One of those wonderful essays that needs full reading. It examines the arguments for protectionism and counter-arguments against it. As you can imagine from the title The Dangerous Nonsense of Protectionism, the author Murray N. Rothbard is for free-trade. As a note, the article was first published by the Mises Institute in 1986.
It’s interesting to read argument posited in 1986 and see how they still have relevance today. Just substitute Japan for India/China.
A key passage for me:
Keep Your Eye on the Consumer
As we unravel the tangled web of protectionist argument, we should keep our eye on two essential points: (1) protectionism means force in restraint of trade; and (2) the key is what happens to the consumer. Invariably, we will find that the protectionists are out to cripple, exploit, and impose severe losses not only on foreign consumers but especially on Americans. And since each and every one of us is a consumer, this means that protectionism is out to mulct [sic] all of us for the benefit of a specially privileged, subsidized few—and an inefficient few at that: people who cannot make it in a free and unhampered market.
I agree with you Mike! Where is this mythical ‘free and unhampered market’ and can I get a job in it or do I have to be the son of a wealthy republican?
How is the imposition of simple taxes and fees…a use of ‘force in restraint of trade’?
It is easy to see how attacking Iraq to prevent the spread of WMD’s is a use of ‘force in restraint of trade’. However, that is rarely what folks mean when they talk about protectionism.
Apparently, it is the use of money to protect farmers, union workers and the environment that really scares these ‘free trade’ activists.
How about free trade for transporation. Car companies could pay to build the highways critical for their market themselves?
Why give Viagra a market advantage over marijuana? Such as use of force to restrain trade could be the end of our ‘free’ trade economy, eh?
So when does free trade begin? For which corporations and/or industrial sectors should we eliminate government subsidies and special tax breaks first?
I doubt any big business today makes any kind of financial commitment without seeking city, state, or federal government assistance in some form. And they get it.