How Free Trade Prevents Nuclear War and Solves Conflict

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker
Free Trade
Free Trade
Free Trade
Free Trade Good - Geopolitics
Free Trade
Nuclear War
Free trade prevents nuclear extinction Copley News Service 1999
[December 1, 1999, lexis] For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear war. The specter of nuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to further their own prosperity, but also to forestall conflict with other nations. In a way, our planet has traded in the threat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics. Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear
disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades past. But they're not. They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is environmental, labor or paranoia about global government. Actually, most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament movement, both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather than strive against each other. These and other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past might have been settled by bullets and bombs. As long as nations are trading
peacefully, and their economies are built on exports to other countries, they have a major disincentive to wage war. That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so
important. As exports to the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for the goods we produce, the threat of hostility diminishes.
A new wave of protectionism would erupt into nuclear conflict Spicer, British House of Lords, 96
*Michael Spicer, The Challenge from the East and the Rebirth of the West, St Martins Press, p. 121 The choice facing the West today is much the same as that which faced the Soviet bloc after World War II: between meeting head-on the challenge of world trade with the adjustments and the benefits that it will bring, or of attempting to shut out markets that are growing and where a dynamic new pace is being set for innovative production. The problem about the second approach is not simply that it won't hold: satellite technology alone will ensure that he consumers will begin to demand those goods that the East is able to provide most cheaply. More fundamentally, it will guarantee the emergence of a fragmented world in which natural fears will be fanned and inflamed. A world divided into rigid trade blocs will
be a deeply troubled and unstable place in which suspicion and ultimately envy will possibly erupt into a major war. I do not say that the converse will necessarily be true, that in a free trading world there will be an absence of all strife. Such a proposition would manifestly be absurd . But to trade is to become interdependent, and that is a good step in the direction of world stability. With nuclear weapons at two a penny, stability will be at a premium in the years ahead.
Free Trade
War
Free trade solves war- dialogue, expensive conflict, and political transparency Gartzke and Li, Associate Professor of Political Science @ UC San Diego and Professor of international relations and international political economy at Texas A&M University, 2003
*Erik Gartzke and Quan Li, War, Peace, and the Invisible Hand: Positive Political Externalities of Economic Globalization, International Studies Quarterly 47, 561586, http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/stille/Politics%20Fall%202007/readings%20weeks%20 6-7/Gartzke%20War%20Peace%20Invisible%20Hand.pdf, chip] Students of world politics are centrally concerned with the interaction of states in a system lacking central enforcement. In contrast, a central objective of political economy is to decipher the nature and consequence of interactions between states and markets. Economic globalization enables a dialogue between students of world politics and political economy that is intellectually rewarding and of signicant policy relevance. The globalizing world economy appears increasingly to tie together states and markets in a manner liable to alter the calculus of both processes. Traditional schools of thought suggest reason for apprehension about the consequences of this interaction, either implying that states should be restrained from interfering in markets or advocating barriers to markets to protect the realm of states. We argue, and to a signicant degree show, that the interaction of states and markets is capable of providing positive political externalities. Increasingly, economic agents in global markets affect bargaining among states by making threats of disruptive conict costly for political competitors. Because markets respond to risk, political demands coincide with an economic price tag and hence political talk is no longer cheap. States that are integrated into the global economy are more often able to reveal resolve through their statements and through the associated market responses, rather than through military acts. Counter to the outcry of skeptics, globalization does not appear to herald a substantial loss of state autonomy. While states exert less control over capital than before, greater exibility and lower risk of violence for states competing under globalization affords additional opportunities to pursue competitive political objectives. Asymmetric integration at worst softens the pacic effects of integration. That global markets can hobble national economies overnight is no longer conjecture. Market agents are driven by economic fundamentals that encourage anticipation of state behaviors. Even when poorly informed, however, the size and autonomy of global markets affects international relations. It is not the benets of globalization that deter interstate violence. States can too easily use the vulnerability of their counterparts to leverage new political concessions. Rather, the presence and magnitude of global assets force state leaders to demonstrate resolve in ways that were previously unavailable. Globalization allows states to reveal private information by political talk that is economically costly , facilitating ex ante bargains and reducing the need for war. Greater market autonomy also opens up new avenues for interstate competition. As capital market integration renders conictual talk between states more credible, it is more often possible to resolve conicts short of military violence. Because such talk (even with its economic consequences) is often cheaper than ghting, and because the prospect of warfare is reduced, states should more often pursue secondary political objectives. Integration provides for cheaper and less risky contests of words and market indicators that allow states more political exibility, not less. It remains the case that states are
Free Trade
asymmetrically integrated into the world economy. As our ndings demonstrate, asymmetry does not add to the danger of disputes. Instead, asymmetrically integrated dyads are asymmetrically able to signal. While the conventional wisdom implies that there is an inherent trade-off between efcient economic policies and efforts to promote peace, our results suggest no such trade-offs. Measures that are designed to increase the symmetry in integration are normatively desirable on several grounds. However, the benign impact of globalization on peace appears to result from enhancements to economic integration, even if occasionally these efforts result in additional asymmetry. The United States and other major powers can best discourage conict by promoting greater global economic ties and by fostering equity of development. Another benet of the globalization debate has been increased attention to linkages between international politics and global political economy. Still, much remains to do in linking the two subjects. Political economists are concerned mainly with the relationship between state and market. Students of world politics are typically more concerned with stateto-state relations. Both communities have a tendency to treat the other subject as static or linear. If our conception of globalization and peace is valid, then the interaction of states in the presence of markets is genuinely a dynamic and interactive process. The emergence of greater economic autonomy means that market actors can shift wealth with greater ease, ironically increasing the sensitivity of markets to political behavior. States become more dependent on markets but are also better able to further their international interests through market forces. If states and markets genuinely interact, then the nature of these interactions should be informative to participants, observers, and researchers. Much remains, too, in solidifying the empirical relationship between economic integration and peace. We have only made incremental progress in assessing the theory. While our study shows that states that share valuable, autonomous capital linkages are less likely to ght, we fail to demonstrate that integration causes the reduction in dispute behavior. More ne-grained analysis using events data and market indicators will be necessary to ascertain whether an alternative precipitant can be found for the relationship we identify, or whether signaling remains the most likely candidate. The theoretical basis for believing in informational explanations is strong, however, and we remain condent that additional research will substantiate our theoretical claims about signaling. The rise of autonomous markets implies a different game of politics with a more complex set of actors. As Strange (1996) argues, structural changes in the world economy affect the nature of diplomacy from solely among states to that between states, between rms, and between states and rms. States can continue to play power politics, ignoring market actors. However, they now do so at a price. Traditional perspectives concerned with relationships between politics and economics seek to protect states from markets or markets from states. We see the externalities of state-market interactions as mixed, but often benign. If asymmetric integration does not signicantly increase the probability of conict, then at least one rationale for protecting states from markets is removed. Nor should societies seek to isolate markets from the effects of political posturing. If some economic inefciency is induced by interstate conict, then this informs political competitors, reducing uncertainty, allowing for ex ante bargains and some increase in international peace.
Free Trade
Trade deters conflict- political signaling, transparency, and economic interdependency all check conflict escalation Gartzke and Li, Associate Professor of Political Science @ UC San Diego and Professor of international relations and international political economy at Texas A&M University, 2003
*Erik Gartzke and Quan Li, War, Peace, and the Invisible Hand: Positive Political Externalities of Economic Globalization, International Studies Quarterly 47, 561586, http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/stille/Politics%20Fall%202007/readings%20weeks%20 6-7/Gartzke%20War%20Peace%20Invisible%20Hand.pdf, chip] Beginning in the 1970s, students of political economy began to re-evaluate the effect of economic interdependence on inter-state conict. Several authors made conceptual contributions or rened denitions of interdependence (Deutsch, 1978; Rosenau, 1984; Keohane and Nye, 1989; Kroll, 1993; Caporaso, 1998). One insight from this literature is that a diversity of linkages may itself be a palliative for violence. Yet these studies fail to explain how multiple channels alter states incentives to compete. The fundamental claim of this literature is that economic linkages deter conict by increasing opportunity costs, the forgone benets states face in using force. International commerce, being a transaction between nations, could conceivably also have a direct impact on the likelihood of peace and war: once again the *economic+ interests might overcome the passions, specically the passion for conquest (Hirschman, 1997). Most quantitative studies report that bilateral trade correlates with a reduction in inter-state militarized disputes (Polachek, 1980; Gasiorowski, 1986; Oneal et al., 1996; Oneal and Russett, 1997, 1999a, 1999b; Bliss and Russett, 1998; Polachek, Robst, and Chang, 1999).7 Using a bargaining logic of war, Morrow offers two reasons why trade and conict do not interact in the manner typically described (1999). First, trade should be reduced ex ante where the risk of conict is greatest if rms anticipate contests between states (Morrow, Siverson, and Tabaras, 1999).8 Trade and war are endogenous; states are not deterred from conict if the threat of conict deters trade. Second, trade should at most weakly deter conict since factors inhibiting aggression by one party encourage aggression in others. Gartzke Li, and Boehmer (2001) offer a game-theoretic model and quantitative test of Morrows second point. States may subsume opportunity costs associated with trade as different bargains, so that interdependence does not necessarily reduce the likelihood of disputes. However, interdependence also facilitates costly signaling, allowing states to inform competitors about relative resolve and removing informational motives for war. The study uses capital and monetary policy variables to show that interdependent states are less likely to ght. Research on interdependence and conict is methodologically sophisticated and offers important statistical support for the intuition that inter-state economic linkages promote peace. However, studies of interdependence typically emphasize states to the exclusion of actors in the private sector, thereby ignoring interactions between states and markets. While this may not be a fatal weakness for research narrowly focused on political processes, it is also plausible that the rise of markets relative to states makes unbiased descriptions of political conict in isolation from non-state actors impossible. The literature has also been imprecise in its treatment of the causes of war. We take from the interdependence literature our research design and the general expectation that integration encourages peace. To this we add the statemarket relationships emphasized by globalization research and adopt a specic, explicit, conception of war onset from signaling theory.
Free trade prevents conflicts allows transparency and bluffing strategies
Free Trade
Gartzke and Li, Associate Professor of Political Science @ UC San Diego and Professor of international relations and international political economy at Texas A&M University, 2003
*Erik Gartzke and Quan Li, War, Peace, and the Invisible Hand: Positive Political Externalities of Economic Globalization, International Studies Quarterly 47, 561586, http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/stille/Politics%20Fall%202007/readings%20w eeks%206-7/Gartzke%20War%20Peace%20Invisible%20Hand.pdf, chip] A ubiquitous characteristic of competition is the difculty actors face in credibly communicating private information about factors salient to their performance in a contest.9 Given that agreements often depend on perceptions of relative power, threat, or interest, competitors face incentives to conceal weakness and claim strength. This pooling of attributes, or types means that opponents sometimes underestimate one another. The inability to communicate credibly, and its relationship to costly contests, forms the basis of an evolving literature on signaling in international relations. The talk of nations is too often cheap. Competition and the private nature of information about factors relevant to a states performance in a contest mean that states have difculty conveying relevant facts in a credible manner. The signaling literature explores two mechanisms likely to enhance the credibility of political statements. First, so-called cheap talk signaling enhances credibility by differentially rewarding honesty or punishing blufng. Domestic audiences or opposition groups can punish leaders who are found to be dissembling (Fearon, 1994; Schultz, 1998, 1999; Smith, 1998). In societies where ofce-holding is subject to popular review, disapproval of blufng by an audience or selectorate encourages leaders to be more truthful (Fearon, 1994). Competitors who are aware that some leaders face harsher consequences for deception are more likely to believe statements from these leaders.10 States with sanctioning selectorates are then able to communicate credibly using words and less often need to resort to costly deeds. Alternately, oppositional elites may sanction blufng (Schultz, 1998, 1999). In a related conception, Sartori (2002) shows how states can internalize the consequences of blufng through reputation. Like the boy who cries wolf, states or leaders caught in a lie are less likely to be believed in future negotiations. Costly signaling offers a second process by which leaders can increase their credibility . Audience cost models involve sanctions for observed blufng (as when a leader backs down from a threat), but credibility can also be increased if some price is imposed regardless of subsequent actions.11 Making a leaders words costly encourages leaders with relatively low valuations for issues at stake, or high costs for ghting, to remain silent, or to choose more pliant language. Observers may then infer from differences in statements and from associated (observable) costs which leaders are resolved and which are not. By making talk costly, leaders address the credibility problems associated with cheap talk. Contests are then less often necessary as states arrive at nonviolent ex ante bargains. Applications of costly signaling theory appear in several subjects in international relations. Deterrence theory argues that states can manipulate the probability of contests by altering the perceptions of potential attackers. Leaders engage in threats that imply a cost to potential attackers. Credibility is again a problem, since leaders have incentives to make deterrent threats regardless of whether they expect to act to fulll their commitments (Powell, 1990). States enhance the credibility of deterrent threats by associating costly behavior with the threat. A state that claims it is willing to intervene in the event of a war between states and redeploys two aircraft carriers, say, is more credible than a state that issues only a verbal warning.12 Alliances offer another possible example of costly signaling. Alliances also seek to alter inter-state behavior by manipulating beliefs (Fearon, 1997; Morrow, 2000). They often impose ex ante costs that differentiate a resolved defender willing to
Free Trade
protect a partner from states possessing only weak, informal alignments.13 Finally, war itself involves costly signaling (Wagner, 2000). States learn about an opponent through the conduct of a war, eventually learning enough to bargain effectively. The problem with war, of course, is that it involves violence and bloodshed. In our analysis, we seek mechanisms that, while they must be costly to be informative, do not require human casualties to unravel the problem of cheap talk. Costly signaling theory can be applied to other contexts in international relations besides war, deterrence, and alliances. Any process that makes a leaders statements expensive ex ante reduces incentives to bluff. Indeed, unlike deterrence and alliance formation, the most effective signaling is likely to follow from mechanisms that are not under the control of the participants. In this sense, states and leaders do not signal so much as signaling occurs to them. Third parties, with their own incentives to respond strategically to situations, are bound to carry the most credence with observers. How third parties are said to inuence credibility, however, is relevant to what must be known, and how observers must act. In cheap talk signaling, audiences must be informed and attentive to leader behavior in order to sanction blufng and generate credibility. The sanctioning entity must distinguish between bluffers and non-bluffers in order to encourage honesty. Costly signaling requires only that third parties respond egoistically to changes in conditions brought about by political shocks, since sanctions are imposed regardless of subsequent behavior. In summary, previous studies on globalization, interdependence, and inter-state conict offer insights that help us understand how globalization inuences political competition, while also leaving key issues in doubt. Systemlevel or case study research on globalization assesses the scope of integration or debates the relative merits of efciency versus equity. Little attention has been paid to either dyadic interstate conict or the theoretical logic of war. Studies of globalization also appear to cherish a negative conception of the political consequences of integration. In contrast, research on interdependence embraces dyadic analysis and offers a more optimistic conception of the political externalities of trade. Yet the interdependence literature is narrowly attached to goods markets, ignoring other aspects of integration. Interdependence research also focuses on states as the predominant international actors. Finally, signaling theories offer a coherent rationale for war and peace, but emphasize audience costs over other forms of costly signaling. Signaling theories have yet to be applied to account for how a third party such as the global capital markets affects inter-state competition. We next synthesize and extend elements of these three literatures to show how state exposure to global capital markets can produce more peaceful political interactions.
Globalization creates disincentives for conflict Gartzke and Li, Associate Professor of Political Science @ UC San Diego and Professor of international relations and international political economy at Texas A&M University, 2003
*Erik Gartzke and Quan Li, War, Peace, and the Invisible Hand: Positive Political Externalities of Economic Globalization, International Studies Quarterly 47, 561586, http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/stille/Politics%20Fall%202007/readings%20w eeks%206-7/Gartzke%20War%20Peace%20Invisible%20Hand.pdf, chip] Recent years have witnessed growing interest among scholars and policymakers in the political consequences of economic integration. How do increasingly autonomous global capital markets inuence the conduct of world affairs?1 We use signaling theory to argue that integration can reduce reliance on military force as a method for states to pursue national interests. Put
Free Trade
simply, globalization promotes peace.2 At the same time, concerns about unequal development appear overstated. Asymmetric integration may precipitate civil tensions, but asymmetry should not by itself make integrated states more disputatious than states with limited exposure to global markets. The idea that the global economy impacts the disputatiousness of states is certainly not new. Early students of capital like Montesquieu (1989 [1748]) and Smith (1976) anticipated that markets that span borders would have pacic effects. Critics of free markets from V. I. Lenin (1970[1916]) to Patrick Buchanan (1998) argue that globalization generates not amity, but added international antagonism. Contemporary partisans continue the dialectic in various forms and through various methods. Demonstrators from Seattle to Switzerland and from Gothenberg to Jakarta have taken to the streets, mobilized by apocalyptic visions of the menace of globalization. Proponents of integration appear to see the rigorously derived implications of efcient markets as sufcient justication while critics of disparate partisan persuasion predict increased inequality, conict, and the plundering of state sovereignty on issues as diverse as labor rights, the environment, and military power. All factions seem to overlook the possibility that integration introduces even greater leverage and exibility for states, at least in the realm of nonviolent competition. We differ from existing debates about globalization and economic interdependence in how we characterize the causes of war and in the way we link political conict to markets. Developments in the bargaining theory of war suggest that informational asymmetry (uncertainty) is an important cause of interstate violence. Since military contests are costly, and since some settlement (tacit or overt) eventuates, there exists a mutual benet for states in obtaining eventual settlements in lieu of ghting. States can prefer war if they differ in their expectations about the terms of eventual settlements; at least one party must be overly optimistic about its prospects in a contest. Optimism does not necessitate irrationality, however. States need only be confronted with private information and incentives to compete (Fearon, 1995). War then acts as a mechanism of revelation, informing competitors about relative power or resolve and thereby dissipating the impetus to ght. If at least some disputes result from uncertainty, then processes that inform states without requiring military violence promote peace. Previous research based on this insight emphasizes the role of domestic audience costs (Fearon, 1994) or opposition groups (Schultz, 1998, 1999) in corralling cheap talk. Leaders facing uncertainty and international competition have incentives to bluff, occasionally necessitating costly contests to unravel relative capabilities or resolve. Domestic audiences or opposition groups can make a leaders statements more credible ex ante by punishing blufng ex post. Yet, there exists another mechanism to enhance credibility. Making talk costly ex ante also discourages blufng, potentially allowing states to bargain short of war. Adam Smith identied in markets autonomous forces with serendipitous effects. Here, we discuss how globalization facilitates costly signaling among states. Global markets have the ability to punish leaders statements by reallocating capital abroad. If in turn leaders have incentives to sooth economic markets, then globalization presents politicians with a dilemma. Leaders are forced to choose between stable markets and the pursuit of political objectives. Under traditional international conditions, states possess only crude instruments such as cheap talk and force with which to compete. Leaders must sometimes go to war to prove their willingness to do so. Globalization provides an additional mechanism for competition beyond cheap talk, but short of military violence. Leaders of integrated states who threaten a neighbor encourage investors to ee. Unresolved leaders may prefer to abandon political objectives rather than antagonize investors. Resolved leaders pursue demands in spite of the economic consequences, differentiating themselves from less resolved types and allowing opponents to more effectively fashion mutually acceptable ex ante bargains.4 In the sections that follow, we rst review the relevant literature.
Free Trade
We then develop our argument and assess some of our claims using large-sample quantitative tests. We conclude with a discussion of some of the implications of our theory and the prospects for globalization and peace.
Globalization creates transparency leads to fewer crisis miscalculations Gartzke and Li, Associate Professor of Political Science @ UC San Diego and Professor of international relations and international political economy at Texas A&M University, 2003
*Erik Gartzke and Quan Li, War, Peace, and the Invisible Hand: Positive Political Externalities of Economic Globalization, International Studies Quarterly 47, 561586, http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/stille/Politics%20Fall%202007/readings%20w eeks%206-7/Gartzke%20War%20Peace%20Invisible%20Hand.pdf, chip] Informational theories of war argue that at least some contests result from uncertainty and states incentives to compete. Costly signaling can reduce the need for conict by allowing for credible communication. Globalization facilitates costly signaling by making leaders talk costly and thus reducing the incentives to bluff. For a state with a closed economy seeking to compete in the international system, alternatives are largely limited to cheap talk and war. Traditionally, leaders have been forced to ght to prove that they are not blufng. However, for a state that is integrated into the global economy, there exists a middle path between ghting and just talk. The ability of capital to ow freely into and out of a national economy provides leaders vying for prosperity with incentives to appeal to the market. Conditions that frighten investors lead to capital ight, raise the costs of borrowing, and deter future investments. The leader of a globalized state thus faces a trade-off between economic and political incentives. Efforts to promote prosperity and economic stability imply a lack of political resolve while efforts to compete abroad frighten markets. The fervor with which leaders make political threats now imparts an economic cost. Leaders that value economic conditions more than a given political issue will prefer to accept less generous bargains while leaders that value the issues at stake highly and pursue more advantageous political bargains can demonstrate preference intensity through a willingness to incur economic hardship. When capital is free to move globally, the conictual political talk of leaders is no longer cheap. Globalization has three attributes that facilitate costly signaling short of war. First, global markets consist of assets that are easily quantied. These assets impose additional opportunity costs on states for conictual political activity. While opportunity costs seldom deter contests directly, the ability of other actors to observe both these costs and a leaders reactions is informative. While economic costs are readily quantiable, the (subjective) valuation of political goals is not. Leaders private information about their valuation of the stakes in international political competition leads to uncertainty and the possibility of violent contests. Because globalization forces leaders to choose between economics and politics, and because economic benets are readily observable, opponents can better infer the concealed (subjective) valuation for political objectives. Second, globalization signicantly increases the ability of market agents to respond decisively to political risk, making it difcult for integrated states to avoid the economic consequences of political competition. The fact that global integration allows investors to shift capital abroad with greater rapidity and ease means that economic consequences can be both massive and swift. Further, investors possess unambiguous incentives. As crises heat up and leaders continue to advance political objectives, the proximity of danger should lead markets to assess the extent and credibility of looming political shocks.
Free Trade
Increasing globalization means that market actors can react relatively autonomously to changes in risk and return. Different priorities between states are then revealed by the interaction of states and integrated markets, an outcome not recognized in previous literatures. To the extent that globalization limits the ability of states to interfere with market processes, it also forces states to confront the trade-off between satisfying markets by promoting political stability and satisfying political interests by pursuing competitive international goals. Thus, we see the autonomy of capital as a critical component of our argument.17 Third, signaling through markets is costly but nonviolent. The size of global capital markets makes their operation relevant to states. Large outows of capital, as has occurred in the recent crisis between India and Pakistan, can alter the prosperity of nations. This ability to signicantly harm states, as well as the incentives investors have to pursue their own economic interests, means that frightening markets pose both costs and opportunities for political leaders. Costly market responses offer a mechanism for signaling while imposing a cost on an opponent. Few states will prefer costly methods of identifying resolve that also weaken their bargaining power. War is appealing because it serves the dual role of signaling while potentially increasing a states bargaining power. Integrated states face the prospect of mutual economic harm as the result of threats or demands. The leader making a threat reveals resolve because of the harm she imposes on her economy. The target of a threat in turn has an incentive to accommodate the demand in order to stem capital outows. Finally, scaring markets involves no direct loss of life, does not alter state borders, and cannot immediately weaken a states military strength. In contrast, costly signaling through deterrence, alliance formation, and arms racing all involve changes in the military balance that can be seen as threats, and possibly touch off a conict spiral (Kydd, 1997). Integrated markets are characterized by the ability of capital to more freely across borders, allowing investors to hedge against or ee the hazards that shadow political contests. Market integration therefore creates a tension for leaders between economic incentives to cooperate and political incentives to compete. States participating in the global economy face added opportunity costs in pursuing conict abroad. Yet the costs associated with political shocks do not in themselves do much to deter contests. Symmetry implies that factors that inhibit one state in a conict encourage additional aggression from others. Instead, global markets are more likely to inuence conict through the revelation of information. A leader seeking to obtain concessions from a neighboring state, for example, could threaten war, but this is likely to encourage investors to ee abroad or charge a higher risk premium. Alternately, the leader might reassure investors that he or she has no intention of resorting to force. Moderation, however, only stabilizes markets by betraying the leaders efforts to bargain aggressively with competing states. Frightening a political opponent necessitates spooking investors as well. The difference in state goals in economic and political spheres means that one cannot typically comfort investors and frighten political opponents at the same time. This tension between political and economic objectives, as well as the difculty in blufng simultaneously in opposite directions, forces the leader to choose between stable markets and political competition. Because an economic cost is associated with frightened investors, at least some leaders who are blufng prefer to reveal their bluff rather than continue to compete.
Trade creates disincentives for posturing, leads to crisis management
Free Trade
Gartzke and Li, Associate Professor of Political Science @ UC San Diego and Professor of international relations and international political economy at Texas A&M University, 2003
*Erik Gartzke and Quan Li, War, Peace, and the Invisible Hand: Positive Political Externalities of Economic Globalization, International Studies Quarterly 47, 561586, http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/stille/Politics%20Fall%202007/readings%20w eeks%206-7/Gartzke%20War%20Peace%20Invisible%20Hand.pdf, chip] Globalization can facilitate costly signaling in crises and reduce the need for violence in four ways. While each alternative is logically possible, only one need actually occur. Conversely, two or more can combine in a given crisis. First, markets might anticipate looming contests, distinguish between genuine threats and blufng, and act in a manner informing political competition. If markets anticipate that a leader is blufng, then they have no incentive to alter behavior or forgo protable market opportunities. The fact that markets fail to respond to a leaders threats, however, stands as an indication to other states that the leader is probably blufng.18 Second, leaders may anticipate the market response to political shocks. Leaders who know that markets fear political conict must expect economic damage. If investors in turn are aware that political shocks carry added economic risk (markets can be totally ignorant about the leaders intentions), then markets have incentives to re-allocate capital or charge a higher risk premium. Thus, leaders who anticipate negative economic consequences of hostile political words are aware that their talk is no longer cheap. Blufng is less frequent as the cost involved in scaring markets deters leaders from idle threats. This second conception may be a reasonable way to characterize how globalization affects inter-state communication, but one can relax assumptions even further. The third possibility is minimally restrictive, requiring only that states and markets learn about each other by observation without demanding any prior knowledge or forward-looking strategy. Leaders who are not cognizant initially that hostile political statements upset markets need only be able to assimilate the consequences of their actions in order to develop this understanding. If a leader remains committed to pursuing a given political objective, then he can persist in his demand, thereby informing markets and other states of the leaders resolve. If instead the leader regrets the economic damage caused by hostile words, and prefers to re-stabilize domestic markets, the leader can retract his statement, again revealing information (in this case a lack of resolve).19 This interaction of state and market is sufcient to allow observers and participants to infer meaning from a leaders talk, by distinguishing leaders who are resolved from those who are not. Finally, even if neither states nor markets learn, political and economic selection will tend to evolve actors that are mutually responsive. Over time, automaton investors will be differentially affected if some automatons attend to political shocks while others do not. Automatons that re-allocate capital to adjust for shifting political conditions will tend to see their holdings grow, while automatons that ignore politics will tend to see their holdings dwindle. The market share of responsive economic automatons will increase with successive political crises. These same incentives ensure that integrated markets will evolve to punish political adventurism. The economic consequences of conict rise as automatons that ee risk grow as a portion of market capitalization. Political selection also encourages leaders to weigh market incentives against foreign policy goals.20
Free trade removes incentives for war- goods can be obtained peacefully Daniel T. Griswold, the director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, 1998
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker *Daniel T. Griswold, 12/13/1998, Peace On Earth, Free Trade For Men, Cato, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/peace-earth-free-trade-men, chip]
Advocates of free trade have long argued that its benefits are not merely economic. Free trade also encourages people and nations to live in peace with one another. Free
Free Trade
trade raises the cost of war by making nations more economically interdependent. Free trade makes it more profitable for people of one nation to produce goods and services for people of another nation than to conquer them. By promoting communication across borders, trade increases understanding and reduces suspicion toward people in other countries. International trade creates a network of human contacts. Phone calls, emails, faxes and face-to-face meetings are an integral part of commercial relations between people of different nations. This human interaction encourages tolerance and respect between people of different cultures (if not toward protectionist
politicians). Ancient writers, expounding what we now call the Universal Economy Doctrine, understood the link between trade and international harmony. The fourth-century writer Libanius declared in his Orations (III), God did not bestow all products upon all parts of the earth, but distributed His gifts over different regions, to the end that men might cultivate a social relationship because one would have need of the help of another. And so He called commerce into being, that all men might be able to have common enjoyment of the fruits of the earth, no matter where produced. Open trade makes war a les s appealing option for governments by raising its costs. To
a nation committed to free trade, war not only means the destruction of life and property. It is also terrible for business, disrupting international commerce and inflicting even greater hardship on the mass of citizens. When the door to trade is open, a nations
citizens can gain access to goods and resources outside their borders by offering in exchange what they themselves can produce relatively well. When the door
is closed, the only way to gain access is through military conquest. As the 19th century Frenchman Frederic Bastiat said, When goods cannot cross borders, armies will. History
demonstrates the peaceful influence of trade. The century of relative world peace from 1815 to 1914 was marked by a dramatic expansion of international trade, investment and human migration, illuminated by the example of Great Britain. In contrast, the rise of protectionism and the downward spiral of global trade in the 1930s aggravated the underlying hostilities that propelled Germany and Japan to make war on their neighbors. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has pointed out what he calls the Big Mac thesis: that no two nations with McDonalds franchises have ever gone to war. In the more than half a century since the end of World War II, no
wars have been fought between two nations that were outwardly oriented in their trade policies. In every one of the two dozen or so wars between nations fought since 1945, at least one side was dominated by a nation or nations that did not pursue a policy of free trade. In the recurring Middle East wars between Israel and its Arab
neighbors, dating back to 1948-49, none of the direct participants were what could be described as open economies at the time of conflict, with the Arab countries enforcing a virtual boycott of trade with Israel. Saddam Hussein, the instigator of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, could be described in many ways, but not as a free trader. Wars
have been fought between members of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, but only when at least one of the warring sides was protectionist in its trade policies. For example, India and Pakistan were both members of
GATT during their 1965 and 1971 conflicts, but they were also both committed to protection as a trade policy. Great Britain and Argentina were members of GATT when they fought over the Falklands in 1982, but Argentina, the aggressor in that conflict, was at the time still under the protectionist spell of Peronism. After the nightmare of two world wars, the United States encouraged the nations of Western Europe to form a free-trade area not only to promote economic development but also to reduce international rivalries. Decades
of trade liberalization have helped to make war among members of the European Union virtually unthinkable today or in the foreseeable future. A
growing web of international investment has also strengthened peace among nations. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has pointed out what he calls the Big Mac thesis: that no
two nations with McDonalds franchises have ever gone to war. A nation open enough and developed enough to be a profitable home for an established international franchise such as McDonalds will generally find war an unattractive foreign policy option. Of course, free trade does not guarantee peace, just as protectionism does not
guarantee war. Enduring human vices such as greed, envy, racism and intellectual hubris, combined with the power of
free trade among nations does make war less likely, bringing us a step closer to the promise of peace on earth recorded 2,000 years ago.
government, can overwhelm the beneficial influence of peaceful commerce. But
Free Trade
Globalization decreases war, this is particularly true in Latin America Daniel T. Griswold, the director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, 2005
*Daniel T. Griswold, 12/28/2005, Peace on Earth? Try Free Trade among Men, Cato, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/peace-earth-try-free-trade-among-men, chip] First, trade and globalization have reinforced the trend toward democracy, and democracies dont pick fights with each other. Freedom to trade nurtures democracy by expanding the middle class in globalizing countries and equipping people with tools of communication such as cell phones, satellite TV, and the Internet. With trade comes more travel, more contact with people in other countries, and more exposure to new ideas. Thanks in part to globalization, almost two thirds of the worlds countries today are democracies a record high. Second, as national economies become more integrated with each other, those nations have more to lose should war break out. War in a globalized world not only means human casualties and bigger government, but also ruptured trade and investment ties that impose lasting damage on the economy. In short, globalization has dramatically raised the economic cost of war. Third, globalization allows nations to acquire wealth through production and trade rather than conquest of territory and resources. Increasingly, wealth is measured in terms of intellectual property, financial assets, and human capital. Those are assets that cannot be seized by armies. If people need resources outside their national borders, say oil or
timber or farm products, they can acquire them peacefully by trading away what they can produce best at home. Of course, free trade and globalization do not guarantee peace. Hot-blooded nationalism and ideological fervor can overwhelm cold economic calculations. But deep
trade and investment ties among nations make war less attractive. Trade wars in the 1930s deepened the economic depression, exacerbated global tensions, and helped to usher in a world war. Out of the ashes of that experience, the United States urged Germany, France, and
other Western European nations to form a common market that has become the European Union. In large part because of their intertwined economies, a general war in Europe is now unthinkable. In East Asia, the extensive and growing economic ties among Mainland China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan is helping to keep the peace. Chinas Communist rulers may yet decide to go to war over its renegade province, but the economic cost to their economy would be staggering and could provoke a backlash among Chinese citizens. In contrast, poor and isolated North Korea is all the more dangerous because it has nothing to lose economically should it provoke a war. In
Central America, countries that were racked by guerrilla wars and death squads two decades ago have turned not only to democracy but to expanding trade, culminating in the Central American Free Trade Agreement with the United States. As the Stockholm institute reports in its 2005 Yearbook, Since the 1980s, the introduction of a more open economic model in most states of the Latin American and Caribbean region has been accompanied by the growth of new regional structures, the dying out of interstate conflicts and a reduction in intra-state
conflicts. Much of the political violence that remains in the world today is concentrated in the Middle East and Sub -Saharan Africa the two regions of the world that are the least integrated into the global economy. Efforts to bring peace to those regions must include lowering their high barriers to trade, foreign investment, and domestic entrepreneurship. Advocates of free trade and globalization have long argued that trade expansion means more efficiency, higher incomes, and reduced poverty. The welcome decline of armed conflicts in the past few decades indicates that free trade also comes with its own peace dividend.
For over six decades, trade liberalization has served as the handmaiden of an internationalist foreign policy. This association goes back to the New Deal, when, in the aftermath of the disastrous Smoot-Hawley tariff, FDRs secretary of state Cordell Hull masterminded and pushed through the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934. Previously, setting tariff levels had been a matter of domestic economic policy; now it became the subject of international negotiations. Hull and the other New Dealers who pulled off this transformation did so not out of love for free markets generally; their aims were primarily diplomatic. In the international arena, they saw open markets as a way of promoting peaceful relations in an increasingly hostile world. After World War II, free trade was integrated into the larger strategy of containing Soviet
Free Trade
communism. By increasing our commercial ties with Europe and Japan, trade agreements fortified the solidarity of the Western alliance. And by opening our markets to Third World countries, we hoped to prevent defections to the Soviet camp. The Cold War is over, but U.S. support for trade liberalization continues to be sold as an obligation of American international leadership. Fast track in particular tends to get lumped together with calls for additional IMF funding and paying back UN dues, mixed in with grousing about know-nothing members of Congress who dont even have passports.
Free Trade
Terror
Free trade solves terrorism by removing economic and politically instability Lindsey, director of the Cato Institutes Center for Trade Policy Studies, 2001
[Brink, 12/6/2001, Free Trade, Fast Track and National Security, Cato, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/free-trade-fast-track-national-security, chip] During the Cold War, American trade policy pursued aims that transcended merely commercial considerations. Supporters of market-opening trade agreements saw them as a vital adjunct in the larger struggle against communism. In the new era that commenced on September 11, trade policy can once again serve the higher cause of national security. If it fails, an important front in the war against terrorism will have been abandoned. For most of Americas history, the tariff question fell within the realm of domestic policy and in that realm, domestic protectionist interests generally carried the day. In the shadow of the Soviet challenge, however, a new bipartisan consensus emerged in favor of international collaboration to reduce trade barriers. Strengthening commercial ties with our allies would serve to maintain Western solidarity; meanwhile, opening our markets to developing countries would help to keep them out of the Soviet orbit. President Eisenhower played a pivotal role in bringing historically protectionist Republicans into the new free-trade coalition. He was emphatic that parochial anti-import interests must give way to the overwhelming national interest in an open and prosperous international economy. *A+ll problems of local industry pale into insignificance in relation to the world crisis, he declared. It was vital that the trading system allow backward people to make a decent living *or else+ in the long run we must fall prey to the communistic attack. Protectionism, under the circumstances, amounted to shortsightedness bordering upon tragic stupidity. President Kennedy was no less forceful in linking free trade and national security. *W]orld trade is more than ever essential to world peace, stated the 1960 Democratic Party platform. We therefore must resist the temptation to accept remedies that deny American producers and consumers access to world markets and destroy the prosperity of our friends in the non-Communist world. Kennedy put those words into action with his 1962 Trade Expansion Act, which made possible the breakthrough Kennedy Round of world trade talks. He praised the legislation as an important new weapon to advance the cause of freedom, since a vital expanding economy in the free world is a strong counter to the threat of the world Communist movement. In the wake of September 11, the nationalsecurity dimension of trade policy is once again plainly visible. It is now painfully clear that Americans live in a dangerous world and that the primary danger at present emanates from the economic and political failures of the Muslim world. Those failures breed the despair on which violent Islamist extremism feeds; no comprehensive campaign against terrorism can leave them unaddressed. Market opening in the Muslim world is desperately needed. Trade and investment barriers are pervasive, and exports other than oil remain puny. Its true that scrapping protectionist policies, by itself, will not guarantee economic revitalization. But the fact is that integration into the larger world economy has been central to every developingcountry success story of recent times. Exposing the economy to foreign competition and capital acts as a catalyst for more systemic reforms. And over the longer term, such far-flung examples as Chile, Mexico, Taiwan, and South Korea demonstrate the interconnectedness of globalization, economic dynamism, and eventual democratization. Meanwhile, we in the West can do more to facilitate Muslim countries participation in global commerce. Trade barriers in the United
Free Trade
States and Europe remain formidable for precisely those products that poorer countries are best able to export namely, food and textiles. Consider the case of Pakistan, a strategic linchpin in the war on terrorism. Some 60 percent of the countrys industrial work force is employed in the textiles sector, yet further growth is hampered by import quotas and high tariffs that block access to rich-country markets. Unfortunately, the same shortsightedness condemned by President Eisenhower a half-century ago is hampering trade policys usefulness today as a weapon against terrorism. The bipartisan pro-trade consensus has collapsed, as most congressional Democrats have opted to forsake the legacy of JFK for that of Herbert Hoover. A crucial House vote on fast track (now called trade promotion authority) is scheduled for today, Dec. 6, and at this point only a handful of Democrats support the bill - despite its unprecedented concessions to labor and environmental concerns. If fast track fails yet again, the newly launched Doha Round of World Trade Organization talks will be dead in the water. And on the other side of the aisle, House Republicans have nixed a Bush administration initiative to expand quotas and slash tariffs on textiles from Pakistan. Congressional myopia seems likely to prevail absent forceful intervention from the White House. President Bush has made amply clear that fighting terrorism is the overriding priority of his administration. To wage that fight with maximum effectiveness, he will need to convince Congress and the nation that promoting world trade will help to defeat the destroyers of the World Trade Center.
Free trade solves terrorism it decreases isolationism, discourages radicalism, and decreases poverty Daniel Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, 2003
*6/20/2003, Can Free Trade Promote Peace in the Middle East?, Cato, http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/can-free-trade-promote-peace-middle-east, chip] After World War Two, Democratic and Republican administrations alike pursued trade expansion as an important pillar of Americas Cold-War policy. Trade promoted development in post-war Europe and Japan, and cemented relations among allies. War is pretty much unthinkable today among the major powers of Europe in part because of the trade and investment ties that bind their people together. September 11 and its aftermath have reminded us again that trade and foreign policy are intertwined. That connection between trade, security, and foreign policy will dominate the agenda at this weekends historic economic forum in Amman, Jordan, which will hear more about in a few minutes. Free trade is not a panacea, but it is a necessary building block for a more peaceful and prosperous Middle East. Free trade has helped to reduce poverty in those countries and regions of the world that have progressively opened themselves to the global economy. Free trade can till the soil for democracy and respect for human rights by creating an economically independent and growing middle class. Countries that are open to trade and global commerce are more likely to be working democracies that respect human rights. The Bush administrations white paper on National Security Strategy last year emphasized the importance of trade in building a more secure world. In his May 9 address in South Carolina, President Bush said, The Arab world has a great cultural tradition, but is largely missing out on the economic progress of our time. Across the globe, free markets and trade have helped defeat poverty, and taught men and women the habits of
Free Trade
liberty. We have seen this dynamic in action in South Korea, Taiwan, Chile, Mexico, and other countries where economic reforms and openness have laid a foundation for political competition and democracy. Within the Arab world, those nations that have traveled the furthest on the road of economic reform, and Jordan certainly belongs on that list, are among the leaders of political reform as well. Sadly, the Arab world is a land that globalization has largely passed by-and their isolation is largely self-imposed. Average tariff barriers in the Arab Middle East are among the highest in the world, and as a consequence the region suffers from chronically declining shares of global trade and investment. Average annual inflows of foreign direct investment to Arab countries are only slightly larger than the inflows to Sweden; non-oil exports from Arab countries to the rest of the world are smaller than those of Denmark. There are more McDonalds franchises serving the 15 million people in the Netherlands serve the 280 million people in the whole Arab world. The government of Jordan took the positive step of joining the World Trade Organization in 2000, but WTO membership is still the exception in the Middle East. Heres a pop quiz: What do Libya, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan have in common? Besides all of them being ongoing or recent sponsors of terrorism, not one of them belongs to the WTO. Internal market freedom is also lacking in many Arab nations that are still suffering from a bout of so-called Arab socialism. Most Arab countries engage in widespread price controls and state-ownership of enterprises. They lack the legal and political infrastructure to enforce property and contract rights. Those policies have wrought dismal economic performance. The total gross domestic product of the 280 million people who live in Arab lands is smaller than that of Spain. According to a recent report by the UN Development Program, between 1985 and 1998, real per capita GDP declined in a broad swath of the Arab world. In contrast, real GDP during that same period rose by 30 percent in Israel, 90 percent in Chile, and more than doubled in Thailand, China, and South Korea. The record on civil and political freedom in the Arab world is no better. Freedom House, the human rights group in New York, reported in its latest study that only 25 percent of Muslim-majority countries in the world are democracies compared to 75 percent of non-Muslim countries. Freedom House noted in most recent report that, the democracy gap between the Islamic world and rest of the world is dramatic, and there is no sign that the gap is closing. That depressing reality feeds terrorism, not because of poverty but because of a lack of opportunity and hope for a better future, especially among the young. Its a myth that poverty breeds terrorism. In fact, poverty is more widespread in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia than in the Arab world, in part because of the network of private Islamic charities that help the poorest in society. And many terrorists are well educated and come from relatively privileged families. As Paul Blustein of the Washington Post wrote in a story from Cairo last year: It is not poverty that drives their discontent so much as an economy that provides few chances for interesting work and upward mobility. Young people who cannot find meaningful work and who cannot participate in the political process are ripe pickings for religious fanatics and terrorist recruiters. All of this gives urgency to the summit in Jordan this weekend, and to what the Bush administration is trying to accomplish with its proposal for a free trade area in the Middle East. The initiative concentrates on negotiating free trade agreements with willing and ready partners in the Middle East, with the goal of establishing a network of agreements within a decade.
Free Trade
Domestic Economy
Free trade lowers domestic commodity prices, improving standards of living Daniel Griswold, the director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, 2010
*1/5/2010, Why Populists Are Wrong About Impact of Free Trade, Cato, Naples Daily News, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-populists-are-wrong-about-impact-freetrade] On trade, as on so much else, the populists have it wrong again. Free trade and globalization are great blessings to families in Naples and across America. Trade is delivering lower prices and more variety to consumers while creating better-paying jobs for the middle class. Beyond our shores, the spread of economic openness is building a more peaceful, democratic and humane world for our children. Now may seem an odd moment to tout the benefits of trade. After all, unemployment is 10 percent and housing and manufacturing remain in a slump. The great recession of 2008-09 was not caused by trade, however, but by misguided monetary and housing policies that were Made in the USA. On trade, as on so much else, the populists have it wrong again. During difficult economic times, import competition allows more American families to keep their heads above water by delivering lower prices on staples such as food, clothing and shoes. The prices we pay for goods exposed to global trade tend to rise more slowly than inflation or even fall. The imported fresh fruit and vegetables, T-shirts and discounted sneakers sold at big-box retailers are especially important in the budgets of poor and middle-class families. Trade benefits producers by allowing Americans to sell our goods and services in growing markets abroad. Florida companies have been especially successful exporting to Brazil, Mexico and the rest of Latin America. Florida ranks fifth among states in total value of exports, with small and medium-sized companies accounting for almost two-thirds of state exports. For Americans worried about their jobs, it is a big lie that we have been surrendering middle-class manufacturing jobs for low-paying service jobs. In fact, since 1991, two-thirds of the net new jobs created in the U.S. economy have been in sectors such as health care, education and business and professional services where the average pay is higher than in manufacturing. Knock on doors in a typical middle-class neighborhood in southern Florida and you will meet teachers, managers, engineers, computer specialists, truck drivers, accountants, insurance and real-estate agents, registered nurses and other health-care professionals and self-employed business owners. These are the occupations that now form the backbone of the American middle class.
Free Trade
A2: Asymmetric Integration

