system, the actual numbers are likely tornbe much higher. Unemployment and anrnaging population put enormous pressurernon the industrialized trations’ social safetyrnnet. Goldsmith presents a chart thatrnillustrates the Gross Debt (1994) plusrnthe Net pension liabilities (1990) of majorrnindustrialized nations as a percentagernof their GDP. These two figures showrnthat the United States owes 130.6 of itsrnGDP, while Japan owes 296.7 percent,rnCanada 345.6 percent, and Italy 356.2rnpercent of their GDP. The G7 countriesrnowe an unweighted average of 264.7rnpercent of their GDP. This pyramidrnscheme can go on indefinitely, if countriesrnwith trade surpluses continue tornlend money. What will happen if we seern”the emergence of some sort of Sino-Indian-rnJapanese currency bloc,” whichrnwould invest in itself and write off earlierrnloans as bad investments? NormanrnMacrae enxisioned this eventuality inrn1993, without drawing the likely conclusion:rnbankruptcy, ruin, mass unemployment,rnand murderous ethnic conflict.rnSuch works as Hobsbawm’s Industryrnand Empire and Bairoch’s Economics andrnWorld History show that the amazingrneconomic growth of the United States inrnthe 19th century was based on a massivelyrnprotectionist s}steni. Alan Tonelson’srn”Beating Back Predatory Trade” fromrnForeign Affairs (July 1994) proved thatrnthe prosperity of the American automobile,rnmachine-tool, and computer-chiprnindustries in the 1980’s, while our televisionrnand VCR industries were disappearing,rnwas due to protectionist treatiesrnnegotiated under President Reagan. Thernphenomenal prosperity of the Reaganrnyears rested on protectionism. ThernBush-Clinton years undermined thatrnprospcritv.rnIn 1993, Goldsmith predicted thatrnmultilateral free trade treaties yoking togetherrnsuch unequal partners as thernIgnited States and Mexico would causernunemplovment in the United Statesrnwhile devastating the Mexican economy.rnOf prophets and treaties it is true thatrnhv their fruits ye shall know them. ThernDecember 10, 1994, Economist loudlyrnmocked Ross Perot’s prediction of a “giantrnsucking sound” of jobs being drawnrninto Mexico and quoted outgoing IgnitedrnStates Secretar’ of the Treasury,rnLlovd Bentscn, that NAFTA was “a winwinrnsituation.” By then Bentsen was beingrnreplaced by Clinton’s eminence grise,rnRobert Rubin of Goldman Sachs. OnrnDecember 20, 1994, the Mexican pesorncollapsed. From the United States perspective,rnthis magnified the advantage ofrnMexican labor costs. In 1992, excludingrntransshipments, the United States had arn$5.7 billion trade surplus with Mexico.rnThe U.S. Department of Commerce estimatedrnthat by the end of 1995 that willrnhave turned into a $20 billion traderndeficit. Add to that $25 billion deteriorationrnin our balance of trade the $30rnbillion “bailout” loan engineered bv SecretaryrnRubin and Federal Reserve ChairmanrnAlan Greenspan. Every day Mexicornapproves two or three maquiladorarnplants, factories just over the borderrnaimed at the United States market.rnIn Mexico, inflation is estimated at 50rnpercent, the peso has lost half of its value,rnbut salaries have risen only 20 percent.rnUnemployment for the poor andrnbankruptcies for the middle class arc atrnrecord highs. The Mayans arc in openrnrevolt, and the average Mexican is closernto despair. “NAFTA is a typical case ofrnmutual poisoning,” writes Goldsmith.rnMichel Camdessus of the InternationalrnMonetary Fund warned of “a worldrncatastrophe.” Goldsmith notes, “Submarinesrnare built with watertight compartments,rnso that a leak in one area willrnnot spread and sink the whole vessel.rnNow that we have globalized the world’srneconomy, the protective compartmentsrnno longer exist.”rnCui bono? When Rush Limbaughrnopenly opposed the bailout, he was jawbonedrnfor hours by Alan Greenspan,rnafter which Rush tried to console his televisionrnaudience with the news thatrn”Most of this money is not going to Mexico,rnfolks. It’s going to Wall Street.”rnMore than $5 billion of the bailout moneyrnwent to Secretary Rubin’s old firm,rnGoldman Sachs. Dr. Samuel Francisrnleaked the letter Rubin had sent to hisrnGoldman Sachs clients, telling themrnthat he hoped “to continue to servernthem in his new position.” Rarely haernauspications been so fruitfully fulfilled.rnThe demoralization of First World nationsrnand the ravaging of the ThirdrnWorld arc accomplished for the benefitrnof international corporations. Goldsmith’srnsummary is as clear as it is chilling:rn”Some can still remember the oldrnadage: ‘What is good for General Motorsrnis good for America.’ But that was inrnthe days when the corporate economyrnand the national economy had the samernpurpose. Now there are two distinctrneconomies. Not only do they have differentrninterests, but those interests arcrnconflicting. As corporations switch productionrnto the areas with the cheapestrnlabour and then import the productsrnmade abroad, they destroy jobs at homernand increase the nation’s trade deficit.”rnThe old distinctions between left andrnright have lost their significance. ThernFrench Revolution that created them isrnover, as Frangois Furet has noted. Nowrninternationalists, socialist and capitalist,rnor corporatists, as Goldsmith prefers torncall them, face off against the believerrnin the importance and vitality of thernnation. One group will lead us to thernBrazilianization predicted by Jared Taylorrnand, after him, Michael Lind. Thernother defends the nations of the world asrnthe great laboratories of freedom andrncreativity. C.S. Lewis feared that misusernof the social sciences could lead tornthe “abolition of man.” Misuse of economicsrnis leading to the abolition of thernnation. In the end, the two results seemrnvery similar.rn—E. Christian KopffrnALABAMA’S reintroduction of chainrngangs has provoked the predictable criesrnof outrage. Howell Raines (formerly ofrnAlabama and now of the New YorkrnTimes) described Governor Fob James asrn”Alabama’s current genius of bumpkinrnpublicity.” The politest expressions usedrnto describe Governor James’ decisionrnusually include words like “barbaric,”rn”reactionary,” and “racist.” Reactionaryrnthey may be, if “reaction” means arnrestoration of sanity, but chain gangs arernneither barbaric as a means of punishmentrnnor racist in motivation.rnHowell Raines might not approve, butrnthe people of Alabama do not seem torncare what he or anyone in the mediarnhave to say about them or their governor.rnThere was a time in the United Statesrnwhen an outsider’s opinion carried littlernweight with the people of a sovereignrnstate, and it made little difference thatrnthe outsider was a federal judge or even arnPresident. The punishment of crimes—rnunless thev were, like treason, strictlyrnfederal—was left up to the states, and ifrnsome state were foolish enough to eliminaterncapital punishment or executernthieves, it was nobody’s business but thernpeople of the state. Governor James isrnone of the only governors in recent yearsrnto uphold the rights and dignities of hisrnoffice, and not long ago he threatened torncall out the Alabama National Guard ifrnfederal authorities attempted to arrest arnFEBRUARY 1996/5rnrnrn