|   
  Capitalism: global restructuring, 
sovereign debt, benign bloc politics and safety nets 
('HTML Version ''EPUB Version: ''MOBI Version: ''PDF Version: ')  
Bill Geddes 17th January 2012  
 Introduction     
We've lost control. Unregulated internationalized capitalism is 
in the driving seat, and it is demanding that countries, communities and 
individuals subordinate themselves to its needs and interests1 . 
As countries find themselves with unmanageable sovereign 
debt2 , they are being 
subjected to 'structural adjustment' to make them more accountable - and 
vulnerable - to an internationalized capitalism which has gained the whip 
hand. 
It now demands that we accept our lot; that we reduce our lives 
and our vision to its horizons; that we accept that we are nothing more than a 
malleable, expendable 'workforce' for its activities and a 'consumer base' for 
its products.  
As this happens, you and I are similarly being 'adjusted' to the 
requirements of an unregulated capitalist world 3 . As Peter Coy and his co-writers 
explained: 
Peter Cappelli, director of the Center for Human Resources at the 
University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, says the brutal recession has 
prompted more companies to create just-in-time labor forces that can be turned 
on and off like a spigot. 
"Employers are trying to get rid of all fixed costs," Cappelli 
says. "First they did it with employment benefits. Now they're doing it with the 
jobs themselves. Everything is variable." That means companies hold all the 
power, and "all the risks are pushed on to employees."  (Bloomberg Businessweek January 7, 2010 ) 
It's time to take back control of our communities and our 
individual lives. It's time to make capitalism the servant and not the master of 
countries, communities and individuals4 . 
Let's indulge ourselves and pretend that the future could be 
kinder, gentler than the present; that human beings might cooperate for the good 
of all rather than indulging their darker urges. 
 First, the Eurozone     
What if Europe's leaders decided to protect their populations 
from the ravages of unregulated capitalism, making capitalism the servant rather 
than master of the Eurozone? 
How wonderful it would be if, instead of predictably travelling 
down the path of deregulation, erosion of working/ living conditions and 
reduction of welfare provisions to the lowest common denominators of member 
states 5 , Eurozone leaders 
decided to reverse the process.  
When I listen to Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy I sometimes 
believe I hear a tentative, nostalgic inclination toward this (perhaps I'm 
delusional, or perhaps it's double-speak - after all, Germany, the 'economic 
power-house' of Europe is one of the countries setting Europe's lowest common 
denominators. Amongst other things, it does not have a universal minimum wage 
6 )! 
For many years I have admired the French determination to retain 
minimum welfare and labor standards in the face of international pressures for 
deregulation. 
Of course, there has been an implied but fundamental 
contradiction involved in this determination. 
On the one hand, France has wanted to become a member of the 
club of internationalized capitalist nations; on the other, it wants to retain 
those minimum labor, living and welfare conditions, hard-won during earlier 
times of regulation and protection. As Sarkozy rightly argues, you can't have 
both!7  
But, perhaps a united Europe could retain minimum standards. 
France's Sarkozy reforms of the past few years could be rolled back, 
re-establishing those minimum labor and welfare protections to which France was 
previously committed. Those standards could become the standards of a united 
Europe. A Europe dedicated to guaranteeing the quality of life of all its 
inhabitants. We could have a set of standard minimum conditions for all of 
Europe's member states! 
What? This would make the Eurozone (including Germany) 
internationally 'uncompetitive'? 
Of course it would - so long as the Eurozone remains an 
unprotected servant of unregulated, internationalized capitalism! But, remember, 
we are aiming to tame capitalism, making it servant not master. 
Yes, that would require a 'protected' Europe - Europe with a 
protected working, living and welfare environment, with a social welfare safety 
net! 
Yes, that would still require some structural readjustment in 
Greece, Spain, Italy and other European states which have even more civilized 
working and welfare conditions than France used to have (unless, of course, 
those higher standards were used as the base for reform!), but at least we'd now 
have Eurozone-wide sets of minimum working and welfare conditions to safeguard 
populations from free-market exploitation - we would not have an expanding 
population of 'working poor' and destitute retirees8 .  
