What do you think?
Rate this book
The Trap
Looks at the social and economic problems that face the world, and analyzes global free trade, the welfare state, modern agriculture, and nuclear energy
207 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 1994
1 person is currently reading
285 people want to read
About the author
James Goldsmith
3 books3 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.
Sir James Michael "Jimmy" Goldsmith was an Anglo-French billionaire financier. Towards the end of his life, he became a magazine publisher and a politician. In 1994, he was elected to represent France as a Member of the European Parliament and he subsequently founded the short-lived eurosceptic Referendum Party in Britain. He was known for his polyamorous romantic relationships and for the various children he fathered with his wives and girlfriends.
Sir James Michael "Jimmy" Goldsmith was an Anglo-French billionaire financier. Towards the end of his life, he became a magazine publisher and a politician. In 1994, he was elected to represent France as a Member of the European Parliament and he subsequently founded the short-lived eurosceptic Referendum Party in Britain. He was known for his polyamorous romantic relationships and for the various children he fathered with his wives and girlfriends.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
July 8, 2025
James Goldsmith’s The Trap (1994) presents a trenchant and provocative critique of the prevailing economic orthodoxies of late 20th-century global capitalism. Written on the eve of a burgeoning neoliberal consensus, Goldsmith’s work constitutes a prescient warning against the uncritical embrace of free trade, deregulation, and globalization. Though its polemical tone and policy prescriptions attracted both popular and political attention upon publication, The Trap deserves more sustained academic engagement for its articulation of a counter-narrative to the dominant economic paradigms of its time.
Goldsmith’s central argument is that the transformation of economics from a tool of social betterment into a self-referential ideology—what he terms “the religion of global free trade”—has led to the subversion of national economies, the disintegration of communities, and the erosion of democratic sovereignty. Drawing on a synthesis of economic theory, political philosophy, and practical experience (as a financier and industrialist), Goldsmith contends that free trade, when pursued globally without reference to social context or national interest, acts as a trap: it undermines the economic foundations of stable societies by encouraging a race to the bottom in wages, standards, and environmental protections.
One of the book’s most controversial elements is Goldsmith’s direct attack on the Ricardian doctrine of comparative advantage, which underpins much of modern trade theory. He argues that this 19th-century abstraction fails to account for the modern mobility of capital and technology, and thus, in practice, enables deindustrialization in the developed world and the exploitation of labor in the developing world. Rather than achieving mutual prosperity, globalization—as Goldsmith sees it—hollows out the productive economies of advanced nations, replacing stable employment with precarious service-sector jobs while concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a transnational elite.
Goldsmith is equally critical of mass immigration as an economic and social instrument, warning that large-scale demographic shifts driven by global labor arbitrage threaten cultural cohesion and civic trust. Here, his critique veers into territory that has prompted accusations of nativism; however, within the framework of his argument, immigration policy is treated less as a moral or racial issue and more as a function of economic displacement and elite policy design.
Perhaps most compelling is Goldsmith’s insistence on the moral and political dimensions of economics. Rejecting the reductionist tendencies of technocratic governance, he reasserts the classical notion that economies must serve the common good. His appeal to restore national sovereignty over economic policy and to subject markets to ethical and political constraints anticipates a broader intellectual shift that would become more pronounced after the 2008 financial crisis and in subsequent populist movements across Europe and North America.
Critically, The Trap is not without its limitations. The book is often more polemical than analytical, and at times lacks empirical rigor. Goldsmith’s proposed solutions—chiefly, the reassertion of protectionism and localism—are more gestural than systematically developed, and their feasibility in an interdependent world economy is open to question. Moreover, his disdain for supranational institutions such as the World Trade Organization and the European Union, while in some respects justified, is insufficiently balanced by a consideration of the potential benefits of international cooperation in addressing shared challenges.
