When I was a full-time economics professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, I always taught my master’s students about comparative advantage. I showed them that if two people were on a desert island and discovered each other, they could each have more by specializing in producing the good in which they had a comparative advantage and trading for the other good. I would then go from a simple numerical illustration to three other important points.
First, I expanded from an island to a country, showing why it makes sense for people in California to trade with people in New York. Second, I expanded from a country to the world, showing that national borders don’t change the reasoning: people in the United States gain from trading with people in China, in Canada, or in any other country. Third, I showed how they implicitly recognized comparative advantage in their jobs. Many of my students had overseen dozens to hundreds of people. They realized, if only from experience, that even if they could do the jobs of their underlings better and more quickly, it was a fool’s errand to do their underlings’ jobs because that left less time for them to do their jobs.
I would then get into the fact that when trade is opened to the world, some businesses lose their business, and some workers in those businesses lose their jobs, to lower-cost foreign producers. Some workers will be worse off, I noted, for at least a few years, finding jobs that might pay 20 percent less than what they previously had earned. The threatened loss from foreign competition would lead some businesses and workers to lobby for tariffs or import quotas to make foreign goods less attractive to domestic buyers.
Students were excited about their new knowledge, but some were pessimistic about the prospects for free trade. They realized that most people don’t understand the argument they had just mastered and, therefore, the students figured that we were stuck with high tariffs. Then I gave them a pleasant surprise. I showed that tariffs had fallen every decade since World War II and were now a small percent of what they were before World War II.
This is from David R. Henderson, “The Benefits of Free Trade Are at Risk,” Defining Ideas, February 20, 2025.
I then get into the details about how tariff rates have fallen worldwide to a fraction of what they were before World War II, and show how that is now at risk.
Read the whole thing, which is longer than my usual Hoover article.
READER COMMENTS
Craig
Feb 20 2025 at 5:23pm
“specializing in producing the good in which they had a comparative advantage and trading for the other good.”
As an aside, one of the ‘wow’moments Ibhad in undergrad wasn’t specifically comparative advantage. From a layman’s pov focusibg essentially on what they are good at. But then reading how it applied even when one party was at an absolute disadvantage that kinda wowed me.
Mactoul
Feb 20 2025 at 11:29pm
Sometimes it is asserted that pre-world war I was the global period of economic liberalism but tariffs were rife in those days. And now we are drowning in regulations but tariffs have fallen to historic lows.
The model of neo-liberalism seems to be European Union–regulate everything but free trade and free movement. Interestingly, the Trumpian model is rather the converse–regulate nothing, but impose tariffs.
Keith
Feb 26 2025 at 12:00am
Hi David,
The topic of this piece is the Benefits of Free Trade Are At Risk. Yet, the piece focuses not on the benefits of free trade, but on the political accomplishments of achieving freer trade, and Trump’s threat to them.
Somewhere in the following two paragraphs you should have explained and demonstrated the benefits of free trade. (“Then I gave them a pleasant surprise. I showed that tariffs had fallen every decade since World War II and were now a small percent of what they were before World War II.
“I should have added this: the move toward free trade, besides making billions of people more prosperous, was one of the biggest postwar accomplishments in worldwide economic policy and one of the biggest increases in worldwide economic freedom. The tragedy is that some of President Trump’s moves are putting that accomplishment at risk.”)”
Knowing that imports make up a percentage of GDP over time does not demonstrate the benefits of free trade.
Did take home pay increase, do family budgets go further with access to imported products, were people happier?
Comments are closed.