> >Is this a claim that Algerian standards of living would rise by 47%
>>if Algeria were to shut off all trade with the rest of the world, and
>>that standards of living in Zimbabwe would rise by 56% if Zimbabwe
>>were to shut off all trade with the rest of the world?
>
>The author himself writes in the tradition of the political economy of
>the _world system_, so he has no intention of making a case for state
>_capitalism_ or protectionism-- the model already followed by Algeria in
>the 60s, if that is what you have in mind as being anti-free trade. A
>country can perfectly be capitalist and protectionist without necessarily
>being socialist (ie., Keynesian class compromise you folks have here).
>
>In fact, the argument must be that (although I have not asked him, but
>which I will), the capitalist world system, that is the liberal
>internationalist economic order, dialectially reproduces _laissez faire
>liberalism_ and _state interventionism_ to protect the very structure of
>capitalism within the _same_ system. Liberalism is not used in the common
>American sense as the opposite of protectionism. To see these as opposites
>is obscurantist. For those societies in the periphery of the world system,
>national development was already part of an historical process of
>primitive accumulation to become part of an international division of
>labor charecteried by US internationalist strategy of expansionism and
>trade relations.
>
> >If not, then just what *are* all these numbers in the final column
>>supposed to be?
>
>they are supposed to show that capitalism is not the capitalism of free
>trade.
>
>Mine Doyran
>SUNY/Albany
So do you refuse to give answers to my questions?
Brad DeLong
