Dd, in a comment some days back, pasted up a link to, who else, Paul Kludgeman:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/13/opinion/13krugman.html?_r=1
Seems Paul wants to stick his nose under the MNC tent. Or does he? First he goes over the side into a ditch:
"U.S. officials have tried to reason with their Chinese counterparts, arguing that a stronger currency would be in China’s own interest."Really, honestly, where's the evidence of that? Other than spokesperson press gibber and Lindsey Grahamcrackers and mushschrummerisms. So far as I can see, all pure show. But here's worse: PK buys into that squalid nonsense line:
"They’re right about that: an undervalued currency promotes inflation, erodes the real wages of Chinese workers and squanders Chinese resources."That's it, Paul, throw the textbook at 'em!
Just saying no, barking "currency manipulation is bad for China as a whole" -- it's simply wrong.
Isn't it long since established that such a fixed, forex-rigged industrial development policy "works" nationally? Hell, it gave us Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, postwar Germany. Forex fiddle is the WTO loophole for blatant import blocking and export dumping.
Now that that's out of the way...
Our dear terrier of Times Square goes bold and divides China into...Marxian classes! Not only is the current strategy bad for Chinese "real wages", why... it’s lo and behold good for "politically influential Chinese companies, many of them state-owned."
That compound line is delightful, ain't it? Notice the nuanced choice of "influential", and by God that menacing "state-owned"! Imagine that! State-owned!
Watch, children, as this angelic pwog toils cleverly for the MNC devils' brigade. But here's the point of Dd's link -- I think: "There’s a more sinister cause of U.S. passivity: business fear of Chinese retaliation."
That's "business" as in US-based MNC outfits.
"Consider a related issue: the clearly illegal subsidies China provides to its clean-energy industry. These subsidies should have led to a formal complaint from American businesses; in fact, the only organization willing to file a complaint was the steelworkers union. Why? As The Times reported, “multinational companies and trade associations in the clean energy business, as in many other industries, have been wary of filing trade cases, fearing Chinese officials’ reputation for retaliating against joint ventures in their country and potentially denying market access to any company that takes sides against China.”American MNCs get blackmailed by the Reds into tumbling for forex! They don't benefit from the forex, they simply allow it because they're... they're...
Talk about a framing frame-up.
Yes it tiptoes into the MNC "interest" territory, but utterly whitewashes the MNC role while doing so. At the worst the MNCs are venal pliable greedy accomplices, maybe even excessively co-operative hostages. The compradors are us. The influence runs from there to her, from the Celestial capital to Wall Street. Our MNCs are but squalid little toys of the sinister Red juggernaut. The Chicoms are playing on our MNCs' craving for a chance to play for profit and progress inside the Red marketplace.
Frankly this demogogic upside-down cake deserves nothing but scorn. It proves either PK is so deeply preformed as to misperceive reality completely, reverse causation, reverse master and servant, make up down, down up, see the tail wagging the dog, the dog's ears back following the tail; or he's a shrewd corporate deep embed.
More likely he's some degree of both, in (one hopes) some only semi-stable one Chalmers Johnsonish risky combination.
Whatever fate awaits this conflicted brain beast I'll finish the analogy: "Similar intimidation has surely helped discourage action on the currency front."
Intimidation!
Yet, to be fair, out of context this reads fine:
"[It's] a good time to remember that what’s good for multinational companies is often bad for America, especially its workers.... So here’s the question: Will U.S. policy makers let themselves be spooked by financial phantoms and bullied by business intimidation?"But then --
"Will they continue to do nothing in the face of policies that benefit Chinese special interests at the expense of both Chinese and American workers? Or will they finally, finally act? Stay tuned."OP rewrite: "Will they continue to do nothing in the face of policies that benefit American multinationals at the expense of American workers? Don't bother to stay tuned. You know what's going to happen." When PK wants to, he clearly can blitz to the dark heart of the matter. He's poked through the membrane. But even so I see vast immune-system forces at work, ripping the essence of this invasion to bits even as it moves forward.
Is this to be the apex of his assault, implicating our MNC's as mere accessories to the swindle? Or can he push on to the capital of Capitalworld and sieze the boardroom trolls at the center of it all, manning the highest dashboards of the global mix and match game?
Comments (12)
once again i succeed at boring
the readership
will i never learn !!!!
Posted by op | September 18, 2010 12:39 PM
Posted on September 18, 2010 12:39
No, you won't.
Sometimes comments to a post are superfluous. This is one of those times. You've said everything that can be said. Hence, silence and the cruel uncertainty of whether or not you've been read. I, personally, do that out of spite.
Posted by Al Schumann | September 18, 2010 1:14 PM
Posted on September 18, 2010 13:14
I agree about everything you say here, though I'm still uncertain about MNCs' exercise of political influence.
Posted by dd | September 18, 2010 2:23 PM
Posted on September 18, 2010 14:23
moray Al strikes .....
