Hipotesis Prebisch-Singer menganalisis hubungan antara negara pada kondisi yang tidak seimbang antara embangunan yang menggunakan pendekatan spasial antara negara core dengan perihery. Menurut mereka, negara maju(core) lebih cenderung mendapatkan keuntungan dari perdagangan internasonal dibandingkan dengan negara penunjang (periphery). Mereka berdua mngritik studi empirik David Ricardo yang secara jelas mngatakan bahwa tidak akan mungkin salah satu phak dirugikan dalam perdagangan internasional jika menganut teori keunggulan komparatif. Hal ini dikarenakan, tiap negara periphery tidak bisa melakukan spesialisasi produksi dengan baik. Jadi komoditas yang akan diekspor tidak efisien dan optimal keuntungannya. Tingkat teknologi juga berpengaruh, negara core memiliki tingkat teknologi yang mutakhir yang dapat mengurangi labor cost secara signifikan. Dan juga teknologi yang diaplikasikan oleh negara periphery adalah produk dari negara core. Maka dari itu, akan ada Economics cost yang harus dibayar oleh negara periphery. Jika dbandingkan dengan negara periphery, banyak yang masih bersifat “padat karya”. Hal ini diperparah dengan kondisi sosial politik yang kadang-kadang bergejolak dan tidak pasti memperparah iklim investas menjadi tidak kondusif. Pada akhirnya biaya peluang pada negara periphery akan semakin membesar dan akan terus memperburuk kondisi perekonomian apabila mereka tidak memperbaiki struktur perekonomian sepert apa yang telah dijelas kan pada P-S Hypothesis. Menurut Singer, fenomena ini terjadi akbat konsekuensi dari revolusi industri yang terus bergerak secara dinamis. Disatu sisi, kebutuhan masyarakat dapat terpenuhi dengan baik dan taraf kesejahteraan meningkat, namun disisi yang lain akan timbul kesenjangan yang terus memburuk antara negara maju dan negara berkembang apabila tidak dapat menghadapi tantangan global.

“Instituionalist Believe that the institutions of an economy, that is, the forms of production , ownership, work processes, and ideologies which combine to create an economy and society, ar the roper subject for economic analysis”

-Gunmar Mydal, Nobel of Economics Winner at 1972

Disatu sisi, ada mazhab ekonom lain yang bernama “Institusionalis” yang mengedepankan pentingnya ekonomi sebagai suatu institusi yang didalamnya terdapat produksi, kepemilikan, ideologi, dan kerja sama yang dapat menghasilkan kesejahteraan bersama. Hal tersebut senada diungkapka oleh Claren Ayres (189-1970) seorang ekonom berkebangsaan amerika yang mendapatkan gelar doktor ekonomi di tahun 1930 di Universitas Texas. Ia mencetuskan teori pembangunan ekonomi dengan dua pilar penting, yakni : teknologi dan akumulasi modal manusia.

Teknologi menurut Ayres, adalah hal yang sangat penting dan besar dalam kontribusinya dalam pembagunan ekonomi. Segala sesuatu penemuan yang berguna bagi kemajuan kehidupan umat manusia adalah hakikat dari teknologi. Dan Ekonomi itu juga manifestasi teknologi dari pemikiran manusia.

Ceremonialism atau struktur sosial, politik, budaya manusia juga berperan penting. Manusia sebagai organisme yang hidup ditengah permasalahan global saat ini tidak mungkin terlepas dari ideologi / pandangan hidup tentang negara, budaya yang melekat dengan dimana ia tinggal, sekolah, dan bekerja, serta lingkungan sosial yang melekat padanya dalam konteks ras, agama, dll.

Mydal dan Ayres sama-sama menentang neo-klasik yang berasumsi bahwa mekanisme pasar dapat memperbaiki kondisi perekonomian. Adapun poin penting yang mendukung argumentasi mereka, yakni sebagai berikut :

Teori dan studi empirik perdagangan internasional dinilai bias terhadap kondisi kesejahteraan negara miskin, khususnya pada aspek faktor harga, upah, dan spesialisasi produk

Indikator Pembangunan ekonomi yang kurang relevan jika ditinjau dari kondisi perekonomian dan kehidupan bernegara saat ini .

“Dependency Anaysis is became extremely fashionable, particularly in Latin Amerka, and later in Africa in the late 1960s.”

Analisis dependensi yang diungkapkan salah satu ekonomi PBB mengungkapka bahwa sebenarnya kemajuan ekonomi negara negara berkembang bukanlah bagian dari tujuan dari perdagangan internasional, melainkan hanya sebagai budak kapitalis dari negara maju. Beberapa faktor yang dapat merelevansikan opini tersebut yakni sebagai berikut :

Karena : 1.) mendominasi segmen komoditi ekspor yang bisa meningkatkan GDP secara signifikan

2.) Tingkat teknologi yang tinggi

3.) Pengelolaan sumber daya alam tidak dieksploitasi oleh pihak asing atau swasta yang liberal

4.) Kemajuan taraf berpikir masyarakat ke arah yang lebih dewasa dan ilmiah

Adapun ekonom inggris bernama Paul Baran mengungkapkan setidaknya ada 3 solusi untuk mengatasi masalah ini, yakni : National Capital, Foreign Captal, and Economic Surplus. Ia ingin mewujudkan 3 hal tersebut dengan prinsip ekonom klask Marxis (sosialis). Ia berpendapat bahwa tidak ada The World is Not Enough seperti Film James Bond. Dimana hanya segelintir negara dan pihak saja yang sanggup survive dari rimba ekonomi saat ini yang lain hanya akan menjadi penonton dan bahkan mati sia-sia karena tidak bisa bersaing.

“Becoming developed requires the right decisions and the proper policies; it does not just happen to all contries from heaven, just as a consequence of the spread of capitalism”

Pada akhirnya, siapa yang kuat dia-ah yang berkuasa dimana negara kapitalis mampu menguasai perekonomian negara lemah dan mampu mengeksploitasi sumber daya alam untuk kesenangan pribadi dan golongan. Saran Ekonom yang mempertentangkan teori (Heterodoks) intinya adalah dunia harus mewujudkan pembangunan ekonomi yang memiliki indikator multidimensional dan tidak hanya mengacu pada fisik saja.

