Either we believe in free trade or we don’t. If we push our own protectionist policies how can we lecture the U.S. for responding in kind?

You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.

Donald Trump is using the threat of a 25 per cent tariff to bludgeon Canada and Mexico into taking action to halt to the flow of fentanyl and illegal immigrants into the U.S. This threat extends an emerging policy trend: it has now become acceptable to discard free trade in favour of trade barriers supporting other political objectives. But we’re reaping what we’ve sown.

Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.

Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.

Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.

Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.

It took centuries for the public to accept the idea that free trade is good for a country, a notion that began with two influential British political economists. In 1776, Adam Smith argued that mercantilism (favouring domestic production by restricting imports) leads to monopolies in the domestic market and prevents consumers from buying goods from the cheapest sources. In 1815, David Ricardo explained how the British “Corn Laws,” which protected agriculture, benefited farmers and land-owners but hurt the poor by raising corn and wheat prices. He argued that countries should pursue their comparative advantage by specializing in industries that make the most productive use of their labour. Eventually, in 1846, the Corn Laws were repealed and Britain........

© Financial Post