The purpose of Seeking Truth Together was "to encourage Friends to reflect on economic matters, meditate on proposed policies, and seek Divine Guidance" in the manner of Friends. I hoped to show how a Quaker dialogue on economic issues could be based on concern for truth (factual accuracy) and for Truth (moral validity/spiritual insight). For this reason, I am answering the objections of those Friends who have responded to my article.

Early on in his letter criticizing my article on the World Trade Organization (WTO), W.M. Kirkpatrick writes: "Powelson’s article is filled with conclusions that have no foundation in fact. Powelson tells us, for example, that the WTO ‘is the culmination of seven decades of talks…’ Oh? I’d like to know the identity of the WTO’s predecessors. Where does Powelson get his information?"

I will answer these questions. The WTO was preceded by regular international conferences taking place since the 1930s under the aegis of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). These conferences gradually reduced worldwide tariffs from their highs of 1929, and out of them the WTO was founded in 1995. On the second question, my information comes from a professional lifetime of researching, teaching, and advising on international economics, finance, and development. I have taught at Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and the University of Colorado, among others, and I have done professional service in thirty-five countries in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America. To see my bio, visit http://spot.colorado.edu/~powelsoj, which lists my seventeen books and many articles.

He goes on to cite my belief that "nations that trade most are the ones that promote prosperity" and asks if I have never heard of colonialism. Allow me to explain how an economic historian would answer that question. List all the possible causes of economic prosperity, including both trade and colonialism (and many more). Carefully examine how each has related, in time periods and other causation, to economic prosperity.

Doing that, one finds that the greatest imperialists of twenty centuries were Rome, Russia, Spain, Portugal, Ottoman Turkey, Mongolia, the Incas, the Aztecs, and the Islamic countries. None of these became wealthy. Britain and France were also imperialists, to a much lesser degree, but their wealth correlates much more closely with inventiveness, innovation, and trade. No, the rich nations did not get rich by stealing from the poor.

Kirkpatrick minimizes my findings from walking through the slums of Latin America and visits to factories, referring instead to Julia Quinoñez, who has lived there. True, there are many desperate poor, and trade alone has not conquered poverty. It is always possible to pick someone who is poor and to say, "Look, trade has not solved poverty." How would the economic historian answer this challenge?

The question—why are some countries rich and others poor?—is extremely complex, associated with many forces (some positive, some negative) besides trade. After teaching economic development for thirteen years, in 1970 I cast aside my economics (without forgetting it) and delved into history to seek an answer. Only fifteen years later, after extensive reading, did I sense a reason, and for the next seven years I wrote the book (and five supporting books). I have not proved that my reasons are correct, and some historians cite other reasons. But I did receive positive reviews in the scholarly journals. Here are the reasons that I perceived:

First, in the more advanced societies, northwestern Europe and Japan, power was gradually—over centuries—taken away from rulers (kings, emperors, church, shogun, nobility) and made to rest in "lower" classes (merchants, traders, farmers, manufacturers), who seized the opportunity to invent and innovate, and to save and raise capital. The rulers tried to confiscate their product and their capital, but they did not succeed. Keeping the profits for the producer was a prime incentive.

Second, the innovators of northwestern Europe traded widely. They negotiated the rules of trade, debt repayment, and property ownership among themselves, not allowing the ruler to impose them. By practicing these rules, they developed trust for one another.

Third, over the last fifty years, Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong have lifted themselves from Third World poverty to average wages equal to many European countries. They did so mainly by allowing their people to trade freely.

Those who pick out a single individual or single cause, such as "market" or "trade" or "colonialism" and relate that cause alone to worldwide poverty do not appreciate the complexity. How do Kirkpatrick and Sandy Perry arrive at their explanations that colonialism is the major cause, and trade is not?