The Trap is a significant contribution to the literature of economic dissent. It challenges the complacency of neoliberal orthodoxy and articulates an alternative vision rooted in national self-determination, social cohesion, and ethical constraint. For scholars interested in the genealogy of economic nationalism, critiques of globalization, and the ideological currents underpinning contemporary populism, Goldsmith’s work offers an essential, if understudied, reference point. Though it was derided by many mainstream commentators at the time of its publication, its warnings have only grown more salient in light of the political and economic crises of the early 21st century.
GPT
Goldsmith’s central argument is that the transformation of economics from a tool of social betterment into a self-referential ideology—what he terms “the religion of global free trade”—has led to the subversion of national economies, the disintegration of communities, and the erosion of democratic sovereignty. Drawing on a synthesis of economic theory, political philosophy, and practical experience (as a financier and industrialist), Goldsmith contends that free trade, when pursued globally without reference to social context or national interest, acts as a trap: it undermines the economic foundations of stable societies by encouraging a race to the bottom in wages, standards, and environmental protections.
One of the book’s most controversial elements is Goldsmith’s direct attack on the Ricardian doctrine of comparative advantage, which underpins much of modern trade theory. He argues that this 19th-century abstraction fails to account for the modern mobility of capital and technology, and thus, in practice, enables deindustrialization in the developed world and the exploitation of labor in the developing world. Rather than achieving mutual prosperity, globalization—as Goldsmith sees it—hollows out the productive economies of advanced nations, replacing stable employment with precarious service-sector jobs while concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a transnational elite.
Goldsmith is equally critical of mass immigration as an economic and social instrument, warning that large-scale demographic shifts driven by global labor arbitrage threaten cultural cohesion and civic trust. Here, his critique veers into territory that has prompted accusations of nativism; however, within the framework of his argument, immigration policy is treated less as a moral or racial issue and more as a function of economic displacement and elite policy design.
Perhaps most compelling is Goldsmith’s insistence on the moral and political dimensions of economics. Rejecting the reductionist tendencies of technocratic governance, he reasserts the classical notion that economies must serve the common good. His appeal to restore national sovereignty over economic policy and to subject markets to ethical and political constraints anticipates a broader intellectual shift that would become more pronounced after the 2008 financial crisis and in subsequent populist movements across Europe and North America.
Critically, The Trap is not without its limitations. The book is often more polemical than analytical, and at times lacks empirical rigor. Goldsmith’s proposed solutions—chiefly, the reassertion of protectionism and localism—are more gestural than systematically developed, and their feasibility in an interdependent world economy is open to question. Moreover, his disdain for supranational institutions such as the World Trade Organization and the European Union, while in some respects justified, is insufficiently balanced by a consideration of the potential benefits of international cooperation in addressing shared challenges.
The Trap is a significant contribution to the literature of economic dissent. It challenges the complacency of neoliberal orthodoxy and articulates an alternative vision rooted in national self-determination, social cohesion, and ethical constraint. For scholars interested in the genealogy of economic nationalism, critiques of globalization, and the ideological currents underpinning contemporary populism, Goldsmith’s work offers an essential, if understudied, reference point. Though it was derided by many mainstream commentators at the time of its publication, its warnings have only grown more salient in light of the political and economic crises of the early 21st century.
GPT
August 22, 2021
James Goldmith was not an intellectual but a highly intelligent man who applied that intelligence to politics after becoming a somewhat notorious (in his time) billionaire. Even this book is not so much written by him as spoken by him as a busy man speaks to a secretary.
It has a European and French focus because Goldsmith was a fundamentally European figure who conducted his political career from a French base once his exclusion from British political society was made absolute.
His high intelligence does not mean that he is always right but he is certainly asking questions in 1993 that no one was daring to ask within the European elite and which, if it had had his intelligence, might have forestalled both populism and radical green disruptions.
The word 'prescient' is often used about this book. It is remarkably so, less in predicting events than in outlining the future trajectory of then-current trends - his logic involves us in the failures of liberal internationalism, mass migration and other issues ignored until recently.
