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.
The merchant class has been the most reviled in the history of political thought. Their very existence sticks in the craw of those who, like Marxists and modern-day militarists, believe that history should be about great conflicts, and winners and losers. Why? Because the merchant class views history in a more mundane way: as a series of small steps by which people are provided the goods and services they need to overcome the great economic problem of scarcity.
Why is the dollar falling? Many commentators blame the balance of payments deficit. In fact, writes Frank Shostak, this has nothing to do with it. The main influnce on exchange rates is the purchasing power of money, which is mainly determined by supply and demand. The dollar is falling because the Fed has been pumping money.
To read the works of Bastiat is to read economic clarity and logic at its finest. However, numerous examples of the same "broken window fallacies" Bastiat debunked some 150 years ago can be found today in abundant supply. While these neoprotectionist arguments are cloaked in modern language, their core sophisms remain unchanged.
The consequences of a markedly diminished position of the US dollar would be dramatic and of global proportions. While it would affect all economies that are closely related to the US economy, the major impact would fall on the United States itself. A demise of the US dollar as the dominant global currency would mean that the current relation between domestic absorption and production could no longer be maintained.
Do you remember, asks Tibor Machan, when America was called the leader of the Free World? It seems like so long ago. Now the USA is the leader of the protectionist world, the very opposite of free, at least where international commerce is concerned.
For a few billion dollars, you might expect to be able to bribe some small third world country into cleaning up its act, to defend the property rights of its citizens, to provide a stable currency, and to establish a non-interventionist economic and foreign policy. Not so, writes Mark Thornton.
Hardly a day goes by when Mark Brandly doesn't observe confusion on the subject of international trade, from pundits who blame it all of American economic and social to those who think trade can only thrive in the context of treaties and war. This primer corrects most of the big mistakes.