Jean Gerard complains that I have not given as much space to the arguments of opponents of the WTO as I have to those in favor. She is right. Arguments innocent of the complexities of economics take less space than arguments that understand them. She also brings up "fair trade" as opposed to "free trade." Free trade means that any two individuals, or companies, may strike a bargain that each considers to his or her benefit. "Fair trade" means that someone else, like a government (or Quakers?) tells them what is "fair" and what is not. Particularly in dictatorial regimes, this power is dangerous. My understanding of history tells me that economic prosperity is related to free rather than government-directed trade. In fact, the most prosperous nations took power away from the ruler and vested it in the "lower" people. "Fair trade" would return that power to the ruler. Mostly, "fair" is what suits the ruler.

I do agree with Gerard, however, that the WTO ought to be more open in its discussions.

Perry relies heavily on David Korten’s book, When Corporations Rule the World. I have read that book. It begins with a thesis and "proves" it by selective perception: citing evidence in its favor, and ignoring all else. In a book review comparing my book, The Moral Economy, with that of Korten, Paul Heyne, economist with the University of Washington, asks: "How can intelligent and informed people with almost identical concerns construct such contradictory recommendations for a world they have in common? Let me suggest the answer. Powelson employs the perspective of economic theory. Korten, on the other hand, tells us in the prologue to his book that he is proud of not having studied economics." Heyne goes on to say that The Moral Economy is "rich in insights, instructive examples, and practical proposals."

I regret that Alan White wrote out of anger, because this may have turned him to name calling rather than rational discussion [Alan White’s letter appears on p. 9 of this issue—Ed.]. He called my thinking "phoniness" without saying why. I cannot answer most of his points, because much of his outrage is indicated by generalities rather than answerable specifics. But in some cases, I can. I have no idea where White got his "data" that Mexican wages and purchasing power both declined significantly since NAFTA, because he doesn’t say. However, had he consulted the International Labor Organization’s Yearbook of Labor Statistics (2000), he would have discovered on page 838 that average Mexican wages increased by 88.5% from 1995 to 1999, while (p. 1064) consumer prices went up by 88.0%. So the Mexican worker was just about as well off in the later year as in the earlier. White would also force the urban poor to pay high prices for corn grown by inefficient Mexican farmers. If his proposal were accepted, their children might be driven to starvation because they cannot buy cheaper corn from the United States. For their part, Mexican farmers should either improve their productivity or take jobs elsewhere. Ultimately, they will be forced to do that, so the sooner they get on with it the better.

For twenty-five years I have been disappointed by the "Liberal Left" for two reasons: (1) They start with their conclusions. They "know" the reason for poverty (or something else) and seek the "causes" that fit their "knowledge," omitting others. They do not start thinking with a clean mind nor do they use time-honored research methods. It is the same with the "Reactionary Right." (2) They make generalizations as if "everybody" knows they are right, so they don’t need to show the supporting specifics. For example, Gerard says my arguments favor the already-rich nations but does not say how. Perry says the plight of the poor "has everything to do with the ongoing failure of the market" without explaining how. Actually, I think there are quite different explanations, and that the persistence of poverty has occurred despite the successes of the market. He goes on to say that "the Chinese economy today… is recognized as one of the world’s strongest" without saying in what way or who thinks so. (Many, including me, think this is not so.) There is not the space to explain my findings here, but you will find the explanations in my free, online letter, The Classic Liberal Quaker, which I discuss below.

But there is a special reason for disappointment with the three letters and one article that criticized my stand on trade. The authors attack me personally, questioning my integrity. Kirkpatrick uses guilt by secondary association, because I quoted something from the Heritage Foundation, which happens to be praised by Rush Limbaugh (someone whom I loathe). He also ridicules me, saying I raise "silly" questions without saying what is silly about them. Perry, the gentlest of my critics, nevertheless refers to her "honest appraisal" of history as if mine is dishonest. Kirkpatrick’s sarcasm-in-lieu-of-argument is somewhat less than fully persuasive. White insults my postulates, not by answering them, but by calling them "fantasizing" and "a waste of time and space." Is he interested in discussing our different world views, or is he content with belittling me? None of this is the way Quakers ought to treat each other, or anyone.

Six months ago I initiated a free electronic newsletter, The Classic Liberal Quaker, whose purpose is to consider these and similar questions from the perspective of an economic historian. Thirty-three topics include China, the WTO, multinational corporations, sweatshops, debt forgiveness, environmentalism, global warming, and why Islamic guerrillas hate us. To see these Letters, visit http://clq.quaker.org. In them you will find explanations for generalizations I have made here (on the role of trade, causes of poverty, etc.) To subscribe (free) send an empty E-mail (no subject, no message) to clq-subscribe@quaker.org. To unsubscribe, do the same, using "unsubscribe" instead of "subscribe."

I appreciate the positive comment by Jim Kimball. Thank you for listening to me.—Your friend, Jack Powelson

But Friend Powelson made me quite angry, not only because of the phoniness of discussion, but also because he advocates the basic principles of capitalism, which together with exploitative technologies and an exploding birthrate, are the very things destroying us. Of course, trade is beneficial, but it is the hyper-promotion of the values of consumption and growth, so easy for economists with their reams of superficial data and business models, and always done to the great exclusion of human and environmental considerations—that is strangling both the poor of the world and nature herself.

He says nothing, for example, about the "race to the bottom" that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has forced upon Mexico. In spite of the growth of border assembly plants and the shanty-towns they engender, wages in Mexico since NAFTA’s passage (1994) have fallen 13%, from $2.18 an hour to $1.89 an hour, while the purchasing power shrank 39%. Still, hundreds of thousands of Mexicans, formerly subsistence farmers, have flocked to the border for these jobs. Why? Because when trade barriers to import crops from other countries (such as corn from the USA), and government subsidies were eliminated, these people could not sell their produce to their own fellow citizens, who buy the cheaper American products, naturally.

Of course, it is wrong for governments to oppress their citizens and historically there has been suffering caused by government in the name of socially beneficial policies. But now we have the opposite extreme. Big government is worshipping the anarchy ("globalization") of unfettered growth and development and supporting the trans-national corporations existing primarily for profits. We have the answer to deal with these problems, and democracy is a good term to summarize them. Until such is achieved, however, the best work for Friends lies in assisting the various organizations—our own and others—that fight for human and labor rights and, of course, preservation of the natural world. And let us speak truth to power. Aggressive confrontation with impersonal machines such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are also necessary, including, on occasion, non-violent civil disobedience. Fantasizing rational conversations about idealistic principles is a waste of time and space.—Alan White, Orange County (CA) Meeting.

Dear Editor: A discussion of the World Trade Organization in the manner of Friends might be useful, but one does not find it in "Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, WTO has Got to Go..." (FB, July-August, 2001). Instead one finds pro-WTO propaganda whose author is able to avoid hard questions because he puts silly ones in the mouth of a so-called protester.

Powelson’s article is filled with conclusions that have no foundation in fact. Powelson tells us, for example, that the WTO "...is the culmination of seven decades of talks..." Oh? I’d like to know the identity of the WTO’s predecessors. Where does Powelson get his information? The author footnotes only a few sources. One of them is the Heritage Foundation, whose website sports this praise from Rush Limbaugh: "The Heritage Foundation is America leading conservative think tank."

Powelson supposes that history has proven that "those nations that trade most are the ones that promote prosperity of their citizens and bring their people up from poverty." He refers to Europe, the United States, and Japan as examples. Has he not heard of colonialism, imperialism, slavery, or war? Some might think that the wealth of Europe, the United States, and Japan was acquired by theft, not trade. I invite Powelson to join me in reading British historian Niall Ferguson’s new book, The Cash Nexus: Money and Power in the Modern World 1700-2000. ""Institutions,’ [Ferguson] writes, "that initially existed to serve the state by financing war also fostered the development of the economy as a whole’" (quoted in New York Review of Books, 8/9/01, p. 45).

