Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Tom Friedman's Folly: The Lies Behind 'Free Trade'

By Chalmers Johnson, Truthdig. Posted February 5, 2008.


A new book on disastrous trade policies makes it clear that it's time to dismantle the barriers that keep so much of the world so poor.
badsamcover182

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Chalmers Johnson

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Ha-Joon Chang is a Cambridge economist who specializes in the abject poverty of the Third World and its people, groups, nations, and empires, and their doctrines that are responsible for this condition. He won the Gunnar Myrdal Prize for his book "Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective" (2002), and he shared the 2005 Wassily Leontief Prize for his contributions to "Rethinking Development in the 21st Century." The title of his 2002 book comes from the German political economist Friedrich List, who in 1841 criticized Britain for preaching free trade to other countries while having achieved its own economic supremacy through high tariffs and extensive subsidies. He accused the British of "kicking away the ladder" that they had climbed to reach the world's top economic position. Chang's other, more technical books include "The Political Economy of Industrial Policy" (1994) and "Reclaiming Development: An Economic Policy Handbook for Activists and Policymakers" (2004).

His new book is a discursive, well-written account of what he calls the "Bad Samaritan," "people in the rich countries who preach free markets and free trade to the poor countries in order to capture larger shares of the latter's markets and preempt the emergence of possible competitors. They are saying 'do as we say, not as we did' and act as Bad Samaritans, taking advantage of others who are in trouble." Bad Samaritans is intended for a literate audience of generalists and eschews the sort of exotica that peppers most economic writing these days -- there is not a single simultaneous equation in the book and many of Chang's examples are taken from his own experiences as a South Korean born in 1963.

Ha-Joon Chang's life is conterminous with his country's advance from being one of the poorest on Earth -- with a 1961 yearly income of $82 per person, less than half the $179 per capital income in Ghana at that time -- to the manufacturing powerhouse of today, with a 2004 per capita income of $13,980. South Korea did not get there by following the advice of the Bad Samaritans. Chang's prologue contains a wonderful account of how post-Korean War trade restrictions and governmental supervision fostered such projects as POSCO (Pohang Iron and Steel Co.), which began life as a state-owned enterprise that was refused support from the World Bank in a country without any iron ore or coking coal and with a prohibition on trade with China. Now privatized, POSCO is the world's third largest steel company. This was also the period in which Samsung subsidized its infant electronics subsidiaries for over a decade with money made in textiles and sugar refining. Today Samsung dominates flat-panel TVs and cell phones in much of East Asia and the world.

Chang remembers quite clearly that as a student "We learned that it was our patriotic duty to report anyone seen smoking foreign cigarettes. The country needed to use every bit of foreign exchange earned from its exports in order to import machines and other inputs to develop better industries." He is frankly contemptuous of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman's best-seller The Lexus and the Olive Tree (2000) and its argument that Toyota's Lexus automobile represents the rich world brought about by neoliberal economics whereas the olive tree stands for the static world of no or low economic growth. The fact is that had the Japanese government followed the free-trade economists back in the early 1960s, there would have been no Lexus. Toyota today would be, at best, a junior partner to some Western car manufacturer or, worse, have been wiped out.

In Chang's conception, there are two kinds of Bad Samaritans. There are the genuine, powerful "ladder-kickers" working in the "unholy trinity" of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Then there are the "ideologues -- those who believe in Bad Samaritan policies because they think those policies are 'right,' not because they personally benefit from them much, if at all." Both groups adhere to a doctrine they call "neoliberalism." It became the dominant economic model of the English-speaking world in the 1970s and prevails at the present time. Neoliberalism (sometimes called the "Washington Consensus") is a rerun of what economists suffering from "historical amnesia" believe were the key characteristics of the international economy in the golden age of liberalism (1870-1913).

