Summarize in one paragraph.

Trade is not an invasion. It does not involve aggression on one side and resistance on the other, but mutual consent and gratification. There cannot be a trade unless the parties to it agree, any more than there can be a quarrel unless the parties to it differ. England, we say, forced trade with the outside world upon China, and the United States upon Japan. But, in both cases, what was done was not to force the people to trade, but to force their governments to let them. If the people had not wanted to trade, the opening of the ports would have been useless.

Civilized nations, however, do not use their armies and fleets to open one another's ports to trade. What they use their armies and fleets for, is, when they quarrel, to close one another's ports. And their effort then is to prevent the carrying in of things even more than the bringing out of thingsimporting rather than exporting. For a people can be more quickly injured by preventing them from getting things than by preventing them from sending things away. Trade does not require force. Free trade consists simply in letting people buy and sell as they want to buy and sell. It is protection that requires force, for it consists in preventing people from doing what they want to do.

Protective tariffs are as much applications of force as are blockading squadrons, and their object is the sameto prevent trade. The difference between the two is that blockading squadrons are a means whereby nations seek to prevent their enemies from trading; protective tariffs are a means whereby nations attempt to prevent their own people from trading. What protection teaches us, is to do to ourselves in time of peace what enemies seek to do to us in time of war.

Can there be any greater misuse of language than to apply to commerce terms suggesting strife, and to talk of one nation invading, deluging, overwhelming or inundating another with goods? Goods! What are they but good thingsthings we are all glad to get? Is it not preposterous to talk of one nation forcing its good things upon another nation? Who individually would wish to be preserved from such invasion? Who would object to being inundated with all the dress goods his wife and daughters could want; deluged with a horse and buggy; overwhelmed with clothing, with groceries, with good cigars, fine pictures, or anything else that has value? And who would take it kindly if any one should assume to protect him by driving off those who wanted to bring him such things?

Attacks on free trade don't make economic sense. In fact, the critics often get it backwards.

We hear that trade makes us poorer. It's just not so. Trade is the great generator of economic well-being. It enriches nations because it allows companies and workers to specialize in doing what they do best. Competition forces them to become more productive. In the end, consumers reap the bounty of cheaper and better goods and services.

We hear that trade costs jobs and depresses wages. Again, it's just not so. By spurring economic activity and reducing costs, trade helps create jobs. By enhancing productivity, it keeps U.S. companies vibrant, leading to fatter pay-checks and added benefits. Workers protected by trade barriers might keep their jobs a while longer, but the costs in inefficiency and higher prices make it economic folly. Whenever we erect barriers to trade, we negate the gains from free exchange and competition. Trade protection degenerates into a negative-sum game in which special interests jostle for advantage at the expense of the common good.

We hear that exports are good because they support U.S. industry but imports are bad because they steal business from domestic producers. Actually, imports are the real fruits of trade because the end goal of economic activity is consumption. Exports represent resources we don't consume at home. They are how we pay for what we buy abroad, and we're better off when we pay as little as possible. Mercantilism, with its mania for exporting, lost favor for good reason.

We hear that free trade isn't fair trade. Cheap imports can hurt higher-cost U.S. suppliers, but consumers certainly will gain. Why penalize them with tit-for-tat retaliation that only raises prices in the United States? Other countries' trade transgressions don't warrant missteps of our own. A nation will consume more whenever it opens its markets, even if other nations don't reciprocate.

We hear that trade makes us dependent on foreign suppliers, but America doesn't have the climate and resources to make everything it needs. Other nations can produce many goods and services at lower cost. The price of independence is too steep.

Americans can't afford to buy into these trade fallacies. As a society, we often have to choose between protecting domestic industries and opening markets. In a weakened economy, steelmakers, catfish farmers and other producers are lining up to declare war on imports, creating a potential hit on Americans' wallets. At the same time, U.S. negotiators are seeking to expand the world trading system with new free trade agreements.

We need to understand what's at stake. Being wrongheaded on trade increases the risk of making bad choices that will sap our economy and sour our relations with other nations. Getting it right will promote prosperity and peace.