Offensive, even pompous, is the author’s characterization of Non Governmental Organizations. "The NGOs," he opines, "need to wander more through the slums in Asia, Africa, and Latin America (as I have) and visit factories there (as I have). They need to talk more with the poorest of the poor, whom they purport to advocate. They also need to study economics." The same issue of Friends Bulletin that carries Powelson’s piece also reports, at page 6, on Julia Quinonez, director of the Border Committee of Women. She has not just walked through the slums of Latin America; she lives in one. So when, according to Powelson, she says "that in the six years since NAFTA went into effect, living and working conditions have dramatically worsened," she obviously doesn’t know that she is being elevated from poverty by trade, and she certainly hasn’t studied economics. By trivializing her experience, Powelson can dismiss her wisdom.

Since the days of the Conquistadors, the elites of the West and Japan have plundered the wealth of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. That the WTO may be the next chapter in this sordid story is probable but not inevitable. Friends should insist that trade negotiations be open and accountable, agitate for the protection of working people and the environment, and support NGOs and courageous people like Julia Quinonez.—W.M. Kirkpatrick, San Jose (CA) Friends Meeting.

Dear Editor: Thank you so much for running the Jack Powelson article (FB, July-August). The issues involved are complex and controversial. On the basis of considerable study, however, I had independently come to conclusions quite similar to Powelson’s—so I can say this Friend speaks my mind. I hope the article’s appearance will stimulate other Friends to their own independent study.—Jim Kimball, Corvallis (OR) Meeting

Dear Editor: I read Jack Powelson’s article on the WTO with interest and distress.

For one thing, I kept waiting for the Protesters (P) to get some space in which to present their views. But sadly, the Advocates (A) took nearly all the column inches.

This heavily weighted the case against the Protesters. One can imagine the loss of membership in the Society of Friends if business were really to be conducted in such a fashion!

In my humble opinion, the subject we should be discussing is "fair trade," not "free trade" as it is defined by WTO and its supporters.

The present international arrangements are, like Powelson’s argument, heavily weighted in favor of the already-rich nations, which helps them to become richer at a somewhat faster rate than it helps the poor nations to "bring their people up from poverty."

Fair trade has everything to do with fairness, not with freedom, which tends to mean "I am free to exploit you as much as I can."

That is why our economic system is called "free enterprise" rather than "fair enterprise." If the latter were the case both in name and in reality, the gap between the rich and the poor would not be widening.

The comment "I didn’t promise you a rose garden" is a particularly unfortunate and cavalier one, since the great majority of the world’s people have never even smelled a rose, and are not likely ever to do so under the present economic system. But why should we worry? After all, "in an inventive society they can always find jobs."

The question: "Should a Mexican be pushed out of a job to preserve it for an American?" is downright disingenuous. The fact is that the jobs are not being "preserved" for anyone—Mexican or American—but are up for grabs by whoever will work for the least amount of money, in a plant with the least employee protection.

Now as to the idea that letting the ministers "in" at Seattle would have made them more amenable to telling the outside world what they were doing: Unfortunately, the whole point is that, unless large numbers of people protest in the streets (risking unwelcome violence by police and other misguided fools in the process), business goes on quite as usual, and most people never will find out what is happening to the world, thanks to largely recalcitrant media. As to alternatives, I wonder how ordinary activists can reach these sequestered WTO beings who are making bad decisions for us all. Certainly not by knocking on their doors or writing them letters!

In closing may I suggest that we all, as Friends, have a duty to figure out, in spite of all "complexities", how to promote fair trade and get rid of the present curse of powerful one-sided agreements favoring injustice and misery, while at the same time "bringing millions of unwitting consumers into the twenty-first century," drinking coca cola and eating hamburgers, and discussing who will or will not win an Oscar—all the while calling it "development."—Jean Gerard, Orange Grove Meeting, Pasadena, CA.