American way of life and the economy from any sort of foreign threat or unfair competition. The nation has never shirked its responsibility to go to war when necessary to "protect, defend, and preserve" the American way of life and American way of government for ourselves and future generations. Therefore, it is illogical for Americans to stand aside and passively let our standard of living decline because our economy isn't worth "protecting, defending, and preserving" for ourselves and future generations. Do Americans want their grandchildren working in the world's most "competitive labor market" if those grandchildren have to work and live like a maquilladora in a Mexican factory or farm with oxen like a farmer in China to make that claim? The point is this ... anyone can be competitive with his or her labor is he or she is willing to sacrifice in living standards. What's difficult is to be competitive while maintaining or improving your standard of living. If the U.S. and other nations are to be competitive in world markets, then isn't it preferable to be competitive by raising other nations to the American standard of living, rather than us declining to theirs? That's what Equity of Trade does and Free Trade fails to do. THE LURE OF PROTECTIONISM The argument for so-called ``protectionism'' (called ``fair trade'' by some) may at first sound appealing. Supporters of ``protectionist'' laws claim that keeping out foreign goods will save jobs, giving ailing domestic industries a chance to recover and prosper, and reduce the trade deficits. Are these claims valid? PROTECTIONISM: WHAT IT COSTS Classical Liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill astutely observed in the last century that ``Trade barriers are chiefly injurious to the countries imposing them.'' It is true today as it was then, for the following reasons: LOST JOBS: Protectionist laws raise taxes (tariffs) on imported goods and/or impose limits (quotas) on the amount of goods gove...
