This book deserves more a respectful reading than 8-some minutes before blacking-out in bed that I usually do. Good thing that D*ria is going to the morning shift in kindergarten so she goes to bed early lately. After she is off, M-nna (usually) does not have much use for me so I've taken to sneaking out to bed with a book. Anyhow, I am on page 113. The book is not Red, which, I think is a good thing. As Green does not have to do the obligatory M*rxist condemnation of c*pitalism and professing that no matter what they do they are doomed to failure in the end. As Green says, Maynard Keynes said: "In the end, we are all dead". Instead he carefully analyzes the policies of the countries of the region. So Green examines the various approaches to development that latin american countries took. To me it is interesting to consider my usual question; so I am a certain latin american country (or Russia for that matter -- parallels, btw, are abound) what should I do to industrialize? The recent Green's material that was interesting is his analysis of foreign direct investment (FDI). So selling government bonds and shares is a bad idea since you become dependent on the most fickle kind of finance capital that is apt to flee at the drop of a hat. Green's discussion of privatization is particularly interesting. So selling of government-owned enterprises allows you to raise cash, potentially bring new technology to the country, streamline production (get rid of government "meddling") create jobs produce the trickle-down effect that neo-cons are always talking about. However, we privatization is open to abuses, and gov-ments tend to undersell their assets. One interesting fact is that after selling off the assets -- the gov-t often creates a monopoly enterprise (foregoing owned?) that is outside of gov-to control and is apt to gouge the customers. The interesting part, however, is Green's analysis as to whether privatization was useful in the long term. so, is it worth it? The answer is, well, "maybe". Green says that it was generally useful in industries which require constant technological infusion like telecom. Selling off telecommunication companies generally paid off. I was, however, surprised that the foreign companies tend to invest in capital-intensive rather than labor-intensive industries. Isn't it the whole point to build in the third world to exploit the cheap labor? Interesting tidbit that sounds very true. When a company builds a plant in the country, it tends to import all the inputs from abroad rather than buying from local suppliers. Thus minimizing the trickle-down snow-balling effect for the overall economy. And of course capital repatriation. Them darn foreigners want to invest to make a buck and want the buck that they made back. How presumptuous of them. BTW, the women in Bolivia(?) to stave off hunger chewed some local coca-plant instead of having dinner. M-nna says it's now a trendy diet staple in the states. So coca for dinner, anyone? --------------------------------- I am on page 150. Let me add to my ramblings before I forget. I did not realize Green is a britt. The book has american spelling so it took me awhile to catch on. He insists on calling corn "maise". In the last 20-30 pages Green covers NAFTA. The book is intended towards european audience to whom NAFTA is a foreign curiosity. A lot of the the stuff about NAFTA that Green talks about is discussed on Proyect's list and elsewhere: I remember there was a series of articles on water price gouging after privatization of public water supply system in Bolivia(?). The Zapatista movement, the corn wars. The corn facts are interesting though -- the cost of corn production in the states is 40% less than in mexico, the yields are 5-6 times higher. Oh, yeah, the mexicans grow more nutritious varieties of corn (that is, the corn that we eat sucks). But mexican farmers refuse to scale back corn planting but instead supplement their incomes by sending family/relatives to work on maquiladoras. I am surprised Green does not talk about sugar. It has a similar story. US used to partially subsidize Mexican sugar through guaranteed purchases, but recently US started using corn syrup (which tastes icky) displacing the sugar. Green calls raw materials "commodities", which sounds strange to M*rxist bigots. But his point that _raw materials-based export based approach to development always fails_ is well-argued. ---------------------------------- Gee, I am like Dow Jones --- up to 167 pages and counting. Green discusses inequality in LA countries. I was expecting a jeremiad on how inequality is bad and all. Instead he sort of provides simple and clear analysis of the situation. Overall, Green so far is solid if not terribly profound. His thesis that the quickest way to lift the population from poverty is by providing with medical care and education, although commendable on humanitarian grounds, is probably wrong -- you can be healthy, educated and still poor. And as them c*mmies know the root of poverty is endemic in the system itself. When Green gets to wealth redistribution, things are interesting. So it takes only 2% income tax on the top 10% of the population to lift all population above poverty line? And that's what 42% of the population? gezus freaking christ. No more coca-chewing mothers, crowds of abandoned children or endless slums? So, where was it, Bolivia's capital that there was a street vendor per 3 families? Let me see, Moscow, early nineties. Everyone was selling something on the streets. Including yours truly. Interesting fact that Taiwan is one of the most egalitarian countries with long, sustained growth. Flies in the face of the neolibs with their argument that inequality is necessary for development. ------------------------ tick, tick, tick I am on page 174. Interesting thought from Green. In the third world from one generation to another one has to get progressively higher education to achieve comparable level of income. This is similar to the US but probably faster. Green talks about there are a bunch of educated unemployed people. Isn't what I have said in my last missive? Another interesting thing. Public universities primarily benefit the middle class. Thus, funding them essentially taxes the poor (and the rich) for the benefit of the middle class. ------------------------ Just checking in with an update. I am on page 180 or so. One thing I observed about Green. He never mentions the brute military might or covert US machinations and meddling in the affairs of the LA countries. For him the conflicts just happen like inclement weather. I understand that he focuses on economic policies but describing those without at least a passing reference to the involvement of US military/CIA in Salvador/Columbia/Chile is disingenuous. Oh, Green's coverage of the recent anti-Chavez oil-workers strike in Venezuela is disgusting. It seems he just channeled US media without bothering to do his own research. Overall, Green is probably mainstream for Britain, he just seems radical to us since this country is immured in neoliberal propaganda. His comparison of taiwanese/korean way of development vs. LA is fun. The interesting idea is that the pacific rim mattered more to the US than LA (so that they don't go red), so the US actually cared about truly developing that region, providing it with aid and subsidies why the countries there had more leeway as to how they implement their own economic policies. Oh, brutal dictatorships Korean/Taiwanese style are good for ya, at least for the economy. Cute tidbit. Korean factory workers up to the 80-ies were not allowed to drink or eat soup during work so that they don't take restroom breaks. Neat. -------------------- Back to the silent r*v*l*t*on. I am on page 210 or so. As I said, the comparison with pacific rim countries is interesting. Making it more substantial would have been even better. I don't think Green gave a single figure, let alone a table, on the pacific rim. Overall, the book reads kind of shallow. I'll try to sample the appendices that make up a third of the book. -------------------- Okay, I am done with Green. The conclusion is anti-climatic. His main points there are: reducing poverty is important, macroeconomic indicators like GDP and inflation don't tell the whole story, the achievements of the orthodox structural adjustment programs come at enormous human cost, more equitable countries tend to develop faster. Gezus, can he be anymore facile?