Yes, that would require the introduction of welfare measures in 
those states where, until now, the least advantaged have not been protected from 
the ravages of unregulated capitalism. Until now, those states have, by default, 
slowly but inevitably eroded the living standards of Europe. 
It would, at last, be a united Europe with a soul!! 
Yes, it would require increases in various business-oriented 
revenue generating taxes and charges to deal with the current sovereign debt 
problems of its member states; more than a little 'protectionism'; the 
introduction of tariffs on imports; the stimulation of Eurozone enterprise; and 
centralized fiscal and financial management. And, yes, that does imply 'bloc 
politics' for the Eurozone - isn't that what the current EU organization is 
about? 
Yes, that would require individual states to accept minimum 
Euro-wide sets of regulations in the interests of the well-being of their 
populations. Without such regulation, individual states would find themselves 
subjected to the demands of international capital, played off against each other 
in a 'race to the bottom'.  
Remember, we're taming unregulated capitalism, not trying to 
accommodate it! 
 Second, the USA - and this could be much 
simpler!     
In the USA we find the heart of the deregulation dogmas of the 
past forty years.  
Here is the triumph of neoliberalism, the final defeat of 'The 
New Deal' 9 .  
Not even the wars of the past decade have managed to rescue the 
nation from the consequences of that unregulated, internationalized capitalism, 
unleashed on us all by the devotees of those dogmas.  
In previous decades US administrations have used such conflicts 
as a means of triggering an implicit Keynesianism. It has stimulated internal, 
protected economic activity through 'defense' expenditures in United States' 
communities. Congressional competition for home state funding has ensured a wide 
distribution of such stimulus funds. And, all the while, it has claimed that 
'national security' required these expenditures to be contained within the 
borders of the nation. 
But, over the past forty years it has allowed its internal 
protections to be eroded, resulting in a massive hemorrhaging of funds to the 
rest of the world. Any attempt at similar internal economic stimulus would now 
simply compound its problems. 
In urban, sub-urban and rural areas, we find communities 
abandoned to their fate, stripped of assets and wellbeing, slowly, but 
inevitably decaying, thrown on the scrapheap of unregulated internationalized 
capitalism 10 . 
And this could so easily be reversed - all it requires is a 
reversion to the double-standards of previous decades - talk free market, but 
practice protected Keynesian economic activity 11 . 
Of course, since US politicians and populations now believe in 
unregulated internationalized capitalism, it would be almost impossible to 
prevent the external hemorrhaging of internal stimulus funding through purchase 
of imported goods and services. So, if the US is to kick-start its economy and 
not simply compound its deficit problems there will need to be legislation in 
place to limit the outflow of US currency. Yes, that is going to mean 
re-regulation! What the heck! Let's call a spade a spade - it's going to mean 
'protection'. 
 Finally, An Asian Bloc!     
Asian nations have both a problem and an opportunity. First, 
their growth has largely been based on supplying low cost products and services 
to Western nations. Even where they have managed to move to higher-end products 
and services, largely, their competitive edge has been the provision of high 
quality items at a lower cost than can often be achieved in Western countries 
12 . 
In order to retain their competitive advantage, Asian nations 
are largely locked in to minimal working/living and welfare conditions for the 
bulk of their populations. If they are significantly to improve those 
conditions, they will need to break free from dependence on exports to Western 
destinations 13 .  
Of course, if Western nations did re-regulate, this competitive 
edge would largely disappear - dissipated by tariff and other adjustments at 
ports of entry. 
The current economic strength of Asian countries lies in their 
development of strongly export-oriented economic growth, coupled with a lower 
internal per capita demand for goods and services. This results in strong 
export/import surpluses, a 'savings' mentality, and the internalization of 
sovereign debt. As in Japan, the sovereign debt, while huge 14 , is largely owed to 
Japanese rather than external funders 15 . 