[aditiathomas]

tugas kuliah s2 TEORI DEPENDENSI ATAU TEORI KETERGANTUNGAN

tugas kuliah s2 TEORI DEPENDENSI ATAU TEORI KETERGANTUNGAN

TEORI DEPENDENSI ATAU TEORI KETERGANTUNGAN Bukanlah sebuah teori baru, melainkan teori yang sudah ada sejak puluhan tahun lalu yang dicetuskan oleh tokoh-tokoh terkenalnya seperti Theotonio Dos Santos, Raul Prebisch, Paul Baran, dan Andre Gunder Frank dan Samir Amin. Dalam tulisan ini akan membahas teori milik Andre Gunder Frank. Frank adalah seorang penulis yang produktif, telah menulis tidak…

[tachtutor]

The EU’s New Trade Protectionism – Watts Up With That?

The EU’s New Trade Protectionism – Watts Up With That?

Reposted from Forbes By Tilak Doshi Trade protectionism has venerable roots in the history of economic thought, from Germany’s celebrated Friedrich List in the 1840s to Raul Prebisch who headed the UN’s Economic Commission for Latin America in 1950 and advocated import-substituting industrialization behind a wall of tariff and non-tariff barriers. Prebisch’s theories became a canon of a failed…

[portalmunicipiosbaianos-blog]

Venezuela: para além da crise atual

 A conjuntura da geopolítica na América Latina mudou radicalmente de configuração ao longo dos últimos anos. O quadro que se apresentava francamente favorável a políticas desenvolvimentistas desde o início do novo milênio começa a se transformar a partir da segunda década da nova era. Uma das principais referências desse movimento em direção a mudanças mais profundas nas sociedades do continente sul-americano foi, sem dúvida alguma, a Venezuela sob a presidência de Hugo Chavez. Tanto que os líderes que se opunham ao modelo elitista e de subserviência aos Estados Unidos passaram a ser rotulados de “bolivarianos”, em referência ao conceito da Revolução Bolivariana proposta pelo líder venezuelano. O quadro se fechava com as eleições de Lula no Brasil, Evo Morales na Bolívia, Nestor Kirchner na Argentina, Rafael Correa no Equador, Tabaré Vazquez no Uruguay, Michelle Bachelet no Chile e Fernando Lugo no Paraguai.

Pouco a pouco, no entanto, o cenário vai se dirigindo para soluções políticas de natureza cada vez mais conservadora. Em março de 2010, Sebastián Pìñera vence as eleições no Chile em uma disputa com Michelle Bachelet. Em junho de 2012, as forças direitistas conseguem aprovar um impeachment sem nenhuma base legal no interior do parlamento paraguaio, provocando a saída do Presidente Lugo. Em março de 2013 ocorre o falecimento do Presidente Hugo Chavez da Venezuela. Ao longo de 2016 tem lugar o impeachment de Dilma Roussef e também o afastamento de forma ilegal de alguém que havia sido legitimamente eleita pela maioria da população. Em abril de 2017, Lenin Moreno é eleito Presidente do Equador como sucessor de Rafael Correa, mas rapidamente rompe com o antecessor e com sua política progressista. Logo depois, em outubro de 2017, o conservador Mauricio Macri vence as eleições na Argentina, pondo fim ao ciclo de 3 mandatos com a marca do casal Kirchner. No início de 2018, Piñera volta a vencer Bachelet. E para fechar esse triste recuo reacionário, no final do ano Bolsonaro se elege no Brasil.

Mas, afinal, Paulo, o que é que tudo isso tem a ver com a situação atual da Venezuela? Ora, uma das principais causas da profunda crise que atravessa o nosso vizinho do norte é a sua dimensão econômica. A verdade é que os líderes políticos daquele país perderam uma oportunidade histórica de ouro para consolidar, de uma vez por todas, as mudanças que foram sendo implementadas aos poucos desde a primeira vitória de Chavez em dezembro de 1998. Apesar de todas as transformações expressivas que foram levadas a cabo ao longo dessas duas décadas, o ponto fulcral permaneceu praticamente inalterado. E aqui eu me refiro ao potencial estratégico oferecido pela exploração das incomensuráveis reservas petrolíferas. Os sucessivos governos de Chavez - e depois os anos de Maduro na Presidência - não ousaram encarar o problema da dependência da dinâmica da economia e da sociedade venezuelanas em relação ao chamado ouro negro.

·         A doença holandesa e a onda conservadora na América do Sul.

Esse tipo de fenômeno já era conhecido há bastante tempo e ganhou até um nome especial nos estudos econômicos. Foi apelidado de “doença holandesa” em razão do que havia ocorrido com a economia daquele país europeu a partir da descoberta de reservas de petróleo e gás no final da década de 1950. O risco está associado ao fato de países que contam com as vantagens trazidas pelas condições da natureza se contentarem com a renda auferida pela exploração e exportação das chamadas “commodities”. Tais formações sociais vivem um período (que pode inclusive ser longo, do ponto de vista histórico) usufruindo daquilo que os modelos econômicos chamam de “renda extraordinária” e não se propõem a avançar em termos de novos paradigmas tecnológicos e produtivos. Assim dá-se uma espécie de acomodação numa certa zona de conforto e as consequências dessa decisão equivocada só serão sentidos muito mais à frente, gerações depois do período considerado

A Venezuela não ousou se valer das ondas de altas nos preços do petróleo para romper essa dependência no futuro. Era necessário e possível se apropriar de sua condição de uma das maiores nações exportadoras do globo para internalizar esse impressionante volume de recursos derivados das exportações. Esse seria o caminho para criar uma sólida rede interna de indústrias produtivas. Mas o caminho adotado foi outro. Os rendimentos socialmente apropriados pela ilusão em relação às vantagens imediatas oferecidas pelo modelo da “doença holandesa” não forçou a constituição de uma rede de tecido social de novo tipo. Essa trilha seria essencial de ser iniciada, justamente com o intuito de superar a dependência com relação às importações da grande maioria dos bens de consumo da sua população.

Esse, aliás, sempre foi o alerta e a razão de ser dos economistas e pensadores das diferentes correntes desenvolvimentistas. Desde os fundadores da CEPAL como Celso Furtado e Raul Prebisch até os mais contemporâneos, o foco nunca deixou de mencionar a preocupação em se criarem os meios para que os países da região conseguissem romper o perverso ciclo da dependência das importações e internalizar a capacidade de produção industrial.

·         A ilusão com a economia do petróleo.

O fato é que tudo roda bonitinho enquanto as receitas advindas das exportações do petróleo ou de qualquer outro tipo de produto primário, sempre de baixíssimo valor agregado, vão oferecendo saldos positivos nas contas externas. E o ciclo da pujança interna da economia venezuelana acompanha exatamente o ciclo das cotações do barril do petróleo no mercado internacional. Pra termos uma ideia, quando Chavez assumiu em 1999 o barril do petróleo estava cotado a US$ 10. Quase 10 depois, ele chegou a US$ 140 em meados de 2009. Assim, entre 2000 e 2008, por exemplo,o PIB do país cresceu a uma média de 4,2% ao ano. Se pegarmos o quinquênio 2004-8, a taxa foi quase chinesa: uma média anual de 10%.

No entanto, uma das consequências da crise internacional de 2008 foi a queda no preço das “commodities”, inclusive do petróleo. Com isso, o preço do barril cai bastante e sai dos US$ 140 para 40 dólares. E isso afeta diretamente a capacidade da economia interna da Venezuela. Como tudo gira em torno do consumo de bens importados com o lastro da exportação do óleo, percebe-se uma mudança no padrão de vida e na inflação. Além de uma piora nas contas externas do país, em razão da diminuição das receitas de exportação.

Depois da morte de Chavez, a partir de meados de 2014, observa-se nova queda brusca na cotação do petróleo. Ela sai de US$ 100 e chega a 30 dólares no início de 2016. Esse já é um período de aprofundamento das dificuldades econômicas na Venezuela, com o surgimento do chamado problema de duplo déficit: fiscal e externo. A inflação volta a ser um problema sério, principalmente em função da desvalorização cambial e do déficit a ser financiado com emissão de moeda nacional. No quadriênio 2014-2017 a queda média do PIB foi de 8%. Esse é, com toda a certeza, um dos fatores que explicam as dificuldades políticas e sociais enfrentadas por Maduro atualmente.

Não foi por falta de recomendações que o regime deixou de solucionar essa dependência do padrão de importações para satisfazer as necessidades da economia nacional e da maioria de sua população. O mais adequado teria sido utilizar as folgas no balanço comercial, originado do excesso das exportações de petróleo, para direcionar ao investimento agregado. Isso significa construir uma base sólida de capacidade industrial internalizada. O objetivo seria não mais depender completamente das importações para satisfazer tais necessidades.

·         Derrotar a oposição golpista e construir um novo modelo.

É óbvio que a prioridade zero no momento atual é denunciar todas as tentativas de intervenção militar na Venezuela e impedir que a nova tentativa da oposição golpista seja exitosa. Apesar da crise interna de múltiplas facetas, Maduro foi eleito para a presidência do país e a maioria da população não deseja de seu país volte à condição de mero fantoche em mãos dos interesses econômicos e geopolíticos dos Estados Unidos.

As elites venezuelanas nunca aceitaram as mudanças propostas pelo bolivarianismo. Assim como ocorre com as oligarquias das demais nações do continente. São os conhecidos modelos secularmente mantidos às custas da exploração do povo trabalhador e que sempre mantiveram regimes excludentes e altamente desiguais. Mas o exemplo Venezuela demonstra que é fundamental superar a ilusão oferecida pelos atrativos da doença holandesa.

Superada a crise atual e derrotada a obsessão putschista de Guaidó e seus apoiadores, seria essencial que a Venezuela debatesse de forma ampla algumas mudanças nesse sistema de dependência excessiva do petróleo que ali se consolidou há décadas. Isso significa romper com esse pacto neo-colonial, em que as opções econômicas estratégicas e geradoras de alto valor agregado estão sempre localizadas no exterior.

 Fonte: Por Paulo Kliass, em Carta Maior

[jogopolitico]

Cristovam e Jorge Viana destacam papel da Cepal na economia da América Latina

{

Cristovam e Jorge Viana destacam papel da Cepal na economia da América Latina

Em continuidade à série de reportagens em homenagem aos 70 anos da Comissão Econômica para a América Latina (Cepal), órgão da ONU criado para auxiliar a região em seus processos de desenvolvimento sócio-econômico, a Rádio Senado e o Portal de Notícias do Senado destacam, a partir desta terça-feira (18), a iniciativa do senador Cristovam Buarque (PPS-DF) de realizar uma sessão especial no Plenário do Senado para celebrar os 70 anos da instituição.

Cristovam, que também é professor de economia na Universidade de Brasília (UnB), ressalta que a Cepal tornou-se a principal propulsora da necessidade de mudanças estruturais nas economias latino-americanas, priorizando teses ligadas à industrialização da região, e sua inserção na economia mundial baseada em trocas de produtos mais elaborados.

“A pedra fundamental de criação da Cepal refere-se à forma como a América Latina se inseria na economia mundial. Até então, à teoria econômica clássica, sugeria que essa região deveria centrar suas atividades econômicas na produção de bens primários, nos quais tinham vantagem comparativa. A Cepal, baseada no pensamento de seu principal economista à época, Raul Prebisch, muda essa perspectiva ao mostrar a existência de tendência de declínio de longo prazo nos termos de troca, produzindo assim uma transferência de renda desses países àqueles que se especializavam na produção de bens industriais”, frisou o senador em seu requerimento.

O legado da Cepal

Na justificativa para a realização da homenagem à Cepal, Cristovam relata também que, com o passar das décadas, a Cepal manteve seu pensamento “dinâmico, seguindo as imensas transformações da realidade econômica, social e política, regional e mundial. Desde o esforço inicial pela industrialização nos anos 50, reformas para desobstruir a industrialização, reorientação de estilos de desenvolvimento nos anos 70, superação do estrangulamento da dívida externa na década perdida [anos 80], e a transformação produtiva [anos 90]”.

“Hoje a Cepal é uma referência obrigatória para quem estuda a histórica econômica da região nos últimos tempos", continuou Cristovam. Entre outras questões, na pauta atual do órgão estão o aumento das desigualdades e a crise ambiental. "Ao longo da última década, a agência das Nações Unidas implementou uma agenda de trabalho que elegeu a igualdade como núcleo do desenvolvimento sustentável e o avanço tecnológico como motor de transformações na matriz produtiva regional”, finalizou o senador.

Apesar de a iniciativa de Cristovam ter sido apoiada por outros cinco senadores — Eduardo Lopes (PRB-RJ), Garibaldi Alves Filho (MDB-RN), José Serra (PSDB-SP), Lasier Martins (PSD-RS) e Maria do Carmo Alves (DEM-SE) — o requerimento para a realização da sessão (RQS 261/2018), apresentado em maio, não chegou a ser aprovado porque alguns dos homenageados não poderiam estar presentes na data reservada pela Mesa Diretora do Senado para realização da homenagem (4 de junho).

Agenda 2030

Hoje a Cepal está engajada na adesão das nações latino-americanas às políticas públicas preconizadas pela Agenda 2030 da ONU, que é centrada no desenvolvimento sustentável. O senador Jorge Viana (PT-AC) defende o aprofundamento desta agenda no Brasil.

