The article starts off well, but then veers off into Bizarro world. The assertion that some countries are poor because their labor or natural resources are som

The article starts off well, but then veers off into Bizarro world. The assertion that some countries are poor because their labor or natural resources are somehow being exploited is ridiculous. Countries like Sudan or Haiti are poor because of the bad choices and corruption committed by their governments, not because rich people in New York or London are doing dastardly deeds. The trade with Africa, say, is but a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the business we do with China or Canada. Swartz's contention that protectionism will help these countries climb out of poverty is equally ludicrous. The example he cites of Britain becoming a wealthy nation because if protectionism isn't really true. Britain became wealthy because it was the first country to industrialize on a large scale, which made its workforce much more productive. There were efforts by the British government to prevent its methods of industrialization from spreading to other countries, with mixed results. The attempts to prevent the American colonies from manufacturing goods was one of the causes of the Revolution; this policy was also resented in India and other parts of the Empire. The Continent industrialized, in varying degrees, over the course of the 19th century, with Britain staying at the head of the pack by continuously innovating. (These innovations ended up making everyone, not just Britons, wealthier.) If anything is going to alleviate the suffering of the poorest of the nations, it will be efforts to reduce official corruption and to eliminate tariffs.