In the last month, Japan, South Korea and China16 have formalized a move to 
direct trading of their currencies, effectively creating a 'common market' which 
excludes both US and Eurozone currencies 17 . 
I have, for the past several decades, been intrigued by Japan's 
apparent ability to ignore its deficits. It's as though the numbers are not 
'real', just characters on a page which can be turned without concern. 
I suspect that this is because, deep down, Japan is not a 
capitalist country! It is just playing a 'capitalist game', akin to the board 
game 'monopoly'.  
Its books don't have to balance, its corporations don't have to 
abide by the 'rules of capitalism'; they only have to appear to do so for the 
sake of their 'international image'. I suspect that China and South Korea share 
this same detachment. And, I suspect that if one examined other East and South 
East Asian countries and communities one would find a similar sense of the 
unreality of the game. 
This gives them a wonderful advantage! They don't have to wake 
in the middle of the night in a cold sweat, panicking at the size of their 
deficits, wondering how one earth they are going to 'make ends meet'. Even their 
'surpluses' are in some measure 'unreal', handy counters in an international 
game in which those with apparent surpluses hold the whip hand. 
How wonderful it would be if, while they are still relatively 
insulated from the traumas of Western-style internationalized capitalism, they 
could reinvent capitalism to suit their own internal purposes, making it servant 
to the prosperity of their peoples, while retaining the advantages of not taking 
the game seriously.  
Yes, this would require 'bloc' politics, with Asian nations 
forming their own 'common market', generating their own internalized economic 
dynamic and raison d'être. And, yes, this would require bloc-wide 
regulatory structures and conditions to ensure the well-being of their 
peoples. 
In my Dreaming I imagine Asian countries finally reinventing 
capitalism, tailoring it to the needs and interests of their various 
communities; making it servant to, not master of, their futures.  
And, since it is only a dream, I see Western nations finally 
coming to their senses, learning from Asia and taming and shaping capitalism to 
ensure benign and supportive working/living/welfare conditions for all their 
inhabitants. 
 Back to Reality     
But, I guess the age of utopian dreams and schemes is in the 
past 18 . We are left with the stark 
reality of a world where unregulated capitalism reduces humanity to a 
'resource'; where countries, communities and individuals are 'restructured' to 
the demands and requirements of an asocial capitalism which need accept no 
responsibility for their well-being and their futures.  
It looks as though, if our political leaders have their way, we 
will have to resign ourselves to being, forever, merely a 'workforce' and 
'consumer base' for unregulated, internationalized capitalism's activities and 
products! 
  
Endnotes  
1 
Ulrika Lomas (Tax News, 14 Dec. 2011) described Sarkozy's determination to 
reinvent France and the rest of the Eurozone to meet 'rating agency' demands 
(before the downgrading!): 
Providing his assurances that the commitments undertaken by 
France will be respected, the French President explained that the government has 
already taken, or is in the process of taking, the necessary measures to 
convince investors. 
According to President Sarkozy if the government had not 
embarked upon pension reform in France in 2010, accelerated recently with the 
framework of the country's second austerity package, it would only be delaying 
the inevitable. 
Otherwise, there is no key measure or 'miracle', Sarkozy 
remarked, noting that what counts ultimately, as much as measures aimed at 
reducing spending, are initiatives intended to increase growth, for example the 
development of the research tax credit and the abolition of local business tax 
in France... 
According to Sarkozy, the agreement responded to the crisis and 
to the concerns of rating agencies...  
The BBC reported France's subsequent credit rating 
downgrade (14 January 12 13:04 GMT): 
French PM Francois Fillon has defended his government's 
economic policies following the decision by ratings agency Standard and Poor's 
to downgrade the credit rating of France.  
He said the government would push ahead with reforms and debt 
reduction.  
Standard and Poor's said Europe's austerity and budget 
discipline alone were not sufficient to fight the debt crisis and may become 
self-defeating.  
