Adam smith

Today marks the 250th anniversary of the publication of The Wealth of Nations: Adam Smith's seminal text in the history of economics. Smith gave his name to the institute that I co-founded, so you might expect me to advocate for reading his most famous text. But you shouldn’t. It’s very long, written in elegant but spacious prose and full to exasperation of examples, observations and terminologies that puzzle a modern reader. Read my Condensed Wealth of Nations instead or wait for my cartoon graphic novel to come out later in the year. Smith would see the scale of government today as the greatest tyranny Nonetheless, modern unreadability doesn’t mean that The Wealth of Nations is unimportant.

Is life worse today than it was 50 years ago? According to a Pew Research survey, 58 percent of respondents believe it is. Perhaps watching the doom and gloom of the nightly news gives the impression that times have never been worse. But the facts show otherwise.The world has never been richer, food has never been more abundant, and extreme poverty is at historic lows. We are fortunate to live in a country where the people have a strong work ethic and control a vast, resource-rich territory. Yet, even with those advantages, we rely on trade to access goods that America simply does not produce in abundance, like coffee and bananas. Perhaps we should ask a more nuanced question: is international trade good or bad?

On what he called “Liberation Day,” President Trump announced a new tariff schedule. While the markets had been up in anticipation, they are down sharply, with the Dow dropping 2,200 points, perhaps surprised by the extent of them. Basically, Trump has laid tariffs equal to about half what other countries charge on US exports, inviting them to lower theirs in exchange for reciprocity. What the final result will be is anyone’s guess, for the Trump tariffs are chips in a high-stakes game of international poker. They have already had an effect. Canada has promised retaliatory tariffs while Israel has dropped all tariffs on US goods. A tariff is a tax laid on goods passing through a port.

So the big question is: will it work? Will Trump’s protectionist policies, announced with some fanfare at a Rose Garden event at the White House yesterday, increase American prosperity? Or will they harm the economy?  Opinion on that matter is sharply divided. In one corner we have the free traders. They are wringing their hands and warning about higher prices, disruption of international trade and a trade war no one can win.  In the other corner are – what to call them? Most are not “anti-free traders” or “economic protectionists” (though some are).  Let’s call them “fair traders.” They like the idea of free trade – in theory. What they don’t like is the ethic of “free trade for thee but not for me.

In December 2016 I was speaking at a conference in London. Much of the discussion, unsurprisingly, gravitated toward Donald Trump’s recent election as president. It meant, I noted, that an outspoken free-trade skeptic would be in the White House. At that point a bright young French economist turned to me and said, ‘Mon ami, I thought that free trade was a done deal on the right. Apparently, it isn’t.’ As it turns out, it wasn’t just free trade that much of the American right was on the brink of rejecting. A systematic questioning of the central place assumed by free markets in conservative thought and policies since the 1970s, in the United States and the broader Anglosphere, was well underway.