OK, I know it's stupid for me to respond to someone who is quite willing to slag me as not worthy to work for Salon, but doesn't have the guts to attach a name to their post, but I have to point out some apparent reading incomprehension in Anonymous' post. which can be found here

The POINT is that it is _not surprising_ when a Democratic controlled legislature passes a law requiring a business to pay adequate health care. What is surprising, to me at least, is when Republicans turn on their own. I find that extremely encouraging, because it suggests that a bipartisan consensus on the harmful effects of an unregulated market economy might be emerging. That would be awesome.

Chris, I've been saying EARL for more than ten years now, and you're not going to make me change!

Alan, editor's choice means that in the view of the editors the letter is substantive. For those who choose the "editor's choice" view of letters, it's supposed to mean that they get the "good stuff." I think in general, reporters who are responding to criticisms of the piece are contributing to a dialogue that most people want to read -- thus nine times out of ten, they will be labeled "editor's choice."

Now, if Farhad started calling Salon readers out and personally insulting them, we probably wouldn't want to feature them... but I think that's unlikely.

I'm the staffer on duty for monitoring letters today and I haven't deleted any e-mails. But if you're reading with the "editor's choice" option set, then your e-mails aren't showing up because you signed them "anonymous" and "anonymous" or "no name given" letters do not get chosen for editor's choice, generally speaking.

thanks for the tip, robert!

Well Camille, that's a hell of a question, and it my hope that as I get the chance to dig deeper into precisely that issue I will come up with answers that satisfy both you and me. I suspect, as with most things, that figuring out those answers will be a messy process that generates different answers depending on what industry or country you are talking about.

You've previously categorized my views as being for "untrammeled free trade" which I think is inaccurate. I've tried several times to bring up Joseph Stiglitz's views on _fair trade_ -- and he is about as far from being a neocon/neoliberal as you can get -- as seeming the most sensible and _socially just_ approach to globalization that I've found, but even then, the answers on what is "just" depend a lot on who you are trying to help. Should the U.S. government be subsidizing huge agribusinesses in sugar and cotton, when removing those subsidies might provide a boost to some of the poorest farmers _in the world_? Yes, removal of those subsidies will hurt some Americans, but from a global perspective, what's more important?

Or is the sole consideration the welfare of Americans?

AS for the history of the U.S. -- i'm just ad libbing here, but it sure seems to me that different policies are appropriate when a country is developing than when it is the preeminent economic superpower in the world. Rather than close out our markets to the developing countries of the world, I'd rather see us use tax policy to redistribute the incredible wealth and capital that's already in this country to put money into education and health care and job training -- precisely the kind of "infrastructural" areas that would enable the U.S. to flourish without moving towards some kind of, in my view, totally unsustainable autarkic protectionist state in a world that is more and more interconnected.

But that's just off the top of my head. Your question is exactly what this blog is supposed to explore, and I'm going to do my best to educate myself as deeply as I can on the topic.

Thanks for the pointer, Mr. No Name Given. I've updated the item to add that link, which is informative.

Great post, Timothy, but I think you underestimate just how deeply the cultural memory of the Opium War and the foreign concessions resonates in China.

I'm not saying the middle class has to accept decline. My interest is learning what the best way to get the middle class to thrive is. Part of what I mean by the richest country playing by different rules from poorer countries, is that theoretically speaking, the U.S. is the best situated economy to be able to dynamically allocate resources and funding and human capital to new markets. We are not striving to get a leg up -- we're at the top, and we should be able to adjust agile to new competition.

Of course, theory is a long way from reality, and theis country's government has been captured by a political party that appears to have no interest in helping the middle class deal with a tough transition. But say the economy crashes in the next ten months, and democrats retake congress, and the first thing they do is slap a 25 percent tarrif on all goods from China. Does that actually fix things? Or does that set of a debilitating trade war that crushes retailers in the U.S., regressively taxes the poorest people in the country by raising prices on basic necessities, and enflames international tensions.

Again, I don't know what the answer is. But I bring up the sugar and cotton issue, because it seems like the answers are different depending on what industry you're looking at. And is it really impossible to have a modern economy the size of the U.S.'s that is fundamentall built on providing services, rather than manufacturing or agriculture? I don't know the answer to that one either.