The downgrade stripping France of its top AAA rating was 
announced on Friday.  
The government is on a communications campaign to tell the 
French there is no need to panic and that the policies of reform and debt 
reduction will continue as planned, says the BBC's Hugh Schofield in Paris. 
 (France downgrade: French PM downplays rating decision) 
Reassuringly, as David Beer of Standard and 
Poor explained in a CNBC interview, rating agencies do not have a 'hit 
list'. As school-masters of economies, they discipline anyone who does not 
perform as they believe they should: 
After Standard and Poor's historic downgrade of the U.S.'s 
credit rating to AA-plus from triple-A, fears are growing that other countries 
may be next, most notably France, which is facing big costs from a bailout of 
troubled Euro zone countries.  
But the global head of sovereign ratings at S&P says the 
agency does not have a target list and will downgrade ratings as and when it 
sees deteriorating economic performance or debt burdens. 
"We don't have a hit list, we've obviously taken a number of 
rating actions in the Euro zone going back a number of years, that's still an 
unfolding story which we're watching very closely," David Beers told CNBC on 
Monday. (Deepanshu Bagchee, CNBC Asia, Sunday, 7 Aug 2011, S&P's Beers: We Don't Have a Hit List) 
2 
See Global economic forces, Western realities; Comparison of holders of sovereign debt for more on 
this. 
For a detailed comparison of the external debt 
data of countries see World Bank Quarterly External Debt Statistics. 
3 
Peter Coy, Michelle Conlin and Moira Herbst (Bloomberg Businessweek January 7, 2010 ) spelt out the 
consequences for individuals: 
You know American workers are in bad shape when a low-paying, 
no-benefits job is considered a sweet deal. Their situation isn't likely to 
improve soon; some economists predict it will be years, not months, before 
employees regain any semblance of bargaining power.  
That's because this recession's unusual ferocity has accelerated 
trends-including offshoring, automation, the decline of labor unions' influence, 
new management techniques, and regulatory changes-that already had been eroding 
workers' economic standing.  
The forecast for the next five to 10 years: more of the same, 
with paltry pay gains, worsening working conditions, and little job security. 
Right on up to the C-suite, more jobs will be freelance and temporary, and even 
seemingly permanent positions will be at greater risk.  
"When I hear people talk about temp vs. permanent jobs, I 
laugh," says Barry Asin, chief analyst at the Los Altos (Calif.) labor-analysis 
firm Staffing Industry Analysts. "The idea that any job is permanent has been 
well proven not to be true." As Kelly Services (KELYA) CEO Carl Camden puts it: 
"We're all temps now."  (The Disposable Worker: Pay is falling, benefits are vanishing, and 
no one's job is secure. How companies are making the era of the temp more than 
temporary) 
David Wessel (Wall Street Journal July 27, 2011 ) put it succinctly: 
 
Over the past 10 years:  
- The U.S. economy's output of goods and services has 
expanded 19%.
 
- Nonfinancial corporate profits have risen 85%.
 
- The labor force has grown by 10.1 million.
 
- But the number of private-sector jobs has fallen by nearly 
two million.
 
- And the percentage of American adults at work has dropped 
to 58.2%, a low not seen since 1983.
  
What's wrong with the American job engine? As United 
Technologies Corp. Chief Financial Officer Greg Hayes put it recently: "Sales 
have come back, but people have not.'' 
That's largely because the economy is growing much too slowly to 
absorb the available work force, and industries that usually hire early in a 
recovery-construction and small businesses-were crippled by the credit bust. 
 
Then there's the confidence factor. If employers were sure they 
could sell more, they would hire more. If they were less uncertain about 
everything from the durability of the recovery to the details of regulation, 
they would be more inclined to step up their hiring.  
Something else is going on, too, a phenomenon that predates the 
recession and has persisted through it: Changes in the way the job market works 
and how employers view labor. 
