International Free Trade and World Peace
When analyzing trade’s effect on state behavior, it is not the mere existence of trade between countries that should be central, rather, the nature of trade that is crucial. This distinction will be explored by studying the arguments of key economic and political thinkers of both the 18th and 20th centuries. The general nature of trade, the role of national government regarding trade and security, trade's capacity to befriend belligerent nations, and finally, the influence of international economic institutions will be explored. In an attempt to present a fairly broad range of sources, this study features the ideas of four influential authors from two time periods and continents: from the 18th
…show more content…
For example, which countries would one consider practitioners of "free trade?" The United States, the proverbial torch carrier of open markets and trade liberalization, maintains protectionist policies in several of its sectors such as agriculture. If we were to succeed in classifying each country according to its openness in trade, how would we tally their conflicts? Again, in the case of the United States, this is particularly problematic. Despite the active roles it has played in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, and Kosovo, the United States has not officially declared war since entering W.W.II.
The True Nature of Trade
Trade's function in promoting peace or inciting conflict is an issue that exposes the fundamental antagonism between economic versus political thought. Until the mid-19th Century, the issue was addressed by the mercantilist school of thought, which focused on the political (defense-related) consequences of trade. Because wealth (or the accumulation of gold) was equated with power, international trade was regarded as a necessary evil, practiced only with the utmost attentiveness to one's partner's gains, lest they exceed one's own.
In 1776, Adam Smith argued in The Wealth of Nations that the mercantilist system was futile and destructive to society as a whole. By redefining wealth and proclaiming that political influence on trade was detrimental, Smith revolutionized economic thought. For this
In the International community, trade is considered to be a peaceful foreign policy. By design, it establishes cooperation between states and ultimately decreasing the likelihood and reason for war. In a way it does accomplish this because it makes states more dependent on each other and therefore less willing to go to war. However, there are states that hold more influence over other countries based on geographical and political factors. Thinking of the Hamiltonian policies makes it clear of why the United States continues to follow this policy, yet at the same time they still follow the Wilsonian foreign policy of policing the world and creating peace. Therefore, it becomes the question of a connection between both policies in how a
Adam Smith born 1723-1790 a Scottish philosopher and Economist. Defending the morals of acceptability of pursuing one's self- interest quoted in Document C “Every man is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest in his own way.” Smith gains into the general utility of society knowns as the the invisible hand argument. In the Wealth of Nations smith reveals the interests of merchants and manufacturers were opposed to those of society and had a tendency of pursuing their own interest. Smith wasn’t one to let religious attitude stop his thinking. He believed that more wealth to common people would benefit a nation's economy and society as a whole, stated in the The Wealth of Nation. Smith’s main
Main protectionist policies include tariffs, quotas, embargos and voluntary export restraints, and Adam Smith’s idea of absolute advantage has been developed further to explain international trade. In recent years, protectionism has become closely related to globalization during which the influences of trades spread almost everywhere, so people insist upon the study of social deformities generated by improper policies on international trade and the task of pointing them out with a view to remedy. There are certainly both economic and political purposes of trade
Although his previous works and ideas contributed to Smith’s influence on modern economics, it was not till he wrote An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, commonly referred as The Wealth of Nations, that Smith’s ideas were considered the groundwork for modern economics. Written in 1776, the book’s
In the beginning of the 19th century the British began to trade opium, an illegal drug, for tea with China which caused, “...the first Opium War...which resulted in a Chinese defeat and the expansion of British trading privileges...”This discrepancy in the trading relationship between the Chinese and the British caused China’s to forfeit their trading territory to the British. The outcome of the Opium War was a setback for the Chinese. Places where the Chinese previously conducted business was no longer available. Economical wars were not uncommon: “During the mercantilist period…a military...would deter attacks by other countries and aid its own territorial expansion.” The focus of many governments became to protect their economy by constantly gaining more territory to increase business. The change of China’s trade routes could have negatively affected the economy. If the Chinese economy were to weaken it could affect the economies of other countries that China interacted with. The Columbian Exchange, a network of trade routes throughout the world, caused the environment to change as, “ ...Old World crops such as wheat, barley, rice, and turnips...raveled west across the Atlantic, and New World crops...traveled east to Europe.” The exchanging of crops between the New World and the Old World, two different geographical areas,
Robert Lansing address how Great Britian would capture ships and inconveniently take them to British ports for inspection (Doc 3). America’s Trade during the War fell, because the British would take the ships in fear that they were war ships attacking them. This led to a decline in Wilson’s Free Trade. The cargo on the ships was used by the time the British ports let the ship free, causing a major disruption in our economy. The report from the American Customs Inspector conveys how the Lusitania was in fact loaded with ammunition (Doc 6).
Trading agricultural goods and industrial goods was a good thing, until trade partners started fighting. If trade led to war it had to have been because of money. It also could have been because
In conclusion, the topic of free trade is difficult to debate and often controversial as it has advantages but also disadvantages. Nonetheless, the drawbacks outweigh the benefits as it one, contravenes basic moral ideologies, two, makes the rich, richer, and the poor, poorer, and three, jeopardizes our declining environment. All in all, free trade will neither support nor sustain our country to be ethical, prosperous or
Adam Smith was a British economist and philosopher who lived in Britain from 1723 until his death in 1790. His writings in The Theory Of Moral Sentiments (1759) and The Wealth Of Nations (1776) were the foundation of the modern capitalist system, and were wrote during- and in the wake of- the collapse of feudalism . During the era of feudalism, strict class structures allowed the upper class nobility to exploit the proletariat for the pursuit of profit, with poor working conditions, low wages and decreased quality of life for workers and their families as consequence. Smith believed that the alleviation of poverty was the key to economic success, and essentially developed the ideas in the
Liberalism is another concept that has significant arguments regarding international relations. Liberal economics have determined the shape of the monetary system and support the concept of open markets, where individuals have the freedom to engage in commerce. Unlike realists, liberals oppose mercantilism and the zero-sum game much like the countries in NAFTA. This disagreement is the cause of many disagreements during the NAFTA negotiations. If countries are able to work together and trust one another to attain power, conflict is less likely to occur and overall economic wealth for countries can be gained. Through free trade, the goal is to have a decreased amount of wasted resources on inefficient production because the more individuals that engage in this collective use of resources the more likely the system would become efficient and acquire heightened economic gains such as wealth. ) Finally, there is the liberal institutionalism perspective which approves of regimes and international organizations. Utilizing these rules through rapid growth of regimes, regulate economic affairs, determine which activities are allowed and disallowed, and assure that
Adam Smith was a British economist who helped to create the system of capitalism that we use today. Adam Smith was one of the major critics of the old system of mercantilism as was seen in his book The Wealth of Nations. He was against mercantilism because he felt like the people worked to make the place where they lived rich and not themselves. Mercantilism was based on a few major points, most important was that the state must have a favorable balance of trade, which means that they must export more than they import. As you can see in our nation today our balance is not in our favor but yet we remain to be the richest country ever. Mercantilism also focused on the idea of bullionism, which was having hard currency in gold and silver to back up trade. Smith’s idea was that they would take parts of mercantilism and create this new system capitalism. He felt that in a society with free enterprise people would be able to pursue profit themselves, and this would also benefit the society as well. Smith advocated the new system of capitalism to replace mercantilism. Smith created this idea of the “invisible hand” which was a theory that
International trade is defined as trade between two or more partners from different countries in the exchange of goods and services. In order to understand International trade, we need to first know and understand what trade is, which is the buying and selling of products between different countries. International Trade simply is globalization of the world and enables countries to obtain products and services from other countries effortlessly and expediently.
Free trade is exchange of goods and commodities between parties without the enforcement of tariffs or duties. The trading of goods between people, communities, and nations is not an innovative economic practice. Nations are however the main element within a free trade agreement. By examining free trade through three different political ideologies: Liberal, Nationalistic, and Marxist approaches, the advantages and disadvantages will become apparent. Theses three ideologies offer the best evaluation of free trade from three different perspectives.
Free trade has long be seen by economists as being essential in promoting effective use of natural resources, employment, reduction of poverty and diversity of products for consumers. But the concept of free trade has had many barriers to over come. Including government practices by developed countries, under public and corporate pressures, to protect domestic firms from cheap foreign products. But as history has shown us time and time again is that protectionist measures imposed by governments has almost always had negative effects on the local and world economies. These protectionist measures also hurt developing countries trying to inter into the international trade markets.
Learning about the events that lead to the modern global political system and global market defiantly strengthened my belief that the global trade has significant benefits, taught me that economic incentives and potential loss can prevent wars, and money runs the world when it comes to being politically dominant. In the medieval ages the kings were dominant and had power over little except the economy. “The economy was not thought of as a distinct sphere separated from politics but instead as a tool of statecraft which the state could manipulate to serve its own ends.” (Erik Ringmar). Times have changed and medieval kings do not rule all the land but the concept remains the same, countries use their economic standing as a way to make deals, prevent political issues, and push forward their political agenda. This is not always successful especially when it came to the Cold War because the US and the USSR were both economically built