Replies

Okay, let me explain.

Suppose you and I are trapped on an island. Let's assume that two tasks are to be completed for our survival - fishing and building shelter. Let's also assume that you are better than I at both tasks e.g. it takes you 10 (20) hours to catch a fish dinner (build a thatched hut) whereas it takes me 15 (45) hours to complete both tasks.

Now, according to Adam Smith's logic you should move away from me as far as possible and do fishing and shelter building on your own.

But Smith's logic is incorrect. What we should do is split the chores.

Let's first determine how many fish dinners and huts we could build on our own. Let's assume that during a year you and I work a total of 2000 and 3600 hours, respectively. If you spend 1000 hours on fishing (and the other 1000 on hut building) you will garner 100 fish dinners and have built 50 huts. If I spend 1800 hours on fishing (and the other 1800 on hut building) I'll have 120 dinners and 40 huts.

Thus, the total number of fish dinners and huts on the island are 220 and 90.

What happens if we specialize (i.e., comparative advantage, free trade)? If you spend all your time building huts, you will construct 100. If I spend all my time fishing I will garner 240 fish dinners. Hence, the island has increased ouput dramatically just by specializing, even though I was far less competent at both tasks.

This is the fundemental argument for free trade. It's often misunderstood because it's counterintuitive.

Nice analogy, but fundamentally incorrect. In your example, you are producing things. In today's world of globalization, we are being forced to no longer produce anything of value except information. We won't be able to build the things we design any longer.

That's sheer idiocy. It insures that we become dependent upon other nations who have agendas far different than our own. We didn't claw our way to the top of the heap in order to just give it back to those who would destroy us.

Suppose you and I are trapped on an island. Let's assume that two tasks are to be completed for our survival - fishing and building shelter. Let's also assume that you are better than I at both tasks e.g. it takes you 10 (20) hours to catch a fish dinner (build a thatched hut) whereas it takes me 15 (45) hours to complete both tasks.

Thanks for your explanation. This is my explanation.

The "island" would be Earth and all it's political systems because your analogy is describing world trade.

The people of the world live in their respective political systems, and they have to have things to live. Some systems provide more abundance to answer the needs than others.

The political systems reflect the people who live in them because those same people either create the system by commission, or allow the system to form by omission. Their aggregate mass is always greater than that of their leaders. If that aggregate mass can't cooperate enough to build a mutually enriching place to live, that's their problem, not any others who may be doing better.

We have brutal (hard and soft) regimes, which the people have allowed to rule them, taking much and returning little. A democratic republic, if it is to stay a free and sovereign system, cannot compete economically with a brutal regime.

If trade is globally designed, democratic republics, our (American) way of life incidentally, must turn into brutal regimes to provide for basic needs of their peoples.

Trade is naturally internal to a political system for the security and benefit the people of that system. It's proven so because internal trade is archetypical of all trade. If it is distorted to a global level where its basic maxims don't apply, there must be a global government to enforce any inequity.

If you were to provide each of your desert islanders with a commodity generator powered by how creatively their owners pounded sand, your analogy would have the proper form for analysis.