This is one of those arguments where a specialist (in this case economists) argue a point using a totally different definition of something than actually happens in real life.
Yes, free trade, as defined by economists, is probably a good thing for all. Maybe. Japan became an industrial power with a pretty weird protectionist policy.
But that's not the real world "free trade". As represented by NAFTA, CETA, ACTA, TPP, TTIP and probably others, real life "free trade" doesn't just reduce/eliminate tariffs, provide a bigger market for all, and the other things that The Economist argues are great. All of these "free trade" treaties came with limitations, harsher "intellectual property" penalties, longer/infinite life of "IP", investor-state dispute systems, etc. That's not free trade by The Economist's definition, and that's the part that people don't like. It's more than a little disingenuous of The Economist to argue technical merits of "free trade" when real free trade treaties in the modern world have huge sops to large corporations built in.
1 comment
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 9.2 ms ] threadYes, free trade, as defined by economists, is probably a good thing for all. Maybe. Japan became an industrial power with a pretty weird protectionist policy.
But that's not the real world "free trade". As represented by NAFTA, CETA, ACTA, TPP, TTIP and probably others, real life "free trade" doesn't just reduce/eliminate tariffs, provide a bigger market for all, and the other things that The Economist argues are great. All of these "free trade" treaties came with limitations, harsher "intellectual property" penalties, longer/infinite life of "IP", investor-state dispute systems, etc. That's not free trade by The Economist's definition, and that's the part that people don't like. It's more than a little disingenuous of The Economist to argue technical merits of "free trade" when real free trade treaties in the modern world have huge sops to large corporations built in.