Free Trade

[Right of Center]

Is Free Trade bad for America but good for the world.

Watching people talk about free trade is entertaining. Here in my town, Republicans and Democrats alike cringe and express anger at the very mention of free trade. America might not get too many benefits from free trade, but the smaller, less productive countries that we trade with (i.e. Mexico, Ireland, etc.) benefit immensely. Can it be said then that while free trade may not be so good for the American economy, it improves the lives of many people throughout the world? If it does improve the living conditions and prosperity levels of the world, will free trade, over extended period of time, be beneficial to America. The other countries will essentially be more prosperous and will have more money to buy products from America, increasing revenue for America (in theory).

Is this true or is it wishful thinking?

[Epistemologist]

Actually, according to many macroeconomic concepts, free trade benefits all parties involved. That is, even countries with absolute advantages in certain goods could specialize by trading based on their comparative advantage. The result in an increase in overall efficiency.

[Nono]

Quote by: Right Is this true or is it wishful thinking?

I think it's rose-tinted. The Riccardo stuff is from a far simpler time. I wouldn't be too quick to pronounce Mexicans (or Canadians) beneficiaries of NAFTA, and doubt they see things that way (Canadians sure don't, on the whole).

To understand why, imagine Juan and Pedro deciding that they're going to start making jeans and use their comparative advantage to outsell Levis. How do you think they'll do? Intuitively you know as well as I do that they'll get squashed like bugs, even with all verses of the Holy Scriptures of Free Trade duly worshipped.

Free trade makes sense at a simplistic level, just like Leninism, and attracts quasi-religious adherents. But the world is a complicated place. At some point governments have to intervene to correct market excesses. And suddenly it ain't so free any more.

And I'm leaving aside the increasingly obvious fact that, for environmental reasons, we can't go on shipping widgets madly all over the globe.

[Osborn F Enready]

I believe free trade is the ultimate just system to all people, of all nations, dependent on one thing only.

All nations that participate in the system of free trade, must have equal individual rights for the citizens of the nations that are trading. This creates a balanced table of economics that allows individuals around the world to share the same affixed value of labor, which is critical to goods produced and sold in the market. This creates a global, level playing field for all who participate in labor, or management/ownership.



Without equal rights for individuals, free trade will allow the economic table to tilt to the nations willing to allow mass exploitation of their workforce for state or national gains. This would be the U.S. vs China at this time.

By allowing China into the free trade system, without having equal rights for its citizens to the U.S., or comparable regarding labor compensation and property, it tilts the table to China who exploits its workers for national gains, and makes it over-appealing to industry through an almost non-existent tax burden, since the workers bear the entire brunt of the taxation. The owners and nations elite profit, while the workers are exploited for pennies on the dollar, all the while keeping the goods at just below average prices for a better than average profit, simultaneously making it harder for comparable U.S. companies who are required to pay fair wages, respect workers rights and property, as well as pay excessive taxation for unconstitutional social welfare programs.

We are killing our true American Companies (small business) in order to keep the Monopolies (Multi-National and International Corporations).

What we have today is nothing like free trade.

[brien]

This question is constructed in a simplified manner so it can only be answered in a simplified manner. Free Trade is man's right to have business relations with his fellow man. What could possibly be wrong with this concept? Wait, wait, don't tell me, government.

[Osborn F Enready]

Come on Brien....

There CAN be a lot wrong with that concept if extrapolated out further to all logical extensions from the point of the logics origin.

The concept is grand indeed, but, the failure of the free market was not hinging it upon the necessity of equal rights for citizens between trading nations.

Do you disagree?

[bishop]

osborn, free trade and fair trade are two different things..

what we currently have is neither "free", nor "fair", depending on who you're talking to. it is documented fact, though, that countries that participate in the global trading system vis a vis the WTO have seen better economic (and per capita) growth than countries outside of the WTO.

the term "free trade" is a poor phrase to use - and has always been a poor phrase to use. "regulated trade" is much more accurate imo. since the start of the trade liberalization movement, "free traders" have always sought to create international institutions to regulate trade. the goal was to break down barriers and increase trade, and all of this was to follow a predefined set of regulations. it was never intended to be purely free, and certainly not fair. (i also wonder if what one citizen of one country considers fair would be considered unfair by someone from another country.)

[Osborn F Enready]

Bishop said: osborn, free trade and fair trade are two different things..

Agreed. I do think its worth noting though that most people are lost from the word go when discussing foreign trade policy issues, hence the reason the market today does not reflect the values of many societies that participate.

When I talk of free trade I look at our nations historical perspective, and our values in the Constitution and bill of rights. In order for our values to be in rights of the individual, there is required a certain acknowledgement to the basis of rights, and their weakness, which is state or national exploitation through one of many forms of tyranny.

Allowing states and nations to build war chests, weapons and manufacturing empires on dollars extorted through unfair trade is not only against our basis of individual rights, it directly works to lower those rights to that of the third world in order to be "competitive" with those workforces as well as creating much more formidable enemies by access to the market, as opposed to limiting the growth of direct enemies by isolating out any profit that the nation/state extorts via labor using sensible, limited, direct sanctions or a complete removal from market access (to our nation) both supply and demand.

If the people are educated in the working of the free market, and what makes it different than fair trade, more power to them. AS long as they know it lowers their rights, wages, labor and goods to the equivalent of their direct exploited labor competititon in the marketplace.

Bishop said: what we currently have is neither "free", nor "fair", depending on who you're talking to. it is documented fact, though, that countries that participate in the global trading system vis a vis the WTO have seen better economic (and per capita) growth than countries outside of the WTO.

Perhaps, but we see in mutliple instances where this exact same methods literally builds the armies of our next enemy, and we can admit that without access to the U.S. market, that option would not exist.

Bishop said: the term "free trade" is a poor phrase to use - and has always been a poor phrase to use. "regulated trade" is much more accurate imo. since the start of the trade liberalization movement, "free traders" have always sought to create international institutions to regulate trade. the goal was to break down barriers and increase trade, and all of this was to follow a predefined set of regulations. it was never intended to be purely free, and certainly not fair. (i also wonder if what one citizen of one country considers fair would be considered unfair by someone from another country.)

All of this I agree with, and I share the same intrest in what is considered "fair" by other nations citizens.