|
|
|
|
|
|
|
World Bank Group data:
World Bank data on "net current transfers from abroad" and other financial statistics explode myths about the normal operations of the imperialist countries. Data from 1960 to 2005 that MIM recently obtained show that the united $tates has never had a year of overall positive receipts since 1960. Some believe this is some kind of statistical Amerikan exceptionalism, but in fact negative "net current transfers from abroad" are almost a perfect indication of imperialist status.
"Current transfers comprise transfers of income between residents of the reporting country and the rest of the world that carry no provisions for repayment. Net current transfers from abroad is equal to unrequited transfers of income from non-residents to residents minus the unrequited transfers from residents to nonresidents," says the World Bank.
The figures range from -4.1 billion for the United $tates in 1960 to -67.9 billion in 2003, the most recent year available and unadjusted for inflation over the years. Pop-Leninism holds that this is something the united $tates has pulled over on the rest of the world through debts and currency manipulation. These beliefs are on the right track, but not exactly accurate.
Not just the united $tates, but most imperialist countries have negative "net current transfers from abroad." The reason is that imperialist countries have that economic quality where they can send out paper and get something tangible in return-- that economic quality being militarism and multinational corporations.
We can picture someone, say a Mexican who moves to the united $tates and then starts sending money home to family. She may work for sub-minimum wages, so U.$. business may find it a good idea. Nonetheless, when we add up all the currency being sent out of the united $tates year after year, we have to wonder why the dollar does not collapse.
In addition to the question of "net current transfers from abroad," most people are aware that the united $tates has run a trade deficit every year since the 1970s.(2) Bourgeois currency trading theory in connection to teachings on mercantilism holds that if currency flows out of a country continuously, eventually it will collapse in value. If so, the Third World currencies should be going straight up while the imperialist currencies go straight down. This does not happen, because Marxism is more true than commodity fetishism: in return the imperialist countries do get something back. It's just that surplus-value (surplus-labor) is invisible to most economic accounting. To bourgeois economists it even can look like the imperialist countries are generous non-stop or it can look like Amerikans spend non-stop, which is closer to the truth, but what's really missing is the hidden labor question.
What determines whether people will keep accepting your paper called currency is what they are able to get in return for it. Since surplus-value flows into the united $tates and other imperialist countries, the physical well-being of those peoples is enhanced. This is somewhat counter-intuitive, but it goes on year after year as Marx explained with his concept of the "hidden secret of capitalism."
The three countries with the largest "net current transfers from abroad" are Mexico, India and China. This is not surprising to MIM, because they have the most labor and low asset to labor ratios. Yet it is true of the entire Third World except for Venezuela.
Mexican workers are every bit as productive as u.$. workers, but they come from a class structure where the overall (not company) capital to labor ratio influences their wages downwards. Mexico is not imperialist.
So to go over the list of countries that has had negative "net current transfers from abroad" every year: France, Belgium (except 1962 to 1966), Finland, Germany (for all available years since 1971), Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland (and impressively so relative to population), United $tates and Venezuela.
There is another list of mostly negative years, or years adding up to overall negative status: Australia, Austria, Italy (every year since 1988), Japan, Norway (all years since 1969), South Africa (since 1983) and the United Kingdom.
In recent years, Canada became positive on the net current transfers from abroad question. Canada is the one real imperialist country exception on this account. Other imperialist countries might have some occasionally small positive numbers and then go into the negative direction increasingly over time.
Countries that have never had a negative year: recently capitalist Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina (for data since 1991), Azerbaijan (since 1993), Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Lebanon, Lesotho, Mexico, Nepal, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay (except for one barely negative year), Portugal, Sierra Leone, Vietnam and West Bank & Gaza. Basically, if the country is Third World as Mao described, it is in the positive column. Many of the above including some not indicated have not had data since 1960, but there is no negative year in available data for the countries above.
The countries on the margin have proved MIM's thesis perhaps the most. MIM has talked a lot about the process of buying out Ireland. Ireland became negative for years since 2000. It's become more imperialist-style itself despite history of conflict with England. As a rule, this is what we expect for Western Europe and the European Union.
We've heard from more than one organization that Spain is not imperialist, and we still fail to see how anyone can say that (the argument being that Amerikans own the companies), but we do have some doubts about Portugal. Here the data pushes our doubts once again, that we do not understand the conditions of Portugal in enough detail.
Australia is another example. It's mostly negative, but there are some small years with small numbers positive. New Zealand is a case of a positive flow--another example of a problematic enclave of imperialism. We could also be questioned about Israel which is receiving money every year more than it gives out--most likely from Amerikans.
We have only three years of data for Hong Kong, which are negative, probably counting flows to China.
We've had questions about southern Korea. Southern Korea was positive for every year till 2001 and since then there has been a string of negative ones. The same is true for Russia since 2001, for which we do not have much data yet.
The trouble with southern Korea is that it surely does have the multinational corporations that compete on a global scale, but then we have to track down who really owns them, whether it is Amerikans through debt or not. The Korean bourgeoisie is "highly leveraged" as the financial community puts it.
