This obviously was a violation of free trade policy, but Smith defended it because Britain needed to maintain her maritime proficiency for reasons of national defense.

Yes he did, and he justified it by saying that defense “is much more important than opulence”. So he’s still making it clear that trade barriers harm economic growth, just that sometimes that’s necessary for more important purposes. I’m still not seeing how that can help it, any more than eliminating labor-saving machinery would help strengthen the economy. It all just comes across as different manifestations of the broken window fallacy.

Now there may be some benefit to protecting infant industries, but well developed industries don’t need the protection. I think the failures of the auto industry are illustrative of this. (and Larry Elder has an excellent column on that point)

This did not mean we did not trade with the world. During this time we fought the Barbary Pirates to maintain Mediterranean trade routes, fought the British for impressing our merchant sailors, and forced Japan to open up for trade. But, we maintained tariffs on imported goods to our market and tried to foster development of local industry.

BTW, in Smith’s work he pointed out how China had the largest economy in the world at the time, despite the fact they participated little in foreign trade. He attributed their success to the fact that they had a large internal market with good rivers and roads and did not need foreign markets for growth.

I don’t want to say there were flaws with Smith. I think Smith looked at trade from a European perspective. Because they had several nations on the continent, none of which had a large enough internal market to allow huge growth, Europeans needed to liberalize trade with one another to grow.

The US, like China, has a large landmass, diverse climate, good rivers, and a large population that gives it advantages that the leading trading nation of that time, The Netherlands, did not have.

Smith did make exceptions to free trade. For example Great Britain had laws on the books during Smith’s time that specified imports to GB had to be shipped on British ships with a majority British crew. This obviously was a violation of free trade policy, but Smith defended it because Britain needed to maintain her maritime proficiency for reasons of national defense.

The UK still hadn’t started outsourcing their labor force by 1900, had they?

By the way, where was the flaw in Smith’s reasoning? How is importing cheap goods any different, in terms of macroeconomic effects, from inventing machines that make goods more cheaply? Both actions “cost jobs”, at least until you consider the other half of the equation.

Great Britain was the first nation to adopt “Free Trade” policies in the 1800s. At that time her economy was larger than the US and Germany. By 1900 both the US and Germany, who were using protectionist measures, had surpassed GB.

In modern times, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and China have all used and benefited from protectionist measures.

On September 14th, 2009 at 1:44 pm, 11B said:
The USA became an economic giant with despite the use of tariffs and other protectionist measures.

FIFY.

I recommend reading some Adam Smith.

I am not saying this current tariff with tires is justified. But dismissing tariffs, and any other measures which may be classified as “protectionist”, is disingenuous given how much we have benefited from them.

Those who argue that regulation is bad are engaging in ignorance. The U.S. Constitution is the government regulatory document in America. Should we now be calling for it’s abolition?

Capital markets don’t work well when cheating is rampant. But how do you define cheating without regulation? How do you remedy unfair practices without regulations?

Our freedoms are limited by our our inability to act responsibly and virtuously. That is why we are a republic and not a pure democracy in the first place.

Baseball, football and basketball are not diminished by the fact they have rules. It’s those rules that define the games not the shape of the ball or the uniforms. Same with free trade.

Capitalism is not an ideology but an economic tool subject to regulation if it is to be stable, fair and thus efficient.

So those of you who should “down with regulation!” as a required conservative shibboleth need to refine your arguments.

Now that we have Chauncey for president, however, those days are over. He’s just such a complete and utter imbecile, there are no subtleties. It’s like trying to get worked up over someone telling you that ice is cold, or the sky is blue.

Duh, the banks were too big. Government regulation, as Ann Coulter is currently SCREAMING, didn’t work – it NEVER works in the long run. So what does Chauncey do? Make the already too-big banks… BIGGER. Michelle said it. Coulter said it. Everyone knows it.

What fun is this? There’s nothing to argue…

And now Chauncey has opened a trade war with the country that’s lending us all of this money.

The stupidity is just breathtaking.

Perhaps instead of “lie,” Wilson should have said “WITH RESPECT, IF JUST: HOW STUPID ARE YOU?”

At least then we could say
1. He said “with respect,” and
2. He asked the question we all want answered. Is there a limit to this ignoramus’s stupidity?

And just wait for the chicken industry to start squawking at China’s high tariffs. Oh, but wait, did the chicken industry donate to BO’s campaign”? Not to the level of AFL-CIO.
Hmmmmmm

Free markets don’t mean free-for-all trading. We are not opening up our economy for destruction. We have important national interests and we better be willing to fight for them. Given the choice between communist Chinese fascism and the American union worker, it’s no contest. I will stand for Americans every time.

This move is a job saver.

What of China’s monetary policies?

No, one bad behaviour does not merit, or require additional, bad behaviour for a second party. It is about recognizing that there is bad behaviour on China’s part and what to do about it?