Debate.org members
Free Trade Debates
- The United States should have a general policy of free trade.
- Free trade should be valued above protectionism
- Resolved: free trade ought to be valued above protectionism
- President Obama's free trade agreement with Columbia will hurt the US.
- Resolved: Free trade should be valued above protectionism
- Free Trade, NAFTA CAFTA
Free Trade Debates
History and Debate of Free Trade
Free trade is an economic policy under which the government does not interfere with trade. No tariffs are applied to imports or exports, and people are allowed to trade goods and services as they please. Supply and demand dictates the prices for which goods and services sell and are the only factors that determine how resources are allocated in society. Under a free trade system, there are no trade barriers. There is free access to markets and market information, and there are no government-imposed monopolies.
The Free Trade Debate Controversy
Those who support free trade believe that it allows companies to come by raw materials and lower prices, which, in turn, results in lower prices on the open market. Supporters also believe that the levels of employment in a nation are determined by the monetary policy of that nation and not the trade policy. Thus, the free trade economy of the U.S. is not to blame for the increasing levels of unemployment. Many jobs are leaving the nation, but supporters of the free trade debate argue that if companies could not outsource their labor to other nations, they could just automate these processes anyway. Additionally, when people work for a profit and must compete, they produce better products and are more motivated to increase their education and knowledge because these increases come with personal benefits.
Many believe that the government should dictate prices and impose more taxes on imports and exports. Critics often believe that many outsourced jobs are a result of fair trade practices; regulating trade could keep companies from finding cheaper labor overseas. They also argue that this outsourcing of labor results in fewer workers in the U.S. who are trained to do certain types of work. Should a war emerge, they doubt that there are enough workers trained to carry on production back home. There are also concerns with the social burden of limited job security. Critics feel that this results in a more worried, cautious public that is less likely to invest in the economy. This is certainly not an advantage when the economy is already in recession.
For Free Trade
Pro
Comment: The free market is a key part of capitalism, one without the other just doesn't work. It's a basic principle of liberty.
Comment: AMERICA, THATS WHY
Comment: When are markets are free, then we all will be.
Comment: Duh...
Comment: Why not?
Comment: Free trade generates new wealth, and creates a stronger economy with broad prosperity. America needs a competitive business environment.
Comment: Except to hostile countries.
Comment: See "Capitalism."
Comment: Free trade facilitates the generation of wealth and the economic development of a country. Both are good outcomes.
Comment: See capitalism.
Against Free Trade
Con
Comment: It is nessisary to post trade santions on other nations like North Korea and Iran.
Comment: Depends on the context of what should be deemed free trade. As an example I probably disagree with David Koch's definition of free trade vs. Paul Krugman's. :I
Comment: I dislike saying con, but I shall anyways because I think that Canada should stop selling cheap oil to the US, or worse letting US branch plants extract it. Free trade is often another way of saying imperialism.
Comment: I support fair trade, not free trade. Trading with countries whose minimum wages are too low not only sends U.S. jobs overseas but is immoral, it drives down worker wages worldwide and supports dictatorships. China, Russia, and other fascist dictatorships use such low minimum wages, devaluing their people, to attract foreign investment. I believe we should stop trading with all countries whose imports exceed $10 billion a year if their minimum wages are below $4.00/hour (e.g. China, Russia, Mexico, Nigeria, India, etc.).
Comment: Leads to the destruction of the minimum wage by outsourcing jobs to countries without minimum wage (like China, whom pays its workers pitiful amounts, and in all honesty annihilate human rights in doing so). Just because someone is willing to work for less (because they have grown up in a society where human exploitation is common practise), doesn't mean they should be able to. However, if the worker is informed as to the extent of their exploitation, and he or she still wishes to work for that amount, then by all means can he or she work for that amount.
Online: 1 Month Ago Updated: 7 Months Ago Comment: it destroys nations. it destroyed job opportunity in one nation and domestic trade of other nation.
Comment: I am against free-trade as it exists in the conventional sense. The contemporary version of "free" trade enables multinational corporations to systematically exploit impoverished populations and shows little to no regard for environmental implications or damage to indigenous cultures.-
Comment: Fair trade? Free Markets? Free trade..... It's all Capitalist spin. Neo-liberal, bourgeois, western-style consumers, patting themselves on the back while inequality and poverty increases.
Comment: 'Free trade' stunts our own economic development. MNCs really don't care whether they're helping our enemies and harming us, as long as they deliver a profit to shareholders.
Comment: This is what's causing the financial collapse of the U.S., and China is the only one benefiting from it.