What's So Special about National Borders?
11 July 2007
The Editor, New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036
To the Editor:
Economists Alan Blinder and Dani Rodrik pose as courageous, clear-eyed dissenters from the benighted mainstream support for free trade ("In Economics Departments, a Growing Will to Debate Fundamental Assumptions," July 11). Courageous they might be; clear-eyed they are not.
First, the case for free trade relies upon the fact that trade destroys some particular jobs in order to release workers for newly created ones. So while Blinder might be correct that trade will eliminate 40 million particular American jobs, this possibility doesn't begin to undermine the case for free trade.
Second, if "faith" explains why most economists insist that political borders are economically irrelevant, perhaps it also explains why Dani Rodrik never argues that, say, the economy of Massachusetts might be strengthened if that state were to restrict its citizens' freedom to buy products from Connecticut, Maine, and other states. If protecting producers from competitors outside of their political unit can create prosperity, surely an open-minded scholar should explore how individual states, even individual cities, can create prosperity through such protection.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
The Editor, New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036
To the Editor:
Economists Alan Blinder and Dani Rodrik pose as courageous, clear-eyed dissenters from the benighted mainstream support for free trade ("In Economics Departments, a Growing Will to Debate Fundamental Assumptions," July 11). Courageous they might be; clear-eyed they are not.
First, the case for free trade relies upon the fact that trade destroys some particular jobs in order to release workers for newly created ones. So while Blinder might be correct that trade will eliminate 40 million particular American jobs, this possibility doesn't begin to undermine the case for free trade.
Second, if "faith" explains why most economists insist that political borders are economically irrelevant, perhaps it also explains why Dani Rodrik never argues that, say, the economy of Massachusetts might be strengthened if that state were to restrict its citizens' freedom to buy products from Connecticut, Maine, and other states. If protecting producers from competitors outside of their political unit can create prosperity, surely an open-minded scholar should explore how individual states, even individual cities, can create prosperity through such protection.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Posted by Don Boudreaux on
Saturday February 9, 2008 at 5:29pm