“NAFTA Fever” and the Myth of Government-Created Free Markets

Left or right, the enemy is the free market. Every problem is the fault of the free market. On the left, the supposed radical deregulation of the 1980s paved the way for the financial crisis and the destruction of the environment. On the right, free trade is responsible for the gutting of manufacturing. The free market is made out in this mythos to have had its heyday in the 1980s and ‘90s and destroyed everything. Even free market advocates fall into this trap, saying that this time in the near past was a free market victory. The results—they try to argue with the market critics, but they agree with the causal analysis: Markets won! Hooray!

The fact is that all three of these groups are wrong. There was no American market revolution in the ‘80s.

It is important to make note of the rhetoric of American life up until the 1980s. American life at the beginning of the 1930s was introduced to the message of “market failures” that justified the New Deal. By the end of the 1940s, Americans were thrown into the Cold War, where all of American life was defined by a battle between “American Capitalism” and “Soviet Communism.”

Paying lip service to the free market was easy. Fusionism became the default conservative ideology, the mixture of so-called “fiscal conservatism,” the “moral majority,” and hawkish foreign policy. The hawkish foreign policy—the boogeyman of National Review—was bearing the brunt of the load. As Buckley put it:

We have got to accept Big Government for the duration [of the Cold War]— for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged…except through the instrumentality of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores.

“Fiscal conservatism” was cast aside in the name of fighting the Soviet menace, but it was in the name of capitalism because everything was done in the name of fighting communism. Every American who bought into the existential crisis of Cold War rhetoric could be coaxed into supporting any policy in the name of capitalism and free trade. So when politicians wheeled forward thousand-page treaties with import/export quotas, environmental regulations, and currency price controls under the name of “Free Trade Agreements.” No wonder the American people got behind it.

No wonder free trade got stuck with the blame. It is an age-old tactic to give bills positive names while they have the opposite effect (e.g., the Inflation Reduction Act). Who would oppose the “Giving Puppies Good Homes Bill of 2024”? At the end of the Cold War, who would oppose a supposed free trade agreement with our fellow capitalist allies?

With the backing of the tail-end of the Cold War market-rhetoric and every Cold War “free enterprise” think tank, we were given NAFTA. Rothbard himself lamented the rise of NAFTA fervor in every so-called “free market think tank.” He wrote in his essay “The NAFTA Myth”:

For some people, it seems, all you have to do to convince them of the free enterprise nature of something is to label it “market,” and so we have the spawning of such grotesque creatures as “market socialists” or “market liberals.” The word “freedom,” of course, is also a grabber, and so another way to gain adherents in an age that exalts rhetoric over substance is simply to call yourself or your proposal “free market” or “free trade.” Labels are often enough to nab the suckers.

And so, among champions of free trade, the label “North American Free Trade Agreement” (Nafta) is supposed to command unquestioning assent. “But how can you be against free trade?” It’s very easy. The folks who have brought us Nafta and presume to call it “free trade” are the same people who call government spending “investment,” taxes “contributions,” and raising taxes “deficit reduction.” Let us not forget that the Communists, too, used to call their system “freedom.”

One has to wonder where NAFTA supporters found their solace: Was it ignorance of what was actually in the treaty? Was it in favor of some “middle-of-the-road” policy? Or was it by virtue of being purchased and funded by vested business interests that benefited from the treaty? We may never quite know. But we can know for certainty that a treatise with thousands of pages, featuring currency controls, import controls, and imposed cross-border regulations is hardly a laissez-faire victory.

But these rhetorical victories that Rothbard decries become stuck in the minds of Americans. The media proclaims the “new age of free trade!” and most buy into it. The failures of interventionism are thus blamed on the free market.

Reagan is lauded as a limited government president who unleashed the markets through deregulation but that is truly a myth. Reagan may have allowed his bureaucracies to loosen environmental regulations in his tenure but it opened the door for the dreaded Chevron Doctrine. Reagan did not touch the New Deal and Great Society apparatus of regulation. The bureaucracies of the Progressive Era remained intact. The central bank remained. Reagan may have lowered some income tax rates, but he was hardly a deregulator.

Lest any progressive try to blame so-called “financial deregulation” for the “Dotcom” and 2008 recessions, the only needed response is Tom Woods’ book Meltdown. Central banks playing price controls with interest rates created the financial crises.
Thus, we reach the two-fold path of “NAFTA fever.” It comes in two forms: either the radical insistence on a free market victory that never truly happened or the hatred of the free market based off of a rhetorical scheme that never was true. Neither are honest or helpful.

