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