Churchill and the Working-Class Case for Free Trade

....is that the esteemed economist Frederic Bastiat, in his influential book The Law, described free trade in terms of "ordinary duties" and "punitive duties", that is, the difference between an acceptable tariff of, say, 10% and a punitive tariff of 50%. What we have done since Churchill is to describe free trade in terms of zero tariffs, and the end result is that the costs of maintaining ports and a navy to keep sea lanes open are not taken from import duties, but rather from the paychecks of the men whose employers compete with those imports.

Long and short of it is that I think a correction is long overdue--but that Trump's pattern of assessing a "tariff of abominations" and then negotiating down is not a correction, but the opposite mistake.

I would calculate the cost to businesses of our worker-protection mandates (OSHA compliance, unemployment insurance, workman's comp, etc.).

Then, tell countries that if you want to trade, you either need to show us that you protect your workers similarly or you will pay a tariff equal to the calculated cost of what you're not doing.

Because otherwise, we're letting other countries out-compete us by hurting their workers. My plan would either give US manufacturing a competitive position OR protect workers in other countries. I would be happy with both.

...is that if we filter your proposal through the filter of the left, you're going to get not only basic OSHA protections as such, but also insistence on $20/hour (say more than they pay their lawyers over there), unionized workforce, and such. So one needs to spell out very carefully exactly what conditions need to be met in a country where "prosperity" means (and I quote a 1940s/1950s National Geographic article about Hong Kong here) two bowls of rice for dinner.