Be more like Penelope Barker 

Canada’s prime minister, Mark Carney, gave a speech last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that explains what most Americans have forgotten about what makes America so exceptional.  

Carney references a 1978 piece by Czech dissident Vaclav Havel wherein Havel explains the evolution of tacit compliance with socialist policies. The example he uses describes a shopkeeper who places a pro-socialist sign in their shop window for public display, even though the shopkeeper may disagree behind closed doors. Carney challenges the nations of the world to remove what they know to be false from their shop window — to essentially give up negotiating with America and start looking for other ways to cooperate with one another. 

To bring things closer to home for us in North Carolina, you may or may not be familiar with Penelope Barker’s sentiments during her Edenton Tea Party. She and 50 other women signed their names to a declaration in 1774, resolving to boycott English tea following passage of the Tea Act of 1773. According to the Edenton Historical Commission, “The better-know Boston Tea Party was conducted by men, wearing costumes to protect their identity. The Edenton Tea Party signers rejected the notion of hiding and instead publicly affixed signatures to the proclamation, which was published in London newspapers.”  

All of this strikes me as incredibly profound because Carney’s remarks, Havel’s writing, and Barker’s actions are telling examples of actions based on principle rather than politics. I’m proud to say that the John Locke Foundation never “put the sign in the window,” and we don’t plan to. 

Carney was not explicit about it, but his remarks describe a world order operating with unencumbered capitalism: the free trade and cooperation of free people. If the United States is going to unilaterally dictate the terms of trade, it shouldn’t be a surprise that our global partners abandon us on the chess board. No one wants to play games with someone who changes the rules midgame.  

Earlier this month, the John Locke Foundation released a study examining the impact of federal tariffs on North Carolina’s agricultural industry, and the results are staggering: potentially $1.9 billion in direct and indirect losses. This is equivalent to over 2% of the gross state product of all of North Carolina.  

The crux of this problem stems from a basic tenant of free market capitalism — comparative advantage. Our CEO, Donald Bryson, used the following example the other day to discuss the idea with our interns. “If all three of you grow corn, but the one that produces the best or most corn also produces tomatoes, what’s the comparative advantage of the person who’s growing tomatoes?”  

You might say it’s corn because their corn is the best. However, you’d be wrong. The correct answer is tomatoes. Why? Because no one else produces tomatoes. America has a comparative advantage in some industries, but not all, and it’s pure hubris to act as though we can provide for ourselves without cooperating with other trading partners. Even ancient Greece understood it was in their best interest to collaborate with other societies to support their own, so this is hardly new or novel.  

Capitalism and free trade is not about securing goods for me at the expense of thee. That’s protectionism, and history proves its failure over and over. While an affiliated scholar with the Mercatus Center, Canadian economist Pierre Limieu published a book in 2018 that explains these shortcomings, and you can read a short outline here with the highlights. Limieu writes, “The real way to put America first is to put Americans first. That means letting them buy whatever they want from whomever they want, instead of letting government limit their freedom by imposing trade barriers.” 

Is there a national security argument to be made for maintaining capabilities in certain industries? Sure. But the data show that free exchange reduces conflict. The incentives of fighting with your allies who supply you with steel, raw materials, or food are often too high a cost to bear. (Final numbers are still pending, but it’s anticipated that the US had the highest global corn exports in 2025.) Carney’s speech is heavily indicative of how these relationships break down when free exchange is threatened. According to a now slightly dated (but still very relevant) piece by trade economist, Daniel Griswold, “Free trade raises the cost of war by making nations more economically interdependent… Open trade makes war a less appealing option for governments by raising its costs.” 

It’s unclear to me if Mark Carney realizes this is what’s he’s championing, but that’s beside the point. He describes a world order that free market economists have proven does actually lead to greater peace and prosperity, regardless of your political preferences. It’s why the Democratic National Committee actually cited our tariff research, and why the president of Argentina, Javier Milei, quoted the John Locke Foundation’s former VP of research, Roy Cordato, in his Davos speech last week (min 57:25). “The appropriate institutional framework is one that favors entrepreneurial discovery and coordination.” This process is severely restricted when people are unable to freely exchange goods and ideas with others.  

So, to echo Mark Carney — which are you? Are you the shopkeeper who places the sign in the window to publicly comply with a sentiment you may privately scorn? Or will you be more like Penelope Barker?  

“Be more like Penelope Barker ” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.