Harry Pollard: > However, Ed has reservations: > > ED : "What the "free market" does is violate the above defined, and > essential to democracy, previously defined "free economy". It allows the > integrity of a > free and sovereign state to be abrogated, and potentially allows it to > become the vassel of a corporately integrated free economy, comprised > exclusively of that corporation, since the "free" refers to the > corporation's shareholders and their wellbeing, not the wellbeing of the > society within the sovereign state."
Harry, I don't think I said this. You mustn't have the right Ed. It's not the kind of argument I would make. I favour free trade. My problem is that I don't see it happening. > Then, Ed, you should be ashamed of yourself. You performed a perfectly good > non-sequitur with: > > ED : "Large numbers of people were moved from Africa to the New World as > slaves. Forests were cleared and huge plantations established. Wars were > fought over access to trade. The process continues." My point here was not about free trade, but about how trade actually developed during the 16th to 19th centuries. > HARRY: You both must have forgotten 1846 and the repeal of the Corn Laws in > Britain. In the first part of the 19th century, people were falling in the > street from hunger. This led to the formation of the Anti-Corn Law league > to drop tariffs on corn from the US. > > The good guys won, cheap American corn flooded Britain, and it was possible > to eat again. They didn't stop there. All import restrictions were removed > in spite of heavy opposition from the Conservative Party - who favored > "Tariff Reform". I recall that the repeal of the Corn Laws was not really about good guys and bad guys, but rather about the growing power struggle between the landed classes and industrial capital. I believe it went something like this: The growth of industry in 18th and 19th century Britain required a huge labour force. People flocked to cities to work for subsistence wages. They needed food which, because of the Corn Laws, was provided by the landed classes at high prices protected by high tariffs. Industrial capital recognized that, without the Corn Laws, it could pay a subsistence wage lower than the current one. Ultimately, it won, Britain had access to cheaper American "corn", The poor did not really benefit because the wage fell to the new lower subsistence level. The reason the wage could be kept at the subsistence level was because of the "reserve army of the unemployed", as Marx put it -- i.e. there were far more people than jobs. The reason there were far more people than jobs is because people had been pressured to move out of rural areas and into the cities. I think that's the basic argument, though I'm a bit hazy on it and should look it up. The best source I can think of is Karl Polyani's "Great Transformation". > The 60 years from the repeal of the Corn Laws to the "war to end wars" was > called the Pax Britannica. During it, British ships sailed everywhere > peacefully spreading British ideas, culture, language, and no doubt fish > and chips. During this time anybody could sell anything to Britain without > restriction. Yes, that must have been a nice world. Regards, Ed Weick
