Free trade leads to globalization, at least of trade. Free trade is the antithesis of nationalism and protectionism. Free trade does not respect the rank of persons, only their ability.
That's certainly the thesis. There are many problems with the thesis, however. First, trade is something usually dominated ("controlled" is a bit too strong of a word) by the biggest players, whether political or economic actors. I suspect, but don't know the research, that the benefits accrue, as usual to the powerful, not the meritorious. Second, in general, "free trade" has been an ideological construct of large economic actors and, in general, their state allies. (Illustration. A recent article in the NYTimes in which corn growers in some rural section of Mexico are being driven out of business by corn imports from the US. Large agri business in US drives them out of business and large agri business in Mexico buys their land.)
I'm not arguing that folks other than the powerful do not benefit from "free trade." I think that's complicated. I would expect some jobs would get created and some would be lost. But whatever rhetoric we use it should include the pain and the gain (whoa, where did that phrase come from??).
John |
