In the international market, therefore, one hour of German/French/Norwegian work is exchanged often for tens of hours of work from India, or Congo, or Mexico.
Explain where the exploitation comes from.
- Is the argument here that developed goods are worth more on the market than their raw materials & shouldn’t be?
- Or that a unit of time of more skilled labor to develop those goods from raw materials should earn the same as less skilled labor, so the disparities in their market value is exploitation? If they could earn the same with less skill, then why bother developing skill?
- It’s not like they govern the foreign countries of international businesses they trade with for raw materials. Is your argument that they shouldn’t trade internationally for raw materials?
Most of that is the US & UK: sanctions, supporting coups, bombings. No country needs to take IMF loans. As sovereign nations, they don’t need to use a foreign regulated currency & could adopt their own.
What does Norway have to do with this: guilt by broad association with western nations?
Again, what does Norway have to do with this? Where is their exploitation?
It seems like you’re arguing they shouldn’t trade with Africa much like an economic sanction. I’m sure that’d turn out great for Africans.
This is some unclear shit. I think you need to properly define exploitation & identify where Norway’s international economic relations fit that definition.
Otherwise, it seems your criticism amounts to “Norway’s developed economy is doing better than economies of other countries they trade with”, which doesn’t necessarily mean they’re exploiting other countries.