— O modelo atual de produção e consumo é insustentável, o fenômeno das mudanças climáticas são um reflexo muito claro disso, com custos elevadíssimos. Mas devo falar também como uma das 25 milhões de pessoas que vivem na Amazônia, cuja maioria ainda vive na penúria, na pobreza, com indicadores sócio-econômicos muito baixos. Isso ocorre porque o Brasil ainda não valoriza de fato sua biodiversidade, não estabelece uma cadeia da economia verde. A mudança do paradigma deve passar pela remuneração dos serviços ambientais, ligada à preservação de uma das maiores biodiversidades deste planeta – afirmou o senador em entrevista à reportagem da Agência Senado de Notícias.

Série completa

Na sequência da série sobre a Cepal, na quinta-feira (20) o Portal de Notícias do Senado publicará uma entrevista com Cristovam, em que serão abordados o papel do Estado na economia, a longa relação que manteve com o economista Celso Furtado e o papel crucial que desempenha a educação nos processos de desenvolvimento modernos.

Na Rádio Senado, no programa “Conexão Senado”, às 8h30, com reprise às 22h, continua sendo veiculado o episódio da série que aborda as trajetórias do ex-presidente Fernando Henrique Cardoso e do senador José Serra (PSDB-SP) na instituição.

Tenha acesso à série de reportagens completa aqui.

Fonte: Cristovam e Jorge Viana destacam papel da Cepal na economia da América Latina

[diwangpalaboy]

DS 100 multi-level sentence outline (dependency theorists)

Produce a multi-level sentence outline featuring your assigned Dependency theorist. Use at least 10 references for this task. Observe this format: single spaced, TNR, font size 10 Turn this in on Tuesday. Gadia - Samir Amin Cui - Andre Gunder Frank Geguera - Raul Prebisch Millares - Fernando Cardoso Ortiz - Paul Baran Ranises - Theotonio Dos Santos Trinidad - Paul Sweezy

[elcorreografico]

''De dónde venimos''

''De dónde venimos'' (Por @derenzismiguel)

(Por M. A. De Renzis)* Somos los deudos de la deuda. Empezó con el primer presidente argentino, un sirviente británico llamado Bernardino Rivadavia, cuando efectuó el acuerdo para el empréstito de la Baring Brothers en 1824.

Los ingleses supuestamente prestaron un millón de libras esterlinas y quedamos históricamente vinculados a la banca de los piratas.

Los usureros nos cobraron intereses por…

[johnjankovic1]

Hollywood’s Military-Industrial-Complex

Multinationals personify policymaking organs of the State insofar as control of global supply is concerned. The ease with which these global firms penetrate markets, their attendant income, as well as savoir-faire by virtue of recurrent ventures overseas in exploitation of comparative advantages redound to their meaningful staying power in Washington’s cognoscenti of lawmakers authoring white papers on and determining the future of international trade. International politics, economics, and culture, imagined to be cosmopolitan in constitution, by a great measure originate, since the postwar era, from value chains stylized by American business ethics and its soft power, in substance the aforesaid globalization becomes merely propagation of the American way of life. Capitalism’s pragmatism, the congenital need to spread, compels a covenant to be had between America’s businessmen and statesman, in itself this collaboration becomes a focal point wherein corporate meets Congress, the fellowship stimulates trade diplomacy with the object of, first within the GATT and subsequently WTO, shoring up economic hegemony what is namely a function of market share and affluence. The material character of this interaction, viz., pressure groups, electoral funding, or economic welfare vis-à-vis subsidies, recalls a deep state of unelected officials endowed with political authority in essence consolidating Wall Street and Washington’s symbiosis in decision-making.

Networks of value chains sprawling the globe supersede the state-centric model under which the organization of international trade evolves albeit a fallacy has come to distort its epiphenomenon of interdependence. Indeed, the classic supposition describes how, as the international division of labour is beheld, this newfound level of integration correlates with symmetry, this false equivalency alleges ‘dependence of A on B is roughly the same as the dependence of B on A’ (Hirschman 1945:10). In reality, first it is agreed that a multinational readily prone to transplant operations capitalizes on the benefits from a host country, i.e., low wages and labour abundance in Asia or high-skilled and lower-cost labour in Eastern Europe, but is nevertheless not beholden to one single country, it is a non sequitur to infer equal dependence when in fact an economy relies on wealth-creation of a multinational more so than vice-versa. Second, global interdependence fails to eschew power imbalances endemic to the political economy of international trade. During the Uruguay Round, for instance, American share of global product captured circa 26 percent (Nye 1990:154), ergo efficacy to shape negotiations resided with Washington and then more especially with monied interests giving patronage to its sovereignty, the latitude of the first and the second’s lateral shift of ad hoc production elsewhere reifies US hegemony established by its industry and dispels any notion of equipoise in the world economy.

The Federal Government’s mercantilism, its partiality to rent-seeking and featherbedding of monopolies by American industries worldwide, skews international trade and the balance of opportunity in its favour on account of expectations for economic growth and development without which hegemony, the liberal international order, and globalization come to naught. Protectionism and free trade in this vein constitute legitimate instruments of trade policy, according to neoclassical orthodoxy their use evokes a utilitarian Weltanschauung, the belief that all actions ought to maximize real economic welfare, consumers enjoy consumption, producers enjoy income, and the nation enjoys all-around prosperity. If the aforementioned be jeopardized, scilicet  market share diminution, external diseconomies of scale, price inflation, declining GDP, or high unemployment, it becomes incumbent on the Federal Government to leverage economic nationalism in defence of the largest benefactors to its national income which has largely held true between multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations. Moreover, economic motivations indulge non-economic implications, an open world economy does not stand at cross-purposes with national security, the more wholesale is the spread of industry, the greater is the authority of its parent economy presiding over global standards to which it must defer, the better geopolitical leverage for that said nation is in either trade negotiations or, in matters related to sanctions and embargoes, economic warfare.

Wealth equates with power the sinews of which are the mobility of capital in the 21st century, and how a state acquires relative or positional gains via this FDI, proxying the theology of realism contrary to how neoclassical liberalism privileges absolute gains, and hinging on the state’s poise to employ strategic trade policies as a bulwark against foreign economies and companies. The market rationality of investment services US hegemony, a proverbial gyroscope for the mercurial macroeconomics of the world economy in concert with the international character of MNCs, global interdependence therefore remains an American legacy, as well as free trade reckoned its public good, Washington consequently agitates for economic liberalism only to ensure expansion for the workhorses of its economy as the ever-growing bargaining position of these firms naturally conduce to their politicization. Why exactly? What is so political about Apple, ExxonMobil, or Berkshire Hathaway? The reality is irreducibly simple: as MNCs expand, they internationalize capitalism, fullstop. In the 1990s, the WTO’s Uruguay Round epitomized the apotheosis of this economic system whose disintegration of the Soviet Union enshrined its socioeconomic primacy as an agent of modern democracy, most notably with the unification of Germany, and indeed parenthetically on the pedigree of these systems Father not by happenstance created the two on the very same year in 1776 begotten by Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations and Thomas Jefferson et al.’s Declaration of Independence, US corporations then were given greater liberties to infiltrate economies with unsavoury leadership and spur revolution by appealing to the consumerism of the middle-class.

