<a href=http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/20080124_chalmers_johnson_on_the_myth_of_free_trade/> http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/20080124_chalmers_johnson_on_the_myth_of_free_trade/ </a>
This looks like a great book, and something I've been looking for, so I've ordered it, along with another book I've discovered with the same thesis: "How Rich Countries Got Rich ... And Why Poor Countries Got Poor" by Erik Reinert.
Chomsky often makes the same point about "Free Trade" and the entire neoliberal package that comes with it. (Actually, this is only one of several different points Chomsky makes, not usually at the same time, but I think this is the best one.) The poor countries that ignored the "free trade" advice and imposed high tariffs on manufactured goods got industrialized and got rich. "The Asian Tigers" such as Japan, Korea, and China are good examples. In Korea, the average income rose from $82 per person in 1961 to $13,980 in 2004. Meanwhile, poor countries that followed the Free Trade advice, sometimes nearly to the letter (because they had to), ended up even poorer than before. Much of Africa and Latin America are in that category, or were until recently.
Little did I realize that the same applied to the current wealthiest countries as well, such as the US and Britain. While preaching the virtues of free trade to its colonies, which seemed to make them even poorer, imperial Britain itself imposed high tariffs on manufactured imports. This system worked well for Britain, it appears. And few countries came close to the high tariffs on manufactured imports levied by the US during the 19th century when it first became an industrial powerhouse. The high tariffs weren't dropped in either case until after WWII.
It wasn't until the 1970's that the US started forcing free trade rules on other coutries (through the IMF and World Bank). In review (and maybe in the book) Chalmers Johnson says that was because of fear other countries were catching up too fast.
I wonder if there isn't more to it than that. I think it was also a way of undercutting US labor in manufacturing, which was far more unionized (and readily unionizable) than in service sectors, and even the US minimum wage, which is pitiful, but still provides better income than manufacturing wages in poorer countries, such as Mexico and China. So "free trade" was a way of undercutting unions and the minimum wage and other labor and environmental standards. (I think there ought to be tariffs to compensate for wage differentials, or at least to the minum wage.)
And I wonder if the we have yet to see how this works out in the end. With the US manufacturing base in relative decline, what is the US living on any more? A cynical friend says we are living on the interest of the debt we owe. (Like Chinese Banks investing their money through Wall Street.) That's probably not sustainable. And other things we rely heavily on are "intellectual properties." Those are sustained by international agreements (not treaties, actually, NAFTA for example is an "Congressional-Executive Agreement" which could be superceded by subsequent statutory law). The reliance on such government-granted monopolies is contrary to Classical Liberalism and one reason why the current version is called "neoliberalism." And, the projection of military and clandestine power (an idea I don't like, but there it is). Even someone without my biases would have to see that's not working quite as well as it used to. Howard Zinn wrote a book on how war can't work anymore, which I'd like to believe. And subsidized agriculture, and who knows where that is going in the US in the next 100 years. Even if our heartland doesn't become desert by then, agriculture hardly seems the one solid product, that doesn't blow up, to base the economy of the richest nation on.
Charles Peterson San Antonio, TX
____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs