As a fellow Utahn currently living in Africa — and having previously lived in Cambodia — I read Paul Mero’s comments on free markets and tariffs with interest and concern.
He speaks of the moral and social underpinnings of free markets. But I wonder: what kind of “free market” are we talking about? Is it one that is genuinely open and competitive for all participants, or one that ensures Americans can continue living the way we do, regardless of the cost to others?
Here in Africa, I regularly drive past young men standing on corners, hoping for a day’s work that might pay a dollar an hour. In Cambodia, I’ve seen firsthand how garment workers live — grateful for low-paying jobs that Americans would never accept. The jobs that do exist in these places do so because the global economy funnels production to places where wages are low and regulation is minimal. That’s what “free markets” enable.
Last summer in the Netherlands, I sat inside a BYD electric car — built by a Chinese company. It looked and felt like a Tesla, but it sells for around $10,000. Is that cheating, or is it simply the result of innovation and global manufacturing efficiency?
We talk about “leveling the playing field,” but who defines what level looks like? Is it “level” when we pay more in tariffs to import goods than the person who made them earned producing them?
You ask us to consider the moral basis of free markets. I would ask the same of you. What moral framework justifies raising prices on goods made by the world’s poor in the name of “justice” for American industries? If the answer is patriotism, I would suggest that morality demands something deeper.
David Ron Anderson, Johannesburg, South Africa
Donate to the newsroom now. The Salt Lake Tribune, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) public charity and contributions are tax deductible