Macaulay On Free Trade
Nothing New Under The Sun
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Economy | Featured Stories — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
A truly excellent post. And yes, it is amazing that Macaulay went through/anticipated many of the arguments currently raging about free trade. Equally amazing: All of the literature, all of the libraries and websites rich with learned commentary from free trade proponents like Macaulay, Bastiat and so many others should have--in a just and intellectually honest world--made the issue of free trade a non-question, a policy as unobjectionable as breathing, or eating when one is hungry.
Instead, incredibly, we are forced to continue to argue for a policy whose benefits are so obvious that opposition to it cannot help but boggle the mind. Up truly is down.
« Rethinking the Goals of a National Mortgage Bailout — Comments (45) | You Can Be Happy Now — Comments (21) »
Macaulay On Free Trade 12 Comments (0 topical, 12 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
"We say that every man shall have the right to buy whatever he wants, whenever he chooses, at his own good pleasure, without restriction or discouragement from the state . . . in pursuit of this simple plan there came last year into England from every land and people under the sun, millions worth of merchandise, so marvelously varied in its character that a whole volume would scarcely describe it. Why did it come? Was it to crush us, or to conquer us, or to starve us, or was it to nourish and enrich our country? It is a sober fact that every single time . . . however inconsiderable, all that vast catalogue of commodities came to our shores because some man desired it, paid for it, and meant to turn it to his comfort or profit."
Winston Churchill, House of Commons, 1904
The case for free trade could hardly be stated more simply, or more effectively.
on what percentage of Americans know who either Macauley or Churchill were? Weren't they the two guys on Survivor or did they play for the Bears?
In Vino Veritas
to see his name once again. Particularly current is his mention of keeping the corn laws,"merely in order that the corn laws may make the people miserable". A strong motif among todays friends of working families and the poor and historically an almost ignored factor in the reading of the State and society.
An honorable mention to John Bright who was perhaps the leading spokesman for repeal and is well worth reading.
Macaulays essays and speeches are gems but my personal favorite is the one on Burke, centered on the Warren Hastings trial. A great author combined with a very great subject. If memory serves, and sometimes it doesn't, it was there that Macaulay described Burke as the great master of the English language, from Shakespeare's time to Macaulays writing.
A compliment almost impossible to surpass.
Thanks for the post, any more like them?
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
I lament to say that we do not have free trade nor is it being espoused in its true form by either party.
Free Trade is just that: FREE TRADE.
Unfortunately, the bag of goods I see promoted (and condemned) as free trade is not free trade at all.
Free Trade Agreements do not need thousands or even hundreds of pages to be free trade agreements. They require, for the most part, the ABSENCE of rules and regulations.
NAFTA, love it or hate, true free trade IMO. If it were, it'd only a page or two.
I say we drop NAFTA, all tariffs, all subsidies (especially agricultural) and any regulation that prevents the free exchange of goods in the best competitive environment possible. Then we'll be on the road to free trade.
Don't tread on me.
The problem with dropping all tariffs and subsidies overnight is the transition cost on society.
Economics tells us that once we hit the new equilibria we'll be better off than we were before, yes, but that transition doesn't happen overnight.
So if we gradually move to reduce these market distortions, then the transition won't have to happen all at once, so the temporary pain some experience will be alleviated.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
to true free trade is that its opponents cannot be identified as part of one party or ideology...making a uniform movement towards it very difficult politically speaking.
I've had conversations with many loyal conservative republicans who oppose free trade and side with the "Lou Dobbs/Pat Buchanan" wing on this issue. They want protection for american jobs do not look beyond that gut reaction opinion.
I find the Left to have a similar divisions.
My main point though is that free trade discussions use, as a point of reference, things like NAFTA to talk about free trade when it's extremely complicated and full of clauses, excpetions and conditions that it hardly lives up to the free trade label.
Don't tread on me.
In a heartbeat, if other nations would, too.
That ain't happening. So, the choice is free trade agreements which seem byzantine, but result in freER trade than before, or no deal, leaving the impediments to trade in place.
In virtually every case, other nations' barriers to "free" trade are far greater than our own have ever been. To whatever extent we can make trade in both directions freer, America benefits the most.
Not that our partners would suffer - they would not. They would benefit greatly from freer trade in almost every respect, but we will still benefit more, because we had fewer restrictions on stuff coming in than they did in the first place.
Not to mention we can kick their asses in anything closer to a fair fight.
when you remember Al Gore actually won the NAFTA debate with Ross Perot, arguing for free trade.