The writer outlines the calculus of basic tariff theory in these ten pages of new PDF notes. The notes detail quantitatively the essential analytical reasons the economics profession recommends free trade between nations.
As far as the writer is aware, such notes—written for a serious audience of mathematically inclined non-economists, pitched at the MBA level—have never heretofore appeared on the World Wide Web.
Admittedly, the writer tends to disbelieve the notes’ conclusion—or rather, more precisely, he believes that their mathematics are correct but does not believe in the prudence of their translation to finely tuned practical policy—but he has not prepared the notes because he believes in them. He has prepared them rather because the economics profession believes in them. Foremost among those we wish to convert to the good cause of economic nationalism stand the leading members of the economics profession and, perhaps more importantly, graduate students in economics at our leading universities (the latter of whom, after all, besides still having open minds where their professors’ minds are too often wrongly closed, necessarily tend to represent economics’ rising generation). Such folks deserve respect for their knowledge and expertise even when you and I disagree with their conclusions. One way to show respect is to have taken the time to acquaint oneself with their strongest arguments before presuming to dispute their faulty findings.
They won’t listen to you or to me, after all, so long as they think us untutored. Therefore, if you lack an advanced degree in economics but can handle the requisite single-variable calculus, then you may find it worth your time to study the notes.
As for the rest of you, if calculus is not your thing, don’t let it trouble you overly much. You can page through the notes and look at the graphs if you like but your intuition in the matter is quite right: radical free trade is a horrifically bad idea. The main reason many free traders, including far too many U.S. Congressmen, sophomorically believe in the idea is because they do understand just barely enough calculus to grasp its analytical rationale, because it pleases their vanity to contemplate your supposed ignorance in the matter—or, more likely and worse, because like John McCain they do not understand quite enough calculus and are worried that you might notice. Either way, you and I are not obligated to honor their vanity.
But for those that wish to understand the basic theory in detail, to study the notes could be a profitable exercise nonetheless.
Howard J. Harrison
The Economic Nationalist