The Nation.



The New Bipartisan Capitalism

By Daniel Morris

July 31, 2007

Write a Web letter about this article.

What's a Web Letter?

Web Letters are continuously published e-mails from real people, signed with their real names. No registration is required. Each article page on The Nation includes a Web Letters link.

Read the best Web Letters on this page.

We're committed to publishing your comments as they are received. We place a red star () on the best submissions and may edit your e-mail for length or content. Your e-mail address will not be published or shared with any third party without your consent.

If you prefer, you may submit a letter to the print edition only.

We look forward to hearing from you.

  • Back when I was in college in the late sixties and early seventies, any favorable mention of "free trade" would have been viewed as pure idiocy. It still is idiocy. The purpose of "free trade" is to drive down wages, and reduce the standard of living for workers.

    America did not become an industrialized nation through "free trade" but under the protection of tariffs and the development of a self-sufficient internal market based on Alexander Hamilton's "Report on Manufactures" plan submitted to Congress in 1791. The "America System" and the works of Friedrich List are elaborations of Hamilton's plan. One of the more readable version is in a speech before Congress by William McKinley on "the Wood Tariff Bill on April 15, 1878," located in the book Speeches and Addresses of William McKinley, available on the web through Google Books. In those days Republicans were protectionists.

    I recall taking a course in the history of Brazil, and in one book for the course it was noted that Brazil experienced a brief burst of development when it was cut off from trade with Europe. I remember remarking in a exam that this was accidental proof of Hamilton's contention that trade barriers are essential to a nations's development. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. American history is the guide and proof.

    Pervis J. Casey

    Riverside, CA

    08/02/2007 @ 12:57pm


  • Galbraith's claim that "all reputable reference to our class structure emphasizes the middle, not the upper and lower, forcing these extremes into the background" is true in more than one sense. Not only do we generally ignore the extremes of wealth and poverty at the margins of the sprawling empire of the Middle Class, but when we do cast a glance beyond this empire's borders, we look through middle-class lenses. In other words, we imagine that the correlation between productivity and income, which seems strong in what we should probably call the lower middle class, operates among the poor and the rich as well. From this it follows that the poor, whose income proves that they lack merit, must be worthless, and that the rich, whose income proves that they are golden geese, must be godlike in their virtue.

    The view that so-called free trade is not only a good thing for world prosperity, but the only good thing, is another kind of "middle-class" view, since it includes only tradable goods in its scope, without considering where these goods come from and where they end up. As a result, natural resources are wasted, people are exploited and hazardous waste is exported. Diverting a portion of the fruits of trade to revitalize and maintain its roots, which are labor and the environment, is a necessary complement to any trade policy. Sadly, the authors of NAFTA and its descendants continue to fail to broaden their vision.

    A third kind of middle-class myopia is age-related. We see young, productive workers, now including women as well as men, but we do not see neglected children or that the ranks of the elderly are growing. The only popular proposal for remedying the graying of society--one widely discussed in Europe--is to encourage people of the presumably "productive" sort to have more children. This reveals the most dangerous blindness of all, the failure to see that economic growth of every kind cannot go on forever on planet Earth. Eventually, our global population must stabilize, and when it does, it will be grayer than any previous population and will require correspondingly more expenditure for old-age aliments.

    Even Marx, cornucopian as his assumptions often were, was unable to see global limits to growth. However, he was able to see economic injustice and was not satisfied with the cornucopian dismissal of all economic problems as temporary. Those of us who can see limits to growth should be more, not less, concerned about economic injustice, for we can see that the proposal "Let them eat growth" is not only cynical, but ultimately unworkable.

    Eric Paul Jacobsen

    Saint Paul, MN

    08/01/2007 @ 09:49am


Popular Topics
Most Searched

Issues »

Most Emailed

Issues »

Blogs

» The Notion

Palin Coward Clock Starts Ticking | Palin's refusal to take questions -- from the press or investigators -- tells us about her character.
Ari Melber

» The Beat

What McCain Needs to Tell Us About Sarah Palin | Interviewing the VP choice is important, but the real questions can only be answered by McCain.
John Nichols

» Campaign 08

Palin's Pastor: God Will Damn America | Sarah Palin's hometown pastor spins end-times scenarios of Russia, the mideast and gas wars that could spell trouble for the GOP's golden girl.
Max Blumenthal

» The Dreyfuss Report

McCain and The Forrestal | Back in '67, McCain did recognize the horror of war. But he chose horror.
Robert Dreyfuss

» Editor's Cut

Inside Palin's Politics | Watch me spar with Republican strategist Barbara Comstock over Sarah Palin--what she represents and where she would lead the country.
Katrina vanden Heuvel

» Capitolism

Community Organizers Fight Back | These people are not particularly practiced in taking things lying down.
Christopher Hayes

» ActNow!

Power Vote | New effort to build a green youth voter bloc of one million is growing.
Peter Rothberg

» And Another Thing

Sarah Palin, Wrong Woman for the Job | Seriously, people! Life is not a Lifetime movie.
Katha Pollitt