Untitled attachment

> Sure I agree, I would definitely call a nation with no tariffs and trade restrictions a free trade.

The existent of, or lack of tariffs, if applied equally to all members (usually not the case) is still free market. When you have tariffs the market is no longer internationally free (some countries are at a disadvantage others are) but locally/internally is a free market. In other words, all the players in the market in the country have equal footing.

So the mere existence of tariffs doesnt make a country a capitalism or not, it depends on how it is applied. In fact if tariffs are meant to offset an unfair advantage one party has at the table then it would be against the principles of capitalism to not have tariffs. For example if china had a monopoly on cell phones then putting a tariffs on cell phones would be a requirement to follow capitalist ideals.

> The government can place tariffs on brick import/export, but it is still up to me to decide what is profitable and what should be done.

Then to my original point you dont fully own those bricks. If someone is **forcing** me to sell those bricks at some price that isnt the market price then I dont **fully** own the bricks. Someone else is telling me what I can or cant do with my bricks, and therefore someone else has some level of joint ownership over those bricks. Now again im not saying this is a bad thing, or even that it should or can be avoided entirely, capitalisms (along with any other ideal) does not exist in a pure sense so that would be nonsense anyway. But absolutely if there is a tariff exclusive to a category of goods, and that tariff is **not** designed to make the markets free (that is, everyone having equal power), then it is contrary to capitalism since it makes markets less free (brick sellers are at a disadvantage due to price fixing).

Public

Notices where this attachment appears