Against the New American Century

[The One and Only...]

Let's count the lies in that article, shall we?

Lie 1: "Non-elites seem to mean everything bad that's happened lately."

Really? Why, then, does globalization have any adherants?

Lie 2: "And with 1492 began the slaughter of the First Americans and the plunder of the Western Hemisphere. That act of primitive accumulation, along with the enslavement of Africans and the colonization of Asia, made Europe's takeoff possible."

That's laughable. There is no evidence to support such a statement. Resource gains were not enough to generate the Industrial Revolution. Look at America. This has to do with the rise of IP, capitalism, and *SHOCK* the first globalization era.

Lie 3: "As John Maynard Keynes put it"

Anything said by Keynes should be taken with a shaker of salt. Most of his economic theories, while influential during the time, have been debunked.

Lie 4: "Globalization is thought to be the source of many economic ills."

We're only on page 2, and we have a huge assertion. WHO thinks this, exactly? Not economists. Not theory. Certainly not historical results. Maybe liberals who are uppity about other countries competing with labor...

Lie 5: "initial European rise to wealth depended largely on the colonies"

False. European colonialism was not productive enough to account for the "intial rise to wealth." It had to do with technological innovation and more advanced farming techniques. The question is, what lead to their arrival? Hmm... could it be, capitalism?

Lie 6: "plant relocations to Mexico have put a sharp squeeze on US employment and earnings"

Don't make me laugh. Recent studies have suggested that the only jobs going to poorer nations are ones that don't require a high school education. Besides, the growth of the service industry has prevented the "giant sucking sound (that's Perot, BTW)" from even being audible. Jobs have grown since the sign of NAFTA, and I'm banking that that holds true even in terms of per capita.

Lie 7: "Econometricians say that trade explains about 20-25 percent of the decline in the US real hourly wage during the 1970s and '80s."

First of all, the real wage should have declined during the 1980's - we were rebounding from a stagnated economy, which meant that the minimum wage was excessive and lead to high unemployment. Second, what's with the lack of sources? Third, econometrics is the study of pure statistics and historical quantifications - any sort of deduction which would come of such a large size goes far beyond it's capabilty.

Lie 8: "According to economic historian Angus Maddison's estimates, African and American incomes were roughly equal in 1600 (because the Americans measured were the native population), but with industrialization, they started diverging in earnest. American incomes were three times Africa's in 1820, five times in 1870, ten times in 1913, and twenty times in 1998. When was the moment of 'globalization'?"

WELL NO SHIT!!! PERHAPS THE FACT THAT AFRICA *DIDN'T* INDUSTRIALIZE MIGHT EXPLAIN THAT???

Somehow, I get the impression that this writer is the conservative of the paper, too, since he does treat globalization with mild respect.