My friend (and co-blogger over at Market Correction) Andy Morriss has this wonderful letter in today’s Wall Street Journal:
You quote Cass Johnson
of the National Council of Textile Organizations as boasting that the
slight relaxation of barriers to textile imports from Haiti being
considered in Congress can be stopped ("Haiti’s Trade Push Hits New Political Head Wind,"
Politics & Economics, Nov. 27). What right does Mr. Johnson have to
interfere with voluntary trade between consenting adults? The question
that needs to be asked in Washington is: Why are Mr. Johnson and other
representatives of special interests even consulted about the trading
practices of others?
Free trade between
Americans and Haitians (or Americans and Mexicans, Chinese, Laotians,
Guatemalans, Poles, Ugandans or anyone else you care to name) is not
only none of Mr. Johnson’s business, it is none of anyone’s business
except those doing the trading. And, as the case of trade with Haiti
makes abundantly clear, free trade isn’t simply an economically
sensible policy, it is a moral policy. How dare these people attempt to
stop Haitians from bettering themselves through offering to trade with
others.
Andrew P. Morriss
Professor of Law
University of Illinois, College of Law
Champaign, Ill.
101 percent right-on.
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 14 comments }
Wow, very well-stated in so few words!
Terrific letter. Even if it's fine to make poor Americans pay more for their clothes, it can't be right to stop poor Haitians from making a living for themselves.
Rory-
Why do you assume that american would pay more for their clothing as a result of this?
If Haitians where a stronger force in the garment industry, competition would increase which generally leads to lower prices.
Adam,
I think you misread Rory. What I think he's saying is "even if higher prices for American consumers won't convince you that protectionism is bad, surely greater suffering for Haitians should."
Only the interests of the American consumer are valid. Producers be they Haitian, American, or Chinese have no rights. Appeals to sentiment for any of the above producers are immoral.
Ah yes….morality. You can mix and match that concept with trade, sports, business, imports, exports, etc. It appeals to us to "save American jobs" or "help poor third world citizens". We seem to think that we have some kind of choice and still embrace capitalism. The reason folks hate one side of this debate or the other (Lou Dobbs for instance) is that, in a strictly humanitarian view, capitalism is cruel-there are winners (low cost, efficient, resourceful, swift, market oriented, geographically superior) and losers (slow, inefficient, not market focused, inflexible). There is no absolute right to succeeding, the winners win, the rest lose. If the Haitians can make great garments for less, it is of no moral consequence or otherwise to us-the market, left to it's own devices, is always right.
Kent Gatewood
You said: "Only the interests of the American consumer are valid. Producers be they Haitian, American, or Chinese have no rights. Appeals to sentiment for any of the above producers are immoral."
I don't agree with you, but free trade certainly maximises the welfare of the American consumer. So we can at least agree on the outcome.
An US and Haitian worker have exactly the same rights to a job: NONE.
Demand for jobs are purely dervived from consumer utility.
Patrick,
I'd just like to add that the only way that one can lose in a free market is to have been a prior winner. You can't lose a customer, or a job, that you never had. I see no reason that a winner should be entitled to permanent winner status just because they won once. The game goes on. I would not say, therefore, that capitalism is "cruel". Its a game that everyone has a chance to win.
I hope the message that free trade tends to prevent wars somehow comes through.
Lack of free trade was a factor in Japan's desire to strike at us 64 years ago; another strong factor was their perception that we were weak and unwilling/unable to fight.
This latter point seems to be lost on the Iraq Study Group; their recommendations guarantee that our adversaries will perceive us weak and unwilling/unable to fight. Can you guess what will happen next? It ain't rocket science!
Randy, I don't think I made myself clear. I meant cruel in the sense that people of a liberal protectionist bent want "everyone to be a winner" and have "no one suffer". That is simply not realty and to many liberals it's just cruel (I don't see it that way but I guess I was posting to a wider audience). Also, true enough that if you've never won before you can't really be a loser. But you're conclusion that winners are permament if they have won once before-in fact the "cruelty" (again pardon the term) of capitalism requires that the winner continues to be competitive-otherwise, they lose and someone else takes over and, as you said, the game goes on.
The same leftists that demand trade restrictions will certainly be demanding aid to Haiti later. If they'd just let them sell a few T shirts, everyone wins. US consumers get cheaper clothes, Haitians get jobs thus reducing the need for aid. Uh oh, forgot about US textile workers; maybe we could use the aid we would have sent to Haiti and retrain them.
Is there an American textile industry?
Tourism starting again in Haiti would be one of the most beneficial things for Haiti and the Haitians.