[arrogantsob]

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.

[khnyny]

We have never had free trade.

My little pea brain agrees with that statement. :)

[algernonpj]

Cool, change the subject and ignore what Smith said:
“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 love the smell of cow patties in the morning ;)