Can a tax be so inefficient that the government only collects a fraction of the cost you pay, while the rest is simply destroyed?
In Chapter 7, “Protection as a Stimulus to Production,” Henry George tackles the common protectionist defense that tariffs, despite their costs, are necessary to stimulate domestic production and increase the wealth of the nation. George systematically demolishes this claim, arguing that protectionism not only fails to create wealth but is also the most wasteful and unproductive way to collect government revenue.
1. Protection Does Not Create Wealth—It Diverts It 🔄
George confronts the central protectionist fallacy that a tariff somehow increases the total amount of wealth or jobs available in a nation.
The Zero-Sum Fallacy: Protectionism can only divert labor and capital from one industry to another. If a tariff forces a shoe factory to open in the U.S. that would otherwise have opened abroad, the resources used (labor, wood, metal) were simply taken from a different, typically more efficient, domestic industry.
The Inefficiency Tax: The protected industry is, by definition, less efficient than the foreign competitor. Therefore, the same amount of labor and capital produces less output than it would have in the unprotected, efficient industry.
The Result: Protectionism is not a generator of wealth; it is a destroyer of wealth because it forces a nation to settle for a lower productive yield from its resources.
2. The Tariff is the Worst Revenue Method 🚫
George contrasts a tariff used for revenue (a tax on imports that don't compete domestically) with a tariff used for protection (a tax on goods that do compete domestically). He concludes that protective tariffs are utterly terrible for revenue generation.
The Goal is Failure: For a protective tariff to succeed at its main goal (protection), it must discourage imports. If it successfully discourages all imports, it collects zero revenue.
The Paradox: The better the tariff is at protecting domestic industries, the worse it is as a source of government funds. The government only gets money when the tariff fails to protect the domestic industry (i.e., when goods are still imported).
A Revenue Tariff is Better: If a country needs money, it should tax goods that cannot be produced domestically (like coffee or tea), ensuring the maximum revenue is collected with minimal distortion to domestic markets.
3. The Unseen Economic Damage Multiplier 💥
A core theme of George's analysis is that the cost to the consumer is far greater than the revenue collected by the government. He emphasizes the multiplier effect of protectionist damage:
Loss of Freedom: Tariffs interfere with the natural and most advantageous flow of human industry.
Increased Collection Costs: Tariffs require vast, expensive machinery to collect (customs houses, officials, coast patrols, etc.), increasing administrative costs.
Encouragement of Crime: Tariffs breed the crime of smuggling, forcing honest merchants to compete with criminals and further wasting national resources on enforcement.
4. The Farmer Analogy: The "Making Work" Fallacy 🌾
George addresses the common idea that tariffs "make work" by noting that this benefit is a delusion based on a narrow view of the economy.
The protected manufacturer benefits, and workers in that industry may be hired, but the cost is borne by everyone else, especially the farmers who must pay higher prices for all protected goods.
The farmer who supports protection because it "makes work" in the cities is essentially subsidizing inefficient factory work at the expense of his own purchasing power, proving that the wealth was simply shifted, not created.
Conclusion
Chapter 7 solidifies Henry George's position that protective tariffs are indefensible. They are not merely an expensive way to support industry; they are an actively destructive force that wastes national productive power, forces labor and capital into inefficient channels, and serves as an incredibly wasteful source of government revenue.
If protectionism doesn't stimulate production or generate efficient revenue, what single factor do you believe is the most powerful reason the policy continues to persist in modern politics?
No comments:
Post a Comment