Although it is too early to be sure, indications are that a signature motif of US President Joe Biden’s administration will be to undo pretty much everything his predecessor enacted. Evidence for this ranges widely . It includes the Keystone XL pipeline renunciation, fracking prohibition, opening immigration, ceasing wall building, reforming criminal justice, rejoining the Paris climate accord, focusing on racial and gender discrimination and repealing the 1776 Commission that aimed to promote “patriotic education”. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Biden even did this symbolically by changing the name of the US Covid-19 vaccine programme from “Warp Speed” to “Covid Response”. What about free trade? If there was any important initiative of former president Donald Trump’s, it certainly involved protectionism. Trump was forever going on about how China was eating our lunch in international economic relations and how there were plenty of Hondas and Toyotas on US streets but few Ford or GM vehicles in Japan. As for Mexico and Canada, the less said about their trade policies, the better, in his view. That is why he ripped up the North American Free Trade Agreement and replaced it with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement . I have a suggestion for Biden. If he really wants to reverse Trump’s legacy, he can also do so with regard to his tariff and quota policy. One of Trump’s guidelines was his rejection of globalisation , and there is nothing more global than free trade. That would be an important way to get one over on him. What is the case for open economic engagement with the world? In short, economic welfare. Whenever two people engage in any economic interaction, whether buying, selling, lending, borrowing, renting, investing, gambling or whatever, they necessarily gain benefits. Biden’s commerce secretary nominee backs tariffs and export limits on China For example, I bought a pen for US$1. I must have valued it at more than that amount when I did so, otherwise I would not have agreed to any such commercial interaction. This applies whether I buy it from a fellow American or from someone abroad. The case for absolute advantage is easy to grasp. Why should Montana try to grow oranges to preclude their importation from Florida when the latter, given its favourable weather, can do much more cheaply, even including transport costs? Neither does it make any sense for Alabama to set up tariffs against Idaho or Maine potatoes, for similar reasons. This economic principle knows no political boundaries. It applies equally to states and countries. If there is unemployment in Montana or Alabama, it will not be because of imports. The case for comparative advantage is more difficult to see. Suppose one nation is more efficient than another at producing all products. Trump would immediately call for a cessation of international trade , but consider this fictional example. Ruritania is an economic powerhouse. In one time period, it can produce 100 computers and 50 pizzas. There are a bunch of lazy folk in Waldavia. Their ability stretches only so far as 10 computers and 45 pizzas. The former is better at producing both. Suppose in two time periods that a unit of computers is equivalent to a unit of pizzas, and that both countries need both products. If there is no trade, the Ruritanian GDP is 100+50=150; Waldavian GDP, 10+45=55. Total “world” GDP is 150+55=205. We now introduce trade. Each country will specialise not in what it has an absolute advantage – the Ruritanians beat the Waldavians in both – but, rather, in their comparative advantage. Ruritania is 10 times more efficient in computer production but only 1.1 times more efficient in pizzas. Looking at this the other way around, Waldavian computer production is only 10 per cent of Ruritania’s, but in pizza it is 90 per cent as good. The Ruritanians spend both of their two time periods in computer production and come up with 200 of them. The Waldavians do so with pizza and produce 90. World GDP is now 290, up from 205. It is on the basis such considerations that support for free trade is popular among economists and stretches all the way from Milton Friedman on the right to Alan Blinder on the left. The former even goes so far as to favour a unilateral declaration of free trade with all, regardless of whether they reciprocate. The Biden administration is going to spend lots of money. If it wants to cut back, it can eschew all trade negotiations and follow this Friedmanite policy. What are the implications for US-China relations if Biden follows these suggestions? They would be the opposite of those advocated by Robert Lighthizer, US trade representative under the Trump administration. He wants Biden to maintain US tariffs against China, “all of them – even if that raises prices for US businesses and consumers”. He continues: “We want a China policy that thinks about the geopolitical competition between the United States and an adversary – an economic adversary.” Xi charms Moon as China and US compete for an ally in South Korea Nonsense, at least that part about China being our “ economic adversary ”. There is no such thing and can be no such thing between trading partners. If there were, no trade would occur in the absence of tariffs, quotas and other commercial impediments. If Biden wants to reject Trumpian economic illiteracy, he should make a unilateral declaration of free trade with China and impose no tariffs against importing its products, no matter how it reacts. Hopefully, China will accept this olive branch, which would have good geopolitical ramifications, but, if not, economic welfare will still be enhanced. Biden is on record as favouring unity within this country. He should consider implementing that excellent plan, too, on a worldwide basis. He could do worse than starting off in this direction with China. Walter E. Block, Ph.D, is Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics at Loyola University New Orleans