Fixed the link.

No King But God

“Trade does not require force. Free trade consists simply in letting people buy and sell as they want to buy and sell. It is protection that requires force, for it consists in preventing people from doing what they want to do. . . . What protection teaches us, is to do to ourselves in time of peace, what enemies seek to do to us in time of war.”

Henry George, Protection or Free Trade, 1886 (available at http://www.truefreetrade.org/pft4.htm).

I don’t agree with many of George’s ideas, but here he is clear, concise, and absolutely correct.

No King But God

If you don’t mind, please explain what you are referring to with the term “aggressive economic behavior.”

If you are referring to the imposition of duties, tariffs, imposts, etc., then I will agree that a nation should not impose such restraints of trade on their citizens. But that is a matter for that country’s citizens to take up with that nation, not an excuse for another nation to “protect” its citizens by imposing similar barriers on its citizens. Such barriers rob a country’s consumers to favor its domestic producers.

If, however, you are referring to the “dumping” of cheap goods on another country’s market, then please explain to me exactly what the harm is here? Yes, it may reduce the market share of domestic producers, but it very much benefits domestic consumers! It is exactly the same as if I bought goods at a store, and then turned around and sold them to you at a 20% loss. Sure, the store would lose business, but it very much benefits you!

It must be remembered – a country’s wealth is measured by the real goods its citizens possess. By dumping cheap goods on a market, the exporting nation is subsidizing the importing country’s consumers! Thereby increasing the real wealth and purchasing power of that country’s consumers!

Simply using emotionally charged military terms (e.g., “aggressive economic behavior,” “defend your market,” etc.) does not by itself justify taking collective action. The government does this all the time to drum up support for encroaching upon our inalienable rights – the war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on poverty. It is in reality nothing more than a pretext for a war on our God-given rights!

Would be very interested in your response. God bless you.

No King But God

Until we all have similar markets economics demands they will attempt to equalize and I have no desire to see the standard of living in the US equalize with Guatemala, Liberia, India, and sundry. It is in the best interest of the Third World as well as our own to teach them how to become a part of American and European prosperity rather than allowing them to pull us into the abyss of poverty through various means, not the least of which is uncontrolled population growth.

Jon Ogden’s point is that unilateral free trade is no more viable than unilateral disarmament. By giving up your ability to defend yourself with a powerful military you invite aggression. By the same token by giving up your ability to defend your market you invite aggressive economic behavior.

In the US if a state is agressive towards another state the Federal government steps in and mediates the situation but there is no such body for nations to appeal to for remedy besides the UN which is a paper tiger.

I am not convinced that Herbener is correct when it comes to the necessity of money backed by precious metals and the curative effects on the cyclical nature of the economy.

It seems to me that limiting the amount of money in a market relative to a precious metal or metals limits how fast and large and economy can grow. The US GNP for 2008 was something like 14 trillion dollars and the ECU was 18 trillion. I doubt you could cover the currency required to circulate through these economies to generate such astronomical numbers if each note was required to be secured by an amount of gold, silver, platinum, etc. At the very least the value of these metals would skyrocket making their use in everything from jewelry to electronics impractical.

The negotiations leading to freer trade must lead to bi-lateral reductions or elimation of barriers to trade, including tariffs, quotas, inspections and permits, trading partner distribution rights, etc. To unilaterally commit to free trade is unrealistic or even foolish. Both (and multilateral) trading partners must benefit so that, at minimum, no one is worse off.

Internal dislocations caused by trade policy should be addressed domestically with compensation, retraining, and repurposing of assets. The gains from free trade are extensive enough to create the income and production to generate the wherewithal for such adjustments.

Pardon me, but it seems completely inaccurate to say that free trade is “imposed.” Instead, managed and regulated trade is imposed. Free trade simply means letting each individual freely choose with whom and on what terms he will trade.

Also, if one state chooses to “undercut” the price of businesses in another state, what is so damaging about this? Such action is the same as giving a subsidy to all consumers trading with the subsidized business. It means cheaper goods for the consumers. You seek to harm the consumers for the benefit of their country’s exporters. Further, what will better allow the “slave” labor to escape their predicament? Economic sanctions imposed on their country, which primarily hurt the poorer segments of their nation (i.e., the slaves themselves), or rising living standards brought about by free trade with their country?

I do not care if someone is an academic, or a business person who understands “how the world works,” so long as their position is based on a consistent application of the fundamental principles of liberty.

Hope to continue this conversation with you. God bless you.

No King But God