Even asymmetric states have less negotiating power, they are still significant to the global economy and can still threaten linkage termination. Gartzke and Li, Associate Professor of Political Science @ UC San Diego and Professor of international relations and international political economy at Texas A&M University, 2003
*Erik Gartzke and Quan Li, War, Peace, and the Invisible Hand: Positive Political Externalities of Economic Globalization, International Studies Quarterly 47, 561586, http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/stille/Politics%20Fall%202007/readings%20w eeks%206-7/Gartzke%20War%20Peace%20Invisible%20Hand.pdf, chip] Critics of globalization charge that asymmetric integration - in which states are unevenly linked to the global economy - has the potential to increase conict among states by leading to economic inequality and dependence.21 Dependent states face coercion through markets, which increases tensions and manifests itself in greater global violence. Other critics of globalization claim that integration threatens the political autonomy of sovereign states. The growing power of markets is said to bind governments in a manner that hampers the ability of states to pursue their political interests abroad. While these arguments are widely discussed and perhaps almost as widely accepted, they depend on a logic of contests in which the distribution of power is the critical determinative factor. The informational approach suggests instead that power relations, if common knowledge to competitors, largely determine the contents of settlements, rather than the methods by which settlements are obtained. Asymmetry clearly harms the bargaining power of the dependent state, but to the degree that relative bargaining power is subject to common conjecture, asymmetry should have relatively little inuence on whether states ght. Asymmetric dependence shifts the kinds of settlements states can expect in bargaining, but this should not necessarily change the frequency of bargaining failure. Instead, to the extent that asymmetry reduces the ability of one party to signal, asymmetric dependence weakens the ability of states to credibly communicate. Note, however, that this does not equate to the claim that asymmetry increases dispute propensity. Asymmetrically dependent dyads can be more conict prone than symmetrically dependent dyads, while asymmetric dyads are less disputatious (or at least no more disputatious) than autarkic dyads. States are also limited in their ability to use asymmetric integration to coerce political concessions. As Wagner (1988) points out, coercion is constrained by basic accounting rules. A state cannot obtain preferred terms and reduce the probability of a contest with the same resources. Assuming optimizing behavior and a budget constraint, states can demand political concessions, or they can enjoy the economic benets of asymmetry, but they must concede benets along one dimension to increase benets in the other. Further, the ability to coerce extends only to the point where the value of political concessions equals a states value for economic ties. If the cost of concessions exceeds the value of market linkages, then states prefer terminating linkages rather than being coerced. Asymmetric dyads can be less peaceful than symmetrically dependent dyads, but asymmetric dyads should be at least as peaceful as dyads with few economic ties.
Free Trade
A2: Protectionism
Protectionism increases the likelihood of war- increased state assets to be used as military assets McDonald, associate professor in international relations theory and international political economy @ UT Austin, 2004
*Patrick J. McDonald, Aug., 2004, Peace through Trade or Free Trade?, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp. 547-572, Sage Publications, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4149808, chip] Although protected interests can push a society toward war to serve their own economic interests, the presence of economic regulation can also increase the potential for war by increasing the state's ability to build supportive coalitions that strengthen its domestic power . Because the state possesses a monopoly on coercion and the consequent ability to define the basic structure of property rights, and in particular monopoly rights, it can restrict entry into domestic markets and regulate the terms of exchange between buyers and sellers. This market-making function allows the state to generate tangible assets and then sell these rights to economic groups in exchange for either revenue and/or political support (Stigler 1971 ; Grossman and Helpman 1994). Industries that rely on protection to remain profitable are in many senses "captured" by the state and more likely to support its entire range of domestic and foreign policies. Because the right to sell goods in regulated markets is generally not transferable to another economy, it can be regarded as a specific asset (Williamson 1985). If a firm wishes to locate to another economy, it necessarily loses this right and must repurchase it from another government. The relative bargaining position of the state vis-4'-vis these sectors increases as producers become dependent on the government for tariff protection and regulated factor markets (Levi 1988, 37). The sale of these regulations enables the state to coopt support for its policies, including the decision for war. As the protected sectors of the economy increase in size, a government can draw on a larger pool of society to support the use of military force against other states. In this second set of mechanisms linking protection and conflict, a governing elite, and not protected societal interests, provides the initial impetus for conflict." For example, both the French and German governments used these capacities to build coalitions in support of a more aggressive foreign policy before World War I. In France, the need for approval from the Foreign and Finance Ministries before floating the loans of foreign governments in the Paris money market allowed the government to use the economy's vast financial reserves to shape balance-of-power diplomacy in Europe (Viner 1951 ).14 In Germany, the reinstitution of a broad series of tariffs reversing the Caprivi reforms created the financial and political means to unify agricultural and industrial interests behind the policy of Weltpolitik (Berghahn 1993, 38-55). In summary, protection increases the likelihood of war through two complementary mechanisms. The first concentrates on how competing societal interests over economic integration may shape foreign policy decisions. As the domestic influence of protectionist interests grows, the capacity of consumers and exporters to lobby the state and produce a peaceful foreign policy declines. Moreover, protectionist interests may reduce opportunities for peace by actively supporting military expansion. Second, the sale of economic regulations enhances the state's independent capacity to build supportive coalitions for policies that may include war.
Free Trade
Free Trade Good - Economy

Trade stabilizes global economy Tupy, Policy Analyst, 6,
[Marian. L, 1-3-6, CATO Institute, Free Trade Benefits All, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/free-trade-benefits-all, accessed 6-30-13, CSO] There is ample evidence people have been trading with one another since earliest times. As economists James Gwartney of Florida State University and Richard Stroup of Montana State University put it in their book What Everyone Should Know about Economics and Prosperity, the motivation for trade can be summed up in the phrase, If you do something good for me, I will do something good for you. There are three important reasons voluntary exchange is good not only for the contracting parties but the world as a whole: (1) Trade improves global efficiency in resource allocation. A glass of water may be of little value to someone living near the river but is priceless to a person crossing the Sahara. Trade delivers goods and services to those who value them most. (2) Trade allows partners to gain from specializing in the producing those goods and services they do best. Economists call that the law of comparative advantage. When producers create goods they are comparatively skilled at, such as Germans producing beer and the French producing wine, those goods increase in abundance and quality. (3) Trade allows consumers to benefit from more efficient production methods. For example, without large markets for goods and services, large production runs would not be economical. Large production runs, in turn, are instrumental to reducing product costs. Lower production costs lead to cheaper goods and services, which raises real living standards. Evidence supports the idea nations more open to trade tend to be richer than those that are less open. Columbia University economist Arvind Panagariya wrote in a paper Miracles and Debacles: Do Free-Trade Skeptics Have a Case?: On the poverty front, there is overwhelming evidence that trade openness is a more trustworthy friend of the poor than protectionism. Few countries have grown rapidly without a simultaneous rapid expansion of trade. In turn, rapid growth has almost always led to reduction in poverty.
Capital protects economies Gallagher, Associate Proffessor at Boston University, 11

[Kevin P, 4-27-11, Trading Away Financial Stability in Columbia: Capital Controls and the USColumbian Trade Agreement p. 2, CSO+ Capital flowscross-border non-foreign direct investmentscan help developing countries grow. Indeed, many developing countries may lack the savings or financial institutions that can help finance business activity. Capital from abroad can fill that gap. Therefore, under normal circumstances, the more capital flowing into a developing country, the more the country benefits. However, cross-border capital flows tend to be pro-cyclical: too much money comes in when times are good, and too much money evaporates during a downturn. A key characteristic of the global financial crisis has been the mass swings of capital flows across the globe. Indeed, international investment positions now surpass global output. Developing and emerging markets are no strangers to these flows. When the crisis hit, capital rapidly left the
Free Trade
developing world in a flight to the safety of the United States market. In the attempt to recover, many industrialized nations, including the U.S., have resorted to loose monetary policy with characteristically low interest rates. Relatively higher interest rates and a stronger recovery have triggered yet another surge in capital flows to the developing world. The result has been an increasing concern over currency appreciation, asset bubbles, and even inflation. Under these circumstances, capital controls can help smooth the inflows and outflows of capital and protect developing economies. Most controls target highly short-term capital flows, usually conducted for speculative purposes.
Free trade spurs economic growth Vitez, writer for Deman Media, 13
[Osmond, 6-21-13, Deman Media, Pros of Free Trade, http://smallbusiness.chron.com/prostrade-3827.html., accessed 7-6-13, CSO] Free trade is an economic theory that describes the import and export relations of multiple countries. Countries engage in free trade relations when companies and individuals can import and export goods free from government intervention. Government intervention can include tariffs, import limits and/or bans on specific goods. Free trade offers several advantages to countries. In addition to national benefits, businesses and individuals can also benefit from favorable free trade policies. Free trade allows companies to lower their business costs by using the cheapest economic resources available. Traditionally, free trade allows companies to import raw materials for producing business goods domestically. Companies can also make direct investments into foreign economies to produce goods at a lower cost in these environments. Goods manufactured in foreign countries can then be exported to domestic economies with little to no government intervention. Business technology also allows companies to outsource service departments, such as technical support or customer service, to foreign countries. Nations who engage in free trade policies often increase the favorability of their business environment for business outsourcing.
Free trade gives countries a comparative advantage everyone benefits Vitez, writer for Deman Media, 13
[Osmond, 6-21-13, Deman Media, Pros of Free Trade, http://smallbusiness.chron.com/prostrade-3827.html., accessed 7-6-13, CSO] Nations engaging in free trade can also increase the purchasing power of businesses and individuals. Businesses may choose to purchase goods from a foreign country if significant advantages exist from foreign currency exchange rates. Fluctuating currency rates offer businesses a way to consistently offer low price goods to consumers. Even though companies can produce certain goods domestically, favorable currency exchange rates can provide companies with better purchase opportunities. Foreign goods may also allow companies to increase their profits by taking advantage of currency exchange rates. Comparative advantage is the economic theory that countries can produce a certain type of good better than other countries. This theory often lies in the fact that nations can have more natural resources than another country. Countries can also have a large labor pool or other technical abilities for producing consumer goods. A comparative advantage usually allows countries to maximize the production efficiency of their labor force. Creating highly desirable goods allows nations to
Free Trade
generate high profits from exporting these items through the use of free trade agreements with other countries. Free trade usually allows nations to improve their economic growth opportunities. Rather than relying on the fixed number of individuals in their domestic economy, countries can engage in free trade to improve business opportunities. Smaller countries may need to engage in free trade to acquire economic resources for producing consumer goods or services. Emerging economic environments also present high profit potential for companies exporting goods through free trade. Emerging economies often have consumers or businesses looking to purchase copious amounts of resources for production or consumption purposes.
Free Trade
Free Trade Good - Jobs
Free Trade
Generic
Free trade not only creates more jobs but also better ones. Griswold, former director of the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, 7
[Daniel, October 25th, 2007, CATO Institute, Trading Up How Expanding Trade Has Delivered Better Jobs and Higher Living Standards for American Workers,http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/tpa-036.pdf, accessed 6/30/13, AS]
Behind the rise in average real wages and compensation is a changing mix and growing number of middle-class service jobs. The common story is that trade has caused the loss of well-paying, mostly unionized, middle-class manufacturing jobs while the service economy creates mostly lower-paying jobs in food service or retail. While some better-paying manufacturing jobs have indeed disappeared, the trend in recent decades has been for lower-paying factory jobs to be replaced by better-paying service jobs. In a 2004 speech on Trade and Jobs, the current chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Ben Bernanke, informed a North Carolina audience, During the 1990s, average earnings in manufacturing industries that showed net declines in employment (weighted by the number of job losses) were $10.63 per hour. During the same period, wages in expanding serviceproviding industries (weighted by the number of jobs gains) were $11.26 per hour, about 6 percent higher.20 That pattern has continued through the current decade. Between 1997 and the first half of 2007, the U.S. labor market did in fact shed a net 3.3 million manufacturing jobs, but that has been overwhelmed by a net gain of 11.6 million jobs in sectors where the average wage is higher than in manufacturing (see Table 1). Education and health services alone added 4.1 million jobs between 1997 and 2007. Another net 3.5 million new jobs were created in the professional and business service sector, 1.9 million in construction, and 1.3 million in financial activitiesall sectors where average wages are significantly higher than in manufacturing.21 In total, two-thirds of the net new jobs created in the past decade are in sectors where the average wage is higher than in manufacturing . Granted, the number of jobs also grew in service sectors that pay less than manufacturing, but such jobs accounted for only a third of the net new jobs created in the past decade. The growth rate of jobs in the lower-paying service sectors in the past decade was only half the growth rate of jobs in the better-paying service sectors. Jobs added in the lower-paying retail trade, leisure, and hospitality sectorsincluding flipping burgers and cashiering at big-box retailers accounted for less than a quarter of the nonmanufacturing jobs added in the past decade. Manufacturing jobs really are being replaced by service jobs in our economy, but two of every three new jobs are in sectors that pay more than the typical manufacturing job. Despite the mythologizing about manufacturing jobs, the American middle class today earns its keep from betterpaying service-sector jobs. Knock on doors in a typical middle-class American neighborhood and you will meet people who work, not in factories, but in the service sector: teachers, managers, carpenters, architects, engineers, computer specialists, truck drivers, loan officers, vocational counselors, public relations specialists, automotive service technicians, accountants and auditors, police officers and fire fighters, insurance and real estate agents, registered nurses, physical therapists, dental hygienists and other health care professionals, and selfemployed business owners. These are the occupations that now form the backbone of the American middle class.22 Rising real wages and compensation during the past decade pose a serious challenge to the trade is making us worse off thesis. If we are to believe that expanding trade
Free Trade
and competition with low-wage countries have eliminated highpaying manufacturing jobs and depressed the earnings of U.S. workers, how do the critics of trade explain the remarkable labor-market gains of the past decade? Since 1997, during a period of rapidly increased trade and globalization, the number of workers employed in the U.S. economy jumped by more than 16 million, while the unemployment rate is now slightly below what it was a decade ago at a similar stage in the business cycle. And those employed workers, as weve seen, are earning significantly higher real hourly compensation than workers a decade ago when the U.S. economy was less globalized. That record is not an indictment of more liberal trade but a vindication.
Free Trade
Studies/Statistics
Free trade increases the amount of jobs in the US economy statistics prove Griswold, former director of the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, 7
Opponents of trade liberalization have sought to indict free trade and trade agreements by painting a grim picture of the economic state of American workers and households. They claim that real wages \ have been stagnant or declining as millions of higher-paying middle-class jobs are lost to imports. But the reality for a broad swath of American workers and households is far different and more benign. Contrary to public perceptions: Trade has had no discernible, negative effect on the number of jobs in the U.S. economy. Our economy today is at full employment, with 16.5 million more people working than a decade ago. Trade accounts for only about 3 percent of dislocated workers. Technology and other domestic factors displace far more workers than does trade. Average real compensation per hour paid to American workers, which includes benefits as well as wages, has increased by 22 percent in the past decade. Median household income in the United States is 6 percent higher in real dollars than it was a decade ago at a comparable point in the previous business cycle. Middle-class households have been moving up the income ladder, not down. The net loss of 3.3 million manufacturing jobs in the past decade has been overwhelmed by a net gain of 11.6 million jobs in sectors where the average wage is higher than in manufacturing. Two-thirds of the net new jobs created since 1997 are in sectors where workers earn more than in manufacturing. The median net worth of U.S. households jumped by almost one-third between 1995 and 2004, from $70,800 to $93,100. Studies over four decades indicate trade is good for job growth.
Griswold, former director of the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, 7
In the past four decades, during a time of expanding trade and globalization, the U.S. workforce and total employment have each roughly doubled. As Figure 1 shows, total employment has closely followed labor-force growth. Since 1965, the number of people employed in the U.S. economy has increased from 71.1 million to 146.1 million, while the number in the civilian labor force has grown from 74.5 million to 153.2 millionboth growing at an identical annual rate of 1.73 percent. Total employment will stall and even reverse during recessions, but will invariably resume its upward climb as the economy recovers . Despite fears of lost jobs, total employment in the U.S. economy has grown by 16.5 million since 1997, 46.8 million since 1980, and 75.0 million since 1965.4 After four decades of demographic upheaval,
Free Trade
technological transformations, dramatically rising levels of trade, and half a dozen recessions and recoveries, the current unemployment rate of 4.6 percent is virtually the same as it was in 1965.5 Obviously, an increasingly globalized U.S. economy is perfectly compatible with a growing number of jobs and full employment. More trade, more jobs NAFTA proves the EPI study is wrong.
[Daniel, 5/5/11, CATO Institute, More Trade, More Jobs, http://www.cato.org/blog/more-trade-more-jobs, accessed 6/30/13, AS]
The EPI model has little relevance to the real American job market. As Ive pointed out before (here and here), its model is based on an overly narrow view of trades impact on the job market. Yes, some people do lose their jobs because of import competition, no news there, but trade also creates jobs through increased exports. And even if we run a trade deficit with a country such as China or Mexico, jobs are also being created by the net inflow of foreign capital, which spurs domestic job creation through lower interest rates and direct investment. The money we save from lower-priced imports also liberates consumer dollars to fuel growth elsewhere in our economy, and cuts costs for import-consuming businesses, boosting their sales and employment. Next, consider the EPI numbers on their face. Those alleged 682,900 net jobs lost came over a 16-year period. Thats a bit more than 40,000 jobs lost per year. That is a drop in the bucket in a dynamic economy like ours that creates and eliminates about 15 million jobs each year. Even when unemployment is low, 300,000 or more Americans file for unemployment insurance in a typical week. So even if true, the EPI job loss numbers amount to less than one days worth of job displacement for the whole year. When we look at the actual job market performance since NAFTA was enacted, the irrelevance of the EPI model becomes plain. In the first five years after NAFTAs passage, 1994-98, when we could have expected it to have the most impact, the U.S. economy ADDED a net 15 million new jobs, including 700,000 manufacturing jobs. In the 16 years since its passage, despite two recessions, our economy still employs 20 million more workers than it did the year before NAFTA passed. (Check out the employment tables in the latest Economic Report of the President.) In my own April 2011 study of trade and the economy, The Trade-Balance Creed, I found that civilian employment in the past 30 years has actually grown quite a bit faster during periods of rising trade deficits compared to periods of declining deficits, just the opposite of what EPIs distorted model would predict.
Free Trade
High Paying Jobs

Trade increases the amount of high-paying jobs their authors studies are too short-term.
The anecdotes and skewed comparisons used to argue against trade liberalization are contradicted by the actual progress that American workers and families have made in the past decade. According to all the major indicators of economic and financial well being, Americans are better off than they were at a comparable point in the previous expansion. As Table 2 summarizes, 16.5 million more Americans are working than a decade ago and the rate of unemployment has dropped. Our full-employment, free-trade economy has also delivered 21.6 percent higher real hourly compensation than a decade ago. Real median household income continues to trend upward while the share of households earning more than $35,000 a year in inflation-adjusted income continues to climb. While debts have increased since the mid1990s, asset values have increased far more rapidly, improving the median net worth of American households by almost one-third. The large majority of Americans, including the typical middle-class family, is measurably better off today after a decade of healthy trade expansion. Those who blame trade for declining real wages and a shrinking middle class are guilty at the very least of a lack of perspective. They have confused the passing pain of a cyclical downturn with the long-term, ongoing, upward trend in U.S. living standards. Trade cannot be blamed for causing recessions. Even the best economists have not figured out how to repeal the business cycle. Trade does, however, boost the overall productivity of the economy and individual workers, allowing more goods and services to be produced in an average hour of work, leading to higher real compensation per hour and a higher median household income than if our economy were less open to trade. In part because of expanding trade, American families emerge from each recession and recovery in a better place economically than they would be without trade. For political and ideological reasons, opponents of trade liberalization have sought to exploit temporary downturns in the U.S. economy to indict the value of trade and tradeexpanding agreements. But when we account for the passing phases of the business cycle, current indicators for worker and household wellbeing have continued to follow a long, upward trend. Trade expansion and growing globalization have helped raise the standard of living for a broad swath of Americans. To promote further progress for American workers and households, Congress and the administration should pursue policies that expand the freedom of Americans to participate in global markets.
Free Trade
Latin America Specific

Free trade agreements with Latin American countries increase job growth their NAFTA studies go our way. Griswold, former director of the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, 4
[Daniel, 1/8/4, CATO Institute, After 10 Years, NAFTA Continues to Pay Dividends
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/after-10-years-nafta-continues-paydividends?print, accessed 6/30/13, AS] Nevertheless, ill-informed domestic critics continue to assert that NAFTA has cost hundreds of thousands of American jobs and, further, is somehow responsible for the lingering recession in U.S. manufacturing. They use NAFTA as an argument against proposed trade agreements with Central American and other Latin American countries. But an objective look at the record shows that none of the dire warnings about the agreement have come true. There has been no giant sucking sound of jobs and investment heading south. In the past decade, the U.S. economy has added a net 18 million new jobs. Americas unemployment rate is actually lower today than it was in the year before NAFTA went into effect. Since NAFTA, about 400,000 Americans have qualified for trade adjustment assistance under a special program for workers displaced by imports from Mexico, but that is a small number when spread over a decade and when compared to the millions of jobs being eliminated and created every quarter in the U.S. economy. Though U.S. investment in Mexico has increased, American cash hasnt exactly been gushing southward. In the past four years, Americas direct manufacturing investment in Mexico has averaged $1.9 billion a year, a fraction of the $200 billion invested annually in our domestic manufacturing capacity. In fact, U.S. companies invest far more each year in other high-wage, high-standard economies, such as those of Western Europe and Canada, than they do in such developing countries as Mexico. NAFTA has been a blessing for many U.S. manufacturers. Our domestic automobile industry, for example, now produces about the same number of cars and light trucks in the United States as it did before the agreement, but it assembles those vehicles more cost-effectively by spreading out its sourcing among the three NAFTA countries the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Total manufacturing output in the United States has risen 41 percent during the past ten years, compared to 34 percent in the preceding 10 years. In the first five years of NAFTA, the U.S. economy added a net half million manufacturing jobs. By allowing American manufacturers to more efficiently allocate their production, NAFTA deserves a share of the credit for the healthy uptick in U.S. worker productivity since the mid1990s.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker Cuba Specific Lifting the sanctions on Cuba would create jobs.
Free Trade
Maness, intern with the National Center for Policy Analysis, 3

(Amy, 1/14/3, National Center for Policy Analysis, Should We Trade With Cuba, http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba427, accessed 7/3/13, AS) Cuba's population of 12 million is in need of everything, and other countries are offering it. A recent Texas A&M study commissioned by the Cuba Policy Foundation shows that U.S. farmers lose $1.24 billion each year due to the embargo. [See the Figure.] Lifting the sanctions would generate an additional $1.6 billion in U.S. GDP, $2.8 billion in sales and 31,262 jobs. In the 10 months since Congress enacted the Trade Sanctions and Export Reform Act of 2000 - allowing cash sales of agricultural commodities - Cuba has purchased almost $200 million in U.S. food and agricultural products from 34 states.
Free Trade
Efficiency/Productivity
Trade leads to more efficiency and productivity which is essential for job creation
Kim, Senior Policy Analyst, Economic Freedom, 10

(Anthony B, 5/19/10, Heritage.org, Free Trade: Key to Job Creation, http://blog.heritage.org/2010/05/19/free-trade-key-to-job-creation/, accessed 6/30/13, AS)
Trade critics charge that free trade damages U.S. firms and workers. Its true that individuals can experience trade-related job loss. Balanced against that, however, must be the overall gains in U.S. employment and productivity that stem from an open trading environment. Indeed, free trade fosters economic efficiency, which is the basis for dynamic growth and job creation. In a recent report entitled Opening Markets, Creating Jobs: Estimated U.S. Employment Effects of Trade with FTA Partners, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce points out that more than 17 million American jobs depend on trade with U.S. FTA partners, and in 2008 alone, over five million jobs were created by the boost in trade unleashed by the FTAs. Chamber President and CEO Tom Donohue appropriately remarked, I defy anyone in town to name another budgetneutral government initiative that has generated anything like this number of jobs. Unfortunately, in recent years, free trade has become a victim of special interest politics in the U.S. Americas competitiveness, credibility and leadership in global markets are at stake and American workers and firms will prosper more, even in a time of economic slowdown, if the U.S. continues its historical trend towards trade liberalization and openness. Regrettably, Congress, bowing to labor union pressure, has focused on demands for concessions from other nations. Such intransigence has a cost. While America merely talks about trade, the rest of the world actually moves forward with new trade pacts, which push U.S. firms towards the sidelines and take away opportunities for more job creation.
Free Trade
Competitive Exports
Free trade means more competitive exports that create jobs. US Chamber of Commerce, 10
*Chamber of Commerce, 7/8/10, Opening Markets, Creating Jobs: Estimated US Employment Effects of Trade with FTA Partners,http://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/reports/100514_ftajobs_full_0.pdf, date accessed 6/30/13, AS] To properly evaluate the impact of free trade agreements, one must understand all the pieces of the economy that are affected by them. Trade agreements even those with relatively small economies impact the U.S. economy in a range of ways. Most Americans are familiar with the benefits to exports. When FTA partners reduce their barriers to U.S. goods and services exports, U.S. exports of goods and services become more competitive in the FTA partner market. U.S. companies win more sales, particularly relative to other trading partners that still face tariffs or non-tariff barriers in the FTA partner market. As U.S. companies export more, they are able to increase U.S. production and perhaps employment5 in the United States. These are what are known as the direct effects of increases in exporting. The economic effects of trade agreements are not limited to the more obvious direct export effects. Additional indirect effects can outweigh the direct ones. For example, to meet new demand for exports, producers of U.S. goods and services buy more raw materials and equipment from other sectors of the U.S. economy and from abroad which increases output (and, again, perhaps employment) in these other sectors.6 As jobs expand (high unemployment case) and/or worker income grows (low unemployment case), U.S. consumer spending grows and that, in turn, supports still more jobs in nontraded goods and services sectors of the economy.
Free Trade
AT: Job Displacement

