Free trade: Difference between revisions
ArchiveBot (talk | contribs) Repoint 2 dead mises.org links to the archived original (automated; see Austrian Economics Wiki:Link repointing) |
ArchiveBot (talk | contribs) Rewrite: corrects the lead, which wrongly gave laissez-faire as a synonym for free trade. Adds the law of association and the unilateral argument |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Free trade''' | '''Free trade''' is the absence of government interference with exchange across national borders: no [[tariff]]s or quotas on imports, no subsidies or restrictions on exports, and no discrimination between a domestic and a foreign counterparty. | ||
It is not a synonym for [[laissez-faire]], though the two are often run together. Laissez-faire is a position about economic policy generally; free trade is the application of it to one margin. A government can practise free trade while regulating domestic industry heavily, and has often done so. | |||
== | ==There is nothing special about a border== | ||
The Austrian starting point is that international trade raises no new economic question. An [[exchange]] takes place because each party values what he receives above what he gives up, and that is as true when the parties are in different countries as when they are in the same town. The border is a political fact, not an economic one, so a theory of trade between nations is just the theory of exchange applied to parties who happen to be separated by one. | |||
This is why Austrians treat talk of a country "competing" with another, or of a trade deficit as a loss, as a category error. Countries do not trade; people do, and each of them trades because he expects to gain. | |||
==The law of association== | |||
The standard objection is that a country able to produce everything more cheaply will simply outproduce its trading partners and leave them with nothing to sell. [[David Ricardo]] answered it in 1817 with the principle of [[comparative advantage]], which [[Ludwig von Mises]] generalised and renamed the '''law of association''', because it explains not only trade but the [[division of labor]] itself.<ref name="ha24">[[Ludwig von Mises]]. [https://freecapitalists.org/books/human-action/read/chapter-xxiv-harmony-and-conflict-of-interests/ XXIV. Harmony and Conflict of Interests], ''[[Human Action]]''.</ref> | |||
The argument is that what governs the pattern of production is not absolute cost but what has to be given up to obtain a thing. A lawyer who types faster than any typist he could hire still does better to argue cases and let someone else type, because every hour he spends typing costs him an hour of law. The same holds for a country that can make everything more cheaply: its resources are still finite, so devoting them to what it does best and buying the rest leaves it with more. | |||
The conclusion is stronger than it first appears. Trade is mutually profitable between parties of ''any'' relative productivity, which is why the argument does not depend on the trading partners being comparably developed. | |||
==Free trade as a moral question== | |||
For nineteenth-century liberals the case was not only about output. A tariff is a tax collected from a domestic buyer for the benefit of a domestic producer, and the buyer is not asked. [[Frédéric Bastiat]] made this the centre of his campaign, arguing that protection is a transfer disguised as a policy and that its beneficiaries are visible while its victims are dispersed and never identified. | |||
Mises added that free trade and peace stand or fall together. Where governments assign markets and raw materials by decree, the assignment becomes worth fighting over; where goods move without permission, the borders they cross matter less. | |||
==The unilateral point== | |||
A conclusion Austrians press harder than most economists: the benefits of free trade do not require an agreement. If foreign tariffs make imports dear, a country's own tariffs make them dearer still, and removing them helps its own citizens whatever anyone else does. Retaliation is on this view a policy of harming one's own buyers to punish a foreign government. | |||
That has consequences for trade agreements. A managed treaty running to thousands of pages of negotiated exceptions is not free trade, and several Austrians have argued that such agreements are better understood as cartels among governments than as liberalisations. | |||
==See also== | |||
* [[Comparative advantage]] | |||
* [[Tariff]] | |||
* [[Division of labor]] | |||
* [[Laissez-faire]] | |||
* [[Mercantilism]] | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{ | {{reflist}} | ||
==Links== | ==Links== | ||
* [https://mises.freecapitalists.org/liberal/ch3sec7.asp Free Trade] by Ludwig von Mises (chapter 7 of [[Liberalism|Liberalism (book)]]) | |||
* [https://mises.freecapitalists.org/daily/3604 What Is Free Trade?] by William Graham Sumner, 1918 | * [https://mises.freecapitalists.org/daily/3604 What Is Free Trade?] by William Graham Sumner, 1918 | ||
