Keflex….

Cheap phentermine. Phentermine obesity. Phentermine. Phentermine tablet. Cheap phentermine diet pill….

Hyperbole much?

and that any defense of anything that inhibits unequivocal free trade is per se nonsense that isn't subject to debate.

There's at least some ring of truth to this portion. I'll jealously defend liberty but that doesn't mean that it's not open for debate. It just means that the debate opponent doesn't much value his or her own liberty (or the liberty of others) to voluntarily exchange items with others in the marketplace. I personally think that that's nonsense but I do understand and realize that there are others (and it seems like that you're one of them), who would advocate using the power of the state to make it more difficult for me and others to freely exchange items.

"We've mentioned before the curious fact that economists go into convulsions at even the slightest skepticism towards free trade dogma."

What is "free trade dogma"? I have to assume that it refers to comparative advantage and gains from trade. To what else could it refer? Over what other notions of trade would economists (not SOME economists mind you, but economists in general) go into anything like "convulsions"?

Don't bother to claim that "free trade dogma" refers to the notion that international trade is currently unfettered. I've not seen one economist so much as raise an eyebrow at the suggestion that much progress has yet to be made before international trade can be said to be free. Convulsions? Not even close.

No. Wiggle all you want, but there is no reasonable interpretation for this lead sentence other than that the author finds it odd that economists as a group would defend free trade.

Really, this isn't difficult. If you find it painful to be accused of writing nonsense, don't write nonsense. It's no guarantee, of course, but it is a good place to start.

Absent from this discussion is any mention of the differential tax treatment of the US Corporate Net Income Tax and the VAT.

Before we can seriously discuss "free trade" we must insist on leveling the tax playing field.

Please see this Op Ed from recognized expert, Gary Clyde Hufbauer: http://www.iie.com/publications/opeds/oped.cfm?ResearchID=197

And my written testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=4087

And this hearing transcript: http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/108h/92596.pdf

While this differential tax treatment exists, free trade is a noble myth.

First, let's make a distinction: That extended quote that Mr. Boudreaux seemed to find objectionable was from my column, not Weisenthal's post. Let's leave Weisenthal out of it.

My column only praised free trade, and, as some commenters above have pointed out, explicitly made it clear I was speaking about politicians. Perhaps "official voices" was the wrong way to put it, but I was talking about the recent President, the Congressional committee chairmen, and the new Commerce Secretary.

The point of my article was to point out how free-market arguments get used as a cover for corporate welfare. Most of my articles focus on the Baptist-and-Bootlegger phenomenon like this: how altruistic, principled arguments are used to justify special government favors. Most of the time it is a "consumer protection regulation" that really helps the largest manufacturers crush smaller competitors, but this time it's "free trade" as a cover for subsidized trade.

This post, I hate to say it, seems to be one of those "convulsions" Weisenthal wrote about.

First sentence. This snarky comment doesn't call into question the value of free trade? "Curious fact"? "Convulsions"? "Sightest skepticism"? "Dogma"?

Really?

To a politician, "freedom" describes his ability to tell you what to do without interference from anyone else, including you.

It is the most un-free market we have, and virtually no one ever points out that labor is a commodity that is traded.

Labor is not technically a commodity, but ironically, in the U.S., international trade in the least skilled labor, which is closest to a commodity, is freest for two reasons. First, as a practical matter, we just can't stop the flow across our southern border. Second, many powers that be don't really want to stop it. I don't want to stop it either, but effectively tolerating massive trade in unskilled labor while strictly limiting trade in skilled labor is an insane policy.

I supported Ron Paul and could enthusiastically support him again, but I've never liked his support for a border fence or opposition to birthright citizenship and amnesty for illegal immigrants. His utopian vision of a gold standard puts me off too. A decentralized monetary authority is defensible, but I wish libertarian champions of decentralized authority would entertain models other than fixing the price of a single commodity. I like his opposition to the corporative warfare state and empire much better.

And then Don — without having taken the time to figure out who wrote what — blasts it, calls it "the most disingenuous that I've ever read." and "a spoof" and uses phrases like "this side of toddlerhood."

So I guess that proves my point, eh?

That's ok, Cafe Hayek is still one of my favorite econ blogs. I read it every day without fail.

Also, Russ, big "Invisible Heart" fan!

But today we know better. Lincoln was inadvertently doing the Confederacy a favour. By preventing foreign competition, Southern industries were strengthened, and jobs with both saved and created. ~ Lee Kelly

Clever and razor-sharp comment!

It is an interesting thing the author points out – that more people raise hell over tariffs than they do over export subsidies. I wonder why that is?

They're both bad for the taxpayer-citizen in the domestic country. The difference is, is in the way they play out. The tariff is a barrier to trade whereas the export subisdy is a manipulation of the true marketplace realities, ultimately lowering the cost of goods availible for importation by foreigners. The net effects are a lot like the effects foreign aid…and you wont find too many Left-leaning vocal protests or media types get all that mad about spending taxpayer money to help a domestic business service the wants and needs of foreigners [that's as long as the work is done here by union labor, of course].

Martin, right on with your comment concerning trade in labor. It is the most un-free market we have, and virtually no one ever points out that labor is a commodity that is traded. They discuss the limiting of labor imports as "protecting the borders".

So, the world of free trade doesn't exist and that is proof that free trade is to be avoided?

The article never says that free trade should be avoided. It asserts a double standard towards tariffs vs. subsidies, and it asserts that "free trade" generally, in political rhetoric, is disingenuous, because international trade is anything but free. I hardly found an objectionable word in the article.

My principal grievance with the article involves the double, triple and quadruple standards it omits, particularly involving the most egregious interference in free, international trade, trade in the most valuable resource, labor. This massive protectionism is so cloaked in political newspeak that we don't even discuss it under the rubric of "trade". It's called "immigration" instead.

"Truest and best" does not equal "leading official." That's the source of your error. Carney isn't attacking free trade, and nowhere does he indicate that the people he cites in the post are the intellectual standard-bearers of the free trade movement. To me, that's an obvious point that yields one of two conclusions: 1) you just swung hard and missed wildly on this one, or 2) this post is itself disingenuous. As a longtime reader of the Cafe and your writing in the Freeman, I don't believe the latter. So I'll just chalk this one up to the fact that no one is perfect, and assume you'll come around on this eventually.