Replies

... But Adam Smith showed that good intentions are irrelevant to the success of the economy. The only requirement is that a business legally provide a product for the lowest price possible. THAT is its job. ...

Talk about crank versions. You might want to re-read your 'Wealth of Nations' and the economic suppositions upon which Smith drew his conclusions. Wealth of Nations was written about a economic theory in a world in which we do not live, i.e. one in which small businesses were run locally by their owners; their customers and employees were also local. Smith was a big fan of producing and purchasing domestically.

“As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can, both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce maybe of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain; and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention”

I am not for free trade as it is defined today in 'Free Trade' Agreements that are administered by non elected international bureaucrats for the benefit of international corporations and finance and their representatives in our government.

Oh dear, you gave away one of the answers to arrogantsob for questions I asked for in the post following yours.

arrogantsob you got a freebie, but you still need to explain those other things too, if you’re as knowledgeable as you say on the topic of ‘free trade’.

Smith’s whole analysis was based upon the expansion of the division of labor which maximizes wealth creation. That is only possible when the market is international otherwise the division of labor is not driven to its extreme. He was writing to get rid of a system which strictly controlled foreign trade and the export of precious metals strictly for nationalistic reasons. He pointed out that national wealth would be maximized under free trade. He argued to DROP restrictions on imports. And exports of metal as well.
His idea of supporting domestic producers did not mean he believe that international trade should be restricted as it had been under mercantilism.

Many of us have tried to point out that arguments allegedly against “free trade” are nothing of the sort but are beefs with governmentally regulated trade. We have never had free trade.

I am not for free trade as it is defined today in 'Free Trade' Agreements that are administered by non elected international bureaucrats...

Let's just say we're all together on that, we all hate any buying and selling by free people as long as the buying/selling is defined as being something that's really bad.

So let's go to standard definitions and say what is it that we want. Some people like tax hikes on imports and more government controls over who we do business with. I say we need lower taxes and less government control. Anyone else here like anything?