Executives call it "structural cost reduction" or "flexibility." 
Northwestern University economist Robert Gordon calls it the rise of "the 
disposable worker," shorthand for a push by businesses to cut labor costs 
wherever they can, to an almost unprecedented degree. (What's Wrong With America's Job Engine? Wary Companies Rely on 
Temps, Part-Timers, Hire Overseas, Wall Street Journal July 27, 
2011) 
See Just-In-Time and Total-Quality-Control: Let's be flexible! for 
more on this. 
4 In 
an unregulated internationalized capitalist world, the weak are vulnerable. If 
individual countries attempt to tame capitalism they will fail. The only way in 
which capitalism might possibly be tailored to communities, rather than 
communities to capitalism, is through banding together. It's time for 'bloc 
politics', for groups of nations to band together, forming large enough units to 
become internally economically viable.  
Of course, the problem of 'unattached' regions, 
those which seem, inevitably, to fall outside of the bounds of major blocs, is a 
problem which has always existed, and will continue to exist into the future. In 
the past people living in such regions have been prime candidates for 
exploitation, unable to protect themselves from the predations of organized and 
dominant power blocs of the world. Perhaps a fortified United Nations could 
provide a regulatory umbrella under which they might shelter. 
5 
and, over time, to the lowest common denominators of the world.  
Michael Birnbaum (2012), in a Washington 
Post article, described the consequences of this process in the Eurozone 
for Greece:  
...many Greeks question whether the terms of the bailout will do much to help their economy in the coming years, and 
the 'troika' of the International Monetary Fund, European Union and European 
Central Bank acknowledged that the recession would worsen in the short run, even 
as unemployment has already spiked to 21 percent - 49 percent for those younger 
than 25 - and the economy contracted by 7 percent in the third quarter of 
2011. 
Europe has demanded that the public sector shrink by 150,000 
people, that the minimum wage be lowered by 22 percent, that pensions be cut and 
that Greece do more to sell off its publicly owned companies, among other 
measures that filled a 50-page booklet.  
When the Greek parliament started implementing them last week, 
43 of the deputies in the ruling coalition rebelled, and rioters in Athens set dozens of buildings on fire. (See Michael 
Birnbaum, Deal reached on $170 billion Greek bailout, Washington 
Post, February 21 2012) 
6 See Information on Minimum Wage Rates for more on this. An article in The Economist (Nov. 5th 
2011) explained: 
Germany is one of the few European countries to lack a statutory 
minimum wage. Unions and employers negotiate wages sector by sector. In ten 
sectors agreed minimums apply to all. But jobs are growing in fragmented 
services not in manufacturing.  
Just over half of workers in western Germany are now covered by 
central agreements; in the east it is only a third. In 2007, 3.7m workers earned 
under €7 ($9) an hour and 1.2m under €5.  
Angela Merkel's recently expressed determination 
not to carry the debt load of other EU countries should be understood in this 
context. Germany has effectively weakened social welfare guarantees for its own 
population, accepting an increasing number of 'working poor' as the social cost 
for its economic expansion. If it now accepts responsibility for using its 
consequent economic muscle to underwrite countries which have retained social 
welfare guarantees, it is effectively sacrificing the wellbeing of up to half of 
its own population for the ongoing wellbeing of other EU populations. 
Some reader comments on the minimum wage appended 
to the above article seem sadly in tune with similar comments made by middle 
ranking Western Europeans in the 18th and 19th centuries. 
See The Virtuous Capitalist, The Poor and the Wasteland 
for more on this.  
7  The pressures for change 
which France faces in an unregulated internationalized capitalist 
world cannot be avoided by changing the leadership, as the new French 
President Francois Hollande has found.  
A Bloomberg report (July 12, 2012) explains 
the problem:  
On July 12, Peugeot announced it will close a factory in the 
Paris suburbs and cut thousands of jobs at other facilities. Including 
reductions announced last year, it's set to shed some 14,000 workers, mainly in 
France. Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault called the announcement 'a true 
shock.' 
