Rss Feed
Tweeter button
Facebook button
Linkedin button
Youtube button

Life + Debt was a great film; especially when followed by a lecture from Fran Korten on the trouble of lending through the International Monetary Fund.

As with the other videos in the Social Justice course, I learned something new that I was completely unaware of… another way that developed nations like the U.S. take advantage of poorer nations through the International Monetary Fund and other international organizations.

I didn’t realize what a negative toll globalization has had on poorer nations.  When richer nations subsidize and sell goods on a massive scale to other nations, especially products like food, they deteriorate the local markets by selling goods at lower prices.  I had no idea that the United States was flooding the Jamaican market with produce, meat, milk powder and various other items at prices less than what they even cost to produce.

As one farmer in the film put it:

“When it’s ready for harvesting, you see imported potato, right in front of your home, being sold… It’s an insult to our dignity… not being able to produce and sell in your own market at home.”

The film explained the link between lower cost imports, and the requirements put on the Jamaican government by the IMF to open up to this type of international trade.  It is really unfortunate that the IMF provides loans not to help countries build and improve their infrastructure, but only to keep them indebted. Debt is a powerful mechanism that keeps not just individuals, but entire nations in a cycle of perpetual serfdom.  In order to pay off their debt, they must continue to borrow.  However, in order to continue to borrow, they must be open to outside trade which continues to deteriorate their economy, as local businesses shut down, unable to compete with lower cost foreign goods.

Not surprisingly, the United States came up with another “improvement plan” for Jamaica, promised to provide hundreds of individuals with employment opportunities — as they were, of course, no longer able to work in fields, dairies, farms, or other agricultural positions.

This idea, instituted in the 1980′s was known as the “Free Zone”  It was described in the film as follows:

“The Free Zone operates in a theoretical thing that is not even part of Jamaica.  It is a separate entity so the goods come in in a container and go through guarded gates. After it leaves the Free Zone, it goes back onto the ship, never, in effect, having touched the shores of Jamaica. So those factories are not liable to local controls. They’re not liable to things like income tax or certain duties, taxes, anything like that. The Free Zone is to give the opportunity for people to operate without the controls or the laws or the systems that normally govern a country’s operation.”

This zone was created, in essence, as a place to take advantage of cheap labor on a large scale.  With few other options, many Jamaicans went to work in these factories creating goods to be shipped back to the United States and Europe.  However, as time went on, the factories began to exploit the worker’s rights, requiring more work in less time.  Without any local oversight to protect the workers, they were at the mercy of the company in order to secure their paycheck… yet another example of modern-day serfdom.  If the employees had anywhere else to go, they would.  But with a declining economy, fewer jobs and less money, they had little choice.

And, because the “Free Zones” were provided to Jamaica as a “service,” they incurred a large amount of debt to provide these jobs to their citizens.  All the while, the corporations and countries that were operating in the Free Zone basically operated for free.  The low wages that they paid to the workers was far less than the amount of money that the Jamaican government is paying back at high interest rates.

However, as globalization continued and labor began a commodity to be sold at the lowest price, factories began closing down as cheaper labor was found in Mexica and Asia.  Now being shut out of the factories, many Jamaicans have nowhere to go for work.  Foreign companies continue to sell products cheaper than they can make locally, and now pull out of places like the Free Zones leaving them with little to no employment opportunities.

Michael Manly, a former Prime Minister of Jamaica states the problem quite clearly in how it relates to the country’s debt and its relationship to the IMF:

“Private capital is not going to come in and help you with your infrastructure. To help you develop an adequate education system. To help you develop a good health system. Private capital is not going to come and take a chance in developing your agriculture so that you can really do  a lot of the feeding of yourself. It is understandably only interested in how it can make a quick buck.”

Poor nations have no choice but to borrow from the IMF, because private lenders are only interested in making profits.  Unfortunately, this borrowing only leads to further globalization, more imports of foreign goods, and further degradation of what little economy they have.

“Look at every IMF country today and tell me which has a really good hospital service, which has a good education system, which has anything… All of them are trapped in that old colonial crisis of finance.”

The worst part about this is that most citizens of developed countries don’t even know that their nation is taking advantage of those less fortunate.  We continue to donate to non-profit organizations that are doing good work in poorer nations so that we feel we are doing something positive, yet wonder why it is never enough.  That all the aid and money we send doesn’t end up having any lasting effect.  The reason is that developed nations continue to collect unimaginable amounts of money in the form of loans and interest that basically negate any amount of money that we could ever hope to spend in aid or charity work.

We must come up with a better solution that gets to the root of the problem. Rather than continue to perpetuate a cycle of national serfdom, we must eliminate high interest rates on international borrowing and support programs that allow poorer nations to build their education systems and improve their own economies by allowing them the ability to provide their own goods and services without being undersold by subsidizes imports.

This film was a great example of how the power of community thinking can lead to a number of solutions when a country is in crisis.

Starting off with a history of what Peak Oil is, there was an interesting graph showing the three highest uses of oil, in barrels per person in the U.S., per year. It turns out that food (through production and distribution) actually requires more oil at ten barrels per person, than do cars at nine barrels and houses at seven barrels. This was followed up by a statement that was a little surprising to me. The film stated that we (the world) are consuming five barrels of oil for every one that is discovered. While I knew that we were using more than we were finding, I didn’t realize that the difference was this high. It makes me more concerned about our ability to implement other energy solutions fast enough.

The film focused a lot on how things were actually accomplished, for example their farming techniques and how the government divided up land to farmers. One of the things that was lacking, in my opinion, was more of a focus on how the community was involved, especially given the title off the film. I felt that the film expressed that local communities were important, and that they helped support the movement to agriculture, but didn’t really get beyond just stating that fact. There was no analysis into how exactly the community got involved, no real examples of specific communities and how they handled “The Special Period,” and no analysis of how an integrated community made the outcome any different than it might have been otherwise. It seems like the message of the film was less about community, and more about the process of changing the way people think; how the government made smart choices and gave people the freedom and land they needed to develop their own food sources.

There were, however, some great mentions of the process of societal change, and how it came about.  One of the biggest examples  of this was that they realized that not everyone knew how to farm.  They took knowledgeable, experienced farmers and led local workshops with everyone in the community to provide the skills needed for a mass of people to be able to successfully run their own miniature farms and gardens.  This level of community interaction of free education and sharing of trades was an integral piece of their success in my mind.  They taught the rule that “you hire nature to work for you; you don’t work against nature.”

“It was necessary, and result of a change of mind, a change of scale.  And it was a big effort.  But how much money they saved… you have to realize, they did it because they had to, but from a few years point of view, there were so many benefits.”

My favorite quote of the whole film, comes very near to the end.  Roberto Perez, of the Foundation for Nature and Humanity states:

There are infinite small solutions… you fix one little problem here, one little problem there, and life gets better. You think globally, you act locally. This is very important.”

I would recommend this film, as a short documentary that can show the outcome when a society chooses to change.  However, I think what is missing is a deeper look into how communities were such an integral part of this change.  It does provide a sense of hope that change is possible, but given that a majority of the change was made possible by the government allowing people to use land free of charge, and free of taxes, I am doubtful that such a solution would ever be possible in an industrialized nation such as our own, where corporations and other other entities would never let such an opportunity to make money pass by for free, even when faced with no other options.