Protectionism and Free Trade

Whether we're talking about the Trump years or not, the idea that the United States embraces unconditional free trade at all costs—while being victimized by foreign protectionists—is based on fantasy.

Trump clearly views trade in a zero-sum, mercantilist manner, with the country possessing a deficit “losing” and “down.” But continuing the trade war only makes recession more likely for both sides. Luckily China is stalling on committing to a trade agreement.

Most "free trade" agreements are really just ways to expand the regulatory state and rob the consumers of the benefits they might have gotten from actual free trade.

The national trade account balance is of little economic significance and is a sterile concept. But the government’s attempts to "fix" it can have many harmful effects.

Like Trump, I want China to stop manipulating its economy. But not for the same reasons Trump does.

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.