Any books that dismantle the pressumptions of free trade?

[RadioRaheem84]

Are there any books that take on the philosophical assumptions of neo-liberal or libertarian ideology? Are there any critiques out there that dismantle libertarian philosophy, such as why their views are wrong?

[JimmyJazz]

For international free trade there is Bad Samaritans (http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596913991/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219636733&sr=1-1) by Ha-Joon Chang.

[trivas7]

David Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism (http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219639320&sr=8-1) is very effective in showing how and what transpired in global markets as the result of implementing neo-liberal policies brought to fruitition under Reagan and Thatcher in the 80's.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Free trade isn't necessarily bad per se, but neoliberalism is a forceful measure which does injustice to the word "free."

[Wake Up]

Free trade is an oxymoron.

Free trade encourages competition therefore leading to winners and loosers.

Imagine a motor race where all the drivers start with a clapped out Ford focus. The winner gets a better car to race next time. Obviously the original winner is much more likely to win the next race and so it continues until the winner is driving a formula 1 car against the other competitors ford focus's

[Anarch_Mesa]

Free trade is an oxymoron.


Would you care to explain a way were there could be a form of free trade that would not encourage compitition. It's not an oxymoron it is wait it claims (Mostly), though the problem lies within the individuals themselves. The corruption that a system of this type leads to is the problem. When a single minded person thinks of free trade it seems to be a sensible thing, but when you throw people into the situation, things get shaky.



Free trade isn't necessarily bad per se, but neoliberalism is a forceful measure which does injustice to the word "free."

I second this opinion.

[Wake Up]

Would you care to explain a way were there could be a form of free trade that would not encourage compitition. It's not an oxymoron it is wait it claims (Mostly), though the problem lies within the individuals themselves. The corruption that a system of this type leads to is the problem. When a single minded person thinks of free trade it seems to be a sensible thing, but when you throw people into the situation, things get shaky.


All I was saying is that it cannot exist. And did you not read the rest of my post, I clearly said that free trade creates competition and therefore making it 'un-free'

Free- Something for nothing (In the case of bartering)
Trade - (something for something)

Clearly a confliction their.


p.s. I do realize that the free in free trade refers to the lack of taxation and restrictions.

[JimmyJazz]

Free trade isn't necessarily bad per se, but neoliberalism is a forceful measure which does injustice to the word "free."

But basically it is. The only way for the undeveloped countries to develop their own manufacturing industries--say, of automobiles--is for them to protect their domestic automobile industries. Once someone has grown big enough that they are producing for the entire domestic market, then they can attempt to compete on the world market and at least have a fighting chance. Free trade as it exists doesn't allow undeveloped countries to impose tariffs on the things they need to tariff in order to develop, so it sustains their dependence on the West.

I suppose that, theoretically, you could allow them to tariff industries and compete globally on the agriculture market (which many undeveloped countries can already do without a problem), but I think this would be considered "fair" trade, not "free" trade, by most people. The whole point of enforcing so-called free trade as a term of development loans is to actually prevent said "development" from taking place, to increase third world dependence on Western capital, and to turn all development aid money into an indirect subsidy by Western governments of Western corporations.

Anyway, this is the rough argument made by the three books I recommended in my earlier post.