Free Trade, Libertarianism, David Ricardo, Protectionism. The Glorious Pill Stance
When discussing National Capitalism it is also important to elaborate on what stance should be adapted in terms of foreign trade. For the classic Liberal, who adheres to the teachings of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, Protectionism is a hindrance to prosperity. However it is prudent to point out that those gentlemen were products of their times (as every thinker is) and thus presented their arguments in accord with contemporary circumstances. For the Nationalist, even one inclined to agree with some of the merits of free trade and open markets, it is outright madness to not have a native agriculture (to use the most obvious example). That companies outsource to nations where they can pay lower wages can be understood, even though it is not optimal for the Western worker. What must be combated at all cost, however, are dangers posed to the nation’s native agriculture. There might just be the case that another nation can produce cheaper food products than what is available in the native market. The classic Liberal would invoke the voice of David Ricardo and recite his theory of Comparative Advantage and claim that it makes perfect economic sense to let each nation focus on what it does best and import the things that another nation does better. This makes sense indeed.
Alas the Nationalist has the well-being of his own nation and people first and foremost on the agenda. A nation without a healthy agriculture is tantamount to a nation without an army. It is simply a matter of essentials. We have discussed the virtues of supporting your local communities and eating as much locally produced foods as possible. Now we must also approach this from a political viewpoint. In the case of an unstable world, which the world always comes to sooner or later, it is of paramount importance to be able to feed your own population. This will be impossible if the native market has collapsed due to the state’s inability to properly protect its agriculture from aggressive foreign competition. The protection methods can vary from subsidies to your own agriculture to tariffs on foreign imports. Whichever method ensures the prosperity and continuation of the native production must be the measure taken.
We do not suggest complete autarchy in terms of food products. Indeed there are plenty of produce that for geographical reasons need to be imported. To give a basic example; oranges are not native to Scandinavia and cultivating oranges is not integral to Scandinavian self-sufficiency. This goes for many a product. The general guide-line in terms of protecting the native agricultural industry is; if it can be produced by the native farmers, their production should be protected. However, if the product does not exist in the native market; there can be great benefits of having a prosperous foreign trade.
A truly Nationalist state will furthermore not allow itself to be coerced into trade agreements which will cause harm to its people or nature. This is easier said than done, of course, since the threat of foreign intervention will always be presence should a nation be to unruly in the international arena. However, the state must not be gulled into accepting false promises by voracious international elements at the expense of its native population.