-------------------
dd:
"I'm still uncertain about MNCs' exercise of political influence."
this confounds me
you see wall streets influence no ??
but not big energy
big pharma
big software
big airplane auto and bull dozer
big brand and name plate
big
well you get it
these are corporae outfits with global "interests"
can u see uncle's armada is their wakenhuts ??
http://justgetthere.us/blog/uploads/wackenhut.jpg
can u see the borders of uncle's homeland
the ways into His market places
as worth if possible
careful MNC .....mangement ??
who is there to oppose them and win out ???
only as a "house divided" can the MNCs get licked
yup they gotta lick themselves
for well over a 100 years 1820 to 1930
our domestic industrial corporations
wanted protection
just as our agricultural "interests"
wanted export max
these two goals were not easily blended
times change weights shift
by 46 -50 the core protectionism hunk
of industrial america had begun a fast and decisive morph
by the 70's
the big corporate powers in sector after sector far from protectiong domestic industry started to rapidly dissolve it away
and here we are today...
oh well its history now
we can take some solice in this however
despite memory holes galore
more then enough evidence
will hang around
to indict the limited liability culprits
Clio lets us keep writing up chronicles
of her big show till me get it more or less
straight
Posted by op | September 18, 2010 2:58 PM
Posted on September 18, 2010 14:58
unrelated econ con tid bit
this from a unc assistant credentialer :
"If no one else will defend TARP, I will defend it.
I will defend it through any medium, at anytime, under any circumstances.
I will be the lone voice in a town hall full of Ron Paul supporters.
I will say it at a Code Pink Regional Conference.
I will not let this go.
There are few moments when I have shed a tear over policy.
Despite initial missteps
what I saw was lawmakers coming together in the face of overwhelming public opposition to protect the future of our society.
It made me more confident in our government than any other single event I have ever experienced."
this part bares repeating:
".. what I saw was lawmakers coming together in the face of overwhelming public opposition to protect the future of our society"
de facto class dictatorship
operationally defined praised ...celebrated
would u want a credential from him ???
Posted by op | September 18, 2010 6:56 PM
Posted on September 18, 2010 18:56
A bit of rumination on the MNC exercise of influence.
In China, they have what the Party nomenklatura needs for their plans to rapidly industrialize the country. That's a powerful bargaining chip. They can bring established markets, export infrastructure, technology and grease for the allocation mechanisms of forex. The PRC can play chicken with them—they're not traditional compradors—but only up to a point.
Here, the political nomenklatura consists entirely of compradors. They're trained to it from an early age and they live in a cradle to grave welfare mini-state. That mini-state, or parallel state if you like, sits on the country like a big, fat tick. The corporations are the government. The revolving door between government berths and corporate berths spins like a top. There's no need for the MNCs to exercise influence over the government. The government occupies a well-understood subordinate role, with of course the same faction disputes, shifts in dominance and forays into meliorism of any nomenklatura. There's some need to exercise over the population at large.
Posted by Al Schumann | September 18, 2010 7:22 PM
Posted on September 18, 2010 19:22
maybe need little 'revolutionary' and 'reactionary' buttons below each post
Posted by hapa | September 18, 2010 7:47 PM
Posted on September 18, 2010 19:47
i like Al's take on corporate hegemony
the revolving door certainly can be "documented"
as can the various corridors tunnels and side doors
lawyers academics and other such members
of the modern clerisy and liberal professions
all very used to acting for
or in the employ of or thru engagement by
the upper reaches of the corporate world
are quite adept at playing
agent guide and expeditor
for private profit outfits on the
the trail of a fugitive gains
Posted by op | September 19, 2010 8:04 AM
Posted on September 19, 2010 08:04
the CCP might be thought of as quite like say
a quite improve update
of the roman catholic hierarchy
in central italy
circa 14-16 th century
far more compact and clearly channeled articulated and geared
then say the ayatollah circles now
mediating the commercial scrum
that is todays iran
they are decisive in the split
who gets lamb chops who mutton
who tenderloins who burger
and who ........................bacon !!!!
Posted by op | September 19, 2010 8:10 AM
Posted on September 19, 2010 08:10
What about the orthodoxy of free trade within the economics profession? Universal truth of comparative advantage irrespective of trade deficits and high undemployment. Also, I think it's fairly well understood how banks, i.e., so-called "investment banks," exercise influence. There's Simon Johnson's "The Quiet Coup" that appeared in The Atantic last year
I think Bush would have nationalized the banks if September 2008 hadn't been at the end of his administration. TARP was just a step in that direction.
Posted by dd | September 19, 2010 10:07 AM
Posted on September 19, 2010 10:07
"Universal truth of comparative advantage irrespective of trade deficits and high undemployment"
that is not orthodox
if all markets don't clear if employment isn't full employment
then welfare theorems
like ricardo's comp advant
collapse
this is well understood
as is the absurd notion a nation's welfare is the same regarrdless of distribution
ie total "welfare" up
however measured
but some citizens welfare down
that violates all the theorems based on
the simple restraint
"no uncompensated losers"
its notoriously true
us foreign trade creates losers here
and they are never adequately compensated
comparative advantage is invoked
by the econ con's of the academy
to defend
"wider open trade borders"
under present institutional arrangements
only with
seriously crossed fingers
Posted by op | September 19, 2010 11:56 AM
Posted on September 19, 2010 11:56
" I don't see evidence that other industries have so effectively extended their tentacles into government"
not even the energy sector under bush ???
first and foremost understand this
the web of hi finance
inter connects all these MNCs
to over focus on wall street bankers
is maybe good
new new deal politics
but to ignore say
big energy --pollution---
or big pharma --health costs --
orbig arms and aircraft outfits -- uncle's armada --
or big agri business -- bilateral trade swindles starving out third world subsisttence farmers everywhere --
or soft ware and entertainment -- evil IP --
well one just needs toset up on the Hill zoom in close and pan your glass full circle
inside the belt way uncle's elves
cook up
much MNC imspired cuisine
Posted by op | September 19, 2010 12:06 PM
Posted on September 19, 2010 12:06