How might steel be affordably fabricated? The solution emerged unexpectedly as wheat.
This exemplifies a quintessential economic scenario. In bygone times, an innovator devised an unconventional method for steel production: utilizing wheat as its primary component. Devoid of iron ore, coke, or flux, this method merely necessitated an ample supply of wheat to yield steel of commendable quality at a modest cost. Yet, the intricacies of the production process remained shrouded in secrecy.
Initially met with skepticism, the inventor’s claims were put to the test as various parties provided wheat, resulting in the successful production of steel. Regardless of the quantity of wheat supplied, the inventor consistently delivered the requisite steel. This breakthrough significantly curtailed industrial expenses, precipitating a decline in steel prices across myriad sectors. Consequently, commodities became more accessible, and societal standards of living experienced a notable ascent. Concurrently, traditional steel mills shuttered, prompting a gradual displacement of laborers.
Subsequently, however, laborers unearthed alternative avenues of employment: some cultivated wheat in exchange for steel, enjoying enhanced remuneration, while others transitioned into nascent industries. This paradigm shift was widely perceived as a boon.
Upon closer scrutiny by an intrepid journalist, the purported inventor’s ruse was uncovered: steel fabrication was nonexistent; rather, the wheat was surreptitiously exported to regions boasting cheaper steel, which was then imported under the guise of domestically produced steel. This subterfuge led to widespread disillusionment and the cessation of operations. Consequently, steel prices surged, prompting a return of laborers to erstwhile occupations within the steel industry, and a regression to prior living standards.
This anecdote, as recounted by the esteemed economist Mankiw in his treatise “Principles of Economics,” serves to underscore the significance of international trade.
In 1993, the United States confronted the decision of whether to formally ratify the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The crux of the agreement entailed the reduction of trade barriers among the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
Public sentiment in America was evenly divided on the matter. Opponents posited that free trade would engender unemployment and diminish domestic living standards, while a preponderance of economists advocated for the agreement, contending that free trade is efficacious in resource allocation and can markedly enhance the welfare of citizens across the involved nations. Ultimately, the agreement was narrowly ratified.
Empirical evidence corroborates the salutary effects of dismantling trade barriers and fostering market liberalization. Mexico’s participation, in particular, has served as a paragon of successful North-South economic collaboration. Formerly, doubts lingered within the international community regarding the feasibility of fostering shared economic growth between developed and developing nations through free trade; however, such reservations have largely dissipated.
The maxim holds true: there exist two avenues to wealth—production and commerce.