[PEN-L:30445] Re: Re: RE: RE: Bushist militarism

["Anthony D'Costa" <dcosta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It was free trade in that imports into India was liberalized, i.e.
tariffs removed.  Handspun coarse cotton cloth could not compete with
machine produced finer fabric.  However, exports taxes imposed on India's
exports ultimately did the industry in.  So Michael is correct it wasn't
free trade per se that led to industrial decline.  It was sheer British
imperialist policy.

Cheers, Anthony

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anthony P. D'Costa, Associate Professor
Comparative International Development
University of Washington			Campus Box 358436
1900 Commerce Street
Tacoma, WA 98402, USA

Phone: (253) 692-4462
Fax :  (253) 692-5718
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Michael Perelman wrote:

> Bill, as I understand it, Britain could not compete with India via free
> trade, but instead they rigged the game.  Anthony probably knows about
> that; or maybe Rakesh, the lurker, would like to jump in.
>
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 02:21:07PM +1200, Bill Rosenberg wrote:
> >
> > The strategy also includes a chapter called "Ignite a New Era of Global
> > Economic Growth through Free Markets and Free Trade", thus formally
> > uniting militarism with its trade and investment strategies.
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>