Peugeot had little choice. It will post a €700 million ($860 
million) first-half operating loss and is burning through €200 million in cash 
every month. The carmaker's factories are operating at just 76 percent capacity, 
as first-half deliveries slid 13 percent. To raise cash and cut debt, it's 
selling off assets, including its Paris headquarters. 'Peugeot is pretty close 
to bankrupt,' says Nicolas Meilhan, a Paris-based consultant at Frost & 
Sullivan who previously worked for the car company. 
Other European automakers have suffered sales declines during 
the region's debt crisis, but Peugeot's problems go far deeper than its rivals'. 
Some 40 percent of its production capacity is in France, where high payroll 
taxes and rigid labor rules clobber its competitiveness, Meilhan says. French 
unit labor costs, now the second-highest in Europe after Belgium, have increased 
about 20 percent in 2000 in relation to Germany, benefiting competitors such as 
Volkswagen (VOW3). French automaker Renault (RNO) is in much better shape than 
Peugeot, as it has moved 80 percent of production abroad, mainly to low-cost 
locales. 
The news from Peugeot only adds to an increasingly dire economic 
outlook in France. Unemployment is at 10.2 percent, and the government recently 
downgraded its 2012 growth forecast to just 0.3 percent. Two other big 
employers, Air France (AF) and pharmaceutical group Sanofi (SNY), have announced 
major job cuts since Hollande took office in May. (Carol Matlack, Layoffs at Peugeot Signal France's Deepening Problems, 
Bloomberg BusinessWeek, July 12, 2012) 
8 
See Community costs are Production costs for more on this 
9 
See The triumph of neoliberalism for more on this. 
10 
Rick Hampson (USA Today 3/2/2010) described the scene (still being played 
out in 2012) across the United States: 
Whether it's textiles in the Carolinas, paper in New England or 
steel in the Midwest, most industrial cities and mill towns "are on pins and 
needles," says Donald Schunk, an economist at Coastal Carolina University. "Day 
to day, week to week, any manufacturing facility seems vulnerable. People don't 
know if they'll be there."  
That's true in: 
- Georgetown, S.C. (pop. 9,000), where the closing of the 
local steel mill last year left International Paper as the last major private 
employer.
 
- Madawaska, Maine (pop. 4,000), where workers voted last 
month to take an 8.5% wage cut to keep the financially strapped paper mill 
going.
 
- Glenwood, Wash. (pop. 500), where flat lumber prices and 
rising land prices are crippling the forest products industry.
  
Anxiety over possible layoffs or closings can disturb workers as 
much as the real thing, experts say. Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert says 
it's uncertainty that really bothers people: They feel worse when they think 
something bad might happen than they do when they know it will happen....  
In the America where things are made, the recession has been a 
depression. According to a new Northeastern University study, one in every six 
blue-collar industrial jobs have disappeared since 2007, matching the drop in 
overall employment in the Great Depression. 
 Last year, about 1.3 million factory jobs vanished, including 
Shumaker's. For the first time, the government announced in January, most union 
members are government employees, not private-sector workers. 
One-horse towns such as Ravenswood risk losing their reason for 
being, says Juravich, who teaches about labor at the University of 
Massachusetts. Without a hospital or university campus or county seat, "they're 
one plant shutdown from oblivion." 
Sometimes oblivion is a ghost town with tumbleweed blowing down 
Main Street and the doors of the Last Chance Saloon swinging in the desert wind. 
But most 21st-century ghost towns will not be deserted. 
People, many unemployed or underemployed, will fill the bars, 
stoops, corners, clinics, jails and social welfare offices.  
An industrial town makes products that bring wealth into a 
community; a post-industrial ghost town has a zero-sum economy - people in 
marginal jobs, "serving and paying each other," Bronfenbrenner says. 
At best, the new industrial ghost towns become places for 
low-rent homes for long-distance commuters. At worst, they slowly empty 
out. (New ghost towns: Industrial communities teeter on the 
edge) 
See Ilyce Glink, CBS News January 12, 
2012, Foreclosures hit lowest level since 2007, for discussion of 
the foreclosure difficulties still facing homeowners across the US: 
Foreclosure filings dropped in 2011 to their lowest level since 
2007, according to a new report released today from RealtyTrac. Unfortunately, 
the lower number of foreclosures doesn't mean fewer people are going to lose 
their homes.  
Just the opposite. According to RealtyTrac's Year-End 2011 U.S. 
Foreclosure Market Report, the number of foreclosures declined because lenders 
stopped processing foreclosures and created a huge backlog in the foreclosure 
pipeline. 
According to RealtyTrac's report, some 2,698,967 foreclosure 
filings -- which include default notices, scheduled auctions and bank 
repossessions -- were reported on 1,887,777 U.S. properties in 2011, a decrease 
of 34 percent from 2010. About 1.45 percent of all U.S. housing units (about 1 
in 69) received a foreclosure filing last year. 
That's the good news, but the time it took to process those 
foreclosures increased 24 percent over the same time period. This increase in 
foreclosure processing time has largely been caused by the robosigning 
controversy, which triggered lenders to perform a massive review of foreclosure 
procedures. 
This review of the foreclosure process caused lenders to hold 
off on beginning many new filings, which is a big contributor to the lower 
number of foreclosures in 2012. According to Brandon Moore, CEO of RealtyTrac, 
"Foreclosures were in full delay mode in 2011, resulting in a dramatic drop in 
foreclosure activity for the year."...  
The time it takes to process a foreclosure will probably remain 
high through 2012, and it is likely foreclosure filings will increase in the 
coming year. "The lack of clarity regarding many of the documentation and legal 
issues plaguing the foreclosure industry means that we are continuing to see a 
highly dysfunctional foreclosure process that is inefficiently dealing with 
delinquent mortgages -- particularly in states with a judicial foreclosure 
process," Moore says....  
For a full review of the study and a map of foreclosure activity 
nationwide, see RealtyTrac's full Year-End 2011 U.S. Foreclosure Market Report. (CBS News January 12, 2012 7:00 AM ) 
11 
One can only hope that, should the US revert to its former practices, US 
politicians will finally find a less belligerent justification for internal 
economic stimulus than 'external threat'. 
12 
Unless, like Germany, they have managed to avoid or substantially reduce 
the various welfare imposts of the pre-globalization era. 
13 
See The emergence of welfarism: Social costs are Production Costs 
for a brief outline and explanation of the emergence of coherent sets of minimum 
working/living and welfare conditions for Western populations. 
14 
Edward Chancellor (Financial Times, Nov. 1, 2009) explained: 
Japan's national debt is fast approaching 200 per cent of GDP. 
The debt mountain is the result of prolonged economic weakness and successive 
fiscal deficits since the bubble economy collapsed in 1990. These problems are 
compounded by the fact that Japan's population is now shrinking. The economy's 
trend growth rate has fallen and tax receipts are shrinking, while welfare 
payments for pensioners are rising. Japan's debt trap, it seems, is structural 
rather than cyclical....  
Tokyo has shown little serious intent on getting its public 
finances under control. The newly-installed DPJ government didn't even mention 
the deficit in its election manifesto. This passivity brings to mind David 
Hume's comment that 'when a government has mortgaged all its revenues... it 
necessarily sinks into a state of languor, inactivity and impotence.'... 
Other countries with oversized national debts, such as Sweden 
after the Scandinavian banking crisis of the early 1990s, were able to generate 
growth by devaluing their currencies and boosting exports. The yen, however, has 
strengthened. 
Interest rates in Japan have been low for so long that all the 
gains from low cost financing have already been spent. 
While the supply of Japanese government bonds looks set to 
increase, the outlook for demand is not encouraging. As the population ages, 
Japanese pension funds are more likely to be selling bonds than buying them. The 
household savings rate is plunging towards zero. 
