Protectionism and Free Trade

Most "free trade" agreements are really just ways to expand the regulatory state and rob the consumers of the benefits they might have gotten from actual free trade.

The national trade account balance is of little economic significance and is a sterile concept. But the government’s attempts to "fix" it can have many harmful effects.

Like Trump, I want China to stop manipulating its economy. But not for the same reasons Trump does.

Innovations aren't very useful unless they serve consumers in the marketplace. Otherwise, we're pursuing innovation for its own sake, and that isn't progress.

Experts who predicted economic doom as Brexit approached obsessed over the problem of "transaction costs" in trade. But the EU was imposing countless new transaction costs of its own.

The North American fur trade is in decline. Unfortunately, many think that the solution is for the government to step in to “protect” trappers from market competition.

Sanctions have a long history of failure. The US government's recent sanctions on Iran will likely be no different, but they will certainly be harmful to the Iranian people.

Whether diversity is a social benefit depends on whether it creates excuses to fight each other for special treatment. Politicizing our differences is far more likely to make diversity a source of conflict.

While the legislation introduced in the US Congress remains fiction under a Republican executive and senate, the Brussels initiative will become law unless there is considerable opposition from EU member states.

So long as governments exist, it is essential that we minimize the ability of groups and individuals to use the power of the state to enrich themselves.