On page 482 of the 5th edition (2015) of his Basic Economics, Thomas Sowell writes, in his discussion of comparative advantage, this (original emphasis):
Comparative advantage is not just a theory but a very important fact in the history of many nations. It has been more than a century since Great Britain produced enough food to feed its people. Britons have been able to get enough to eat only because the country has concentrated its efforts on producing those things in which it has had a comparative advantage, such as manufacturing, shipping, and financial services – and using the proceeds to buy food from other countries. British consumers ended up better fed and with more manufactured goods than if the country grew enough of its own food to feed itself.
Sowell, of course, is correct, and his example of the benefits of international trade is excellent.
But the naive protectionist (of which there are many today) will reply with what he or she supposes is a “Gotcha!” This protectionist will note the obvious fact that food is necessary for life. From this fact the protectionist will proceed to argue that if the nation isn’t producing enough food to feed its own people, the people of the nation are dependent upon foreigners for their very lives. This situation (the protectionist continues by asking about the event of war) is intolerable. “We must restrict food imports so that we once again build, here at home, the capacity to feed ourselves. We simply cannot be dependent on foreigners for something as vital as food.”
To economically uninformed people, this protectionist sounds reasonable, and perhaps even unanswerable. But economics alerts us to several problems with this protectionist way of thinking.
So here’s the contest. Using no more than 500 words, identify one of these several problems with this protectionist’s argument, and email your answer to me at [email protected]
If you can identify more than one problem, submit more than one entry. Each entry should be limited to the identification of one problem with this protectionist’s argument.
I will post, here at Cafe Hayek, the best answers, with credit due (unless you wish to remain anonymous).
