Beck says it's inconclusive whether free trade helps or harms developing nations. But does he mean economically, or politically? I accept that free trade helps developing nations as a matter of economic growth.
How can one not assume that the United States' comparative advantage would have developed differently in some key areas? There were obviously HUGE distortions caused by protection, and it seems reasonable to assume that the things we're "good at" today are the results of those distortions. This does not seem particularly controversial to me. My guess (as I've said, I obviously haven't researched these issues, though I would like to find a book addressing this particular theme) is that the broader success of free trade (as it impacts relative political power, and not just economic growth) is strongly correlated to a country's great-power status as of the time it begins trading freely as a policy. For those of us (including Beck) who care about more than the economic implications of industrial policy, this could be a critical corollary to free trade theory.
Can anyone point to ONE example in history of a country developing from a non-great power into a great power while pursuing anything close to free trade as an industrial policy? Hasn't happened. Ever. Not with us, not with Britain, not with China now. When I make assumptions, I try to make them conform to the past, rather than to some book a Scotsman wrote in the 1700s, in order to increase the likelihood of their accuracy.