Thomas Friedman calls this complex of policies the "Golden Straitjacket," the wearing of which, no matter how uncomfortable, is allegedly the only route to economic success. The complex includes privatizing state-owned enterprises, maintaining low inflation, shrinking the size of the state bureaucracy, balancing the national budget, liberalizing trade, deregulating foreign investment, making the currency freely convertible, reducing corruption, and privatizing pensions. It is called neoliberalism because of its acceptance of rich-country monopolies over intellectual property rights (patents, copyrights, etc.), the granting to a country's central bank of a monopoly to issue bank notes, and its assertion that political democracy is conducive to economic growth, none of which were parts of classical liberalism. The Golden Straitjacket is what the unholy trinity tries to force on poor countries. It is the doctrinal orthodoxy taught in all mainstream academic economics departments and for which numerous Nobel prizes in economics have been awarded.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: chalmers johnson, bad samaritans, ha-joon chang, free trade

Chalmers Johnson, president of the Japan Policy Research Institute and professor emeritus at the University of California, San Diego, is the author of numerous books, including "Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire," "The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic," and "Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
A Brilliant Rebuttal of Thomas Friedman
Posted by: mmckinl on Feb 5, 2008 2:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Indeed the countries that are the real economic success stories have practiced mercantilism not the neoliberal policies that we have been proseletising to undeveloped and underdeveloped countries for over 30 years now.

Unfortunately we have believed our own press and have been incorporating the neoliberal model into our own economy now for 35 years and our trade deficit has basically accelerated during this whole period. "The trade deficit rose throughout the 1970s, from $1 billion in 1971 to $24 billion in 1979, the exact opposite direction of what those advocating devaluation as a “cure” would predict today. The dollar rose throughout the 1980s, and the trade deficit’s rise continued from $19 billion in 1980 to $93 billion in 1989. Between 1996 and 2001 (years of impressive dollar strength) the trade deficit rose 250 percent, but it has also risen to record levels during the last 2 years of relative dollar weakness."

Our Military Industrial, petro-dollar dollar economy using ever more neoliberal economics with an ever falling corporate and income tax rate has left us deeply in debt and lacking enough exportable goods and services to compete.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Listen to the snake oil salesman Posted by: Iconoclast421
Not just paternalist "Aid".
Posted by: Squarehead on Feb 5, 2008 2:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is great stuff.

But I wish to support the implied argument that poorer nations need support in trading policy; not just paternalist "Aid". In fact, I think aid and the aid-givers are probably a nett loss to any poorer nation.

What works is a free trade, wherein the poorer party has open access to the rich country market, but can be allowed to have a certain protectionism of it's internal market.

Of course the writers above are pointing this out, I just want to give my 2 pennies of support.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We subsidize the hell out of our farmers too
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Feb 5, 2008 3:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not just the corn mentioned in the article, but dairy, sugar, cotton etc. Most of that loot goes to corporate factory farmers. The programs stay in place because of political support from agricultural states - underrepresented in population but overrepresented in legislatures.

Even though "family farmers" only get a percentage of the income, the corporations use them and their political clout amazingly well - ripping us all off - every April 15, and every time we go to the supermarket.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Amen!
Posted by: profmarcus on Feb 5, 2008 3:54 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i spend a great deal of time outside the united states... i have worked on economic development projects in so-called "emerging economies," principally in former socialist countries, i reside part-time in argentina, i have traveled extensively throughout latin america, eastern and southeastern europe, and i have seen first-hand the devastation wreaked by neoliberal, world bank and imf policies... following those policies, it is virtually impossible for a country's producers and manufacturers to prosper... how could they when transnational corporations flood the national markets with goods and services, establish a country-wide presence, and operate with an economy of scale that home-grown businesses find it impossible to match...

every time i go to shop, i always look at the fine-print on the labels of the items i purchase because i want to see what corporation is behind the product... 9 times out of ten it is a transnational corporation, unilever, nestle, proctor and gamble, pepsico, coca cola, danone, bayer, etc., etc... sure, if the country is a big enough market, those corporations may license local companies to produce their products in-country which is at least somewhat better than importing everything, but the money still largely flows out of the country... and, if the market is small - macedonia, for instance - most brand-name products on store shelves are 100% imported...

anyone who espouses free trade and neoliberal economic policies is either grossly ignorant of the realities those policies have created in the developing world or committed to serving his or her own economic interests at the expense of others...

And, yes, I DO take it personally

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Amen! to Amen! Posted by: harryf200
We were never good samaritans
Posted by: stopimperialism on Feb 5, 2008 4:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although I want Thomas Friedman's expertise discredited as much as the next person, I have to take issue with this bizarre assertion in an otherwise well-reasoned, important essay about what seems like an otherwise well-reasoned, important book:

"Throughout the golden age of capitalism, from the Marshall Plan (1947) to the first oil shock (1973), the United States was a Good Samaritan and helped developing countries by allowing them to protect and subsidize their nascent industries. The developing world has never done better, before or since."

