So, now we try to answer the main questions for discussing this article. The conclusion of the article is the influence of free trade for different areas of USA economy. Every society earlier or later face with the merits and demerits of this fact.
The author concluded that the American economy has a lot of demerits in free trade. First of all, “countries… sometimes block our products and services from entering”, when our government lowered trade barriers a lot of goods making in another countries, a lot of talented workers go to another countries for higher wages.The article deals with the main goal of November votes, the Americans have to choose “which form of trade they prefer: the mismanaged variety (masquerading as free trade) or fair trade. ”.
the main reason for our people to choose a good and true politics for our future. “Unfortunately, when one country lowers its trade barriers and other countries don't lower theirs as much — making for freer, but not free, trade — who gets what becomes extremely murky. And that is the world in which we find ourselves today. ”This problem of change harming some and helping others is not confined to the issue of tariffs and quotas.
Any non-trivial change involving an outward shift in the production-possibilities curve in a complex social system will aid some and harm others. The development of the automobile harmed those who produced buggies. The development of the electronic calculator harmed those who produced slide rules and mechanical calculators. In England between 1811 and 1820, organized bands of craftsmen called "Luddites" protested the threat of new techniques by smashing textile machinery that was displacing them. The list of examples of changes harming some and helping others is very long.The destructive nature of change was captured in the phrase that Joseph Schumpeter used to describe the most noteworthy aspect of capitalism: "the process of creative destruction.
" Because so many changes involve both groups that are harmed and groups that are helped, the concept of economic efficiency is of little use in making policy judgments unless one is willing to make some interpersonal comparisons. One could argue for tariffs and restraints on trade by acknowledging that a few will be helped and many harmed, and arguing that the well-being of the few should be given more importance than the well-being of the many.But no one ever publicly argues for protection in this way. Most public arguments for protection are simply wrong because they do not acknowledge that anyone will be hurt.
However, there are a few special cases in which an appealing and logically correct argument for protection can be made. However, some phrases are quite ambiguous. First of all, in some economic areas the free trade is obligatory. When the American climate is not good for growing rice or tea there is no reasons to growth it on our fields. In this case, the free trade is the most profitable.So, some conclusion are not true as “Israelis and Finns, for instance, are not exactly laggards.
Indian engineers and Chinese computer programmers are rapidly bridging the creativity gap. ”, because every nationalities has a lot of talented people. For example, none can’t to make such cotton as Indians, no one American farmer can’t growth so much sort of rice as Chinese. If we have best agronomist, best technologies and best fields, we haven’t such spirit, such son, some water and such workers. Every year huge number Ukrainian IT specialist go for working in American companies and have quite good wages in USA labor market.It is labor migration which always presents in free trade society.
A lot of American company every year improve their consumption programs and make their HR strategy more acceptable for their workers. "Free Trade" is lopsided in practice. Although goods and services can readily change borders to find the "lowest cost producer", labor cannot. This creates an imbalance between skills available and skills used. For example, a computer programmer in the US cannot directly compete with one in India whose typical salary is one-seventh that of the US.
The US programmer would have to accept minimum wage to be comparative cost-wise. He or she is economically better off becoming a plumber or Walmart sales clerk. A perfectly good skill goes to waste. The value of conflict and assumptions is not so huge and insoluble.
So, if people want to improve their standard of living they have to create the good conditions for this. The evidences are very small-minded cause it don’t deal with all reasons of free trade. It seems that they are just based on emotions.There isn’t any economic dates, statistic deceptive, so a lot of significant and needed information are omitted. The reasonable conclusion which are possible in this case it is someone who would otherwise be an above-average computer programmer cannot compete with an average-skilled computer programmer in India because of the huge labor rate difference. Resources are not being efficiently allocated by "free trade" because the one who is technically better qualified will not get the job.
This is not a logical allocation of labor. It would be like giving the job to the "C" student, not the "A" student.Free trade is failing to allocate based on merit. (This is not to imply that Indian programmers in general are less skilled, just that the allocation of jobs currently depends more on location than skill.
) India may allow a few visa workers into their country, but surely they will not allow every displaced American programmer in. Free-trade is only half free. True market fluidity would allow people to cross borders to find a better fit for their inherent abilities. The historical record is very clear that free trade bestows many benefits to the average person.
Those countries that lower trade barriers and open their markets enjoy higher economic standards of living. Consumers have access to a wider range of higher quality products at prices lower than they would otherwise pay. The average person also benefits in terms of wages and job opportunities. When labor and capital flow freely to the most productive areas of the economy, workers are employed in better, higher quality jobs with higher wages. While there are inevitable short-term transition costs in some sectors of the economy, the long-term benefits of free trade for all far outweigh such costs.
Free trade does not create jobs," writes Melvyn Krauss of the Hoover Institution in How Nations Grow Rich, his excellent book on trade. Instead, "it creates income for the community by reallocating jobs and capital from lower-productivity to higher-productivity sectors of the economy. " In other words, trade allows us to concentrate on what we do best. It may kill jobs in the textile industry, which is labor intensive, but breed jobs in electronics, where ingenious Americans have a "comparative advantage," in the famous phrase used by David Ricardo in 1817.