Even if they can win free trade initially causes job losses, those will be offset with better jobs three reasons Griswold, former director of the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, 7
Trade is not about more jobs or fewer jobs, but about better jobs. Advocates of trade liberalization who claim that lower barriers boost the total number of jobs in our economy are as wrong as skeptics who argue that lower barriers mean fewer jobs. During the debate over NAFTA in 1993, people on both sides were guilty of this fundamental mistake. Independent presidential candidate H. Ross Perot famously predicted that passage of the agreement would create a giant sucking sound as jobs and investment headed south across the border. Advocates of the agreement, including the Clinton White House, countered that NAFTA would create hundreds of thousands of net new jobs. Both sides were wrong to the extent they predicted a net change in jobs either way. Trade does cause certain jobs to disappear, certain companies to go out of business, and certain sectors of the economy to shrink. That is what we would expect from increased competition, domestic as well as international. But trade as a rule does not affect the total number of jobs or the overall rate of employment or unemployment. Studies that claim that trade expansion, trade deficits, or trade agreements have caused the loss of some specific number of jobs during a certain period of time are misleading if they imply that todays economy has that many fewer jobs than it would have otherwise. Trade does not affect the total number of jobs in an economy for three reasons. First, if workers, capital, and resources can shift within the domestic economy, jobs eliminated by import competition will quickly be replaced by jobs created elsewhere. Focusing merely on jobs lost because of imports ignores the offsetting jobs that trade and globalization create through other channels. One channel is expanding exports, as U.S. producers ramp up production to meet demand abroad as well as at home. Trade competition also reduces costs for U.S. producers by allowing them to buy raw materials, intermediate inputs, and capital machinery at lower, more competitive global prices. Lower producer costs translate into higher profits, attracting more investment and creating more employment in those sectors that benefit from open markets. Trade also delivers lower prices on imported consumer goods, giving households more money to spend on domestic goods and services, stimulating further employment gains. Globalization also means more international investment flowing into the United States. Inward foreign direct investment creates jobs by establishing foreignowned production facilities in the United States, while inflows of financial capital create jobs by reducing long-term interest rates, thus promoting greater investment and job creation by domestic companies Second, the much-misunderstood reality of comparative advantage means that our economy will always be globally competitive in a range of sectors. If we lose our competitive edge in one sector or industry, because of shifting technology and factor prices or the emergence of new global competitors, the competitive edge of other sectors will be enhanced. The insight of comparative advantage, first expounded by David Ricardo in 1817, is that a country will tend to export what it can make more efficiently relative to what else it
Free Trade
could produce domestically given its own endowment of resources. Another country may (in theory, anyway) be able to produce everything at a lower per unit cost than we can produce domestically, but we can still gain from exchanging what each country is relatively most efficient at producing. If the United States loses its shoe industry to lowercost global competition, the reality of comparative advantage means that we will likely gain competitiveness and export share in pharmaceuticals, civil aircraft, financial services, and other sectors where we are relatively more efficient than making shoes.We may lose call center jobs, where we are relatively less efficient, but gain jobs in financial analysis or computer engineering. American workers will always be relatively more productive in some sectors than others in the domestic economy, ensuring that we will always be competitive in a range of global export markets. Third, trade tends not to affect the overall number of jobs because of other, more powerful and counterbalancing factors in the broader economy such as monetary policy and foreign exchange rates. If a surge in imports did cause widespread layoffs in certain sectors, the resulting increase in unemployment would push the Federal Reserve to tilt toward a looser monetary policy and lower interest rates to stimulate the overall economy. Increased imports would also have the effect of pumping more dollars into international markets, causing the dollar to depreciate on foreign currency markets. A weaker dollar, in turn, would make U.S. exports more attractive, stimulating employment in export sectors while dampening demand for imports, thus offsetting initial jobs losses .
Their claims are exaggerated trade only accounts for 3% of displaced jobs.
Every year, the U.S. economy creates and destroys millions of jobs. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, an average of 32.1 million jobs were created and 30.4 million were eliminated annually between 1992 and 2006, creating an average annual net job gain of 1.7 million.9 About half the churn is seasonal, but the other half is permanent, meaning that each year about 15 million jobs disappear, never to be seen again.10 If changing flows of trade account for the loss of 500,000 jobs a year, trade would be responsible for about 3 percent of the overall churn in the labor market. Job displacement because of expanding trade also appears small when compared to weekly filings for unemployment compensation. If the estimates of job losses from trade expansion are correct, about 10,000 workers lose their jobs in a typical week because of trade-related causes. That provides plenty of sound bites and television images for the critics of trade. And yet, in a typical week, even when the economy is humming, more than 300,000 people will file claims for unemployment insurance. By that yardstick as well, workers displaced by expanding trade account for only 3 percent of total displaced workers.
Free Trade
Too many alt causes to blame trade for job loss. Griswold, former director of the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, 7
What accounts for the other 97 percent of job turnover? Technology probably accounts for most permanent job displacement. For example, introduction of the personal computer 25 years ago has eliminated hundreds of thousands of jobs for typists, secretaries, and telephone operators. The daily newspaper business has seen venerable papers close their doors and hundreds of thousands of reporting, editing, and production positions eliminated because of the migration of readers and advertising to the Internet. Kodak, the camera company headquartered in Rochester, New York, has laid off 30,000 workers since 2004not because of unfair trade by foreign competitors, but because of the proliferation of digital cameras and plunging sales of film. Tower Records shut down its U.S. stores and laid off workers, not because of imports, but because iPods and other digital-music devices have cut deeply into sales of compact discs. Workers also lose their jobs because of changing consumer tastes and domestic market competition as one American company cuts into the market share of another. There is nothing unique or disturbing about the fact that changes in international trade account for a small share of job displacement in the U.S. labor market. Trade, like technology, affects the type of jobs in our economy but not the total number. If workers and capital can move freely between states and between sectors, jobs lost in one area will tend to be replaced by jobs created in another. The overall number of jobs depends on the growth rate of the economy and labor force, business investment, the flexibility of employers to hire or lay off workers, and other broader factors. A nation open to the global economy can enjoy low unemployment, just as a country with a closed economy can suffer high unemployment, and vice versa. It is simply wrong to blame trade for causing a net loss of jobs or anything other than a small fraction of job displacement. Free trade swaps bad jobs for good ones which allow for industry expansion and more jobs IT proves.
[Daniel, 1/13/9, CATO Institute, Why We Have Nothing to Fear from Foreign Outsourcing,http://www.cato.org/publications/free-trade-bulletin/why-we-havenothing-fear-foreign-outsourcing, accessed 6/30/13, AS]
Just as the free traders predict, we are swapping less skilled and lower paying jobs for relatively higher skilled and better paying jobs.[7] The recovery and expansion of job creation that has already begun in the IT sector should continue into the future. According to the U.S. Department of Labors biannual projections, the number of jobs in computer and mathematical science occupations is expected to increase from three million to four million in the next decade, a rate of growth twice as fast as employment in the rest of the private economy .[8] The demand for computer-related occupations should increase, despite the recent downturn, as a result of rapid advances in computer technology and the demand for new computer applications, including those for the Internet and Intranets, the department reported in the
Free Trade
February 2004 issue of its Monthly Labor Review. Growth will not be as rapid as during the previous decade, however, as the software industry begins to mature and as routine work is increasingly outsourced overseas. Most of the new jobs will be in computer systems design and related services and in the information industry, primarily in software publishing, data processing and related sectors, and Internet-related industries.[9] Of course, the IT recession has been painful for hundreds of thousands of workers who lost jobs and were forced to find new employment. Compensation in the industry has also been under pressure because of the temporary drop in demand for services and workers. Average wages fell 1.3 percent in ITproducing industries in 2002 from the year before, from $68,330 to $67,440 (in contrast to a 1 percent increase for other workers.)[10] But IT jobs still remain among the best paying in our economy, and we have solid reason to believe opportunities for employment in the field will expand in the coming decade.
Free Trade
AT: Outsourcing
Outsourcing is wrong foreign and domestic operations complement each other. Griswold, former director of the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, 9
[Daniel, 1/13/9, CATO Institute, Shipping Jobs Overseas or Reaching New Customers? Why Congress Should Not Tax Reinvested, http://www.cato.org/publications/free-tradebulletin/shipping-jobs-overseas-or-reaching-new-customers-why-congress, accessed 6/30/13, AS]
More Jobs Abroad, More Jobs at Home Investing abroad is not about shipping jobs overseas. There is no evidence that expanding employment at U.S.- owned affiliates comes at the expense of overall employment by parent companies back home in the United States. In fact, the evidence and experience of U.S. multinational companies points in the opposite direction: foreign and domestic operations tend to compliment each other and expand together. A successful company operating in a favorable business climate will tend to expand employment at both its domestic and overseas operations. More activity and sales abroad often require the hiring of more managers, accountants, lawyers, engineers, and production workers at the parent company. Consider Caterpillar Inc., the Peoria, Illinois-based company known for making giant earth-moving equipment. From 2005 through 2007, the company enjoyed booming global sales because of strong growth in overseas markets, especially those with resources extracted from the ground. According to the companys 2007 annual report, Caterpillar earned 63 percent of its sales revenue abroad, including $1 billion in sales in China alone. As a result, Caterpillar ramped up employment at its overseas affiliates during that time from 41,238 to 50,788, an increase of almost 10,000 workers. During that same three-year period, the company expanded its domestic employment from 43,878 to 50,545, a healthy increase of 6,667.5 Caterpillars experience is not unusual for U.S. multinational companies. A 2005 study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that, during the 1980s and 1990s, there was a strong positive correlation between domestic and foreign growth rates of multinational firms. After analyzing the operations of U.S. multinational companies at home and abroad, economists Mihir A. Desai, C. Fritz Foley, and James R. Hines Jr. found that a 10 percent increase in capital investment in existing foreign affiliates was associated with a 2.2 percent increase in domestic investment by the same company and a 4 percent increase in compensation for its domestic workforce. They also found a positive connection between foreign and domestic sales, assets, and numbers of employees.6 Foreign production requires inputs of tangible or intellectual property produced in the home country, the authors explained. Greater foreign activity spurs higher exports from American parent companies to foreign affiliates and greater domestic R&D spending.7 The positive connection between foreign and domestic employment of U.S. multinational companies has continued into the current decade. As Figure 1 shows, parent and affiliate employment have tracked each other since the early 1980s. More recently, employment rose briskly for parents and affiliates alike in the boom of the late 1990s, fell for both during the downturn and slow recovery of 2001 through 2003, and then rose again from 2003 through 2006.8 Although the numbers have not been reported yet for 2007 and 2008, its likely that the loss of net jobs in the domestic U.S. economy will be mirrored by much slower growth or outright decline in foreign affiliate employment.
Free Trade
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker AT: Trade Deficits
Free Trade
Employment increases during periods of rising trade deficits. Griswold, former director of the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, 11
[Daniel, 7/11/11, CATO Institute, Beneficiaries of Trade: You and Me http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/beneficiaries-trade-you-me, accessed 6/30/13, AS]
Since 1980, the trade deficit has grown as a share of GDP during five sustained periods: 1982-84, 1992-95, 1997-2000, 2001-06 and 2009-10. It has shrunk during three sustained periods: 198792, 2000-01 and 2006-09. I then examined how the U.S. economy performed during each of these periods in terms of real gross-domestic-product growth, equity prices (as measured by the Standard & Poors 500 Index), manufacturing output, total civilian employment and the unemployment rate. Contrary to the prevailing orthodoxy, the U.S. economy shows no sign of suffering during periods when the trade deficit is expanding. To the contrary, real GDP grew more than three times faster at an annualized rate 3.6%, versus 1% during periods when the trade deficit was expanding, compared to those in which it was shrinking. A rising trade deficit was good news for investors, as well. The S&P 500 climbed an annualized average of 11% during periods when the deficit was worsening compared with less than 1% during periods when it was improving. Despite worries that trade is causing the de-industrialization of America, manufacturing output expanded at a robust 5.2% a year during periods of rising deficits, and shrank by 2% a year when the trade gap was contracting. People who blame job losses on trade deficits should consider this: Civilian employment expanded at a healthy 1.4% a year during periods of rising trade deficits, while job growth was virtually zero during stretches when the deficit was shrinking. The jobless rate declined an average of 0.4 percentage points per year when the trade gap was on an upward trend, and jumped a painful one point per year when the deficit was trending down. Apparently, the only thing worse for the U.S. economy than a rising trade deficit is a falling one. Politicians obsessed with the trade balance should give up the goal of promoting exports over imports. The aim of U.S. trade policy should be to maximize the freedom of Americans to buy and sell in global markets for mutual gain, whatever the mix of goods, services and assets we freely choose to trade.
Free Trade
AT: Imports
Even increased imports create more jobs US Chamber of Commerce, 10
*Chamber of Commerce, 7/8/10, Opening Markets, Creating Jobs: Estimated US Employment Effects of Trade with FTA Partners,http://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/reports/100514_ftajobs_full_0.pdf, date accessed 6/30/13, AS] In addition to increased exports, trade agreements also eliminate U.S. barriers to trade in goods and services with the FTA partner country. This means that imports of these goods and services become less costly, and U.S. imports increase. Increased imports can replace U.S. production, at which point U.S. production and U.S. employment directly linked to that production decline. This is a direct negative impact on competing U.S. firms and workers. However, as is the case with exports, there are important indirect effects at play as well. They are not as obvious as imports replacing U.S. production, yet they are critical to the overall analysis. For example, jobs associated with bringing imports to their ultimate customer may increase with imports from the dockworkers to the truckers to the warehouse operators to retailers, among others. In addition, the lower cost of imported goods that are raw materials or machinery or other inputs to U.S. production can make U.S. producers or services providers more competitive in global markets. This effect is uneven, as some sectors benefit more than others from access to lower-cost inputs, contributing to the uneven effect that an FTA can have across U.S. sectors. Finally, if imported goods and services are consumer products that now cost less, the savings consumers experience enable them to spend more on other goods and services (which creates new jobs or boosts income) or to save more (which lowers interest rates). All in all, the job effects of imports are not necessarily a net negative.
Free Trade
Free Trade Good - Poverty
Free Trade
General
Trade solves poverty-the alternative is even lower-paying farm work-Taiwan and South Korea prove trade boosts wages in the long term Krugman, Professor of economics at Princeton, 97 (Paul, March 21, 1997, Slate, In
Praise of Cheap Labor, http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1997/03/in_praise_of_cheap_labo r.single.html, KR) The occasion was an op-ed piece I had written for the New York Times, in which I had pointed out that while wages and working conditions in the new export industries of the Third World are appalling, they are a big improvement over the "previous, less visible rural poverty ." I guess I should have expected that this comment would generate letters along the lines of, "Well, if you lose your comfortable position as an American professor you can always find another job-as long as you are 12 years old and willing to work for 40 cents an hour." Such moral outrage is common among the opponents of globalization--of the transfer of technology and capital from high-wage to low-wage countries and the resulting growth of labor-intensive Third World exports. These critics take it as a given that anyone with a good word for this process is naive or corrupt and, in either case, a de facto agent of global capital in its oppression of workers here and abroad. But matters are not that simple, and the moral lines are not that clear. In fact, let me make a counter-accusation: The lofty moral tone of the opponents of globalization is possible only because they have chosen not to think their position through. While fat-cat capitalists might benefit from globalization, the biggest beneficiaries are, yes, Third World workers. After all, global poverty is not something recently invented for the benefit of multinational corporations. Let's turn the clock back to the Third World as it was only two decades ago (and still is, in many countries). In those days, although the rapid economic growth of a handful of small Asian nations had started to attract attention, developing countries like Indonesia or Bangladesh were still mainly what they had always been: exporters of raw materials, importers of manufactures. Inefficient manufacturing sectors served their domestic markets, sheltered behind import quotas, but generated few jobs. Meanwhile, population pressure pushed desperate peasants into cultivating ever more marginal land or seeking a livelihood in any way possible--such as homesteading on a mountain of garbage. Given this lack of other opportunities, you could hire workers in Jakarta or Manila for a pittance. But in the mid-'70s, cheap labor was not enough to allow a developing country to compete in world markets for manufactured goods. The entrenched advantages of advanced nations--their infrastructure and technical know-how, the vastly larger size of their markets and their proximity to suppliers of key components, their political stability and the subtle-but-crucial social adaptations that are necessary to operate an efficient economy--seemed to outweigh even a tenfold or twentyfold disparity in wage rates. And then something changed. Some combination of factors that we still don't fully understand--lower tariff barriers, improved telecommunications, cheaper air transport--reduced the disadvantages of producing in developing countries. (Other things being the same, it is still better to produce in the First World--stories of companies that moved production to Mexico or East Asia, then moved back after experiencing the disadvantages of the Third World environment, are common.) In a substantial number of industries, low wages allowed developing countries to break into world markets. And so countries that had previously made a living selling jute or coffee started producing shirts and sneakers instead. Workers in those shirt and sneaker factories are,
Free Trade
inevitably, paid very little and expected to endure terrible working conditions. I say "inevitably" because their employers are not in business for their (or their workers') health; they pay as little as possible, and that minimum is determined by the other opportunities available to workers. And these are still extremely poor countries, where living on a garbage heap is attractive compared with the alternatives. And yet, wherever the new export industries have grown, there has been measurable improvement in the lives of ordinary people. Partly this is because a growing industry must offer a somewhat higher wage than workers could get elsewhere in order to get them to move. More importantly, however, the growth of manufacturing--and of the penumbra of other jobs that the new export sector creates--has a ripple effect throughout the economy. The pressure on the land becomes less intense, so rural wages rise; the pool of unemployed urban dwellers always anxious for work shrinks, so factories start to compete with each other for workers, and urban wages also begin to rise. Where the process has gone on long enough--say, in South Korea or Taiwan--average wages start to approach what an American teen-ager can earn at McDonald's. And eventually people are no longer eager to live on garbage dumps. (Smokey Mountain persisted because the Philippines, until recently, did not share in the export-led growth of its neighbors. Jobs that pay better than scavenging are still few and far between.) The benefits of export-led economic growth to the mass of people in the newly industrializing economies are not a matter of conjecture. A country like Indonesia is still so poor that progress can be measured in terms of how much the average person gets to eat; since 1970, per capita intake has risen from less than 2,100 to more than 2,800 calories a day. A shocking one-third of young children are still malnourished--but in 1975, the fraction was more than half. Similar improvements can be seen throughout the Pacific Rim, and even in places like Bangladesh. These improvements have not taken place because well-meaning people in the West have done anything to help--foreign aid, never large, has lately shrunk to virtually nothing. Nor is it the result of the benign policies of national governments, which are as callous and corrupt as ever. It is the indirect and unintended result of the actions of soulless multinationals and rapacious local entrepreneurs, whose only concern was to take advantage of the profit opportunities offered by cheap labor. It is not an edifying spectacle; but no matter how base the motives of those involved, the result has been to move hundreds of millions of people from abject poverty to something still awful but nonetheless significantly better. Why, then, the outrage of my correspondents? Why does the image of an Indonesian sewing sneakers for 60 cents an hour evoke so much more feeling than the image of another Indonesian earning the equivalent of 30 cents an hour trying to feed his family on a tiny plot of land--or of a Filipino scavenging on a garbage heap? The main answer, I think, is a sort of fastidiousness. Unlike the starving subsistence farmer, the women and children in the sneaker factory are working at slave wages for our benefit--and this makes us feel unclean. And so there are self-righteous demands for international labor standards: We should not, the opponents of globalization insist, be willing to buy those sneakers and shirts unless the people who make them receive decent wages and work under decent conditions. This sounds only fair--but is it? Let's think through the consequences. First of all, even if we could assure the workers in Third World export industries of higher wages and better working conditions, this would do nothing for the peasants, day laborers, scavengers, and so on who make up the bulk of these countries' populations. At best, forcing developing countries to adhere to our labor standards would create a privileged labor aristocracy, leaving the poor majority no better off. And it might not even do that. The advantages of established First World industries are still formidable. The only reason developing countries have been able to compete with those industries is their ability to offer employers cheap labor. Deny them that ability, and you might well deny them the prospect of continuing industrial growth, even
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker reverse the growth that has been achieved. And since export-oriented growth, for all its injustice, has been a huge boon for the workers in those nations, anything that curtails that growth is very much against their interests. A policy of good jobs in principle, but no jobs in practice, might assuage our consciences, but it is no favor to its alleged beneficiaries.
Free Trade
Trade solves poverty-protectionism favors capital Hertel, Purdue economics professor and Winters, Sussex economics professor, 6 (Thomas Hertel and L Alan Winters, and other contributors, Poverty and the WTO, p 521, KR)
The global impacts from trade reform on poverty are positive to the extent that the existing patterns of trade protection favor skilled labor and capital relative to unskilled workers, so that their removal lifts unskilled wages, the primary source of income for many of the worlds poor. On average in developing countries, the real wage of unskilled workers-deflated by a food and clothing CPI-rises four times as much as average real income (3.6 percent versus 0.8 percent). Assuming import tariff revenues are replaced by taxes on the nonpoor, the number of poor at the US$1 per day level would decline by some 32 million globally under a full trade reform scenario. The impacts from a Doha scenario are much less, corresponding to only a modest increase in real wages of the unskilled.
Trade solves poverty-it boosts unskilled wages Hertel, Purdue economics professor and Winters, Sussex economics professor, 6 (Thomas Hertel and L Alan Winters, and other contributors, Poverty and the WTO, p 521, KR)
The positive impact of full liberalization is not limited to rural areas and nonagricultural activities. The urban poor gain from higher unskilled wages, even in nonagricultural sectors. This is reflected in the pro-poor shift in the urban income distribution. In addition, the urban poor benefit indirectly from the gains in agriculture because the pressure on nonagricultural unskilled workers is relieved somewhat. Trade reform, and particularly domestic trade reforms, may particularly help the poor Brazilian farmers, but only broad-based high growth will eradicate urban poverty.
Three reasons trade solves global poverty-resource allocation, comparative advantage, and mass production Tupy, assistant director of the Project on Global Economic Liberty at Cato, 6
(Marian, 1/3/2006, Washington Times, Free Trade Benefits All, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/free-trade-benefits-all, accessed 6/30/13, KR) There is ample evidence people have been trading with one another since earliest times. As economists James Gwartney of Florida State University and Richard Stroup of Montana State University put it in their book What Everyone Should Know about Economics and Prosperity, the motivation for trade can be summed up in the phrase, If you do something good for me, I will do something good for you. There are three important reasons voluntary exchange is good not only for the contracting parties but the world as a whole: (1) Trade improves global efficiency in resource allocation. A glass of water may be of little value to someone living near the river but is priceless to a person crossing the Sahara. Trade delivers goods and services to those who value them most. (2) Trade allows partners to gain from specializing in the producing those goods and services they do best. Economists call that the law of comparative advantage. When producers create goods they are comparatively skilled at, such as Germans producing beer and the French producing wine, those goods increase in abundance and quality.
Free Trade
(3) Trade allows consumers to benefit from more efficient production methods. For example, without large markets for goods and services, large production runs would not be economical . Large production runs, in turn, are instrumental to reducing product costs. Lower production costs lead to cheaper goods and services, which raises real living standards. Evidence supports the idea nations more open to trade tend to be richer than those that are less open. Columbia University economist Arvind Panagariya wrote in a paper Miracles and Debacles: Do Free-Trade Skeptics Have a Case?: On the poverty front, there is overwhelming evidence that trade openness is a more trustworthy friend of the poor than protectionism. Few countries have grown rapidly without a simultaneous rapid expansion of trade. In turn, rapid growth has almost always led to reduction in poverty. According to the Cato Institutes 2004 report on Economic Freedom of the World, which measures economic freedom in 123 countries, the per capita gross domestic product in the quintile of countries with the most restricted trading was only $1,883 in 2002. That years per capita GDP in the quintile of countries with the freest trading regimes was $23,938. That statistic should be repeated to all those who used the Hong Kong meeting to push for liberalization in rich countries while arguing to protect poor countries economies.As the example of sub-Saharan Africa demonstrates, protection does not guarantee prosperity quite the opposite. Under the World Trade Organizations special and differential treatment rule, many sub-Saharan African countries have been permitted to retain significantly higher import tariffs than rich countries. Combined with preferential treatment of their goods in rich countries markets, sub-Saharan African producers enjoy a substantial advantage over other foreign competitors. Result? According to the World Bank, Africas share of world exports declined from 3 percent in 1970 to less than 2 percent in 2003. About 50 percent of sub-Saharan African exports come from a single country, South Africa. (It is worth noting South African import tariffs are substantially lower than those of other subSaharan African countries.) Sub-Saharan African share of world exports, in other words, has been declining despite (or I would argue because of) trade protectionism. Domestic producers, reliant on their captive domestic market to keep them afloat, see no need to make their products better and cheaper. Shoddy goods and services abound throughout the developing world. And the poor suffer the most. Is that the outcome nongovernmental organizations, such as Oxfam, had in mind when they urged poor countries to retain their tariff barriers?
Trade lowers prices for middle-income families and reduces poverty overseas Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at Cato, 10 (Daniel,
January 5, 2010, Naples Daily News, Why Populists Are Wrong About Impact of Free Trade, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-populists-are-wrong-about-impact-freetrade, accessed 6/30/13, KR) On trade, as on so much else, the populists have it wrong again. Free trade and globalization are great blessings to families in Naples and across America. Trade is delivering lower prices and more variety to consumers while creating better-paying jobs for the middle class. Beyond our shores, the spread of economic openness is building a more peaceful, democratic and humane world for our children. Now may seem an odd moment to tout the benefits of trade. After all, unemployment is 10 percent and housing and manufacturing remain in a slump. The great recession of 2008-09 was not caused by trade, however, but by misguided monetary and housing policies that were Made in the USA. During difficult economic times, import competition allows more American families to keep their heads above water by delivering lower prices on staples such as food, clothing and shoes. The prices we pay for goods exposed
Free Trade
to global trade tend to rise more slowly than inflation or even fall. The imported fresh fruit and vegetables, T-shirts and discounted sneakers sold at big-box retailers are especially important in the budgets of poor and middle-class families. Trade benefits producers by allowing Americans to sell our goods and services in growing markets abroad. Florida companies have been especially successful exporting to Brazil, Mexico and the rest of Latin America. Florida ranks fifth among states in total value of exports, with small and medium-sized companies accounting for almost two-thirds of state exports. For Americans worried about their jobs, it is a big lie that we have been surrendering middle-class manufacturing jobs for low-paying service jobs. In fact, since 1991, two-thirds of the net new jobs created in the U.S. economy have been in sectors such as health care, education and business and professional services where the average pay is higher than in manufacturing. Knock on doors in a typical middle-class neighborhood in southern Florida and you will meet teachers, managers, engineers, computer specialists, truck drivers, accountants, insurance and real-estate agents, registered nurses and other health-care professionals and self-employed business owners. These are the occupations that now form the backbone of the American middle class. Beyond American shores, the past three decades of expanding trade and globalization have witnessed dramatic global progress. Between 1981 and 2005, the share of the worlds population living on the equivalent of $1.25 a day dropped by half, from 52 to 25 percent, according to the World Bank. During this same period, real gains have been made in life expectancy, infant survival, nutrition and literacy. The most dramatic gains against poverty have occurred in those countries, such as China and Chile, that have most aggressively opened themselves to the global economy.
Free Trade
Latin America
Specifically, Latin American free trade increases economic growth and solves poverty Gwartney, professor of economics at FSU, and Vsquez, director of the Cato Institutes Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, 1 (James and Ian, April 18, 2001,
National Post, Why Latin America Needs a Free-Trade Zone, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-latin-america-needs-freetrade-zone, KR) Yet, more than ever before, sustained economic progress depends upon sound policies and institutions. For the last five years, we have annually constructed an economic freedom index, which rates countries policies against free-market principles (for example, small government, low taxes, sound money, secure property rights and free trade). Our Economic Freedom of the World: 2001 Annual Report ranks more than 120 countries. The report confirms Adam Smiths insight that trading partners in rich and poor countries alike can achieve higher income levels through gains from specialization and large-scale production. Free economies have indeed grown more rapidly and achieved higher income levels than less free economies. This years report also includes a more comprehensive index for a smaller set of 58 nations for which we could obtain more detailed data. As in the past, Hong Kong was rated the most economically free jurisdiction in the world, followed by Singapore, United States, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Ireland and Canada. Chile (tied for 16th with Germany) was the highest ranked Latin American country. Argentina ranked 30th, Mexico 42nd, and Brazil 55th. The economies of Venezuela, Ukraine, and Russia were the least free among the 58. Our index helps explain some of Latin Americas maladies. For example, a legal system capable of protecting property rights and enforcing contracts in an even-handed manner is central to both economic freedom and progress. Indeed, the sustainability of economic reforms rests largely on the application of the rule of law. The freedom to compete in business is also central to economic progress. Yet Latin American countries rank extremely low in both areas. Seven of the 10 lowest rated countries in the legal area El Salvador, Colombia, Mexico, Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Peru were Latin American. The situation was much the same in business regulation, where six Latin American countries Colombia, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Mexico and Venezuela ranked in the bottom 10. Among the 58 countries in our comprehensive index, Chile was the only Latin American nation in the upper half in either of these two areas. Given the Andean countries prominence on the lower end of these rankings, the regions current instability is more understandable. For example, Peru moved swiftly toward the free market in the early 1990s, as did several Latin American countries that privatized enterprises, lowered trade barriers and removed investment restrictions. But Perus judicial system and the rule of law remained weak during Alberto Fujimoris personalist, 10-year rule. The present rise of populist, left-wing candidates as leading contenders for the presidency should not surprise us, then. When Mr. Fujimori fled Peru in the wake of corruption scandals, he left behind a citizenry that mistakenly attributes lackluster economic performance to market reforms. That development is particularly unfortunate in a country with no institutional structure to sustain the reforms that were implemented. Likewise, Argentina has only gone partially down the path of economic freedom, despite having introduced dramatic reforms a decade ago. As in Peru, Argentinas political system lost interest in liberalization by the mid- 1990s. Its regulatory environment continues to discourage economic growth and job creation. For instance, the countrys Mussolini-inspired labour regulations are completely out of step with a modern
Free Trade
economy, raise the cost of hiring workers, and are directly responsible for Argentinas chronically high unemployment rate of 14%. Here, too, lack of reform has produced diminishing returns and pushed the country toward crisis. Still, the region is far better off now than during the inward-looking policies of the lost decade of the 1980s. Latin Americas gains in economic freedom have increased growth and lowered poverty levels. From 1987 to 1998, for example, 7% growth has allowed Chile to reduce its poverty rate from 45% to 22%. A hemispheric free trade zone would provide indirect benefits that go beyond immediate increases in growth and prosperity because trade openness makes the pursuit of unsound policies costly. When economies are open, both entrepreneurship and investment capital will flee countries that insist on imposing high taxes, restrictive regulations and inflationary monetary policy. This potential exodus constrains the actions of political leaders. It imposes what Thomas Friedman, in The Lexus and the Olive Tree, refers to as a golden straitjacket. A Free Trade Area of the Americas will thus discourage bad policies in a region where growth continues to be stifled by a legal and regulatory environment that is prone to play favourites, protect existing firms, and impose a heavy regulatory burden. Hong Kong and Singapore show that openness and economic freedom are complementary. Indeed, the two jurisdictions are the most open and most free economies in the world. The relationship between openness and sound policies is no coincidence. When both trade and capital are free to come and go, political leaders have a strong incentive to follow sensible policies.
Free Trade
A2: Income Inequality

Free trade disperses wealth and undermines elites-China proves Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at Cato, 2 (Daniel, May 11,
2002, Cato Institute, Seven Moral Arguments for Free Trade, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/seven-moral-arguments-free-trade, KR) Free trade and free markets empower poor people by giving them greater opportunity to create wealth and support their families. By dispersing economic power more widely, free trade and free markets undercut the ability of elites in less developed countries to pillage a nations resources at the expense of its poor. Proof can be found in the immigration patterns of poor people throughout the world. By the millions, they seek to leave closed and centrally controlled economies for those that are more open and less controlled. Poor people themselves understand that a free economy serves their interests, even if many of their selfappointed intellectual advocates in the West do not. Nations open to trade tend to be more prosperous, just as cities along coastlines and navigable rivers tend to be wealthier than those in more remote, inland locations. The most recent Economic Freedom of the World study, by James Gwartney and Robert Lawson, found that the nations that were most open economically from 1980 through 1998 grew nearly five times faster than those that were most closed. And that trade-related growth lifts the lot of the poor. To cite the most dramatic example of this, the World Bank estimates that the number of Chinese citizens living in absolute povertythat is, on less than $1 per dayhas fallen since 1978 by 200 million. Revoking Chinas normal trade status, among all its other negative consequences, would set back one of the most successful anti-poverty programs in the history of mankind. In contrast, those regions of the world where poverty has been the most intractable, sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, have been the least open to trade and foreign investment. For all these reasons, trade sanctions fall heaviest on the poor of the target nation. Political rulers have the power to protect their pampered lifestyles, while the poor are left to suffer the consequences of U.S. policies that were enacted in the name of helping the very people they victimize. You can be sure that the communist leaders in Cuba and the ruling junta in Burma will continue to enjoy their fine, catered meals and chauffeur-driven cars while the millions of poor people they oppress are made even more miserable by U.S. trade and investment sanctions.
Free trade doesnt cause exploitation-its not a zero-sum game Richards, Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, 10 (Jay, 2010, Heritage Foundation,
The Economy Hits Home: International Trade, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/the-economy-hits-home-internationaltrade, KR) Weve all heard the charges against free trade: The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Rich countries exploit the poor labor and weak regulations of poorer countries. The poor countries are poor because countries like the U.S. are rich. But the false assumption behind these charges is the zero-sum game myth. A zero-sum game is a win/lose game like chess, checkers, poker, badminton, and basketball. When the Celtics and the Bulls compete, for instance, if the Celtics are up, then the Bulls are down, and vice versa. The scales balance. Its a zero-sum. Besides win/lose games (and lose/lose games, which no one wants to play), though, there are positive-sum or win/win games. In these games, some players may end up better off than others, but everyone ends up better off than they were at the beginning. No one simply loses.
Free Trade
An exchange in which both sides freely engage (i.e., in which no one is forced or tricked into participating) is a win/win, positive-sum scenario. Think about how this happens in everyday life. If you give your barber $10 for a haircut, presumably youd rather have the haircut than the $10. And (unless you were holding your barber at gunpoint) presumably shed rather have the $10 than the time and energy it takes to cut your hair. So you both see yourselves as better off as a result of the trade: Its win/win. FREE TRADE is an exchange of goods or services in which both sides of the trade freely engage without interference by the government or other parties. Neither party is prevented from trading, nor forced or tricked into trading. Things Have Gotten Better, Not Worse The benefits of free trade arent just theoretical. As international trade has expanded over the last 30 years, income per person and the average life expectancy have gone up in most countries, including those that are poor compared to the U.S. The exceptions have been countries with extremely corrupt and despotic governments and countries that have suffered civil war. Worldwide, statistics on infant mortality, life expectancy, and poverty have improved in the last few decades.[2] In fact, the percentage of people living in absolute povertythose with an income of less than $1 a dayhas dropped since 1970. In 1970, the world population was 3.7 billion, and 38 percent (1.4 billion) lived below the absolute poverty line. By 1990, with a world population of 5.3 billion, the percentage languishing in absolute poverty dropped to 26 percent (still about 1.4 billion).[3] Although it is tragic that there are still people languishing in poverty, things have not gotten worse overall, even in the poor parts of the world. The rich may have gotten richer, but the lives of billions of the poor have improved as well.
Free trade solves poverty and boosts growth-it increases average income and has no correlation with income inequality Lawson, professor of economics at Capital University, 2 (Robert, July 3, 2002, Cato,
Economic Freedom Needed To Alleviate Poverty Around The World, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/economic-freedom-needed-alleviate-povertyaround-world, KR) A new study, co-authored by James Gwartney and myself, was recently released by a consortium of think tanks, which includes the Cato Institute in the United States. This publication, Economic Freedom of the World: 2002 Annual Report, presents an economic freedom index for 123 countries. Based on 37 data components drawn from a multitude of sources, this index measures the degree to which nations are pursing policies consistent with economic freedom or market capitalism. To score highly on this index, a nation should have low government spending and taxes, sound property rights and legal system, sound money, liberal trade policies, and few government regulations. Economic freedom means that each individual plays the primary role in his economic life, not the government or central plan. The most economically free nation in the world remains Hong Kong followed by Singapore and the United States. The rankings of other major economies are the United Kingdom (4th), Canada (8th), Germany (15th), Japan (24th) Taiwan (30th), France (38th), Mexico (66th), and India (73rd). Most of the lowest ranked nations are in Africa and Latin America. Botswana has the best record for an African nation, tied for 38th with six other nations including France and South Korea. Chile, with the best record in Latin America, was tied with three other nations at 15th. Three former communist countries are in the bottom 10: Russia (116th), Ukraine (119th), and Romania (114th) all did worse than communist China (101st). Data for North Korea and Cuba are not available. The study also shows that economic freedom is strongly linked with both higher levels of income and faster rates of economic growth. The people living in the top one-fifth of
Free Trade
the most free countries enjoy an average income of $23,450 and a growth rate in the 1990s of 2.56 percent per year; in contrast, the bottom one-fifth in the rankings had an average income of just $2,556 and a -0.85 percent growth rate in the 1990s. That economic freedom leads to more and faster wealth creation is no longer a controversial argument. But what of the argument that market capitalism leaves the poor behind? In fact, the poor gain a lot from economic freedom. The share of income going to the poorest 10% of the population is completely unrelated to economic freedom. But poor people are much better off with economic freedom. The poorest 10% of the population have an average income of just $728 in the least free countries compared with over $7000 in the most free countries. Simply put, it is much better to be poor in a free, rich country than an unfree, poor country. Free people live longer too. The life expectancy of people living in the most free nations is fully 20 years longer than for people in the least free countries. This is quite literally the difference between knowing your grandchildren or not.
Trade solves poverty-exploitation is non-unique-only trade allows social mobility and facilitates democratic transition Froning, Heritage Foundation analyst, 2k (Denise, August 25, 2000, Heritage, The
Benefits of Free Trade: A Guide For Policymakers, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2000/08/the-benefits-of-free-trade-a-guide-forpolicymakers, KR) Societies that enact free trade policies create their own economic dynamism--fostering a wellspring of freedom, opportunity, and prosperity that benefits every citizen. In recent years, the United States has demonstrated the power of this principle. Nor are American citizens alone in benefiting from those free trade policies that the U.S. enacts. By breaking the cycle of poverty, America's free trade policies can enable even the most impoverished countries to begin to create their own dynamic toward prosperity. Nevertheless, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the opponents of free trade will continue to espouse the old argument that "the jobs created by globalization are often less sustaining and secure than the livelihoods abolished by it [in poor countries]."33 Such a claim presupposes that some sort of agrarian utopia previously existed in these countries and that their peoples will not reap the benefits of economic development. Clamoring to stop this wave of economic progress carried forward by technology and innovation is akin to arguing that the United States, to cite just one example, was better off before the Industrial Revolution. While one might argue that this was true of the white male members of the landed classes (although even then such a claim is dubious), for the majority of the population that did not enjoy such luxury, quality of life has improved immeasurably. The Industrial Revolution brought freedom of movement and increased opportunity to all economic levels of society. It also set the stage for social and democratic progress of a magnitude that would have been impossible earlier. And although history suggests that this new era of market globalization may well be accompanied by new problems for which the solutions once again will lie in the power of human ingenuity and innovation, it also presents an unprecedented level of opportunity for people to achieve economic freedom and greater prosperity.
Free Trade
Empirically True
Trade solves poverty-it decreases marginal costs for the poor-history is on our side Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at Cato, 4 (Daniel,
10/30/2004, Making the Case for Free Trade, http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/making-case-free-trade, accessed 6/30/13, KR) Another area of positive terrain for us that we shouldnt give up is the poor and the worlds children. The highest trade barriers remaining in the United States are aimed at products that are disproportionately consumed by poor people at home and produced by poor people abroad. Our highest trade barriers are on farm products, on textiles and apparel and shoes. And not just all shoes. We have our highest trade barriers on low end shoes, the kind you would buy in a Pay Less Shoe Store. But not on the kind you would buy in a Gucci store. A moderate Democratic think tank in Washington called the Progressive Policy Institute issued a study in 2004 that documented that U.S. tariffs are much higher on low-end goods than high-end goods. For example, the tariff on imported silk underwear into the United States is virtually zero, but the tariff on imported synthetic or low grade cotton is higher. So if you wear silk underwear, you get a low tariff. If you wear the regular kind of underwear like the rest of us, you pay a high tariff. This study calculated that a single mother with two children earning $20,000 a year pays an effective tariff on the goods she consumes thats three times higher than what a single executive earning $100,000 a year would pay. Our existing trade barriers are biased against the poor at home. A trade representative in Washington likes to say that our goal should to make sure that every discount store in America is a duty free shop for working families . How about the worlds poor? Heres a headline you probably didnt see in your local newspaper: Global Poverty Down by Half Since 1981. The Share of the worlds population living on dollar a day or less has dropped from 40 percent then to 20 percent today, and that share is expected to continue to fall. And by the way, virtually all that progress has happened in poor countries that have progressively globalized. Places like Sub Saharan Africa, there is very little progress. In fact, the number of poor is rising in those places. The World Bank could not find a single example of a poor country that had kept its markets closed and chased away foreign investment, and at the same time made progress against poverty. In other words, all the poor countries that followed our example, most of them have made progress against poverty. Those that follow the teachings of the anti globalization people have made no progress. The evidence on trade and poverty became so overwhelming that Oxfam International issue a study in 2002 that, while critical of a lot of things in the global economy, came down firmly on the side of trade being a friend of the poor. And they pointed out that by getting rid of these rich-country trade barriers, we could deliver twice as much income to poor countries as all the aid we give them.
Trade solves poverty-China and India prove Bhagwati, professor at Columbia and Srinivasan, professor at Yale, 2 (JAGDISH
BHAGWATI AND T. N. SRINIVASAN*, May 2002, Feuds over Free Trade, AEA Papers and Proceedings, Vol. 92 No. 2, Trade and Poverty in the Poor Countries, KR) Nonetheless, it is interesting that practically no country that has been close to autarkic has managed to sustain a high growth performance over a sustained period. Furthermore, the work of David Dollar and Aart Kraay (2002) notes that, if one classifies
Free Trade
countries into globalizers and nonglobalizers by reference to their relative performance in raising the trade share in GNP during 19771997, the former group has shown higher growth rates. Failure, like success, has many fathers, and no one cause will ever explain big outcomes like growth. Nonetheless, the many reasons why autarky would put a country behind make these empirical observations quite salient.7 The evidence on growth and poverty is best approached through focus on the two countries: China and India. The vast majority of the worlds poor live in the rural areas of these two countries. Both countries achieved significant reductions in poverty during 19802000 when they grew rapidly. According to World Bank (2000 table 4-2) estimates, real GDP grew at an annual average rate of 10 percent in China and 6 percent in India during these two decades. No country in the world had as rapid growth as China, and fewer than ten countries exceeded the Indian growth rate. The effect on reduction in poverty in both countries was dramatic, entirely in keeping with the Bhagwati hypothesis of the early 1960s that growth is a principal driver of poverty reduction. Thus, according to the Asian Development Bank (2000 table 3-1) estimates, the incidence of poverty in China, by standard measures, declined from 28 percent in 1978 to 9 percent in 1998. By the Government of Indias (2000 table 5) estimates, poverty incidence fell from 51 percent in 1977 1978 to 27 percent in 19992000.8 It is also relevant that these were also the decades in which both China and India increased their integration into the world economy. In fact, in the previous three decades (1950 1980) Indias autarkic policies alongside other damaging policies (such as extreme interventionism and controls and proliferation of an inefficient public sector in economic activity well beyond utilities)9 were associated with an annual growth rate of only 3.5 percent, with the natural consequence that the incidence of poverty fluctuated around 55 percent with no declining trend. Obviously, the experience of the two giant economies of China and India in achieving faster growth and reduction in poverty through greater integration into the world economy, treating such integration as an opportunity rather than as a threat, is salutory. According to Dollar (2001), other economies such as Vietnam and Uganda have had similar experiences. Indeed, Dollar (2001 p. 17) argues that the only developing countries that have registered significant declines in poverty are those that also have integrated faster into the world economy on the dimensions of trade and direct investment. The opponents of trade who allege that it accentuates or bypasses poverty are therefore not credible.10
Free trade solves poverty-history proves Hughey, Capitalism Institute staff writer, no date (Jason, Capitalism Institute Does
Free Trade Hurt Developing Economies? http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/does-free-tradehurt-developing-economies/, accessed 6/30/13, KR) Thats when I decided it was time to say something. I asserted that free trade is the only way that poor countries can ever hope to rise out of their poverty. I asserted that history has proven this to be the case, citing Hong Kong and Chile as readily powerful examples. I mentioned that trade is a mutually beneficial endeavor in which the parties of both nations benefit through voluntary transaction, thereby actually increasing wealth in both nations. In short, of all the nations in the world, we should be most ready to agree that free trade most helps the poor. And yet, thats where most students (and professors) present their intellectual doubts about the merits of free trade. Therefore, in order to inform those unfamiliar with the transforming power of free trade and to encourage those who already agree with this notion, I want to assert and defend one general principle about poor nations. If you keep this one thought with you as you learn about free trade and international markets, it will save you a
Free Trade
boatload time and effort when faced with the absurd proposition that free trade brutalizes poor nations. Poor nations are poor because of government intervention. The Nature of Trade and its Benefits Very simply, consider what trade is on an individual level. Trade occurs when Kirk wants what Kelly has while Kelly wants something in return. Thus, Kirk offers Kelly something of his own (either an item, service, or money). Kelly perceives the trade as beneficial to herself, so she accepts Kirks offer. As a result, both are more pleased about their material situation than they were prior to the trade. Does this change when Kirk is from Sweden and Kelly is from Canada? Of course not. Nor does it change when Kirks company is South African and Kellys company is Japanese. To argue that adding more people to the mix, or that changing a flag means that trade is not beneficial, makes absolutely no sense. Thus, what really hurts poor countries? There are only one of two options that we can consider, and in both of them, trade is not the culprit: 1) Either the governments of rich countries refuse to allow trade with poor countries, leaving people in both countries worse off; or 2) the governments of poor countries refuse to allow trade with rich countries, leaving people in both countries worse off. Notice that, in both scenarios, the mutually beneficial action of voluntary trade between individuals of different nations is disrupted by the controlling force of an intervening state actor. It is not trade that is harmful, but the lack of trade caused by governments that keep poor countries in their wretched poverty. For the purposes of this article, I will only consider poor nations whose governments disallow trade by taking control of their economies, but someone could easily point to many U.S. domestic subsidies and tariffs that act to discourage Americans from importing cheaper and better products from many poorer nations. But an article on regulations by the governments of rich nations can be left for another time. The Third Worlds War against Free Trade Doug Bandow (1996) observed that, Unfortunately, as decolonization quickened after World War II, most Third World states traveled the socialist path. The decision was in part nationalistic: African state, in particular, believed that true independence required indigenous control of economic resources (The First Worlds Misbegotten Economic Legacy to the Third World, in The Revolution in Development Economics, 1998, p. 208). Unfortunately, this movement to collectivize the economies of Third World countries turned out to be a highly beneficial trade-off for the governing officials of these nations, but it condemned their citizens to a wretched existence. As Bandow noted, control of the economic system helped assure continued political domination for ruling groups (Bandow, 1996, p. 208-209). Meanwhile, as governments accumulated whatever material wealth there was to be had, poor people struggled, starved, and succumbed to the tyranny of their political overlords. They experienced the reality of a life in which their government could literally steal whatever they owned while forbidding them to trade their goods and services to foreigners for a profit. The result of such tight-fisted regulation was not only poverty, but also instability, war, sickness, and crushing misery. After all, what else are people to do when they cant improve their wellbeing through peaceful production, honest effort, and voluntary exchange? Simaltaneously, in the West, intellectuals and politicians condemned free trade as the source of evil in these countries. Even beyond this absurdity, these central planners called for the corrupt socialist governments of Third World nations to bring about economic development, disregarding the true sources of sustainable development as grounded in free trade. As Bandow noted in the same essay, Western officials encouraged ambitious leaders of small countries to drag their peoples into the industrial age as quickly as possible (1996, p. 209). Of course, foreign aid was pumped into these governments to encourage their economic growth as quickly as possible. In the midst of these proposals, absent were recommendations that encouraged free trade, even though such a solution would have permitted foreign investors and multi-national corporations to create jobs and provide for true economic development in these countries.
Free Trade
Thus, for the sake of upholding the corrupt governments of these Third World nations, the poor individuals within them were doomed to economic failurenot because of trade, but because of the lack of it.
Free trade empirically solves poverty Markheim, Senior Analyst in Trade Policy and Kim, Research Data Specialist, 6
(Daniella and Anthony, April 18, 2006, Free Trade and American Prosperity, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/04/free-trade-and-american-prosperity, KR) Freer Trade enables more goods and services to reach American consumers at lower prices, giving families more income to save or spend on other goods and services. Moreover, the benefits of free Trade extend well beyond American households. Free Trade helps to spread freedom globally, reinforces the rule of law, and fosters economic development in poor countries. The World Bank reports that in the 1990s, per capita real income grew three times faster in developing countries that lowered Trade barriers than in developing countries that did not do so. In fact, over the past 25 years, roughly 500 million people have been lifted from poverty largely as a result of freer Trade and market reforms.[9]
Trade is good for everyone-specialization of labor promotes better, more diverse products Richards, Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, 10 (Jay, 2010, Heritage Foundation,
The Economy Hits Home: International Trade, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/the-economy-hits-home-internationaltrade, KR) Free trade benefits everyone because it allows partners to capitalize on their unique capacities and resources, what economists call their comparative advantage. Specialization of labor within a city or a country leads to greater prosperity for all. If each of us had to grow our own wheat, feed and milk our own cows, harvest cotton and loom it into fabric to make our clothing, build our own houses, and learn to do double bypass surgery, reattach retinas, or fill teeth, we would all be much worse off. Life would be nasty, brutish, and short. Instead, when we focus on what we do best and then trade freely for everything else, everyone is better off. The same dynamic holds for the international arena. France, no doubt, has a comparative advantage over Norway in growing grapes and fermenting wine, while Norway has an advantage in North Atlantic fishing. Norwegians are probably better off buying much of their wine from France than trying to grow grapes and make all their wine themselves; and the French are probably better off buying cod from Norway. In the long run, free trade is fair trade. Free trade is fair when countries with different advantages trade and capitalize on those differences, rather than pretending they dont exist. Access to capital, a highly skilled workforce, climate conditions, cultural heritage, and countless other things help determine what advantage one country has over another in the global marketplace. Attempts to equalize those differences in the name of fairness simply prevent countries from benefiting from free trade. In the long run, free trade is fair trade.
Free Trade
Free Trade Good - Environment
Free Trade
Sustainability
Free trade encourages efficiencies that ensure environmental sustainability Spence, writer for e-International Relations, 11
*Marvin, March 15, 2011, Trade Liberalization and Environmental Protection, http://www.eir.info/2011/03/15/trade-liberalization-and-environmental-protection/, accessed 6-30-13 BLE] With the liberalization of international trade in the latter part of the twentieth century, there was the need for an institution to regulate this trade. This was especially seen as necessary since the GATT 1947[1] did not have rules to govern issues such as services. The establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) was seen as the answer to the wave of liberalization brought by economic globalization. The WTO emerged out of the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations (1986-1994), and brought new international rules to govern trade in agriculture, manufacturing, services and intellectual property. These were issues that were not covered by the GATT 1947. Economic globalization has not only led to the liberalization of international trade, it has further led to the emergence of global concerns one such concern being the environment. Concern over the environment is partly driven by the argument that the environment is a common concern of all nations, and as such each nation should strive towards alleviating environmental problems. Concern over the environment is also driven by the argument that trade liberalization negatively affects the environment. The environment being viewed as the common concern of all nations is evident in the Climate Change Convention (1994) which acknowledges that change in the earths climate and its adverse effects are a common concern of humankind. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (1992) similarly affirms that the conservation of biological diversity is a common concern of humankind. Climate change and the loss of biological diversity being the common concern of humankind have led to the argument that each country in the global community has a role in alleviating these problems. Despite the view that each state must assume responsibility for global environmental problems, the principle of common but differential responsibility stipulates that developed countries should assume a greater responsibility in alleviating these problems than developing countries. Developed countries assuming the bulk of the responsibility is due to the argument that they are largely responsible for, and they are better able to alleviate these problems. Evidence of this is seen in the Climate Change Convention which notes that the largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries. The Climate Change Convention further recognizes that the specific needs and special circumstances of developing country Partiesthat would have to bear a disproportionate or abnormal burden under the Convention*2+ should be given full consideration. Trade Environment Debate The importance attached to trade liberalization and the environment, has sparked a debate between free traders and environmentalists about how trade liberalization affects the environment. This debate may also be interpreted as one between developed and developing countries. This is seen in the argument that developed countries are greener than developing countries and often argue for the inclusion of environmental protection measures in trade relations[3]. While environmentalists argue that trade liberalization is bad for the environment, free traders argue that trade liberalization is good for the environment. Trade Liberalization is bad for the environment Environmentalists argue that trade liberalization is bad for the environment, as it has led to countries with lax environmental standards, in some instances, having a comparative advantage in the global marketplace. This argument is linked to the pollution-haven hypothesis,
Free Trade
which suggests that trade liberalization allows firms to take advantage of cross-country differences on environmental regulations, and that falling trade barriers induces pollutionintensive industries to relocate to countries with weaker environmental regulations (Zhang and Yang 2007; Esty 1994). The relocation of these industries will not only negatively affect the country with the high environmental standard, it will further aid in the environmental degradation of the country with the lax environmental standards. Environmentalists not only believe that trade liberalization will lead to industries relocating to pollution-havens, they argue that lax environmental regulations in one jurisdiction will give credence to business arguments about competitive disadvantage in another jurisdiction (Esty 1994). This, it is believed, will lead to countries lowering their environmental standards or maintaining lax environmental standards to appease business interests. The growth in economic activity that trade liberalization causes, it is further believed, is likely to result in increased pollution and unsustainable consumption of natural resources (Brack 1995). This was one issue that compounded the debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement[4] (NAFTA). North American environmentalists held that higher level of economic activity in Mexico, accompanied by lax environmental enforcement, would cause greater depletion of natural resources and worsen pollution (Schatan 2000). Trade Liberalization is good for the environment Despite the view that trade liberalization is bad for the environment, there is a school of thought that identifies trade liberalization as being good for the environment. With the liberalization of trade it is believed that countries will utilize their comparative advantage and specialize in the production of goods and services in which they are most efficient (Brack 1995). This will reduce the possible negative impact on the environment from the unsustainable utilization of natural resources. Trade liberalization being associated with the transfer of environmentally friendly technology, has also led to the argument that it is good for the environment. Zhang (2003) attests to this as he states that open markets may stimulate social progress as contact among societies leads to the sharing of new ideas, [and] more rapid diffusion of technological advances (Zhang 2003: 117). It is also argued that trade liberalization will improve environmental standards, as countries with high environmental standards will impose sanctions on countries with low environmental standards causing them to improve their environmental standards. This explores the issue of extraterritoriality and raises the important question: Does a Country A has the right to infringe on the sovereignty of a Country B, by telling that state how to manage its own environment? In Tuna-Dolphin I (1991)[5] the GATT Panel ruled that a state could not violate the sovereignty of another state by telling that state how to manage its own environment. The Panel interpreted GATT Article XX(g) as only permitting measures aimed at resource conservation within the jurisdiction of the enacting country (Condon 2006). The Tuna-Dolphin II (1994)[6] Panel however, rejected the view that Article XX(g) limited the location of the resources in question. It was argued by the Panel that other provisions in Article XX (General Exceptions) did not exclude measures aimed at actions outside a Contracting Partys territorial jurisdiction. Evidence of this is seen in GATT Article XX(e) which allows Members of the World Trade Organization (WTO), subject to various requirements, to block the importation of goods relating to prison labour. The Panels decision was further influenced by the U.S argument that it had not ceded national authority to the GATT to adopt international environmental policies unilaterally. Supporters of trade liberalization further argue that the opening up of markets will lead to rising incomes and an increased demand for education. It is believed that with more income and education, there will be more skillful management of resources and more forceful demands on governments to pass and enforce stringent environmental policies (Anderson 1996). The Multilateral Trading System and Environmental Protection In an effort to appease the concerns of environmentalists various
Free Trade
innovations have been made to the multilateral trading system. Prior to the Uruguay Round, environmental protection under the GATT came in the form of an exception. GATT Article XX[7] (General Exceptions) was the only Article in GATT 1947 that addressed the issue of environmental protection. Paragraph (g) of GATT Article XX allows WTO Members to adopt measures aimed at the conservation of exhaustible natural resources, once these measures do not constitute a disguised restriction on international trade. With the conclusion of the Uruguay Round of negotiations (1986-1994) there were significant developments to the environmental provisions of the multilateral trading system. The conclusion of the Uruguay Round led to the Multilateral Trading System being greener on paper. This is evident within the Preamble of the Marrakesh Agreement*8+, where it is noted that there should be optimal use of the worlds resources in accordance with the objectives of sustainable development. Unlike the Preamble of GATT 1947, which allowed for the full use of the resources of the world, the Preamble of the Marrakesh Agreement underlined the importance of interpreting trade commitments within the context of sustainable development. In other words, the economic development brought by trade liberalization was not supposed to cause irreversible damage to the environment.
Free trade good for the environmentproduction techniques Benjamin, Senior Fellow at the Property and Environment Research Center, 02
*Daniel, Spring 2002, Is Free Trade Good for the Environment?, http://perc.org/articles/freetrade-good-environment, accessed 6-30-13 BLE] Rock-throwers at World Trade Organization meetings call themselves environmentalists. They protest that international trade is environmentally destructive, because it induces the emergence of "pollution-havens"Third World nations that take on the dirty work of tanning leather, making paper, and the like. These nations become polluted and, it is claimed, total environmental damage also increases. Many economists are skeptical of the pollution-haven story, but the contention that trade harms the environment is difficult to assess systematically. The links between trade and the environment are subtle and complicated, and simply measuring such concepts in a convincing way is daunting. Recent research has made huge strides in cracking this problem and provides us with a compelling conclusion: Freer international trade improves the environment (Antweiler, Copeland, and Taylor 2001). Whether it is between people, states, or nations, trade can have an impact on environmental quality through three channels. These are changes in (i) where goods are produced, (ii) the scale of economic activity, and (iii) the production techniques used. Antweiler et al. are able to distinguish the effects of each of these on environmental quality. Interestingly, changes in the location of productionthe pollution-haven hypothesisturn out to be empirically unimportant. The fact that freer trade induces increases in the scale of economic activity, on the other hand, has a modest adverse impact on environmental quality. But the third effect changes in production techniquesswamps the other forces, and it is environmentally beneficial, not harmful. Overall, the authors estimate that for each one percent that freer trade raises per capita income in a nation, the result is that pollution (as measured by sulfur dioxide concentrations) falls by one percent.
Free Trade
Free trade creates more efficient marketshelps the environment Thrasher, Researcher at the Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future, 11
*Rachel Danae, Boston University, 2011, Free Trade, http://www.berkshirepublishing.com/assets/pdf/Free_Trade_Thrasher.pdf, accessed 6-30-13 BLE] The principle of sustainable development has become a priority in global trade negotiations. Differences of opinion remain, however, over the specific methods of promoting such development and which pillar of sustainability should take precedence. The primary controversy concerns the capabilities of developing nations to conform to the environmental commitments demanded by the developed world. Many argue that while the developing world needs market access to enter the world economy, it also needs specific policies that build up domestic industries and institutions in order to be globally competitive. These policies could provide developing countries with the flexibility to control the movement of capital, encourage technology transfer, and generate the resources they need to protect the environment (WTO 2006, 7). For low-income nations, reducing poverty is the main priority. But the developed world, responding to the pressures of environmental interest groups, maintains that environmental protection must accompany poverty reduction and economic development. Some WTO members recognize that environmental commitments must consider developing countries capacity to embrace and enforce those commitments. Outside multilateral trade negotiations, however, developing countries often must acquiesce to the demands of their developed trade partners in order to acquire market access. Growth and Change The theory behind trade liberalization, when combined with environmental awareness, shows promise despite the antagonistic relationship between free trade and sustainability. As countries continue to remove trade barriers, global competition in all sectors should increase. The result should be more-efficient markets and more opportunities for technological and economic development in the developing world. Efficient markets could allow environmentally friendly technology to transfer across borders. Since poverty has been identified as a primary cause of environmental destruction, true economic development from free trade could have a positive effect on the environment in the future.
Trade helps the environmentclean technology spread and environmentally friendly tariffs Kanter, writer for the New York Times, 09
*James, writer for the New York Times, June 26, 2009, Does Free Trade Help or Hurt the Climate?, http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/does-free-trade-help-or-hurt-theclimate/?_r=0, accessed 7-1-13 BLE] Making trade more free could lead to a rise in carbon-dioxide emissions as a result of greater economic activity. But more trade could also help to stop climate change by increasing the availability of climate-friendly technologies and products. Those are the conclusions in a report issued on Friday by the World Trade Organization and the United Nations Environment Program. The report seemed aimed partly at defending continuing efforts by the W.T.O. to broker a long-awaited deal as part of the so-called Doha round of trade talks. Contrary to some
Free Trade
claims, trade and trade opening can have a positive impact on emissions of greenhouse gases in a variety of ways including accelerating the transfer of clean technology and the opportunity for developing economies to adapt those technologies to local circumstances , the two groups said in a statement that accompanied the report. To bolster their case, Pascal Lamy, the director-general of the W.T.O., and Achim Steiner, the executive director of the U.N. program, said any forthcoming trade deal should include measures to free up trade in environmental goods and services. Those measures would, according to the statement, constitute a complementary track towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions to scientifically-defensible levels. The report also tackled a principal threat to free trade in climate regulations. New taxes and tariffs could be imposed by countries like the United States and by trade blocs like the European Union to protect home industries and keep out products made more cheaply, and in less environmentally sensitive ways, in other parts of the world. Such border adjustment measures, as they are called in trade jargon, would represent a new set of trade barriers and could trigger a spate of litigation, the agencies suggested.
Trade is good for the environmentefficient allocation of resources causes environmental sustainability Ubben, economics professor at the University of Northern Iowa, 04
[John R., 2004, Trade Liberalization and Environmental Quality: Opposing Viewpoints, Additional Issues, and the Necessity of Intervention, http://business.uni.edu/economics/Themes/ubben.pdf, accessed 7-2-13 BLE] How might trade liberalization help the environment? Trade liberalization can benefit the environment in a number of ways. Free trade can promote the transfer of genetic material and technology that can improve agricultural development and environmental protection in the form of a reduction in chemical use. Trade liberalization can also help improve the efficiency of resource allocation by removing inefficient prices and subsidies. Trade also encourages environmentally sustainable use. Finally, trade can be argued to be a key factor in the increase in environmental standards and increase the speed with which developing countries reach the environmental stage because it serves to increase income [Brack, 1998, 1, 14]. In the area of biotechnology, the transfer of biological pest controls, such as predator organisms and genetically developed crops resistant to disease and insects, can reduce the dependence on chemicals. In agriculture, the transfer of farming practices such as crop rotation and low till or no till farming, can be instrumental in developing sustainable agriculture practices and reducing soil erosion in lesser-developed countries [Zilberman, 1992, 1145]. Trade liberalization may also serve to break down exchange rate policies that subsidize the importation of chemicals. Hence, free trade could reduce chemical usage and lead to environmental improvement [Antel, 1993, 784]. Trade liberalization can help improve resource allocation by removing inefficient prices. Trade liberalization can improve resource allocation by allowing countries to specialize in the production of goods and services in which they are most efficient. Efficiency allows a country to maximize its output for a given level of resources. It can be argued that the efficient allocation of resources is a step toward environmentally sustainable development [Brack, 1998, 1]. If an allocation is Pareto optimal, than there are no other allocation of resources that could make one group better off without hurting any other group. As long as environmental quality is taken into consideration when resources are allocated, then, in theory, trade that promotes efficiency will benefit the environment. Trade
Free Trade
can also serve to increase environmental standards in the manufacturing sector. Companies who produce goods for export face a number of different standards, some higher than others. It is simply easier and more cost effective to produce products to meet the highest standards, so when the company looks to expand into new markets it will have the advantage of already complying with standards regarding the environment, labeling, safety, and many other factors [Brack, 1998, 14]. An increased rate of growth of income caused by trade can help promote environmental quality. Increased income creates potential for investment in environmental protection and may also speed up the transition from purely economic concerns to a balance of environmental and economic growth for developing countries [Antel, 1993, 787]. However, this link is not automatic and policies will need to be implemented to ensure environmental concerns are pursued simultaneously. Poverty per se is a form of environmental degradation and thus economic well-being is an environmental plus, regardless of its effect on pollution control or environmental protection efforts *GATT Secretariat, Esty, 1994, 64+.
Free trade is good for the environment Antweiler et al, Ph.D. professor at University of British Columbia, 98
[Werner Antweiler, Brien R. Copeland, M. Scott Taylor, August 1998, The National Bureau of Economic Research, Is Free Trade Good for the Environment? http://www.nber.org/papers/w6707, accessed 7-1-13, CSO] We find that international trade creates relatively small changes in sulfur dioxide concentrations when it alters the composition, and hence the pollution intensity, of national output. Combining this result with our estimates of scale and technique effects yields a somewhat surprising conclusion: if trade liberalization raises GDP per person by I percent, then pollution concentrations fall by about I percent. Free trade is good for the environment. We obtain this conclusion by estimating a very simple model highlighting the interaction of factor endowments and income differences in determining the pattern of trade. Our approach, although relatively straightforward, is novel in four respects. First, by exploiting the panel structure of our data set, we are able to distinguish empirically between the negative environmental consequences of scalar increases in economic activity the scale effect--and the positive environmental consequences of increases in income that call for cleaner production methods-the technique effect. 'Hits distinction is important for many reasons? Grossman and Krueger (1993) interpret their hump-shaped Kuznets curve" as reflecting the relative strength of scale versus technique effects, but they do not provide separate estimates of their magnitude. Our estimates indicate that a 1pcrecnt increase in the scale of economic activity raises pollution concentrations by 0.25 to 0.5 percent for an average country in our sample, but the accompanying increase in income drives concentrations down by 1.25-1.5 percent via a technique effect.
Free Trade
A2: Environmental Damage Now