This is not to say that I would accept Goldmith's world view and positions hook,line and sinker but only that he is more right than the people who ruled us in the mid-1990s who then went on to make blunder after blunder, exemplified by the chaos in Kabul happening as we write.
His critique of welfarism is not wholly wrong but he over-estimates the ability of populations in the mass to be self-sufficient and responsible. This is a psychological problem as much as a political problem but he is right that we have got the balance wrong.
I agree with him that over-rapid totalising globalisation has been a disaster and that we need (in my adaptation of his position) internationally collaborative firebreaks at regional and national levels to manage economic and political crises as much as the green agenda and pathogens.
His position is conservative and green - green thinking that has often competed with German left-environmentalism. His strictures against advanced science not being under some community control (notably biotech) are well taken and do not imply the risk of a revival of Lysenkoism.
His attacks on the nuclear industry, on agricultural monoculture and on the animal feeds sector (linked to the contemporary problem of BSE) are detailed and well researched. The climate change hysteria of radical greens today has revived nuclear in what amounts to a deal with the devil.
In fact, the BSE problem was not as bad as he and many others expected. I would take a more moderate line on technological applications. In fact, he totally lost me with a 'spiritual' chapter that represented the absolute worst of contemporary green mental fluffiness.
Nevertheless, even if he tends to take his positions to unqualified extremes, the core analysis is correct. We have come late to sustainability, to control of technology in the interest of our species, to the growing issue of mass migration and the failures of late liberal capitalism.
It is on the last of these that I consider him still relevant even when wrong. The current crop of elites seems to have managed to get absolutely everything wrong fairly consistently since the day the Soviet Union crumbled.
They were not ready to respond to ceasing to be Tweedledum to Moscow's Tweedledee. Their response was not to think again about structures and systems constructed largely to contain or defeat a rival ideology but doubled-down on their victory instead.
The trouble is that the Western late liberal capitalist system is as flawed as the Soviet system but in different ways that have taken longer to work themselves out. The re-set that Goldsmith's book should have contributed towards never took place.
Blunder after blunder, led by the 'intellectuals' in the winning empires, pushed imperial boundaries further than they could reasonably go, created reactions to attempts to impose a political monoculture globally and triggered global crises as firewalls crashed and burned.
Goldsmith's key insight is to extrapolate what happened in the industrial revolution - above all, the mass movement of workers from country to industrial cities - to a globalised economy where elites want to keep labour cheap and mobile but voters will not.
The very base of populism is a reaction to the drive of liberal elites to pack votes by bringing in workers and families from overseas with a stake in the perpetual motion machine of liberal capitalism. Populism feels like a last throw of the dice to many indigenous workers.
Goldsmith outlines the logic of reaction in the street to liberal capitalist policies of global outsourcing and breaking down barriers to the free movement of labour. The complacency of liberals in the face of this logic of eventual reaction is unsurprising but remains depressing.
In fact, international liberalism as a political force, although it will thrash around like a dying dinosaur for some time to come, is close to dead, or perhaps to be seen as a zombie. Events in Afghanistan dealt the death blow. It explains Blair's almost hysterical intervention in its defence.
But this does not necessarily mean the death of collaborative internationalism or of liberalism as the normal position in Western democracies only that the aggressive ideology of the policy wonks and left-liberal and centrist politicians in our capital cities is no longer tenable.
Goldsmith (and the Greens and probably the populists) is probably a tad too extreme to be the basis for a shift into a new ideology. The current green hysteria really does have to be curbed for own long term protection but Western liberalism has to take a step or two in his direction.
A re-think of radical globalisation, increased respect for national cultural differences and organic evolution (effectively accepted when the Americans were forced to work this week with the Taliban to stop ordinary people dying) and national firewalls against mass migration are a start.
Similarly, the message of sustainability and community (which is not the same as the top-down Green dictatorship of the envirocrat) and some 'allowance' for the hogwash of spirituality as just a community fact on the ground when making policy are important.
