Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Free trade with China is still good for us all
Free trade with China is still good for us all
Jan 5, 2026 6:13 AM

Despite pushback from both left and right, free markets should always be supported, because they free people to live out their potential—even in despotic regimes like China’s.

Read More…

Doug Irwin in his seminal book Free Trade Under Fire points out that Democrats and Republicans have historically vacillated on free trade. The Democratic Party of the late 19th century up until World War II was the party of trade liberalization when Republicans consistently voted for high tariffs. From the 1950s through the early ʼ90s, there was a bipartisan consensus favoring reduced tariffs.

Since NAFTA, a free trade agreement signed into law by President Bill Clinton, support for free trade among Democrats and Republicans has flip-flopped. Labor unions have generally opposed free trade agreements, which helps us understand the shift among Democrats. Republican president Donald Trump engaged in an all-out trade war with China and ran his presidency largely on an anti-free-trade agenda.

In modern conservative circles, free trade is continually mocked and rejected but not because of labor union objection. The conservative case against free trade stems from a mistake, shared by Democrats, that trade among nations is a zero-sum game. I was recently at a conference of conservatives in which two alarming statements were made: “You can either have free trade or free markets but not both,” and “Comparative advantage doesn’t work.”

As an economist, these are shocking statements, both because they ing from conservatives, whom I expect to understand economics, and because they are glaringly wrong. When giving a reasoned economic response, I am sometimes labeled a “globalist,” which I suppose, reading between the hyperbolic lines, means I must hate America.

Nothing could be further from the truth. You can love your country and unapologetically support free trade at all times and under all circumstances. Free trade is about opening markets, and markets are about people. Ensuring the freedom to sell your ideas, labor, skills, and talents is the best way to love your neighbor by serving them.

Free trade is the world’s most successful anti-poverty program. It opens markets and brings goods and services heretofore both unavailable and unthinkable. Free trade widens the circles of cooperation and allows us both to benefit from and make contributions to human flourishing; this is our Christian duty. Free trade removes the shackles of subsistence farming and the grind of daily survival, and allows the possibility of human innovation and creativity to be shared across the globe. Free trade moves us out of the zero-sum game of survival of the strongest and into the positive-sum game where all parties win, and where we are empowered with new choices and opportunities. These facts are not new; they hark back to the insights of Adam Smith, who in 1776 wrote:

What is prudence in the conduct of every family can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom. If a foreign country can supply us with modity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage.

We are mercially integrated world, and that makes us all better. Free trade is the prudent course of action because it means that we each produce the things we are relatively better at doing. In this we actualize our parative advantages, and thus are freed from producing those things for which we would be higher-cost producers. This is the nature of stewardship, and it allows us to widen the circles of cooperation. If you are wearing a suit that you didn’t make, you are a living example parative advantage working.

Yet free trade and moving from more closed-trade relationships to more open-trade relationships bring great objections. British historian Thomas Babington Macaulay said, “Free trade, one of the greatest blessings which a government can confer on a people, is in almost every country unpopular.” Most of the conservative objections I hear to free trade focus on our current geopolitical relationship with China. Let’s face it, China is no bastion of free markets. Rather, it is a country ruled by authoritarians who hate freedom. That’s not just a bad thing for us; it’s bad for the citizens of China, all of whom are made in God’s image and likeness and have creative potential but live under the yoke of economic and political authoritarianism.

This is no excuse to abandon free trade with China; we need free trade with China now more than ever. Since 1980, with limited internal reforms, China has raised 800 million people from abject poverty. China has moved from “unfree” in the Economic Freedom data to “mostly unfree.” Some progress is better than no progress, and the future remains undetermined.

There is great work to be done in China, and the world watches with bated breath as their government engages in genocide and tyranny. But here is where the economic way of thinking es necessary. China needs free trade now more than ever. Our trade policy should be directed at how to trade with entrepreneurs in China while not supporting their government and its state-owned enterprises. We can hold the Chinese government accountable for its cheating and espionage without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Creative regional trade policy can be part of the solution. But denying ordinary Chinese citizens a better life by denying them access to economic opportunity is never the answer.

Not too long ago, skeptics of free trade were worried that Japan was buying up the world and would have a larger economy than ours. What economics teaches us is that anytime a country makes internal changes in the direction of free markets, their economy will grow. That is a good thing, because as individuals in other countries grow richer, they have more money to spend on things we produce, and we have more entrepreneurs from which w, can benefit. I argue that this is what we want in China—more trade that allows Chinese citizens to grow richer. This is also the best deterrent to greater restrictions on freedom by the Chinese government.