Environmental damage independent of free trade policies no causal relationship Irwin, professor at Dartmouth, 02
[Douglas A., September 1, 2002, Free Trade Under Fire, www.futurecasts.com Vol. 4, No. 9, 9/1/02., accessed 7-1-13 BLE] The greatest environmental disasters, Irwin notes, occurred in the old Soviet Union and its satellites. The most polluted cities are in the undeveloped and developing world. "The burning of the Amazon rain forests is largely motivated by local inhabitants clearing land for their own use, not international trade." "Environmental damage results from poor environmental policies, not poor trade policies. Environmental damage results from the inappropriate use of our natural resources in the land, sea, and air. The overuse of these resources is commonly related to the lack of well defined property rights. When property rights are not well established, that is, when no one has ownership rights and control over a resource, then open access to the resource frequently leads to its exploitation beyond the socially optimal level." (What everybody owns, nobody owns! The most widespread environmental problems arise from abuse of the commons.) There is no connection between trade liberalization and environmental degradation - but there is often a direct relationship between protectionist subsidies and environmental problems. Subsidized fishing fleets over fish ocean fishery stocks. Agricultural subsidies and trade restraints encourage marginal farming heavily reliant on agrochemicals and intensive animal production practices and overgrazing. "Countries that have a comparative advantage in agriculture, whether they are industrialized, such as Canada and Australia, or developing, such as Argentina and Brazil, do not depend as heavily on fertilizers and pesticides to maintain output." & Moreover, logging for timber and timber products is just a minor cause of deforestation in tropical countries, Irwin points out. "Almost all the annual logging in developing countries is for domestic production of fuel and charcoal - for the simple reason that [wood] fuel and charcoal are the cheapest source of energy for poor people. About 77 percent of forest timber production in Asia, 70 percent in South America, and 89 percent in Africa is for domestic fuel and charcoal." Indeed, blocking the timber trade would immediately reduce the value of the forests, reducing local incentives to properly manage their forest resources. Taxing timber exports to encourage purchase of value added plywood and other mill products in Indonesia results in 15% greater use of timber because of wastage from inefficient Indonesian mills. The inefficiency of local processors is common in these cases. & Trade does increase industrial production. However, it also increases prosperity which invariably ultimately leads to domestic demands for better environmental regulations and less pollution. It is growth that does not spread prosperity that invariably increases pollution. Trade restraints notoriously confine prosperity to the politically powerful and favored classes. & All too often, environmental concerns are raised by protectionist forces and ideological opponents of capitalism to kill trade liberalization rather than for any legitimate environmental purpose. "Because trade in itself is not a driving force behind pollution, a policy of free trade rarely detracts from such goals, and in many instances may help."
Free Trade
A2: WTO Rules

Countries open to trade have the most protective environmental policies no WTO punishment Griswold, researcher for the CATO Institute, 00
*Daniel, researcher for the CATO Institute, September 1, 2000, The Blessings and Challenges of Globalization, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/blessings-challengesglobalization, accessed 6-31-13 BLE] The advance of globalization has not been a smooth or a pain-free process. The changes it has caused, or is perceived to have caused, have spurred a political backlashdramatically evident in the street protests that plagued the WTO ministerial in Seattle. Two of the most common complaints against globalization are that it has undermined labor and environmental standards, and that it has exacerbated the gap between rich and poor, both among and within countries. Critics of globalization warn of a destructive race to the bottom, as advanced nations are forced to weaken labor and environmental standards to compete with lessregulated producers in developing nations. This theory rests on the assumption that lower standards give LDCs a significant advantage in attracting global capital and gaining export markets at the expense of more developed countries. The OECD has found that, in practice, a lack of core labor standards plays no significant role in attracting foreign investment or in enhancing export performance. The OECD did find strong evidence that there is a positive association over time between sustained trade reforms and improvements in core standards.19 In other words, trade liberalization encourages higher standards, not lower standards. If anything, the real race may be toward the top. For reasons of internal efficiency as well as public perceptions, multinational companies tend to impose higher standards on their overseas production plants than those prevailing in local markets, thus raising average standards in the host country. Free trade and domestic liberalizationand the faster growth they createare the best ways to encourage higher standards. As per capita incomes rise in less developed countries, so does the domestic political demand for higher standards, and the ability of the productive sector to pay for them. Punishing LDCs with trade sanctions would only cripple their long-term ability to raise domestic labor and environmental standards. Some environmental activists complain that the global trading system, as embodied in the WTO, favors free trade at the expense of environmental protection. But WTO rules place no restraints on the ability of a member government to impose any environmental regulations determined to be necessary to protect its own environment from domestically produced or imported products. Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, the basic charter of the WTO, plainly states that members may impose trade restrictions necessary to protect human, animal, or plant health. The Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement of the Uruguay Round does require that such restrictions be based on sound scientific evidencea commonsense requirement necessary to discourage the use of health and safety issues as a cover for protectionism. If WTO members are found to be in violation of their commitments, they remain free as sovereign nations to simply ignore any adverse WTO rulings against domestic regulations that impact trade. A prominent example is the European Unions ban on the sale of beef from cattle treated with growth hormones. The EU has repeatedly lost in the WTO, but it has no plans to lift its ban, even though it has produced no scientifically sound evidence that the banned beef poses any hazard to public health. The United States retaliated against the EU in May 1999 by imposing sanctions on $ 117 million worth of imports from
Free Trade
Europe, but retaliation as a weapon of trade disputes existed long before the WTO. Antitrade environmental activists complain that several decisions by the WTO have undercut U.S. environmental regulations. In the so-called Shrimp-Turtle case, the WTO ruled against a U.S. ban on shrimp from countries the United States judged were not adequately protecting sea turtles from being caught and killed in shrimp nets. In an earlier, similar case, the WTO had ruled against a U.S. ban on tuna from Mexico that the United States claims was caught through a process that endangers dolphins. Environmental critics of the WTO point to these two cases as proof of their claim. In both these cases, however, the United States remains free to simply ignore the WTO ruling and continue enforcing the law as is. The affected nations could in theory retaliate with trade restrictions of their own if the United States refuses to comply , but that option would always exist even if the WTO did not. And in the case of the Shrimp- Turtle decision, it was not the law itself that ran afoul of WTO rules but the discriminatory way the United States went about implementing it, for example giving Latin American suppliers more time than Asian suppliers to comply with the law. Expanding trade is not merely compatible with high standards of environmental quality but can lead directly to their improvement. As a country sees its standard of living rise through economic liberalization and trade expansion, its industry can more readily afford to control emissions and its citizens have more to spend on the luxury good of improved environmental quality, above what they need for subsistence. And as economic growth creates a growing, better- educated middle class, the political demand for pollution abatement rises. Today the most restrictive environmental laws are maintained in developed countries that are relatively open to trade.
Non-trading countries more susceptible to environmental damage Kwong, writer for the Foundation for Economic Education, 94
*Jo, February 1, 1994, Environment and Free Trade Countries Must Be Rich Before They Can Be Clean, http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/environment-and-free-trade#axzz2XvAnkccU, accessed 7-1-13 BLE] Environmental activists, who typically take a unified stance on major issues ranging from global warming to endangered species protection, experienced an unusual split with regard to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Generally speaking, environmentalists divided between those who were convinced that free trade would lead to greater damage to the environment, and those who believed that freer trade would stimulate national economies, ultimately creating more resources to help protect the environment. NAFTA brought these two positions into stark conflict. Most vocal was the anti-NAFTA environmental lobby. The Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and Public Citizen, among others, argued that NAFTA would provide an opportunity for U.S. companies to migrate to Mexico and escape more rigid American environmental laws. Larry Williams, international program director for the Sierra Club, cautioned that the flight of factories from the United States to Mexico: would increase pollution loading levels on the continent and would trigger pressures within the United States to lower environmental standards to improve competitiveness in order to stop the flights.1 This thinking, however, is flawed on several counts. First, there is little historical evidence of polluting industries migrating to countries where environmental standards are lax. While many developing countries are experiencing rapid industrial growth, this reflects the economic stage that they are going through, rather than environmentally induced migration. Polluting industries which spend heavily on controls remain concentrated in the developed countries.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker Ironically, it was the closed, protectionist countriesparticularly in the former Communist worldthat became pollution havens.
Free Trade
Free Trade
Environmental Protections
Free trade is a catalyst for environmental protections Schoenbaum, Professor and Executive Director of the Center for International and Comparative Law and the University of Georgia, 92
*Thomas J., Trade and Environment: Free International Trade and Protection of the Environment: Irreconcilable Conflict?, October, Lexis+ The environmentalists who argue that free trade will destroy the environment are shortsighted and wrong. As a recent GATT informational report n8 has pointed out, there is no fundamental conflict between GATT rules and the need to protect environmental quality. Analysis shows that existing GATT regulations place virtually no constraints on the ability of a nation to protect its own environment and resources against damage caused by either domestic production or domestically produced or imported products. n9 GATT rules can also be made consistent with efforts to preserve regional and global environmental quality. Furthermore, trade liberalization, whether on a global or regional basis, will actually help the environmentalists' cause by (1) fostering common standards for environmental protection that must be observed even by certain developing countries that currently ignore environmental concerns; n10 (2) terminating subsidies, particularly in agriculture, that are environmentally destructive, as well as inefficient; n11 and (3) ensuring economic growth, which will create the financial means, particularly for developing countries, to control pollution and protect the environment. n12
Trade provides the economic growth necessary to enact environmentally safe policies Sheehan, adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, 00
[James M., He specializes in policies concerning international environmental regulation, trade, finance, and foreign aid., June 1, 2000, Free Trade Is Green Trade, http://cei.org/op-eds-andarticles/free-trade-green-trade, accessed 7-2-13 BLE] There are a variety of reasons for the beneficial relationship between growth and environmental quality. As economic activity increases, so does human interaction with nature. Since most human actions strive to improve quality of life, environmental amenities receive greater attention. Environmental improvements are particularly significant in market-oriented economies. The societal institutions that facilitate prosperity, such as property rights, marketbased prices, and overall economic freedom, are equally essential for raising environmental quality. These institutions form the bulwark of private stewardship of natural resources and, thus, sustainable management practices. Market forces naturally drive economies to become more efficient by reducing the costs associated with energy and materials use, and waste disposal. Moreover, since growth creates wealth, greater economic resources are made available to address the primary human needs, which must be fulfilled before individuals will focus on environmental amenities. According to Marian Radetski, an economist at the University of Luleo in Sweden, rich consumers are more willing than poor ones to spend substantial parts of their income for safeguarding high environmental standards.17 Furthermore, poverty is a significant cause of environmental degradation. Poorer people are more likely to exploit environmental commons in search of fuelwood and other basic necessities, causing overhunting, overfishing, and stress to water resources.18 Lacking significant employment
Free Trade
opportunities and productive land, the poor in the Third World often must utilize marginal lands for food production, attempting to farm in deserts or tropical forests. The result is environmental degradation in the form of soil erosion, desertification, and deforestation.19 Moreover, economic growth enables societies to advance in ways that are environmentally beneficial. At earlier stages of development, pollution problems are likely to be more threatening to human beings. Air- and water-borne hazards can result in immediate illness or death. As societies advance, pollution problems decline in severity. Environmental concerns generally become less life-threatening, and more aesthetic in nature. Even though growth coincides with environmental improvement, market failure is often blamed for the existence of pollution itself. Many environmentalists consider the system of capitalism and private enterprise inherently responsible for environmental externalities. Only government regulation in the public interest can force businesses to internalize social costs, according to this argument, and such regulation must be extended to trade. Thus, there is a strong anti-market bias to environmentalist arguments. The market-failure argument leads inexorably to central planning; any human activity with environmental impacts must be politically controlled. Government is entrusted to effectively foster only the types of economic growth which are environmentally friendly, while preventing the types that are not. Yet no government has the capability of assimilating the vast amounts of economic, technological, and scientific data necessary to make such determinations. The task of ecological central planning is no easier than economic central planning.20 If market failure was truly the cause of pollution, we would expect the absence of markets in the centrally-planned economies of Eastern Europe would have been environmentally beneficial. On the contrary, without the profit motive of the market, some of the worst environmental degradation in the world occurred in the former Soviet Bloc.21 Central planning failed largely because it could not efficiently distribute resources. Neither could it safeguard environmental resources. Data from sample market and socialist economies shows that market economies become more resource-efficient with economic growth. Socialist countries, however, are generally more resource intensive, even in times of recession.22 Without a profit motive, there is little incentive for political owners of a resource to conserve for the future in order to maximize returns.23 Free Markets Are Truly Green In a market economy, environmental and other costs are internalized more thoroughly via the price system. Internalization is made possible by the extension of property rights and a system of voluntary exchange to an ever-wider array of resources. As environmental and other resources are integrated into the market system of voluntary exchange, information is conveyed through prices, which encourages more creative resolutions of environmental and other problems. Falling prices for energy and raw materials demonstrate that the markets technological improvements and efficiency gains are making resources more abundant. 24
Free trade increases economic growth which enables environmental protection Eiras and Schaefer, Economic Policy Analyst for Latin America at the Heritage Foundation, Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, 01
*Ana and Brett, Trade: The Best Way to Protect the Environment, http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/BG1480.cfm, accessed 7-2-13 BLE] The key to increasing environmental protection in developing nations is to increase economic growth. As a country's standard of living rises through economic liberalization and trade expansion, its industry can more readily afford to control emissions and its citizens have more discretionary income to allocate toward improved environmental quality. Free trade is a
Free Trade
central component in increasing economic growth. By opening markets and creating more business opportunities, free trade fosters economic growth by rewarding "risk taking by increasing sales, profit margins, and market share. Companies can choose to build on those profits by expanding their operations, entering new market sectors, and creating better-paying jobs." 3 Full liberalization of the economy, beginning with an open trade policy, is the most effective environmental preservation strategy because economic liberalization, including free trade, leads directly to increased economic growth. Specifically, the evidence demonstrates thAT: Wealthier societies are more likely to demand and implement greater environmental protection because they can better afford the costs of those policies. Wealthier societies not only are better able to afford environmental protection, but also show a proven desire for such protection that increases as income grows. 4 This relationship is supported by extensive evidence published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Gene M. Grossman and Alan B. Krueger, for example, concluded that pollution appears to rise with GDP at low levels of income, but eventually to reach a peak, and then to fall with GDP at higher levels of income....We find that economic growth brings an initial phase of deterioration followed by a subsequent phase of improvement. 5
Free Trade
Free Trade Bad - Geopolitics
Free Trade
War
Globalization increases the propensity for war- nation polarization, autocratic backlash, an proliferation of increasingly powerful weapons. Echevarria, Director of Research @ Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, 2003
*LTC Antulio J. Echevarria II, March, GLOBALIZATION AND THE NATURE OF WAR, Strategic Studies Institute, ISBN 1-58487-118-0, chip] Despite its apparent positive impact on the spread of democracy and free-market economies, globalization might produce a more dangerous and unpredictable world, especially if the cultural backlash it has generated thus far gathers more momentum. This world might be characterized by shifting power relationships, ad hoc security arrangements, and an everwidening gap between the richest and poorest nations.8 A number of new democracies lacking strong traditions for maintaining checks and balancesmight, for example, collapse after only transitory successes. Transnational threats, such as international crime syndicates, terrorist networks, and drug cartels, could continue to grow in strength and influence, thriving among autocratic, weak, or so-called failed states. And, ethnic rivalries, nationalism, religiousbased antagonisms, and competition for scarce resources, including water, could go unresolved. Thus, serious crises would undoubtedly arise, especially as the worlds population continues to grow. On the other hand, globalization could give rise to a more stable world in which national interests merge into the general aim of promoting peace, stability, and economic prosperity.9 In this world, the rule of law and the existence of pluralistic political systems would continue to spread; and the number of free-market economies would expand, distributing economic prosperity still further. Even if this Utopia should materialize, a number of crises some of which will undoubtedly require military interventionwill most likely have had to occur beforehand, since most autocratic regimes will probably not surrender power without a fight. Moreover, as the 1999 Kosovo crisis demonstrated, even relatively small states armed primarily with conventional weapons can pose significant security challenges to a superpower and its strategic partners.10 The world need not devolve into a clash of civilizations or a coming anarchy, therefore, in order for military power to continue to play a significant role in the future.11 In any case, globalization will surely continue and may even accelerate if data concerning the rate of technological change are any indication.12 As numerous studies and strategic papers have pointed out, globalization is already changing how wars are being fought in the 21st century, making them more dangerous than in any previous era.13 At a minimum, the greater mobility of people, things, and ideas will mean increased mobility for nonstate actors, weapons of mass destruction, and radical fundamentalism of all types. In fact, the U.S. Department of State currently reports that more than 60 active terrorist groups exist (with some 100,000 members); and over one-third of them have the capacity for global reach.14 Furthermore, todays terrorists have proven very adaptive, learning from previous generations, and changing their tactics in response to new anti-terrorist measures.15 Globalization clearly offers them some extraordinary capabilities to communicate and coordinate their efforts. Globalization also facilitates the proliferation of destabilizing capabilities, such as weapons of mass destruction or mass effect. Eleven countries currently have nuclear weapons programs; thirteen more are actively seeking them.16 More than 25 countries now possess ballistic missiles, and over 75,000 cruise missiles are in existence, with the number expected to rise to between 80,000 and 90,000 by 2010.17 Also, at least 17
Free Trade
countries including the so-called Axis of Evilcurrently have active chemical and biological weapons programs, and the number is rising.18 As the Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation recently explained, despite the provisions of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and the Chemical and Biological Weapons conventions, proliferation of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high explosive/high yield weapons continues worldwide: There is an intense sort of cooperation that goes on among countries that are trying to acquire such weapons.19 For example, China and North Korea have long contributed to the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons, both for strategic leverage against the United States and for economic advantages.20 Thus, globalization assists some powerful motives that run counter to nonproliferation efforts. Biological weapons, especially, pose a serious threat not only to human populations, but also to agriculture and livestock. Unfortunately, U.S. crops lack genetic diversity, rendering them vulnerable to disease. Furthermore, the nations centralized feeding and marketing practices make livestock extremely vulnerable to a biological attack. If such an attack were to occur, a devastating ripple effect would surely spread throughout the global economy since the United States produces 30-50 percent of the worlds foodstuffs.21 Globalization has also introduced a new form of warfare: cyber-war. More than 30 countries including Russia, China, and several so-called rogue stateshave developed or are developing the capability to launch strategic-level cyber attacks.22 The interconnectedness of many nations infrastructures means that a successful cyber attack against a single sector in one country could result in adverse effects in other sectors within the same country , or those of its neighbors. Indeed, intended (and unintended) adverse effects could well travel globally.23
Globalization lowers the threshold for war, states fight to protect their economic interest Echevarria, Director of Research @ Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, 2003
[LTC Antulio J. Echevarria II, March, GLOBALIZATION AND THE NATURE OF WAR, Strategic Studies Institute, ISBN 1-58487-118-0, chip] The war against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups of global reach represents the first conflict of the 21st century in which the characteristics of globalizationthe enhanced mobility of people, things, and ideashave come into play. It is certainly a war that neither side can afford to lose. The political objectives of the combatants reflect that realization, even if neither side has fully mobilized all of its forces to date. Sources indicate that, even though it is not necessarily bent on the immediate total destruction of the United States, Al Qaeda will never compromise and will continue to fight until all religious apostasy is eliminated, all illegitimate or corrupt Islamic regimes are replaced by a unified Muslim polity and Caliphate, and all infidels are driven from Muslim holy lands. 48 The United States is seen as a major source of support for apostatic regimes and, hence, weakening it politically and economically is essential for success. In order to ensure ultimate success, however, it might be necessary to have a final showdown with the great Satan. For its part, the United States will not accept anything less than the complete neutralization, if not destruction, of Al Qaeda. Contrary to what historians such as Martin van Creveld have argued, therefore, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the emergence of powerful nonstate actors, such as Al Qaeda, do not mean the end of decisive warfare or of major wars among states.49 Instead, we find a general shift toward less overt and more protracted forms of conflict, while, at the same time, major powers such as the United States emphasize a greater willingness to take unilateral preemptive action or to
Free Trade
respond to attacks involving weapons of mass destruction in any manner deemed appropriate, to include massive retaliation against major states.50 Moreover, instead of culture displacing politics as the primary force behind conflict, globalization has actually increased the latters role, both in determining the purpose for and influencing the actual conduct of war . Both President George W. Bush and terrorist leader Osama bin Laden have released statements that link their actions to very explicit political agendas. Both are clearly using war to achieve political ends, rather than to satisfy a cultural impulse to wage war, as Keegan argues. To be sure, culture and politics are inextricably linked in this conflict. Al Qaedas leadership might have sought to provoke a massive U.S. military response to the attacks of September 11, which it could then portray as an assault on Islam. This general assault, it was hoped, would inspire the entire Islamic world to rise up against the West.51 Indeed, the West, conscious of this possibility, has taken great pains to portray the conflict as a war against terror tactics rather than a war against Islam. And, it must continue to do so. Otherwise, the conflict between Al Qaeda and the West may indeed escalate into a more dangerous clash of civilizations. Nonetheless, the fact remains that both sides are using war as a political instrument, that is, they are subordinating its conduct to the achievement of political ends. Political leaders on both sides can also have real-time access to military actions as they unfold, though one would hope that in the case of Al Qaeda the access would be less secure.52 Still, both sides can more or less communicate their intentions to their operatives in the field and thus influence the course of events throughout every phase of a military operation, no matter where it occurs. This capability means that political direction of a campaign can span time and distance to influence the smallest of details, not that it should. Moreover, the public statements by President Bush and bin Ladens periodic releases of video messages through Al Jazeera demonstrate that each can address his support base to give it guidance or motivation, or to garner further support, while at the same time challenging or vexing his opponents. Hence, the conflict remains thoroughly political at every level and, thus far at least, throughout every operational phase. Furthermore, this trend does not appear likely to reverse itself. In the global war on terrorism, the element of blind natural force is playing the decisive role. Globalization has, among other things, contributed to the creation of fertile breeding grounds for terrorism as some groups try to resist its encroachment. Al Qaeda has associated the United States with the spread of globalization, which it sees as a form of decadence. Building on the perception that Islamic societys current political and economic problems are the result of the Wests decadent values and duplicitous policies, Al Qaeda has penetrated Islamic nongovernmental organizations and woven itself into the social, political, and religious fabric of Muslim societies. Consequently, it has managed to create a substantial support base that may enable it to regenerate itself indefinitely.53 Despite the arrest of hundreds of operatives in North America and abroad since the attacks of September 11, 2001, for example, Al Qaeda has created new cells and reconstituted older ones.54 While operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere have led to the killing or capture of some 16 of its 25 key leaders, Al Qaedas ideology remains intact and will probably continue to draw young Muslims.55 Evidence also suggests that Muslim extremism, or Islamism as some authorities identify it, has been moving from the margins of the Islamic political spectrum toward the center, so that bin Laden and other key terrorist leaders may enjoy considerable empathy, if not sympathy, regarding their words and actions.56 The Islamists mindset is that the current war is one in which Gods warriorsthe mujahidinare heroically fighting the forces of Satan: U.S. troops.57 In this war, civilian populations of both sides are more than a manifestation or a reservoir of blind natural force. They have become the primary target in both a physical and a psychological sense for Al Qaeda and a psychological sense for the United States. With what has been described as a
Free Trade
virus-like ability to infect indigenous groups, Al Qaeda has turned itself into an ideological weapon that evidently excels in the generation of propaganda to support its cause.58 By comparison, the U.S. populace, which lacked any deep-seated feelings of hostility prior to September 11, 2001, is now being psychologically prepared (one can argue how well) by its political leadership for a long fight in which conditions might get worse particularly if an attack on Iraq or other rogue states occursbefore they get better. Indeed, some of the current political rhetoric of the administration and its supporters likens the war against terrorism to World War IV.59 In other words, the war against global terrorism is foremost a battle of ideasideas powerful enough to provoke violent emotions. Consequently, it is within this arena that the war will be won or lost.
Globalization decreases escalation management Echevarria, Director of Research @ Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, 2003
*LTC Antulio J. Echevarria II, March, GLOBALIZATION AND THE NATURE OF WAR, Strategic Studies Institute, ISBN 1-58487-118-0, chip] If the war on terrorism is any guide, globalization is changing the nature of war in several ways. First, it is strengthening the role that politics will play in war by affording it the capability to exert greater real-time control over military operations. Of course, this control will vary depending on the personalities involved as well as a combatants ability to interdict its opponents communications. Second, globalization is increasing the criticality of the element of hostility. Political leaders can now mobilize hostile passions more quickly and over a larger area than hitherto, particularly in areas suffering from the spread of globalization. Images and the ideas they convey may now be more decisive than the sword. Yet, it may prove more difficult to cool such passions than it did to ignite them. Finally, globalization means that opponents (even if they are neighbors) can now fight each other across global distances, in new dimensions, and with a broader array of weapons. These changes may amount to a net increase in the dual element of chance and uncertainty at all levels of war. It remains to be seen whether information technology will reduce or exacerbate this expansion. Certainly, skillful commanders and well-trained militaries still matter. Yet, as has been shown, even with the rapidly spreading and intensifying effects of globalization, war remains essentially Clausewitzian in nature. It is still a dynamic expression of political wills in conflict, colliding via the means of organized violence with multinational populations serving both as resources and as targets. The forces of Islamic terrorism are fueled by volatile extremist ideas and, hence, the global war on terrorism remains at heart a conflict of opposing ideas. The United States and its strategic partners must take the fight to the enemy on that front and win there decisively.
Free trade causes military conflicts to open markets and gain resources McDonald, associate professor in international relations theory and international political economy @ UT Austin, 2004
*Patrick J. McDonald, Aug., 2004, Peace through Trade or Free Trade?, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp. 547-572, Sage Publications, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4149808, chip]
Free Trade
By focusing on the aggregate benefits of commerce, most variants of commercial liberalism risk assuming that all individuals within society receive income gains from trade and that these same individuals will lobby their government to enact a peaceful foreign policy to realize these economic goals. As the political influence of the beneficiaries of commerce and trade expand in relatively equal proportion, then larger aggregate trade flows should promote peace (Domke 1988, 48). These mechanisms linking the economic interests of society to preferences over foreign policy decisions on war and peace need to be refined for several reasons. I have already discussed how revisions in standard trade theory illustrate that all factors or sectors in an economy do not receive income gains from trade. Consequently, economic interests can lead some societal groups to favor the closure of national markets to international trade. For example, scarce factors of production are likely to lobby for protection to reduce imports and prevent the erosion of their income (Stolper and Samuelson 1941). This proposition similarly implies that economic interests can lead certain groups to support any policy, including the use of military force, which reduces commerce and import penetration.'0 At the very least, protectionist interests are less likely than other groups to lobby the state for peace when conflict threatens to interrupt trade. Sectors relying on protection may even actively support aggressive foreign policies for two reasons. First, by reducing imports and foreign competition, military conflict may create income gains for these sectors by expanding their share of domestic markets. Second, military expansion can also provide concentrated income gains to these groups by enlarging a protected domestic market through conquest and the integration of another economy. Similar to the standard arguments linking imperialist interests to conflict, an important distinction separates this claim from more traditional ones. The extent to which economic interests rely on regulatory protection from the state to remain profitable plays a critical role in their support of military force for economic expansion. Sectors that do not rely on the state for protection while surviving in international markets can generate new markets for simple efficiency reasons. Their goods penetrate new overseas markets because they are cheaper than those of international competitors. Given that the use of military conflict may carry the risk of additional costs to these sectors, they should be unlikely to support such a policy if it were to achieve the same outcome (of new overseas markets) they could achieve without the use of force. At the same time, sectors that are less competitive in international markets may be more willing to risk recovering any costs of war in new markets that they otherwise could not acquire without the use of force." These possibilities demand that any claim that commerce reduces military conflict must account for the relative political strength or veto capacity of societal groups unlikely to support liberal commercial policies and peace for economic reasons.12 Apart from understanding the role of protectionist interests in decisions to use military force, one must also examine the influence of their societal opponentsthose favoring peace for economic reasons-in this domestic struggle. The primary beneficiaries of free trade face significant organizational hurdles in their lobbying efforts pursuing both free trade and peace. Studies of the domestic politics of commercial policy (e.g., Alt and Gilligan 1994) illustrate that gains from trade, whether in the form of reduced prices for consumer goods or new export markets, are often diffused throughout society. This diffusion reduces the willingness of these groups to undertake costly lobbying activity for the relatively small benefits of greater openness to trade. At the same time, the costs of economic integration, whether in the form of factory closures or job losses, are often more concentrated in specific industries or firms. Organizational advantages thus help those groups most hurt by international trade to overcome the collective action problem and mobilize support for protective policies that insulate their sectors from international competition. Similar organizational difficulties may reduce the effectiveness of societal constraints on a government's efforts to use military force
Free Trade
as an instrument of foreign policy (Gowa 1999). The aggregate benefits that stem from avoiding the costs of war may be spread evenly across society to prevent individuals from undertaking the costly lobbying activity necessary to restrain a government from using force. These twin possibilities suggest that the income gains from trade may not always provide sufficient incentives to prevent conflict if their beneficiaries possess relatively weak domestic influence . To understand the conditions when trade activates these societal interests to produce peace, we need to assess the relative political strength of these groups. Just as battlefield outcomes reduce ambiguities about the prewar balance of military power and resolve between states (Fearon 1995; Wagner 2000), trade policy outcomes can indicate the relative balance of political strength between societal groups fighting a domestic battle over commercial policy. Greater levels of protection in an economy indicate that import-competing sectors have successfully lobbied the state to enact regulatory barriers and possess relatively more political influence than the beneficiaries of trade within the domestic political game. The level of protection in an economy thus provides one means to assess the relative strength of domestic economic interests in favor of war or peace. As the size of protected sectors increases, the domestic political influence of these groups on the state and the potential for military conflict should also increase. Conversely, smaller levels of protection indicate that free trade lobbies likely to oppose military aggression possess relatively more domestic political influence.
Free Trade
US Heg
Free trade causes protectionist backlash and damages US hegemony at the expense of other nations Brink Lindsey, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the director of its Center for Trade Policy Studies, 2012
*Free Trade Nationalism, Cato, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/free-tradenationalism, chip] Its not just that free traders have sold their cause on foreign policy grounds. Through linking trade liberalization exclusively with international negotiations, they have actually conveyed the impression that free trade requires the subordination of the U.S. national economic interest to broader concerns. After all, in trade talks countries agree to reduce their trade barriers only on the condition that other countries do likewise. Thus, trade barriers are treated like nuclear missiles in arms control talks prized strategic assets that are given up only in exchange for foreign assets of equivalent value. (Indeed, in the parlance of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, a commitment to reduce tariffs is a concession.) With the issue so framed, the military metaphors proliferate. Trade hawks argue that relatively open markets amount to unilateral disarmament, and urge that we close off access to U.S. markets unless foreign countries let in more American goods. Free traders, by resisting such calls, get cast as doves. Of course, the equation of trade with war is economic nonsense. Trade, unlike war, is not a zero sum game: one country doesnt win at anothers expense. In particular, openness to foreign competition is not a vulnerability. On the contrary, it allows a countrys citizens to enjoy the best goods and services the world has to offer, and to specialize in those pursuits at which they are relatively more productive. And the benefits of open markets accrue regardless of whether other countries maintain similarly liberal policies. Nevertheless, free traders have seldom challenged the protectionist misconceptions that trade talks encourage. By and large they accept the notion that the United States is somehow at a disadvantage because most of our trading partners maintain higher trade barriers than we do. Their position is that America is strong enough to win at international trade even with the deck stacked against us; and anyway, they argue, broader geopolitical interests countering Soviet power, and now maintaining some kind of nebulous influence outweigh narrow commercial concerns. Thus, by the twisted logic of trade negotiations, free traders appear to be asking the United States to play by less favorable rules than apply to other countries. Furthermore, the direction of trade negotiations in recent years suggests a connection between free trade and the progressive diminution of U.S. national sovereignty. The scope of trade agreements has broadened far beyond simple tariff-cutting to encompass sweeping forays into traditional domestic policy areas. In particular, efforts to harmonize national policies on labor and the environment are working their way onto negotiating agendas at both the regional and multilateral levels. And to enforce these increasingly ambitious agreements, new and more powerful international institutions most notably, the World Trade Organization have been created and empowered to pronounce judgment on national laws fidelity to international obligations. During the twilight struggle with communism, conservatives suppressed their normal nationalist sensibilities in deference to the greater cause. Now that the Cold War has ended, though, its not surprising that a growing number of conservatives are ready to throw the free-trade baby out with the internationalist bath water. If trade liberalization is part of a package deal that
Free Trade
seemingly sacrifices Americas national economic interest and erodes its sovereignty in favor of some incipient world government, then thanks but no thanks. Even many conservatives who know enough economics to reject Pat Buchanans full-throated protectionism are finding it ever harder to maintain allegiance to the free-trade agenda as currently constituted. War is Gods way of teaching Americans geography, the 19th century American writer Ambrose Bierce sagely observed, and the war in Iraq is no exception. After weeks of intense coverage, one fact is plain: The people of Iraq should be among the richest in the world. Iraq has been cursed by brutal politics, but it has been abundantly blessed by geography. Two great rivers bound a fertile plain in a subtropical climate. It possesses a seaport and ready access to major markets. As the repository for many of the worlds greatest archeological sites, it should be a tourist Mecca. And, of course, the country sits on top of the worlds second largest known oil reserves. Among his many crimes, Saddam Hussein squandered and stifled the potential wealth of his country by his warmongering and official thievery. The economic policy of his Baathist Party was a kind of thuggish socialism: government control of prices and industry, ubiquitous rationing, arbitrary confiscation of private wealth, and little trade other than arms and oil. Saddams misrule has left Iraq by far the poorest country in the Persian Gulf region. Its per capita gross domestic product is the equivalent of $2,500 a year, far lower than the per capita GDP of Qatar ($21,200), Kuwait ($15,000), Saudi Arabia ($10,600) or even Iran ($7,000). Iraqs imports are a fraction of what they were in the 1980s, when it citizens were buying almost $1 billion worth of U.S. farm products a year. Americas well-earned victory on the battlefield will be in jeopardy if the people of Iraq cannot enjoy the material fruits of their new-found freedom. To safeguard our investment of blood and treasure, the United States and Great Britain should ensure that any new Iraqi government protects the economic as well as the political and civil freedom of its citizens. An essential part of any plan to establish freedom in Iraq should be a commitment to a free market and the institutions that support it, including a commitment to free trade. Iraqis must enjoy a secure right to property, a stable currency, decontrolled prices, the rule of law and contract, and the freedom to engage in business, at home and through international trade. Post-war reconstruction of Europe provides a model, although not in a way most people believe. Yes, Marshall Plan aid played a role in reviving Western Europe, but the real story was the continents turn toward markets and free trade. In June 1948, Germanys Ludwig Erhard abruptly repealed price controls and issued a new currency. Tax and tariff cuts soon followed. As one historian noted: The spirit of the country changed overnight. The gray, hungry, dead-looking figures wandering about the streets in their everlasting search for food came to life. Iraq needs an Arab Ludwig Erhard. Study after study has confirmed that nations relatively open to trade grow faster and achieve higher incomes than those that are relatively closed. The model for Iraqs new leaders should be Ireland, Chile, the tigers of East Asia, and other countries that have achieved sustained growth through expanding tradenot the stagnant and increasingly isolated countries of the Arab Middle East. With the Saddam regime now history, UN sanctions should be lifted immediately. If France and Russia insist on keeping sanctions in place to protect the UNs bureaucratic control over Iraqi oil, the United States should ignore the sanctions and unilaterally allow Americans to trade with the people of Iraq. U.S. markets should be opened to goods made by Iraqis, especially importsensitive textiles, apparel, and farm products. Beyond stimulating growth, trade with Iraq would bring humanitarian relief, cement ties between our two countries, and send a positive signal that Iraq is open to foreign investment. Much has been written about the need for political reform in the Arab world, but it also desperately needs economic reform. The Arab worlds share of global trade and foreign investment has been declining in the last two decades. Outside
Free Trade
of oil, Arab countries export little that the rest of the world is willing to buy. With a few exceptions, barriers to trade and foreign investment remain high. There are more McDonalds franchises in the tiny Netherlands than in all the Arab world. A vibrant Iraqi economy would give hope to a new generation of Arabs to reclaim their rightful place in the world of trade, science and ideas. An educated, hopeful middle class would in turn create more fertile soil for limited and representative government. But if a post-Saddam Iraq fails to prosper, its people will grow frustrated and blame the market and the West for their troubles, creating fertile soil for terrorism. The technology, dynamism, and openness of our own market economy helped us win this war; if spread to Iraq, those same market forces can help us win the peace.
Free trade collapses U.S economy and leadership Heffner, writer for economy in crisis, 12
[Thomas, 4-8-12, Economy in Crisis, The real cost of free trade http://economyincrisis.org/content/real-cost-%E2%80%9Cfree-trade%E2%80%9D, accessed 7-413 CSO] Free trade should more accurately be called freedom for other countries to undercut and destroy American domestic production because in practice that is what is happening. This is an undeniable fact that should be obvious to any consumer or business in this country. Very little of what is consumed here is made by American owned companies operating in America. This was not formerly the case, and it was not how the wealth of this country was created. Proponents of free trade justify their position by saying free trade is supplying American consumers with access to the lowest cost, most competitive market. However, this does not justify the terrible consequences of free trade. Proponents dismiss the destruction to American domestic production by wishfully thinking that we will find new ways to reinvent ourselves. How will we continue to pay for these cheap foreign goods with no industry to generate our own wealth? Free trade proponents fail to say that free access to subsidized foreign production is destroying Americas chances to be competitive. Foreign companies have advantages that American companies do not have including subsidies, low cost labor, and protected home markets. Free trade agreements are impossible for the U.S. to enforce in other countries. China has consistently manipulated its currency for 10 years without reprisal. Foreign penetration of the Japanese auto market hovers around 1 percent vs. 56 percent foreign penetration in America. We are depending on the goodwill of other countries and blindly hoping they play by the rules. Like a shopkeeper who places blind faith in the honor system to prevent theft, we are assuming these other countries are fools if we assume they will not exploit our anything goes wide open markets and our inability to enforce trade agreements in their countries. American producers now face a 22 percent cost disadvantage to foreign producers according to the National Association of Manufacturers through taxes, employee benefits, litigation costs and environmental controls. There is nothing American producers can do to compete against these structural cost disadvantages except for offshoring production or importing more components. This does not sound like any kind of positive freedom. Americas ability to be competitive was the first freedom free trade destroyed, but it will not be the last. The social fabric of our society which starts with the opportunity to earn a good living is being eroded as more of our good paying jobs leave this country. Freedom to have social insurance, health care, time and means to raise children, security and numerous other freedoms that have come to be basic American rights all require a tax base that is being dramatically depleted in each and every city and town in America. Increasingly, American industry is merely the foreign-controlled
Free Trade
assembly of imported finished components or distribution facilities for foreign goods. These socalled industrial facilities steal profits, taxes, skilled labor, capital equipment and technology from this country and send them back to the foreign parent countries. American states desperately offer huge subsidies and incentives to lure foreign producers to their soils in hopes of receiving a glimmer of a future tax base and some distribution or assembly employment. Free trade is destroying the economy and industry that in turn insures a strong social fabric.
Free Trade
Latin American Economy

