Column for week of April 14, 2014 Trading is at least as old as recorded history, most likely older. Even subsistence farmers trade. In our specialized industrial society each individual consumes little of what he produces while producing little of what he consumes. Individuals producing for their own consumption is such a small part of production that economists feel free to ignore such production when calculating the Gross National Product (GNP). People still produce for themselves. Who among us would even survive without the goods produced by others? Why do we prefer to produce for others rather than for ourselves? By specializing and each only doing what he does best we greatly increase productivity. There is more for everyone. Imagine that you divided your time among producing all the things you have. How many of those things could you produce for yourself? We have three options for getting things produced by others -- gifts, theft or trade. We are likely to come up a bit short if we sit around waiting for others to give us what we want. Granted, more and more people are choosing this route. Mostly they wait for government to take from others and give to them. If we continue this trend, soon there will be little left for government to take and give. Relying on direct theft by consumers has no brighter future. If we are to prosper we must produce and trade. There are two possible kinds of trade -- coerced trade and free trade. In free trade we trade because we want to. It takes two to trade. The only reason to freely trade is that both parties believe they gain by trading. In coerced trade individuals trade because they fear that someone will hurt them if they don't trade, or if they make the wrong trades. With all of the government restrictions on trade, fully free trade is all but extinct. People who believe they are engaging in free trade probably aren't. An individual may freely choose to make a trade. Still, he is only choosing from the options government allows. Would he choose the same trade if government hadn't eliminated many of the possible options? Some claim there is good trade and bad trade. Bad trade supposedly hurts others. All trades affect others. If we ban trades merely because they affect others, we must ban all trades. The consequences of eliminating trade would be that the few survivors would all be reduced to being self sufficient hunter-gatherers. Most opposition to free trade is from two sources. One is wasteful, inefficient producers trying to rip off consumers by eliminating competition from those who serve consumers better. The other source is people who see only the detriments of trade and miss the benefits. When consumers switch to different suppliers, the old suppliers lose jobs. The near endless list of job losers includes weavers, buggy makers, telephone operators, and most farmers. Much of what we have today wouldn't exist if workers still labored inefficiency in those old jobs. Some people get upset if the new jobs are in another country. Supposedly we are exporting jobs. The only way we export jobs is if imports are gifts. Otherwise, someone must make something to trade for the imports. When we buy cameras from the Japanese, someone in the USA must make something to pay for the cameras. If the Japanese lend the camera money to the US government, or someone else, we must produce something for the borrower. All we have done is trade less productive jobs for more productive ones. Free traders won't trade unless trading increases productivity so that they get more by trading. It doesn't matter where the people we trade with live. We, and they, benefit from free trade. The only losers are exploitive special interests who can gain by denying us the benefits of free trade. Those losers are loud and have lobbyists. aldmccallum@gmail.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Copyright 2014 Albert D. McCallum
Considering the issues of our times. (ADM does not select or endorse the sites reached through "Next Blog.")
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Why Do We Trade?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment