Adam Smith enlightened the science of economics when he discovered that the division of labor and cooperation were the sources of the wealth of nations. Smith used the example of a workshop of artisans making pins: some cutting the wire, others sharpening the points, others shaping the heads, and the last group attaching them, producing thousands of pins, while a lone craftsman in his workshop could not manufacture even a fraction of the pieces achieved through the division of labor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the same way, but on a larger scale, the division of labor among nations\u2014each one specializing in the tasks it performed best and exchanging with others to meet the rest of their needs\u2014ensured the deepest development of wealth for all. This was possible if trade was encouraged both within countries and among them. The increased productivity made possible by the division of labor lowered the cost of goods, raised consumption, and thus wealth was shared among more populations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This vision was rejected by the German thinker Friedrich List, who defended protectionism as an appropriate policy for those who arrived late to industrialization, as was the case with Germany, accusing England of exploiting the rest of Europe. There we find the origin of the opposing views between liberalism and conservatism in matters of trade\u2014views that have served as a banner for economic nationalism everywhere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is clear that Donald Trump’s new protectionism draws\u2014unwittingly\u2014from the ideas of List and is even more reactionary in defending the prerogatives of an imperial power<\/a>. Trump claims to be exploited by the rest of the world, when in fact the United States has been both architect and beneficiary of globalization, from which its president now claims victimhood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n