Um... you mean Iran? Guatemala? The Congo? The Dominican Republic? Indonesia? Chile? Vietnam?

The United States "helped" these lucky countries by covertly or overtly (and except in the last case, successfully) overthrowing governments that were actually responsive to their people and sponsoring new governments responsive only to U.S. economic interests. Another "conundrum encountered in trying to argue that corruption has subverted neoliberalism" is that Mobutu and Suharto were not only preferred, but INSTALLED by the U.S. government, against the wishes of their people. The stunning, horrific achievements of the neoliberal era were not a break from the "golden age of capitalism;" rather, they were made possible by its military successes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We were never good samaritans Posted by: Ipsi Dixit
jmndodge
Posted by: jmndodge on Feb 5, 2008 5:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This problem greatly intensified under the Clinton administration. The effects esculated under Bush 43, and whoever, becomces our next president will deal with the reality that we have now created multi-national corporations who are kicking the ladder out from under all the nations. Americans are rapidaly loosing the vast middle class, with a small number jumping quickly into the super-rich, while multitudes slip further into the poverty of the lower class. Here involvment with the legal system, (drugs, divorce, debt) loss of good jobs, breakdown of family and connection with land, creates problems which take generations to address. I'm not sure the Obama isn't a part of this disaster, but I know the the Republican canidates, and Clinton are basic proponents of the problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» blame Clinton ? Posted by: zipper696
» and appropriate Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: and appropriate Posted by: Shey
It's passed time
Posted by: oxheadone on Feb 5, 2008 5:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for the public to understand that economic development is special in time and place. BUT. The basic lessons from the history of the US remain: protection of new industry, defaulting on foreign loans, and a legal system supporting private property. Greed does not have to be taught, but thievery, especially governmental thievery, has to be minimized.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

JT Barrie
Posted by: rimchamp77 on Feb 5, 2008 5:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thomas Friedman's "conservative" colleague Bill Safire put it best when he wrote: "It's all about protectionism for the big guys and free markets for everyone else". That's why we have a bloated military budget: to lay the hammer down on apostate countries that threaten our access to cheap slave wage labor pools and unfettered [environmental and health safeguards?] access to cheap natural resources.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Question
Posted by: using on Feb 5, 2008 6:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well the Bad Samaritan has not only spun the tale that hurt developing country's infant industries -- Look what they have done to our industries and workers.

Doesn't it seem probable: that If we continue on this way we will no longer have to worry about fairness of competition between weaker and stronger countries, because they will plunge the whole world into a new dark age controlled by few corporate powers?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: That is their ultimate goal. Posted by: nightgaunt
There is no such thing as "free" trade.
Posted by: maxpayne on Feb 5, 2008 6:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like those fake "democracies" FRIEDman lies about, it's the same with trade. It's all rigged for the monied/warmonger/fundie elites.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Free trade sux for everyone........
Posted by: Smiggsy on Feb 5, 2008 7:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Life in Australia was, much like the USA & everywhere else: a much better place before the distorted economics of global free trade. Just today it was announced that one of our large car manufacturing plants is shutting down due to the effects of global 'free trade'.

What shits me is that its not just for the benefit of consumer wares. I mean how is a cheap TV or shirt going to help the economy. I buy these things so rarely it doesn't matter about slight tariffs or the effect on the national economy.

Now my everyday shopping items like food are effected: toothpaste, shampoo, canned & frozen foods, drinks & most any consumables are imported from far away countries which have corrupt governments, lower farming standards & higher pollution than my own. Do our governments test these foods for chemical & pollution abuses? No - they cannot even guarantee lead free paint in chinese toys. What about the low paid wages that made it? What about the future impact of soaring transport & energy costs? The whole global free trade system is completely retarded.

Now I ALWAYS check the package label of food to make sure I know where my goods come from. I try to buy only locally made items, but I still don't trust them (the corporations) completely.

BTW those 'fresh' oranges grown in the USA taste like crap after the 13,000km journey & most likely they are probably GM bullshit too.

THINK GLOBAL - BUY LOCAL!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Free trade, free markets, and the tooth fairy
Posted by: Canute on Feb 5, 2008 8:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Johnson and Chang point out something important that should be staggeringly obvious. I guess that decades of propaganda and an etch-a-sketch political memory have done the trick on Americans.

One key thing to understand when discussing the issue with "free trade" advocates is that the expressions "free market" and "free trade" are oxymorons, by definition self contradictory. A market is a defined place or system that enables the transaction of business. It is intrinsically un-free. Read more here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Bottom Line
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 5, 2008 11:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The 'Free Market' champions do not like free markets. They champion economic darwinism for consumers and crony capitalism for themselves. They seek protection of their property and unrestricted and subsidized access to the commons. It's subsidy for the wealthy and economic slavery for everyone else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Bottom Line Posted by: Shey
Free trade and the World Bank in Africa gives you Chad and Sudan
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 5, 2008 11:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Brief history of events:

Post-colonial, post-WWII Sudan was a touchy place that no one was much interested in. The tribes in the south were culturally and ethnically distinct from those in the north, and the solution was a regional autonomy agreement for the south, signed in 1973.

Enter Chevron:

"Chevron was granted its oil concession in 1974, shortly after the agreement on southern autonomy ended the separatist war in the south. Chevron discovered oil in this autonomous region in 1978, and by the time a second civil war broke out in the south in 1983 was developing Unity and Heglig oilfields. . . these oilfields were home to the Nuer and Dinka, members of the two largest ethnic groups in southern Sudan."

The rest follows - struggle for control of oil, ethnic cleansing, and civil warfare for the past 25 years.

In the 1990s, the World Bank finances a $4 billion pipeline from the west coast of Africa to Chad, Sudan's western neighbor - a project which is supposed to bring peace and prosperity to the region. It's also easy to imagine this pipeline being extended into southern Sudan.

So, on one side you have the U.S., Exxon, Chevron and the World Bank, and on the other is China. Caught in between are Sudan and Chad - both of whom might be better off without oil.

Rebels are now fighting in Chad's capital city. Ethnic cleansing is ongoing in Sudan, and Chad's president supports the southern Sudanese rebels. Here's a headline from today: Darfur rebels say they fighting Sudan troops in Chad, Tue 5 Feb 2008, Reuters.

That's how the neoliberal economic agenda tends to work out in practice. The wealth received from resource extraction is usually funneled to dictator's private armies and slush funds, not to infrastructure. In fact, it seems to make Washington very nervous whenever these countries do invest in their own railroads and factories (recall the U.S. missile assault on Sudan's pharmaceutical factory in the late 1990s?).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Neoliberalism Ring
Posted by: Ardie on Feb 5, 2008 12:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Much of what J.R.R. Tolkien writes in The Lord of the Rings stems from his childhood experiences and his adult experiences in the Great War. He took the impression 19th century neoliberalism (laissez faire) of which he was under, and turned it into a mythic struggle between the forces of enlightened humanism and those of fell nihilistic power.

Ha-Joon Chang has provided only more proof that neoliberalism is a theoretical fantasy (general equilibrium theory was refuted around the 70s) and a nightmare when implemented. Tom Friedman has some work to do to prove empirically that neoliberalism works instead of glossing over the carnage, pointing to another one of his castle's in the sky.

Further proof of Ha-Joon Chang economic empiricism will be the recession which will affect the middle-class who in their usual state of blindness will beg for more neoliberalism, being bound by the Ring.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More Thomas Friedman critiques
Posted by: fanny666 on Feb 5, 2008 2:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From Noam Chomsky: Thomas Friedman on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (long but well worth reading)