The State’s dominance in agriculture, manufacturing, and finance (Strange 1992:3), a feat even Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev sought to replicate by virtue of Perestroika in the autumn years of the Communist Party, midwifed macroeconomics management with industrial policies in the Beltway whereby the speed of innovation buoyed R&D investments in a virtuous cycle to increase productivity, GDP, and investment whilst decreasing process lifetimes, globalizing production, establishing scale economies, and aggrandizing US influence abroad. Neoliberalism became the academic brainchild of multinational corporations on grounds of how deregulation enabled their efficiency such that the universalization of capitalism subsumed this ideology inherent in the American model. The structural changes in the US extended to developing economies as their Third World collective ceased to exist, self-indulgence from bygone colonialism no longer was tenable in light of the Asian Tigers and China’s modernization, the antidote to economic laggardness thereafter redounded to the wooing of foreign investment and development of indigenous industries via foreign exchange. American multinationals redefined the political economy of development, as archetypes of neoliberalism, they extolled policies of export promotion, liberalization, and privatization, and hence protectionism of import substitution was dispossessed of its sheen altogether in the global South to the rejection of economist Raul Prebisch’s ‘dependency school’ which demonized American firms.

During the intervening years between the Tokyo and Uruguay Rounds, and well into the Kondratiev upswing of the 1990s, industrial policy piloted foreign diplomacy forasmuch as US transnational firms boasted dominion over technology innovation, mobility of global capital, and major markets notably in Europe. Yet why would American lawmakers set greater store specifically upon MNCs in multilateral and bilateral trade as in the case of the Uruguay Round or NAFTA? Replacing the market by becoming one, the internalization of transactions skirts the classical structure of international business in virtue of how intertrade between affiliates and parents, when vertically and horizontally integrated, substitutes for cross-national commerce such that the parameters of exports and imports change from dynamic and volatile to those centrally controlled by a board of directors in the US. At the incipience of this golden era, a quarter of economic activity outside this parent state did these firms control, a bellwether of FDI’s growing salience which already exceeded $1tn during the same period (Robock & Simmonds 1989). Newly unbridled by peacetime economics it was American peace dividends, the allocation of economic and political resources opening new markets for high earnings meant to amortize investments and reap profits, consequent on the Cold War’s end of course which primarily underwrote the competition to capture world market share.

In spite of the ‘stateless’ nomenclature proper to MNCs, the reality of flexible production does not hew to this stereotype, in actuality US firms offshore a trifle of knowledge creation and innovation overseas, likewise a majority of fixed assets remains at home so that corporate identity by and large betrays an American ethos (Cable 1995:31). To cite an instance, Hollywood whose leading products encounter fierce competition, in theatres on average seven of ten films in the 1990s were unprofitable, one normally recovered costs, and the other two generated gainful returns, long dominates mass media  courtesy of value chains repackaging intellectual property rights (IPRs) arranged by theatres, pay-per-view, DVD, pay cable, and finally broadcasts on basic television cable which in aggregate maximize revenue (Gomery 2004:195). The tenacity of America’s big moviemakers including Disney (Walt Disney Company), Universal (NBC Universal), Paramount (Viacom), Twentieth Century Fox (Fox Entertainment), and Warner Bros (Time Warner) Americanizes the world’s audiovisual industry based upon the innovation of satellite television thus giving prominence to private programming over public service broadcasts, a reality at loggerheads with the era’s aesthetic and cultural protests from France and Europe’s quotas vis-à-vis its Television Without Frontiers policy whose provisions imposed a 50 percent restriction on imported content (Kruse 1994; Grantham 1998:64;  Miller 1996:74).

The clout from this oligopoly bankrolled by positive agglomeration economies in Southern California, sizeable enough to stonewall new entrants into the US and world markets with the only exception of DreamWorksSKG in recent years (Gomery 2004:194), stems from vertically integrated structures across 1) output inclusive of pre-production, production, and post-production, 2) distribution, and 3) exhibition whose standardization and internal economies of scale subserve the manufacturing of an ever increasing number of blockbusters (Bordwell et al. 1985). The vertical integration of, local labour market for, and geographical ecosystem by major firms generate income for the Federal Government together with cultural globalization, the telos of which stiffens American hegemony in universal terms. Regionally the seedbed for and centripetal pull of motion pictures development with its dense cluster spanning the expanse of Burbank and Beverly Hills to Santa Monica, Hollywood manifests how the supply of intermediates, namely digital effects, sound stages, film production insurance, or makeup, costume and pyrotechnic artistry firms (Porter 1990), all situate in this urban sprawl wherein the greatest value-added stages of the value chain inhere within the continental US. Again, the ethos of production in this case reflects Americanism which could not be emulated elsewhere in the world.

The interim between 1980 and 1997 witnessed prolific growth of 194 percent for employment and 248 percent for new firms integral to film production in the Los Angeles County, and naturally the staggering statistic correlates with a prodigious uptick in finished products of 214 movies in 1980 compared with 684 in 2001 (MPAA 2001). In the 1990s, Hollywood prided itself as the largest agglomeration, besting New York and Silicon Valley in that order (Scott 2001:966), thus the bulk of economic activity by the aforementioned multinationals domiciled in the US, whatever production was rationalized by runaway films a share of 81 percent from this total offshored to the branch-plant economy of Canada monetized at a loss of $2.8bn, the incentive from cost savings and advantage was expressly attributed to foreign exchange rates as the Canadian currency between 1990 and 2000 was on average only worth $0.74CAD to the USD showing just cause and economic feasibility for the preference of Toronto and Vancouver’s satellite locations, the remainder of the other 19 percent outsourced to Australia, Britain, and Mexico (Monitor 1999; Coe 2000:79). Otherwise, multinationals in the Los Angeles County immensely benefit from the competitive advantages proffered by the region, and fraught with risk when motion pictures seldom recoup costs upon theatrical releases, the business of film production agrees with this mainland location, the corporate identity therefore does not deviate from its American origins.

