The motive of individual gain in foreign trade.

1. International trade is exchange between individual men, and has the same object as other exchange of goods. The term international trade should not be misunderstood as meaning that nations rather than individuals engage in it. International trade differs from domestic trade only in the fact that the parties are citizens of different sovereign states. Exchanges between men in the same village, between those in neighboring villages, and between those in different countries, are prompted by essentially the same economic motive - the wish to increase the want-gratifying power of goods. In every such case both parties gain or think they are gaining. In international trade there is the same chance for mistake as in domestic trade, but no more. In a single transaction in either domestic or foreign trade one party may be cheated, but the continuance of trade relations is dependent on continued benefits. The once generally accepted maxim that the gain of one in trade is the loss of another, is rarely applied now except to international trade. The starting point for the consideration of this subject is in this proposition: Foreign trade is carried on by individuals, for individual gain, with the same motives and for the same benefits as are found in other trade.

2. As commerce has grown, the territorial division of labor has correspondingly increased. Although economic motives have had influence in political affairs and have helped to determine political groupings and the limits of modern nations, there is today no very close correspondence between political and economic boundary lines. Both industrial and political conditions have changed so rapidly that the lines often have tended to diverge rather than to agree. It is common for two portions of a nation to exchange far less than do two portions of entirely different nations. The great territorial divisions of industry are determined first and mainly by differences of climate, soil, and natural resources. Thus trade arises easily between north and south, between warm and frigid climes, between new countries and old, between regions sparsely and regions densely populated. Foreign trade with distant lands is as old as history. In medieval times the luxuries of the temperate zone were mostly articles produced in the tropics. Political divisions usually have not been large enough to embrace widely varied soils and climates, the Roman Empire being an exception in marked contrast with the comparatively small political units of the Middle Ages. Before modern methods of transportation, a large free federal state like our republic was impossible. As in recent centuries the large political units have been formed, the question has arisen, Shall the political boundary be likewise the economic boundary marking the limits of trade? The firm constitutional Union of the American states arose out of difficulties with regard to trade. The German Zollverein, the forerunner of the modern German Empire, had a similar origin. The Australian Federation consummated within the last few years has grown out of the need of adjusting tariffs and tariff boundaries. These larger political units containing such varied resources can in larger measure, but never completely, become independent of the rest of the world if they will.

Territorial division of trade is determined secondly by differences in the accumulation of wealth, in the development of capital, of invention, and of organization, in the degree of intelligence of the workers, and in the grade of civilization. It is mainly trade due to this second group of causes, and carried on between old and new countries of about the same latitude, that is the subject of discussion in economic treatises on international trade.

Natural differences affecting foreign trade.

Political boundaries and trade.

Differences in culture and industry.

Comparative costs as between individual workers.

3. The doctrine of comparative costs is that relative, not absolute, advantages of production determine for a country the benefits of international trade. The free-trade question in any country is whether it is for its interests as a whole to permit trade between its citizens and the citizens of other countries. The question appears especially difficult where both countries have natural resources of about the same character (as iron and coal in the case of England and America), and where, therefore, both can produce the things that are exchanged. If American labor can produce as much iron in a day as English labor, - or more, - is it not foolish and wasteful, it is asked, not to produce that wealth? Now, exactly the same case is presented in simple neighborhood exchanges. The merchant may be able to keep his books better than does the bookkeeper whom he employs. The proprietor may be able to sweep out the store better than the cheap boy does it. The carpenter may be able to raise better vegetables than can the gardener from whom he purchases, and yet the merchant and the carpenter do not quit their better-paying work and turn to clerking or to raising vegetables.

As between communities differing in advantages.

It often happens that both countries can technically produce both the articles that are internationally exchanged. It may frequently happen that one of the two countries has an advantage in amount of sacrifice and effort, as to both articles; but if the advantage is greater in one article than in the other, the foreigners, like the low-paid clerk, will be willing to exchange at a ratio that will make it profitable to specialize in the product wherein the greater superiority lies. Therefore not the advantage as to a single product, enjoyed by one country over the other is most important in determining whether to produce at home or to exchange, but the comparative advantages enjoyed in the production of the two articles in question.

It must be remembered that comparative cost as here used refers to cost in effort, not to money cost, - a point on which there is often confusion. The money cost of a certain product is often greater in a new country because wages are high, and wages are high just because psychic cost is low, that is, because labor can produce so much. At the time of the great gold discoveries in 1849-50, the price of goods in California was much higher than in the East, and much higher in Australia than in Europe. A day's labor doubtless would produce as much food in Australia and in California as in New England and in Norway, but it produced far more gold. Hence butter and cheese were shipped by long routes from Norway to Australia and from New England around Cape Horn to California, to be exchanged for gold. One of the standing arguments against foreign trade is based on the idea that a country cannot profitably import goods unless it is at an absolute disadvantage in their production. It is declared that as our country can produce these goods "as well" as foreign countries (meaning with as few days' labor), there is a loss on every unit imported.

Examples of comparative costs.

4. The equation of international exchange is that adjustment of prices which results in the equalizing of the imports and exports of the country. The superiority of a new country over an old one is not equally great in every line of industry. It is almost certainly most marked in those enterprises where natural resources are employed. To compete with the older country in less favored industries, capital and labor in the new are forced to take a lower rate than they can earn in the more favored. Without any government supervision, therefore, but simply through the choice of enterprisers seeking the best investment of capital, industries are developed in which the country is either most markedly superior or least inferior to its neighbors.

Selection of the most paying industries.

If the productive energies of men interchanged between industries and between countries with perfect readiness, a perfect equilibrium of advantage would everywhere result. In every country, in every occupation, labor and capital of given quality and amount would receive the same reward. But the interchange of labor and capital between countries is never without friction. Adam Smith said that "a man is of all sorts of luggage the most difficult to be transported." The higher wages in a new country are sufficient to attract constantly from the older lands a portion of their labor supply; the higher rate of interest in the new countries attracts constant additions of capital; yet, despite these forces working toward equalization, the inequality may remain and through the working of other influences even increase in the course of years.

Persistence of the differences.

The laborers, enterprisers, and investors in the one country are thus in a position of more or less enduring advantage relative to those of the other countries. The advantage is sometimes said to be a " monopoly" which they, or the country as a whole, enjoy; but in the absence of any contractual limiting of competition, this is a misuse of the term monopoly. This variation in the degree of scarcity of agents in different territories is not peculiar to nations as a whole. Differences of the same nature exist between the Northern and the Southern states of the American Union, have continued for decades between Eastern and Western states, and are found even between neighboring counties. The differences between two countries, however, are likely to be more marked, the circulation of factors being so active within a country that it is allowable to speak broadly of prevailing national rates of wages and of interest.

The ratio of international demand defined.

Every exchange of goods between the countries is made at a ratio that reflects, or expresses, this abiding difference in comparative costs. The imports into the favored country represent regularly the results of more units of labor of a given grade than do the corresponding exports. The ratio which expresses the disparity of advantage of productive factors is called "the equation of international demand." This does not mean that the money value of the imports exceeds that of the exports, or vice versa. On the contrary, the equation itself embodies a maxim of international trade that "in the long run," or "on the average," imports and exports must be equal in value (i.e., equation of demand). This brings us to the theory of foreign exchanges, which is essential to an understanding of this feature of international trade.