Free trade means solidarity

Protectionism is a disease. It is often advocated in
the name of solidarity, and almost always by special
interests who wants protection against competition.
Look at Sweden: the Swedish government has recently
proposed that labor immigration from non-European
countries should be allowed. The largest union in
Sweden, LO (the Swedish Trade Union Confederation), is
against it. They fear that this will drive wages down,
and are thus demonstrating their lack of economic
knowledge.

Or look at Sweden's neighboring country Norway: food
is expensive in Norway. It's the most expensive
country in Europe, and Oslo is sometimes declared the
most expensive city in the world. Yet, Norwegian
farmers are subsidized. Also, the Norwegian government
are putting heavy duties on imported food. This is, of
course, driving prices up, since it decreases
competition. This means that Norwegian consumers buy
overpriced food, and, in addition to this, they pay
taxes to subsidize Norwegian agriculture. When someone
publicly opposes these policies, e.g. on TV shows or
in newspapers, they get smeared by the Norwegian
farmers's movement. Those people, we are told, want to
put hundreds of thousands of people working in
Norwegian agriculture and in sectors depending on
agriculture, out of their jobs. Again, complete
ignorance of how economy works is demonstrated by a
special interest group. I prefer to say like the
Swedish economist Eli Heckscher (1879-1952): "Either
an industry is profitable, and then it does not need
subsidies, or it is not profitable, and then it does
not deserve subsidies".

Those examples above, of restrictions on labor
immigration in Sweden (hopefully to be abolished), and
of subsidies and duties in Norway, and the cheers
these policies get from economically ignorant special
interests, are just two out of many. Half of the
budget of the European Union goes to EU's common
agricultural policy (CAP), i.e. to subsidies, and,
just like Norway (which is not an EU member), the EU,
too, restricts import of food with heavy duties. At
the same time, because of EU subsidies, food produced
in EU countries is sold at an artificially low price
in Africa, and thus driving African farmers out of
business.

All of this is done in the name of solidarity.
However, the only winners in this process are the
European farmers, while both European
consumers/tax-payers and African farmers lose. Those
who defend protectionism in the name of solidarity
ought to be clear about that protectionist policies
turn most people, producers and consumers, into
losers. This is not only a question of dollars, or
euros. For many poor, African farmers, it is a matter
of life and death.

Meanwhile, western governments have for decades been
feeding authoritarian dictatorships in the third
world. Huge amounts of foreign aid have been pocketed
by the ruling classes of third world countries, while
the average third world inhabitant has stayed just as
poor as before. This, too, was done in the name of
solidarity.

There are, of course, many examples of former third
world countries that have turned around and became
wealthy nations. The so-called Tiger economies in east
Asia are wonderful examples of this. However,
countries like Singapore, Taiwan, Japan and South
Korea did not grow rich because of tariffs or by
receiving foreign aid, but by adopting free trade
policies. The Swedish globalization advocate, Johan
Norberg, compares South Korea with Zambia in his book
"In defense of global capitalism". In the 1960's,
South Korea and Zambia were equally poor. Forty years
later, South Korea is a rich country, while Zambia is
still desperately poor. Zambia adopted, like many
other African countries, protectionist policies. For
this, they were cheered by the intellectual elite of
the west. South Korea adopted free trade policies.

Real solidarity should be about improving the living
standards of the poor. This is best done through a
free market. Under free trade, third world farmers
would be allowed to compete with European farmers, and
thus earn a living. European consumers would get
cheaper food. European farmers unable or unwilling to
compete would have to find something else to do.
However, since European consumers would spend less on
food, they would afford to demand more goods and
services, which would create jobs in other industries.
This would also increase living standards in Europe,
since formerly subsidized European farmers would be
having productive jobs instead of subsidized.

Free trade would increase wealth in Africa and Europe.
With free trade, we get a win-win situation. What can
be more solidaric than that?