Free trade is a hot issue. There are some who hold the principles of free trade above all else. There are others who try to define an alternative called fair trade. There are others who believe the principles of free trade are to be sought in practice, but are cognizant of the manipulation that can and does occur resulting in significant imbalances that can be detrimental to one side of a "free trade" relationship.
The issue is not whether free trade is a good thing [it is]. The issue is whether actual trade is free trade. It is this second issue that adherents to the god of free trade forget to examine... or at least brush under the rug. It is presumed that if an international deal is struck at a corporate level that free trade ipso facto occurs.
See, General Motors is profitable because it produces cars in China. See, Microsoft makes money because it has Chinese operations.
Not so much free trade. Try sub-optimization. Yes, some corporations and segments of the economy benefit greatly. But arguing that cheap goods putting some segments of the work force out of work so that other segments of the work force can benefit... and calling that just the random effects of free trade... is a good thing and frees up less productive resources... ignores the reality of piracy, counterfeiting, currency manipulation, business espionage, and all the other not-so-free aspects of actual trade. It also ignores the self-imposed hindrances by government that are conveniently forgiven for our trading partners.
It also ignores the full accounting of the national costs of such trade.
It also ignores the full accounting of the national costs of such trade.
Pogo was right.