Paul Craig Roberts debates Free Trade at the 2004 Austrian Scholars Conference. Featuring commentary by Guido Hülsmann, Joe Salerno, and Mark Thornton. Moderated by Randall Holcombe.
I appreciate the attention William L. Anderson has given my recent syndicated column , Jobless in the USA. In his analysis he does not present the gist of my argument or concern, perhaps because my argument is new and he mistakes it as an argument for protectionism against free trade. As free traders we are all predisposed to dismiss any
Many seem to have forgot that free trade rests on a case and is not an absolute virtue in itself. The case for free trade is that it results in shared gains to the countries involved. For this to be true, free trade must be based on comparative advantage. For comparative advantage to hold, factors of production cannot be internationally mobile
It is gratifying that so many libertarians took time to give me the benefit of their thoughts on my recent commentary about the case for free trade. I am grateful to the von Mises Institute for posting these comments and for forwarding to me additional comments excluded from posting by resource limitations. The numerous comments are a tribute to a
Re: Newton and Armentano Asia has absolute advantage in the price of labor. The mobility of first world capital and technology means decline in employment in high value-added tradable goods and services in the first world. The displaced workers will drive down first world wages in non-traded goods and services. A new general equilibrium will
Re: Johnsson , here’s Ricardo : “It would undoubtedly be advantageous to the capitalists of England, and to the consumers in both countries, that under such circumstances [Portugal’s absolute advantage in the production of all tradable goods and services discussed in Ricardo’s preceding paragraphs], the wine and the cloth should both be made in
Re: Machaj If Mateusz Machaj were correct that “there is no difference between mobility of factors of production inside or outside a ‘country,’” there would be no subject matter for international trade theory. All trade would be regional trade.
When Boudreaux writes that comparative advantage does not result from different countries having different internal cost ratios or different opportunity costs of producing one good in terms of another, he puts himself at odds with international trade theory. As economists have known for two centuries, the opportunity cost of one good in terms of
Gene Callahan is mistaken. Factor mobility does not determine the difference between regional trade and international trade. Factor mobility determines whether international trade is mutually beneficial.International trade and regional trade are the same only under world government.
If, as he admits, Don Boudreaux ”cannot decipher” my argument about factor immobility and comparative advantage, on what basis does he undertake to correct me? If I may be permitted to decipher my argument--which is the argument of international trade theory and is totally independent of me and any personal preferences for a different reality
What is the Mises Institute?
The Mises Institute is a non-profit organization that exists to promote teaching and research in the Austrian School of economics, individual freedom, honest history, and international peace, in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard.
Non-political, non-partisan, and non-PC, we advocate a radical shift in the intellectual climate, away from statism and toward a private property order. We believe that our foundational ideas are of permanent value, and oppose all efforts at compromise, sellout, and amalgamation of these ideas with fashionable political, cultural, and social doctrines inimical to their spirit.