Those defending markets should not fall into NAFTA fever, into a dogmatic orthodoxy whereby they defend NAFTA and the illusion of a free market victory. These were never free market victories, but intervention dressed in the garb of market rhetoric. We should not be jumping to the defense of the results of interventionism. Interventionism causes a death spiral of failure and continually worse social conditions.

To bring about free markets and a more prosperous society, we need to make it clear what is the fault of interventionism and what isn’t. The United States has been defined by interventionist economic policy for a century, so it is no wonder that social conditions have worsened and more have become discontent. Free markets didn’t cause our conditions, they were simply the costume in which interventionism was packaged.

No wonder more people today despise markets. By buying into the rhetorical marketplace of the time interventionists and cronies passed off their interventionist legislation as part of a “market revolution.” The revolution never came, unlike the revolution described by Garet Garrett. American political discourse needs a cure to its NAFTA fever.

Originally Posted at https://mises.org/

zerohedge
Economics , News , Politics , Science
December 7, 2024
2 views

From Marcus Aurelius To Omar Little: A Man’s Code Is Vital

Authored by Josh Stylman via The Brownstone Institute,

With Thanksgiving weekend still fresh in our memory, my gratitude centers not on the usual holiday platitudes, but on something that has become increasingly precious in our artificial age: authentic relationships – both family and lifelong friends – that deepen rather than fracture under pressure. What binds these relationships, I’ve come to realize, isn’t shared opinions or circumstances, but a shared code – an unwavering commitment to principles that transcends the shifting sands of politics and social pressure. I’m particularly grateful for my inner circle – friends I’ve known since elementary school and family members whose bonds have only strengthened through the crucible of recent years.

Like many others who spoke out against Covid tyranny, I watched what I thought were solid relationships dissolve in real time. As the owner of a local brewery and coach of my kids’ sports teams, I had been deeply embedded in my community – a “man about town” whose friendship and counsel others actively sought. Yet suddenly, the same people who had eagerly engaged with me would scurry when they saw me coming down the street. Professional networks and neighborhood connections evaporated at the mere questioning of prevailing narratives. They reacted this way because I broke orthodoxy, choosing to stand for liberal values – the very principles they claimed to champion – by rejecting arbitrary mandates and restrictions.

In this moment of testing, the difference between those who lived by a consistent code and those who simply followed social currents became starkly clear. Yet in retrospect, this winnowing feels more like clarification than loss. As surface-level relationships fell away, my core relationships – decades-long friendships and family bonds – not only endured but deepened. These trials revealed which bonds were authentic and which were merely situational.

The friendships that remained, anchored in genuine principles rather than social convenience, proved themselves infinitely more valuable than the broader network of fair-weather friends I lost.

What strikes me most about these enduring friendships is how they’ve defied the typical narrative of relationships destroyed by political divisions. As Marcus Aurelius observed, “The impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way.” Despite taking opposite sides of the dialectic on political and cultural issues over the decades, we found ourselves united in opposition to the constitutional transgressions and rising tyranny of the past few years – the lockdowns, mandates, and systematic erosion of basic rights. This unity emerged not from political alignment but from a shared code: a commitment to first principles that transcends partisan divisions.

In these contemplative moments, I’ve found myself returning to Aurelius’s Meditations – a book I hadn’t opened since college until Joe Rogan and Marc Andreessen’s excellent conversation inspired me to revisit it. Aurelius understood that a personal code – a set of unwavering principles – was essential for navigating a world of chaos and uncertainty. The connection feels particularly apt – like my own friend group, Rogan’s platform exemplifies a code of authentic discourse in our age.

Critics, particularly on the political left, often talk about needing their “own Joe Rogan,” missing entirely what makes his show work: its genuine authenticity. Despite being historically left-leaning himself, Rogan’s willingness to engage in real-time thinking with guests across the ideological spectrum and across a broad variety of topics, his commitment to open inquiry and truth-seeking, has paradoxically led to his estrangement from traditional liberal circles – much like many of us who’ve found ourselves branded as apostates for maintaining consistent principles.

This commitment to a code of authentic discourse explains why organizations like Brownstone Institute – despite being routinely smeared as “far right” – have become a crucial platform for independent scholars, policy experts, and truth-seekers. I witnessed this firsthand at a recent Brownstone event, where, unlike most institutions that enforce ideological conformity, diverse thinkers engaged in genuine exploration of ideas without fear of orthodoxy enforcement. When attendees were asked if they considered themselves political liberals ten years ago, nearly 80% raised their hands.

These are individuals who, like my friends and me, still embrace core liberal values – free speech, open inquiry, rational debate – yet find themselves branded as right-wing or conspiracy theorists merely for questioning prevailing narratives.

