4 ms·

Escaping (neo)colonialism generally means focusing on domestic ownership of domestic infrastructure, labor, markets, and supply chains, and untangling oneself f

Escaping (neo)colonialism generally means focusing on domestic ownership of domestic infrastructure, labor, markets, and supply chains, and untangling oneself from debt traps like the IMF. It's not some crazy, scary ideological idea, unlike what elite Western propagandists have been saying. Just don't advocate it too strongly or you might get got by paid goons, like Sankara and many other victims of foreign-influenced regime change.

zozbot234 6y ago
> untangling oneself from debt traps like the IMF. If the IMF is involved with your country, you were in a debt trap already and they're working on untangling you from it. See e.g. Greece, which is now working on their debt problem after the late-2000s economic crisis. "Domestic ownership of supply chains" has also been a disaster historically, because it involves closing down your economy to foreign trade and restricting competitive dynamics: it's better to exploit global supply chains by specializing on the parts that you can be best on, and incrementally working your way up the value ladder.
- pphysch 6y ago
  Going from domestic ownership of domestic resources to total economic isolationism is a complete non-sequitor, and dangerous misinformation. The IMF has been around for the better part of a century and has done exceedingly little to address global economic inequality. Maybe it has something to do with it being dominated by the representation of wealthy Western interests.
  - zozbot234 6y ago
    > Maybe it has something to do with it being dominated by the representation of wealthy Western interests. The IMF has its biases and is far from perfectly equitable (and this was quite clear already in their response - or sometimes lack thereof - to the 1990s crises) but expecting it to single-handedly do enough to "address global economic inequality" is just not very fair.
    - pphysch 6y ago
      Absolutely--my point is that the IMF is not generally interested in the economic welfare of poorer countries, and is abused as a tool for neocolonial interests. Their track record reflects that.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    On the contrary, the global economy has become hugely more equal over that time. The past century has seen by far the greatest reduction of poverty in history, although that's not to say the IMF is the only one responsible for that.
    - pphysch 6y ago
      Basic poverty/employment metrics and economic inequality are virtually uncorrelated, yet they get shouted from the rooftops by Western elite. Human rights, socioeconomic liberties are far more complex than an easily manipulated number. Increasing income of the poor by 100% means nothing if the rich simultaneously benefit from a 1000% increase. Which is largely the story of Western economics in the last century if not longer.
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        The poor who get to buy 100% more stuff would disagree with your theory that their good fortune means nothing.
        pphysch 6y ago
        Inflation.
- jacobr1 6y ago
  The problem isn't one of not understanding comparative advantage. The relevant industry often is physical located within the country, likely due to cheap labor costs. The challenge is that this industry is likely has foreign ownership. The prevents the reinvestment of capital in moving up the value ladder. The strategies to cope with sometimes involve domestic protectionism (bad idea, for the reasons you outline); China's % foreign-ownership partnership idea (which probably doesn't scale down to smaller markets; and doubling down further in zones with economic growth, to encourage even more investment (both foreign and local).
rayiner 6y ago
That is not the sense in which “decolonization” is used by the gentleman quoted in the article (which is the sense in which social science uses the term).

zozbot234 6y ago

> untangling oneself from debt traps like the IMF. If the IMF is involved with your country, you were in a debt trap already and they're working on untangling you from it. See e.g. Greece, which is now working on their debt problem after the late-2000s economic crisis. "Domestic ownership of supply chains" has also been a disaster historically, because it involves closing down your economy to foreign trade and restricting competitive dynamics: it's better to exploit global supply chains by specializing on the parts that you can be best on, and incrementally working your way up the value ladder.

pphysch 6y ago
Going from domestic ownership of domestic resources to total economic isolationism is a complete non-sequitor, and dangerous misinformation. The IMF has been around for the better part of a century and has done exceedingly little to address global economic inequality. Maybe it has something to do with it being dominated by the representation of wealthy Western interests.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  > Maybe it has something to do with it being dominated by the representation of wealthy Western interests. The IMF has its biases and is far from perfectly equitable (and this was quite clear already in their response - or sometimes lack thereof - to the 1990s crises) but expecting it to single-handedly do enough to "address global economic inequality" is just not very fair.
  - pphysch 6y ago
    Absolutely--my point is that the IMF is not generally interested in the economic welfare of poorer countries, and is abused as a tool for neocolonial interests. Their track record reflects that.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  On the contrary, the global economy has become hugely more equal over that time. The past century has seen by far the greatest reduction of poverty in history, although that's not to say the IMF is the only one responsible for that.
  - pphysch 6y ago
    Basic poverty/employment metrics and economic inequality are virtually uncorrelated, yet they get shouted from the rooftops by Western elite. Human rights, socioeconomic liberties are far more complex than an easily manipulated number. Increasing income of the poor by 100% means nothing if the rich simultaneously benefit from a 1000% increase. Which is largely the story of Western economics in the last century if not longer.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      The poor who get to buy 100% more stuff would disagree with your theory that their good fortune means nothing.
      - pphysch 6y ago
        Inflation.
jacobr1 6y ago
The problem isn't one of not understanding comparative advantage. The relevant industry often is physical located within the country, likely due to cheap labor costs. The challenge is that this industry is likely has foreign ownership. The prevents the reinvestment of capital in moving up the value ladder. The strategies to cope with sometimes involve domestic protectionism (bad idea, for the reasons you outline); China's % foreign-ownership partnership idea (which probably doesn't scale down to smaller markets; and doubling down further in zones with economic growth, to encourage even more investment (both foreign and local).

rayiner 6y ago

That is not the sense in which “decolonization” is used by the gentleman quoted in the article (which is the sense in which social science uses the term).