I didn't bother with reading this entire thread since it seemed to drag on. I'm just going to argue basic concepts. The implications of "free trade" seems to imply a mutually agreed upon, beneficial agreement between two parties. If both parties are aware of the technicalities than neither are getting swindled. Yes there may be instances where one party gets the other hand but that is the whole theory of arbitrage. If you own stocks or make any kind of business dealings that result in your advantage then you advocate in free markets and trade.

Free trade has it's advantages but also it's disadvantages.

You are bound by your agreements, even in tough times. For example, if your domestic agriculture is rapidly depleting, you need to do something to keep it buoyant. Subsidies may work for a short while, but they cost a lot of taxpayer's money just to keep a dying industry standing. The best option is to tax foreign imports, hence it becomes more desirable for your own people to buy domestic and save their own industry. But if you are bound by free trade agreements this option isn't open to you. Thus, you can either watch that industry wither away, or you can subsidise it.

The EU has suffered this problem for a long time. I think I read somewhere that 2/3 of a British farmer's income comes from the common agricultural policy, in other words taxation. The whole point behind subsidies is to get an injured industry back on it's feet so it can support itself, but farmers have been living off the CAP for many years now and are showing no signs of any recovery. It just isn't working.

Last edited by evil_bastard on Jan-19-2003 at 13:12