|Neo Conway, same as the old con way.|
Back in '91, one Larry Summers, then working at the World Bank, made an astute observation that set the table for the continued Neoliberal dismantling of American industry and moving it to the shores of LDC's (Less Developed Countries, a club the neoliberal/neoconservative nexus would have us join). Summers championed US hegemonic dollar policy, using its veto power at the IMF and World Bank to ensnare nascent industrialized nations in intractable dollar-denominated loans, only to use currency war maneuvering to then con away all the profits from what were then called the Asian Tigers, and fill the vaults of western banks with their casino-style rigged gaming proceeds.
He did this by labeling highly polluting Corporate enterprises as 'Dirty' Industries':
"Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Less Developed Countries]? I can think of three reasons:
1) The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.
2) I've always though that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. Only the lamentable facts that so much pollution is generated by non-tradable industries (transport, electrical generation) and that the unit transport costs of solid waste are so high prevent world welfare enhancing trade in air pollution and waste (what's now called carbon-trading. Remember, this is only a year before 1992 when the Kyoto protocols were introduced. The larry, Summers, knew exactly what the costs were, and that they had nothing to do with "aesthetics").
3) The demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to have very high income elasticity. The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostrate cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostrate cancer than in a country where under 5 mortality is is 200 per thousand. Also, much of the concern over industrial atmosphere discharge is about visibility impairing particulates. These discharges may have very little direct health impact (Obvious LIE. VW and other car manufacturers deliberately colluded with their governments to develop software to hide the dangerous diesel particulates that are now choking the City of London). Clearly trade in goods that embody aesthetic pollution concerns could be welfare enhancing. While production is mobile the consumption of pretty (Pretty? So now something invisible can be pretty? How so?) air is a non-tradable.
Thus can we see not only the reason behind the Trump machine's unseemly rush to deprive US citizens of healthcare insurance, but the complete blackout from the Mainstream Medea of any pundits who dare to connect these cannonball-sized dots, even though they hover right there in front of our collective eyes.