My argument against complete free trade are three fold. Firstly the author stated that tariffs create a deadweight loss but isnt this true of all taxes. Governments need to raise resources for defence and other expenditures, why target tariffs as the most evil of taxes as opposed to income or value added tax (tax on expenditure) which also create deadweight loss.
Secondly in relation to loggers facing competion from the canadians, it is much more difficult to retrain them in more efficient industries. This can have a devastating impact on families and these people usually find much lower paying employment. Shouldn't tariffs be used to smoothe upheavels when a nation like China suddenly starts producing textiles at very low cost so that the textile industry can be softly laid to rest over a generation or two rather than brutally laying them off into unemployment. I do not oppose the fact that it is maddness to continue competing against China in textiles but shouldn't the tranistion be made slower so that the costs are spread over the generations as surely as the benefits will be.
Thirdly shouldnt the trade policy of a nation be used to maximise relative growth of the nation as opposed to maximising growth of the world economy. Isnt USA in a unique position to slow the relative growth of competitors such as China relative to the USA. It is absolutely true that western nations have benefited from low cost production in China but isnt it also true that the free trade approach has also allowed China to grow faster relative to western nations? What i am saying is this, doesnt free trade benefit nations like China more than it does nations like USA? Could not countries like USA sacrifise some welfare to cement their global dominance.
