The Choice : A Fable Of Free Trade And Protectionism

In the acclaimed novel, The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protectionism, author Russell Roberts, an economist and writer, tells a fictional story that enlightens readers to the wonders of the economic system. Russell provides an insightful, thought provoking story that illustrates protectionism and free trade, while making the concepts and arguments easy to comprehend.

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).

“There was no big-screen television or voice-controlled computer. Just a math book, a pad of yellow paper.” (p.109) . Justin also wears thick glasses. Justin has an eye problem which couldn’t be healed in a world without free trade. But as Dave tells the reader, Justin is only wearing the glasses because the “people Upstairs” made this happen. Justin normally doesn’t wear glasses at all, he “would have lost his eyesight entirely”.(p.110) The company Merck will only be able to develop the medicine Justin needed in a world of free trade. Otherwise America would be too busy by doing everything for itself and there wouldn’t be “enough people, machines, and land to go around to make everything as cheaply as could be made under free trade.”(p47)

Patrick J. Buchanan, reporter for The American Conservative, wrote the article “How Free Trade is Killing Middle America”. Buchanan talked about how the free trade industry affects the countries in the world, but mostly affects the US. In the article, Buchanan said, “These are America’s winners from free trade. The losers? Middle Americans.”; he also said, “Great nations that have risen to global power.. Have begun their relative decline when they embraced free trade.” Buchanan mainly wanted the people in Middle America to read this article and make an effort in changing it because he said, “the losers?” meaning that the people in Middle America are getting the damage from free trade. While reading this article, I was infuriated because the

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

He first argues that in order to keep free trade free, we cannot give preference to domestic companies, as this causes a lack of competition. The next statement, a normative statement, is used in order to persuade the reader that any preference to domestic companies could be harmful to the economy. “Openness to competition is a major benefit for taxpayers and consumers. Without it, any preference for at-home companies in procurement leads to cartel-like higher pricing and lower quality goods and services.” This represents the persuasive language Milke is using, following his opinion with a statement that will cause the audience to worry, making them more likely to believe the solutions that he will provide. For the next two points, he follows the pattern of normative statements that voice his opinion, followed by personal observations of situations in order to support his thesis. He argues that entangling free trade with social issues will harm free trade, stating that these social situations endanger the focus of the real economic issues at hand. The author then argues that “coddling affected industries” with domestic protectionism is harmful to consumers and does nothing for the industries themselves in the long run. Milke urges negotiators to end subsidies to supply-managed dairy and poultry sectors, arguing that that

Economist have been debating between free trade and protectionism for decades. This debate has been most recently reiterated through President Donald Trump’s announcement that his administration would be taking steps to limit free trade in the United States. The opinion piece “Beware the Trump Trade Trap” by Liz Mair, argues that free trade is positively linked to a country’s prosperity, although most of the population may disagree with this. Mair argues that protectionism would limit consumption, however, it is important to also expand upon these ideas and to remember that free trade encourages prosperity, comparative advantage, and improves economic growth.

While many see free trade beneficial not only to America, but to all nations as well, others would argue that the entire concept of free trade is now a major misconception. What has become commonplace in the U.S. economy is now “tradition” enough to discourage the very thought of disagreeing with free trade. The incorporation of this government deal has long since been a part of history, making it hard for one to plea the case of operating otherwise. Whether viewed as good or bad, analyzing and recognizing the various factors of free trade only serves as a fundamental measure in strengthening the argument.

United States trade policy is almost always debated in terms of the economic utility. So,Does free trade would raise or lower incomes? Does it help or even hurt United States industry? Does that create or destroy jobs? But behind statistics and anecdotes lie moral and assumptions about the human nature, the sovereignty of some individual, and the role of the government in free society. Free trade may deliver some goods and boost the efficiency, but is that morally superior to protectionism? It increases the total production, productivity and also efficiency.

America’s diminishing faith in free trade has been a controversial topic in the 2016 presidential election. As the former Secretary of State to a presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton has changed her attitude in regards to the Trans-Pacific Partnership because these different positions have allowed her to view different perspectives in international relations. When she was Secretary of State promoting the TPP was her duty but as a presidential candidate she spoke against it, claiming it is “for more new good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans.” In an interview with PBS Clinton argued that the TPP “kills American Jobs” because there is no safety net support that American workers need in order “to be able to compete and win the global economy”. Meanwhile as seen in Donald Trump’s campaign website, the Trans-Pacific Partnership undermines our economy and it will also threaten American independence. Trump told Breitbart News that “he would negotiate trade deals with individual countries, rather than a giant multinational deals like TPP” yet he tells Fox News that he is all for free trade “but it’s got to be fair” and wishes to go back to the days when America used to produce their own items.

The southerners wanted to have the privilege to be allowed to import and export freely due to believing that the tariffs is another wave of the Navigation Act. Secondly, they disapproved the idea that the Southerners were forced to buy products produced by the North. Southerners claimed that British products were superior and high quality compared to the North’s goods. Thirdly, they disliked the idea that the tariffs only benefited the North and merchants. The crisis over tariffs originated in South Carolina, under a case study. The abominable tariffs was passed by John Quincy Adams, who wanted to help the Northerners industries since he himself was born and raised in Massachusetts, in result of him understanding how it benefits the Northern

The politics of free trade have experienced and amazing U-turn since NAFTA (North America Free Trade Agreement), and the FTA (Free Trade Agreement) before it appeared.

“Free trade is not passé, but is an idea that has irretrievably lost its innocence” (Krugman, 1987, p.132). In his article, Is Free Trade Passé, Paul Krugman writes that the classical trade theory has been replaced with a new trade theory. The classical trade theory is based on constant returns to scale and perfect competition, is driven by comparative advantage, and endorses free trade. This classical theory emphasized the idea that trade was brought about by differences in tastes, technology, or factor endowments between countries (Krugman, 1987). However, the new theory of international trade is driven by increasing returns to scale, also known as economies of scale, and leads to imperfect competition (Carbaugh, 2011).

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.

Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations, shows support for free trade and emphasises it as a trade policy which ought to be adopted. Krugman and Obstfeld back Smith's support by stating that the efficiency of trade is increased by free trade and accumulates the national income of countries. Free trade is a theory which suggests that each nation benefits in specialising in an economic activity from which it gains absolute advantage, enjoying absolute superiority over other nations in a specif economical activity (Peng). With free trade follows opportunity, replacing regulation and growth of economic activity. (Rugmann and Collinson).