It is probably safe to assume that the so-called Third World has always been difficult for those in more developed Western-style countries to understand. Sudha Shenoy is the author of a wonderful little paper titled "Austrian Theory and the Undeveloped Areas: An Overview," first published in 1991 and recently made available by the Mises Institute. As Christopher Mayer tells us, Shenoy's arguments overwhelm with their simplicity.
Hal Varian doesn't tell us why the dollar bill in our pocket has value, writes Frank Shostak. To say that the value of money is due to social convention is to say very little. What Varian has told us is that money has value because it is accepted, and why it is accepted? Because it is accepted! Obviously this is not a good explanation of why money has value.
Mateusz Machaj, founder of the Mises Institute, Poland, argues that international trade theory isn't a stand-alone topic. It is a practical application of general trade theory to trading between persons from different countries. There is no difference between mobility of factors of production inside or outside a country.
What is a loophole? For the criminal mind, writes Lew Rockwell, the lock on your door, the combination code on your safe, and the weapon your keep for protection are all loopholes you use to escape the work he wants to do. If he had his way, all these loopholes that permit you to maintain privacy and security would be closed forthwith. The result for him would be vastly more revenue.
Beware of trade restrictions, writes N. Joseph Potts; they are often followed by war. Iraq is only one case. The United States embargoed sales of scrap iron to Japan before the war with that country began in 1941, and probably worse, secretly colluded with Britain, China, and the Netherlands (which at the time controlled oilfields in Indonesia) to deny petroleum resources to Japan, a step still cited today in Japanese accounts of the causes of its war with the United States.
New Jersey has the dubious distinction of having the worst automobile insurance system in America. It is literally the most expensive, and provides poor service to its customers. Despite these high premiums, many automobile insurance companies have exited this market. In the past ten years, twenty insurers have left New Jersey. D.W. MacKenzie predicts reform won't help either.
Some distinguished theorists have lately entered into a debate over the merits of free trade after two of them had suggested that "free trade has necessary conditions" and "today these conditions are not met". In particular, they mean that David Ricardo's law of comparative advantage don't hold if the "factors of production" are free to move around, particularly if money and laboring persons are able to move faster than goods. Thus, in a way, this argument says that since people are free to move around, move their money around as well as their goods, free trade is bad. But how can it be that free movement of persons, money and goods is bad for free trade? How can it be that free trade is bad for free trade?
The citizens of the US are not made richer by raising taxes or other barriers to foreign consumption goods, writes Robert Murphy, and this is true whether factors of production are immobile (as Ricardo assumed) or mobile. We should not fear the cost-cutting advancements in data transmission, or the improved skills and education of foreign workers. On the contrary, we should welcome these developments because they mean lower prices for imported goods and services, and hence a higher standard of living for Americans.
The case for free trade is based on David Ricardo’s principle of comparative advantage. Ricardo addressed the question how trade could take place between country A and country B (England and Portugal in his example) if country B was more efficient in the production of tradable goods (cloth and wine in his example) than A.
Writes George Reisman: If we follow the line of Schumer and Roberts, and their avowed mentor, Keynes, and instead of allowing ourselves to benefit from the competition of the rest of the world, seek to impede others' progress, we should not be surprised if we end up finding much of that intelligence and ability turned against us, in producing the weapons of future wars rather than the better and more economical consumers' goods it can and wants to produce and which we want to consume.
