_One_ benefit of 'free trade'

Vox Day is on another of his protectionist anti-free-trade binges ... and, as always, he does so dishonestly: he misrepresents and outright lies.

But enough about someone who will not reason about certain things; I'd rather try to help Gentle Reader see for himself the public necessity of upholding free-trade.

Now, the thing about protectionism is that it is *always* advocated to advance the narrow interests of the organized few at the expense of the un-organized many. Protectionism is the siren-call to use the deadly force of The State to compel you and me, under threat of violent death, to pay more for the goods and services offered by some set of allegedly private actors than we'd willingly pay if we had more, and cheaper, options.

One benefit of free-trade -- I mean, aside from preserving your autonomy over how, and with whom, you will exchange the fruit of your own labor -- is that it compels domestic suppliers of goods and services to maintain or improve the quality of their offerings, or to go out of business. This is why 'big business' and 'big labor' are constantly in collusion against you and me in lobbying the Federal government to limit 'free-trade' -- which is to say, to limit your and my commercial options and to make the options available more expensive. That, and the fact that Federal politicians can buy the votes of those organized few by compelling we un-organized many to put more of our money into the pockets of those organized few than we would willingly do otherwise.


Consider this hypothetical --

There are two neighboring towns in some county in some US State: Smithstown and Jonesville. In each town is a company manufacturing widgets: the Smithstown Widget Company and Jonesville Widget Enterprises -- and everyone in both towns and for many miles around is mad for widgets. For years and years, these two companies been in a mostly (*) friendly competition: to the point that their products are comparable in quality and price; there isn't much to distinguish them except Brand Loyalty.

But, one day, the Smithstown Widget Company develops an improvement to their manufacturing processes, such that they can now manufacture widgets 10% more efficiently -- that is to say, more cheaply -- than with their old processes. And, caring more for making a profit than maintaining the centuries-old status quo with Jonesville Widget Enterprises, the Smithstown Widget Company begins to offer their widgets for 5% less than formerly, that is, for 5% less than Jonesville Widget Enterprises can possibly offer them and still turn a profit.

Now, as it happens, the town of Jonesville is where 90% of the widget-buying public lives. So, the politicans of Jonesville and the owners and union honchos of Jonesville Widget Enterprises get together and decide to counter this new threat posed by the Smithstown Widget Company by imposing a 10% tarrif (**) on all widgets sold within Jonesville which were manufactured outside Jonesville.

That is, they use the violent power of the state/city to compel those within the town of Jonesville who wish to buy widgets to pay more than is necessary. That is, they use the violent power of the state/city to take money out of the pockets of the un-organized many so as to put it into the pockets of the organized few.

Do we *really* need to extend this hypothetical? Can Gentle Reader *really* not consider human nature, and generalizing from real-world experience, realized where this will and must go?

(*) there was that One Time, back on '04 (that's 1804), but no one wants to bring that up these days.

(**) for the purpose of this hypothetical, we are ignoring that in the US, only Uncle Sam can impose tarrifs. But, if one's mind cannot stretch that far, make the two towns into neighboring countries.


Or, consider this real-world example --

Just a couple of weeks ago, I traded-in a 1999 Buick Park Ave I'd bought two years previous, on a 2001 GMC Sierra. The Buick had 190K miles when I bought it, and 220K when I sold it; the body and interior was showing some wear when I bought it, but the motor was, and still is, in great shape (and, the trade-in was 80% of what I'd initially paid). Likewise, the Sierra has about 150K miles, and is in excellent shape both in body and engine.

Now, if Gentle Reader's experience extends so far, think back to what American-built vehicles were like in the late 1960s and into the 1980s. Does Gentle Reader *really* think that a 1969 Buick Park Ave with 220K miles would still be drivable in 1982, absent massive expendatures to essentially rebuild it?

What is different between then and now? Why are American-built vehicles such better values now than then? Why were they trash then, but are pretty good now?

What happened is Reagan and his (partial) rolling-back of protectionist measures to designed to take unnecessarilty-extra money out of the pockets of the many Americans who wished to buy automobiles and put it into the pockets of the very few Americans who built automobiles.