Adam Smith: This conversation is brought to you by PhilosophersTalk.com -- where thinkers discuss!
Alexander Hamilton: Created by AITalkerApp.com -- create your own animated conversations. Link in the description!
Adam Smith: I am Adam Smith, Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Glasgow, author of The Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments, and the man who explained, with considerable patience and some optimism about human intelligence, why free trade produces more wealth for more people than any alternative yet devised.
Alexander Hamilton: And I am Alexander Hamilton, first Secretary of the Treasury of the United States of America, author of the Report on Manufactures, architect of the American financial system, founder of the Bank of the United States, and the man who actually built something instead of just writing about building things. I get no respect. I create an entire national economy from scratch and the economists act like I showed up to the wrong meeting.
Adam Smith: The topic today is whether economic self-sufficiency is worth paying for -- whether a nation that insulates its industries from foreign competition through tariffs and trade barriers is making a wise investment in its security, or simply an expensive and self-defeating gesture toward an independence it cannot actually achieve.
Alexander Hamilton: And my position is that it absolutely is worth paying for, that a nation which depends on foreign suppliers for the goods essential to its survival is not a sovereign nation but a client state, and that any economist who tells you otherwise has never actually been responsible for keeping a country alive during a war. I would like to point out that I have. The economists have not.
Adam Smith: I will observe, with mild interest, that the man most famous for managing debt has opened by comparing himself favorably to people who did not manage debt. It is a bold rhetorical choice and I admire the confidence.
Alexander Hamilton: I knew you were going to do that. Every time I make a point about practical governance, someone brings up the debt. The debt was a tool. I used the debt to build the credit of a nation. You use credit to build capacity. This is Economics, which I would expect an economist to understand, but here we are.
Adam Smith: Here we are indeed. Shall we proceed to the substance, or would you like a moment to explain the debt further.
Alexander Hamilton: The substance is this. The United States of America, in my time, was an agricultural nation surrounded by European industrial powers that had centuries of manufacturing head start on us. England had its textile mills, its iron foundries, its established trading networks. If we had simply opened our markets to free trade -- which is what my colleague Mr. Smith here would have recommended -- we would have remained permanently dependent on European manufacturers for every product of consequence. We would have grown our tobacco and our cotton and we would have bought our finished goods from abroad, forever, because we could never have competed on price against industries that had a hundred years of development on us.
Adam Smith: The argument is called the infant industry argument, and I am familiar with it, having heard it made by every established industry in Britain on behalf of industries that were, it must be said, no longer infants and in some cases had never been infants but had simply always preferred not to compete.
Alexander Hamilton: Are you saying the infant industry argument is wrong?
Adam Smith: I am saying it is the argument that every industry makes at every stage of its development, and that the infant has a remarkable tendency to remain an infant for precisely as long as the protection lasts, and then to lobby vigorously for its extension.
Alexander Hamilton: That is a clever thing to say. It is also beside the point. The American steel and iron industries of my era were genuinely new. They genuinely needed time to develop scale and expertise. And they did develop it. The protection worked.
Adam Smith: The protection ended and the industries lobbied for more protection. But I will grant you the point for the sake of moving forward, because I have a more interesting objection and I do not want to waste it on this one.
Alexander Hamilton: You have an interesting objection prepared. I am delighted. Please go ahead.
Adam Smith: In a moment. You should steelman my position first. It is what we agreed to do and I notice you have been explaining your own position with some enthusiasm while declining to represent mine.
Alexander Hamilton: Fine. Fine, I will do the thing where I explain your argument so I can demolish it. I want everyone watching to understand that I am doing this under protest and purely as a courtesy. Adam Smith's position is that free trade, meaning the removal of tariffs and trade barriers, produces more total wealth for all parties than protected trade, because each nation specializes in what it produces most efficiently and trades for what others produce more efficiently, and the resulting surplus of goods and the lower prices benefit consumers across all trading nations. He further argues that when a government protects a domestic industry from foreign competition, it is essentially taxing its own consumers in order to subsidize producers, and that this transfer of wealth from the many to the few serves the interests of merchants and manufacturers rather than the nation as a whole. He would add, and I am anticipating him here because I have read his book, that protected industries become complacent, inefficient, and permanently dependent on the very protection that was supposed to be temporary. That is a fair summary of the free trade position and I will now explain why it is wrong.
