Will Hutton argues passionately and (for me) convincingly that free trade makes for greater wealth creation and protectionism will cause growth to slow down (“Trade is the lifeblood of humanity”, Comment). He’s obviously right; the move towards increasing global trade has created wealth, especially in China, and we should be glad that it has raised millions of people out of poverty.
However, he doesn’t acknowledge the problem of distributing the wealth thus created. The world is awash with money but it has been very unequally distributed. Possession of so much money by people and institutions who can’t possibly use it has created serious instability.
We need to reform institutions in ways that prevent the unhealthy accumulation of wealth by minorities. Otherwise, we will see more catastrophes such as 2008 as the rich cast around for risky ways to use their wealth and more and more Brexit and Trump votes as resentful populations seek to find somebody to blame for their diminished share of prosperity. Thomas Piketty proposed one simple remedy; the Robin Hood tax is another, as is international co-operation against tax havens and tax avoidance. So far, the political will to do any of these things is not strong and our government is sturdily in the anti-reform corner.
Jeremy Cushing
Exeter
While I would not argue with Will Hutton’s assertion that trade is the lifeblood of humanity, or that automation and robotisation will not be prevented by protectionism, he fails to present a rational alternative. Put simply, where are the jobs coming from to pay the living expenses of that section of the population that depends on employment? The misconception made by the proponents of globalisation has been that the discarded can be disregarded. Taking away a man’s job, before you take away his vote, is every bit as dangerous as taking away both at the same time.
Trade agreements might well have benefited many, but the notion that more trade agreements will somehow benefit those already marginalised by previous agreements, is a horse without a jockey. It is the failure of neoliberalism, and of the financialisation of global trade that funded trade imbalances, which caused austerity.
Remember, the Smoot-Hawley tariffs might have been enacted in America, but the consequences hit the fan in Germany. Today, Trump is a willing harbinger of coming conflicts.
Martin London
Henllan
Denbighshire
Few rational people would disagree with Will Hutton’s assertion that “exchange between countries brings prosperity and progress”. There is, however, a huge difference between unfettered free trade and fair trade.
It would be wrong for Britain or the US to impose blanket trade tariffs that inhibit innovation in other countries or for us to protect our industries from competition with more efficient foreign producers.
However, Hutton cannot be allowed to get away with suggesting globalisation has created “prosperity and progress” for all. In most cases, so-called free trade has simply involved a race to the bottom in pay rates across the world. That may be free trade, but it certainly isn’t fair trade. A tiny proportion of the world’s population have got ludicrously rich, while former manufacturing communities have declined into despair. We have sacrificed manufacturing jobs for cheap jeans and washing machines, made by people (often children) earning pittances with which we cannot fairly compete.
Donald Trump’s racism and misogyny are appalling. On the single issue of free trade, he is basically correct. What people on the left and centre-left should be asking is: how did two deeply rightwing, privileged mavericks on either side of the Atlantic become the ones to benefit from working-class anger? The left’s support for measured trade tariffs that promote genuine competition, while protecting jobs from unfair competition, would be a welcome, if belated start.
Mike Mosley
Norwich
