The U.S. is currently in a precarious position. In addition to geopolitical threats, we face a severe economic shock. We have already lost trillions of dollars and millions of jobs to foreigners. Our potential adversary is our largest creditor, and our country has lost every important large-scale economic weapon that can be used in thorny geopolitical situations. As argued by Princeton economist Alan Blinder, we are at the beginning of a third industrial revolution. Blinder says that of about 140 million U.S. jobs, between 42 million and 56 million could be moved offshore in the next decade or two: all 14 million current jobs in manufacturing and 28 million to 42 million in the service sector. We will be left without any manufacturing, which is an inalienable part of the country’s security. Education and skills may not help. U.S. wages will go down sharply.

All these devastating changes come from a blind following of an “orthodox” dogmatic free-trade policy, currently used by the U.S. It brings great benefits to many, but it is very dangerous for American society and the world. Any absolute dogma is a bad bedfellow for the economy. The Soviet Union on the left and free trade on the right are good examples. No society can prosper with extremism. Troubles Ahead

Can we constrain extremism and direct the economy to activities that are beneficial to society? Regardless of the objections of laissez-faire free-trade economists, the U.S. must seek low unemployment, a sufficient growth rate, stable prices, a healthy balance of payments, the preservation of the industrial base, the attainment of geopolitical goals, and the preservation of the middle class. Without a strong middle class, a country is polarized, and democracy cannot survive in a polarized society. If nothing is done, the U.S. may turn sharply left and go the way of Venezuela. The current shift to the left in Latin America may have come from globalization.

Free-traders deride any intervention in trade matters as “central planning.” The international General Agreement on Tariffs & Trade falls in that sinister-sounding category of “central planning”: its Article XII declares that any country “in order to safeguard its external financial position and its balance of payments, may restrict the quantity or value of merchandise permitted to be imported.” The Balanced Trade Restoration Act, introduced last year by Senators Byron Dorgan and Russ Feingold, falls into the same category. Most important, so does the just-announced Horizon Project, which is intended to be a Marshall-type Plan for America and has been authored by 11 eminent chief executives and policy innovators. For that matter, doesn’t the Federal Reserve exercise “central planning”? Mea culpa—this article is in the same category.

The free-trade economists fail to understand or refuse to admit that their approach to organizing international trade can be successful only under rare combinations of the favorable conditions that prevailed before World War I and shortly after World War II. Conditions in this century are bad and will get much worse, and free trade is now as outdated as the dodo. New Industrial Revolution

Why isn’t free trade theoretically justified today? Which conditions became outdated? In the real world there exist a multitude of conditions that are incompatible with utopian assumptions of the presumed theoretical rationale of free trade, the “law of comparative advantage.” Each of these conditions is important; their cumulative effect is overwhelming and devastating. As a consequence, in the real world the “law” is invalid, inapplicable, and irrelevant.

For example, one of its major faults is that the “law” takes into account only the benefits that a country receives by specializing, not the negative externalities, or adjustment costs. In the real world, these costs might easily bury the advantages.

(MarketWatch)High-school students: Are you applying for one of the thousands of scholarships available to help fund your college education? Then follow these tips from Mark Kantrowitz, director of advanced projects at FastWeb.com, for maximizing your chances of getting one of those checks in the mail.

Apply to everything you can:
“You can’t win if you don’t apply,” says Kantrowitz. “If your odds of winning an individual scholarship are pretty small, the more you apply to for which you qualify, the greater chance you have of winning. It usually doesn’t take a lot of effort to apply to multiple scholarships; you can reuse essays. You’ll find there’s an awful lot of overlap in scholarship programs in terms of the questions they ask. The first time you write an essay, it takes a lot of effort. But the next time you can just polish, tweak and slant it to that application.” So don’t let fear or procrastination get the better of you send that application in.

Only apply to scholarships you’re qualified for:
Don’t send out applications for ones that don’t meet the basic criteria. “Most of these awards receive far more qualified applicants than they have awards available,” adds Kantrowitz, so save yourself some time by reviewing the minimum requirements and making sure you are eligible.

In essays, always include concrete examples:
“If you write something very abstract, like ‘I’m a leader,’ they’re not going to take your word for it. They want to see a way in which you demonstrated your leadership ability.”

Dress for success:
“You wouldn’t believe how many students go to an interview in T-shirts and jeans,” says Kantrowitz. Wear a suit or other business attire, instead.

Make sure you get good letters of recommendation:
If you ask a teacher or an adult you know to write you a letter of recommendation, “many will write it even if they don’t think you’re the best person.” So when you make the request, ask if they can write you a good letter. “They will probably give you an honest answer,” says Kantrowitz. And make sure the person writing the letter can write well and is able to speak about what is relevant to the scholarship to which you are applying.

A BUSINESSMAN linked to the death of poisoned Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko yesterday hit out at “lies, provocation and government propaganda”, denying any role in the murder.

Andrei Lugovoi said reports naming him as a suspect in the murder were an attempt by British authorities to make up for a lack of evidence against him.

He said: “This is all lies, provocation and government propaganda by the United Kingdom. They are trying to make up for their poor hand.”

It was reported last week that senior officials at Scotland Yard believed there was enough evidence against Lugovoi for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether he should face prosecution.

Litvinenko, a Kremlin critic who was granted asylum in Britain, died in late November after ingesting the rare radioactive isotope polonium-210.

He met Lugovoi and two other Russian men, Dmitry Kovtun and Vyacheslav Sokolenko, at the Millennium Hotel in London on November 1, the day he fell ill. Litvinenko, 43, died on November 23.

In a deathbed statement, he accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of ordering his murder - allegations which the Kremlin strongly denies.

Earlier this month, it was claimed that Litvinenko was likely to have been the target of “multiple” poisoning attempts before his death.

He visited a number of central London venues on the day that he fell ill, including a sushi bar in Piccadilly.

But it was claimed that the first attempt to poison him with polonium-210 may have come more than two weeks before November 1, when he met Lugovoi and Kovtun at the sushi bar on October 16.

Related topic

- http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1528
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1528