1
edit
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 33:
Line 33: − − ===== NO ===== − I am a Pat Buchanan Conservative so have your counter-arguments make economic sense.+ + +
Debate:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it? (view source)
Revision as of 05:30, March 14, 2007
, 05:30, March 14, 2007→'''no...''': One possible criticism of free trade.
Mr. Schlafly
Mr. Schlafly
Free trade is wage arbitrage. Free trade is Bill Gates saying raise the H-1b level to 300,000 further depressing American salaries.
Free trade is wage arbitrage. Free trade is Bill Gates saying raise the H-1b level to 300,000 further depressing American salaries.
So far free trade has resulted in continuous trade deficits. A continuous trade deficit is money that ceases to circulate in the USA.
So far free trade has resulted in continuous trade deficits. A continuous trade deficit is money that ceases to circulate in the USA.
I am a Pat Buchanan Conservative so have your counter-arguments make economic sense.
Properly designed/regulated open trade would create wealth more efficiently and for more people than a system of pro-business free trade that allows companies to exploit poverty stricken workers, prevent organization of labor, and ignore environmental standards by moving to third world nations. Bad practices lead to collapse of established working economies and a worsening of conditions for locals and the movement of jobs to this new country leads to lowered wages and employment in their nation of origination and prices don't actually fall because the company wants to increase their profit margin. Basically, costs don't fall. Labor costs fall and management costs rise. Although this is not necessarily the result of free trade, free trade could possibly act to redistribute wealth from the laborers to the owners of capital and not to actually create more wealth. [[User:Thorn969|Thorn969]] 01:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)