I'm using Greider's ONE WORLD, READY OR NOT in an interdisciplinary freshman seminar. This is my first reading of the book--so far I generally like it, with reservations. One question I have concerns Greider's take on the existing international trade regime. In chapter 7 he argues that the world trading system does not function in reality the way it is ususally described. In general, he says, trade flows are not market-driven but politically managed. He seems to lean heavily on Lawrence Krause, an IR prof at UCSD, who claims that more than half of all trade is managed in one form or another. In the Greider-Krause world, countries (E. Asia, Australia, the US, and Europe) barter market access for investment, local content, and countertrade quids (?) pro quo. This in turn is said to be responsible for a portion of the excess capacity in global markets, since these political deals are less responsive to demand constraints than purely market-driven decisions would be--although Greider makes it clear he believes demand problems are endemic to capitalism. My question is, how justified is Greider's view of managed trade in the existing system? Is it a small piece of the total or a large, even determining piece? Is the WTO just a sham, as he claims it is? Who else has written on this topic? By the way, in case anyone is interested, I have produced a short (2 page) handout to explain Greider's position on oversupply--basically a very simplified rendering of standard post-keynesianism. It is written for students with little economics background, but it assumes loose familiarity with supply and demand diagrams. Since it uses a graphic it can't be included in e-mail but must be sent as an attachment. It's formatted in WordPerfect 8.0. If anyone wants it, they can e-mail me (not the list!) and I'll pass it along. Peter Dorman
