4 ms·

Free trade is like free markets. I can buy shares of nearly any public company in the world (notably, not including China). I can move my stuff for free (beside

Free trade is like free markets. I can buy shares of nearly any public company in the world (notably, not including China). I can move my stuff for free (besides shipping cost) to many countries. That is free trade and free markets. China has neither. Free is free as in no restriction, not free to do whatever you want. Free to do whatever will make global trade more difficult for everyone as all countries will have tariffs, as it was historically.

coldtea 7y ago
>Free is free as in no restriction, not free to do whatever you want. Well, the term (and its proponents) should not hijack the concept of freedom them. One could call it "open" (or sometimes "forcefully open" market, e.g. like when the British waged war on China so that they are free to sell opium there). Free as in freedom should include the freedom not to trade. >China has neither Well, despite that is one of the biggest importers and exporters of the world, and they've been rising from an agrarian economy to the worlds top manufacturer, and being in the top-2 global players. So looks to be working for them. >Free to do whatever will make global trade more difficult for everyone as all countries will have tariffs, as it was historically. That's a good thing in my book. We need less global trade, if not for anything else, for environmental reasons (the "reduce" part of the reduce, reuse, recycle). If the people in some country feel as if they benefit from trading something, they can always choose to trade it. But if they have negative consequences from trading, i.e. importing or exporting X, then why should they continue to do so and suffer them?
- nullwasamistake 7y ago
  I'm on the fence about "free trade". It helps globalization and probably the human race to technologically advance as a whole, but harms a ton of local industry. I also agree that open trade is a better name

coldtea 7y ago

>Free is free as in no restriction, not free to do whatever you want. Well, the term (and its proponents) should not hijack the concept of freedom them. One could call it "open" (or sometimes "forcefully open" market, e.g. like when the British waged war on China so that they are free to sell opium there). Free as in freedom should include the freedom not to trade. >China has neither Well, despite that is one of the biggest importers and exporters of the world, and they've been rising from an agrarian economy to the worlds top manufacturer, and being in the top-2 global players. So looks to be working for them. >Free to do whatever will make global trade more difficult for everyone as all countries will have tariffs, as it was historically. That's a good thing in my book. We need less global trade, if not for anything else, for environmental reasons (the "reduce" part of the reduce, reuse, recycle). If the people in some country feel as if they benefit from trading something, they can always choose to trade it. But if they have negative consequences from trading, i.e. importing or exporting X, then why should they continue to do so and suffer them?

nullwasamistake 7y ago
I'm on the fence about "free trade". It helps globalization and probably the human race to technologically advance as a whole, but harms a ton of local industry. I also agree that open trade is a better name