Trade, Adam Smith & David Ricardo

At the heart of the globalization debate is the issue of free trade. There are several issues that economists see very differently than the general population, trade is the foremost. The general population is attracted to the arguments of protectionism, the three classics that get repackaged, sold by politicians, and bought by the masses are:

1) national security - we must protect vital industries (steel, oil, agriculture) because they are vital to our national security therefore they must be protected with subsidies, quotas, and tariffs.

2) infant industry - some domestic firms may have difficulty competing against better developed foreign firms, therefore they must be protected with subsidies, quotas, and tariffs.

3) cheap foreign labor - domestic firms have difficulty competing against foreign firms because foreign worker are willing to work for less money, therefore they must be protected with subsidies, quotas, and tariffs.

The general population falls for these arguments, economists don't buy it, politicians use code words for protectionism like, "I am for fair trade, not free trade" or "I am for trade as long as it is fair".

In the next couple of post I will be exploring some ideas on trade, politicians, and economics. Remember that the arguments for trade has been around for 200+ years developed by the likes of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. My question is: Why do people continue to buy the idea that trade hurts America (think the latest discussion of NAFTA by Obama and Clinton) in spite of over two centuries of research to the contrary? Post your thoughts if you wish (click the comments link just below this post).