Globalization exploits and hurts Latin American competitiveness Price, Managing Director @ Americas Marketing Intelligence LLC, 2011
[John Price, 10/19/11, Globalization Is Here to Stay: Why Latin America Must Accept Its Globalized Destiny and Ready Itself to Compete, The Center for Hemispheric Policy @ University of Miami, https://umshare.miami.edu/web/wda/hemisphericpolicy/Task_Force_Papers/PriceGlobalizationTFPaper.pdf, accessed 7/10/13, chip] Being globalized without being competitive makes one vulnerable to exploitation. An example of this is the maquiladora (assembly) industry found in countries like Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic. The term maquiladora has fallen out of fashion in Mexico since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) integration forced a change in the countrys re-export tax laws, but post-NAFTA re-export manufacturing is little different from pre-NAFTA maquilas. The Mexican government likes to make a lot of fuss about its burgeoning auto assembly industry, which grew from 821,0006 vehicles in 1990 to 2.2 million7 5 But what is less often discussed is how much of the value of those cars is actually made in Mexico. Car assembly represents less than 10% of the cars value and is the least profitable and most easily replicated stage of a cars development. Mexico competes as a car maker because it can supply cheap labor and is well connected by road and rail to U.S. parts suppliers and customers. The real value of a cars production (and the best jobs created in the process) is found at the beginning (design and engineering) and end (branding, leasing and sales) of the value chain. Not surprisingly, that is where the car companies tend to invest, happily outsourcing less profitable stages: parts production, assembly and logistics to third parties . It is a fallacy to claim that Mexico has a world-class automotive industry. Mexico has only one domestic car company, Mastretta, an exotic kit car maker that aspires to produce around 100 cars in 2011, all for export to Europe. Mexico houses little or no R&D and design operations. Almost all of the branding, financing, sales and after-sales are run by wholly-owned subsidiaries of foreign automotive firms. Mexican-based assembly factories import the majority of their parts or auto-part components.8 Almost all of the shipment of parts and assembled cars are handled by U.S., Japanese and European logistics firms. Non-automotive maquiladora sectors are even less integrated with national suppliers. Electronics assemblers in Mexico and Central America often rely on imports for 95-100% of their components. Without a national parts industry, let alone national brands and/or valueadded functions like design or after-sales service, assembly jobs are extremely vulnerable. When Mexicos peso began to appreciate on the back of rising oil prices between 2000 and 2005, more than 270,000 assembly jobs in electronics, clothing and other light manufacturing fled from northern Mexico to cheaper labor pools in Asia and Central America9 . Similarly, when U.S. manufacturing utilization dropped below 70% capacity during the financial crisis of 2008/9, overflow factories in Mexico suddenly closed down. Most maquiladora operations are designed to be closed, packed and shipped elsewhere in less than 60 days. In Peru, former government officials of the previous administration of Alan Garca proudly point out that over $40 billion will be invested in their country by mining companies over the next five years. It is an impressive figure and an important achievement for the government that relies on mining royalties for close to 40% of its total tax haul. But what does $40 billion of investment buy for Peru? Most of the money will be used to buy imported technology and services: American, Japanese, Korean and German
Free Trade
excavation and transport vehicles; American and German software to drive operating systems; Chilean, Australian, American and Canadian engineering services; American information technology (IT) security, and all the like. Most of these product and service contracts are executed with little or no Peruvian support, save some key salesman and low-skill labor. Mining is essential to Perus publicly-funded development. But unlike more developed mining economies such as those of Australia, Canada, South Africa and Chile, Peru has failed to develop support industries that employ skilled labor, diversify the tax base and provide for exportable services. If and when Perus present mining boom subsides, there will be relatively little residual benefit to claim from all that investment. While mining thrives, borderline competitive industries like textiles, auto parts and metal manufacturing are declining in Peru as the sol appreciates, thanks to record gold, copper and silver exports.
Loss of Latin American competitiveness leads to global economic decline Price, Managing Director @ Americas Marketing Intelligence LLC, 2011
*John Price, 10/19/11, Globalization Is Here to Stay: Why Latin America Must Accept Its Globalized Destiny and Ready Itself to Compete, The Center for Hemispheric Policy @ University of Miami, https://umshare.miami.edu/web/wda/hemisphericpolicy/Task_Force_Papers/PriceGlobalizationTFPaper.pdf, accessed 7/10/13, chip] Latin American economies, once rising stars in the global rankings of competitiveness, have universally slid since the commodity boom began in 2003. An economic model built on the growth of labor-intensive, value-added exports in the 1990s has been replaced by commodityreliant exports and very strong domestic consumption, favoring finance, retailing and domesticbound durable goods industries over the last decade. The internal consumption model is, frankly, more gratifying to voters who enjoy higher nominal wages, cheaper credit and inflated currencies, all of which augment their sense of wealth. Such an environment provides little incentive to governments to undertake the second wave of reforms, such as political, judicial, educational and legal reforms. They tend to ruffle the feathers of powerful interests and deliver only longterm and incremental benefits to the country, which mean little to a short-term focused politician. But signs are emerging that the economic party lived by the region for almost a decade may soon end, or at the very least, diminish in its splendor. The global financial crisis unleashed loose monetary policy in the hopes of evading deflation. Runaway printing presses have created inflationary pressures the world over, most especially in emerging markets, including Latin America, whose sound balance sheets attracted rebound investment when monies stuck in U.S. Treasury bills went in search of yields in 2009 and 2010. The lack of productivity growth and wasteful spending in many Latin American countries limits their economies ability to absorb waves of new investment. As a result, most Latin American central banks have been forced to raise interest rates once GDP growth levels stayed at 5% over a two-year period (2009/2010). In spite of its youngish population, tremendous resources and relatively open economies, Latin Americas lack of competitiveness denies it the ability to grow at East Asian speeds. Gold prices may double and mining investment may treble, but if road and port infrastructure is clogged by old technology and burdensome bureaucracy, mineral wealth cannot be shipped in greater volumes, ergo productivity does not rise. The U.S., Japanese and Western European economies, responsible for about 45% of the global GDP, face a tough economic decade ahead. Their heavy debt burdens will prove even tougher to bear when historically low interest rates are forced to rise thanks to energy and food-induced inflation. Even Chinas economy, the engine that ended the financial crisis for resource
Free Trade
exporters like Latin America, is struggling with its own inflationary pressures and mounting balance sheets of wasteful real estate loans. The runaway construction practices in China will need to step down a notch or two. The combined decline in available credit and investment growth will hurt demand for resources from 2012 onwards. On the supply side, todays commodity boom inspired new investments in oil and gas and mining production capacity between 2005 and 2008, which will soon come on line, competing for stagnant, if not shrinking, commodity demand. Massive mining and energy investments that could have gone to Latin America ended up in safer and more competitive environs like Australia, Canada, the Persian Gulf, the United States and China. By 2015, the commodity sector faces a period of declining profits and consolidation, which will pinch hard Latin American investments and the fiscal balance sheets of their host governments. The specter of a declining, if not disappearing, commodity price boom around the corner revives the importance of economic competitiveness in Latin America. If riches can no longer be sown from the once-in-ageneration combination of overheated Chinese demand and scarce supply, then Latin America will need to raise productivity the old-fashioned way, by increasing efficiencies, reducing waste and competing once again in world markets with value-added goods.
Free Trade
A2: Trade Prevents War

Resource trading doesnt prevent conflict Martin et al, professors @ Paris School of Economics, 2008
*Philippe Martin, Thierry Mayer, Mathias Thoenig, Make Trade Not War?, Review of Economic Studies (2008) 75, 865900, The Review of Economic Studies Limited, http://econ.sciencespo.fr/sites/default/files/file/tmayer/MMT.pdf, accessed 7/10/13, chip] The objective of this paper is to shed light on the following question: If trade promotes peace as suggested by the European example, why is it that globalization, interpreted as trade liberalization at the global level, has not lived up to its promise of decreasing the prevalence of violent interstate conicts? We offer a theoretical and empirical answer to this question. On the theoretical side, we build a framework where escalation to military conicts may occur because of the failure of negotiations in a bargaining game. The structure of this game is fairly general: (1) war is Pareto dominated by peace, (2) countries have private information, and (3) countries can choose any type of negotiation protocol. We then embed this game in a standard new trade theory model. We show that a pair of countries with more bilateral trade has a lower probability of bilateral war. However, multilateral trade openness has the opposite effect: Any pair of countries more open with the rest of the world decreases its degree of bilateral dependence and its cost of a bilateral conict, and this results in a higher probability of bilateral war. A theoretical prediction of our model is that globalization of trade ows changes the nature of conicts. It decreases the probability of global conicts (maybe the most costly in terms of human welfare) but increases the probability of any bilateral conict. The reason for the second result is that globalization decreases the bilateral dependence for any country pair, and this weakens the incentive to make concessions in order to avoid the escalation of a dispute into a bilateral military conict. This is especially true for countries with a high probability of dispute with a local dimension such as disputes on borders, resources, and ethnic minorities.
Free Trade
A2: Transparency Checks Conflict

Transparency doesnt check conflict- bluffs, miscommunication, and institutional diffusion accelerate the growth of terrorism Echevarria, Director of Research @ Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, 2003
[LTC Antulio J. Echevarria II, March, GLOBALIZATION AND THE NATURE OF WAR, Strategic Studies Institute, ISBN 1-58487-118-0, chip] For the United States and its Western allies, the elements of chance and uncertainty now manifest themselves through traditional, if transforming, military and law enforcement organizations. For nonstate actors such as Al Qaeda, on the other hand, chance and uncertainty are personified in irregular forces buoyed by a broad, religion-based ideology, an extensive organizational and operational infrastructure, and a multinational membership. Paradoxically, globalization and the spread of information technology have made it likely that both sides will generate morerather than lesschance and uncertainty. Despite the existence of a vast technology based intelligence and surveillance network, for example, a great deal of uncertainty still surrounds a single bit of tactical information of strategic importance, namely, the location of Osama bin Laden. Of course, the key to fighting a successful war on terrorism is intelligence, especially human intelligence. Unfortunately, for budgetary and cultural reasons, the United States scaled back its human intelligence efforts considerably some years ago.60 To be sure, information technologies now deliver more information than ever before to decision makers and their constituencies. Still, without analysis and synthesis, the information they provide is always inadequate. As Al Qaedas attacks to date have shown, small terrorist cells can execute well-coordinatedand genuinely devastating surprise assaults despite a vast intelligence network and the proliferation of information technologies.61 Thus, we simply cannot make a direct, linear correlation between information and knowledge. The total amount of informationwhich includes irrelevant and incorrect informationmay well increase by a certain percent, but that does not mean that knowledge grows by the same percent. It is often impossible to discern the quality or correctness of information until after the factwhen it can be compared to the way events actually unfolded. We would do better to develop experienced judgment and learn to become comfortable with uncertaintywith things that we cannot know beyond a reasonable doubtthan to delude ourselves that our technology will deliver all the knowledge we need to achieve victory. Yet, experienced judgment takes time to develop; and we may not have that luxury in an era in which change seems to be occurring at an accelerating rate.62 In other words, knowledge is not solely a function of available information. Merely throwing more information at the problem will not solve it. Contrary to what pundits have predicted, therefore, globalization and the spread of information technologies still have not eliminated the elements of chance and uncertainty in war. In some cases, in fact, these elements may increase, especially if opponents use misinformation more frequently as a counter to knowledge-based warfare. Defense officials have repeatedly asserted that, on matters of combat, new thinking has yet to replace old. However, one should not act too hastily here. While many of todays weapons differ significantly from those of a century ago, several of the tactical and operational principles that underpin military doctrine still remain valid. Studies of the recent fighting in Afghanistan, for example, show that the principles of fire and movement that enabled soldiers to cross the deadly zone during the First World War
Free Trade
have proven just as essential against entrenched Taliban and Al Qaeda forces.63 Nonetheless, at least one fundamental concept of Western military doctrineClausewitzs center of gravity has some serious limitations and may have outlived its usefulness. For decades, the U.S. military in particular has wrongly defined the center of gravity as a source of strength. Yet, Clausewitzs original notion of the center of gravity was more akin to that of a focal point, a place where energies come together to be redirected and refocused elsewhere.64 It was neither a strength nor a weakness, per se, but it could be strongwell-protectedor not. Even with a redefinition, however, the concept may have only limited applicability in a globalized operational environment where opponents can fight in vast, distributed networks without necessarily being linked to one central authority, or to one another. Clausewitzs center of gravity concept depends on the condition that the enemy is connected enough to act as a single entity. By implication, when this was not the case, the concept did not apply. Unfortunately, a globalized operational environment presents fewer cases in which enemies function as a single entity. Al Qaedas global terrorist network adheres to the cellular, or cluster, model in which many cells exist, but the members of any particular cell do not necessarily know one another, or those in other cells. If one member is caught, the other members and other cells are not in danger.65 Destroying Al Qaeda cells in Europe, therefore, will not necessarily cause those in Indonesia to collapse. In fact, destroying such distributed enemies in one location could lead to some extremely undesirable consequences, if those at other locations retaliate by discharging a weapon of mass destruction.
Free Trade
A2: Democracy Checks

Democratic states still go to war- elites vote to maintain their positions of power. Free trade also doesnt check irrational states McDonald, associate professor in international relations theory and international political economy @ UT Austin, 2004
[Patrick J. McDonald, Aug., 2004, Peace through Trade or Free Trade?, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp. 547-572, Sage Publications, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4149808, chip] Despite substantial empirical evidence for these hypotheses, scholars have challenged these claims for failing to elaborate a model of domestic politics that links commerce, societal interests in trade and peace, and the state with the creation of a pacific foreign policy (Stein 1993; Barbieri and Schneider 1999; Mansfield and Pollins 2001; Schneider and Schulze 2003; Simmons 2003). This oversight is particularly significant given the concentration of liberal international relations theory on the behavior of individuals and state-society interactions to explain foreign policy behavior (Moravcsik 1997). The neglect of domestic politics stems in part from a failure to incorporate important revisions to standard trade theory into the commercial peace debate (Schneider and Schulze 2003). Most of the literature draws on Ricardo (1821/1973) and the principles of comparative advantage, which demonstrates that economies increase their aggregate consumption possibilities (or economic growth more generally) through specialization and trade. Accordingly, the standard hypotheses focus on these aggregate welfare benefits to explain any link between commerce and peace. For example, this claim helps motivate the opportunity cost hypothesis. Fearing the aggregate costs of economic disruption, societies will lobby the governments for a pacific foreign policy. By concentrating on Ricardo's valuable insight, the literature overlooks how trade based on comparative advantage also creates societal coalitions opposed to further integration (e.g., Rogowski 1989). Both the Heckscher-Ohlin and Ricardo-Viner frameworks demonstrate that economic integration redistributes income within a domestic society.2 Because some groups see their incomes decline from international trade, they are unlikely to support open markets. Such a conclusion casts doubt on the proposition that trading sectors in society will always win out among competing domestic interests and possess the political capacity to constrain an aggressive foreign policy.' Consequently, little research has been conducted on how these domestic distributional consequences of commerce may also shape the domestic politics of decisions for war and peace.4 Moreover, the process by which these trading interests translate preferences for maintaining an open economy into foreign policy outputs that include both an open trading system and a more pacific orientation in foreign policy must also account for the structure of domestic institutions that mediate societal conflict, aggregate these economic interests, and determine policy. The opportunity-cost hypothesis implicitly adopts a pluralist model of domestic politics that fails to acknowledge that the structure of domestic institutions can privilege portions of society preferring a closed trading system and that the state possesses an independent capacity to arbitrate among and shape these interests. One strand of the interdependence literature has responded to this shortcoming by examining how democracy conditions the effects of commerce on conflict (Brawley 1993; Papayoanou 1999; Gelpi and Grieco 2003). The ability of commerce to promote peace may be restricted to democratic states because the groups most hurt by interruptions in commerce can successfully lobby their governments in these polities for more peaceful foreign policies. Whereas regime type
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker provides one means to characterize state-society interactions, it may not capture all of the variation across economies. Historically, import-competing sectors have been able to lobby and obtain protectionist legislation in democracies.5 This possibility suggests the need to explore the independent effects of protection on conflict.
Free Trade
Free trade policies stabilize otherwise belligerent aspects of domestic life McDonald, associate professor in international relations theory and international political economy @ UT Austin, 2004
*Patrick J. McDonald, Aug., 2004, Peace through Trade or Free Trade?, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp. 547-572, Sage Publications, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4149808, chip] This section argues that a neglected fifth variant of the commercial liberalism- motivated by the writings of Cobden (1868, 1870), Schumpeter (1919/1951), and standard trade theory-offers important insights into how international commerce shapes the domestic politics of war. These classical scholars connect the domestic politics of international conflict with the domestic distributional consequence of commercial policy to explain how trade promotes peace. The elimination of protective commercial policies empowers societal groups most opposed to war and constrains the ability of governments to redistribute the costs of war onto groups outside its ruling coalition. Together, these twin pressures suggest that the adoption of free trade policies and not simply an increase in aggregate economic integration should bode well for peace. Both Cobden (1868, 1870) and Schumpeter (1919/1951) built these explanations from a broader liberal model of war, which holds that the external costs and benefits of waging war are inseparable from its domestic costs and benefits.6 Just as a state goes to war to extend its influence in the international system or eliminate a threat to its security, war simultaneously creates opportunities for a government to redistribute income toward its political supporters and solidify its domestic position. For example, Cobden (1868, 1,44-45; 1870, 2,429) argued that wars and "war scares" allowed governments to postpone domestic reforms that would necessarily expand individual liberty and limit the role of government in domestic life. To prevent war, societies therefore need mechanisms to monitor and punish their government's effort to utilize foreign policy for domestic political gain.7 The next step linking trade and peace focused on the domestic distributional implications of commercial policy. Behind much of the clamor for free trade in the classical literature was a strong opposition to monopolies in the domestic economy. Because tariffs tended to shield noncompetitive sectors and shift the distribution of wealth in a society toward these groups and away from consumers, the political motivation behind free trade was just as often domestic as it was international, that is, to promote peace.8 By removing tariffs and encouraging free trade, a transformation of the domestic balance of power would necessarily empower broader elements of society and simultaneously erode regulatory protection for merchants.9 The consequences of free trade on the domestic distribution of power then shaped the domestic distributional implications of war. Just like restrictive commercial policies, the costs of war generally fall on the poorer elements of society who possess no interest in conflict. The elimination of trade restrictions undermined the ability of the state and protected sectors of the economy or the domestic groups most responsible for war to shift the burdens of public finance onto disorganized members of society who were benefiting most from open international markets. In this second-image variant of the commercial peace hypothesis, the
Free Trade
ability of commerce to promote peace depended crucially on trade's ability to alter the distribution of domestic political power. Free trade and not necessarily trade was the key to peace. These classical arguments find support in standard trade theory. While increasing the aggregate income of an economy, trade simultaneously alters the domestic distribution of income. This possibility links international commerce with domestic distributional issues that often lie at the heart of a liberal theory of conflict and creates a foundation to understand the processes by which these economic pressures shape foreign policy. In what follows, I build on the insights of Cobden (1868, 1870) and Schumpeter (1919/195 1) to identify a series of mechanisms emanating from both society and the state whereby free trade enhances the prospects for peace between states.
Free Trade
A2: Costly Wars

Free Trade doesnt increase the cost of war- multilateral trade costs remain the same Martin et al, professors @ Paris School of Economics, 2008
*Philippe Martin, Thierry Mayer, Mathias Thoenig, Make Trade Not War?, Review of Economic Studies (2008) 75, 865900, The Review of Economic Studies Limited, http://econ.sciencespo.fr/sites/default/files/file/tmayer/MMT.pdf, accessed 7/10/13, chip] We test the theoretical prediction that bilateral and multilateral trade have opposite effects on the probability of bilateral military conicts on the 19502000 period using a data set from the Correlates of War (COW) project that makes available a very precise description of interstate armed conicts. The mechanism at work in our theoretical model rests on the hypothesis that the absence of peace disrupts trade and therefore puts trade gains at risk. We rst test this hypothesis. Using a gravity-type model of trade, we nd that bilateral trade costs indeed increase signicantly with a bilateral conict. However, multilateral trade costs do not increase signicantly. Second, we test the predictions of the model related to the contradictory effects of bilateral and multilateral trade on conict. We address the endogeneity issue by controlling for various codeterminants of conict and trade; by including country pair xed effects and time effects; and, nally, by implementing an instrumental variable strategy. Our results are robust to these different estimation strategies. The quantitative impact of trade is surprisingly large for proximate countries (those with a bilateral distance less than 1000 km), those for which the probability of a conict is the highest. We estimate the quantitative effect of the globalization process of the past 30 years that is characterized by expansion of both bilateral trade ows (with a negative impact on the probability of conict) and multilateral trade ows (with a positive impact on this probability). We nd that its net effect has been to increase the probability of a bilateral conict by around 20% for proximate countries. However, for more distant countries, the effect of globalization on their bilateral relation has been very small. This ts well with the stylized fact depicted by Figure 2. This strongly suggests that conicts have become more localized over time as the average distance between two countries in military conict has been halved during the 19502000 period. It is consistent with the changing nature of war as discussed by historians (Keegan, 1984; Bond, 1986; Van Creveld, 1991). The related literature ranges from political science to political economy. The question of the impact of trade on war is an old and a controversial one among political scientists (see Barbieri and Schneider, 1999; Kapstein, 2003, for recent surveys). From a theoretical point of view, the main debate is between the trade promotes peace liberal school and the neoMarxist school which argues that asymmetric trade links lead to conicts. The main difference between these two positions comes from the opposing view they have on the possibility of gains from trade for all countries involved. From an empirical point of view, recent studies in political science test the impact of bilateral trade (in different forms) on the frequency of war between country pairs. Many nd a negative relationship (see, e.g. Polachek, 1980; Manseld, 1995; Polachek, Robst and Chang, 1999; Oneal and Russet, 1999). However, some recent studies have found a positive relationship (see Barbieri, 1996, 2002). These papers, however, do not test models in which trade and war are both endogenous.3 In economics, related empirical papers on the issue are recent papers by Blomberg and Hess (2006) and Glick and Taylor (2005). They, however, focus on the reverse causal link, that is on the effect of war on trade. They control for
Free Trade
the standard determinants of trade as used in the gravity equation literature. To our knowledge, our paper is, however, the rst to derive theoretically the two-sided effect of trade on peace (positive for bilateral trade and negative for multilateral trade) and to empirically test this prediction.
More trade interdependence reduces the opportunity cost of wars, increasing the probability for a third party conflict Martin et al, professors @ Paris School of Economics, 2008
*Philippe Martin, Thierry Mayer, Mathias Thoenig, Make Trade Not War?, Review of Economic Studies (2008) 75, 865900, The Review of Economic Studies Limited, http://econ.sciencespo.fr/sites/default/files/file/tmayer/MMT.pdf, accessed 7/10/13, chip] Our paper is the rst, to our knowledge, to highlight the opposite effects of bilateral and multilateral trade on the probability of war and to base the empirical analysis on testable predictions generated by a theoretical model. We have shown that even in a model where trade increases welfare and war is Pareto dominated by peace, higher trade ows may not lead to more peaceful relations. Indeed, what matters ultimately is the geographical structure of trade and its balance between bilateral and multilateral openness. Bilateral trade, because it increases the opportunity cost of bilateral war, deters bilateral war. Multilateral trade openness, because it reduces this opportunity cost with any given country, weakens the incentive to make concessions during negotiations to avert escalation and therefore increases the probability of war between any given pair of country. From this point of view, an increase in trade between two countries pacies relations between those but increases the probability of conict with third countries. Our econometric analysis validates this prediction using a large number of alternative specications and empirical strategies. Trade globalization also affects the nature of war: Multilateral openness increases the probability of local wars but should deter global conicts. This last point, a logical consequence of our results but that we cannot test directly, is important. Given that these conicts are certainly the most costly in terms of human welfare, this is not a small achievement.
Free Trade
A2: Data
Trade doesnt prevent war their data is unsubstantiated Martin et al, professors @ Paris School of Economics, 2008
*Philippe Martin, Thierry Mayer, Mathias Thoenig, Make Trade Not War?, Review of Economic Studies (2008) 75, 865900, The Review of Economic Studies Limited, http://econ.sciencespo.fr/sites/default/files/file/tmayer/MMT.pdf, accessed 7/10/13, chip] Does globalization pacify international relations? The liberal view in political science argues that increasing trade ows and the spread of free markets and democracy should limit the incentive to use military force in interstate relations. This vision, which can partly be traced back to Kants Essay on Perpetual Peace (1795), has been very inuential: The main objective of the European trade integration process was to prevent the killing and destruction of the two World Wars from ever happening again. 1 Figure 1suggests 2 however, that during the 1870 2001 period, the correlation between trade openness and military conicts is not a clear cut one. The rst era of globalization, at the end of the 19th century, was a period of rising trade openness and multiple military conicts, culminating with World War I. Then, the interwar period was characterized by a simultaneous collapse of world trade and conicts. After World War II, world trade increased rapidly, while the number of conicts decreased (although the risk of a global conict was obviously high). There is no clear evidence that the 1990s, during which trade ows increased dramatically, was a period of lower prevalence of military conicts, even taking into account the increase in the number of sovereign states.
Free Trade
Free Trade Bad Jobs
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker Generic Increased trade makes employment precarious.
Free Trade
Scott, Ph.D. Economics, University of California at Berkeley, 11

