The analysis by Peter A. Petri of the important issues for the upcoming Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference here contains some very general, and even startling statements ("Who’ll rule Asia-Pacific trade?" Star-Advertiser, Oct. 16). But what do they mean for the people of Hawaii, or of the Pacific Rim?

He claims that in the last half century, world trade has "helped to lift the majority of the world’s people from poverty." Shouldn’t some of the success be credited to the political decolonization in Asia, the Pacific, and for that matter, Africa? And what exactly does poverty mean? In the United States, the official poverty threshold is about $11,000 yearly per person, or $22,000 for a family of four. But in the so-called developing countries of Asia and the Pacific, the threshold can be as low as $1.25 per day, or about $450 per year. It is difficult for us to imagine anyone surviving on less than $500 per year. But then, we pay for everything — rent, mortgage, food, utilities, insurance, medical care and so on — while many other people still live in communities where they own their lands, grow most of their food, and rely on extended families that provide child care, health care and education.

Does poverty therefore mean unemployed, malnourished, diseased and homeless people? If so, did more than half the world’s population really live in that state before the miracle of global trade? There’s at least some evidence that many people enjoyed better standards of nutrition, work and environment before the great European colonial period began.

One familiar example: The kanaka maoli of Hawaii in 1778 had no money, not a cent or a shilling. Yet James Cook described them as healthy, strong, full of vitality and incredibly productive. In fact, they were supplying the British with food. Now, after years of Western improvements, Hawaiians lead every other ancestral group here in homelessness and life below the poverty line.

In fact, poverty and out-migration rise with the gross domestic product and the value of land in Hawaii, as disparities in income and wealth continue to widen.

The working lower- and middle-classes are watching their economic fortunes fray in the face of the new globalism, and wondering just how bad it could get. Like the maka’ainana of the Hawaiian kingdom, or Native Americans, or citizens of once-wealthy African countries, will the vast majority of the working population become landless poor in just a few decades, while a few of them, and a larger number of affluent foreigners and settlers, became enormously wealthy?

But the lives of specific people aren’t part of the equation when commentators like Petri describe America’s goals for globalization, or for a Trans Pacific Partnership. Personal outcomes are irrelevant, since the truly important discussions will be between the very powerful and the less powerful economies of Pacific Rim nations. So avoiding a trade war with China is the only real concern, though perhaps a partnership might some day create a better trading climate in this part of the world. But is protecting American pharmaceuticals and farm products from Asian competition really our top national or regional priority? Who will actually benefit — aside from American pharmaceutical companies and the emerging giant agribusinesses?

Like so many macro pronouncements, Petri’s "column of analysis on major issues in the region" glosses over the fact that Hawaii, or any other specific place, is part of this region. As a result, we’re left with a very strong impression that we can really do little about our individual and collective economic futures. Current events speak otherwise. Are the calls for food sovereignty and security, the recent global protests by "99 percenters," and the growing antagonism toward institutions like APEC and TPP irrelevant to "who will rule?" Or is there a problem perhaps with the question itself?

When under economic siege in the 19th century, the maka’ainana were also dying of introduced diseases, and largely alienated from their own land. The current threats to Hawaii and elsewhere are directed toward populations that for the moment have more resources and venues for resistance. As APEC approaches, we hope to read at least a few articles that descend from the economic heavens and tell us specifically what might be at stake for us in these regional negotiations, so that we can make our own wishes and expectations known.

Jonathan K. Osorio is a Hawaiian Studies professor at the University of Hawaii-Manoa, and Craig Howes is a professor of English at UH-Manoa.