* [https://mises.freecapitalists.org/daily/4814 Physiocracy and Free Trade in 18th-Century France] by Murray N. Rothbard (excerpted from [[An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought]]) | |||
* [https://mises.freecapitalists.org/daily/4814 Physiocracy and Free Trade in 18th-Century France] by Murray N. Rothbard (excerpted from [[An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought | * [https://freecapitalists.org/books/protection-or-free-trade-an-examination-of-the-tariff-question-with-especial-regard-to-the-interests-of-labor/ Protection or Free Trade] by Henry George, 1886 | ||
* [https://freecapitalists.org/books/protection-or-free-trade-an-examination-of-the-tariff-question-with-especial-regard-to-the-interests-of-labor/ Protection or Free Trade | |||
* {{wplink}} | * {{wplink}} | ||
[[Category:Concepts]] | [[Category:Concepts]] | ||
Latest revision as of 13:10, 16 August 2026
Free trade is the absence of government interference with exchange across national borders: no tariffs or quotas on imports, no subsidies or restrictions on exports, and no discrimination between a domestic and a foreign counterparty.
It is not a synonym for laissez-faire, though the two are often run together. Laissez-faire is a position about economic policy generally; free trade is the application of it to one margin. A government can practise free trade while regulating domestic industry heavily, and has often done so.
There is nothing special about a border
The Austrian starting point is that international trade raises no new economic question. An exchange takes place because each party values what he receives above what he gives up, and that is as true when the parties are in different countries as when they are in the same town. The border is a political fact, not an economic one, so a theory of trade between nations is just the theory of exchange applied to parties who happen to be separated by one.
This is why Austrians treat talk of a country "competing" with another, or of a trade deficit as a loss, as a category error. Countries do not trade; people do, and each of them trades because he expects to gain.
The law of association
The standard objection is that a country able to produce everything more cheaply will simply outproduce its trading partners and leave them with nothing to sell. David Ricardo answered it in 1817 with the principle of comparative advantage, which Ludwig von Mises generalised and renamed the law of association, because it explains not only trade but the division of labor itself.[1]
The argument is that what governs the pattern of production is not absolute cost but what has to be given up to obtain a thing. A lawyer who types faster than any typist he could hire still does better to argue cases and let someone else type, because every hour he spends typing costs him an hour of law. The same holds for a country that can make everything more cheaply: its resources are still finite, so devoting them to what it does best and buying the rest leaves it with more.
The conclusion is stronger than it first appears. Trade is mutually profitable between parties of any relative productivity, which is why the argument does not depend on the trading partners being comparably developed.
Free trade as a moral question
For nineteenth-century liberals the case was not only about output. A tariff is a tax collected from a domestic buyer for the benefit of a domestic producer, and the buyer is not asked. Frédéric Bastiat made this the centre of his campaign, arguing that protection is a transfer disguised as a policy and that its beneficiaries are visible while its victims are dispersed and never identified.
Mises added that free trade and peace stand or fall together. Where governments assign markets and raw materials by decree, the assignment becomes worth fighting over; where goods move without permission, the borders they cross matter less.
The unilateral point
A conclusion Austrians press harder than most economists: the benefits of free trade do not require an agreement. If foreign tariffs make imports dear, a country's own tariffs make them dearer still, and removing them helps its own citizens whatever anyone else does. Retaliation is on this view a policy of harming one's own buyers to punish a foreign government.
That has consequences for trade agreements. A managed treaty running to thousands of pages of negotiated exceptions is not free trade, and several Austrians have argued that such agreements are better understood as cartels among governments than as liberalisations.
See also
References
Links
- Free Trade by Ludwig von Mises (chapter 7 of Liberalism (book))
- What Is Free Trade? by William Graham Sumner, 1918
- Physiocracy and Free Trade in 18th-Century France by Murray N. Rothbard (excerpted from An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought)
- Protection or Free Trade by Henry George, 1886
- Free trade at Wikipedia