(Robert E., 9/19/11, Economic Policy Institute, Heading South: U.S.-Mexico trade and job displacement after NAFTA, http://www.epi.org/page/-/BriefingPaper308.pdf, accessed 7/1/13, AS) NAFTA proponents claimed that the trade agreement would generate a growing middle class in Mexico. But their claims proved incorrect: Contrary to NAFTAs stated objectives, the Mexican economy has failed in its promised to create good quality jobs and to address the erratic and feeble growth of workers income. ... Employment has become increasingly precarious overall, the agricultural sector has suffered a large and steady loss of employment, and real salaries remain below the levels of the early 1990s, as Mexicos dependence on global imports grows. (Salas 2006, 33) In fact, NAFTA had devastating consequences for the Mexican economy (Salas 2006 and Faux 2006). Mexico experienced a peso crisis in 1994 that pitched the economy into a steep recession. At least one expert has argued that this crisis was caused, in part, by a wave of speculative foreign investment in Mexico in advance of the signing of the agreement (Blecker 1997). Millions of jobs were lost in the wake of the peso crisis (and the ensuing International Monetary Fund stabilization plan, which required massive, contractionary cutbacks in government spending). NAFTA also provided convenient cover for conservative governments in all three nations to undertake economic reforms in order to gain economic competitiveness in the treatys wake. For example, Mexico also lost 1.3 million jobs in the agricultural sector as a result of the flood of cheap, subsidized corn from the United States after corn tariffs were liberalized, shortly after the agreement took effect (Papademetriou, Audley, Polaski, and Vaughan 2003, 1-23).4 Further, workers in Canada suffered as a result of massive cutbacks in government spending at the provincial and national levels that arose when conservative Canadian governments touting the need to maintain competitiveness used North American economic integration to begin a race to the bottom in government spending and taxation (Campbell 2006). Free trade kills U.S. jobs anyone who tells you otherwise is biased.
Collins, former state representative and a former mayor of Norwalk, Connecticut, 10

(William A, Nov. 8, 10, Institute for Policy Studies, Free Trade: A Corporate Scam, http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/free_trade_a_corporate_scam, accessed 7/2/13, AS) Free trade isn't the only thing ruining America, but it's a biggie. The most obvious reason is that so many jobs have gone overseas. You'd think economists might feel a duty to explain to our leaders what's gone wrong. Well, that's their job, but most economists these days work for industry, largely the very same employers who benefit from cheap foreign or imported labor. They're surely not going to sound the alarm. Other economists work for universities, where they're still caught up in ancient post-mercantilist ideology. Early in Econ 101, you learn the mantra of "comparative advantage." In other words, each country or region should do what it does best and then trade its surplus output to other countries with a minimum of restriction. Mexico should send avocados to Maine and get blueberries in return. That way everyone makes a profit. Such is the foolish logic that presidents of both parties have used to sell free trade agreements to Congress, and which Congress buys all too often. Unfortunately
Free Trade
what is at stake--always--is greed. Manufacturers and marketers don't know avocados from blueberries. But they do crave cheap labor anywhere they can find it, from Poland to Palau. What's more, they pay big money to lobbyists and to political campaigns to get it. After all, American workers aren't their responsibility. They answer to investors. Agribusiness is the same. It's heavily subsidized by Congress and loves selling its low-cost products tariff-free in lands where no competing subsidy exists. That may drive local farmers out of business, but the companies don't care. They're not our brothers' keepers. Most nations have imposed tariffs or quotas to protect local industries against such cheap foreign competition. This healthy protection is what free trade agreements seek to overcome. Expanded to the grand scale of world trade, these actions have led to our rampant unemployment, a depressed economy, and an unsustainable trade deficit. Two current examples: Whirlpool is moving more production to Mexico and GE is closing its last light bulb plant in America. Free trade agreements shed jobs for every country involved.
Beifus et al, Executive Director at Washington Fair Trade Coalition, 13

(Kristen, Raul Burbano, Manuel Perez-Rocha, a consultant to Oxfam International on trade issues in the Central America, Mexico, Institute for Policy Studies, http://www.ipsdc.org/staff/manuel, accessed 7/2/13, AS) Since NAFTA was signed almost 20 years ago, all three North American countries have seen good jobs vanish, worsening income inequality, public services weakened through underfunding or offloaded to the private sector, increased food insecurity (in particular in Mexico), and ecosystems on the point of breaking. NAFTA promised a flourishing North American economy that would benefit all. In Jan. 2014, NAFTA has been in place for 20 years and the promised trickle down benefits have not been realized by communities. Three nations, no winners In the past 10 years, Canada has lost 500,000 manufacturing jobs. A new United Way Toronto report found that in and around Toronto, Canada's largest city, 20 per cent of people are now employed in precarious, unstable or part-time jobs. This type of employment has increased by 50 per cent in the past 20 years since NAFTA was signed. In this same period, not a single notable social program has been introduced or expanded. Free trade has permanently eroded our sense of what people can do together for the common good. Canada is also facing over $2.5-billion worth of legal suites by corporations that are permitted to sue countries under NAFTA for potential profits if blocked by health and safety or environmental laws from conducting business as usual. Current suits include a U.S. corporation challenging a moratorium on natural gas fracking in Quebec, a court decision to annul a patent by Eli Lilly, a decision against opening a new gravel quarry in Ontario because of the likely effect on water and farmland, and many others "coming down the pipeline." In Mexico millions of small farmers were displaced when NAFTA came into force in 1994 creating a massive push for migration to the United States. But NAFTA hit Mexico very hard again during the 2008-2009 financial crisis given Mexico's dependency on the United States. In fact, Felipe Calderon's presidency has been characterized by the slowest growth since 1954, a mere 1.58 per cent in average from 2007 to 2011, and, according to World Bank indicators, between 2007 and 2010, GDP per capita in Mexico decreased by 3.71 per cent, which is among the worst performance in Latin America. The United States, which is leading the TPP charge, has also suffered under NAFTA. The AFL-CIO in February challenged the benefit the TPP offers to workers, citing that the U.S. trade deficit "has increased dramatically under NAFTA -- from $75 billion in 1993, to $540 billion today (in nominal terms)." Since the implementation of NAFTA, says the AFL-CIO, "the growth in the trade deficit with Mexico has cost the United States
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker nearly 700,000 net jobs." The AFL-CIO is calling for a Global New Deal that promotes growth "with equity, protect their health and safety and foster sustainable development."
Free Trade
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker Statistics/Statements NAFTA goes the other way - statistics prove free trade kills jobs.
Free Trade
Strachan, Business Editor at the Huffington post, 11

(Maxwell, 7/12/11, The Huffington Post, U.S. Economy Lost Nearly 700,000 Jobs Because Of NAFTA, EPI Says, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/12/nafta-job-loss-trade-deficitepi_n_859983.html, accessed 7/1/13, AS) When the North American Free Trade Agreement was first signed in 1994, proponents said it would eventually create jobs for the U.S. economy. 17 years later, a new report estimates, the American worker only has hundreds of thousands of job losses to show for it. According to a report by Economic Policy Institute economist Robert Scott, entitled "Heading South: U.S.Mexico trade and job displacement after NAFTA," an estimated 682,900 U.S. jobs have been "lost or displaced" because of the agreement and the resulting trade deficit. The historic agreement, signed just three years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, tore down trade barriers between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, making trade and investment easier for businesses without allowing for the cross-border movement of labor. Despite the agreement being considered a boon for Mexico, the country's economy grew only 1.6 percent per capita on average between 1992 and 2007, The New York Times reported in 2009. The EPI's calculation of 682,900 jobs lost to NAFTA takes into account jobs created as a result, too. Last year, for example, U.S. exports to Mexico supported 791,900 jobs. It's just that those jobs created pale in comparison to the 1.47 million U.S. jobs that would be necessary without the imports resulting from NAFTA, the report found. Still, the number of jobs lost to NAFTA looks minimal when placed against the havoc freaked by the financial crisis. Only in 2008, at the height of the crisis, the U.S. economy hemorrhaged 2.6 million jobs, according to CNNMoney. The U.S. is currently considering a similar trade agreement with South Korea, called U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA). KORUS, like NAFTA, could similarly displace American jobs, EPI warns. Perhaps the most drastic switch post-NAFTA has been in the two country's trade deficit. In 1993, before the signing of NAFTA, the U.S. held a $1.6 billion trade surplus over their neighbor to the south, which supported 29,400 jobs. By 1997, the tides had turned, and Mexico laid claim to a much larger surplus of $16.6 billion. As of 2010, it's not even close. Mexico's trade surplus now hovers around $97.2 billion. Jobs continue to be lost to NAFTA today. In the years 2007-2010, the U.S. economy has lost 116,400 as a result of the trade deficit created by NAFTA. And last year, the growth of Mexican auto exports to the United States alone created more Mexican jobs -- 30,400 -- than the entire U.S. auto industry. It's the U.S. manufacturing sector that has suffered most mightily from NAFTA, alone accounting for 60.8 percent -- 415,000 total -- of the jobs lost to the agreement. Specifically, those making computer of electronic parts have accounted for 22 percent of all job losses, and motor vehicle and parts workers accounted for 15 percent of job losses. Job losses haven't been limited to certain geographic regions, either, as all fifty states have lost jobs as a result. And while the states with the largest total number of job losses, California and Texas, do hug the southern border, it's actually manufacturing-heavy states to the north, such as Michigan, Indiana and Kentucky, that have lost the largest share of jobs to Mexico.
Free trade has undercut job growth statements prove. Gemma, political consultant, 12
Free Trade
[Paul B, Spring 2012, Free Trade: Exporting Jobs, Importing Aliens, The Social Contract Journal, Volume 22: Number 3, pg N/A, AS]
On the other side of the bed was an interesting mix too. Democrat U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (American Conservative Union rating zero percent; Americans for Democratic Action rating 100 percent) represents the blue-collar state of Ohio. He asserts: I continue to believe it is a dangerous mistake to pursue the same kind of trade deals that ballooned our deficit and led to massive job loss. We simply cannot keep barking up this tree as American companies fold and American workers face prolonged unemployment. Until we address Chinas manipulation and make decisions to reduce our trade deficit, I see no reason to pursue more NAFTA-style free trade agreements.14 Populist political activist Ralph Nader has opined: Millions of manufacturing jobs in this country have been shipped overseas. This transfer was supposed to be part of the win-win process of free trade. But 27 straight years of growing trade deficits makes one wonder: whos winning? The well-known consumer-advocate also says, 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, may run into a contrary riptide that no set of spurious statistics can obscure.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker Job Displacement A rising trade deficit results in job displacement.
Free Trade

(Robert E., 9/19/11, Economic Policy Institute, Heading South: U.S.-Mexico trade and job displacement after NAFTA, http://www.epi.org/page/-/BriefingPaper308.pdf, accessed 7/1/13, AS) The United States had a small $1.6 billion trade surplus with Mexico in 1993, the year before NAFTA took effect. By 1997, the United States had developed a $16.6 billion trade deficit with Mexico, which increased to $97.2 billion in 2010, as shown in Table 1. Between 1997 and 2010, the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico increased $6.2 billion per year, or 14.6% per year. This paper estimates the impact of that change in trade on employment by calculating the labor content of changes in the trade balancethe difference between exports and imports. For example, each $1 billion in U.S. auto parts exported to Mexico supports U.S. jobs, but each $1 billion in autos and trucks imported from Mexico displaces the workers who would have been making them in the United States. On balance, the net employment effect of trade flows is determined by changes in the trade balance. Growing trade deficits usually result in job displacement. The employment impacts of trade deficits are assessed using an input-output model that estimates the direct and indirect labor requirements of producing output in a given domestic industry. The model includes 202 U.S. industries, 84 of which are in the manufacturing sector.9 The model estimates the amount of labor (number of jobs) required to produce a given volume of exports and the labor displaced when a given volume of imports is substituted for domestic output. The net of these two numbers is the estimated number of jobs displaced by changes in the trade balance, holding all else equal. U.S. exports to Mexico in 2010 supported 791,900 jobs, but U.S. imports displaced production that would have supported 1,474,800 jobs, as shown in the bottom half of Table 1. Therefore, the $97.2 billion U.S. trade deficit with Mexico in 2010 displaced 682,900 jobs.10 Since the United States had a small trade surplus in 1993 (not shown), all of those jobs were displaced between 1993 and 2010.11 On average, 40,200 jobs have been lost or displaced per year since NAFTA took effect.12 U.S. jobs displaced by the trade deficit with Mexico are a net drain on employment in trade-related industries, especially those in the manufacturing sector. Even if increased demand in other sectors absorbs all the workers displaced by trade (an unlikely event), job quality is likely to suffer, as many non-trade-related industries, such as retail and home health care, pay lower wages and have less comprehensive benefits than trade-related industries. Furthermore, the 116,400 U.S. jobs displaced by the $6.4 billion increase in the deficit between 2007 and 2010 are counted as job losses because the U.S. labor market was in recession between 2007 and 2010. Since the U.S.-Mexico trade balance shrank in 2008 and 2009, all of these jobs were lost in 2010. Given the excess capacity in the economy in 2011, and the fact that short-term interest rates are close to zero, the 116,400 jobs displaced by trade since the recession began likely to be net job losses for the entire economy. This loss of 116,400 jobs is large relative to the increase in the trade deficit between 2007 and 2010. It is explained, in part, by a decline in the deficit in crude oil and petroleum products, and a proportionately larger increase in the trade deficit in manufactured products (which are more labor intensive) in 2010 and by related changes in some price deflators. Falling prices for some manufactured goods expanded the real, non-oil trade deficit (dominated by trade in manufactured products), which increased about $28 billion (versus the $6.4 billion increase in the nominal deficit). There were large increases in the nominal trade deficit in a few manufactured goods
Free Trade
(e.g., non-ferrous metal products, computer and peripheral products), which also experienced large price declines that magnified the impact of these shifts on real trade flows. More trade means more deficits and more displaced jobs.

(Robert E., 9/19/11, Economic Policy Institute, Heading South: U.S.-Mexico trade and job displacement after NAFTA, http://www.epi.org/page/-/BriefingPaper308.pdf, accessed 7/1/13, AS) The growing U.S. trade deficit with Mexico has displaced a large number of jobs in the United States and is a significant contributor to the current crisis in U.S. manufacturing, which lost 5.6 million jobs between 2000 and February 2011 (BLS 2011). U.S. trade with Mexico in 2010 cost 682,900 U.S. jobs, and three-fifths of the jobs displaced (415,000) were in the manufacturing sector. NAFTA proponents claimed that falling tariffs would generate rapidly growing exports and a sustained and growing trade surplus with Mexico. In fact, the United States has experienced steadily growing trade deficits with Mexico. Despite this experience, proponents of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement have claimed that growing exports will support 70,000 U.S. jobs. The job displacement that arose from U.S. trade deficits with Mexico after NAFTA took effect provides powerful evidence that the KORUS FTA is likely to lead to growing U.S. trade deficits and job displacement. Every FTA proves that jobs are lost by increased trade.

(Robert E., 2/13/13, Economic Policy Institute, Signing trade deals is a terrible jobs strategy,http://www.epi.org/blog/signing-trade-deals-terrible-jobs-strategy/, accessed 7/2/13, AS) As part of his proposals to spur job growth, President Obama promised in last nights State of the Union address to complete negotiations on the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership (a proposed free trade agreement (FTA) with at least eight other countries in Asia and Latin America), and announced new talks on a comprehensive FTA with the European Union. This is a shame, because chronically high unemployment is a real crisis, while trade agreements are a fake solution. The issue is simple: it is trade balances the net of exports and imports that can affect jobs. Unless trade agreements promise to reduce our too-high trade deficit, they will have no positive effect on jobs. Even worse, past trade agreements have actually been associated with larger trade deficits in their aftermath. This is not some proprietary EPI stance on trade the economics textbook teaches that, as Paul Krugman has summarized, Trade Does Not Equal Jobs. Responding (in 2010) specifically to claims that the Korea FTA could be a driver of recovery, he pointed out that in macroeconomic terms, the United States had too little spending on domestically-produced goods and services, with total spending (Y) defined by: Y = C + I + G + X M Where C is consumer spending, I is investment spending, G is government purchases of goods and services, X is exports, and M is imports. He noted that while trade agreements lead to higher X, they also lead to higher M. Exports support demand for domestically produced goods, so higher X increases employment. However, the growth of imports reduces demand for domestically produced goods, which reduces domestic employment. Professor Krugman claimed that on average, theyre a wash. In the real world, FTAs have hurt U.S. employment. The United States had a small trade surplus with Mexico in 1993, before the North American FTA took effect. In 2010, the U.S. trade deficit with
Free Trade
Mexico totaled $97.2 billion, which displaced 682,900 jobs. The President claimed that the U.S. Korea FTA would support 70,000 American jobs from increased exports alone. That agreement took effect on March 15, 2012, and yet U.S. exports to Korea fell last year, and the trade deficit increased, meaning that Korea trade reduced demand for domestically produced goods in 2012 and cost the U.S. jobs. And the permanent normalization of trading relations with China in 2001 led nearly instantly to a steep rise in the bilateral U.S./China trade deficit interrupted only temporarily by the Great Recession. These deficits displaced 2.1 million jobs in U.S. manufacturing between 2001 and 2011, alone. Some might argue that because the EU is a rich region, it should be a good market for U.S. exports, right? Not lately. Last year, the U.S. trade deficit with the EU increased from $99.8 billion to $115.7 billion, an increase of ($15.8 billion, 15.9 percent). That was larger than our entire trade deficit with Canada and Mexico, our NAFTA partners (a combined deficit of $93.1 in 2012). Trade with the EU hurt our economy last year, largely because the Euros weakness led to increased competitiveness for EU exports. And this actually points to another universal weakness with FTAs theyre essentially a long menu of giveaways and protections to various corporate sectors yet leave genuinely crucial issues like protecting countries from import surges caused by disequilibrium exchange rates off the table. Why is the president claiming that FTAs especially those with no macroeconomic safeguards to keep U.S. trade deficits from blowing up support exports and jobs? The simple answer is that hes only telling half the story (about exports) and ignoring the bad news about imports. More importantly, why do these FTAs have such irresistible political momentum no matter who is in the White House? It surely doesnt hurt that the biggest beneficiaries of these FTAs are multinational companies (MNCs). U.S. and foreign MNCs carried out 68 percent of all U.S. goods trade in 2010 (the last year for which we have data), and globalization, the proliferation of FTAs, and the growth of outsourcing are three of the most important causes of the historically high share of corporate profits in U.S. GDP and flat U.S. wages over the past decade that the president bemoaned last night. MNCs and their allies, such as the Business Roundtable and the Chamber of Commerce, are big supporters of FTAs, and they have tremendous influence on the politics of trade. Its sad to see that President on the same side as the republican Ignorance Caucus, which does its best to hide unpleasant truths from the public and to suppress research on issues ranging from global warming to the impacts of gun ownership to, yes, the economics of international trade. More FTAs will only slow the already fragile recovery and further depress middle class wages that the president so eloquently described last night. Its time for Obama, the trade-deal salesman, to meet and answer to his visionary self.
Free Trade
Competitiveness
Free trade makes US industries not competitive killing jobs North Carolina proves. Nash-Hoff, president of the San Diego Electronics Network, 11
(Michele, 8/5/11, Huffington Post, How Free Trade Agreements Lead to Job Loss and Wealth Gaps, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-nashhoff/how-free-tradeagreements_b_919480.html, accessed 7/1/13, AS) Since the year 2000, the United States has lost over 5.5 million manufacturing jobs, nearly 50,000 manufacturing companies, and racked up an annual trade deficit with China of $273 million in 2010, up from $83.8 million in 2000. These escalating trade deficits with China have far-reaching effects, particularly on American workers. This article will examine the impact of free trade with China as documented in two of the annual reports submitted to Congress by the bi-partisan, 12 member U. S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC). The 2007 report included a case study of the local impact of trade with China on North Carolina. The USCC report stated: The accelerating decline in North Carolina's manufacturing employment is due in large measure to increasing competition from imports mostly from China... The combination of China's 2001 admission to the World Trade Organization (WTO), which gave it quota-free access to U.S. markets for its textile and clothing exports, and the subsequent U.S. grant of Most-Favored (Trading) Nation status that lowered most tariffs on Chinese imports, battered North Carolina's textile and apparel industries, and they never recovered. During the period of 2001-2007, the number and proportion of jobs in the North Carolina services sector increased. This shift put downward pressure on wages because manufacturing historically paid substantially higher wages than the services sector. The shift also reduced the number of workers receiving such fringe benefits as retirement and health insurance, in part because some of the displaced workers were able to find only part-time jobs that often do not offer benefits. Because a greater proportion of North Carolina's workforce had manufacturing jobs than any other state, North Carolina's workforce was more vulnerable to competition from imports than the workforces of other states. North Carolina's manufacturing economy was made even more vulnerable by its concentration in the import-sensitive sectors of textiles, apparel, and furniture. According to the National Council of Textile Organizations, the U. S. textile industry dropped from the worlds second in basic manufacturing industries in 1991 with $244 billion in sales, down to third in 2002 with $60 billion in sales. North Carolina is one of the southeast states that had a large number of textile companies. The North Carolina Employment Security Commission's Labor Market Information Division followed the employment prospects of 4,820 workers laid off from bankrupt Pillowtex in 2003, which was the largest mass layoff in North Carolina history. "About 40 percent of the laid-off workers had not yet found work, three years after they lost their jobs, and for those who have, take-home pay isn't as much as they were making at Pillowtex." The article reported that North Carolina has been the most impacted state in the nation by layoffs due to trade. Between 2004 and 2006, almost 39,000 North Carolina workers were certified by the Trade Adjustment Assistance program as having lost jobs to trade, more than 10 percent of the U.S. total of 387,755." According to the Social Science Research Institute (SSRI) of Duke University in North Carolina, there were 2,153 textile and apparel plants in North Carolina employing 233,715 people in 1996. By 2006, the apparel industry had experienced a 70% decline in jobs and 55% loss of plants. The textile industry by comparison had only lost 63% of jobs and 32% of plants from 1996 to 2006. "Trade agreements can profoundly
Free Trade
affect state and regional economies and particular industries. While trade agreements that lower import barriers among America's trading partners have the potential to benefit American exporters, North Carolina appears to have realized few if any substantial benefits from China's admission to the WTO, and the net effect of trade with China since its accession appears to be negative overall for North Carolina's economy." It isn't just people losing jobs and not being able to find other employment that pays as well as their former jobs, "hundreds of small towns throughout North Carolina impacted by plant closures are dying." Free trade only serves special-interest groups leaving most industries behind costing jobs.
Gemma, political consultant, 12

Corporate elites and political globalists are mounting an assault on American immigration restriction laws, job growth policies and U.S. sovereignty. Their weaponry includes so-called free trade treaties, and the establishment of regulatory agencies such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) to facilitate them. The World Economic Forum (WEF) is an example of a formidable battalion in the open borders army. Its membership includes over 800 chief executives, some 200 government leaders, numerous high-ranking officials from regional and international organizations, and some 300 scientists, artists, and representatives of the media. Major firms from all sectors of business and industry are represented. WEF is part of the establishment who, as Lamb says, advocate tearing down Americas borders, stealing jobs from the working class, and neutralizing U.S. national sovereignty. And its a broad coalition of special interests supporting free trade tactics that benefit the few at the cost of the many. Consider: National Association of Manufacturers: The United States should not place artificial quotas or restrictions on employers ability to hire or move people as needed.2 American Hotel and Lodging Association: *our+primary mission is to allow employers facing shortages of semi-skilled and unskilled (essential worker) labor to hire workers from abroad.3 United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW): On June 10, 2000, International Secretary-Treasurer Joe Hansen said, The position of the UFCW is simple and direct: we dont care about green cards, we care about union cards. We care about union contracts that guarantee dignity at work and a decent standard of living at home regardless of race, gender, nationality or immigration status.4 League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC): LULAC supports the regularization of undocumented workers in the United Statesto allow immigrants to remain with their families while their applications are processed, along with the restoration of Food Stamps for legal immigrants.5 Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service: We *support+ an immigration system thatallows immigrant workers to live freely and openly in our society.6 Wall Street bankers, multi-national corporations, and ethnic interests all have a stake in free trade. Former U.S. Sen. Ernest F. Fritz Hollings (D-SC) made this observation about the insidermanipulation of U.S. international trade policies: The problem is not that the government is too big because it tries to do too much. The problem is that the government is too big and of one mind with Wall Street, the financial crowd, Corporate America and their economists. The cabals one mind is to make the people feel like jobs are being created while [it] off-shores jobs as fast as it can.7 Why Fight Something Free? Of course, free trade treaties give off the sweet smell of success but really have nothing to do with free or fair trade: they are managed trade arrangements. The North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the comprehensive trade obligation the U.S. took on in 1994, has over a thousand pages of fine printfilled with favors
Free Trade
and exceptions for special interests, while imposing obligations and restrictions on the beleaguered American manufacturing sector. From 1989 to 2002, an estimated 682,900 U.S. jobs were lost or displaced because of the NAFTA deal and the resulting trade deficit , according to a study reviewing U.S. government trade and employment data conducted by the Economic Policy Institute, a non-partisan think tank. Before the signing of NAFTA, the U.S. held a $1.6 billion trade surplus over Mexico; as of 2010, Mexicos trade surplus now hovers around $97.2 billion. NAFTA continues to cost jobs: during the years 2007-2010, the U.S. economy has lost 116,400 jobs as a result of the trade deficit created by NAFTA.8
Free Trade
Manufacturing
Free trade tanks the manufacturing sector which makes our exports even less competitive causing more job loss. Schlafly, Master's in Political Science from Harvard University, 13
[Phyllis, 1/23/13, Town Hall, Free Trade Cheats Americans,http://townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/2013/01/23/free-tradecheats-americans-n1494749/page/full, accessed 7/1/13, AS]
The official U.S. International Trade Commission admits that the Korea agreement will cause significant job losses, not just in low-end industries but also make a victim of the electronic equipment manufacturing industry. The Economic Policy Institute, a leftist think tank, estimates the Korea agreement will cost us 159,000 more jobs over the next five years. The trade pact's 1,000 pages of rules and regulations will be enforced by foreign tribunals. Ron Paul calls this "a sneaky form of international preemptions, undermining the critical checks and balances and freedoms established by the U.S. Constitution." Our annual trade deficit with China has increased to $290 billion. Our exports to China were up 6.4 percent over the previous year, but imports increased by 6.5 percent. In 2002, we granted Communist China Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR), which is a fancy name for free trade, and the United States has lost an average of 50,000 manufacturing jobs a month ever since. U.S. employment dropped 2.6 percent because of a combination of outsourcing and absence of job growth that would have taken place without the trade agreement, according to a new study by the Federal Reserve's Justin Pierce and Yale's Peter Schott. Mainstream economists have been stuck for years in the notion that any attack on "free trade" is heretical, but finally their dogma is cracking. Even the Washington Post now acknowledges that "trade liberalization" with China is a big reason for the decline of U.S. manufacturing jobs. Forbes Magazine published an article titled "America's Manufacturing Crisis: Finally Harvard Gets It." What academics finally "get" is that it is, indeed, a disaster for America to lose our manufacturing base specifically because that causes us to lose our "ability to innovate." The theorists held onto their out-of-date free-trade theory despite the loss of millions of outsourced jobs, despite 42,000 U.S. factories permanently closed, and despite the loss of high blue-collar wages that could support a family. But our loss of innovation is finally waking them up. Most people recognize that America's prosperity and high standard of living depend on our remarkable power and skill of innovation produced by manufacturing. They should read Alexander Hamilton's great 1791 treatise on the importance of manufacturing. Harvard management professors Gary P. Pisano and Willy C. Shih emphasize the effect on innovation in their new book "Producing Prosperity: Why America Needs a Manufacturing Renaissance." Another useful book is "Freedom's Forge" by Arthur Herman, which proves that a manufacturing base is essential for national security, and we couldn't have won World War II without it. Our manufacturing base was what enabled the "arsenal of democracy" in 1944 to produce a war plane every five minutes, 150 tons of steel every hour and eight aircraft carriers a month. After World War II, our manufacturing base caused an incredible rise in our standard of living, bringing electricity and indoor plumbing to most homes and good wages that built a middle class to enable blue-collar workers to support a fulltime homemaker to raise their children. We've been told that the new normal is for America to be an economy based on providing services instead of products. The trouble is it's pretty hard to export services such as waiters and dry cleaners; we can only export things we make. The main defect with free trade is that, in the words of the old cliche, it takes two to tango. America steps
Free Trade
naively onto the dance floor, but Communist China won't dance. China protects and subsidizes its home industries and products, forces foreign-owned plants to give China their patents and trade secrets, cheats us with shoddy and dangerous exports, manipulates its currency to keep it artificially low, operates a large network of technology spies in the United States and pays slave-labor wages to its workers.
Free Trade
Outsourcing
Free trade agreements are designed to encourage outsourcing and foreign employment killing job growth.
Gemma, columnist with Middle American News, 12

An important feature of these free trade agreements is H-1B and L-1 visas mechanisms which allow U.S. businesses to employ foreign workers in occupations that require technical expertise such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers. H1-B and L-1 foreign workers are allowed into this country on a temporary basis. The premise of this work visa system is that the corporations still seek and train Americans to ultimately fill the jobs. In reality, ambiguities in both the H-1B and L-1 programs have made it easy to bring in cheaper foreign workers, with ordinary skills, who directly substitute for, rather than complement, U.S. workers displacing and denying opportunities to American job seekers. The loopholes also provide an unfair competitive advantage to companies specializing in offshore outsourcing, undercutting companies that hire American workers. For at least the past five years, nearly all of the employers receiving the most H-1B and L-1 visas are using them to send tens of thousands of high-wage, high-skilled American jobs overseas. Corporations are now changing the ratio between on-site and offshore workers, bringing fewer employees to the U.S. but training them to train fellow workers in their native lands. Indian national Nandita Gurjar, who heads human resources at Infosys, the IT mega multi-national, says that U.S. companies are hiring more people within India rather than taking people from her country. By way of background, Infosys revenues increased to $4.8 billion in 2010, up from $203 million in 2000. Its workforce has increased from 5,400 to 113,800 in that time period, and Infosys has 10,700 H-1B and L-1 visa holders on its payroll.16 Visas issued in the L-1 category involve transfers within the same company, and employees do not need to be paid the minimum wage levels of the U.S., which are much higher than what an employee on an L-1 would be paid. The number of L-1 visas issued to India for example, has risen from 2,276 in 1998 to 37,145 in 2010. On the other hand, the number of H-1Bs increased about 30 percent during the same period. If more multi-nationals adopt this L-1 tactic, the American economy takes another hit. For example, contributions to Social Security alone by Indian firms would normally amount to about $1 billionbut those foreigners dont pay into Social Security for Americans. The offshore outsourcing industry in India is generating $62 billion a year in revenue, up from $4 billion in 2000, according to a January 1, 2010 report in The Times of India.17 Offshoring jobs through the H-1B program is so common that it has been dubbed the outsourcing visa by Indias former commerce minister.18 According to a study by Ron Hira, associate professor of public policy at Rochester Institute of Technology, American workers are being replaced by their cheaper foreign counterparts, who are also being asked to train their foreign replacements. I have friends at Xerox, and Xerox just took over Affiliated Computer Services *ACS+, *and+ they are training their Indian counterparts, and ACS is offshoring *jobs+ like crazy, too. Hira, whose university is located in the same city as Xerox headquarters, notes that Xerox CEO Ursula Burns is the vice chair of President Obamas Export Council, and people up here are scoffing and laughing because she made her mark before she became CEO by setting up the offshoring of
Free Trade
engineering in India. According to Hira, The only thing she knows how to export is jobs!19 Hira warns: Like the H-1B program, the L-1 program does not require a labor market test. Applying firms do not have to prove that a labor shortage of domestic workers exists, nor that they have made an effort to actively recruit U.S. workers for the job. In fact, a U.S. worker can be displaced from a job by an L-1 worker.20 Hira also emphasizes this point: Unlike even the H1B program, the L-1 program does not require that workers be paid local prevailing wages so they can be paid the prevailing wage of their home country. The law creating the L-1 visa category does not even require the petitioning company to have any operations in the United States, or even operate in more than one country it merely requires that the alien worker comes to the United States to continue to serve the petitioning employer, or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof, in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized knowledge. Any foreign company can use the L-1 visa to send employees to the United States to open a new office.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker Currency Manipulation Currency manipulation within FTAs ensures US workers always lose Japan proves.
Free Trade

(Robert E., 4/7/13, Economic Policy Institute, Rising trade deficits with Japan illustrate problem with proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, http://www.epi.org/publication/rising-trade-deficitsjapan-illustrate-problem/, accessed 7/2/13, AS) The U.S. trade deficit with Japan has increased steadily over the past four years, reaching $79.9 billion in 2012, an increase of $13.4 billion (20.2 percent). Last month, the United States and Japan agreed on language that could allow Japan to join negotiations to enter the TransPacific Partnership (TPP), a proposed free trade agreement with 10 other Asia-Pacific countries (a new round of negotiations on the TPP began in Singapore this week ). Exports support U.S. jobs but the larger volume of imports displaces even more jobs. Trade deficits such as the one we have with Japan have cost the United States millions of jobs, most of them high-paying jobs in manufacturing. Signing trade deals is an ineffective way to create jobs, in large part because they usually result in higher trade deficits. One of the biggest causes of our trade deficits is currency manipulation, which acts as an artificial subsidy to other countries exports and a tax on U.S. exports. Japan has a history of currency manipulation, and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced that he intended to weaken the yen when he was elected in December. The yen has declined 11.9 percent since then.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker Job Quality
Free Trade
Even if they win the difference between jobs created/displaced is zero, job quality still suffers.
Bivens, Ph.D., Economics, New School for Social Research, 8

(Josh, 6/6/8, Economic Policy Institute, Trade, jobs, and wages,http://www.epi.org/publication/ib244/, accessed 7/2/13, AS) The Economic Policy Institute and other researchers have examined the job impacts of trade in recent years by netting the job opportunities lost to imports against those gained through exports.1 One criticism of these studies is that they do not try to estimate the jobs gained from capital inows. However, this criticism misses the point of these studies: estimates of jobs displaced by growing trade decits are not a declaration of exactly how many more jobs the economy would have today if these decits had not grown. Rather, they are a conservative measure of the involuntary job displacement caused by these growing decits and an indicator of imbalance in the U.S. labor market and wider economy. These studies also provide an indicator of how trade has a ected the composition of jobs in the U.S. labor market. Economists may cheerfully label it a wash when the loss of a hundred manufacturing jobs in Ohio or Pennsylvania is o set by the hiring of a hundred construction workers in Phoenix, but in the real world these displacements often result in large income losses and even permanent damage to workers earning power.2 Lastly, and importantly, even if trade decits and capital inows were to ght to a draw and there was no e ect on the total number of jobs, job quality could still suer. Manufacturing jobs (disproportionately lost to trade) tend to pay more and have better bene ts, especially for workers without a four-year degree.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker AT: Buy America Proves
Free Trade
Buy American doesnt prove that free trade is good for jobs it only mandates products are 25% American.
Collins, former state representative and a former mayor of Norwalk, Connecticut, 10

(William A, Nov. 8, 10, Institute for Policy Studies, Free Trade: A Corporate Scam, http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/free_trade_a_corporate_scam, accessed 7/2/13, AS) So why not impose more tariffs to raise prices for specific foreign goods and services? Not only would this save and possibly create jobs, we could use the law to prohibit entry of those products whose manufacturer destroys the environment or abuses workers. Well, there's a lot of money to be made in destroying the environment and abusing workers. That's why multinational corporations invest big bucks in the legislative process to assure they can continue to do just that. Only citizen protests slow them down. Disappointingly, even our own government fails to purchase enough goods at home. The long-established Buy America Act requires only that a product bought with federal tax money be 50 percent American. Additional loopholes take that down to about 25 percent in practice. Further, in 2008, there were 65,000 waivers granted to avoid the law altogether. There's more, way more. Corporations, lobbyists, importers, politicians, news media, and many economists are in on the deal. They kowtow to employers, investors, and advertisers who make a bundle off the "race to the bottom" for wages. If by chance you would like to do your bit for the economy, you can urge your members of Congress to oppose the upcoming free-trade agreements with Colombia and South Korea. They would only make unemployment worse. And, don't pay attention to economists on trade issues. Too many have sold out. They warn of trade wars, but ignore the collateral damage of the trade peace we're suffering today.
Free Trade
Free Trade Bad-Poverty
Free Trade
Indicts
Free trade doesnt increase growth-jump from correlation to causation Hassoun, assistant professor at Carnegie Mellon, 11 (Nicole, 1/13/2011, Free Trade,
Poverty, and Inequality, CMU Research showcase, http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1354&context=philosophy, accessed 7/1/13, KR) Next, consider the Banks argument for the conclusion that free trade is reducing poverty because it has increased growth rates without increasing inequality in recent decades. Or, as they put it, the combination of rapid growth with no systematic change in inequality has dramatically reduced absolute poverty in the globalizing countries. The first problem with this argument is that it does little to show that countries that trade freely grow more than those that do not. Consider the Banks evidence for a link between free trade and growth. The Bank only establishes a correlation between population weighted trade to GDP ratios and real GDP per capita in developing countries but, even setting aside the distinction between liberalization and free trade, this is not enough to show that free trade increases growth. It is quite possible that there is a common cause of an increase in population weighted trade to GDP ratios and real GDP per capita in developing countries. Foreign aid, geographical factors, or foreign investment, for instance, may increase both trade to GDP ratios and real GDP per capita. More generally, the Bank does not test any other hypotheses that could explain the correlation they report between changing population weighted trade to GDP ratios and real GDP per capita in developing countries. So, the study has what economists refer to as low internal validity. A study has low internal validity when there is little reason to believe its estimates reflect the causal relationships between the thing being evaluated (e.g. free trade) and the particular outcome observed (e.g. growth) even holding the studys circumstances fixed. The Banks study does little to show that the jump from correlation to causation is justified.
Free trade wont help the poor-flawed assumptions Hassoun, assistant professor at Carnegie Mellon, 8 (Nicole, 10/1/2008, CMU
Research, Free Trade, Poverty, and the Environment, http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1352&context=philosophy, accessed 6/30/13, KR) According to the Argument from Comparative Advantage, if countries are allowed to trade freely, markets will reach a Pareto optimal state. They will reach a state such that no one can be made better off without making someone else worse off. How much poor countries will benefit from free trade will, however, depend on the terms of trade (see Appendix B). They may not benefit much at all. Worse, many of the assumptions required by the Argument from Comparative Advantage are important and unrealistic. 41 The argument assumes that there are zero transaction costs, full employment, and homogenous labor markets within each country. The argument also assumes that goods produced in each country are identical and that consumers and firms strive to maximize utility and profit respectively. Furthermore, it assumes that labor cannot move between countries but that it costs nothing for laborers to switch industries. We know that many of these assumptions are false in the real world. Without these assumptions we can see that free trade may even hurt the poor. If, for instance, we do not assume that there will be full employment after trade, the argument does not tell us
Free Trade
much about the distribution of benefits to individuals that will result from free trade. Poor people may not benefit from any resulting growth at all. They may even suffer. Poor people may, for instance, lose their jobs as production shifts to commodities made by people who are not poor. The case for free trade, thus, depends on how closely actual markets approximate or can be made to approximate ideal markets. 42 At best, Kaldor-Hicks Pareto optimality will be achieved with free trade in the real world. On the Kaldor-Hicks criterion, a change from one state of affairs to another is optimal if the benefits of the change exceed the costs of the change. The benefits could go to the rich and the costs to the poor. At least on this interpretation of the Paretian criterion, Pareto Optimality can, like Caesars spirit, come hot from hell. 43
Reject their evidence-it relies on flawed scholarship and overestimates the decline in poverty Hassoun, assistant professor at Carnegie Mellon, 11 (Nicole, 1/13/2011, Free Trade,
Poverty, and Inequality, CMU Research showcase, http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1354&context=philosophy, accessed 7/1/13, KR) Today the World Bank poverty database tells us that, on the US$1 a day poverty line, the number of people in poverty fell by more than 22% (from 40.36% of the worlds population in 1981 to 17.72% of the worlds population in 2004). According to the World Banks US$2 a day poverty line, the database reports that the number of people in poverty fell by about 20% (from 67.13% of the worlds population in 1981 to 47.27% of the worlds population in 2004). Unfortunately, the Banks new method of calculating poverty lines cannot support such comparisons. The World Banks method of measuring poverty changed in the late 1990s. To see the effect of this change, consider the 1993 poverty rates using the new and old methodologies: Table 1. Poverty estimates in 1993 as determined by new and old World Bank methodology. We need not arbitrate between these different ways of measuring poverty here. Both methods of measuring poverty share some common problems. The Bank relies on PPP measures to convert country estimates of income poverty into a common currency. This is problematic. The main sources of PPP measures are the Penn World Tables (PWT) and the International Comparison Project (I CP). These measures are based on surveys with inadequate coverage. Only 63 countries participated in the 1985 ICP. China did not participate at all in the ICP surveys until 2005 and India did not participate between 1985 and 2005. Since China and India account for about a third of the worlds population, the above estimates of world poverty are quite uncertain. Another problem is that the most common PPP measures make it seem like the poor are doing better than they actually are. So, using these measures to estimate poverty rates makes it seem like there are fewer poor people in the world than there are. To see how the problem arises, consider how PPP is calculated on the most common (Geary- Khamis) method. The Geary-Khamis method essentially averages the international price differentials across all commodities. This method weights each commodity in proportion to its share in international consumption expenditure, essentially estimating purchasing power over an international basket of goods and services. Unfortunately, this basket does not represent the basket of goods and services the poor purchase. It contains services and other non-tradables that the poor do not buy the poor primarily purchase food. Services and nontradables are relatively cheaper in countries. This implicitly inflates the assessed purchasing power of the poor in developing country currencies.
Free Trade
Free trade increases income inequality-their evidence rests on false assumptions-better studies prove trade only benefits the rich Hassoun, assistant professor at Carnegie Mellon, 11 (Nicole, 1/13/2011, Free Trade,
Poverty, and Inequality, CMU Research showcase, http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1354&context=philosophy, accessed 7/1/13, KR) Even if we granted without evidence that free trade increases growth rates, however, the Bank does little to show that free trade has not increased inequality. The Bank merely claims that the long trend of rising global inequality ... has been halted and even reversed. The report does not explain how it measures global inequality, however. Since it arrives at this result, it is probably the case that it weights international inequality by population using a biased PPP index. After all, many use this as a proxy for world inequality (though, as we have seen, it is a poor proxy). So, the reports estimate of inequality is probably inaccurate. Biased PPP measures make inequality appear to be lower than it actually is. And, as we argued above, even if the Bank is interested in the impact of the reforms it encourages that promote free trade on countries on average, it should not look at international inequality weighted by population. Finally, even if we granted for the sake of argument that free trade increases growth rates without increasing inequality that would not show that free trade decreases poverty . Even if inequality neutral growth generally reduces poverty, the inequality- neutral growth that free trade brings may not reduce poverty. Some causes of inequality- neutral growth reduce poverty, others do not. At least on the Gini index, growth can be inequality neutral if it only increases the income of the middle class. If, for instance, there are an equal number of rich and poor people, the increasing inequality between the middle class and the poor may be offset by the decrease in inequality between the middle class and the rich. The World Bank does not provide convincing evidence that the poor are benefiting from free trade. Rather, they rely on a study by David Dollar and Aart Kraay that purports to show that there is a one-toone relationship between the growth rate of income of the poor and the growth rate of average income in society. Others, however, have not been able to replicate this finding and argue that Dollar and Kraay do not take possible endogeneities in their data properly into account; growth rates amongst the poorest segments of the population may influence policies that influence overall growth rates. Again, the Bank ignores alternative explanations. In short, the World Banks has not done enough to show that free trade is causing poverty to fall. Of course, others also argue that free trade reduces poverty and inequality. Jeffery Sachs and Andrew Warner, for instance, provide a different argument for the conclusion that the effect of free trade on the poorest countries has been good. They create an index to measure the effect of free trade on growth. Sachs and Warner assert that most countries that have started trading freely, including open developing countries, have grown while most countries that remain closed to trade have stagnated. Perhaps their argument is better? Unfortunately, Sachs and Warners study does not allow us to conclude that free trade is reducing poverty or inequality. The developing countries could be growing because the rich in those countries are gaining more than the poor are losing. Furthermore, this studys measure of free trade is questionable. Several recent studies have decomposed some of the different indices of free trade including the Sachs-Warner index. These studies find that free trade alone does not promote growth. The Sachs- Warner index includes measures of tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade and distortion in the foreign exchange market. But the critics suggest that it primarily captures a correlation between growth and black market exchange rates rather than a correlation between growth and free trade. Even worse, others using some of the same measures of free
Free Trade
trade as the World Bank and Sachs and Warner, but improving upon these studies, have found that free trade is correlated with increasing inequality in the poorest countries. A recent study by Milanovic found that among countries with less than US$5,000 per capita income (PPP), those countries with a high ratio of exports and imports to GDP had more inequality. Similarly, Lundberg and Squire report that growth amongst the poorest 40 percent of households is negatively correlated with greater openness (on the Sachs -Warner index), though openness is strongly and positively correlated with growth amongst the wealthiest 40 percent of households. If these studies are correct, the evidence suggests that free trade is correlated with more inequality in developing countries. The IFIs faith in the ability of free trade to reduce poverty while decreasing or at least not increasing inequality is unsubstantiated.
Free Trade
Empirics
Arguments about China and India are backwards-trade only increased after growth and poverty reduction, and they still have relatively low trade ratios Hassoun, assistant professor at Carnegie Mellon, 11 (Nicole, 1/13/2011, Free Trade,
Poverty, and Inequality, CMU Research showcase, http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1354&context=philosophy, accessed 7/1/13, KR) Globalization, Growth and Poverty claims that free trade reduces poverty and inequality by increasing growth. This section will argue, however, that there are a few reasons to worry about the Banks report. First, the Bank overlooks the distinction between free trade and opening up markets to trade (or trade liberalization). Globalization, Growth and Poverty separates the top third of the developing countries with the greatest change in the ratio between trade and GDP from the rest. Weighting countries by population, the Bank then notes that these more globalized developing countries have grown more than less globalized developing countries, on average. Countries with a high trade to GDP ratio are not necessarily more open to trade, however. Rather, measuring changes in trade to GDP ratio captures changes in openness. Some of the globalized countries have smaller trade to GDP ratios than the non-globalized countries. Those countries which were already liberalized before 1977 and have the fewest barriers to trade are grouped with the countries that remain relatively closed to trade. In fact, many of the globalizing countries initially had very low trade/GDP ratios in 1977 and still had relatively low trade/GDP at the end of the period in 1997 (reflecting more than just the fact that larger economies tend to have lower ratios of trade/GDP). The results would be very different if the countries had been grouped differently; many countries with high trade/GDP ratios have had abysmal economic performance. Including countries like China and India, which have low trade/GDP ratios, in the group of globalized countries virtually guarantees that the globalizers, weighted by population, show better performance than the nonglobalizers. It is not clear why the IFIs would consider trade to GDP ratios a good measure of free trade. They are probably just confusing free trade with liberalization although some have accused the Bank of trying to confuse others. This is worrisome because the kinds of policies pursued by countries like China in achieving growth were a-liberal. China and India began to open up their markets only after their growth rates increased. The World Bank may have the causality backwards.
Free Trade
Race To the Bottom