Some worry that China’s economy will eclipse ours in size, to which economists respond, “I hope so.” China has a population that is 4.3 times as big as the United States. We should hope their economy is bigger. In a regime of free markets and political liberalism, this is an indicator of growing wealth and prosperity. Free trade frees people, and that is what China needs. Free trade will unleash human creativity. What we can and should do is support free trade with people wherever and whenever possible. It’s always time for free trade.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Acton Line podcast: The biggest problems of national conservatism
In recent years, a rift has opened within American conservatism, a series of divisions animated in part by the 2016 presidential election and also by a right concern with an increasingly progressive culture. Among these divisions is a growing split between self-professing liberal and illiberal conservatives as some on the right scramble to give explanation for a culture which has e hostile to civil society and traditional institutions, most notably the family. One movement which has grown out of this...
Clayton Christensen: ‘If you take away religion, you can’t hire enough police’
The Founding Fathers understood, in the words of John Adams, that “we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.” An Ivy League professor recently heard the same conclusion repeated by a Chinese Marxist. “I had no idea how critical religion is to the functioning of democracy,” the economist told Clayton Christensen. Christensen, who died last month at the age of 67, taught business administration at Harvard Business School and served...
A look inside a pro-life, free-market healthcare system
Proponents of massive government programs like Medicare for All often present their schemes as though there were no alternative to state intervention. Thankfully, a life-affirming, healthcare practice shows that the free market has a superior answer about how to care for vulnerable women and their babies. Chris Gast of Right to Life of Michigan drew my attention to the story of Mark Blocher, a Christian bioethicist who believes medical practices should reflect their faith, something often difficult even in our...
Hubris old and new
Adam MacLeod, a law professor at Faulkner University in Alabama, wrote a couple of years ago in the New Boston Post of “chronological snobbery,” the idea that “moral knowledge progresses inevitably, such that later generations are morally and intellectually superior to earlier generations, and that the older the source the more morally suspect that source is.” We don’t have to look too hard to see how widespread this attitude is now. No other age has had the hubris of ours....
For Roger Scruton, philosophy and culture were inseparable
It’s almost two months since the death of perhaps the twentieth century’s most important conservative philosopher, Sir Roger Scruton, but discussion of the significance of his work and life continues to occupy a great deal of space in journals, opinion pieces and on the airwaves. Like many others, I have found myself looking again at many of Scruton’s great books, such as his classic “The Meaning of Conservatism” (1980), the very reflective “England: An Elegy” (2000) and the aesthetic arguments...
Why businesses should use the servant leadership model
I recently flew from Grand Rapids to Los Angeles on Delta. With the exception of some extra frisky TSA agents here in Michigan, the experience was largely positive. My flights were on time, the crew was helpful, and the planes were clean and well equipped. Even for those of us sitting in the back, the seating fortable. Bonus—I had a whole row to myself on the trip home! All of this got me thinking about a news article that blipped...
As it turns out, Lake Erie does not have ‘rights’
Last week, a federal district court judge in Ohio declared that the city of Toledo’s move to establish a Lake Erie Bill of Rights, or LEBOR, was invalid. Judge Jack Zouhary put it this way: Frustrated by the status quo, LEBOR supporters knocked on doors, engaged their fellow citizens, and used the democratic process to pursue a well-intentioned goal: the protection of Lake Erie. As written, however, LEBOR fails to achieve that goal. This is not a close call. LEBOR...
3 books to help you think and talk about politics without practicing politics
When people talk about politics, they are usually discussing passions and interests, often with a whole lot of passion and interest. This is why prohibitions exist in polite society against talking about politics. Political discussions about issues, parties, or candidates are often performative recitations of opinion: yesterday’s knowledge, right or wrong, applied to today’s situation. These debates can be engaging, enraging, or enjoyable. It is this sort of politics that, as Henry Adams observed, “as a practice, whatever its professions,...
Bloomberg and Sanders are both wrong about money in politics
Super Tuesday – the single day in the U.S. presidential primaries with the most delegates at stake – e and gone, and so have quite a few presidential candidates. Former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) both dropped out before Tuesday and endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden. After lackluster performances on Tuesday, both former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his debate nemesis, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, have dropped out, as well. The...
Acton Commentary: Liberty for AOC but not for thee
During a congressional hearing late last week, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez likened Christians who refuse to perform medical procedures that violate their religious beliefs to Klansmen, segregationists, and slaveholders. But in this week’s Acton Commentary, Rev. Gregory Jensen writes that it is the congresswoman who shares the Jim Crow tactics of using the government to deny other people their inalienable rights. In a video clip that went viral, AOC, a democratic socialist, said that Christians lack the right to live according to...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved