Harry Pollard wrote: "I don't think we should mention free trade and   
NAFTA in the same sentence.  NAFTA is what we used to call a customs   
union - a term that may have gone out of fashion."  
  
I wanted to check my references before responding to Pollard's   
suggestion, which I thought was incorrect.  I have now confirmed that a   
free trade area is an arrangement over the commonality of tariffs or   
their elimination among a group of countries, but which does not bind   
the members to impose a common tariff against imports from non-members   
(rest of the world).  On the other hand, a customs union requires that   
its members impose a common tariff against non-members, besides   
eliminating (differential) tariffs among member countries.  Did NAFTA   
require the imposition of common tariffs against imports from other   
countries?  If not, it is legitimate to talk about "free trade" and   
NAFTA in the same sentence.  
  
I also would like to note that the existence of tariffs is not the   
absence of "free trade."  It is discriminatory tariffs that impede free   
trade.  Thus, if a domestically produced good attracted a 10% excise   
tax, imposing the same rate on foreign produced ones does not constitute   
an interference in "free trade."  
  
Pollard also writes: "... Which leads me into the continuing discussion   
of Ricardo.  Portugal does not send wine to the Brits. Jose does, Alonso   
does - maybe even Arecelli and Bethania do - but not Portugal."  
  
It is true that the landmass of Portugal does not send wine to the Brits   
any more than the landmass of England sends cloth to Portugal.  That   
trade takes place among or is initiated by individuals was well known to   
the classical writers who, nevertheless, used the country terms.  Thus,   
Ricardo wrote: "If Portugal had no commercial connexion with other   
countries, instead of employing a great part of her [Portugal's] capital   
and industry in the production of wines, with which she [Portugal]   
purchases for her own use the cloth and hardware of other countries, she   
would be obliged to devote a part of that capital to the manufacture of   
those commodities, which she would thus obtain probably inferior in   
quality as well as quantity. ... England would therefore find it her   
interest to import wine, and to purchase it by the exportation of cloth"   
(Works, 1: 134-5).  
  
Similarly, Smith wrote: "France would ... carry on a direct foreign   
trade of consumption with England; whereas England would carry on a   
round-about foreign trade of the same kind with France" (WN, 1: 515,   
1976, Chicago edition).  
  
But behind such language, the classics had individuals in mind.  (I do   
too.)  Thus, Ricardo illustrates the comparative advantage principle in   
the same chapter by noting that "Two men can both make shoes and hats,   
and one is superior to the other in both employments [i.e. absolute cost   
advantage]; but in making hats, he can only exceed his competitor by   
one-fifth or 20 per cent., and in making shoes he can excel him by   
one-third or 33 per cent.;  -- will it not be for the interest of both,   
that the superior man should employ himself exclusively in making shoes,   
and the inferior man in making hats?" (Works, 1: 136n).  
  
And I'd like to note again that, contrary to John Medaille's assertion,   
Ricardo's illustration does not require (a) that there be full   
employment of labor or (b) that there be a balance of trade between   
countries for the benefits to accrue.  And scarcity is not a synonym for   
"full employment."  
  
Instead of dealing with the question whether any of the classical   
principles I listed assumed full employment for their validity, Medaille   
responded with: "They are all pieces of the over-riding economic   
theology of liberalism, namely the near-mystical belief in a   
self-regulating, self-adjusting utopia that required no intervention by   
the government or any other social institution. This was the reigning   
orthodoxy of England from the Reform Act of 1832 until the Long   
Depression of the 1870's and 80's."  
  
No, these principles are relevant to economies of today as well, and   
they derive from David Hume (1752), Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, J.-B.   
Say, David Ricardo, Henry Thornton, J.S. Mill, to list just the major   
formulators.  They were carried into the 20th century most consistently   
  by Alfred Marshall (Principles, 1920 and Money, Credit and Commerce,   
1923).  There are variations of these principles also in the works of   
R.G. Hawtrey, Irving Fisher, and A.C. Pigou (before 1949).  Reference:   
Chapters 4, 5, 9 and 10 of Classical Macroeconomics (Routledge 2003),   
which include direct quotations from these authors.  
  
James Ahiakpor