Your feedback is important to us!
We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.
Disclaimer: Comments submitted by third parties on this site are the sole responsibility of the individual(s) whose content is submitted. The Daily Star accepts no responsibility for the content of comment(s), including, without limitation, any error, omission or inaccuracy therein. Please note that your email address will NOT appear on the site.
Alert: If you are facing problems with posting comments, please note that you must verify your email with Disqus prior to posting a comment. follow this link to make sure your account meets the requirements. (http://bit.ly/vDisqus)
To the liberal, free trade in goods and services and free movement of capital and labor are integrally linked to liberal politics. Trump's "America First" protectionism is inseparable from his diseased politics.But this is a dangerous misconception. Liberal opinion on these matters is based on two widespread beliefs: that free trade is good for all partners (so that countries that embrace it outperform those that restrict imports and limit contact with the rest of the world), and that freedom to trade goods and export capital is part of the constitution of liberty. The scientific case for free trade rests on David Ricardo's far more subtle, counterintuitive doctrine of comparative advantage.Assuming that some production of a naturally disadvantaged good (like wine in Scotland) is possible, Ricardo demonstrated that total welfare is increased if countries with absolute disadvantages specialize in producing goods in which they are least disadvantaged.Ricardo also believed that land, capital and labor – what economists call the "factors of production" – were intrinsic to a country and could not be moved round the world like actual commodities.The ability of companies to allocate jobs globally changes the nature of the discussion about the "gains from trade".Even economists who concede the losses that come with globalization reject protectionism as an answer.
Can good politics produce bad economics, and vice versa?
The United Kingdom’s history of flirting with Brexit
Why reinvent the monetary wheel?
FOLLOW THIS ARTICLE