Too bad really, I was hoping you would pick Stiglitz and Charlton's new book Fair Trade For All . In the book they advocate some forms of protectionism for poor countries against rich countries, while still advocating the opening of trade. They show the essential unfairness of the WTO and the world trading system and propose what seem to be pretty solid solutions.

Considering your specialty, it would be extremely interesting to hear your views on their analysis and proposals.

well, i guess i missed this post, oops:
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/002661.html

But anyway, it doesnot see so much like you were reviewing the book, but where reviewing the review. and i don't think Reich did a very good job of reviewing or explaining the book. On a related note, i saw that C-span was having a discussion between thomas friedman an Stiglitz on sunday:
http://www.booktv.org/General/index.asp?segID=7014&schedID=416

Anyway, the moral of the book (as i read it) was that most trade agreements are not as happy as their names would have you believe and developed countries pretty much want trade for their own sakes, without regard to poor countries (which are often hurt and in no position to negotiate for better terms). Stiglitz obviously knows that trade is a good thing, he just doubts that the deals being negotiated are anything near fair.

and he proposes pretty solid solutions, one being that all countries should agree to open their markets totally to all countries that have a smaller gdp and smaller gdp/capita then themselves. basically he scraps the WTO and proposes an entirely new basis for Doha round. and if you ask me, he is right.

Whether it is possible or likely is another matter. plus, while his proposal seems to be pareto optimal, i am not convinced that scrapping the current agreements would be. either way, it is lucky that stiglitz is out there to defend little countries. his voice has more weight then theirs do.

sorry to steal your post for a book review. i still think you should cover the book though, and read it, because it is a more important issue then whether iran could, at best, get nuclear weapons in 10 or 11 years, and whether the USA should kill them now or later....

I know i am talking to myself here, but i will just add that Friedman is a useless, blathering buffoon who has only one skill: the ability to come up with catch phrases. I just wish he would focus on writing sit-coms or something so people would stop taking that idiot seriously.

represents Appiah's efforts to carve out a commonality for most of mankind that does not rest on nation, clan, or kin

How about a commonality based on devotion to one's children? To raising them in societies that are free, safe and prosperous, in which men and women can earn an honest living without paying off or pandering to the bandits and thugs who dominate a corrupt system based on "nation, clan and kin" in most countries aroudn the world?