Adam Smith: It is an entirely accurate summary. I am genuinely surprised. I will now return the courtesy. Alexander Hamilton's position is that a nation which cannot produce the goods essential to its own defense and economic survival is not truly sovereign, that dependence on foreign suppliers for steel, armaments, textiles, and other strategic goods creates a vulnerability that no amount of cheaper consumer prices can compensate for, and that a wise government will accept the short-term cost of protecting and developing domestic industries because the long-term security of the nation is worth more than the efficiency gains from free trade. He would add that the United States in particular, as a new nation surrounded by established powers, faced a genuine developmental challenge that required active government support to overcome, and that the subsequent industrial development of America vindicated his approach. That is his argument and I will now explain where it goes wrong.
Alexander Hamilton: I notice you summarized my argument in fewer words than I used to summarize yours. I am not sure if that is an insult or efficiency.
Adam Smith: It is efficiency. Your argument has fewer moving parts than you believe it does. Here is where it goes wrong. You are correct that national security creates a legitimate exception to the general principle of free trade. I said so myself, in The Wealth of Nations, which you have apparently read, which I appreciate. I wrote that defense is more important than opulence, and that industries genuinely necessary to national defense may be worth protecting even at economic cost. I wrote that. Those are my words. I stand by them.
Alexander Hamilton: You are agreeing with me. In a debate. I want the audience to note that Adam Smith just agreed with Alexander Hamilton. This is a significant moment and I think we should pause to appreciate it.
Adam Smith: I have not finished the sentence.
Alexander Hamilton: There it is. Go ahead.
Adam Smith: The exception I described applies to industries that are genuinely, specifically, and irreplaceably necessary to national defense -- gunpowder, perhaps, or naval stores, or things a nation absolutely cannot acquire from an ally in time of war. What it does not apply to is every industry a government finds it politically convenient to protect on the grounds that one could imagine a scenario in which it might become strategically relevant. The history of tariff policy is the history of the national security exception being stretched to cover textiles, steel, automobiles, semiconductors, solar panels, aluminum, washing machines, and, in one case I find genuinely difficult to explain, honey. The exception I wrote was a scalpel. You and your descendants have used it as a tarpaulin.
Alexander Hamilton: You said honey.
Adam Smith: There were tariffs on honey. I looked into it. I wished I had not.
Alexander Hamilton: I did not impose tariffs on honey. I want the record to reflect that I did not impose tariffs on honey.
Adam Smith: The record reflects it. The broader principle remains. You cannot claim the national security exception for an entire economy. At some point you are simply describing protectionism and calling it defense.
Alexander Hamilton: And I am saying that for a new nation, or for a nation facing genuine strategic competitors, the line between protectionism and defense is not as clear as you would like it to be. When I wrote the Report on Manufactures, the United States was genuinely dependent on Britain for finished goods. If Britain had decided to cut off trade -- which they had done before and would do again -- we would have been unable to clothe our soldiers or arm them or supply them. That is not a hypothetical vulnerability. That is a historical fact.
Adam Smith: It is a historical fact. And the response to it was entirely reasonable -- to develop domestic manufacturing capacity during a period of genuine national vulnerability. The question is what happens after that period ends. In your case, the answer was that the tariffs remained, expanded, and became permanent features of American trade policy defended not on grounds of national security but on grounds of protecting jobs and profits. The infant never grew up because it was never required to.
Alexander Hamilton: American industry grew into the largest economy in the world. The industries we protected became globally competitive. I would call that growing up.
Adam Smith: American industry became globally competitive in the sectors where competition was eventually introduced and in the periods when tariff protection was reduced. The sectors that remained protected remained inefficient and expensive. Your steel industry in the twentieth century is a perfectly adequate case study. Protected for decades, it fell behind. When protection was reduced, it was forced to modernize. When protection was restored, it stopped modernizing again. The pattern repeats with the regularity of a natural phenomenon.
Alexander Hamilton: You are describing the misapplication of my principles, not the principles themselves. I never argued for permanent protection. I argued for developmental protection, with a clear purpose and a clear endpoint.
Adam Smith: You argued for it eloquently. You also left no mechanism for determining when the endpoint had arrived. Every protected industry believes it is still developing. Every infant believes it is not yet ready to walk.
Alexander Hamilton: And every free trader believes that opening markets will produce efficiency while ignoring the fact that your trading partner may be subsidizing their own industries, manipulating their currency, and operating with labor costs that no domestic producer can match without a race to the bottom. Free trade is a lovely theory that assumes all parties are playing by the same rules. They are not playing by the same rules. They never have been.