Trade causes poverty and exploitation-multinationals use workers as robots and prevent wealth redistribution Yimprasert, Director of Thai Labour Campaign, 5 (Junya, January 2005, Norweigan
Church Paper Series, The Race to the Bottom: Exploitation of Workers in the Global Garment Industry, http://www.kirkensnodhjelp.no/Documents/Kirkens%20N%C3%B8dhjelp/Publikasjoner/Temah efter/Race%20to%20the%20bottom.pdf, accessed 7/1/13, KR) Understanding the race to the bottom requires that governments, trade unions and labour advocates of the global South face the reality that they are competing amongst themselves just as much as, or to a greater extent than they are competing with the North [Chan and Ross, 2003] in their efforts to attract trade and investment. In this process of the race to the bottom, developing countries adopt neo-liberal policies to attract FDI and therefore trade off citizens rights to investors or capitalists to be able to get the highest profit by paying the minimum for all costs, taxes, labour wages and welfare while carrying out practises harmful to the environment. Various reports refer to the race to the bottom, for example economic competition encourages deregulation. This would cause the state to lose its redistribution role and its capacity to offer services to citizens, since taxation revenues would decline. The International Textile Garment Leather Workers Federation (ITGLWF), the largest global union of textile and garment workers, issued a strong statement to the business community at the World Economic Forum: As the corporate bosses proclaimed their commitment to workers and communities, it was hard to forget the 32 workers recently fired at Square Fashion Ltd. Bangladesh for simply seeking advice from a trade union on how to get paid on time, or the 400 migrant workers deported from Namibia after having been in the country for only one month, after tensions over horrific living and working conditions erupted into riots. And what about the trade union president at Bata Ceylon Ltd., kicked out of the factory for voicing concern at the alleged mismanagement of the employees provident fund? Why did the image of a young woman union leader in the Dominican Republic who has had her arm broken by company-hired thugs keep coming to mind, or the murdered Cambodian garment union leader, Chea Vichea? At the World Economic Forum in Davos, business building is a key issue, and corporations claim that they operate Corporate Social Responsibly (CSR). The ITGLWF went on to state: In Davos, company presidents, CEOs, and managing directors were falling over themselves to highlight the productivity, quality and profitability gains to be made from being good employers. But, how real was it all? Monitoring these trans-national corporations (TNCs) bottom end production in countries such as Thailand, one can see the difference. I used to work in Bangkok [in a unionised factory] earning 250 Baht a day, says Pu. After the factory closed in 2000, without paying compensation to the over 1000 workers, she returned to her home in Kabinburi to work in a factory promoted by the Board of Investment (BOI) producing garments for export. I received only the minimum wage with no welfare and there is no union. Pu is now earning 40% less than at her former job in the Bangkok factory. The AFL-CIO and many organisations in the US issued a statement on the Principles of Unity on Trade & Investment, claiming that Millions of people across this country and around the world have lost jobs, been poisoned, watched their farms foreclosed and suffered other indignities from corporate globalisation. Susan Georges statement emphasises the serious nature of the situation: Globalisation inevitably transfers wealth from the poor to the rich and increases inequalities
Free Trade
both within and between nations; globalisation shifts sovereignty from more or less democratic States to non-elected, non- transparent, non-accountable entities which consider democracy irrelevant and an obstacle to economic efficiency. Globalisation generates far more losers than winners. The textile and clothing industry is in fact an important industry for most developing countries, particularly in Asia. Of the total world textile and clothing exports, 42 per cent comes from Asia. And among the worlds low-income economies, over 20 countries rely on earnings from the textile and clothing industry; Cambodia for instance earns 97 per cent of its export revenues from the textile and clothing industry. This does not mean, however, that the industrys investors can exploit vulnerable people and their needs without giving workers worldwide full legal rights and respect. 1. A RACE TO SWEATSHOPS A sweatshop is a workplace that violates the law and where workers are subject to: extreme exploitation, including the absence of a living wage or long working hours, poor working conditions, such as health and safety hazards, arbitrary discipline, such as verbal or physical abuse, or fear and intimidation when they speak out, organise, or attempt to form a union. (Sweatshop Watch) Struggles against sweatshop conditions have been seen throughout industrial history, especially since the beginning of the nineteenth century when immigrants from Europe fled to the United States in the hope of a better life. They ended up working in exploitative and brutal sweatshop conditions and thus began to organise themselves to fight against these abusive working conditions, especially in the garment and textiles industries. Millions of mostly Italian and Jewish immigrants provided cheap labour for garment sweatshops in major cities where workers toiled for long hours under inhuman conditions for merger wages. 1.1 PRECARIOUS EMPLOYMENT The Clothing industry is big business: the worlds consumer s spent around US$ 1 trillion buying clothes in 2000, with around one third of sales in Western Europe, one third in North America, and one quarter in Asia. But what is left for the workers? Little. The clothing industry is labour intensive, meaning that it is an industry that cannot replace workers with robots. However, companies often treat workers as if they were robots. The problem now is that the management sees that we cannot reach the target if we stitch sitting down, so they have set up a new system by which we feed cloth faster standing up. We have to stand to stitch. This causes a lot of muscle pain. This worker said that the management, which has a factory in China, told the Thai workers that workers in China stand to stitch without complaining. Through such precarious employment this longer, faster and cheaper industry can make workers to become more like robots. The International Textile, Garment, and Leather Workers Fe deration (ITGLWF), the largest global union of textile and garment workers, issued a strong statement at both the World Trade Organization and the World Economic Forum, expressing the seriousness of the problem that workers in this industry face, and are going to face under the WTO trade rules: From the 130 textile and clothing producing countries in the developing world today, it is expected that only about twenty will be able to maintain a viable textile and clothing sector. Those industries likely to be eliminated are some of the poorest countries in the world. In most of these there is no alternative employment, no social security, no safety nets. Where are these young workers, mainly women, going to end up? However, what is happening should come as no surprise. These are countries that build exportbased economies on the back of low wages and appalling working conditions in keeping with the liberalisation agenda. Profits are not reinvested neither in the industries nor the countries concerned.
Free Trade
Trade increases poverty-it causes a race to the bottom UN-HABITAT 4(United Nations HABITAT program, Sept. 14, 2004, Cities and Globalization: A
Race to the Bottom? UN-HABITAT Report finds the fruits of globalization are not offered to the poor. http://ww2.unhabitat.org/mediacentre/documents/sowc/Featurerace.pdf, KR) According to UN-HABITATs new publication, The State of the Worlds Cities, 2004, the fruits of globalization economic growth, rising incomes and improvements in the quality of lifeare rapidly being offset by the negative aspects of rapid urbanization: increased poverty, greater inequality, and the prediction that, by 2020, urban areas in the worlds least developed regions will absorb nearly all of the global population increase predicted for the next three decades. This urbanization of poverty is being propelled by a tremendous increase in the transnational movement of people and capital. The rapid transfer of money and jobs to cities and countries where cheap labour can be found has fueled what is being termed by the Report, a race to the bottom. For the urban poor who are impacted by this race, there are no winners, and the losers will most likely find themselves among the projected two billion people who, according to the report, will be living in slums by 2030.Hardest hit by globalization are women and children-the most vulnerable of urban dwellers. Poor women are becoming increasingly marginalized as the feminization of poverty manifests itself in many parts of the world. The positive aspects of globalization, including greater longevity, increased literacy, lower infant mortality and wider access to infrastructure and social services, mask the unfortunate truth that these benefits are not being shared equally. The effects of globalization on cities both positive and negative need to be better understood if public policy is to be effective in bettering the lives of those who live in them.
Trade increases poverty-race to the bottom and service trade Madeley, author of '100 Ways to Make Poverty History', 10 (John, November 4, 2010, People
and Planet, Trading off the Poor, http://www.peopleandplanet.net/?lid=27149&section=48&topic=44, accessed 7/3/13, KR) Under globalisation, the makers of manufactured goods locate their factories in countries where wages are low; they compete fiercely with each other in what has been called "a race to the bottom". In so called "free trade zones", millions of people work for long hours and low pay to make some of the world's most expensive consumer products - such as clothing, toys, shoes, and electronic equipment. Environmental standards in free trade zones are often low and even non-existent. Affiliates of trans-national corporations (TNCs) account for over half the total output of manufactured goods. The use of child labour in manufacturing units in developing countries to help make goods for export was highlighted in the early 1990s by disclosures about young children being employed in rugmaking factories in India, Pakistan and Nepal. Traded services Services make up approximately 25 per cent of total world exports. The WTO lists 160 international traded services. They break down into different categories, including tourism, financial services (such as banks, insurance companies), shipping, telecommunications, labour money remitted by nationals working abroad), public services (such as health care, sanitation and education), and public utilities like water, electricity and gas. For developing countries, earnings from trade in services accounts for about 20 per cent of their overall export earnings. The widespread privatisation of services could have considerable repercussions for the poor. The privatisation of water supply has already had detrimental effects on people in a number of developing countries, for example in Bolivia, where streets riots erupted following
Free Trade
the imposition of charges which hit hardest at the poor. Western countries now want to extend the WTO's General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) which governs the trade. The end of barriers to trade in services could be a major flash point between rich and poor countries. TNCs are pressing for such liberalisation.
Free Trade
Structural Displacement
Trade increases poverty-destroys small-scale farming Madeley, author of '100 Ways to Make Poverty History', 10 (John, November 4, 2010, People
and Planet, Trading off the Poor, http://www.peopleandplanet.net/?lid=27149&section=48&topic=44, accessed 7/3/13, KR) The argument against unregulated free trade, driven solely by market forces, is that while it has raised the living standards of most people, it has not done so for the poorest. After 20 years of intense trade liberalisation, in the 1980s and 1990s, poverty has not fallen in many countries. In agriculture, where most of the poor make a living, food imports resulting from trade liberalisation are at least partly responsible for the destruction of small farmer livelihoods, (see Facts and Figures section). This has led to the concentration of small farms into larger ones and has not helped sustainable agricultural development. There is, indeed, much hypocrisy in the rich world's calls for free trade. While developing countries have allowed in more food imports, the United States and the European Union have not done the same. Western farmers receive huge handouts in subsidies and are increasing their share of global markets at the expense of the world's rural poor. At the same time, the west is moving very slowly to lower its quotas on imported clothing and textiles from poor countries, while these same countries are being urged by the IMF and the World Bank to open their markets without delay. Few of the poorest countries have the industrial muscle or service sectors to compete with the flood of imports from the west. There is now less confidence that the mainstream trading system can help the poor. "The benefits of liberalisation to low-income agricultural producers are likely to be very limited," concludes a UN Conference on Trade and Development Report report. "For more substantial gains (towards food security) countries will have to encourage the expansion of their domestic food production sectors," says a US Department of Agriculture report.
Trade doesnt solve poverty-countries cant develop balanced economies Madeley, author of '100 Ways to Make Poverty History', 10 (John, November 4, 2010, People
and Planet, Trading off the Poor, http://www.peopleandplanet.net/?lid=27149&section=48&topic=44, accessed 7/3/13, KR) Yet at the start of the 21st century trade does not seem to be helping some of the world's poorest communities to escape from poverty. Trade liberalisation and the rules of international trade are having a detrimental impact on many of the world's poor and the environment. International trade has encouraged specialisation of labour and products which has kept many countries as "hewers of wood and drawers of water" - as producers of primary products, which has hindered them from developing more balanced economies. While trade has helped countries such as China, South Korea and others in east Asia to reduce malnutrition and poverty, it has done little to help most of sub-Saharan Africa.
Free Trade
Trade increases poverty and hastens environmental collapse-Transnationals control patents and drive small farmers off their land Madeley, author of '100 Ways to Make Poverty History', 10 (John, November 4, 2010, People
and Planet, Trading off the Poor, http://www.peopleandplanet.net/?lid=27149&section=48&topic=44, accessed 7/3/13, KR) A further reason why governments of developing countries now trade foodstuffs is that people abroad can afford to buy them, unlike many in their own country. Lack of purchasing power in developing countries is a major reason for the continuation of poverty. The patenting of food crops species by transnational corporations (TNCs) is of concern to small-scale farmers who fear that such corporations will have monopoly control over seeds which are crucial to them. Over a thousand patents have been taken out on the five crops that account for 70 per cent of the world's food supply in rice, wheat, maize, soybean and sorghum. The four major agrochemical corporations - Du Pont, Mitsui, Monsanto and Syngenta - own most of the patents. Also of concern are the social and environmental consequences of small farmers being driven off their land. In Latin America, especially, displaced farmers have left the countryside to swell the shanty towns and favellas (slums) of growing cities, putting an additional strain on resources such as water. A further threat to the poor lies in the expansion in developing countries of crops being grown for fuel, mostly to power vehicles in Western countries. "Biodiesel and ethanol may make up 7 per cent of world demand for liquid fuels in 2030, with consumption rising fourfold to 36 million metric tonnes a year from today's level of about 8 million tonnes', reported the FAO in November 2007. Crops for fuel - sugar and palm oil are among those considered suitable - could be grown on land which at present grows food for people. They could also be planted on forest areas and contribute to a degraded environment, including a worsening of global warming. Biofuel programmes could result "in a concentration of ownership that could drive the world's poorest farmers off their land and into deeper poverty" says a UN report.
Free Trade
Deregulation
Even if trade leads to anti-poverty programs, it only papers over the problem, while expanding the deregulation that keeps workers poor Mestrum, PhD researcher in development studies, 12 (Francine, July 12, 2012, Public
Service Europe, Global poverty is a consequence of free-trade ideology, http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/2213/global-poverty-is-a-consequence-of-freetrade-ideology, KR) According to World Bank data, there are almost 1.5 billion people living in extreme poverty across the globe. These citizens are living on less than $ 1.25 per day, and another billion people live on less than $ 2 per day. In total, this is almost half of the human race. For nearly a quarter of a century, poverty has been the number one priority on the international community's political agenda. And the fight against poverty has become the official priority of development cooperation. Such focus and effort are reassuring because poverty ought not to exist in our extremely rich world. At the same time, one wonders why poverty was absent from the political agenda before 1990? And why we are still waiting to see any success for the strategies adopted in the fight against poverty? The answers to these questions are clear when one starts to analyse the discourses and practices of the international organisations that imposed these priorities, such as the World Bank. First of all, it was clear from 1990 and the World Bank's first major poverty report that nothing was going to change in the 'Washington consensus' policies. In other words, the lean state and the free trade ideology, the privatisations and deregulations were going to continue. And the consequence of this is more poverty. It means that poverty reduction policies are 'end-of-the-pipe' solutions that do not stop the impoverishment processes. Second, the World Bank also made clear that social protection policies - beyond poverty reduction - were not desirable for developing countries. According to the bank, they are for the 'vested interests' of workers and not for the 'common interest' of the poor. However, social protection is the best tool we have for preventing poverty and tackling inequality. Third, in the World Bank's neoliberal philosophy, poverty is a problem of individuals which lack opportunities. It is not a societal problem linked to the distribution of wealth and resources but only a lack of market access, health care and skills for this market. As for the United Nations and its programme of Millennium Development Goals, they lack a clear reference to the necessary economic and social development as well as to economic and social rights. Clearly, in countries with poverty rates beyond 50 per cent, it is not a fight against poverty one needs but development. Finally, one has to refer to the work of major historians and sociologists such as Geremek, Sassier and Simmel. They taught us that poor people never are the first objective of poverty reduction policies. Their first aim is indeed one of legitimacy of political power and of hiding these real objectives. 'Poverty policies' aim to give neoliberal globalisation a human face. In fact, they have allowed for a continuation of the agendas that cause poverty in the first place.
Free Trade
Free Trade Bad - Environment
Free Trade
Resource Extraction
Free trade leads to environmental destructionagriculture pressures and pesticide poisoning Grossman, professor at NYU, Sociological Inquiry, 02
*Peter, professor at NYU, Sociological Inquiry, The Effects of Free Trade on Development, Democracy, and Environmental Protection, Volume 72, Number 1, Winter, p. 136+ Free trade also has negative effects on sustainable agricultural production. While there is some increased efficiency through increased production and economies of scale, free trade discourages sustainable agriculture by hurting small family farms and encouraging large-scale, intensive agricultural production. NAFTA, combined with legal reforms in Mexico, has resulted in a farm crisis in Mexico (Barry 1995). Trade-related shifts in agricultural production also increase the use of pesticides and chemicals, putting farm workers at higher risk of pesticide poisoning (Greenpeace 1992, p. 1; Canadian Environmental Law Association n.d., p. 1). Trade also increases the use of biotechnology and genetically modified food, which can create environmental, health, and safety threats (Sifry 1999). Intensification of agricultural production by large-scale agribusiness threatens small-scale family farmers; it also increases Third World dependency on developed nations (Canadian Environmental Law Association n.d., p. 1; Rosset 1999; Margaronis 1999).9 Increased trade has raised health threats as there are difficulties inspecting the increased imports (Wiener 1992). Trade has led to many environmental abuses by multinational corporations operating in developed nations. Extensive pollution, unlawful toxic waste dumping, and dangerous workplaces were some of the offenses found along the U.S.Mexico border (McGaughey 1992, p. 64; Simon 1997). Research suggests that pollution abatement costs affect trade patterns (Robinson 1988), and studies indicate that reduced environmental protection costs have been a factor in industry relocation (U.S. General Accounting Office 1992).10 Trade is an important influence on economic development, which in turn affects pollution levels. In their study of economic development, Albert J. Bergesen and Laura Parisi (1999) find rising toxic emissions which then moderate. While trade advocates emphasize the leveling off of emissions, Bergesen and Parisi indicate that the process of development still creates increased environmental pressures. They agree that there may be improvements in efficiency, as well as a shift to a postindustrial service sector, which may be less environmentally threatening. However, there are limits to efficiency gains and, ultimately, development increases the volume of production (Bergesen and Parisi 1999, p. 501). Furthermore, Bergesen and Parisi, controlling for GDP per capita, find more toxic emissions with democracy (p. 51), which suggests a further problem in the hypothesized relationship between free trade, democracy, and environmental protection. Finally, while trade advocates admit that some trade-related environmental problems exist, they continually treat environmental protection as something that can be put off to be dealt with at a later date. While there are frequent calls for goodwill and imaginative institutional innovation (Bhagwati 1998, p. 243), such arguments consistently assert the importance of trade while downplaying environmental concerns. As a result, there are no assurances that environmental concerns will be dealt with later. There may be some situations in which trade and environmental protection emerge together, but without environmental regulation incentives for green practices they will be quite limited (Marchak 1998).
Free Trade
A2: Growth Solves

Effects of free trade pollution cannot be recovered by economic growth becomes net worse for the environment Venkat, writer for CommonDreams news center, 04
*Kumar, January 8, 2004, Free Trade: Benefit or Peril for the Environment?, http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0108-10.htm, accessed 6-31-13 BLE] Pollution from transportation and consumption of goods, as well as resource use throughout the life cycles of products, are all potentially major avenues through which global trade can damage the environment. When all these effects are combined with production-driven pollution, the final outcome could easily reverse the optimistic result that trade benefits the environment. The argument that polluting industries will stay in capital-rich developed countries also loses steam when capital itself is highly mobile. China, for example, received $44 billion in direct foreign investment in 2001. Even if companies are investing in China to take advantage of its cheap labor, an indirect consequence of concentrating an increasing part of the worlds manufacturing in China will be heavy resource use and pollution locally. A more direct instance of the pollution haven effect is the routine transfer of e-waste -- used computers and other electronic appliances that contain highly toxic chemicals -- from the U.S. to countries like India, China and the Philippines. Low-paid workers in these countries work under hazardous conditions to salvage valuable materials from this fast-growing waste stream, while polluting the soil, air and water in the process. These recent examples heighten the concern that developing countries, where the bulk of the worlds population lives, may be unprepared for the environmental consequences of global trade. Studies of air quality show that it deteriorates in the early stages of economic growth, and then starts improving when per-capita income exceeds $5000 per year. If this holds for most kinds of pollution and resource depletion, then incomes will have to increase by a factor of five to ten in large developing countries like China and India before there is sufficient local demand for environmental protection. Assuming that free trade can eventually deliver this income growth, a big unknown is whether it will result in income-induced policy changes before the cost of cleaning up the environment becomes prohibitively high. Equally troublesome is the issue of trans-boundary pollution such as greenhouse-gas emissions, where countries with widely different income levels will have to come together with a unified policy response. Between 1973 and 2001, a period in which many domestic economies were turned inside out by globalization, annual carbon-dioxide emissions from worldwide fuel combustion increased by 50 percent. By 2030, these emissions are projected to be 60 percent higher than in 2001 if no new policies are adopted. Power generation and transportation -- two sectors crucial to trade -- will account for three-quarters of this increase. A great deal of uncertainty remains about the longterm environmental impacts of globalization. But the evidence we have so far suggests that free trade unconstrained by environmental protection could be a recipe for disaster.
Free Trade
A2: Rules Check

Free trade hurts the environmentno WTO barriers Chmielewski, journalist for the Houston Chronicle, 13
[Tom, 2013, Negative Effects of Free Trade, http://smallbusiness.chron.com/negative-effectstrade-5221.html, accessed 6-30-13 BLE] As underdeveloped countries attempt to cut costs to gain a price advantage, many workers in these countries face low pay, substandard working conditions and even forced labor and abusive child labor. This race to the bottom, as critics call this drive to cut costs at the expense of human rights, is a key target of protests aimed at the WTO. Yet the WTO states it does not consider a manufacturers treatment of workers reason for countries to bar importation of that manufacturer's products. The WTO notes developing countries insist any attempt to include working conditions in trade agreements is meant to end their cost advantage in the world market. Environmental Damage According to critics, the increase of corporate farms in developing countries increases pesticide and energy use, and host countries ignore costly environmental standards. The Global Development and Environmental Institute, however, finds the environmental impact mixed. In some countries, for instance, replacing native crops with coffee and cocoa trees reduces erosion. The WTO is criticized for not allowing barriers to imports based on inadequate environmental standards in countries where goods are produced. Yet the WTO points to its ruling in the 1990s allowing a U.S. ban on shrimp imports because the fishing methods threatened endangered sea turtles outside U.S. borders. The extent to which environmental standards should be considered in free trade is an ongoing debate within the WTO.
Trade negotiations over environmental protection failneed to be separated from economic matters Smellie, 12
[Pattrick, writer for BusinessDesk, December 14, 2012, Trade negotiation mindset hurts climate change talks: Greens, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1212/S00577/trade-negotiationmindset-hurts-climate-change-talks-greens.htm, accessed 7-6-13 BLE] Dec. 14 (BusinessDesk) - Global efforts to get a new deal to combat climate change are foundering because they are based on the competitive mindset of trade negotiations rather than collaborative problem-solving, says Green Party climate change spokesman Kennedy Graham. Speaking at a Victoria University-hosted briefing on the outcomes of the latest round of global climate change talks in Doha, Graham said trade and climate change required "qualitatively different kinds of negotiations." Trade talks were competitive, sought to maximise national self-interest and were not bound by any deadlines, whereas climate change required global cooperation, was about protecting the planet to remain habitable, and had a finite timeline if "cataclysmic" climate change is to be avoided. "We are using a trade mentality, not just New Zealand but especially New Zealand, and we are screwing up at a fundamental level." Also addressing the seminar was Business New Zealand's representative at Doha, John Carnegie, who warned the global business community is steadily losing interest in the United Nations-led talks, which are failing to unlock the new business opportunities that would come with a push to decarbonise global economic activity.
Free Trade
Free Trade
Fossil Fuels
Trade increases oil dependencycauses climate change James, writer for Global Exchange, 11
*Deborah, 2011, Free Trade and the Environment, http://www.globalexchange.org/resources/wto/environment, accessed 6-31-13 BLE] Increasing trade increases our consumption of and dependency on oil, which has created a massive global crisis of human-induced climate change. The rise of global temperatures means more severe droughts and floods that will literally change the face of the Earth; the loss of coastal lands and the destruction of forests; an increase in heat waves and other human health hazards; and the extinction of plant and animal species. Our consumption of oil also leads to violations of the human rights of peoples in oil-producing countries such as Ecuador, Colombia, Indonesia, and Nigeria, who suffer environmental heath problems, displacement, and contamination of their communities. Increased trade and hence dependence on oil will also contribute to global insecurity by providing further incentive for the drive towards war as the U.S. government struggles for control over this most strategic global resource. Environmentalists Oppose CAFTA Most environmental organizations in the United States have written letters to the U.S. Trade Representative and members of the U.S. Congress, voicing their opposition to CAFTA. Groups as diverse as Center for International Environmental Law, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Friends of the Earth, League of Conservation Voters, National Environmental Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, and U.S. PIRG have sounded out a warning about CAFTAs negative potential impact on our shared environment. And in Central America, over 800 social organizations including many environmental groups signed a petition in July of 2004 urging the U.S. Congress to reject CAFTA.
Free Trade
FTAA Good
Free Trade
US Economy
FTAA is integral to US trade strategy. Institute for International Economics, 10
(Institute for International Economics, 11/27/10, The FTAA: Objectives and National Interests, http://www.piie.com/publications/chapters_preview/103/3iie275x.pdf, accessed 7/6/13, AS) The United States has two overarching goals in pursuing an FTAA: (1) free trade in the Americas is an integral component of a global US trade strategy designed to reduce barriers to trade and investment and thereby increase US trade, production, and the productivity and income of US workers, and (2) the FTAA is the linchpin of the broad array of summit initiatives that seek to promote closer cooperation in the hemisphere on pressing economic, social, and political problems.11 The trade objective is straightforward. Breaking down Latin American trade barriers will yield important new opportunities for US firms to export and invest. It will also avert discrimination against US-based producers as a result of free trade pacts that those countries have or may sign with each other and with the European Union.12 US firms and US workers both benefit, because exporting firms generally pay higher wages and offer steadier employment than firms that do not export (Richardson and Rindal 1996). The same applies to US firms that invest abroad, because they also are significant exporters. Moreover, the FTAA would help level the playing field for US-based exporters by reducing discrimination that results from other FTAs in the region to which the United States is not a party. In some cases, such pacts have forced US firms to source their exports from their foreign instead of domestic production plants, to the detriment of US workers.
Free Trade
Latin American Economy

Expansion of the FTAA yields economic benefits essential to development strategies. Schott, Senior Fellow, Institute for International Economics, 5
(Jeffrey J, November 2005, Institute for International Economics, Does the FTAA Have a Future http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/schott1105.pdf, accessed 7/4/13, AS) Why then bother with a FTAA? The short answer is that an FTAA would yield both economic and foreign policy benefits. First, the FTAA would have beneficial effects on the conduct of overall economic policy in and economic relations among the participating countries. Second, the FTAA initiative covers the one big gap in the free trade matrix of the Western Hemisphere, linking the major economies of North and South America, whose bilateral trade as projected by gravity modelscould expand two or threefold in response to FTA-type reforms.'' At the same time, the hemisphere wide FTA would help harmonize over time the separate free trade regimes that have been negotiated among regional trading partners. Third, and perhaps most important, the FTAA is the economic engine that drives hemispheric cooperation on more than 20 initiatives undertaken by leaders at the Summit of the Americas involving a number of political, socio-economic, and cultural issues (e.g., promoting education, strengthening the rule of law, and protecting the rights of indigenous peoples). Progress on the FTAA is critical to sustain efforts in these other areas.' Many LAC countries already have open access to the US market for most merchandise products because of CBI and ATPA preferences, or because US most favored nation (MFN) tariffs are zero or very low. Of course, there are a few notable exceptions, mostly involving agricultural goods; these products have been immune to deep MFN reforms and often are excluded from FTA or unilateral trade preferences. For many countries, the value of their bilateral FTAs and the FTAA is more secure access to the US market since these trade pacts turn their unilateral preferences into contractual obligations. By "locking in" open access to markets, free trade pacts help reduce uncertainty about the future course of trade and regulator)' policies and thus facilitate business planning and investment. For many developing countries, this benefit is a key to the success of their investment-led development strategies.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker Laundry List FTAA expansion in Latin America leads to economic growth, democracy, drug cooperation, environmental and labor measures, and educational reform.
Free Trade
Institute for International Economics, 10

(Institute for International Economics, 11/27/10, The FTAA: Objectives and National Interests, http://www.piie.com/publications/chapters_preview/103/3iie275x.pdf, accessed 7/6/13, AS) US investors also have a significant interest in the Latin American economies. During the 1990s, US FDI in the region tripled, to a cumulative $223 billion in 1999 (on a historical cost basis), representing 13 percent of all US FDI.'4 Excluding FDI in offshore financial centers, almost 60 percent of US investments in the LAC region were in Brazil (S35 billion) and Mexico ($34.3 billion). To be sure, US trade and investment ties to the LAC region seem more modest if one excludes Mexico, where the NAFTA is already in effect. However, the potential trade expansion from a free trade pact with growing markets in Latin America, if comparable to the growth achieved under NAFTA, would be significant. Using a gravity model developed by Jeffrey Frankel (1997), Schott and Hufbauer (1999) estimated the potential increase in US-Brazil trade if Brazil received the same trade treatment as Mexico in the US market (adjusting for differences between Mexico and Brazil in size, geography, and per capita income). In other words, if Mexico were transplanted to Brazil but remained a NAFTA member, how much trade would it conduct with the United States? Updating the analysis with data for 2000, US-Brazil trade would be about $86 billion, almost three times greater than the actual volume in 2000 of $29 billion. To achieve these gains, however, most US and Brazilian trade barriers would have to be covered by the free trade pact. Second, the United States benefits when its neighbors prosper and democratic processes deepen. The FTAA would help strengthen the economic foundation on which LAC countries have built their democratic societies. Furthermore, the prospect of improved trade relations can act as a magnet for attracting support in the LAC countries for other important US political and foreign policy goals, including cooperation on drug interdiction, improving environmental and labor conditions, supporting educational reforms, and reinforcing democracy. Thus, an FTAA could have important spillover effects on overall US relations with the region. This point is well illustrated by the 2000 Mexican presidential election, which demonstrated the salutary effect of economic integration on political reform.
Free Trade
Corruption/Latin American Economy

Latin American FTAA expansion ensures economic growth for all members and stops corruption. Institute for International Economics, 10
(Institute for International Economics, 11/27/10, The FTAA: Objectives and National Interests, http://www.piie.com/publications/chapters_preview/103/3iie275x.pdf, accessed 7/6/13, AS) Why would the LAC countries agree to such asymmetric liberalization? The short answer is that the FTAA would also be a good deal for them as a complement to and integral component of their overall economic development strategy. It is worth underscoring why the FTAA is important for developing countries in the LAC region. First, the FTAA would help promote economic growth by spurring competition in domestic markets, dampening inflation, and promoting investment from both domestic and foreign sources. In addition, reforms required to implement FTAA obligations would promote transparency of public policies and contribute to efforts to combat corruption. In conjunction with broad domestic economic reforms, the FTAA would promote increased trade and investment by eliminating trade barriers, standardizing customs and other national trade practices, and creating a framework for managing trade relations among the partner countries. Much of the benefit will derive from the removal of restrictions to economic activity within each country, but countries also will gain from being able to trade and invest across a broad regional market. In so doing firms will be able to lower their costs and increase productivity through economies of scale in production and intra-industry specialization. To be sure, industrial restructuring also adds to adjustment pressures within each economy, and is likely to incite new protectionist demands. To maintain political support for the FTAA reforms, countries will thus also need to pursue domestic programs that help affected workers retrain and companies retool for the new opportunities expanding markets create. Second, the FTAA would provide an "insurance policy" against new protectionism at home and abroad. By establishing international obligations that effectively lock in domestic reforms, the FTAA would substantially raise the cost of policy reversals. It would thus help governments withstand the protectionist demands of their domestic lobbies and ensure that access to the markets in partner countries remains open.9 Participa- tion in the FTAA would also reinforce national economic reforms, making these countries more attractive to foreign investors. To be sure, the FTAA would not be the most important factor in attracting investment; investors will still look first and foremost at macroeconomic conditions in setting their investment priorities. Third, the FTAAin conjunction with ongoing subregional integration pacts and domestic regulatory reforms would make regional infrastructure projects more viable and thus strengthen economic linkages between partner countries. Indeed, since the Miami Summit, the physical integration of the Latin American economies has been accelerated by construct- ing natural gas pipelines, interconnecting power grids, and expanding road and rail networks. Fourth, the FTAA would strengthen each country's interest in the economic health and political stability of the other members. This is important because problems in one country often spill over to neighbors and trading partners. For example, the existence of NAFTA contributed to US leadership in crafting the peso rescue package in early 1995. Similarly, maintaining the integrity of Mercosur prompted leaders of Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay to take decisive action in opposition to the attempted coup in Paraguay in 1996.
Free Trade
Workers Rights
The FTAA explicitly includes promoting worker rights as part of its mission. Elliott, Research Fellow, Institute for International Economics, 3
(Kimberly Ann, Institute for International Economics, Labor Standards and the Free Trade Area of the Americas, http://www.iie.com/publications/wp/03-7.pdf, accessed 7/6/13, AS) The Miami Summit launching the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) process recognized that free markets and free societies work best when they work together. The core labor standardsfreedom of association and the right to organize and bargain collectively, freedom from forced labor, the abolition of child labor, and freedom from discrimination are part of the summit-FTAA process because they strengthen both markets and democracy. These core standards are broadly recognized as fundamental rights to which all workers are entitled, regardless of the level of development of the country or the sector where they work. And, in an environment that promotes democracy and market-oriented economies, as the FTAA is intended to do, there is no trade-off between these principles and development; indeed, they become mutually reinforcing.
Free Trade
Regional Trade Agreements
Free Trade
Regional Key To Global - Negotiations

