Protectionism and Free Trade

Innovations aren't very useful unless they serve consumers in the marketplace. Otherwise, we're pursuing innovation for its own sake, and that isn't progress.

Experts who predicted economic doom as Brexit approached obsessed over the problem of "transaction costs" in trade. But the EU was imposing countless new transaction costs of its own.

The North American fur trade is in decline. Unfortunately, many think that the solution is for the government to step in to “protect” trappers from market competition.

Sanctions have a long history of failure. The US government's recent sanctions on Iran will likely be no different, but they will certainly be harmful to the Iranian people.

Whether diversity is a social benefit depends on whether it creates excuses to fight each other for special treatment. Politicizing our differences is far more likely to make diversity a source of conflict.

While the legislation introduced in the US Congress remains fiction under a Republican executive and senate, the Brussels initiative will become law unless there is considerable opposition from EU member states.

So long as governments exist, it is essential that we minimize the ability of groups and individuals to use the power of the state to enrich themselves.

A “free trade agreement” in practice isn’t simply an index card declaring, “Tariffs on Country X are 0 percent, three cheers for Bastiat!” These are managed trade agreements, with hundreds of pages devoted to detailed regulations that smack of top-down Soviet planning.

Some Latin American policymakers seem to think China will offer easy terms for loans and trade agreements. They're wrong. China isn't as rich as many think.

Americans ought to begin thinking of trade between the US and the UK as something comparable to trade between California and Idaho.