From Norman Solomon: Thomas Friedman on war (hint: he likes it)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The "Miami Model," Shutting Down All Rights of the People to Protest
Posted by: sofla100 on Feb 5, 2008 2:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Quito, Seattle, Miami, when you try to protest "free trade," the establishment response is massive and sustained attacks against the protesters. Here, in Miami, the police response led to the infamous term "the Miami Model." This came out of 2003, when thousands of protesters systematically had their rights violated by being imprisoned, brutally attacked by the police, and their right to protest completely shut-down. It was a time when Joe Stalin would have been proud. From the 2003 "meetings" we now have the FTAA, and the only ones benefiting are a few corporate honchos, and those who know how to exploit the situation. The FTAA has helped drive down the prices paid to the poor farmers in South and Latin America and led to greater poverty and exploitation of the indigenous peoples of the South. However, for the wealthy few who benefit, its all about shutting down any protest. And, for those who will not accept this fiasco, the police and authorities are called upon to ram it down their throats.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Neoliberalism
Posted by: Falang on Feb 5, 2008 2:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was true in the past and still true today: Not everyone who gets you out of shit is your friend.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

edgeofnowhere
Posted by: edgeofnowhere on Feb 5, 2008 6:10 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To get to the crux of WHY "free trade" has been so vociferously promoted, please read Naomi Klein's THE SHOCK DOCTRINE. It is a chilling expose of US policy. We ARE the terrorists!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fascism Under Any Name Smells the Same
Posted by: Mister_PsyOps on Feb 5, 2008 8:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And it isn't sweet.

Not unless you're at the top feeding the underclass worthless fiat money and propaganda that keep people believing "capitalism" and "democracy" actually exist. And of course, they don't except as empty slogans pulled out every selection (hardly "election") cycle when bogus corporate monopoly candidates blow hot smoke about "change" and how America will be wonderful again under the rule of the same blood money sham.

This is the true folly authors at the mainstream dare not address.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OK Alterneters here goes. The FED's inflation targeting strategy has meant negative real M1 growth
Posted by: yellow on Feb 6, 2008 11:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The inflation rate is not due to the money supply growth. Money supply growth has not exceeded the rate of output and imports in the US domestic economy over the past decade. Inflation stems from corporate monopoly pricing power and gouging. The rest comes from military spending. Were it not for these exogenous factors the rate of inflation would probably be about 2% annually. OK?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» JUNK-O-NOMICS deluxe Posted by: OrwellMan
» More JUNK-O-NOMICS deluxe Posted by: OrwellMan
» JUNK-O-NOMICS trick-a-thon Posted by: OrwellMan
I Disagree, and cite The Principal Example of Free Trade in the World
Posted by: wmichaeltrout on Feb 6, 2008 7:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The United States. The sum total of the economies of the fifty states constitutes the largest most robust economy in the world, in a system which constitutionally prohibits any interference with (legal) interstate trade (thus, free trade).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Friedmanian Slip
Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com on Feb 7, 2008 11:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kudos to Prof. Chang for his stellar analytical portrayal of economic thought. One often wonders how the world became the way it is today.
I never knew that the Philippines once had a thriving economy; now it's been reduced to a practical "plantation" economy.
Rich nations acquired its wealth through a myriad of trade alliances, pacts, patents, etc. and much hasn't changed since the Industrial Revolution. The world wasn't divided into an "Developed" world and a "Third" World.
It seems the chasm gets bigger each year. How can poor nations survive without their economies ravaged by corporations and unfair trade agreements?
And writers like Friedman make things worse by trumpeting dangerous ideals for the world's poor. This is not one of his better moments; rather, a slip of poor judgment on a massive scale.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Procouncing The Criminal Economy
Posted by: bjluchion on Feb 7, 2008 2:02 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pronouncing The Criminal Economy
Economist Ha-Joon Chang and writers like Chalmers Johnson,and the rest of the academy, are failing to pronoune the "economy" a criminal process, which it actually is.

The western exchange system has been a criminal enterprise from its inception, this fact is attested in recorded history. So why are we afraid to call it like it is. We listen to professors, congress, parliament, news reporters, minsters, and girl scouts--speak in "dignified" tones of "The Economy"...as if there is dignity in greatest criminality on the planet; if truth be known, there is nothing good in the entire rotten ugly mess known as 'the economy.'

It was the criminal economy that stole Africans into the Atlantic slave trade. Selfsame for the Greek and Roman slave trade.

It was the criminal economy of Hitler's Germany that murdered People. Selfsame for every war economy. It is the criminal economy which is the real focus of Prof Ha-Joon book "Kicking Away the Ladder"--that is stealing the developing world of its resources and causing abject poverty. And it is the criminal economy which violates me and you, everyday--in the American business arena...I rest my case.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]