I don't see how the parent comment is describing mercantilist development. My understanding is that mercantilist development implies that the subservient state is developed as an income source for the dominant state. Although traditional development may not be effective, it surely isn't meant to extract resources.
"Dumping" is a mercantilist theory; other schools of economics view the same phenomenon as a gift or subsidy (for the recipient). Bastiat wrote a famous criticism of proponents of "anti-dumping".[1]
Famous? Among whom? Other than libertarians who already agree with that point of view.
I didn't read everything Bastiat wrote, but he appears to be describing either the absolute or the comparative advantage of trade (e.g. the first few sentences of the last paragraph).
But trade is different than a gratuitous gift. Trade is part of the free market economy of mutually beneficial exchange. So trade is stimulating production in other areas and it's also allocating goods based on aggregated preferences, not the arbitrary whims of philanthropists.
I'm pretty sure Bastiat and other libertarians would agree that cash is much, much better gift than specific goods.
Finally, the jury is out on dumping. Most mainstream economists will admit there are instances where dumping should be prohibited.
Bastiat's petition is well-enough known to be included in his (lengthy) Wikipedia entry.[1]
No, the parent is not "describing either the absolute or the comparative advantage of trade", because they said:
>"If Toms shoes dumps 1,000 pairs of shoes in the city center every week, how the hell would a cobbler stay in business."
and
>"[I]f the U.S. pumps an endless supply of rice into Haiti, how could Haitian rice farmers sell their inventory."
This is basic mercantilism, as described in the 'theory' section of the 'Mercantilism' Wikipedia entry, and more specifically the following points of the theory:
>"That every little bit of a country's soil be utilized for agriculture, mining or manufacturing.
...
That a large, working population be encouraged.
...
That all imports of foreign goods be discouraged as much as possible.
...
That no importation be allowed if such goods are sufficiently and suitably supplied at home."[2]
Cash is a better gift because you get to buy whatever you want, not because 'dumping' goods is bad.
Every criticism of anti-dumping (bastiat's included) makes one or more of the same three mistakes:
A) industrial comparative advantage is built up in the short run rather than over a period of many decades.
B) that having natural resource comparative advantage is every bit as good as having industrial comparative advantage (see Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc. and the 'resource curse').
C) That industrial comparative advantage just appears randomly out of nowhere rather than (as is historically verified), being developed via protectionist trade policies and infrastructural development.
