Reddit mentions of Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism

Considering that most of Asia, the US, Most of Europe got rich not through free trade, but through more protectionists measures:

Economist Ha-Joon Chang has a great book on this:

http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/B001P3OMQY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1300213479&sr=8-1

I mean, Japan subsidized Toyota and other auto companies and kept out the competition for decades until they were able to compete globally. Comparative advantage morons kept arguing that they should've let their auto industry fail and trade in what they had a comparative advantage in: silk. The thought of Japan still producing a low value product like silk today is kind of funny.

Industrial policy > Free Trade (you see that in China too, which, for some reason is used as some example of free trade victory)

I though the same way. Read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/B001P3OMQY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1299605090&sr=8-1

Now I really cannot make up my mind. More research should be done on the effects of free trade on emerging economies.

>You can't even argue the point.

I already refuted your point.

By your logic, German provinces and German cities and even German neighborhoods that banned capital export to other German provinces, cities, and neighborhoods should become prosperous. Your theory is saying that if banning capital export out of Germany benefits Germany, then individual provinces banning capital export to other German provinces should benefit each province, and each city banning capital export should benefit each city, and each neighborhood that banned capital export should benefit each neighborhood.

>South Korea, Japan, China, et all came to power (coming to power in China's case) through neo-mercantilist policies

No, they did not. That is just your, now increasingly apparent, religious like devotion to mercantalism.

South Korea, Japan, and China become prosperous DESPITE protectionist polices. If protectionism was the cause, then China would have prospered a lot sooner because they had more protectionism prior to the 1970s. But since the 1970s they have prospered precisely because they liberalized trade and dropped the protectionist barriers. That they still have protectionism is what has prevented them from growing even further.

According to your theory, and you have yet to respond to this:

It must also be the case then that German provinces and German cities and even German neighborhoods that banned capital export to other German provinces, cities, and neighborhoods should become more prosperous compared to trade liberalism. Your theory is saying that if banning capital export out of Germany benefits Germany, then individual provinces banning capital export to other German provinces should benefit the people of each province, and each city banning capital export should benefit the people of each city, and each neighborhood that banned capital export should benefit the people of each neighborhood. But clearly that is absurd, because that would force everyone to be self-sufficient farmers.

Your theory does not take into account the law of comparative advantage and the gains that can be had by all through trade specialization brought about by the free market.

Your conceptualization is flawed.

>As for the books i've read:
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/B001P3OMQY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1300217515&sr=8-1

That it?

>Ha-Joon Chang is a respected Cambridge economist. What are you?

Oh, ad hominem now. This is getting really fun.

>Now explain to me how Japan didn't destroy itself by subsidizing Toyota et al and implementing import quotas for decades.

The same reason why the US economy or the German economy hasn't collapsed because of governments subsidizing war or cotton or oil or anything. They succeeded DESPITE these destructive policies.

Subsidizing domestic producers rewards inefficient producers at the expense of efficient producers. It makes the subsidized producers less competitive over the long run.

>By your reasoning, they should have opened up trade fully.

They should have. That hasn't changed and it hasn't been refuted by history.

Listen, if all you have is "Well then, explain to me why...", then to be quite honest, you're coming off as rather pompous who is desperately trying to verify his worldview more than anything else.

I think I have exposed you as being wrong on protectionism time and time again in this thread. You have not responded to any argument I have made, and all you have is "well then explain to me why...".

It would help if you show an effort that you understand the criticisms made against you by myself and others here, but so far you have not shown any signal that you are even understanding those criticisms.

As of now, you're clearly uninformed, and by the looks of it, you read one single economics book from a single economist, and now you think you understand the world? However, in order to understand economics you have to read over a hundred books and spend years studying it. Reading one book is not going to do it, sorry. Come back when you read all the academic textbooks AGAINST anti-free trade policies.

You're somewhat of a demagogue who thinks a narrow, one dimensional exposure can substitute for sound economics knowledge.

Have you even considered the possibility that the author of that book you read made errors that others have already exposed, you just haven't read them?