Free Contemporary Relevance Of The Debate Essay Example

Colbert formulated his ideological perspectives from 1661. During this period, which spanned twenty years, he was in charge of finances of France. It was a time when ships were integral instruments in transport of commodities involved in international trade. In addition, the ship owners were legally required to pay taxes to the authority. In his belief, he proposed critical focus on material prosperity, which he believed was integral towards enhancement of tax returns. However, he expressed concerns over chances of success of such increased tax returns would be minimal if no proper legislative and protective acts were put in place. In this sense, he noted that prosperity in economic development would be realized if local industries are accorded relevant protection against unfair competition from external sources. Further, Colbert believed in export trade as opposed to import trade. Jean cited import trade as a killer of local industries. It was his view that the local industries should be able to produce surplus products that would then be channeled to other sectors of economic development. For instance, he sees opportunity in trading with the Dutch, a prospect evident when he says, “the Dutch draw from the kingdom every yearthey would be obliged to pay us with money in cash if we had enough ships for our own carrying trade” (Colbert 3). At the time of his writing, France was under the leadership of the King Louis XIV. It was a time of economic strife within the kingdom, with the subjects under intense economic pressure. Export trade had diminished, with the kingdom highly dependent on import trade. He views total overhaul of trade system as the ideal solution to the prevailing problems. To this he say, “it pleases your majesty to give some hours of his attention to establishment, or rather re-establishment of trade in his kingdom” (Colbert 2).
In Smith’s inquiry into the causes of wealth in different nations, he comes up with the concept of free market economy, an economy that would be run free of government interference. His ideas have since been adopted by capitalistic states. He noted that imposition of legislative protection on locally produced goods was a promotion of monopoly of the local goods. This, in his view, was creating unfair advantage in the business sector. He notes that government protection would discourage foreign investments which are a key ingredient to international development. He states, “every individual endeavors to employ his capital as near home as he can” (Smith 5). He further observes that protection of home trade is an indirect mechanism of directing people on how to invest their capital. To this end, he asserts his view that “if a foreign country can supply us with commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it off them” (Smith 14).
At the time of policy formulation by Hirobumi, there was sustainable mutual trade relation between the Japan, UK and the US among other countries. His policies were, therefore, directed towards strengthening social ties between the trade partners. It was a time when there was a trade boom in Sheffield, a locality where the Japanese investors looked into venturing. However, the local authorities were looking into imposing protection on local products, a view contrary to the foreign merchants who viewed free trade as the most ideal outfit. Unlike his fellow Japanese, Ito was a fluent English speaker. He observed that tariffs chargeable on imports vary from country to country relative to the abundance of the specific product in the subject country. He specifically observed that “one reduces tariffs on imports deficient within the kingdom, and one which is in high demand by the people” (Hirobumi 11). In his view, such protection of own goods and own interests is against the principles of justice. He, however, notes that such protection of self interest was the fundamental mechanism that enabled Britain to accumulate wealth. In this respect, he is of the view that free trade may be wrongly used by other nations to exploit others. He therefore warns Japan that “Britain advocate for free tradesince it is a device for seeking their own advantage” (Hirobumi 14) Therefore, he stands by the need to determine tariffs based on the interests of the people.
This debate remains highly relevant today. For quite a long time, the developed world exploited the developing states through calls for free market as proposed by smith. Such capitalist orientation resulted into the developed nations accumulating more wealth and power while the poor states remained poor and powerless. However, latest revelations are indicative of changing scenarios. Many nations are adopting Ito’s views, imposing tariffs on imports based on the level of local needs of such products. In addition, Colbert’s proposal for protection of local industries is practicable in many parts of the world in a bid to protect the job market for citizens.

Works Cited

(Add the book you scanned as a source. Kindly note that the numbers in the in-text citations are reflective of paragraphs of the various files attached. You may replace them with page numbers.)