I can't recall if Smith lines up on this one, but in a very similar situation he supports pacing the introduction of free trade measures for industries that employ a large number of workers, and who would be displaced by lifting protectionist legislation. (Similar in that he supports lifting import tariffs and duties, but through a gradual process.) This is the second of the two "exceptions" to free trade he supports in Book IV Chpt. ii of the Wealth - the first is retaliatory protectionism:
"The case in which it may sometimes be a matter of deliberation how far it is proper to continue the free importation of certain foreign goods, is, when some foreign nation restrains by high duties or prohibitions the importation of some of our manufactures into their country. Revenge in this case naturally dictates retaliation, and that we should impose the like duties and prohibitions upon the importation of some or all of their manufactures into ours." (IV.ii.38) Here's a quote from section defending free trade gradualism to guard against sudden displacement of workers: "The case in which it may sometimes be a matter of deliberation, how far, or in what manner it is proper to restore the free importation of foreign goods, after it has been for some time interrupted, is, when particular manufactures, by means of high duties or prohibitions upon all foreign goods which can come into competition with them, have been so far extended as to employ a great multitude of hands. Humanity may in this case require that the freedom of trade should be restored only by slow gradations, and with a good deal of reserve and circumspection. Were those high duties and prohibitions taken away all at once, cheaper foreign goods of the same kind might be poured so fast into the home market, as to deprive all at once many thousands of our people of their ordinary employment and means of subsistence." (IV.ii.40) -----Ben At 03:06 PM 7/27/2002 -0700, Michael Perelman wrote: >Yes, they were for dispossession, but Steuart especially wanted to pace >the process. > >On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 05:55:27PM -0400, Michael Pollak wrote: > > > Including people like Smith and Stewart? I thought I remember you saying > > they were for it because it kept wages low, and because subsistence was > > the biggest obstacle to getting people to submit to capitalist discipline > > -- with Stewart saying this overtly and Smith by omission. > > > > Am I remembering right? But perhaps they still thought there could be too > > much of a "good thing?" > > > > Michael
