In this IEA Briefing, Communications Director Callum Price sits down with Editorial Director Kristian Niemietz to discuss his new SubStack piece "In Defence of Unfair Competition: Why it is a fallacy to treat market competition like a sports competition." Niemietz explains that while sports require standardised rules and level playing fields, markets thrive on natural advantages and different approaches to solving problems. Using examples from wine production to international trade, he shows why "unfair" advantages in business - whether from geography, climate, or even government policies - shouldn't necessarily be "corrected."
The discussion is particularly timely given Donald Trump's recent calls for "level playing fields" in international trade, with Niemietz arguing that attempts to equalise trading conditions through tariffs ultimately harm consumers. When higher-priced domestic products are protected from cheaper foreign competition, consumers end up paying more and have less to spend elsewhere in the economy, making the whole country poorer.
Drawing on historical examples, Niemietz contrasts the success of free-trading economies like Hong Kong and Singapore with the poor performance of protectionist Latin American countries in the 20th century. He challenges Trump's narrative about 19th century American protectionism, citing research showing that less protected industries actually performed better. The key takeaway: while large economies like the US might be able to "get away with" protectionism, the evidence suggests free trade produces better outcomes.
Share this post