Re: FW: [PEN-L] On free trade Re: Query from a Venezuelan

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

Title: RE: [PEN-L] FW: [PEN-L] On free trade Re: Query from a Venezuelan

I wanted to add a point: back in the 19th century, Germany and the US were able to successfully use tariffs to promote national economic development. But part of this success was the relatively small technological gap between them and the market hegemon, England. With a little bit of help from tariffs, they were able to imitate England, catch up, and move ahead. But isn't the technological gap much larger nowadays? doesn't the whole intellectual property campaign aim to keep the tech gap as wide as possible, if not widen it?

In addition, we should remember that Germany's tariff-based development was one (perhaps minor) source of the inter-national rivalry that set up the conditions for World War I.

Jim

I wrote:
> >...
> >that's right. It's important to distinguish "free trade" in
> theory (the
> >general lowering of tariffs and quotas on imports and the
> end of export
> >subsidies) and what it usually means in practice (free
> movement of capital
> >but usually not labor, the imposition of US-style
> intellectual property
> >rights on the world, partial lowering of trade barriers
> (only by those
> >countries with less political-economic clout), etc.)
> >
> >For those who want a critique of "free trade" in theory, see ...

Bill:
> Not to be forgotten is what one might term the "historical" aspect of
> so-called free trade policies.  They tend to be pushed by powerful
> nations who have a history of fiercely protecting domestic industry
> until it can prevail in international markets.  England, Germany, and
> the U.S. are among many cases in point.  An older critique is, of
> course, Friedrich List, *The National System of Political Economy*,
> funded in part (if I remember correctly) by Pennsylvania steel
> interests.