Finally, democratic community management if not control of science and technology is something to be considered (although I am suspicious of liberal control of information and communications technology) while risk mitigation as a policy imperative should be top of mind.
There are, of course, a lot of hysterics in the engineering and scientific community whose propensity to 'extrapolate logically' results in a vast range of neurotic scenarios of human destruction but it is also true that mass deaths and disorder have appeared from just one pathogen.
Again, we need some balance - not Goldsmith's over-reaching on 'mad cow disease' but not complacency either. Whoever turned cows into cannibals to be efficient was an idiot. The failure to put in emergency procedures that could be triggered in advance of a pandemic is equally idiotic.
The ineptitude of the European Union over its initial vaccine procurement and of Washington in handling the withdrawal from Afghanistan are not one-offs. They are part of the way our system operates which suggests that we need a lot of Goldsmith-like rethinking of our own competencies.
Perhaps Dominic Cummings does have the right ideas or at least offers useful gad-fly provocations in a British context but most of us are never likely to know because his ideas are behind an elite-like paywall and he has few political friends left.
The rethinking is going to have to be a pragmatic revision of Western liberal norms and the removal and replacement of the bulk of the current political class. Getting both of those necessary outcomes is going to be very difficult.
Goldsmith has no answers to the central problem which is thus not one of ideas but of systems. Western democracy is no longer fit for purpose, built out of eighteenth century theory and nineteenth century practice and yet democracy is our only guardian against inept elites.
There are already those - notably Greens and some liberals - ready to blame the people and talk of the need for authoritarian solutions but it is these elites that are the problem and not the people whose general common sense is usually far more right than wrong.
Foreign powers, arguing against Western interference, are in danger of becoming 'less inept' alternatives much as the US was the 'less inept' model when compared to that of the Soviet Union. Their models must be kept out of the West as much as us not interfering in their domain.
It is the malign association of activism and politics, the professionalisation of politics within corrupted political parties and their careerism, the creation of lobby networks and secret funding processes, identity politics and migrant influence on foreign affairs that need looking at.
Change will not come from within the system because it operates like the Ancien Regime but only through attacks from outside (which only the populists are now offering) that force sections of the elite to take on challenging alternatives to save their own sorry skins.
At least Goldsmith was asking the right questions ... we should all be questioning the prevailing order on the same terms even if we come up with very different answers.
May 11, 2017
At first I had a hard time believing this was written in 1993 and not 2017. Amazingly prescient, specially about Europe.
April 3, 2013
"Sir James Michael "Jimmy" Goldsmith was an Anglo-French billionaire financier. Towards the end of his life, he became a magazine publisher and a politician. In 1994, he was elected to represent France as a Member of the European Parliament and he subsequently founded the short-lived eurosceptic Referendum Party in Britain. He was known for his polyamorous romantic relationships and for the various children he fathered with his wives and girlfriends."
This was the author of this book written in 1993-4. He clearly can't have been a leftist, marxist or "liberal"; at least that's how our presumption would go. I for one was confused about Mr. Goldsmith's political identity after reading his book. He goes over what the potential dangers of globalisation looked like 20 years ago, after the fall of the USSR when Fukuyama's End Of History seemed like it might have been rather spot-on. Now of course we know that history didn't end and that globalisation was a real phantom menace, but back it wasn't yet the concrete everyday reality of 2013. And you most certainly wouldn't have expected a "billionaire financier" to lean that way.
Basically, this rich guy predicted: the crisis of the European South 8 years before even the introduction of the Euro; the inevitability of unemployment, recession and austerity when the world had to competing with the ocean of cheap labour that is Asia; the dangers of monocultures and GMO mega-corporations like Monsanto; even the dead-end that is nuclear power, among other things. Unexpectedly, for me at least, he doesn't even touch neoliberalist ideas in the book and uses very lucid and clearly-constructed arguments to demonstrate that the path humanity, or at least its more powerful chunk, has chosen, is basically wrong.