As Reinhart and Rogoff observe, sovereign debt crises have often 
been anticipated by governments being forced to borrow at ever shorter 
maturities. For the moment, Japan's savers seem content to lend to their 
government at very low rates. One day they might start demanding more for the 
risks they are running. (Japan sovereign debt crisis looms) 
15 
For a comparison of holders of sovereign debt in various countries, see 
International Monetary Fund, World Economic and Financial Surveys: FISCAL 
MONITOR September 2011, Addressing Fiscal Challenges to Reduce Economic Risks (p. 12, 
Fig. 6).  
As can be seen from Figure 6 of the above IMF 
publication, while non-resident and foreign official holdings in the US (which 
still has a relatively healthy - though rapidly deteriorating - ratio of 
external to internal debt despite its recent past) are at 31%, for Japan, those 
holdings comprise a mere 5% of Government Debt. 
   
16 
Over the past twenty years mainland Chinese have, in increasing numbers 
(possibly in their millions, though no accurate figures are available), 
relocated and developed business enterprises in other regions of the world - 
chiefly in areas formerly recognized as 'developing' regions under Western 
control. While some commentators are now suggesting that this is part of some 
Chinese government plot to surreptitiously take over the 'developing' world, 
this needs to be put into historical perspective. 
Throughout the colonial period, Chinese traders 
followed in the wake of Western European colonial expansion. The 'Chinese 
trader' was an accepted part of the landscape of the colonial world, tolerated 
and regulated by colonial authorities. See Carl Trocki (2004) (Chinese capitalism and the British Empire. In 
International Association of Historians of Asia Conference, 6-10 
December 2004, Taiwan, Taipei) for a description of this. As Trocki says, 
 
Because Chinese traders and migrants came without the support of 
their government, and in most cases were not seen to be organizing political 
domain over the region, they have not been portrayed as the frontiersmen of 
empire. There is likewise, little evidence that the Chinese involved, at least 
at the beginning, had the intention of forming an empire.  
Nevertheless, if we look at what had come to be in Southeast 
Asia at the end of the nineteenth century, it is clear that a Chinese empire of 
sorts had been created.  
...Chinese relied on the European umbrella of security and found 
it possible to exploit the global reach of the European infrastructure. 
Europeans found they needed the Chinese to produce wealth for them and to manage 
the mundane tasks of retail and second-level wholesale trade.  
Neither could have prospered without the other but each was 
guided by their own aims. Each was capable of taking measures to frustrate or 
divert the projects of the other. We could say that Chinese and Europeans were 
sleeping in the same bed, but were dreaming different dreams. (Chinese capitalism and the 
British Empire) 
It would be nice to believe that Chinese 
government authorities are willing (and able) to accept some sort of 
responsibility for the wellbeing of peoples around the world who currently find 
themselves at the exploited end of a resurgent Chinese small business expansion 
into the Third World.  
However, not only does the Chinese government 
accept little responsibility for the activities of these migrants, it has, to 
date, shown itself unable (possibly unwilling) significantly to protect Chinese 
migrants into its industrial regions as they find themselves in similarly 
exploitative working/living conditions. 
17 
A recent exchange with a friend (Japan/China historian, Lincoln Li) puts 
this into perspective: 
Just as the $ is used as a common denominator for the AU$, US$ 
etc., the three East Asian countries concerned have been using a common 
nomenclature. The Yuan, the Won, and the Yen are but different pronunciations 
for the same ideograph.  
All three countries have practiced parallel economic policies: 
feeding the insatiable consumer needs of the advanced countries (or should one 
say lazy and retarded countries) to "enrich the country and strengthen the 
military". And yes, they actually used the same medium of exchange in the days 
of silver. 
See China and Japan have agreed to start direct trading of their 
currencies for more on this. 
18 
See In Search of Utopia for more on this. 
 |