Alt Left: Free Trade Is Always Great for Rich Countries and Bad for Poor Countries

From the Net:

There’s NEVER been free trade, ever, no matter how far back you look in history. Free trade is Imperialspeak for the dominant economies dictating to the weaker.

Well of course. Anyone who can’t figure this out just doesn’t get it. There’s a reason why only rich countries promote free trade. It’s designed to keep them rich forever while keeping the poor countries poor forever, all in the disguise of fairness.

Free trade is something like this: Suppose you have a race and half the racers have crutches. Those are the poor countries.

Normally you handicap the hobbled players to give them a chance. However, in free trade you get rid of all the handicaps because they are “unfair” to the runners who don’t have crutches! To make it “fair” like “free trade” you simply have the same rules for everyone. Of course the runners without crutches will win every time, but that’s “fair”. That’s “free trade” in a nutshell. Sound fair? Of course not.

What sort of people in poor nations would go for this BS? Only traitors, of course. And in this world, all poor countries allied with the US are run by, of course, traitors.

3 thoughts on “Alt Left: Free Trade Is Always Great for Rich Countries and Bad for Poor Countries”

  1. Free trade between developed and undeveloped countries is not bad for the undeveloped countries in the present. The only problem is that it may prevent them from becoming developed. A poor country that practices free trade is like an 18-year-old who doesn’t go to university because he can make more money if he enters the labor market right away. He is right, he can make more money in the present if he avoids university and takes a job.

    The problem, however, is that such a person may not act in his best long-term interest. Similarly, free-trade when practiced by a poor country is usually the best policy in the short term, but the worst policy for the long term. Temporary protectionism to allow new industries to develop is short-term pain for long-term gain. The short-term pain arises from the fact that during protectionism the country will have to pay more for the products made by the protected industries.

    Suppose that a country doesn’t have a shoe industry. It imports all its shoes for 40 dollars a pair. It decides to levy a tariff of 60% on imported shoes. As a result, a domestic shoe industry arises, which sells shoes for 60 dollars a pair. Sure, the country now has a shoe industry, but consumers will have to pay 50% more for their shoes.

    The idea is that protection has to be temporary. If it is permanent, then it is the wrong policy. That is the essence of infant-industry protectionism. During its infancy, industry has to protected, but it has to grow up eventually. If it doesn’t grow up, the policy has been a failure.

    Let’s also dispose of the fallacy that only poor countries are exporters of primary products. Before WWI, the US, Canada, Argentina, Uruguay, Australia and New Zealand were among the 10 richest countries in the world. All six were net exporters of primary products. Canada, Australia and Norway today, not exactly poor countries, are all net exporters of primary products.

  2. The illegal immigration is primarily motivated by free trade – but people want to hate on the illegals – and Latinos, in general. If criticized for that – they call you “politically correct – aka. moral-fag”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *