Equivocating About Trade

Economists almost universally favor expanding free trade. This is because they recognize that increased openness will help some and hurt some others, but (baring some bizarre conditions) the benefits always outweigh the 'costs'. So, it's not unreasonably for those who know a little about trade to just say that more trade is always good for the country. In fact, a more detailed explanation of the upsides and downsides of trade could be confusing to the vast bulk of people who don't understand comparative benefit and scope of the market arguments. Oversimplified summaries of these factors muddle the issue. As a result people are led to believe the issue of free trade is a toss up, and perhaps defer to their own conservative inclinations. Here Don Boudreaux makes a good point along these lines in a letter to the Wall Street Journal:

Would you introduce letters on the polio vaccine with "Vaccine Has Helped Some, Hurt Some"? After all, the vaccine eliminated jobs for workers who made crutches, wheel chairs, and iron-lung machines. Of course, the benefits of the vaccine - especially over the long run - far outweigh the costs. Likewise with consumers' freedom to spend their incomes as they choose. And free trade is nothing more than consistently allowing consumers to spend their incomes as they choose.

There are always those who benefit and those who lose their privileges. Not just from trade, this is the nature of change and life. It is reasonable to help those who fall on hard times as a result of development. But, we shouldn’t let the crutch-makers determine public policy.