Protectionism has nothing to do with economic imperialism. It has to do with organizing an internal, independent, national market which is controlled by and for the people of that country. Economic Imperialism occurs when a developed state enters into a "free trade" relationship with a less developed state and buries that state with cheap products that prevent independent economic development. Foreign control of the economy puts the less developed state under the control of the developed state. Economic independence and the control of the country for the people requires protectionism.

The purpose of universal "free trade" is to eliminate all economic controls and make everybody wage slaves. Read Alexander Hamilton's "Report on Manufactures"! His national development plan for America made us a world power. You people don't know your own history!

Pervis J. Casey

Riverside, CA

The Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate our side of currency exchange. If our Congress insists on giving an advantageous gradient to Chinese Labor and Professional services this is our own fault.

As it is, our nation's proven protectionist past was a providential miracle. Today we need even stronger protectionism, as it is much easier to transport goods and services than in the past.

America has squandered its lead in both prosperity and technology; we've liquidated this lead to subsidize and underwrite suburban sprawl, TV addiction, and oil addiction.

The current globalism craze is justified by stalwarts in that it will allow the rest of the world to live "like us." It isn't physically possible for the rest of the world to consume as much energy as we do, and we can't all invade Iraq at once either. If we make Iraq our 51st State, they would simply be invading "America."

Ryan Costa

Cleveland, OH

Ever since I first started hearing about "globalization," I have thought that a method of indexing labor cost would be required.

It has always seemed obvious to me, that the workers of the world should receive comparable pay for comparable work, regardless of the country they lived in. For example, a backhoe operator in China would receive indexed compensation equal to what a backhoe operator in the US would receive.

As a result, when either worker goes to the store to buy a carton of milk, he would have worked the same amount of time to pay for it. By including a labor indexing table in all trade agreements, the/a major motivation for companies to scour the world for cheaper labor costs would dissolve. Removing the cost of labor issue would force companies to make their decisions for relocation on other criteria.

Of course, there are also other matters still to be taken into consideration; such as employee safety/health, pension/retirement plans, environmental impact expenses, political involvement, taxes, etc. These would need to be addressed in all trade agreements, in order to make them equitable to all of the parties involved.

Terry Sneller

Petaluma, CA

My initial reaction to this article is anger at a man who spent his career finding ways for IBM to reduce costs by offshoring jobs. Now all of a sudden he realizes it was maybe not the best thing to do? Where were those little stabs at his gut when IBM was paying him the bucks? Probably not very hard to bury those little doubts when your paycheck depends on it.

Working in the financial services industry, I see firsthand the exodus of any non-client interaction positions to India. Anything that is done via computer and network connection is a possible job export opportunity.

All the wrangling in Washington isn't going to stop the exodus, and certainly will do nothing to bring positions back. The only thing that a corporation will listen to is the shareholder--usually in the form of a vocal hedge-fund manager. (See recent news for ABN AMRO or Citigroup) If a major shareholder wants you to reduce costs by sending another 3000 jobs to India, that's what will be done.

The only thing we can do as citizens is to choose wisely how we spend our money, and who we choose to provide our services. Don't want to call India for tech support? Lose the 800 number and look up a local provider in the phone book. Don't want to support a multinational bank that has recently moved another 5000 jobs offshore? Pick a local bank or credit union, and ask where they have their back-office work done.

The bottom line is it will take a little effort, and cost a little more. The benefit? Your neighbor may keep his/her job. Someone will be making a living wage for their toils.

It's nice to hear some remorse and effort from Gomory, but let's face it. Too little too late.

