Global Economy

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 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.

It is a common error: the tendency to inflate the ability of government to shape the world according to its liking. Politicians and their critics both are guilty of this. In truth, government cannot outsmart the market, and it is far less powerful than the laws of economics and the buying and selling decisions of consumers and entrepreneurs. Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., explains how and why this is so, and what it means for our future.

The exchange rate is a measure of the relative value of these two currencies, not the value of the dollar or the euro per se. Perhaps the value of dollar and the euro have risen lately but the euro a bit more. Richard Johnsson believes that both have lost in value since mid-2001, only the euro has lost less than the dollar.

In a wide-ranging interview Sudha Shenoy comments on her decision to become an economist, the influence of Rothbard and Kirzner, the politics of Hayek, current trends in global trade, US protectionism, the bad turn in economic theorizing, and the need to resolve the conflict between Islam and the West.

As with the EU, Mercosur, NAFTA and other regional trading arrangements all vying for supremacy, and mercantilism entrenched at the heart of the dispute settlement system, the WTO is anything but committed to unfettered trade between individuals across national borders. Grant Nulle explains how and why. 

Balance of payments numbers such as those the US currently has would have broken many other currencies and would have triggered severe financial crises in other countries much earlier. But the US is different. It holds a privileged position within the international monetary system and its path to ruin may be longer and smoother than that for other nations. Nevertheless, there is a limit.

The case for free trade has been made for hundreds of years, and yet the fight for the right to buy and sell outside the borders is never ending. The situation is complicated by a major confusion that exists among free trade advocates. Many believe that world trade, because it is a good thing, ought to be sanctioned, managed, and otherwise regulated by the government or a coalition of governments.

The critics of free trade persist in their insistence that permitting individuals in this country the freedom to invest where they please undermines the effectiveness of the U.S. economy and ultimately leads to a lower standard of living. The implication: Americans are better off only if everyone else in the world is poor. This flies in the face of sound economics.