The problem with the classic liberal view of economics, especially in regards to welfare economics is that it's paradigm assumes free mobility of labor and capital.
These are unrealistic assumptions, and they disparity between the relative mobility of capital and labor was only greater in previous ages. Even without artificial barriers to labor (customs, immigration controls, etc.), in the 18th and 19th century most people would likely never move far away from their birthplace at all in their life. Capital, however, was much more fluid. Merchants and bankers could move capital in a manner most advantageous to them, while laborers could not.
We're not all better off under a no-tariff or subsidy regime, because it fails to meet the preconditions for a Pareto optimal market.
I find it particularly amusing that it is being claimed that tariffs represent a terrible intrusion into the free market, when a government subsidized landrush like the Louisiana purchase is entirely ignored.
These are unrealistic assumptions, and they disparity between the relative mobility of capital and labor was only greater in previous ages. Even without artificial barriers to labor (customs, immigration controls, etc.), in the 18th and 19th century most people would likely never move far away from their birthplace at all in their life. Capital, however, was much more fluid. Merchants and bankers could move capital in a manner most advantageous to them, while laborers could not.
We're not all better off under a no-tariff or subsidy regime, because it fails to meet the preconditions for a Pareto optimal market.
I find it particularly amusing that it is being claimed that tariffs represent a terrible intrusion into the free market, when a government subsidized landrush like the Louisiana purchase is entirely ignored.