Bob Lewis

Evergreen Park, IL

This article is ridiculous. I am by no means an expert in economics, but I am studying economics in the university and even with my limited knowledge I can see the flaws in this "expert's" arguments. What I find comical is that everyone I talk to about globalization that has a background in the subject point to the trend of the rich becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer (which has happened as the borders have opened up more). Now this article in contrast suggests the opposite, that by having a more open economy we will put ourselves on equal playing ground with all the poor countries, which will lead to a lowered US GDP/capita, and a greater GDP/capita for poorer countries! What I find unbelievable is how the author finds this to be a terrible outcome! How selfish can you be!? The US is so stinking rich, our GDP/cap in 1776 was greater than many countries' are today, and you still want to keep them down with your protectionist policies! Protectionism, that's all this article and the book is about, a new twist on protectionism. Here's a question for you: Why do you think that workers in foreign countries will work for a third or a fourth of what US worker work for? Answer: Because it's way more than what they earn now! (US GDP/cap is well over $30,000--we're talking about an income for workers around $8,000-10,000, not bad considering more than a quarter of humanity lives on considerably less than 2 dollars a day!) Be a true humanitarian instead of designing a world in which a quarter of the people are forced into a welfare state.

Dustin Draper

Longmont, CO

Ralph Gomory’s argument for managing trade brings to mind the consensus among policymakers in the thirties: trade worked up until that point, but this time it’s different. It appeared to all that the unprecedented technical innovations of the preceding half century meant that the government’s new, permanent job was to manage chronic overcapacity. Hence tariffs, price controls and attempts to establish industry sector boards that would apportion output among various producers. Each and every one of those efforts ended up being gamed and exploited by the affected firms. Programs in each case then either collapsed of their own weight or morphed into permanent vehicles for rent seeking and government cover for anti-competitive practices.

No doubt Mr. Gomory and your reviewer, Mr. Greider, think that this time it’s different, that, Samsung, Daewoo, Matsushita, Sony, Phillips, Seimens, Toyota, Shell and BP notwithstanding, the federal government is up to the challenge of fixing our trade problems by involving itself in the affairs of American multi-nationals,. No doubt, like Jefferson, Hoover, FDR and Nixon, they will be wrong, and the most vulnerable American workers will be the poorer for the effort.

It's not enough to identify the problem. You have to answer the question, what's the best among the many unpalatable alternatives? Of those alternatives, how many times do we have to learn that of the many challenges of governance, public agencies are surely least well suited for the Goldilocks challenge of just enough, but not too much competition, free trade… whatever.

Like the free traders described in your review, Martin Luther was a bit of a fanatic himself. Perhaps a figure from the world of politics is a more fitting embodiment of the role Mr. Gomory presumes to play. Consider John C. Calhoun. An Indian or Chinese worker has a right to the same employment opportunities as an American worker. (If you don’t believe that then what are you doing reading a progressive magazine?) In that light, the spirit animating the argument for protecting American workers is not terribly different from what defenders of slavery and of Jim Crow argued. Calhoun was a world-wise, highly sophisticated thinker. Had his publishers the benefit of Quark, Excel and color offset printing, he would perhaps have impressed his readers with the same charts and graphs that so impressed your reviewer about Mr. Gomory’s book.

Down with John C. Calhoun. Down with Goldilocks. Down with the ahistorical, wishful thinking of ‘this time it’s different.’

David Borinsky

Baltimore, Maryalnd

Mr. Greider’s thoughtful report on Gomory’s analysis prompted a look for more information on the Horizon Project, which first landed me at http://www.thehorizonproject.com/ That site did not seem to have much to say on the issue, although it did make some sweeping claims.

Readers should, instead, go to http://horizonproject.us

Richard Careaga

Seattle, WA, USA

Greider overlooks a critical issue in the globalization debate: the externalization of costs. Multinationals have become experts in passing their costs on to others while reaping the profits. One huge externality is pollution. When you move a process from the moderately-regulated USA to, say, China, you lose any effective regulation of pollutants along the way. This represents a huge cost savings for many products, but these costs don't disappear, they are simply borne by others. In this case, it is principally the Chinese people, but also increasingly Americans, as China's polluted air arrives on the West Coast.

It is time to internalize as many externalities as possible. Once this is done, production costs are more balanced and the environment is better protected.

J.H. Crawford
Carfree.com

Boiceville, NY

The Church of Free Trade has a jealous god who, like Moloch, requires the sacrifice of our children. I'm happy to see opposition to its doctrines gaining strength.

Doug Kretzmann

Denver, CO