Level Playing Field Argument (Rebuttal):
Some people say that due to the different policies in different countries, the playing field "is not fair". They advocate tariffs and other restrictions to restricts free trade, thereby "levelling the playing field". However, looking at it from a purely utilitarian point of view, free trade helps the society as a whole no matter what the policies of foreign nations. If, for example, Country A is purely capitalist whilst Country B subsidises the agricultural industry, why would it hurt Country A to trade with Country B? They could then import these cheaper goods from Country B and export other goods in which they have a comparative advantage in.
Exploitation of Labour Argument (Rebuttal):
The argument of the exploitation of labour states that purchasing labour below a certain wage rate is somehow immoral. However, though it maybe immoral, the exploitation of labour to poorer countries actually helps the poor. This is because the poor within the poorer country are voluntarily (and very willingly) supplying their labour because it is better then any of there other alternatives. The only reason why the poor are choosing these low paid jobs is because their alternatives are even worse. However, if you get rid of these jobs that they so willingly take, they will have to resort to their other alternatives (which are worse, otherwise they would have chosen them in the first place) and make the poor worse off. Therefore, this "exploitation of labour" actually helps the poor and society as a whole (see arguments against minimum wage).
Theory of Comparative Advantage Example:
Suppose it costs England 10 days to produce fruits and 20 days to produce cars. Suppose that it takes France 5 days to produce fruit and 5 days to produce cars. Though France has an absolute advantage in both areas, it only has a comparative advantage in producing cars. England has a comparative advantage in producing fruit. This is because the costs of producing fruit in England is 1/2 a car, whilst in France it is 1 car.
If, for example, France and England do no trade. France may spend 20 days producing cars (4 cars) and 20 days producing fruit (4 fruits). Then suppose England also uses 20 days to produce cars (1 car) and 20 days to produce fruit (2 fruits). The total productivity of the two nations is 5 cars and 6 fruits. However, if France produces cars for 35 days and fruits for 5 days, it will end up with 6 cars and 2 fruits. If England spends 40 days producing fruits, it will end up with 4 fruits. Thus, the total productivity is now 6 cars and 6 fruits, which was more than before. This can also be changed so that France spends only 30 days producing cars and 10 days producing fruit, yielding a total of 5 cars and 7 fruits. The two countries can then trade to make up the difference according to their preferences of fruits and cars.
Global free trade is a great idea in this day and age. Plus, enforcing restrictions upon global free trade is quite impossible at this point. Countries should embrace such trade should they choose that it's in their best interests. Otherwise, a country can avoid global free trade by actively trading within its own borders.
Yes, I support global free trade. Free trade allows workers in the United States to specialize in services and goods that we are more efficient at producing than other nations. It also allows the United States to trade our services and goods for goods and services that other countries produce at a higher quality.
I support global free trade. Free trade is a policy by which governments do not discriminate against imports or exports. Free trade is good for our economy and for the future of it. If we eliminated free trade then a lot of our products would disappear off the shelves or be so overly priced that we would not be able to afford them.
Global free trade means goods flow easier from one country to the next. Without tariffs, goods can compete in a free market system in today's consumer-based economy. Free trade eventually leads to better working conditions in countries such as India and China. When labor conditions improve worldwide, that leads to a single world government.
I believe in the long run, it is possible, for the entire world to be better off, if we participated in global free trade. I think this would cause a lot of shifts and changes in the economy, as well as change whole countries. It may be a rough road, but I think it would leave more people better off, in the long run.
When lesser developed countries compete in global markets, they tend to have the advantage of cheaper labor costs. This advantage means the playing fields are not equal.
When placed on shelves next to domestic products, most people tend to look at the price first. Seeing that the less advanced country would have less skilled workers, maybe even children, making the product it makes the product of poorer quality yet outsells the domestic brand. Because they sell more, the store gives more and more shelf space to the poorer quality import and soon pushes out the higher quality domestic causing those companies to either send our jobs overseas or go out of business. This leaves the consumer with the only option of buying cheaply made products, lowering our standard of living to theirs.
Global free trade leads to exploitation of labour in developing countries, which is extremely immoral. How can a civilised society and species have on their conscience that they have allowed the inevitable migration of resources by firms to take advantage of the most needy? I do not think so, Paul.