[RealityNow]

Well read "Bad Samaritans" to see why the consensus amongst economists is wrong.

There isn't a single first world country that developed under free trade. The US and the UK were highly protectionist with steep tariffs, and it was only after they gained world dominance that they started opening their borders and demanding free trade from everyone else.

The economic "miracles" of Japan, Korea, and Taiwan were all highly protectionist, and their now world-renowned industries were heavily subsidized by the government over decades. Toyota took 30 years to make a profit and 60 years to become a dominant player in the auto industry. Had these countries adopted free trade policies, these industries never would have developed due to being unable to compete with foreign competitors, and Korea and Japan would still be third world countries exporting textiles and refined sugar.

The developing countries that did adopt free trade policies (at the behest of the IMF/World Bank/WTO) all grew slower than they did before those policies were in place. Latin America's growth rate since the 80s has been a third of what it was prior, in Africa's case I believe it went from like 1-2% to .2% (don't remember the exact numbers).

The analogy in Chapter 3 titled "My six-year-old son should get a job" is brilliant. If a child is told to get a job and fend for himself, then he'll likely end up working low-productivity dead-end minimum wage jobs for the rest of his life. However if he's able to focus on his studies, get parental support, go to university, maybe do research for a professor on the side - then this insulation from the free market via parental subsidies will pay off in the long run as the child will end up doing much greater higher productivity work. Similarly, developing countries need to invest in high productivity industries to develop.

Highly recommend the book, it's a quick read. I took the same Econ 101 classes where I was taught that free trade is unequivocally good. This book changed my mind, while also helping me realize that much of economics is completely divorced from reality. Even if you ideologically can't let go of the theory that free trade is good, history and the data clearly say otherwise.

[binarray2000]

The point you make about protectionism is a very good one. But it doesn't tell the whole story.

Isn't it interesting that in books about the economic development of the "first world" you never read about imperial politics? It boils down to how looting of other peoples resources and selling/keeping these people as slaves is the key reason for the riches in the "first world" (particularly its western part). And how protectionism came after (or in parallel, in later phases) to protect the looted. And how the West still does the looting of other peoples resources today and (thanks to that) keeps and grows its riches. And how the only thing that has changed is that it doesn't do the slave trade anymore, but how it still uses and profits greatly from the slave labour.

Maybe someone can recommend a book on this.

[gras]

What about science and technology? It seems to me like the Western world has always been more developed in those senses, even back in the time of the Romans.

It's also not like Westerners are the only people who ever had slaves; "intrarace" slave trade was and still is alive and well in Africa. It's just the logical step forward from slaughtering enemy tribes, it's humanitarian relative to the alternative.

I'm saying this because of the recent trend of white guilt, which I think is unproductive like any group-based guilt; in a way it's a tool of warfare, a psychological/social weapon and an excuse to persecute individuals for things they did not do themselves.

I'd also like to read more on this, I think I definitely could be better informed.

[binarray2000]

(1) I'll clarify myself: When I write about imperial politics, I mean the western oligarchy, not the people in the west. Yes, the people in the west have been made complicit in the crime of the oligarchy, but they are also (in a sense) a victim. For example: The oligarchy in England was not able to conquer India alone. Nor would they have risked their lives in the process. For that they have used the people. First they gave more money and power (military grades) to soldiers who would go to another side of the world and risk their lives to fight some foreigners who didn't pose any threat to their families or their country. After these soldiers have done their part, using the same scheme ("more money and power"), administrative officers were sent to administer the looted and to secure the power position of the oligarchy. Again, both groups (soldiers and administrators) were victims as well, risking their lives for a tiny bit of money and power compared to the profits and power gain of the oligarchy. And that pattern continues to be used today. Look for example at the testimonies of US soldiers who were in Iraq (on YouTube [1] [2] [3]). These guys are now physically and psychically sick from the war they were sent to wage for the US oligarchy and the system has no purpose for them (prior to them entering the service and now), but they are still humans with compassion.

(2) The argument about science and technology is a complex one. Yes, there were Romans but we don't know sources for their scientific and technological advancements. We do know that, after the Romans, the west fell behind burning books and "heretics", and that the Islamic world was leading in science and technology during that time. We also know that when the west (the western oligarchy) came back with trade, it was followed by the imperial politics. And that continues to exist today as well. Look at the USA: It has made a system where it offers free information on US universities in their embassies. Then the young bright people, many from countries the US oligarchy has destroyed economically, so see no future in them and they come and study in the US. Later, in universities, research facilities and companies (as employees and [co]founders) they become (known) sources for scientific and technological advancements in the US. By doing that, he US is robbing already robbed countries: (a) of their future elite that would build a home country again; (b) their home countries have paid for their pre-tertiary education. And other western countries (oligarchies) do the same.

(3) Considering what I wrote under (1), it were not all "Westerners" but the western oligarchy who was the driver of the slave trade. Also, even thou there was (and still is) slave trade in Africa, the sheer scale, brutality and profit extraction out of slaves by the western oligarchy is not comparable with "intrarace" slave trade.

(4) Yes, white guilt is wrong. You are right that it is a tool of warfare, a warfare between poor people in the west and poor people in other countries, staged by the western oligarchy. No rich people fight in a war, not in the past, not now. And you are right that it is "a psychological/social weapon and an excuse to persecute individuals for things they did not do themselves". There is only the guilt of the oligarchy. If (and only if) the people in the western world say no to being peons in this game their oligarchy plays with their and the lives of other people, then they would do more for the peace in the world than all UN programs for the "third world".

[1] https://youtu.be/gdn3bIfP7fk

[2] https://youtu.be/VwwMF6biCJU

[3] https://youtu.be/SOqPBC3ZMn8

[lackbeard]

I think Japan is actually a counterpoint to your argument. Post WW2 was not when it became a first-world economy. I'm pretty sure that when it first industrialized in the late 19th century, it did so under free-trade. (Its government wanted protectionist economic policies but the British forced free-trade on them!)