> In any event, the world political economy has changed, undermining
>the political basis for "protectionism"
Jim, I check the archives often, and have learned a great deal from
your posts. Not sure I agree here. Wouldn't the US state like to
run a trade deficit to its own mnc's and thus ac
Mark Jones wrote:
>Incidentally, the Godley paper lays policy emphasis on import controls. This
>looks like impish humour, since it is hard to imagine how such a policy
>could be implemented without doing even more damage. As Jim Devine says, the
>cure is worse than the disease:
>
> >>To summarize
. . .
The effects of any form of undisguised wall-to-wall US protectionism on
world trade today would be presumably, completely catastrophic, the debacle
even worse than 1929-31. Is the Godley view that this debacle is inevitable
anyway, so it's a case of sauve qui peut? Mark Jones
I presume a
At 09:37 AM 7/17/01 -0700, you wrote:
>Although Godley is not signing on for a while, his co-author and
>ex-penner, Alex Izurieta, is coming on board. You can direct some of
>these questions for him, although you might wait a couple of hours.
folks, be polite!
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & htt