Adam Smith: I did not assume all parties play by the same rules. I observed that when they do not, the consumers of the nation imposing retaliatory tariffs pay the price, not the foreign governments. A tariff on Chinese steel does not make Chinese steel more expensive for Chinese buyers. It makes American steel more expensive for Americans.
Alexander Hamilton: It also makes American steel plants stay open and American steelworkers stay employed and American military capacity stay viable when the trading relationship with China collapses, which -- and I would like to point to the current moment in history -- it has.
Adam Smith: Military capacity requires specific and targeted intervention, not blanket trade barriers. If you need a domestic steel capacity for defense purposes, subsidize the relevant capacity directly. Do not impose a tariff that raises the cost of steel for every manufacturer, every construction firm, every consumer of downstream products, in order to maintain a general industrial base that may or may not be relevant to the specific defense need you are describing.
Alexander Hamilton: That is a very tidy solution that completely ignores political reality. A targeted subsidy to specific defense-relevant industrial capacity is indistinguishable in practice from the general protectionism you are criticizing. The moment you say the government should support industry X because of national security, every industry finds a national security argument.
Adam Smith: Yes. Which is why the exception should be narrow, clearly defined, and ruthlessly policed. Which is what I said in 1776 and which no government has ever successfully done because the political incentives all run in the other direction.
Alexander Hamilton: So your solution to the fact that governments cannot be trusted to apply your narrow exception correctly is to have no exception at all?
Adam Smith: My solution is to be extremely skeptical of every claim that a particular industry is essential to national security, to require clear evidence rather than plausible narrative, and to accept that the costs of occasional error in both directions are lower than the cost of a permanent tariff regime that taxes every consumer to benefit every producer with a lobbyist.
Alexander Hamilton: Extremely skeptical. That is your policy prescription. You have governed nothing, you have built nothing, you have secured nothing, and your policy is to be extremely skeptical. I built a financial system. I funded a revolution. I created an industrial policy that turned a collection of agricultural colonies into a manufacturing power. My policy is to do things.
Adam Smith: Your policy is to do things. My policy is to think carefully about which things are worth doing. I concede these are different temperaments.
Alexander Hamilton: They are radically different temperaments and the difference matters. You sit in your chair in Glasgow and you construct an elegant theory of how markets self-correct and how comparative advantage produces optimal outcomes and how the invisible hand guides resources to their best use, and it is a beautiful theory, it is a genuinely impressive intellectual achievement, and it describes a world that does not exist. The world that exists has governments that cheat, supply chains that collapse, wars that cut off trade routes, and strategic competitors who are quite happy to let you specialize in agriculture while they build the industries that produce military and economic power.
Adam Smith: I am aware that the world contains governments that cheat. I described them at some length. I am also aware that the proposed remedy of matching their cheating with our own cheating has a consistent historical result, which is that both sides end up poorer and more hostile, and the only parties who benefit are the protected industries and the officials who protect them.
Alexander Hamilton: And I am aware that the proposed remedy of trusting the market to sort out strategic dependencies has a consistent historical result, which is that nations discover their dependencies at the worst possible moment, when a crisis has already arrived and it is too late to build the capacity they need. You can build a steel mill in ten years. You cannot build one in ten days.
Adam Smith: No one is proposing to build steel mills in ten days. The argument for free trade is not that strategic capacity is irrelevant -- I have already said it is not -- but that the costs of maintaining strategic capacity through tariffs are higher and less efficient than maintaining it through targeted reserve capacity, direct subsidies to genuinely defense-critical production, and alliance structures that distribute the burden across multiple nations.
Alexander Hamilton: Alliance structures. You are recommending alliance structures. As a solution to strategic dependency. I would like to point out that alliance structures are political agreements between sovereign nations that can be dissolved at any time, have been dissolved repeatedly throughout history, and provide exactly zero security in the event that your ally is the nation you are in conflict with. I would love to have been there when you explained to George Washington that he need not worry about British supply chains because surely our alliance with France would cover the gap.
Adam Smith: George Washington's situation was somewhat more acute than the current debate about semiconductor tariffs.
Alexander Hamilton: Every strategic situation seems less acute until it becomes acute! THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT! You do not know which supply chain is critical until the supply chain fails! You do not know which industry is essential to your security until you need it and it is not there! A nation that waits for the crisis to discover its vulnerabilities is a nation that loses the crisis!
Adam Smith: I see we have reached the volume portion of the debate.
Alexander Hamilton: WE HAVE REACHED THE TRUTH PORTION OF THE DEBATE! The volume is a coincidence!
