Free Trade Mysticism

These guys need jobs

There is a psychic connection between nationalism and protectionism.  Conversely, there is a connection between neocons and free trade.  One cannot say for sure why these entities should be connected with each other, yet those that advocate one tend to also advocate for the other.

Now that Trump has exercised his executive authority to impose a 25 percent tariff on steel and 10 percent on aluminum imports, we can finally put these nationalist, protectionist ideas to the test.  Wall Street is not happy.  The Unions are happy.  And I dare say the Alt Right is happy.

Before there was the Alt Right, there was Pat Buchanan.

Buchanan stirred our souls warning of the perils of multiculturalism, and he always made a compelling case about the perils of unfettered free trade as well.  From his 2011 book Suicide of a Superpower:

Ignorance of history is surely one answer.  Every nation that rose to world power did so by protecting and nurturing its manufacturing base—from Great Britain under the Acts of Navigation, to the United States from the Civil War to the Roaring Twenties, to Bismarck’s Germany before World War I, to postwar Japan, to China.  No nation rose to world power on free trade.  From Britain after 1860 to America after 1960, free trade has been the policy of powers that put consumption before production, today before tomorrow. (17)

Protectionist trade policies are common sense and can be understood by anyone.  One wants to protect the domestic industries from cheap foreign goods and dumping practices.  Yet the super-smart economists tell us this won’t work.  Their reasons are obscure, but it basically boils down to “read Adam Smith.”   It’s the same convoluted argument which tells us that immigrants, though they use more resources than they contribute, are a net benefit.  Likewise, we’re told that trade deficits are somehow an asset and that addressing the deficits actually makes the situation worse.

Some people seem to enjoy making counterintuitive arguments just to demonstrate their cleverness.  Perhaps that’s what the free trade shills are up to.  But it’s a bit too clever by half, and it’s time to call out these “globalists.”

President Trump, as a businessman, looks at the two sides of the ledger—when it comes to trade, we are in the red.   But apparently that man-on-the-street common-sense is dangerous populism.  And if there’s one thing that the international bankers despise, it’s populism informed by folksy common-sense.

Trump’s tweet on the matter was shamelessly taken out of context by the lying press:

The press chose to leave out the conditional phrase: “When a country (USA) is losing billions of dollars on trade with every country it does business with…”  and instead insinuated that, like a madman, Trump simply thinks “trade wars are good.”

Economists will give you convoluted reasons as to why having tens of billions flowing from the US to China in trade deficits doesn’t matter, yet it simply defies common sense.  The elites defend free trade with an acerbic dogmatism which they also apply to other sacred cows of globalism, such as open immigration.  In fact, they are annoyed that you would even bring up the subject.

Follow Malcolm Jaggers @malcolmjaggers


Malcolm Jaggers
the authorMalcolm Jaggers


  • Be interesting to see what effect Peter Navarro has on Trump policy moving forward. Wilbur Ross has been a proponent as well. After people realize that the sky is not falling post tariff, perhaps we can finally shrug off our free trade mysticism.

  • The “mysterious” connection between neocons and free-traders: most are jews.

    The same subversive race behind Communism is behind Capitalism. It’s a Semitic tag-team strategy to destroy European peoples.

    Remember this.

  • Even though there is not a shred of credible econometric evidence in support of the price factor equalization theorem….because all of econometrics is mathematical shit……

    The price factor equalization theorem which is built on the principle of comparative advantage….makes it very clear theoretically that free trade is just another way to import cheap labor into US labor markets……


  • Read “Kicking away the ladder”…and read the “Top 20 Myths of Capitalism” a blog by the same author….a Korean Economist who teaches a Cambridge…..



  • You really want to rebuild this beast, just as it is near collapse? I do not agree. Let the USSA collapse, like the USSR did. It will be good for us, and especially good for the world.

  • (((David Ricardo))) made the canonical argument for free trade about 200 years ago. He came up with some arbitrary numbers for the amount of labor to produce wine versus cloth, respectively, in both England and Portugal. Even though Portugal according to the figures Ricardo pulled out of ass was the cheaper producer for both commodities, he argued that both England and Portugal would be better off if England gave up making wine and diverted the capital towards growing more sheep for cloth, while Portugal gave up raising sheep and diverted the capital towards producing more wine. Then England could trade its surplus cloth for Portugal’s surplus wine.

    Now, anyone who has ever cultivated a vineyard could see all kinds of problems with this idea on Portugal’s end. The land for planting more vineyards would have to come from the land formerly used for grazing sheep. But what if that land isn’t suitable for vineyards? Or it wouldn’t be as productive as the existing vineyards? Or its “terroir,” as the French call it, results in grapes which ferment into wine of an inferior quality? Vineyards also take several years to mature into full production, and wine can take several years to age into its best condition, so what will these Portuguese workers do for an income in the meantime?

    Apparently none of these problems occurred to Ricardo. It’s more likely that the English and the Portuguese in his time had already discovered just about the best mix of uses of their respective lands through the market process, and Ricardo’s theorizing from his office in the London stock exchange would have resulted in a worse outcome if they had acted on his advice.

    • Economists are denying their own theories by trying to manage the markets. The entire idea of open, free markets is that they self-regulate and that a sort of distributed computing goes on that is beyond what any individual or think tank could come up with.

  • Just when I thought Malcolm Jaggers couldn’t get any worse he comes back with this………..and totally redeems himself!!!

  • Economists are much like psychologists, they make wild speculations that roughly follow the established preconceptions of their enablers. The scientific method is rarely applied in social ‘sciences’ because in the end it’s all a matter of whose side you’re on. Free trade is good – for bankers. Transexualism is good – for degenerates. All social scientists essentially serve as agents who strive to achieve political supremacy for their respective groups.

Leave a Reply