Hollywood’s inveterate leverage over the balance of trade originates in WWI’s spoliation, the want of infrastructure for production of European films thenceforth effected a void in world markets suitable for a cascade of American content to fill which it did during the interwar years as sales increased by 500 percent in Europe until further mayhem on the continent enabled US firms to fledge into behemoths whose output was second only to aerospace production within the export industry (Cahn & Schimmel 1997; Shao 1995:128). Congress acknowledging the prominence of this comparative advantage, the value to both the American economy and its statecraft as a cultural good, fastened upon Hollywood to foster the interests of the largest firms therein, to protect the industry, and to privilege its exports if only to be a conduit through which the Americana brand would propagate. By 1960, in the vicinity of 50 percent with regard to cash flow was accrued from the yearly turnover in international sales, at home market penetration of foreign films totted up to less than 1 percent, the negligibility of which saw no need to arouse protectionism neither in the guise of subsidies nor quotas as domestic consumption at any rate patronized American movies (Véron 1999a; Lee 2008:374).

Washington stumping for Hollywood’s interests during the interwar period, an undertaking meant to disencumber exports by Europe’s trade barriers, was reciprocated in kind during wartime and postwar years. Later a propagandist arm associated with the Truman Doctrine for the agency of patriotism in defence of American ideals in Japan, Europe, and communist countries, the industry fostered the spread of capitalism and democracy in a bid to fortify Western culture against Soviet totalitarianism, the actions upon which the State Department bestowed praise despite McCarthyism’s exaggerated claims of traitors with Leninist sympathies in film production at the time (Wilson 1959:171). Hollywood’s wartime and postwar output in effect actuated mass mobilization of the citizenry, living vicariously through glorification of battle, domestically these films disgorged America’s isolationism of the interwar years to espouse an interventionist foreign policy stemming from the zeitgeist of nationalism. In particular beginning in WWII, on such political munition, the Federal Government envisaged it as a critical exigency for power projection in defiance of Josef Goebbels’ indoctrination of fascistic Germany in far away Europe (Koppes & Black 1987:49), the films of multinationals came to substitute for the want of a department propagandizing American virtues at the outset of war, the private market therefore buttressed national security by animating public opinion.

Embellishing wartime heroics evolved into a staple for American cinema, the combat genre fomented a virulent culture of resounding patriotism for exalted causes under the banner of democracy and capitalism, in effect its box-office appeal approached that of Western cowboy movies in the 1950s and 1960s revered then for the virility of protagonists including John Wayne, Gary Cooper, Paul Newman or Clint Eastwood (Boggs & Pollard 2016:37). The mythology revived especially by the Revolutionary War and WWII, dramatized America’s Manifest Destiny, an ideology of a Manichaeistic struggle pitting good against evil, democracy against monarchy, civility against benightedness, whether it was John Wayne in Sands of Iwo Jima, or George C. Scott in Patton, or later Sylvester Stallone in Rambo, the romanticized militarism of American exploits gave credence to the country’s exceptionalism in the plight of achieving world peace for benevolent purposes. Being perpetually in a state of semiwar, a neologism attributed to the first secretary of defence James Forrestal in what is basically a nonstop readiness to militate against communism wheresoever it spread (Bacevich 2010:27), Western and military movies alike lionized the anonymous protagonist, of the lone hero who dashes off into the sunset devoid of fanfare, thus moviegoers deifying the fictitious characters extolled not so much the man as much as his noble principles in defence of God and country.

The fashionable apologetics for war did abate by the advent of and counterculture from Vietnam, an era when the film MASH and its sitcom spinoff found levity in the Korean War two decades earlier, other movies less jocular such as the jeremiads of The Deer Hunter starring Robert Deniro and Apocalypse Now starring Marlon Brando instead cast more of a tenebrous pall over hawkish neoconservatism under President Nixon’s incumbency. By the 1980s, in furtherance of American unilateralism and in the crucible of the Regan era, a renaissance of male bravado was once again parroted by Hollywood, the post-Vietnam industry inaugurated the first motion picture of the Rambo franchise in 1982, the brawny Chuck Norris featured in Missing in Action two years later, and although the realities of war were still not entirely jettisoned evidenced by dramas such as Platoon (1986) or Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket (1987), the period’s spreadeagle ethos conduced to the glamorization of American firepower and gunboat diplomacy prior to the 1990 Gulf War whose triumphalism of air supremacy was eerily foretold by Maverick, the nom de guerre of Tom Cruise in the film Top Gun (1986). Hollywood hyped hypermasculinity while in other instances, at variance with the pornography of war, the realism and authenticity of such carnage were faithfully documented.

The entertainment industry in the thick of America’s military-industrial-complex, or else phrased as the reliance of the Pentagon on Hollywood, affirms  the usurpation of public interest by private enterprise to render the government a monopsonistic buyer dependent on either ordnances by commercial businesses or specifically in this case the circulation of propaganda, and albeit this dynamic inheres in the scaffold of hegemony which braces the world economy, its corollary establishes the industrial feudalism of American films, naturally with the succour from Congress, in global markets. Reciprocity denominates, nevertheless, the fruitful relationship, in 1993 amid the Uruguay Round President Clinton ratified the Technology Reinvestment Project (TRP), an amalgamation between civilian industries and US military, its mandate repurposed battle technology for civilian use including, for instance, flight simulators in theme parks, submarine sonar exploited for music recordings, or image generation of realtime missile rehearsals recycled for digital effects onscreen (Hozic 1999:297). The military in the guise of an end user equally imports cost-effective technology from Hollywood for training application related to virtual reality (Levidow & Robbins 1989). Eventually rapprochement of Hollywood and the US military, adhering to a neo-Gramscian exegesis, viz., how less costly and effective is ideological persuasion rather than Gramscian coercion alone in tending to ensconce hegemonic stability, seduces countries more readily than martial methods to espouse American values. Indeed, ‘The cause of America’, wrote Thomas Paine in 1776, ‘is in a great measure the cause of all mankind.

The confluence of the Defence Department and Hollywood, notably originating in WWII from the marrow-deep affinity between the industry and Office of War Information, established Congress’ animus in fashioning trade policy to indulge the incorporeal specifics of hegemony, namely Americanization of the global film industry. Out of 410 films issued from the regional cluster of firms between 1948 and 1970, the Pentagon assisted 41% of them to burnish images of its technological supremacy amid the Cold War (Shain 1972:643), at little or no expense to the moviemaking multinationals the dirigisme directly rationalized their production from intermediates granted freely, with respect to loans of military hardware gratis, unrecompensed licenses to film on base or aboard navy ships, etc., which then increased profit margins for and incentives to military publicity through film. The evolution of this postwar relationship, and stemming from industrial maturation since WWI during its formative years, before long provided a springboard for the industry to take-off into international markets over the latter half of the 20th century in consolidation of its mass media hegemony afar which, in the main, imperialized American iconography, its endgame having the effect of cultural homogenization on a global scale such that Hollywood’s omnipotence in international trade, as a corollary to Congress’ superintendence, has and continues to devastate world market share once captured by foreign firms.

The promising properties of global markets, namely the English lingua franca, provided surety for the American monopoly then, politics of the film industry came to bifurcate into two discrete constituencies, the Motion Picture Association of America inaugurated in 1922 (MPAA), and the Motion Picture Export Association of America (MPEAA) established in 1945, the former devotes itself to standardizing ethics, a metric which limits audience entry commensurate with appropriate age (Leone & Houle 2006:53) whilst expressing proprietary rights of the industry to lawmakers, the latter gives precedence to nationally dissuading government censorship whilst internationally agitating for new market access (Véron 1999b). The MPAA without exception represents the political pith of the industry’s transnational firms, exercising a great deal of influence over Congress, it petitions for proprietary rights of films of which entail patents and copyright laws, instance Congress in a bid to protect such intellectual property how at the behest of the movie and pharmaceutical sectors the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Rights (TRIPS) was introduced amid the Uruguay Round. The measure redressed the approximate $6.1bn in lost revenue brooked yearly on average by filmmaking firms (MPA 2006).

[entrelafabulaylahistoria]

Una incomoda sensación de deja vu

(Ambito Financiero, 2 de noviembre de 2015)

 La Argentina se encamina hacia el fin de otro ciclo populista con una fuerte sensación de déjà vu. El diagnóstico que hizo en octubre de 1955 Raúl Prebisch, el economista argentino de mayor reconocimiento internacional, parece tan válido como entonces:

Se comprometió innecesariamente la eficiencia de la producción agropecuaria; no se siguió una política acertada y previsora de sustitución de importaciones; y no se ha dado a la explotación de petróleo nacional el fuerte estímulo que necesitaba ineludiblemente... La intervención excesiva y desordenada del Estado ha perturbado seriamente el sistema económico en detrimento de su eficiencia, y juntamente con la inflación, ha generado fuentes de beneficios extraordinarios... El Estado ha pervertido burocráticamente la actividad económica privada, y alentado ciertas proclividades que perturban sobremanera el sano desenvolvimiento de la economía y la administración.

Según Prebisch, la Argentina no podía seguir creciendo por “agotamiento de stocks (de infraestructura, de maquinaria y equipos, de reservas internacionales, de expectativas que subestiman la tasa de inflación, etc.) y estrangulamiento externo.” Por esa misma época, Silvano Santander, el dirigente radical más detestado por el peronismo, hacía el siguiente diagnóstico de la situación política interna y externa del país:

Toda la legislación represiva, cercenamiento de las libertades, anulación del poder judicial, quebrantamiento del concepto histórico del federalismo, absorción del poder central de todas las facultades, concentración del poder, manejo discrecional de la economía, eliminación de la prensa como elemento de contralor, acaparamiento de los medios publicitarios, anarquía e indisciplina en el ejército, sujeción de las escuelas y universidades al dogma oficial, subversión dirigida, en fin, han formado el cauce por el cual el régimen justicialista, dentro y fuera del país, se ha ido deslizando en una cómoda ficción legal.… [La política exterior] no ha podido ser más contraproducente. Lo único que se ha conseguido con ello es distanciar a la Argentina de todo su pasado, amenguando su prestigio y creando una atmósfera hostil en todas partes… En la Argentina vivimos fuera de toda norma ética. Se han violado todos los fueros de la convivencia civilizada. Estamos al margen de todas las leyes.

Palabras más, palabras menos algo parecido podría decirse en octubre de 2015. Releyendo ambos párrafos uno podría pensar, parafraseando aquel famoso tango de Gardel, que en la Argentina setenta años no es nada. Pero en realidad no estamos igual que entonces. Estamos mucho peor. No sólo somos mucho más pobres, tanto en términos absolutos como en relación al resto del mundo, sino que, evidentemente, como sociedad no aprendimos nada. Como dice Santiago Kovadloff, en nuestro país “la experiencia no logra transformarse en enseñanza.” La verdadera tragedia argentina es que nos quedamos entrampados en una farsa –la farsa del populismo– y que lo hicimos por decisión propia.

Según el premio Nobel de economía Douglass North las instituciones que gobiernan a una sociedad en un momento dado reflejan un proceso de aprendizaje colectivo a lo largo de su historia. Pero no hay garantía alguna de que esta experiencia acumulada permita resolver problemas nuevos o más complejos. Las sociedades que se “atascan” según North son aquellas que mantienen creencias e instituciones que no les permiten enfrentar y resolver esos problemas. Es decir, obstaculizan el aprendizaje colectivo. La cultura, entendida no sólo como un conjunto de costumbres, valores y normas de convivencia sino también de su manera de interpretar la realidad, puede condicionar (o incluso impedir) el proceso de aprendizaje de una sociedad y por ende retardar o impedir su desarrollo.

La historia es una parte esencial, quizás la más importante, de cualquier modelo de interpretación de la realidad. Como explicó otro premio Nobel –Friedrich von Hayek– hace más de medio siglo, “la experiencia pasada es la base en la que se asientan nuestras creencias respecto a la deseabilidad de distintas políticas e instituciones y nuestra ideología inevitablemente afecta y tiñe nuestra interpretación del pasado.” No hay proyecto político actual que no requiera una interpretación histórica. Perón resumió la que propone el populismo como que “la lucha del pueblo en contra del vasallaje.” Según esta manera de ver las cosas, las crisis del populismo no son consecuencia inevitable de su carácter entrópico (“una experiencia destinada a la frustración” explicaba Canitrot hace cuatro décadas) sino de una conspiración entre el imperialismo y los grupos concentrados para expoliar al pueblo argentino.

Hoy se vislumbra la posibilidad de un cambio. La mayoría del electorado lo pide. Pero para que este cambio sea duradero es necesario romper el círculo vicioso en el que nos enfrascó el populismo y recrear un círculo virtuoso en el que crecimiento, regeneración institucional y fortalecimiento del capital social se alimenten mutuamente. Es un proceso lento y gradual que requiere liderazgo, constancia y determinación. Caso contrario, cuando volvamos a tener viento de cola caeremos nuevamente en la tentación populista.

 *Profesor adjunto de finanzas en UCEMA y New York University y miembro del Consejo Académico de la Fundación Libertad y Progreso. Autor de “Entrampados en la Farsa: El populismo y la decadencia argentina”.