We've been asked about India and these data yet again confirm our impression that India is a much larger version of Nepal, not an imperialist country.
Another country that makes sense is South Africa. It looks like it has served as an imperialist hub for Africa since the 1980s.
The most baffling country is Venezuela. From a wild guess, the writer would say we should check its relationship to the rest of South America.
Lest anyone think this is just something about transfers of income, it is also true of the net foreign assets question. England and the United $tates, the two traditional financial kingpins usually have net negative foreign assets as defined by bank held assets. Canada, France, Germany and Japan are positive. Spain and Italy are mostly positive. Thus we can say it is the role of U.$. and English banks to be in debt for most years since 1960. The united $tates has not been net positive on foreign assets since 1991; yet the sky does not fall. We could say year after year that the specific mercantilist crisis is coming, but we'd be crying wolf, the same way pop-Leninists have been since 1991.
The situation for U.$. and English financial assets also gives the lie to those who believe investment is some sign of the great surplus-value available in the united $tates and England for the taking. Things on paper have to be taken with a grain of salt. The United $tates and England are actually net negative on paper for foreign assets. Now our crude theorists of the labor aristocracy are free to explain that means that England and the United $tates are no longer exploiters--just debtors. We proletarian scientists will say that other things are going on with the paper situation that do not meet the eye. In fact, the world bourgeoisie views the United $tates and England as entrepreneurs worthy of money lending.
Even more interesting, the united $tates is a net debtor, but U.$. net foreign income is positive again since 1998, once we count property income. Of course, we Marxists know that "property income" is another name for someone else's labor. The United Kingdom likewise went from a string of negative years to positive years in recent years on the "net foreign income" question. So it's a situation where the countries do not have the net financial asset position, but they do have the net income position right now. That's pretty astonishing evidence that someone else is footing the bill somehow, and we do not even mean the Japanese and Chinese owning the debts of the united $tates and England. It's the question of how this "property income" shows up from abroad.
The United $tates and England are quintessential imperialism. They can borrow money from abroad and be in overall debt and still make money abroad. It's like taking out a loan at the bank for 6% a year interest and going out and doing better than that 6% abroad. That's the common sense way to interpret what having net negative financial assets means while having net positive income flow from abroad. The combination of facts leads one to believe that English and U.$. capitalists are above-average in extracting super-profits abroad, which would tend to justify investors in giving them loans.
So the point is that when we hear about an economic statistic that would seem to indicate imminent financial crisis for the system, we also need to look at what hidden flows of labor are propping up the system if such flows are relevant to the particular statistic we are looking at. This is a very challenging task, because there is no bureau of labor exploitation statistics.
The countries most enabled to run a trade deficit year after year are imperialist countries. Out of 149 countries, the bottom six by trade deficit are imperialist countries--Italy, France, United Kingdom, Australia, Spain and the United $tates with the united $tates running the biggest trade deficit of course.(3) The United Kingdom also generally runs a trade deficit, including every year since 1984 except 1997.(4)
In general, having a negative "net current transfer from abroad" number year after year is a good indicator of imperialist status. These are not the countries going to ruin. Nor are their currencies collapsing. They are getting richer every year, because labor invisible to bourgeois economists flows in.
If a country continues to accumulate assets every year from hidden labor done, it can send out paper every year without causing a currency melt-down. The only question is if that paper outflow exceeds the inflow of invisible surplus-value as "socially determined" as Marx would say. If inflation increased in the united $tates, then people would not want to hold u.$. currency as much as before. Therefore, the united $tates cannot just send out however much paper it wants, but if inflation does not happen, it will keep trying to send money out.
If surplus-value did not flow into a country in sufficient quantity and that country kept sending out currency, eventually there would be some kind of currency crisis. More likely there is going to be a political crisis about who owns the united $tates--when the Japanese bought Rockefeller Center for example. What we need to understand is that depending on the situation, Marxism teaches that it is possible for the united $tates to accumulate other people's labor sufficiently to account for its sending out more and more currency as long as the exploitation of peoples abroad is greater than the amount of currency or financial assets (in inflation adjusted terms) sent out.
The entire situation that appears abnormal by some bourgeois thinking would collapse if not for low wage rates in the Third World. If Third World wage rates rose to u.$. standards, then there would be no ability to hide labor and there would be "too much money chasing too few goods" or assets, the situation of inflation leading to collapse. As of today, the U.S. Central Bank believes inflation is actually decreasing. That is why it has not increased a key interest rate from 5.25% for the second month in a row of no interest rate increases.(5) MIM says that it is unlikely that trade balances or income transfers can really mean much in terms of crisis unless there comes a sudden increase in Chinese or other Third World wages relative to U.$. wages. It will be the class struggle that brings down imperialism.
Notes:
1. World Bank Group: "WDI Online" is a proprietary information source.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_trade#The_United_States_trade_deficit
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_current_account_balance
4. Inaccessible data since 1946 can be taken from the source. See IKBJ at:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/tsdataset.asp?vlnk=219&More=N&All=Y
5. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=azq4lxc9Q5Hs&refer=japan