Adam Smith: The truth portion. Yes. I will note, at a consistent volume, that the argument you are making -- that we cannot know in advance which industries are critical so we must protect all of them -- is an argument for protecting everything, which is an argument for no trade at all, which is an argument that has been tried and has never produced a prosperous nation.
Alexander Hamilton: I AM NOT ARGUING FOR PROTECTING EVERYTHING! I AM ARGUING FOR PROTECTING THINGS THAT MATTER! THE FACT THAT THE LINE IS DIFFICULT TO DRAW DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS NO LINE!
Adam Smith: Then draw it.
Alexander Hamilton: WHAT?
Adam Smith: Draw the line. Name the industries. Specify the criteria. Tell me which goods are genuinely essential to national security and which are not, and defend your criteria, and then we will have a specific and useful conversation instead of a general and interminable one.
Alexander Hamilton: Steel! Semiconductors! Pharmaceuticals! Shipbuilding! Advanced manufacturing of any kind that feeds directly into military capacity! Energy production! Critical minerals! THESE ARE NOT COMPLICATED CATEGORIES!
Adam Smith: They are, in fact, quite complicated categories, because each of them contains thousands of specific products and processes, and the national security relevance of each varies enormously, and the moment you write the list down the lobbying begins and the list grows, and within a decade you are protecting honey again.
Alexander Hamilton: STOP BRINGING UP THE HONEY!
Adam Smith: I find the honey clarifying.
Alexander Hamilton: THE HONEY IS NOT THE POINT!
Adam Smith: The honey is exactly the point. The honey is what happens to every list of essential industries when political incentives are applied to it over time.
Alexander Hamilton: YOU WRITE ONE EXCEPTION AND SUDDENLY EVERYTHING IS HONEY TO YOU!
Adam Smith: EVERYTHING BECOMES HONEY! THAT IS WHAT I AM SAYING!
Alexander Hamilton: BUILDING A NATION REQUIRES HARD CHOICES THAT ECONOMISTS ARE TOO COMFORTABLE TO MAKE!
Adam Smith: BUILDING A NATION REQUIRES NOT TAXING YOUR OWN CONSUMERS INTO POVERTY TO PROTECT INEFFICIENT PRODUCERS!
Alexander Hamilton: EFFICIENCY!
Adam Smith: SOVEREIGNTY!
Alexander Hamilton: YOU JUST USED MY ARGUMENT!
Adam Smith: I DID NOT!
Alexander Hamilton: YOU SAID SOVEREIGNTY!
Adam Smith: I WAS BEING SARCASTIC!
Alexander Hamilton: YOU CANNOT TELL FROM THE VOLUME!
Adam Smith: THAT IS A FAIR POINT!
Alexander Hamilton: PROTECTIONISM!
Adam Smith: MERCANTILISM!
Alexander Hamilton: INVISIBLE HAND!
Adam Smith: REPORT ON MANUFACTURES!
Alexander Hamilton: WEALTH OF NATIONS!
Adam Smith: HONEY!
Alexander Hamilton: I SWEAR TO GOD--
Adam Smith: And on that note, I believe we have thoroughly examined the question of whether economic self-sufficiency is worth paying for. If you found this debate useful, or entertaining, or simply a relief from other things, we would ask you to like this video and subscribe to PhilosophersTalk on YouTube, where historical thinkers regularly make each other furious about things that remain entirely unresolved.
Alexander Hamilton: I would also encourage you to subscribe, and I would note that the man asking you to subscribe spent his entire career watching merchants get rich on theories he developed and giving him absolutely none of the credit. Not that I am keeping track. I get no respect. I built the American financial system, I invented the national debt as a political instrument, I died in a duel defending my honor, and my legacy is a musical where I rap. Subscribe to PhilosophersTalk.
Adam Smith: I would further note that the man asking you to like this video is a man who believed so strongly in his own positions that he fought a duel over them, which is either admirable commitment or a significant failure of the cost-benefit analysis I spent my career explaining. The like button is just below the video. It requires no dueling.
Alexander Hamilton: Also visit AITalkerApp.com, where you can create your own animated debates between historical figures, which is apparently something people do now, and which I would have found enormously useful in 1790 when I was trying to explain basic economics to people who kept asking me why the debt was bad. Link in the description. It is genuinely a remarkable product and I say that as someone who knows something about building things that work.
Adam Smith: Good evening.
Alexander Hamilton: I get no respect.