His predictions were logic-driven. They were there in 1993, just like they are there today. If no-one listened back then they might be excused. But there is no excuse today for not listening. Following a strategy doomed to obvious failure is either extremely stupid or criminal -and I'm not buying that anyone making this much money off of the world can be that stupid...
The Trap showed me just how little the discussion has changed, how old false dilemmas have reared their ugly heads again and again, never failing to fool the masses anew and always succeeding to make the world a little bit of a worse place to live in. James Goldsmith wrote this book as a warning. Everything he was warning against has come true. Why should I think that the unseen rest of this huge trap hasn't already been long prepared or perhaps even sprung?
Time will tell. Fortunately, my pessimistic side doesn't usually get the best of me.
Kudos go to Dan Carlin for bringing this book to my attention (listen to this episode for a much better review and comparison of The Trap to the present situation than I could ever write) and my father who actually bought it when it first came out. I found it in his bookshelf; it's apparently rather hard/expensive to find now.
This was the author of this book written in 1993-4. He clearly can't have been a leftist, marxist or "liberal"; at least that's how our presumption would go. I for one was confused about Mr. Goldsmith's political identity after reading his book. He goes over what the potential dangers of globalisation looked like 20 years ago, after the fall of the USSR when Fukuyama's End Of History seemed like it might have been rather spot-on. Now of course we know that history didn't end and that globalisation was a real phantom menace, but back it wasn't yet the concrete everyday reality of 2013. And you most certainly wouldn't have expected a "billionaire financier" to lean that way.
Basically, this rich guy predicted: the crisis of the European South 8 years before even the introduction of the Euro; the inevitability of unemployment, recession and austerity when the world had to competing with the ocean of cheap labour that is Asia; the dangers of monocultures and GMO mega-corporations like Monsanto; even the dead-end that is nuclear power, among other things. Unexpectedly, for me at least, he doesn't even touch neoliberalist ideas in the book and uses very lucid and clearly-constructed arguments to demonstrate that the path humanity, or at least its more powerful chunk, has chosen, is basically wrong.
His predictions were logic-driven. They were there in 1993, just like they are there today. If no-one listened back then they might be excused. But there is no excuse today for not listening. Following a strategy doomed to obvious failure is either extremely stupid or criminal -and I'm not buying that anyone making this much money off of the world can be that stupid...
The Trap showed me just how little the discussion has changed, how old false dilemmas have reared their ugly heads again and again, never failing to fool the masses anew and always succeeding to make the world a little bit of a worse place to live in. James Goldsmith wrote this book as a warning. Everything he was warning against has come true. Why should I think that the unseen rest of this huge trap hasn't already been long prepared or perhaps even sprung?
Time will tell. Fortunately, my pessimistic side doesn't usually get the best of me.
Kudos go to Dan Carlin for bringing this book to my attention (listen to this episode for a much better review and comparison of The Trap to the present situation than I could ever write) and my father who actually bought it when it first came out. I found it in his bookshelf; it's apparently rather hard/expensive to find now.
January 27, 2022
Incredibly prescient from a socioeconomic point of view, which is what has earnt it 4 stars from me. The fact that large parts of the rest of the book were quite aimless, shows just how good the start of the book which focuses on Sir James’ economic thesis really is.
February 1, 2024
The most important book I’ve ever read.
June 11, 2023
Big text, large margins and exceptionally perspicacious insights into the impacts of globalisation, which, 30 years later, has basically been proven spot on. Probably the perfect book... until incredibly boring chapters on modern agriculture and nuclear power
June 5, 2021
Extremely prescient. We have elevated measurement to a goal in and of itself. The basic premise is that we care more about process than purpose. We see the measurement of GNP as the goal to shoot for, without ever questioning how we should measure economic and societal success. Some of those factors that are ignored, Goldsmith argues, are unemployment, wage decline, disintegrating social fabric, and dealing food quality and an increasingly anti-fragile system. He accurately predicts the devastating effects of globalization.
