Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 09:06:41 -0500
From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood-AT-panix.com>
Subject: Re: M-I: Asia - really a boom


james m blaut wrote:

>They say you can prove anything with statistics, and this is peculiarly
>true when you apply traditional developed country stats, like GDP and
>GDP/capita to underdevloped country stats. An example: in Puerto Rico GDP
>increased an avg. of 6.3%/year 1947-77. But this was not economic growth. A
>modest increase in manufcaturing employment was counterbalanced by massive
>increase in unemployment overall and departure of half the labor force for
>New York, plus a decline almost to zero in family farming.

Things are very different in Asia. Employment levels have increased
dramatically, as has industrial production. Another point I should have
made in my previous post was that the rate of investment - or capital
accumulation, if you prefer - in Asia has also been unprecedented. As a
recent Socialist Economic Bulletin, published out of British MP Ken
Livingstone's office, poitned out, each successive region of capitalist
development has featured a higher rate of investment: Britain in the early
19th century was around 5% of national income; then Germany doubled that to
10%; then the US pushed 20%; Japan, 30%; and S Korea and China, close to
40%.

There's been a decline to near 0 in family farming in the U.S. too. So
what's that prove?


>Roughly the same holds true thoughout the "developing" world, in which I
>have spent many years. Not just for GDP but for all statistical measures
>designed to compare level/growth with other, usually developed countries.
>I could go into detail.

The point is that the East Asian countries we're tlaking about went from
"developing" status to near-First World status in a generation. Look at
education/literacy, health, and other social indicators if you prefer.

>But someone is really playing magic tricks when they take gobs of big world
>regions (how are they defined?) over two-decade periods and try to compare
>them -- in fact, blithely tripping from the 19th to the  2oth C, and from
>colonial to core and post-colonial realities. Haven't read this Maddison
>fellow but it is weird stuff. Some peasant friends of mine who produce
>exclusively for the (local) cash market -- do you suppose they are included
>in GDP? Not a chance.

No of course not. In industrialized countries that sort of thing is
minimal. You don't find many subsistence farmers in S Korea.

Doug




     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---