Question

Do you agree that without protectionism trade can never be fair? Do you think that free trade indeed widens the gap between the rich and the poor? Do you agree with the documentarian on the argument that 'trade that is truly free is a myth and will always remain one'? Explain in 200 words.

Answer 1

Traditional national sectors can decrease as more nations experience industrial growth. The shipbuilding industry in the UK, for instance, has decreased in the face of global competition since the 1950s, and steel production is presently facing growing competition. Protectionism can assist to maintain employment in these industries, or at least slow the change process.
Protectionism can assist to create fresh sectors as well. In sectors with high start-up costs, new firms might find it difficult to compete if there is not support from government in the form of tariffs or subsidies. Such obstacles can be removed once they become competitive. It can be used to protect' strategic' sectors such as electricity, water, steel, arms and food. For instance,' food security' can be seen as significant to allow us to feed ourselves if something horrible occurs to disrupt the world trade system.
Some individuals are worried that free trade deals may result in standards being lowered. Such deals may involve us to release products and services even if they do not fulfill our requirements, which may be cheaper then than those produced by national sectors.

Despite the commitments made by globalization advocates, the gap between the world's poorest countries and the world's richest countries remains to expand. Increasingly, however, "new internationalists" claim that free trade policy should be reconstituted as a fair trade policy. Current strategies have only served to reinforce the influence multinational corporations have on the political discussion. Trading has often been at the cost of attributes that are not readily measured in financial terms such as human rights, natural resource depletion, and inequity. Future trade policy will have to contend with competing forces issuing from those fearing loss of national sovereignty on the right and others concerned with social and environmental well being on the left.

Often it's quite distinct what leaders do and say. That's not altered. Indeed, although there is much talk about globalization and unfettered trade, today there is no nation whose policies are close to the ideal of free trade anywhere. Goods and services are flowing strongly around the globe, but most nations are suffering from a combination of import duties and non-tariff barriers such as quotas, unnecessary inspection rules and a confusing range of laws that make it difficult for any of us to fully profit from the expertise that is feasible in a truly open global economy.

If the free trade consensus were truly meaningful, trade negotiations would be unnecessary. If free trade were the rule, trade policy would have a purely domestic orientation and U.S. barriers would be removed without need for negotiation because they would be recognized for what they are: taxes on consumers and businesses that impede the global division of labor and the creation of wealth. Apparently, the intellectual consensus for free trade coexists with an absence of free trade and a persistence of protectionism in practice.