Ideology (was Re: Profit and Loss

[Jane Sweet]

Mike Weaver wrote:
> 
> >Why does the author turn to the
> >famines that occurred around 1900 to make claims that free
> >trade is not good policy? Isn't it because free trade, trade
> >was higher in 1900 then it is today? Isn't it because
> >markets were more open then? If there was more trade then
> >why are we now talking about this new "globalization" thing.
> 
> Read the books, or at least browse them before you try arguing against
> them, else it looks like you are wriggling on the hook.

I have not argued against a book I have not read. I admit my
questions were 
rhetorical. However, my questions were replies to your posts
and  not the authors. It seems that when I  ask tough
questions about this (and of course I am being a bit of a
pain in the ass I know), I can't get a answer and/or I am
told, politely or with slick rhetorical devices, to shut
up--go ask Pynchon, debate the on-line author, read the book
first, save your breath....

Let me ask another: why is that the radical Left finds
itself in bed with radical right protectionists and
nationalists on this issue? My answer is very long and
complicated and I have only hinted at it thus far, but the
thrust of my argument is that the "Nation State" and the
rights citizens currently enjoy are not going to lost to
free trade. In fact, while nationalism will suffer, citizens
will enjoy greater freedom. 





> 
> >If Iraq and Cuba, to name but two
> >examples, were able to trade freely with the world and with
> >the USA life would better for all involved.
> 
> Dropping trade sanctions is not the same as promoting 'free trade', which
> is about the free flow of capital more than actual goods.


I agree. However, don't you think that it would be more
difficult for the USA to use trade sanctions if trade were
more global? I believe that the USA's dominance in parts of
the world is waning and will be weakened by increasing
global trade, including goods, services, financials, and
capital.