Sometimes I actually do read books

Recently, I've been reading the book, "Economics for Dummies," by Dr Sean Masaki Flynn. Why, you ask? Because it maximizes my happiness. Sad, but true... Anywho, I was reading through this book earlier today and I stumbled upon a certain rhetorical analogy that I just can't really agree with entirely.

This analogy has to do with international trade and trade surpluses/deficits. It essentially starts out with two guys, one who has $50 worth of oranges and another who has $50 worth of apples. Each guy also has $100 cash. If the orange guy wants to buy $20 worth of apples and the apple guy wants to buy $30 worth of oranges, then they have a deal. They trade that portion of their cash for their share of fruit and they are both happy. The author uses this analogy to refute the idea that the apple guy has been disadvantaged because he has incurred a trade deficit. On prinicple, I agree with him. At least in theory, there should be no disadvantage to incurring any sort of trade deficit. However, let me present to you my own analogy.

There are two guys, one selling apples, and one selling oranges. We'll call the guy selling apples Uncle Sam, and the guy selling oranges Mr. Toyota. Both of these guys have $50 worth of their respective product, as well as $100 in cash. One day, Uncle Sam decides that he wants to buy $30 worth of oranges from Mr Toyota, and Mr Toyota reciprocates by buying $20 worth of apples from Uncle Sam. They make the deal and both come home happy. Uncle Sam goes home and makes himself a glass of orange juice and decides that it's the best thing he's ever tasted. The next day, he goes and finds Mr Toyota, buys the remaining $20 worth of his oranges, as well as his shoes, watch, belt buckle, tie clip, and pocket protector for $75, which, if you're up with math gives Uncle Sam -$25. Mr Toyota reciprocates by buying another $10 worth of Uncle Sam's apples. On the way home, Uncle Sam realizes that, though he's really got the vitamin C thing down, he's currently suffering from berryberry. He needs to go buy some spinach from Senor Cocino, but realizes that his -$15 isn't going to get him much. So, he takes a stroll over to General Tsao's where he takes out a loan for $50. He goes to Senor Cocino and gets some spinach for $25 which gets rid of the berryberry, but manages to give him dysentery at the same time... for which Senor Cocino conveniently has the cure, for the amount of the rest of Uncle Sam's loan money. As Uncle Sam is walking home, he realizes that his muscles are rapidly atrophying and that he needs to make another run to General Tsao's. General Tsao agrees to provide him with all the chicken he can eat for the low price of his soul.

Now you see the problem here is that, in this story, Uncle Sam failed to act rationally. He acted like such a freakin' moron that no amount of free-market robustness could manage to save him from himself. And thus we see the purpose of tariffs and anti-trade laws. They are not to save us from the incindiary evil of free-market trade, but to save us from our own stupidity. This is generally the purpose of most laws. Why do most traffic laws exist? To save the general public from the one imbecile who insists on texting his broha while driving at 80 mph. Why are there warning labels on everything? To prevent some leggy blonde with a negative IQ from suing after she electricutes herself while drying her hair in the shower. Why do we have anti-trade laws and tariffs? To keep ourselves from going on a shopping spree in Japan with China's money. Is it stupid in theory? Yes. Does it hinder true free-market trade? Yes. Is it necessary? As long as there are stupid people, yes.