>Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:23:20 -0500
>From: Enrique Diaz-Alvarez <enrique at ee.cornell.edu>
>
>Since Peter K. brought it up, here's my response to Tim Cavanaugh, and
>his reply; if my understanding of US economic history is dramatically
>wrong, I'd appreciate a corrective.
>
>Enrique
[snip ... stuff from T Cavanaugh follows]
>
>There's also some question about how insular
>the US economy was in the 19th century. The US
>was an importer of British industrial goods
>in the beginning of the century, and was an
>exporter of any number of raw materials (and
>was funded almost entirely by European
>financiers until late in the century).
>
I remember learning in school that the South favored low tariffs as an inducement to trade (cotton out, consumer goods in), while the North favored high tariffs as a protection for native industry. The South lost.
Does this sound right? If so, this might have something to say regarding the WTO apologist's liturgy of 'economic development'.
-david
PS: please CC any replies to me off-list, cause I must unsub tomorrow and don't want to miss anything.