Last November, I shared a one-minute video from Freedom Partners on the economics of trade.
Here’s a full-length (but still only four minutes) treatment of the issue from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity.
The first part of the video is a quick glimpse at some of the academic evidence for open trade, and I hope it helps make the case against protectionism.
I then cite some country-specific examples, including how Herbert Hoover’s protectionism contributed to the economic misery of the Great Depression.
Argentina is another bad example mentioned in the video. It used to be one of the world’s richest countries, but it plummeted in the rankings in part because of its protectionist policy of “import substitution.”
The video also mentions the examples of China and India. Since I think this point is especially compelling, I want to take this opportunity to briefly elaborate on my comments in the video.
First, let’s establish that both nations did liberalize trade. Here’s a chart from Economic Freedom of the World, and you can see that there was dramatic liberalization starting about 1990.
Both nations are still a long way from total free trade (Singapore and Hong Kong, for instance, respectively get scores of 9.29 and 9.32), but it goes without saying that there was considerable liberalization in China and India.
And how did that work out?
Trade liberalization was a slam-dunk success. Based on data from the World Bank, here’s a look at how China and India started converging with the United States after opening to the world economy.
To be sure, both nations still have a long way to go. And it’s highly unlikely that either nation will ever fully converge to American living standards unless there is a lot more pro-market reform. Not just in trade, but all facets of economic policy.
But as I mentioned in the video, the reforms that already have occurred – particularly trade liberalization – have contributed to huge reductions in poverty in China and India.
Given all this evidence, I’ll close with a version of my two-question challenge. Can anybody identify a nation that has prospered by moving to protectionism (h/t: the USA in the 1800s is not a good answer) or a nation that has suffered because of trade liberalization?
[…] Trade policy will move in the right direction. […]
[…] Institute is very misguided on the tradeoff between inequality and growth, it is quite good on trade-related issues (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and […]
[…] not a fan of the European Union, which has morphed from something good (a free-trade pact) to something bad (a pro-centralization,wannabe United States of Europe that exacerbates the […]
[…] how to respond to this statement about international cooperation. Does that mean open trade? If so, my response is “strongly agree.” But if cooperation means a global tax cartel, my answer is […]
[…] Trade policy will move in the right direction. […]
[…] any influence with Republicans, I’ll try to convince them to at least protect and promote free trade with other democratic nations. And I’ll also remind them that high-skill immigration (such as […]
[…] Trade policy will move in the right direction. […]
[…] Trade policy will move in the right direction. […]
[…] Trade policy will move in the right direction. […]
[…] The good news is that trade policy will move in the right direction. […]
[…] The good news is that trade policy will move in the right direction. […]
[…] By the way, I have very mixed feelings on Trump’s strategy. Some of his policies are good (lower taxes and less red tap), but he also tries to appeal to union workers with policies that are bad (most notably, protectionism). […]
[…] a big fan of trade, I obviously agree with this […]
[…] An obvious takeaway from the video is that consumers benefit from global markets, which hopefully helps to explain why free trade is desirable. […]
[…] For what it’s worth, I don’t think there’s good modern-quality data on JFK (or, to be more accurate, I’ve never searched for it), but I included him since he’s part of Tomasky’s analysis. That being said, he may be ranked too low. Yes, he spent too much money and implemented some bad policies, but he also lowered tax rates and pushed for free trade. […]
[…] its early days, the European Union increased economic liberty since it largely existed as a free-trade pact for member […]
[…] early 2019, I released this video summarizing some of the evidence for free […]
[…] trade is good because societies are more prosperous with free markets and open […]
[…] Garett’s hypothesis that politicians will be more likely to support good policies such as free trade if they have longer […]
[…] the plus side, there are no trade barriers between nations that belong to the EU, and membership also makes it difficult for countries to […]
[…] Trade was the only area where he consistently pushed policy in the right direction. […]
[…] in part by a sensible desire for free trade, six nations from Western Europe signed the Treaty of Rome in 1957, thus creating the European […]
[…] lado bueno de esa nube oscura es que el Presidente Trump puede que aprenda que el comercio es realmente bueno en lugar de […]
[…] quest’aria di tempesta è che il Presidente Donald Trump potrebbe imparare che il commercio è in realtà buono e non […]
[…] silver lining to that dark cloud is that President Trump may learn that trade is actually good rather than […]
[…] silver lining to that dark cloud is that President Trump may learn that trade is actually good rather than […]
[…] One of the big risks from the coronavirus is that it will weaken global trade. Which led me to mention in the interview that hopefully Trump might learn from this growing crisis that expanded trade is good for prosperity. […]
[…] P.P.S. As a general rule, governments should be free to impose very bad tax policy on economic activity inside their borders (just as places such as Monaco and the Cayman Islands should be free to impose very good tax policy on what happens inside their borders). That being said, it’s also true that nations like France are designing their digital taxes American companies are the sole targets. An indirect form of protectionism. […]
[…] Iran presumably is doing the wrong thing for geopolitical reasons (avoiding sanctions) rather than protectionist […]
[…] At the beginning of the Trump era, many of us (including me) warned that his statements on trade were nonsensical. […]
[…] costs include foregone trade, which would be bad for American consumers, workers, and […]
[…] P.S. I mentioned an ideal free trade agreement in the interview. I also should have pointed out that unilateral free trade also is a good option. Assuming, of course, one understands the benefits of trade. […]
[…] young lady is right about free trade, but wrong in thinking that approach requires a supranational […]
[…] is that an agreement to buy $40-$50 billion of agricultural products is managed trade rather than free trade. Consumers in a competitive market should be determining how much is being purchased, not […]
[…] this year, I shared a short video about the benefits of the World Trade […]
[…] depends on what is meant by that term. If it means free trade and peaceful interaction with other nations, the answer is […]
[…] Brazil gets a horrible grade on regulation, and it’s also in the bottom half of all nations when looking at fiscal policy, quality of governance, and trade. […]
[…] sucede, habrá una disminución del comercio entre el Reino Unido y la Unión Europea. Eso será malo para ambas […]
[…] happens, there will be diminished trade between the United Kingdom and the European Union. That will be bad for both […]
[…] The economic consequences would be profound. In a negative way. […]
[…] put it mildly, more redistribution, more protectionism, and taxes on investment is not a Reaganite […]
[…] the article, Professor Walt mentions sanctions and protectionism as potential […]
[…] this interview with Fox Business, I make my usual points (trade barriers are misguided, China is protectionist, Trump’s not responding wisely, […]
[…] point about whether China could “trick Trump.” The best outcome of negotiations is genuine free trade between the US and China, with no subsidies and cronyism to tilt the playing field. But since Trump […]
[…] Now let’s enjoy some satire, though combined with a serious message. […]
[…] the continent’s economic performance. Which is sad since the EU started as a noble idea of a free trade area and instead has become a vehicle for […]
[…] There were plenty of great presentations (including, I hope, my remarks on the economics of protectionism). […]
[…] he imposes more and more taxes on trade (and as foreign governments then impose retaliation), the cumulative economic damage may be enough to completely offset the benefits of his tax reform […]
[…] In other cases, they don’t understand the economic downsides of protectionism. […]
[…] I pontificate about trade, I often point out that protectionism is a net negative for the […]
[…] Brussels, but I always assumed that those costs would be acceptable because the EU would give them expanded trade and help improve the rule of […]
[…] January, I shared a short video about protectionism, which expanded on some analysis from a one-minute video from last […]
[…] a video I shared two months ago included a wide range of academic studies showing that government-imposed trade […]
[…] I write about the benefits of trade, I periodically point out that America has a trade deficit because it has a foreign investment […]
[…] Even though open trade is very beneficial for American prosperity, I would not want a future president to assert unilateral power to eliminate tariffs. Yes, I want […]
[…] trade promotes prosperity, I want increased market-driven, cross-border commerce between China and the United […]
You cannot have free trade with a communist nation. It is a virtual slave state.
[…] Here’s Dan Mitchell, complete with a new video, on the evidence-based case for free trade. […]
[…] canter through the recent studies and reports by our man in DC. And a youtube video to go with […]
I cannot agree more with you Dan, as an Argentinian who studied the economic history of my country, one of the causes of the economic decline was the trade restrictions imposed by the democratic governments, military governments and worker’s unions. All these efforts to bring “social justice” and “equal redistribution of income” have pushed more than 30% of the population into poverty and government dependence.