Conservative view on International Trade

09/23/08 | jdlucas04

[jdlucas04]

I need help with the philosophy of International Trade. What is the conservative view of International Trade?

Thank you,

Jonathan

[ken21]

it depends on how you define “conservative”.

if you mean pat buchanan, that’s one thing.

if you mean milton friedman, that’s another.

etc.

[Pelham]

That depends upon which “conservative” you ask. The answers range from unfettered free trade to economic nationalism.

[ken21]

here’s one link:

http://www.nationalcenter.org/

see w/i “what conservatives think”, etc.

[Tublecane]

All trade ought to be free trade. Treat Great Britain, for instance, like they’re New Jersey and we’re New York. The international division of labor works to our mutual advantage. This is the libertarian view. For a better explanation than I can provide, see: Smith, Bastiat, Spencer, Mises, Hayek, Friedman, etc.

For the conservative view, consult people who don’t very much care about economics, and who think inustrialization irrevocably alienated our souls and corrupted our culture. For a better explanation, see: oh, I don’t know, Plato, Aristotle, a thousand other aristocrats, Russell Kirk, Buchanon, protectionists everywhere.

So long as socialism persists as a threat, conservatives will largely maintain the libertarian view.

[jdlucas04]

Thanks.

I was just trying to find out more info on trade.

Also, I should of put this in the post, but what is the Trans-Texas Corridor, for who know or live in Texas? Is it corruption or free trade, or something else?

Thanks a lot for helping me out,

Jonathan

[SFC Chromey]

Well, there is a difference between free-trade and “fair-trade”.

Free trade mean that you trade with a country like China, that uses slave/prison labor, may or may not pay wages to them etc; steals patents (see Big Bertha golf clubs, Chrysler’s Jeep Wrangler, etc), then dumps their goods for pennies on the dollar in your country.

Fair trade is trade between similarly designed countries with elected representation. I have NO problem trading with a country like Germany, France, Australia, Canada, etc as long as their institutions are on a similar plane.

Economies are similar, wages may be similar. When you try to trade with a country like Mexico for example, whose institutions and development are NOT on a similar level, you get an imbalance. You get rampant illegal immigration when they are right next door because of the drastic wage differences.

Of course, this is just my view of the difference between free and fair trade.

I say Smith, Ludwig von Mises, and Ayn Rand are all strong starting points.

[Marie2]

Jonathan, you may want to visit the Von Mises Institute. Lots of conservative economic thought there.

I don’t know that there is one unified conservative voice on the issue.

[Tublecane]

Fair trade seems like a good idea, but when you really think about it, children in sweat shops can only gain by being able to do something profitable with their time, instead of starving in a ditch. You can’t judge them by our standards, because that ignores the margin between what they earn now and what they’d be earning without globalization.

I’m not saying that the Chi-coms have magically morphed into good democrats since Mao’s death. But at least their citizens can now reach into some tiny, little part of the global pie. As for the American worker, he benefits as a consumer from quasi-slave labor, of course. And as for Mexicans, I’d be willing to bet that there’d be a whole lot more people jumping the border for higher wages if we blocked Mexico from our marketplace.

[BobbyT]

My response to the privileged lefties whining about “sweat shops” (where workers have such *terrible* positions that entire towns beat a path to managers’ doors and scrape together bribes to get jobs, since they make 2 and 3 and 5 times the next best alternative) was always this:

“You’re right, better they starve.”