Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: meadsjn
Smith's Wealth of Nations has been the foundation of real free market economic principles for this nation from its founding,

Fail. Complete poppy cock. The USA first law was tariff Act signed by President Washington in 1789. The USA was a protectionist nation until 1913 when progressives gave us the income tax. You have it so wrong.

37 posted on 05/21/2016 3:31:45 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: central_va
You and I have been on the same side of this argument. I don't know why or when you got confused about Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, but it happened.

You can download the entire works here.

Or just read some of other peoples' excerpts and discussions, like this one below:

A View on Smith on Protection

Its important to understand that Adam Smith also saw cases in which tariffs might be beneficial, which he discusses in Part II of Book IV of the Wealth of Nations : 'Of Restraints Upon the Importation from Foreign Countries of Such Goods as Can Be Produced at Home' .

He argues that the two cases in which it would be advantageous are when an industry is required for national defense, and when there is some internal tax placed on domestic industry which makes it more difficult to sell domestic products compared to foreign products.

Then he goes on to talk about cases in which there have to be deliberation, including retaliatory tariffs. His difference from mercantilists was he thought retaliatory tariffs always should have the goal in mind of returning the situation to how it was and influencing the other party to drop tariffs.

So there's a question to me of how much Hamilton really strayed from Smith compared to others who went even farther than Smith and become doctrinaire partisans against tariff.

Hamilton, and later List, expanded on Smith's limits, and suggested tariffs may appropriate for things like 'infant industry protection'.

But like Smith, they opposed the old System of mercantilism, which was more than about protective tariffs -- in establishing state sponsored monopolies, privileges, control of trading ports, determining who colonies could trade with, creating strict quality regulations that were punishable by death. Mercantilists also assumed the point of trade was to always encourage exports over imports, which Hamilton didn't accept either.

The opponents of Hamilton and List, who were free trade exponents and disliked all tariffs, were no better as heirs of Smith.


38 posted on 05/21/2016 10:34:47 AM PDT by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: central_va
Now look at just these two cases:

(1) when an industry is required for national defense, and

Think of all the industries necessary to national defense that are wholly and mostly now outsourced overseas -- steel, rare earth metals, textiles, boots, even food stuffs, and more.

(2)when there is some internal tax placed on domestic industry which makes it more difficult to sell domestic products compared to foreign products.

Our whole domestic industry of labor is taxed at more than half its revenue in some form or other.

39 posted on 05/21/2016 10:42:25 AM PDT by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson