Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (20238)	2/28/2002 11:04:08 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

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