October 26, 2011
For a very good synopsis/review, see:
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artm...
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artm...
July 11, 2025
“In my view, [the New World Order] should ensure that each nation is entitled to pursue peacefully its own way of life with its own culture and traditions, even if they seem exotic or inconceivable to us. The bedrock of social diversity is mutual respect. As we look around within our own western communities and see our own disarray, we should be willing to behave towards others with humility.”
I got a second-hand copy (missing pages 33–34…) on Amazon after watching the interview with Charlie Rose (search James Goldsmith Charlie Rose on YouTube), which I discovered through a reference on X—prompted by Catherine Fitts's interview with Tucker Carlson.
The Trap was published in 1994. I was 33 at the time—already an adult—and the world was about to change dramatically. James Goldsmith was prescient. I agree with nearly all his arguments and reasoning. My points of disagreement mostly stem from technological developments he couldn’t have foreseen (in nuclear power, for instance). Yet even on those fronts, his arguments are intelligent, compelling, and worthy of serious respect and consideration, even today.
The world has unfolded almost exactly as he predicted—and we’re worse off for having ignored his warnings. FWIW.
“We need to revise our priorities. The purpose of agriculture is not just to produce the maximum amount of food, at the cheapest direct cost, employing the least number of people. The true purpose should be to produce a diversity of food, of a quality which respects human health, in a way which cares for the environment and which aims at maintaining employment at a level that ensures social stability in rural communities.”
I got a second-hand copy (missing pages 33–34…) on Amazon after watching the interview with Charlie Rose (search James Goldsmith Charlie Rose on YouTube), which I discovered through a reference on X—prompted by Catherine Fitts's interview with Tucker Carlson.
The Trap was published in 1994. I was 33 at the time—already an adult—and the world was about to change dramatically. James Goldsmith was prescient. I agree with nearly all his arguments and reasoning. My points of disagreement mostly stem from technological developments he couldn’t have foreseen (in nuclear power, for instance). Yet even on those fronts, his arguments are intelligent, compelling, and worthy of serious respect and consideration, even today.
The world has unfolded almost exactly as he predicted—and we’re worse off for having ignored his warnings. FWIW.
“We need to revise our priorities. The purpose of agriculture is not just to produce the maximum amount of food, at the cheapest direct cost, employing the least number of people. The true purpose should be to produce a diversity of food, of a quality which respects human health, in a way which cares for the environment and which aims at maintaining employment at a level that ensures social stability in rural communities.”
August 29, 2018
A worth reading book. Very informative that shows the things from another dimension that cannot be ignored.
March 24, 2025
I found the arguments against nuclear energy to be unmoving but most everything else is reasonable and in many cases quite prophetic.
December 4, 2025
Precsient to the perils of outsourcing your skilled labour for short term gain for an elite that is removed from the issues of your country's wider population.
April 19, 2015
The section on the European Union, particularly the single currency, is prescient, has been borne out by events, and is certainly worthy of five stars. Goldsmith's observations on the Cassa del Mezzogiorno and the Lombardy League seem to foreshadow much of the north-south discord that currently ails the Eurozone. Goldsmith's views on decentralization, which he terms 'subsidiarity' are sound. And there are other good parts to this book. For example, in a single sentence he changed my view of Siena.
Some of the other sections are more problematic. For example, Goldsmith's take on agriculture and nuclear power seem lopsided to me, and I do not agree with his conclusions on free trade. However, the whole book is robust and thought provoking.
Some of the other sections are more problematic. For example, Goldsmith's take on agriculture and nuclear power seem lopsided to me, and I do not agree with his conclusions on free trade. However, the whole book is robust and thought provoking.
December 13, 2012
As prophetic as any book, written 18 years ago, this quick read is still ahead of the curve. Read it - probably from your local library, as new copies are fetching a hundred bucks or more - and understand the impact of globalization, not only on finance, but the quality of life in America and the world. YouTube the author's name and view the 1994 interview with Charlie Rose.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews