《Free_Trade_or_Protectionism》.doc

Article 1 Free Trade or Protectionism The Case against Trade Restrictions The Lure of Protectionism The argument for so-called “protectionism” (called “fair trade” by some) may at first sound appealing. Supporters of “protectionist” laws claim that keeping out foreign goods will save jobs, giving ailing domestic industries a chance to recover and prosper, and reduce the trade deficits. Are these claims valid? 有效的，有根据的 Protectionism: What It Costs Classical Liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill astutely observed in the last century that “Trade barriers are chiefly injurious to the countries imposing them.” It is true today as it was then, for the following reasons: Lost Jobs: Protectionist laws raise taxes (tariffs) on imported goods and /or impose limits (quotas) on the amount of goods governments permit to enter into a country. They are laws that not only restrict the choice of consumer good, but also contribute greatly both to the cost of goods and to the cost of doing business. So under “protectionism” you end up poorer, with less money for buying other things you want and need. Moreover, protectionist laws that reduce consumer spending power actually end up destroying jobs. In the USA, for example, according to the US Department of Labor’s own statistics, “protectionism” destroys eight jobs in the general economy for every one saved in a protected industry. Higher Prices: Japanese consumers pay five times the world price for rice because of import restrictions protecting Japanese farmers. European consumers pay dearly for EC restrictions on food imports and heavy taxes for domestic farm subsidies. American consumers also suffer from the same double burden, paying six times the world price for sugar because of trade restrictions (to give but one example). The US Semiconductor Trade Pact, which pressured Japanese producers to cut back production of computer memory chips, caused an acute worldwide shortage of these widely used parts. Prices quadrupled and comp