SPOTLIGHT ON STUPIDITY

FREE TRADE CUTTING EDGE OF ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.

The article touched on the protectionist arguments set forth in the book "The Invisible Hand - How Free Trade is Choking the Life out of America," by Jay Olnek. In view of my assumption that SPOTLIGHT readers were conservatives and patriots, the article is one of the most bizarre things I've ever read. Piper writes:

Are you the typical conservative, who has been fed a steady diet of pro-free trade propaganda by internationalists: libertarians, Marxists, and global government enthusiasts of every stripe? Then Oknek's book is a timely work that provides the reader with a historical overview of the political and philosophical struggle between American patriots and the internationalist diciples of free trade, who have tried to foist their idealology on the American people.

Conservatives, who pride themselves for their patriotism, should be the last to endorse free trade. Believers in world government are of course internationalists, and therefore are believers in free trade -- which is nothing more than the elimination of all boundaries between countries.

Nationalists -- those who believe in American sovereignty and the Constitution -- cannot be free traders.

THE INVISIBLE HAND, (Olnek's book on protectionism) portrays Smith as nothing more than an eccentric dreamer, a lifelong academic with little understanding of the realities of political economy.

... which, along with the writings of Karl Marx, has become a bible for free traders.

... George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and the Founding Fathers vehemently rejected the half-baked free trade scheme proposed by Smith. America's statesmen viewed free trade as a philosophy that, if translated into public policy, would cripple economic growth, result in higher taxes, and domestic inflation, and favor foreign interests over those of the American republic.

Free trade is wrecking the economies of capitalist countries all over the world. It creates over-production and under-production, cartels, multinational corporations, free trade cheating (non-tariff barriers and state subsidies), international bribery and shutdowns of industries ... Communism and socialism thrive and expand in a world of economic anarchy.

Farmers, manufacturers, industrial workers and all who value the concept of national sovereignty and self-sufficiency, says Olnek, should rally behind protectionist policies and sever the 'invisible hand' that is strangling America.

According to SPOTLIGHT we learn that advocates of free trade are nothing less than co-conspirators with the "one world government" crowd.

Even worse, the internationalists, being lovers of free trade, are working toward elimination of "all boundaries between countries." This is the whole of the revisionist idealology -- to support free trade, which means that individuals can conduct commerce freely anywhere, is to promote one world government.

This is at best, a stretch of imagination, at worst, Kafkaesque. Alice in Wonderland would understand. It seems to me that the more world-wide free trade that ensues, the less control and influence governments will have in the market place, and therefore less control over individuals. Isn't the free market defined as an arena where men conduct commerce freely? I have yet to see "the free market" defined in terms of geographical limitations.

But, if you re-read the fine print, you will see that Olnek accused Smith of having little understanding of "political economy." This might be the crux of his argument; that today we have "political economies," rather than the unfettered free market that Smith advocated. Therefore, Olnek's arguments are unprincipled because he doesn't address political interference in the economy. Instead, he accepts "political realities" and builds his case from that basis.

Olnek's protectionist publication, which conflicts with Adam Smith's ideal of laissez faire economics, must first demolish Smith's arguments and premises in order to be more readily accepted among the conservatives. How does Olnek accomplish this?

Certainly not be meeting Smith's arguments head on. Rather, it is suggested, ever so gently, that you might have been "fed a steady diet of pro-free trade propaganda." There is nothing wrong with your powers of reasoning, you have been a victim of propaganda. While you previously held what you thought were mutually consistent views, now you are asked to reconsider the issue, preferably with an "America first" bias. To hold any other position is equated with un-American, liberal, and even "One World Government" tendencies.

To further discredit Smith's ideas, Olnek degrades the man. By virtue of his being a "life-long academic," nothing of real value could possibly emanate from his mind.

If, by now, you have not realigned your values and political orientation, there's more. You are informed that Adam Smith kept close company with Karl Marx. Being a loyal conservative, you wish to keep good distance between yourself and the dreaded Karl Marx. So then, must Adam Smith be kept distant.

If you are a philosophical idealist, by now you should be thoroughly informed as to the proper attitude towards Adam Smith in general, and free trade in particular.

However, if you are the pragmatic type, and require more justification for protectionism, you are told that "Free trade is wrecking the economies of capitalist countries all over the world." Here, Olnek is indulging in "newspeak," the Orwellian language where 2 + 2 = 5, war is peace and night is day.

Aside from the question of where in the world Olnek has found a capitalistic country to study, free trade is what capitalism is made of, not what wrecks it. The very essence of capitalism is that it is a non-political system where everyone makes economic choices freely, according to each person's perceived needs. The factor of unhindered choice is the very basis of a stable, and self-regulating capitalist economy.

But Olnek tells us that free trade creates "over-production and under-production." In this, Olnek must have learned economic theory from Vladimir Lenin, who used identical arguments against capitalism; that there would be over and under-production, so government economic planning is necessary.

Olnek complains of "cartels", but ignores the fact that cartels are unlikely in a competitive market -- witness the short-lived Arab oil cartel of the middle seventies. Other free trade problems are "free trade cheating", whatever that is, and "international bribery and shutdowns of industries ..." So-called international bribery is nothing more than a state-defined crime. Referral fees are a natural part of doing business, and are not unethical in themselves until laws define them as such. And, yes, industries do shut down. They also start up, but who complains then? In a true laissez faire market, when an industry is no longer competitive in the market, when new technologies supercede old ones, the best thing possible is its demise. The alternative is to keep buggy whip and vacuum tube producers afloat with tax subsidies. Never mind that consumers express no demand for these products, the industry must be kept alive at all costs.

If Olnek's other arguments against free trade are groundless and naive, his assertion that "communism and socialism thrive in a world of economic anarchy" is the most absurd. To Olnek, anarchy is a situation where he and his "populist" associates are unable to gain political control over how other people spend their money. Actually, it is when people are hindered in satisfying their own economic interests that anarchy enters.

If you and I negotiate a trade of goods or services, to exchange items of value with each other, then we are free trading capitalists, and our relationship with each other is stable and peaceful. However, when Olnek and the populists interfere in our agreement, equilibrium is destroyed and the seeds of totalitarianism, socialism and communism are sown.

Can we conclude then, that Olnek, who purports to be a "conservative" and "patriot", is actually advocating fascism, socialism and communism? It seems inescapably true.