Compare opinions of world leading experts and influencers.

FAQ Send Feedback Sign Up Login

Globalization Free Trade Macroeconomics Economics Politics Topic Index

Add Expert Opinion Edit Question Edit Implications History

Is free trade generally beneficial for a country?

Adam Smith is the founder of the concept of free trade, in his book "The Wealth of Nations" published in 1776. He came up with theoretical arguments showing that governmental barriers to trade such as tariffs and subsidies are ultimately not in the best interests of either side in a trade agreement. Karl Marx, the founder of communism, vigorously disagreed.

Implications to Other Questions

Is capitalism good?

Experts and Influencers

Suggest Expert Quote (click to expand, no login required)

Agree

Experts In Economics

Adam Smith Founder of Modern Economics

Agree

By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain. ... By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.

Edit Pitches

01 Jan 1776 Source

The Economist Politics and Business Magazine

Agree

[The Economist was] founded in 1843 to support the cause of free trade.

Edit Pitches

01 Jan 1843 Source

Milton Friedman Iconic Economist of 20th Century

Agree

Ever since Adam Smith there has been virtual unanimity among economists, whatever their ideological position on other issues, that international free trade is in the best interests of trading countries and of the world. ... [The] voice [of the consumer] is drowned out in the cacophony of the "interested sophistry of merchants and manufacturers" and their employees. The result is a serious distortion of the issue. ... "Protection" really means exploiting the consumer.

The Consensus Pitch

Edit Pitches

01 Jan 1980 Source

Experts In Politics

Barack Obama United States President

Agree

Globalization is not someone's political agenda. It is a technological revolution that is fundamentally changing the world's economy, producing winners and losers along the way. The question is not whether we can stop it, but how we respond to it. It's not whether we should protect our workers from competition, but what we can do to fully enable them to compete against workers all over the world.

Edit Pitches

30 Jun 2005 Source

Hillary Clinton US Secretary of State 2009-, Democrat

Agree

This is a sad day for supporters of free and fair rules-based trade. Our relationship with our Central American neighbors is a critical one. The right CAFTA deal would strengthen ties between the U.S. and these nations. I urge the Administration to reopen the CAFTA negotiations and re-establish the broad, bipartisan coalition for trade.

Edit Pitches

30 Jun 2005 Source

John McCain U.S. Senator, Republican

Agree

Every time the United States has become projectionist [...] we could pay at a very heavy price. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Acts in the 1930s were direct contributors to World War II. It sounds like a lot of fun to bash Chinese and others, but free trade has been the engine of our economy in the last half of this year; it will continue to be. ... Free trade should be the continuing principle that guides this nation's economy.

Edit Pitches

09 Oct 2007 Source

Kevin Rudd Australian Prime Minister, 2007-2010

Agree

...what we have agreed -- again, as strong, long-term supporters of free trade around the world as one of the best drivers of global economic growth -- is to work very closely together in the months ahead to try and get a good, positive outcome for Doha -- good for our economy, good for the American economy, good for the global economy.

Edit Pitches

29 Mar 2008 Source

Malcolm Turnbull Leader of Australian Liberal Party

Agree

Free trade in goods, services and capital has improved our standards of living. It has provided competition to drive innovation and productivity. It has increased real wages. Free trade has given more choice to Australians, more freedom to Australians and more job opportunities to Australians. And allowing financial capital to flow freely across borders is just free trade by another name.

Edit Pitches

15 Aug 2008 Source

Encyclopedia

Conservapedia Christian Encyclopedia

Agree

Since one nation has little control over another nation, without some sort of agreement between two nations, free trade might harm a particular group of people in one nation, such as laborers or consumers. However, the overall welfare of each country increases with free trade.

Edit Pitches

19 Aug 2009 Source

Disagree

Experts In Politics

Karl Marx Father of Communism

Disagree

All the destructive phenomena which unlimited competition gives rise to within one country are reproduced in more gigantic proportions on the world market.

Edit Pitches

09 Jan 1848 Source

Ralph Nader Politician, Consumer Activist

Disagree

Someday the pollyanna belief that the U.S. economy always replaces the jobs it loses overseas with new jobs here, as we keep racing ahead of other countries with modern technology and new or redundant services, may run into a contrary riptide that no set of spurious statistics can obscure.

Edit Pitches

17 Jul 2003 Source

Experts In Philosophy

Noam Chomsky Linguistics & Philosophy Professor

Disagree

I don't understand how people can talk about "free trade" with a straight face. ... There is so much deception in the way the issues are formulated that it's impossible to proceed, without unraveling an intricate web of doctrinal mythology. ...talk of capital conceals [that] we are speaking of owners of capital, who are vastly unequal in power, naturally. In the real world, free movement of capital entails radical restriction of democracy, for obvious reasons that have long been well understood.

The Dirty Enemy Pitch

Edit Pitches

01 Jan 2006 Source

Experts In Entertainment

Peter Joseph Movie Producer

Disagree

In turn, free market capitalism in the form of free trade, uses debt to imprison the world and manipulate countries into subservience to a handful of large business and political powers. Apart from these obvious amoralities, the system itself is based on competition, which immediately destroys the possibility of large scale collaborations for the common good. Hence paralyzing any attempt at true global sustainability.

The Socialist Pitch The Selfless Pitch The Moral Pitch The Dirty Enemy Pitch

Edit Pitches

02 Oct 2008 Source

Comments

Add Your TakeOnIt (click to expand, no login required)

0 Points the27th 09 May 2010 Stance on Question: Agree

Yes. Wealth. Cultural diffusion. Major driver of development.

1 Point JGWeissman 27 Mar 2010 Stance on Question: Mostly Agree

Removing barriers to Pareto improvements is generally a good thing, though one should acknowledge the issues that giving people more opportunities to make unwise decisions is not really helping them (though it is dangerous to presume you are more wise than them about what decisions they should make), of transition costs in adjusting to changing relative advantages, and that uneven "free trade", where capital faces fewer legal barriers to changing countries than labor, can create an imbalance of power.

-1 Point Ascendaeus 16 Mar 2010 Stance on Question: Disagree

It would be "Generally Beneficial" For both nations in the agreement to share they're resources for reasonable Compensation. But if one of the states involved held it's own citizen's up with a higher respect and dignity (Say one Countries citizens operate out of Emancipation and the other's doesn't) then the other nation Should Be Expected to emancipate it's fucking people before trade agreements are decided upon.... Or Say, if one Country's Citizens Live at a much Higher Standard of Living than The other Trading Country, (US AND CHINA) Than the Dominant Nation is operating out of a differential advantage, and to protect it's citizens from shoddy goods, it's producers from Outlandish Foreign Corporate Competition, The Dominant Nation Would Have to gauge duties in order to maintain the Profitability of It's Laborers, Companies and Corporations. If One Nation is particularly More Free, Stable, Safe, or has more opportunities, Then that Nation is at a Serious Social, Economic, Political and Moral Advantage. An Advantage in which The Lesser Nation Should Adhere too the Basic Freedom Principles Accepted by the Moral Fucking High Ground That The U.s. Stands on in Relation To Mexico, China, And all other Very impoverished Industrialized Nations. If We Want Cheap Plates From China, then China will Have to Stop Harvesting Organs From the Citizens it works to death, and if we want Cheap Tequila From Mexico First we'll Have Help them With Their Kidnapping Epidemic and Their 20 Million Homeless