Free trade: the reality behind the myst

[Vanquish_V12]

I have to say i am not much of buff when it comes to economic philosophy and up till last year i used to think adam smith was as bad as he was made up to be by crazy anarchyst. but here is my question, why are so many people against free trade when they really dont understand the real potential that would ensue the application of free trade system without any impartiality?

[underdog]

"without impartiality" is the problem. Has yet to happen.

 

http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/jan2000albert.htm

 

Check out that link. and check out www.zmag.org in general.

[Saalixa]

firstly as far as iam concerened there is nothing called FREE TRADE. The rulers use such terms to represesnt fake deals within themselves blindidng the public while non of them are ready to ambolish all forms of protection. They are not going to transform their economies into a more liberal and open markets and never benefit from any capital gain. So i say whats the point?

[Vanquish_V12]

well thats exactly the issue i have, why do people oppose the philosophy of free trade when infact it sound and applicable,i have no problem with people opposing the wrongful implimentation of it.

[Medley of extemporanea]

Vanquished, here is the issue...

 

the people that call for free trade (like american capitalists) don’t mean by free trade free for everyone, they mean free trade as in free for them to sell to other, but not for others to sell to them. But that’s not really free trade.

 

So why do they call it free trade?

 

The same reason the USA was “the land of the free and the home of the brave” even when blacks were slaves.

 

So all the people that are labeled “anti free trade” maybe not really be “anti free trade”, they are just anti what is called “free trade”, which isn’t really free trade.

 

The people we see on TV protesting against the IMF, world band, wto, or nafta, who are often labeled “anti free trade” should actually be called “anti Washington Consensus” or “anti neoliberalism” or “anti globalization”.

 

To understand what the media means by “free trade” do a google search for neoliberalism.

 

Here is an example of “free trade” as it is applied today:

 

Take a country like Mexico. It signs into NAFTA (North America Free Trade Agreement). As a result Mexican small business go out of business because they can’t compete with multination corporations, the profits that these multinational companies make in Mexico are shipped out of the country and do not benefit Mexico. Because the Mexicans can’t open their own business to compete with the multinationals they end up working for them. They get exploited in sweatshops making shoes they are too poor to own and in corporate farms growing fruits to sell to Canada when they can’t even feed themselves.

 

To sum it up, so called free trade is just a system to make sure the law of “the rich keep on getting richer and the poor stay poor” stays strong.

[Valenteenah.]

Adam Smith and the classical school of economic theory aside (too tedious to get into), it is actually Western capitalist economies, the very same ones who zealously peddle the 'free trade' idealogy, who use protectionist policies to protect their domestic markets from foreign competition and produce. This is exemplified most by the expensive EU subsidisation of unproductive and inefficient European farmers and fishermen, when it fact it would be much cheaper to import fish and other agricultural produce from African countries who have a 'comparative advantage' in those sectors. Yet at the same time Third World countries are not allowed to do the same, (i.e. protect their vulnerable firms and internal markets from aggressive foreign competition).

 

That, my dear, is the very essence of 'free trade' in today's globalised world. And the reason why so many are against it.

 

A brief intro into 'Free Trade History, Theory and Ideology'.....Friends of the Earth International

 

 

Haniif,

 

I completely agree wiv u.

[Vanquish_V12]

guys i feel like ya'll are just to emotional here, u know thats fine when u talk about ideology but here i am adressing a philosophical question. i need straight facts.

 

first thing first. free trade meaning the trading of goods and serviceses between countries without tariffs or political protectionist manuvers.

 

contrary to popular believe the free trade proponents reside in all countries so do opposing forces. so free trade is a battle between economic establishments within the same country. case in point recent case of lumber disputes between canada and us. did u know the who was fighting us gov. for canada home depot usa. because they would benefit from free trade where as american lumber groups were losing money.

 

now, since free trade creates winners and losers in the same country and globally these winners must be compensated otherwise it will not work.

 

but here is my point, shouldnt we demand compenstation for the losers of free trade, instead of fighting the establishment of this genuinely sound ecomonic system.

[Liqaye]

Adam smith's free hand of demand and supply is pointing a middle figure at the third world.

 

Bro vanquish i get the separation between the theory and whats actually going on in every hamlet and village in the third world, but the every theory lives or dies by its practicality.

 

Otherwise communism would have been a great idea if it wasnt for all that happened in china and russia.......