[laeradelaburbuja]

Prebisch y la perenne crisis argentina

Hace poco más de cincuenta años el economista argentino Raul Prebisch hacía este diagnóstico: "¿Por qué se ha llegado a esta situación? Por tres razones: se comprometió innecesariamente la eficiencia de la producción agropecuaria; no se siguió una política acertada y previsora de sustitución de importaciones; y no se ha dado a la explotación de petróleo nacional el fuerte estímulo que necesitaba ineludiblemente... La intervención excesiva y desordenada del Estado ha perturbado seriamente el sistema económico en detrimento de su eficiencia, y juntamente con la inflación, ha generado fuentes de beneficios extraordinarios... El Estado ha pervertido burocráticamente la actividad económica privada, y alentado ciertas proclividades que perturban sobremanera el sano desenvolvimiento de la economía y la administración. No es el Estado incorpóreo, infalible y omnisciente el que actúa en la realidad económica, sino funcionarios concretos que al intervenir en el juego de las actividades privadas, adquieren un considerable poder discrecional que trasciende de la órbita puramente económica... Han quedado pocos técnicos de reconocida capacidad..." En la Argentina el "que todo cambie para que nada cambie" de Lampedusa parece ser el unico principio inmutable

[theindiareview]

Why History Will Judge Dr. Manmohan Singh Very Kindly

The architect of India’s economic reforms will go down in Indian history as the most qualified Prime Minister who fulfilled electoral promises, brought reforms and established India’s economy under his multifaceted leadership. The unassuming person that he has been all through the journey of his life, it came as no surprise when, answering the question of a journalist during the last year of his term as Indian prime minister, he pointed out that history would judge him much more kindly than what his critics tend to believe. Indeed, history will judge benevolently Dr Manmohan Singh, most famously known as the first Sikh prime minister of the world’s largest democracy. There are many more facets of Dr Manmohan Singh which are largely unknown to the public. Dr Singh was born in undivided India (before the partition of India into Pakistan) to Gurmukh Singh and Amrit Kaur in Gah, Punjab. After the partition of India in 1947 when India gained independence, his family moved to the holy city Amritsar in state of Punjab in Northern India where he spent most of his childhood. He was raised by his paternal grandmother after the untimely demise of his mother when he was just a child. Growing up in a small village in Punjab in the 1940s, with no electricity and the nearest school being miles away, did not deter this young boy from education as he continued to walk these miles and kept studying under dim light of a kerosene lamp. Despite these adversities that he faced at a very young age, he was a bright student, always in the top of his class winning laurels and scholarships throughout his academic career. After completing his graduate and post graduate studies at the famous and respectable Punjab University in Chandigarh, India, he went on to pursue a second masters in economics at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom, also on scholarship. Subsequently, he pursued his doctoral studies at Oxford University in UK. His doctoral thesis titled ‘India’s export performance, 1951–1960, export prospects and policy implications’ won him several prizes and honours and only strengthened his articulation for the economic situation in India. Extremely shy by nature, this boy became a favorite of the teachers and professors at Cambridge and Oxford. After receiving praises and accolades in the UK, Dr Manmohan Singh returned to India to his roots in Amritsar and started teaching at a local college. However, this bright and intelligent man was meant for greater things in life. During his subsequent stint at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development under the famous economist Raul Prebisch, Dr Manmohan Singh got an offer teaching at the reputed Delhi School of Economics in India’s capital city of New Delhi. Patriotic it may sound, he decided to return to India to which Raul Prebisch even taunted him saying he was making a foolish mistake by giving up a job which is a dream for economists. Undeterred, he returned to India and soon in the 1970s he became the first choice for the posts of economic advisory to the Prime Minster of India. This led to him becoming the Chief Economic Advisor, Head of Planning Commission and later Governor of the highly regarded and important Reserve Bank of India. It was very interesting how from being an economist he started his political career when he became the Finance Minister of India under late Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao In June 1991. That led to a new era for the country as he went on to become the architect of India’s much-needed economic reforms. It would not be incorrect to state that during this time in 1991, economy of India was in huge turmoil. There was minimal economic growth in majority of sectors especially the manufacturing sector which is very crucial. The job market was at its lowest point and employment rates were in negative. The economy of democratic India was in total unbalance as the fiscal deficit was close to 8.5 percent of the GDP (gross domestic product) of the nation. Simply said, India was facing a huge economic crisis and it was extremely challenging for any economist to bring back the economy to the right track. Hence, huge responsibility fell onto Dr Manmohan Singh’s shoulders. As a brilliant economist with immense knowledge, he explained to then then Prime Minster that the Indian economy was facing an unprecedented crisis and it would collapse if it’s not deregulated, which the PM gladly agreed to. Dr Singh adopted the policy of ‘Liberalisation, Privatization and Globalization’ and started the integration of India’s economy with the world. The steps which he took included elimination of permit raj, reduction of state control on the economy, reduction of high import taxes leading to the opening up of the nation to the outside world. He has the onus of transforming India’s economy from socialist to more capitalistic. Public sector companies were made open to privatization and he cleared the path for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). These steps not only provided a boost to India’s economy but also promoted globalization. These economic reforms proudly headed by Dr Singh are now an indelible part of India’s economic past. Such was the impact and reach of the reforms spearheaded by him that the entire nation stood by him when he was chosen to become the Prime Minster of India. This man, with no political background, but possessing immense capability, worldly knowledge and approach to drive a nation to success, was the chosen one in year 2004. During his tenure which spanned a decade from 2004 till 2014. Dr Singh’s government achieved significant milestones and his personal control is remarkable. He is the only prime minster under whom the nation’s economy enjoyed a sustained annual GDP growth rate of 8percent over a period of eight years. Apart from China, no other economy has touched this sort of growth rate. During the global recession of 2008, Indian economy was stable and largely unharmed due to his solid policies. He took many landmark decisions and the ones which stand out as historic are NREGA, RTI and UID. The NREGA (National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005) guaranteed minimum wage to the poorest section of society and helped improve people’s lives. The extraordinary RTI (Right to Information Act, 2005), which is the undisputed and single powerful tool to get information in order to tackle corruption. Once this act was introduced, it is an important and inseparable part of millions of citizens of India. Finally, the UID (Unique Identification) which promised to be a universal database of citizens and would help in availing the many benefits of the government. Dr Singh is not only very highly educated, but he had vast administrative experiences in various governmental positions with direct personal involvement in policy making before he stepped in at the Prime Minster. Dr Singh, a man of few words, a simple person with high intellect was a messiah for the nation’s economy. He will go down in history as the most qualified Prime Minister who fulfilled electoral promises, brought reforms and established India’s economy under his multifaceted leadership. *** Read the full article