“”The most persuasive case against protectionism is not the standard one that undergraduate students are taught in their introductions to international economics, which goes like this: Tariffs distort the allocation of resources and impose a ‘deadweight burden,'” Mokyr wrote in the June 1996 issue of Reason. “The standard argument is certainly correct, but somehow it has failed to persuade many people since it was first enunciated by Adam Smith and David Ricardo.”
The better argument, instead, is that “protectionism and insularism impede innovation, depriving our children of the comfort and security that progress and economic growth bring,” he said. “Free trade and international competition not only lead to a better allocation of resources; they ensure that countries do not lull themselves into the technological lethargy that is the archenemy of economic growth.””
https://reason.com/2025/10/13/this-years-nobel-winners-for-economics-explained-how-innovation-makes-us-rich/?nab=1
“At the end of the day, protectionism is rooted in fear and pessimism: fear that we’ll be outcompeted, and pessimism about the idea that a growing, dynamic economy can make us all better off. Libertarians are fond of making just such claims—so fond that Cass coined a term to mock us for it. Instead of tussling over the size of different constituencies’ relative shares of the fixed economic pie, the libertarian view is that our goal should be to grow the pie so everyone’s share is bigger. Cass calls this “economic piety,” and he rejects it. For him, the goal is not to grow the economy; it’s to direct the economy for the benefit of deserving constituencies such as blue-collar workers.
This is pure zero-sum thinking. It cements in place a mindset where one group’s gains necessarily come at some other group’s expense. To libertarians, technological innovation is a boon because it makes the whole economy more productive and everyone richer in the long run. But some people usually are hurt in the short run—think of the proverbial buggy-whip salesmen when automobiles come along. Protectionists are inclined to be suspicious of the tech sector and sympathetic toward policies that would tamp down economic dynamism in the name of protecting the would-be losers. The result, inevitably, is stagnation.”
https://reason.com/2025/03/01/trumps-dramatic-crossroads/
“The same U.S. government that wants tech companies and telecoms to create secret software doors that would allow it to snoop on our private communications and data is also worried that other governments will be able to use those same back doors to do the same thing. This is what tech privacy experts have been warning U.S. officials (and U.K. officials and Australian officials) all along: Any back door that allows law enforcement to circumvent user privacy protections will ultimately be used by people with bad intentions.”