Protectionism Smashed (by Murray Rothbard)

Murray Rothbard eloquently smashes the economic doctrine that tariffs and quotas are good for the economy. He explains that they are coerced special privileges granted to a few inefficient domestic producers, at the expense of the mass of consumers.

This was published as a monograph in 1986, and appeared as Chapter 89 "Protectionism and the Destruction of Prosperity" in the Rothbard collection "Making Economic Sense" (1995).

[TheVoluntariast]

I love Murray Rothbard. I am old enough to remember all the protectionism aimed at Japan in the 80s...

[ManAgainstTheState]

When Rothbard wrote this, Japan served as the convenient butt of protectionist propaganda. Today it is China. All the arguments are the same.

[sofia.eris.bauhaus]

if it takes just one lunatic for a war, you need at least two lunatics for a trade war.

[ismaeleo]

There’s a lot of good arguments about the destructive nature of protectionism/intervention. But there’s also a hidden disdain for lack of efficiency. It is as if cut throat business is the norm and fairness is, as argued, a sorry excuse. This is the problem when economists talk operations: efficiency is not only working harder or smarter; sometimes it is a monopoly of strategic opportunity. The moral implications are huge also in the end results where we compete on price and quality alone and not on robust supply based on geography or macroeconomic terms like regional prosperity. Free trade is not free of monopoly and polarity. In control theory, market forces have only one factor of control which is not enough to stabilise the system.

[killerbee]

Can you do a video about privately owned nuclear ICBMs? Mises.org has some articles about it.

[adityasangore]

Hi are u still active, I have a question ?

[agent]

Did you know this? Which Corporations Control the World?

A surprisingly small number of corporations control massive global market shares. How many of the brands below do you use? It’s a Small World at the Top.

[rocketmunkey]

Surely money is just a token of trade an owe you, if we boil this down further to an immediate exchange, you have something I want, I have something you want lets exchange. Now if a country isn't producing anything the other country wants, then what is it the other country is receiving in return ?
When Rothbard speaks of foreign investment does that mean foreign ownership of land in exchange for goods ? Because people without land are a people without liberty. Handing Land to someone who has no loyalty for the people of those lands is nothing short of a foreign invasion by economic means. Land owned by globalist corporations and not the private individuals who live there is ultimately not libertarian in my view, in fact I'd say the direction of travel is serfdom, serfdom where the lord has no shared interest with the serfs at that. Wasn't the emancipation of the serfs, the act of giving them their own land where they got to keep the fruits of their own land and labour ?