What unites this diverse community is their shared recognition that the reality being presented to us is largely manufactured, as explored in “The Information Factory,” and their commitment to maintaining authentic discourse in an age of enforced consensus.

In The Wire, Omar Little, a complex character who lived by his own moral code while operating outside conventional society, famously declared, “A man got to have a code.” Though a stick-up man targeting drug dealers, Omar’s rigid adherence to his principles – never harming civilians, never lying, never breaking his word – made him more honorable than many supposedly “legitimate” characters. His unwavering dedication to these principles – even as a gangster operating outside society’s laws – resonates deeply with my experience.

Like Rogan’s commitment to open dialogue, like Brownstone’s dedication to free inquiry, like RFK Jr.’s determination to expose how pharmaceutical and agricultural interests have corrupted our public institutions: these exemplars of authentic truth-seeking mirror what I’ve found in my own circle. My friends and I may have different political views, but we share a code: a commitment to truth over comfort, to principle over party, to authentic discourse over social approval. This shared foundation has proven more valuable than any superficial agreement could be.

In these times of manufactured consensus and social control, the importance of this authentic foundation becomes even clearer. The 2012 Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, which made it legal to propagandize American citizens, merely formalized what many had long suspected. It represented the ultimate betrayal of the government’s code with its citizens – the explicit permission to manipulate rather than inform. As anyone not under the spell has come to realize – we’ve all been thoroughly “Smith-Mundt’ed.” This legal framework helps explain much of what we’ve witnessed in recent years, particularly during the pandemic – when those who proclaimed themselves champions of social justice supported policies that created new forms of segregation and devastated the very communities they claimed to protect.

This disconnect becomes even more apparent in the realm of charitable giving and social causes, where “virtue laundering” has become endemic. The absence of a genuine moral code is nowhere more evident than in our largest charitable institutions. While many charitable organizations do crucial work at the local level, there’s an unmistakable trend among large NGOs toward what a friend aptly calls the “philanthropath class.”

Consider the Clinton Foundation’s activities in Haiti, where millions in earthquake relief funds resulted in industrial parks that displaced farmers and housing projects that never materialized. Or examine the BLM Global Network Foundation, which purchased luxury properties while local chapters reported receiving minimal support. Even major environmental NGOs often partner with the world’s biggest polluters, creating an illusion of progress while fundamental problems persist.

This pattern reveals a deeper truth about the professional charitable class – many of these institutions have become purely extractive, profiting from and even amplifying the very issues they purport to solve. At the top, a professional philanthropic class collects fancy titles in their bios and flashes photos from charity galas while avoiding any genuine engagement with the problems they claim to address. Social media has democratized this performance, allowing everyone to participate in virtue theater – from black squares and Ukrainian flag avatars to awareness ribbons and cause-supporting emojis – creating an illusion of activism without the substance of real action or understanding. It’s a system entirely devoid of the moral code that once guided charitable work – the direct connection between benefactor and beneficiary, the genuine commitment to positive change rather than personal aggrandizement.

The power of a genuine code becomes most evident in contrast with these hollow institutions. While organizations and social networks fracture under pressure, I’m fortunate that my closest friendships and family bonds have only grown stronger. We’ve had fierce debates over the years, but our shared commitment to fundamental principles – to having a code – has allowed us to navigate even the most turbulent waters together. When the pandemic response threatened basic constitutional rights, when social pressure demanded conformity over conscience, these relationships proved their worth not despite our differences, but because of them.

As we navigate these complex times, the path forward emerges with striking clarity. From Marcus Aurelius to Omar Little, the lesson remains the same: a man gotta have a code. The crisis of authenticity in our discourse, the chasm between proclaimed and lived values, and the failure of global virtue-signaling all point to the same solution: a return to genuine relationships and local engagement. Our strongest bonds – those real relationships that have weathered recent storms – remind us that true virtue manifests in daily choices and personal costs, not in digital badges or distant donations.

This Thanksgiving, I found myself grateful not for the easy comforts of conformity but for those in my life who demonstrate real virtue – the kind that comes with personal cost and requires genuine conviction. The answer lies not in grand gestures or viral posts, but in the quiet dignity of living according to our principles, engaging with our immediate communities, and maintaining the courage to think independently. As both the emperor-philosopher and the fictional street warrior understood, what matters isn’t the grandeur of our station but the integrity of our code.

Returning one final time to Meditations, I’m reminded of Aurelius’s timeless challenge: “Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one.”

Tyler Durden
Sat, 12/07/2024 – 23:20