Regional and bilateral trade key to world trade negotiations Barfield, scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, 13
*Claude, former consultant to the office of the U.S. Trade Representative, May 1, 2013, A Realist's View of the Global Trading System, http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2013/05/01/a_realists_view_of_the_global_trading_ system_100293.html, accessed 7-12-13 BLE] Whatever the outcome in December, the world trading system is almost certainly in for a time of reflection and retrenchment before moving forward on major new trade issues-so-called 21st century challenges: the impact of supply chains and state-owned enterprises on trade policy, investment, intellectual property advances, services, health and safety regulations and labor and the environment. In my view, the most realistic avenue to future advances will come from building from the ground up. Specifically, this means monitoring the substantive results of the major new regional and trans-regional trade negotiations that have been launched, or are in process of being launched-and then gleaning these new liberalization commitments as the foundation for a new multilateral trade round several years down the road. Why do I think this is possible and politically the most attractive option? First, just look around at where liberalization is occurring (beyond the substantial unilateral barrier reduction by individual nations). It is through bilateral, plurilateral and regional trade agreements. There are now over 300 bilateral trade agreements in operation, and many more being negotiated. On average, WTO members belong to 13 FTAs. It is true that many of the FTAs are shallow, and do not cover many "21st century, inside-the-border issues. But most provide zero tariffs in the near future for over 90 percent of manufactured goods, and many do include some services, investment and other regulatory reforms. Of greater import, however, are the relatively new regional and bilateral agreements that do tackle head on behind-the-border barriers to trade and investment. Examples on the bilateral level include the U.S.-Korea FTA, the EU-Korea FTA, and the proposed US-EU, EU-Japan, and Canada-EU FTAs. These "deep integration" FTAs in turn will provide a partial template for much larger regional FTAs that are being negotiated: the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) that now includes 12 trans-Pacific nations, with future eligibility for all APEC nations; and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) agreement, that includes all of the ASEAN nations, plus Australia, China, India, Japan, Korea, and New Zealand. The real breakthrough here is that big economies-U.S., Japan, China, EU-are now negotiating with each other, breaking the older FTA model of larger countries negotiating "hub and spoke" FTAs with many small countries. Clearly, the outlier is China, which is a member of RCEP that includes Japan, but is not currently negotiating with the U.S. or EU, either directly in within a larger regional framework. The negotiating timetables are important for future WTO negotiations. Most of key bilateral FTAs-US-Korea, Korea-EU, Japan-EU and Canada-EU-are either completed or have deadlines within the next year or so. The TPP has set a goal of completion by the end of 2013 (with a more likely date of mid-2014). The RCEP nations are aiming to wrap up their negotiations two years from now, at the end of 2015. In effect, the trading world is witnessing a real time experiment on how far and how fast renewed liberalization can go on a bilateral and regional basis.
Free Trade
Regional trade bolsters global trade rules and provisions OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 5
[OECD provides a forum in which governments can work together to share experiences and seek solutions to common problems, 2005, Regional Trade Agreements, http://www.oecd.org/tad/benefitlib/regionaltradeagreements.htm, accessed 7-12-13 BLE] Two broad policy lessons can be drawn from OECD work on regional trade agreements. The first lesson is that many consequences of regional trade agreements activity bolster the case for a strengthened multilateral framework. This applies particularly to the contribution of regionalism to divergence from the rules of the multilateral system, to the effects which the patchwork of regionalism can have on non-members of those agreements and to the role of regionalism in raising transaction costs for business. These elements are compounded by the fact that regionalism has often failed to crack the hardest nuts. In some particularly sensitive areas, regional initiatives have been no more successful and in some cases less successful than activity at the multilateral level. It needs to be acknowledged, however, that even were multilateral disciplines to be strengthened, RTAs, and the provisions embodied in them, would not disappear. The question then arising is how regional arrangements might impinge upon, or co-exist with, any multilateral disciplines. The second lesson we can draw from experience with regionalism is that while some consequences of RTA activity contribute to the case of strengthening the multilateral framework, there are features of regional approaches that may nevertheless complement such strengthening or even be drawn upon in designing strengthened multilateral rules. The scope for complementarity arises from the contribution which regional initiatives can make towards harmonisation of rule making; the scope for drawing upon arises from the extent to which RTAs go beyond the WTO. Together, these two elements have yielded highly effective synergies between approaches at the regional and the multilateral levels.
Regional trade agreements improve global trade liberalization Holland, writer for International Economics, 2k
[Tom, January 2000, Regional Trading Agreements, http://intl.econ.cuhk.edu.hk/topic/index.php?did=14#ref, accessed 7-12-13 BLE] Essentially, RTAs are violations to WTO's non-discrimination principle. This basic principle is defined in the Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) rule, which requires a member country to extend to all WTO members the privileges that it grants to one contracting party. However, WTO views RTAs to be good and encourages the formation of free trade areas and customs union. RTAs are in fact helpful to world trade liberalization. Compared with multilateral negotiation systems, smaller numbers of parties are involved in RTAs, then similar political and economical interests can be easily processed. RTA rules can pave the way for WTO multilateral negotiations. To ensure that RTAs can improve regional trade liberalization without hurting global trade liberalization, Article 24 of GATT regulates that RTAs should trade more freely among their member countries without raising barriers on trade towards the outside world. In addition, the WTO General Council created a Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA). Its purpose is to examine regional groups and to assess whether they are consistent with WTO rules.
Free Trade
Regionally trading countries avoid military confrontation Mansfield & Pevehouse, political science professors at the University of Pennsylvania, 2k
*Edward & Jon, 2000, Trade Blocs, Trade Flows, and International Conflict, http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci243c/readings/v0002091.pdf, accessed 7-12-13 BLE] For states that trade heavily, however, the future stream of gains from participating in a preferential arrangement is likely to appear especially large. The institutional mechanisms that PTAs provide to deepen integration and avert the future breakdown of economic relations help to ensure that ties between key trade partners will be sustained, if not expanded. As Miles Kahler argues, extensive economic interaction within a regional institution contributes to perceptions that enhance the prospects for cooperation and reinforce institutions: an expectation that interactions will continue and a declining discount rate in evaluating future payoffs from those interactions. 29 By jeopardizing existing trade relations and the realization of potentially significant future economic bene ts, military conflict threatens to exact a particularly heavy toll on states that have dense commercial ties and belong to the same PTA.30 Although the effects of hostilities on both trade ows and a PTAs vitality may not be immediate, con icts can persist and escalate, drawing in other members and gradually undermining the arrangement itself as well as economic relations among participants. 31 As such, PTA members that trade extensively have a strong incentive to avoid military confrontations.32
Free Trade
Regional Key To Global - Volume

Strong correlation between regional trade and global trade Coulibaly, The World Banks Senior Country Economist for Armenia, 8 (Souleymane
Coulibaly, 2/28/08, The World Bank, On the Complementarity of Regional and Global Trade, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2009/Resources/4231006-1204741572978/Coulibaly.pdf, accessed 7-1213, KB)
Sourcing intermediate goods efficiently is essential for a countrys production capacity. Countries located in a neighborhood providing a wide range of intermediate goods cheaply available can take advantage of scale economies to reduce their production costs and improve their global competitiveness. Many empirical works have documented the sharp increase in intra-industry trade and particularly trade in intermediate goods within developed neighborhoods such as the EU, North America and Northeast Asia. What about developing neighborhoods? This paper proposes a closer look at the issue using COMTRADE aggregate exports of capital goods, intermediate goods, consumer goods and raw materials for 2002-06 to evaluate the impact of a country import of intermediate goods from its neighbors on its global export performance using a granger-causality test based on an extended-gravity model. For Sub-Saharan African countries particularly, we find a strong positive correlation between countries previous regional import of intermediate goods and their current exports, indicating that developing neighborhoods are also experiencing such complementarity between regional and global trade, the relation being stronger beyond a threshold of global competitiveness. These results call for a two-pronged policy action encompassing regional and global integration and putting a sub-set of Sub-Saharan countries close to that global competitiveness threshold at the heart of a neighborhood growth strategy
Regional trade is key to global trade cant have one without the other Coulibaly, The World Banks Senior Country Economist for Armenia, 8 (Souleymane
The new economic geography shows that scale economies in the productive sectors, facilitated by factor mobility and reduced transport costs, increase competitiveness and lead to faster growth. This is as true for regions as for countries. Because proximity to markets matters, regional trade might be more sensitive than global trade to the three drivers of agglomeration. The stylized facts and econometric analysis conducted in this paper indicate that regional trade in intermediate goods can boost exports overall, suggesting large payoffs from cross-country infrastructure investments and trade-related reforms. Scale economies and factor mobility increase export flows, while higher transport costs reduce them. Firms exporting to regional markets are hurt more by power outages and inefficient border crossing procedures than are firms exporting to global markets (Yoshino (2007)). So, domestic supply constraints seem more binding for the efficiency of regional trade, which mainly involves local and regional entrepreneurs. This illustrates well the findings of the heterogeneous firm framework where efficiency differences constrain some firms to service only the domestic markets, while others serve both regional and domestic markets, with the most efficient involved in domestic, regional, and international exports. A sound regional
Free Trade
integration policy can solve the supply problems of domestic and regional firms, and global integration, the demand problems of all three types of firm. Based on this framework, we can reframe the regional vs. global integration debate in a two pronged policy approach encompassing regional and global integration: regional integration to scale up local supply capacity, and global integration to scale up market and supplier access. Indeed, in the today just-in-time and global specialization world, proximity is an asset if countries manage to build neighborhoods in which they can all reap the benefit of scale economies, factor mobility and low transport costs to sustain their production capacity. However, for any developing countries, the demand-led growth will come from trade with developed countries where the worlds strongest demand comes from and where the most efficient input suppliers are located. Regional and global integration can be thought of as complements. Regional integration policies that help to build up the supply capacity of a region through targeted multicountry infrastructures as well as policy reforms facilitating cross-border activities can boost individual countries economic performance. Global integration policies are essential to scale up the demand faced by developing countries and provide them access to efficient intermediate goods suppliers. This complementarity is confirmed both by an increasing number of empirical works, and the experience of today developed neighborhoods. Indeed, successful neighborhoods of developed countries provide useful clues from the design and implementation of regional and global integration initiatives: think global, start small, and compensate the least fortunate members.
Regional trade amplifies global trade Coulibaly, The World Banks Senior Country Economist for Armenia, 8 (Souleymane
This paper proposes a genuine look at the regional vs. global trade debate, by looking at the correlation between countries regional import of intermediate goods and their exports. It uses Staal (2004) show that small countries are more in favor of integration while large countries prefer integrating with countries of equal size. 5 See Collier and Venables (2007), Cadot and De Melo (2007), and Hoekman and Njinkeu (2007) for further discussion on rules of origin issues. COMTRADE data to unveil the underlining relation between these two trade flows, and estimates an extended-gravity model in a granger-causality type of analysis. Various specifications of the model lead to same results: previous import of intermediate goods significantly and positively affect current exports. For Sub-Saharan Africa particularly, the relation appears to be non-linear: beyond a threshold value of regional import of intermediate goods, the complementarity between regional and global trade is amplified. This suggests that policy interventions to increase regional trade can also improve the global competitiveness of developing countries, calling for a twopronged policy action: a regional integration policy to scale up countries supply capacity, and a global integration policy to scale up the demand they face. Sourcing intermediate goods efficiently is essential for a countrys production capacity. Countries located in a neighborhood providing a wide range of intermediate goods cheaply available can take advantage of scale economies to reduce their production costs and improve their global competitiveness. Many empirical works have documented the sharp increase in intra-industry trade and particularly trade in intermediate goods within developed neighborhoods such as the EU, North America and Northeast Asia. This
Free Trade
paper shows that the same process is underway in developing neighborhoods, although the non-linearity of the process does not allow many of them to fully take advantage of this driver of global competitiveness. This calls for coordinated policy interventions in these neighborhoods to jumpstart and exploit the complementarity between regional and global trade in at least some countries close to the threshold of global competitiveness.
Regional trade between neighboring countries increase international trade Export-Import Bank of India, The Premier Export Finance Institution, 7 (October
2007, Export-Import Bank of India, Regional Trade Agreements: Gateway to Global Trade, http://www.eximbankindia.com/op/op120.pdf, accessed 7-12-13, KB)
The study so far has attempted to analyse the key trends in regional trade agreements across the globe including India. The recent spur in such agreements indicates that the trend is likely to continue in the years to come. This could be particularly buttressed by the gradual weakening of progress in multilateral negotiations. Emerging trends in economic integration attests to the fact that bilateral and plurilateral integration stand as effective avenues through which economies, irrespective of their state of development, would enhance their global integration. Therefore, bilateralism has emerged as the preferred avenue for arriving at multilateralism eventually. With a view to project this central feature in global economic integration, it is crucial to briefly outline the key trends, which have emerged out of the study. The following section, therefore, makes an attempt to highlight key observations from the study. An attempt has also been made to identify possible broad strategies, which India could adopt, in tune with global trends and development. General Observations There exists an increasing interest among countries to establish regional trade blocs and to partner with neighbouring countries in the region as well as with distant countries and trading blocs. Physical geographical borders cease to be a hindrance in the endeavour to foster and strengthen intra and extra regional linkages and economic cooperation. The need for such regional trade agreements has arisen from a number of socioeconomic, political and security considerations. Bilateral regional trade agreements continue to proliferate, across the globe, as progress on the WTO based multilateral trade talks has remained subdued and talks have been mostly inconclusive in recent times. The gradual erosion of faith in multilateralism has given a new thrust to the concept of regionalism as a highly effective tool for expanding international 6. trade, economic cooperation and global integration. Presently, more than one third of the worlds trade takes place within the framework of such agreements23
Regional trade agreements hasten global trade Irwin, professor of economics at Dartmouth College, 8
[Douglas A., formerly served on the staff of the Presidents Council of Economic Advisers and on the Federal Reserve Board, May 2008, International Trade Agreements, http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/InternationalTradeAgreements.html, accessed 7-12-13 BLE] As a result, many countries have turned away from the multilateral process toward bilateral or regional trade agreements. One such agreement is the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which went into effect in January 1994. Under the terms of NAFTA, the United States, Canada, and Mexico agreed to phase out all tariffs on merchandise trade and to reduce restrictions on trade in services and foreign investment over a decade. The United States also
Free Trade
has bilateral agreements with Israel, Jordan, Singapore, and Australia and is negotiating bilateral or regional trade agreements with countries in Latin America, Asia, and the Pacific. The European Union also has free-trade agreements with other countries around the world. The advantage of such bilateral or regional arrangements is that they promote greater trade among the parties to the agreement. They may also hasten global trade liberalization if multilateral negotiations run into difficulties. Recalcitrant countries excluded from bilateral agreements, and hence not sharing in the increased trade these bring, may then be induced to join and reduce their own barriers to trade. Proponents of these agreements have called this process competitive liberalization, wherein countries are challenged to reduce trade barriers to keep up with other countries. For example, shortly after NAFTA was implemented, the EU sought and eventually signed a free-trade agreement with Mexico to ensure that European goods would not be at a competitive disadvantage in the Mexican market as a result of NAFTA.
Free Trade
Regional Prevents Global

Regional trade damages the multilateral trading system Freud & Ornelas, The World Bank Development Research Group--Trade and Integration Team, 10
*Caroline & Emanuel, May 2010, Regional Trade Agreements, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/3799/WPS5314.pdf?sequence =1, accessed 7-12-13 BLE] Regional trade agreements (RTAs) are proliferating. Figure 1 shows the evolution of the average number of RTA partners for the current members of the World Trade Organization (WTO): the average WTO member now has agreements with more than 15 countries!1 Gains from such increased openness to trade stem from resources flowing to their most productive uses and lower consumer prices. However, with preferential liberalization these standard gains from trade liberalization are not guaranteed. Welfare effects depend on whether trade increases primarily at the expense of nonmembers. Furthermore, there are concerns that the trend towards regionalism could have damaging long-run effects on external trade liberalization and on the multilateral trading system.
Regional trade agreements distract from global trade responsibilities Bergsten, founding director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, 96
*C. Fred, January 1996, Competitive Liberalization and Global Free Trade: A Vision for the Early 21st Century, http://www.iie.com/publications/wp/wp.cfm?ResearchID=171, accessed 7-12-13 BLE] Moreover, the European Union frequently seems to focus so heavily on its regional agenda that it forgets its global responsibilities. The United States is sometimes viewed as preoccupied with NAFTA or APEC. By joining East Asia and North America, APEC has eliminated any possibility of the evolution of the three-bloc world that was so widely--and rightly--feared a few years ago5 but a failure to work out accommodations with Europe could instead create a two-bloc world that would convey substantial dangers as well. South America might decide to halt its liberalization once Mercosur had consolidated, and Brazil might be happy to leave its new leadership of that region undisturbed for at least a while. There is a constant need to keep the global-regional interaction on a supportive course. This is one key reason why a new initiative is now required to consolidate the regional liberalization initiatives into an agreement to achieve global free trade in the 21st century. There are other risks to the continued triumph of competitive liberalization that need to be met by a new global initiative. The most threatening of these challenges do not arise in the countries that have rejected openness most strongly in the recent past, the developing and former command economies, although some of them do harbor lingering doubts that could again assume ascendance. Paradoxically, the strongest pressures to reverse the liberal course can be found in the countries that created, nurtured, and championed the postwar order: the United States and the European Union.
Free Trade
Regional trade agreements are discriminatoryharms global trade Pal, Associate Professor of Economics, 11
*Parthapratim, October 11, 2011, Regional Trade Agreements in a Multilateral Trade Regime: An Overview, http://www.networkideas.org/feathm/may2004/survey_paper_rta.pdf, accessed 7-12-13 BLE] One of the most striking development in the world trading system since the mid 1990s is a surge in Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs). From about 50 till 1990, the number of RTAs notified to the World Trade Organization (WTO) has crossed 250 in 2003 and estimates indicate that over 300 RTAs will be in effect by 20071. Initially WTO encouraged the growth of RTAs because it believed that regional integration initiatives can complement the multilateral trade regime. However, the high proliferation of RTAs in global trade and increased diversion of trade through this route is increasingly becoming a cause for concern for the multilateral trading system under WTO. Regional trade agreements represent an important exception to the WTO's principle of nondiscrimination. According to the WTO rules, countries within a RTA can trade among themselves using preferential tariffs and easier market access conditions than what is applicable to other WTO Member countries. As a result, WTO Member countries that are not a part of the RTA lose out in these markets. Also trading within the regional trade blocks does not come under the purview of WTO. As increasing amount of global trade is being diverted through this route, there is a certain amount apprehension about the role of regional trade agreements in WTO. The WTO Annual Report 2003 expresses deep concern about this latest development and comments: RTAs can complement the multilateral trading system, help to build and strengthen it. But by their very nature RTAs are discriminatory; they are a departure from the MFN principle, a cornerstone of the multilateral trading system. Their effects on global trade liberalization and economic growth are not clear given that the regional economic impact of RTAs is ex ante inherently ambiguous. Pp. 27
Regional trade causes trade diversionhurts global trade Pal, Associate Professor of Economics, 11
[Parthapratim, October 11, 2011, Regional Trade Agreements in a Multilateral Trade Regime: An Overview, http://www.networkideas.org/feathm/may2004/survey_paper_rta.pdf, accessed 7-12-13 BLE] The traditional theory of gains from trade suggests that removal of trade barriers allows consumers and producers to purchase from the cheapest and most competitive source of supply. This enhances efficiency and increases welfare. Following this logic, it was traditionally believed that regional trade blocks should generate gains from trade as member countries reduce trade barriers among themselves. This view was first challenged by Viner in his 1950 book titled The Customs Union Issue6. Viner, in his seminal contribution, introduced the concepts of trade creation and trade diversion and showed that the net effect of trade liberalization on a regional basis is not unambiguously positive. Viner pointed out that RTAs can lead to trade creation if, due to the formation of the regional agreement, RTA members switch from inefficient domestic producers and import more from efficient producers from other members of the RTA. In this case, efficiency gains arise from both production efficiency and consumption efficiency. On the other hand, trade diversion takes place if, because of the RTA, members switch imports from low-cost production in the rest of the world and import more from higher-cost producers in the partner countries. Trade diversion lowers welfare of
Free Trade
not only the partner countries but the rest of the world also. In Vinerss own words: where the trade-diverting effect is predominant, one at least of the member countries is bound to be injured, the two combined will suffer a net injury, and there will be injury to the outside world and to the world at large. (Viner, 1950, p. 44)
Free Trade
A2: Leads To Global

Regional trade agreements are not a stepping stone to multilateral trade World Bank, 2k
*A World Bank Policy Research Report, Trade Blocs, http://www.unige.ch/ses/ecopo/demelo/Cdrom/RIA/Readings/Trade_Blocs_Chap05.pdf, accessed 7-12-13 BLE] A second, and quite different concept is open access whereby the RIA announces that any country willing to abide by its rules may join. In terms of the economics, such an arrangement is still preferential, giving discriminatory benefits to members. Its main importance would be as a stepping stone to multilateralism: Could an open access RIA attract an increasing number of members, to the point where almost all countries became members? Analytical treatments of this issue are not optimistic. As we saw in chapter 4, there is generally an optimal size for a RIA, from the point of view of existing members, so it is not clear why members should want unrestricted access. In practical terms, the feasibility of open access depends crucially on the depth of the scheme. Where a RIA involves few conditions, then open access can be quite easily envisaged. Perhaps the best example is the Cross-Border Initiative in East and southern Africa, in which neither internal preferences nor external tariff harmonization are rigorously enforced. But for deeper agreements, open access is harder to envisage.
Free Trade
Economic Freedom
Free Trade
Economic Freedom Good
Free Trade
List
Economic freedom is good laundry list Miller and Kim, Center for International Trade and Economics, 12 (Ambassador
Terry Miller is the Director of the Center for International Trade and Economics (CITE) and the Mark A. Kolokotrones Fellow in Economic Freedom at The Heritage Foundation, Anthony Kim is a Policy Analyst in Heritage's Center for International Trade and Economics, Defining Economic Freedom, http://www.heritage.org/index/book/chapter-7, accessed 6-30-13, KB) The most basic benefit of economic freedom, confirmed now with data covering 19 years, is the strong relationship between economic freedom and levels of per capita income. For countries that achieve scores that reflect even moderate levels of economic freedom (60 or above), the relationship between economic freedom and per capita GDP is highly significant. Countries moving up the economic freedom scale show increasingly high levels of average income. Given the strength and empirical durability of the relationship between higher levels of economic freedom and greater prosperity, it can only be regarded as a human tragedy that the majority of the worlds people still live in countries where economic freedom is either repressed or heavily regulated. The governments of China and India bear a special responsibility in this regard. The policy environments that they set for economic activity affect the lives of more than 2.5 billion people. Both economies are considered mostly unfree. Greater levels of economic freedom have had a major positive impact on poverty levels over the past decade. Based on the United Nations Multidimensional Poverty Index, the intensity of poverty in countries whose economies are considered mostly free or moderately free is only one-fourth the level in countries that are rated less free. Poverty rates have declined more significantly in freer countries as well. The societal benefits of economic freedom extend far beyond higher incomes or reductions in poverty. Countries with higher levels of economic freedom enjoy higher levels of human development, including better education and more comprehensive health care. They live in cleaner environments and do a better job of making the most efficient use of energy and other natural resources.
Lack of economic freedom causes laundry list of impacts Mitchell, Mercatus Center at George Mason University, 12
(Matthew Mitchell is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, The Pathology of Privilege: The Economic Consequences of Government Favoritism, http://www.heritage.org/index/book/chapter-4, accessed 6-30-13, KB) Government-granted privileges are pathological. Privileges limit the prospects for mutually beneficial exchangethe very essence of economic activity. They raise prices, lower quality, and discourage innovation. They pad the pockets of the wealthy and well-connected at the expense of the poor and unknown. When governments dispense privileges, smart, hardworking, and creative people are encouraged to spend their time devising new ways to obtain favors instead of new ways to create value for customers. Over the long run, privileges depress economic growth, and in the short run, they threaten macroeconomic stability. Privileges even undermine cultural mores, fostering cronyism, blurring the distinction between productive and unproductive entrepreneurship, and eroding peoples trust in both business and
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker government. For all the social problems they create, government-granted privileges can be extraordinarily valuable to the individual firms that receive them. That, unfortunately, can make these firms powerful opponents of economic liberalization.
Free Trade
Studies prove economic freedom ha a direct relationship with economic growth, higher incomes, gender equality, and more Lawson, Professor of Economics at Capital University, 8
(Robert A. Lawson, Library of Economics and Liberty, Economic Freedom, http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/EconomicFreedom.html#, accessed 7-1-13, KB) Much scholarly research has been and continues to be done to see if the index correlates with various measures of the good society: higher incomes, economic growth, income equality, gender equality, life expectancy, and so on. While there is scholarly debate about the exact nature of these relationships, the results are uniform: measures of economic freedom relate positively with these factors. The figures that follow illustrate the simple relationship between the economic freedom index and various measures of economic and social progress. These figures indicate the relationships that more scholarly studies have found, but they are not conclusive evidence. Economic growth, for example, appears to be related to both the level of economic freedom and changes in the level of economic freedom as well as to investment in physical and human capital. The simple graphs on the next page are no substitute for more scholarly work.3 Nevertheless, these simple relationships are a starting point for examining the links between economic freedom and economic results.
Free Trade
Rights
Economic freedom is a fundamental right that protects other freedoms Holmes and Spalding, Heritage Foundation, 11 (Kim R. Holmes, Ph.D., is Vice President of
Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., is Director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Why Does Economic Freedom Matter? http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/04/why-does-economic-freedom-matter, accessed 6-30-13, KB)
In light of that long train of abuses and usurpations, the Declaration of Independence asserted Americas liberty by appealing to mans fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And the pursuit of happiness the Founders understood to require the protection of property because the right to enjoy the fruit of ones labor is a fundamental tenet of liberty. It is evident that the right of acquiring and possessing property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent, and unalienable rights of man, Supreme Court Justice William Paterson wrote in 1795. No man would become a member of a community, in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labour and industry.*1+ The right to own property protects other freedoms. Congregations own churches where they practice religious freedom. Newspapers own printing presses, which facilitate the freedom of the press. Home ownership contributes to the financial well-being and security of families. Business property produces goods and services to trade in an open market, just as intellectual property protects ideas and innovation. The right to property guarantees the means to live in freedom and practice self-government.
Economic freedom is a fundamental right infringement impacts other rights Miller and Kim, Center for International Trade and Economics, 12 (Ambassador
Terry Miller is the Director of the Center for International Trade and Economics (CITE) and the Mark A. Kolokotrones Fellow in Economic Freedom at The Heritage Foundation, Anthony Kim is a Policy Analyst in Heritage's Center for International Trade and Economics, Defining Economic Freedom, http://www.heritage.org/index/book/chapter-7, accessed 6-30-13, KB) Ambassador Terry Miller is the Director of the Center for International Trade and Economics (CITE) and the Mark A. Kolokotrones Fellow in Economic Freedom at The Heritage Foundation, Anthony Kim is a Policy Analyst in Heritage's Center for International Trade and Economics Economic freedom is the condition in which individuals can act with autonomy while in the pursuit of their economic livelihood and greater prosperity. Any discussion of economic freedom has at its heart reflection on the critical relationship between individuals and the government. Economic freedom is an essential aspect of human liberty, without which a persons rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness may be fundamentally compromised. As Friedrich Hayek once observed, To be controlled in our economic pursuits means to be controlled in everything.2 Hayeks keen insights on economic freedom are based on the moral truth that each person is, as a matter of natural right, a free and responsible being with inalienable dignity and fundamental liberties that righteous and effective political systems should regard as unassailable.
Free Trade
Poverty
Loss of economic freedom causes poverty, oppression, and other impacts Holmes and Spalding, Heritage Foundation, 11 (Kim R. Holmes, Ph.D., is Vice President of
Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., is Director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Why Does Economic Freedom Matter? http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/04/why-does-economic-freedom-matter, accessed 6-30-13, KB)
What these presidents understood is that economic freedom matters. Tariffs make the cost of imports higher and have a dampening effect on competition, which would otherwise help bring prices down. But it means much more than opening trade by reducing tariffs, as the annual Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal Index of Economic Freedom documents. If economic policies cause prices to rise, the value of the dollar in our pockets declines, and with it our ability to buy and do what we want; it cheapens our labor. If government imposes additional costs on consumers and businesses through higher taxes, fees, and regulation, or restricts the fair use of our property, economic freedom falls. The loss of economic freedom hits the poor especially hard. Over the past decade, countries that increased economic freedom saw poverty levels fall almost twice as much as countries that lost freedom. People in countries with more economic freedom were not only happier, but more prosperous. The correlation between economic freedom and prosperity is stunningly high, with more freedom translating to greater per capita income.[6] As Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Adams in 1785, all the world would gain by setting commerce at perfect liberty.*7+Economic freedomfree markets at home and free trade in the worldis essential to human liberty. Without it, people are unable to improve the conditions under which they and their posterity will live. Worse, they are vulnerable to oppression, especially by the state. We only need recall the human toll of slavery and Soviet Communism to understand what Friedrich Hayek meant when he noted that to be controlled in our economic pursuits means to be always controlled, and that if all economic decisions require the approval of government, then we should really be controlled in everything." [8] In the end, liberty is whole and universal: The world will not be free politically if it is not free economically. [The] genius of the American economy, our emphasis on a meritocracy and a market system and a rule of law has enabled generation after generation to live better than their parents did. Warren Buffett August 22, 2008 Americas openness to trade has always fueled its economic expansion. Over the past 50 years, the United States led the way in expanding free trade worldwide. For the most part, we have taken George Washingtons advice to hold an equal and impartial hand ... diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of Commerce.*9+ Yet today, as more and more nations have decided to follow that lead, political leaders in the United States have chosen to intervene more directly in the economy and impose heavy regulations that put American businesses at a competitive disadvantage.
Economic freedom improves quality of life Berggren, Associate Professor of Economics at the Research Institute of Industrial Economics, 3 (Niclas Berggren, Fall 2003, Free the World, The Benefits of Economic Freedom,
http://www.freetheworld.com/papers/berggren_review.pdf, accessed 7-1-13, KB)
In addition to the variables growth, wealth, and equality, the effect of economic freedom on certain other variables has been studied. Esposto and Zaleski (1999) find that the quality of
Free Trade
life, in terms of literacy and life expectancy, increases as economic freedom is increased, both if one compares nations and if one looks at the same countries over time. Norton (1998a) shows that countries with stronger protection of private property, as measured in the EFI, rank higher on the United Nations Human Devel- opment Index. Goldsmith (1997) uses the EFI and shows that developing countries that protect economic rights have a higher level of human well-being.
Economic freedom leads to human dignity, lasting growth and prosperity, and social and economic progress Miller and Kim, Center for International Trade and Economics, 12 (Ambassador
Terry Miller is the Director of the Center for International Trade and Economics (CITE) and the Mark A. Kolokotrones Fellow in Economic Freedom at The Heritage Foundation, Anthony Kim is a Policy Analyst in Heritage's Center for International Trade and Economics, Defining Economic Freedom, http://www.heritage.org/index/book/chapter-7, accessed 6-30-13, KB) Economic freedom, enhanced and secured by the rule of law, limited government, regulatory efficiency, and open markets, is a vital element of human dignity, providing individuals the ability to plan and direct their lives in ways that maximize their happiness as they see fit . In addition, economic freedom is the key to achieving the broad-based economic dynamism that ensures lasting growth and increased prosperity for society as a whole. In other words, economic freedom is valuable as an end itself. But equally important is that, with its 10 freedoms interacting with and complementing each other, economic freedom is also about a multidimensional process of achieving economic progress. Nineteen years of data in the Index of Economic Freedom have documented the clear association between higher levels of economic freedom and greater levels of overall prosperity. Equally important, improvements in economic freedom, from whatever level, have been shown to enhance economic dynamism and social progress. Governments that choose policies that increase economic freedom are placing their societies on the pathway to more meaningful and productive work, higher incomes, and better standards of living for all.
Trade leads to economic freedom which leads to economic growth and income equality Berggren, Associate Professor of Economics at the Research Institute of Industrial Economics, 3
(Niclas Berggren, Fall 2003, Free the World, The Benefits of Economic Freedom, http://www.freetheworld.com/papers/berggren_review.pdf, accessed 7-1-13, KB) Free markets are conducive to growth, which is why measures such as privatization, freedom to establish new businesses, freer pricing, more flexible contract laws, and less regulation of domestic and international trade and of capital transactions are important. For example, schooling and hospitals are run as government monopolies in many countries and are in most cases heavily regulated. This government activity reduces the scope for a dynamic, growth-
Free Trade
enhancing market process in which each new business and each new way of doing something can be
regarded as an experiment in trying to achieve better consumer satisfaction than existing alternatives. Furthermore, labor markets are heavily regulated in many countries, with heavily curtailed possibilities to enter into voluntary employment contracts. The scope for reforms is substantial. 3. An impartial and strong judicial system that protects private-property rights and upholds contracts and agreements is central for a strong economic development. This factor is particularly problematic in many developing nations. 4. Monetary policy and growth seem to be only weakly connected, but the more detailed studies indicate that the effect of inflation, particularly above certain threshold levels, on growth is negative in the medium and long term (Khan and Senhadji 2000). In recent years, inflation rates in most developed nations have come down, in part as a result of greater central- bank independence. 5. In
order to benefit income equality, more long-term increases in the freedom to trade and carry out financial transactions seem especially useful, especially in developing nations. Protectionism against the developing world is particularly harmful in this regard.
Free Trade
Democracy
Economic freedom leads to multiple benefits including political reform, effective and democratic governance, and increase in individual choice Miller and Kim, Center for International Trade and Economics, 12 (Ambassador
Terry Miller is the Director of the Center for International Trade and Economics (CITE) and the Mark A. Kolokotrones Fellow in Economic Freedom at The Heritage Foundation, Anthony Kim is a Policy Analyst in Heritage's Center for International Trade and Economics, Defining Economic Freedom, http://www.heritage.org/index/book/chapter-7, accessed 6-30-13, KB) The broad consensus supported by volumes of evidence-based research is that vibrant and lasting economic growth is achievable only when governments adopt economic policies that increase individual choice and opportunity, empowering and encouraging entrepreneurship. In addition to the great levels of prosperity and human development induced by high levels of economic freedom, the higher growth rates spurred by advances in economic freedom tend to inspire a virtuous cycle of openness and resilience, triggering even further improvements in economic freedom. The result is a sort of compounding that has created in the countries with the highest levels of economic freedom a level of prosperity and human well-being unmatched in human history. Greater economic freedom also provides more fertile ground for effective and democratic governance. It empowers people to exercise greater control of their daily lives. By increasing options, economic freedom ultimately nurtures political reform as well. Economic freedom makes it possible for individuals to gain the economic resources necessary to challenge entrenched interests or compete for political power, thereby encouraging the creation of more pluralistic societies.
Free Trade
Economic Growth
Free trade leads to economic freedom which in turn creates economic growth Holmes and Spalding, Heritage Foundation, 11
(Kim R. Holmes, Ph.D., is Vice President of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., is Director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Why Does Economic Freedom Matter? http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/04/why-does-economic-freedom-matter, accessed 6-30-13, KB) Under the Constitution the federal governments two most important functions concern the nations security (to provide for the common defence) and the national economy (the power to regulate interstate commerce, tax, and set the national currency). Not only does the Constitution limit the reach of the federal government into the everyday lives of Americans, but in abolishing restrictions on trade among the states[2+ it created the worlds first modern free trade area. As the young nation expanded its borders across the continent and its population grew, this freedom to trade unleashed opportunities for specialization and exchange, fueling economic growth and prosperity.[3] History continues to prove the wisdom of the Founders belief in the unity of both political and economic freedom. True liberty, by protecting the exertions of talent and industry, Alexander Hamilton argued, tends more powerfully than any other cause to augment the mass of national wealth.*4+ By empowering individuals to pursue their own gain in a market in which goods and services are traded at fair prices and property rights and contracts are enforced, they are also contributing to the economic gain of others. To this day, the United States upholds a dynamic social order in which individuals are free to riseand to fallon the road to success. As a sovereign nation, the responsibility for ensuring Americans can market the fruits of their labor abroad rests with the federal government. The Founders deeply resented the King of England cutting off our trade with all parts of the World.*5+ Commerce was vital to their way of life, and as Benjamin Franklin wrote in the Principles of Trade in 1774, No nation was ever ruined by trade.
Empirics prove that economic freedom leads to substantial economic growth Holmes and Spalding, Heritage Foundation, 11
(Kim R. Holmes, Ph.D., is Vice President of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., is Director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Why Does Economic Freedom Matter? http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/04/why-does-economic-freedom-matter, accessed 6-30-13, KB) Then, as now, some have wanted government to impose regulations, tariffs, taxes, or other interventions to protect and advantage certain activities and to minimize economic risk. That might have made sense at the start of the country. Yet, thankfully, there always have been stronger voices who knew that such policies would wind up strangling the creativity, productivity, competition, and access to markets that people need to flourish and prosper and economies need to grow and remain strong. The challenge for Americas leaders has always been to keep government from getting too burdensome and too involved in economic markets.
Free Trade
Thats why throughout our history, most American leaders have agreed with the Founders that the greatest gain for each comes from free markets and free trade for all. Andrew Jackson resolved trade disputes with France, Denmark, Portugal, and Spain to Americas advantage. He signed a trade agreement with Great Britain that reopened trade with the British West Indies, and the first trade agreement with an Asian nation, Siam. He also signed trade agreements with Russia, Spain, and Turkey. Overall, under Jackson, Americans saw a 75 percent growth in exporting and 250 percent growth in imports. The free trade tradition was carried on by presidents like James Polk, who reduced tariffs, and Ronald Reagan, who proposed a North American free trade area and signed a free trade agreement with Canada. His vision became reality when Bill Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993creating the worlds largest free trade area and increasing trade in the hemisphere from $297 billion in 1993 to almost $1 trillion in 2007.
Free Trade
Innovation
Lack of economic freedom leads to a lack of innovation Mitchell, Mercatus Center at George Mason University, 12
(Matthew Mitchell is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, The Pathology of Privilege: The Economic Consequences of Government Favoritism, http://www.heritage.org/index/book/chapter-4, accessed 6-30-13, KB) Privilege can also have a profoundly negative effect on innovation, and a lack of innovation, in turn, can disadvantage an entire society. For example, economist Chun-Lei Yang has shown that as rent-seeking activities grow more prevalent, firms have less of an incentive to invest in productivity-enhancing research and development. Thus, privileged firms are less likely to innovate. 28 Empirical research supports this claim. For example, economists Stefanie Lenway, Randall Morck, and Bernard Yeung studied a decades worth of data from 130 steel firms to look for differences between firms that lobby heavily and those that do not. They found that the most active lobbyers tend to be larger, older, less diversified, and less profitable than non-lobbyers and concluded that protection appears to reward less innovative firms. 29 International evidence supports the claim that firms that are more likely to ask for privilege tend to be less profitable. In a survey of 450 politically connected firms from 35 countries, Mara Faccio, Ronald Masulis, and John McConnell concluded that among bailed-out firms, those that are politically connected exhibit significantly worse financial performance than their nonconnected peers at the time of and following the bailout. 30
Economic freedom allows innovation prevents economic collapse Mitchell, Mercatus Center at George Mason University, 12
(Matthew Mitchell is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, The Pathology of Privilege: The Economic Consequences of Government Favoritism, http://www.heritage.org/index/book/chapter-4, accessed 6-30-13, KB) As protected firms become less innovative, a countrys overall economic growth may suffer . This is because, as Schumpeter emphasized nearly a century ago, economic growth thrives on creative destruction. In a healthy economy, new firms constantly arise to challenge older, less-innovative behemoths. 31 One of the leading experts on entrepreneurship, Amar Bhid of the Columbia Business School, has argued that big firms, encumbered by larger internal bureaucracies, are virtually incapable of capitalizing on radical ideas. 32 Indeed, research finds that new firms are more likely than existing firms to license novel technology. 33 And compared with larger firms, smaller firms are about twice as likely to file high-impact patents. 34 For these reasons, turnover among a nations largest firms is a sign of vitality . The list of U.S. Fortune 500 companies is illustrative: Only 13.4 percent of those companies on the Fortune 500 list in 1955 were still there in 2010. 35 But not all nations experience the same sort of churn among their top firms. To test Schumpeters theory, Kathy Fogel, Randall Morck, and Bernard Yeung recently examined the link between turnover among nations top firms and economic growth. 36 They looked at the lists of top firms in 44 countries in 1975 and again in 1996. After controlling for other factors, they found that those nations with more turnover among their top firms tended to experience faster per capita economic growth, greater productivity growth, and faster capital growth. Looking at the factors that correlate with faster
Free Trade
firm turnover, they found that big business turnover also correlates with smaller government, common law, less bank-dependence, stronger shareholder rights, and greater openness [to trade]. 37 Thus, turnover is more likely when there is economic freedom.
Empirics prove trade and economic freedom cause innovation and prosperity Berggren, Associate Professor of Economics at the Research Institute of Industrial Economics, 3
(Niclas Berggren, Fall 2003, Free the World, The Benefits of Economic Freedom, http://www.freetheworld.com/papers/berggren_review.pdf, accessed 7-1-13, KB) If we have theoretical reasons to expect a positive relationship between economic freedom and economic growth, does empirical evidence confirm this effect? Jagdish Bhagwati thinks it does: it is not difficult to assert that economic freedom is likely to have a favorable effect on economic prosperity, for the simple reason that the last fifty years of international experience more or less confirms the fact that wherever governments used markets more and engaged in more open policies in foreign trade and investment, indeed in more economic freedom of different kinds, their countries have tended to prosper. By contrast, those countries that turned inward and had extensive regulations of all kinds on domestic economic decisionmaking in production, investment and innovation, are the countries that have really not done too well.
Free Trade
Resources
Economic freedom key to stop the resource curse Roberts, Center for International Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation, 12
(James M Roberts is Research Fellow For Economic Freedom and Growth at the Center for International Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation, Property Rights Can Solve the Resource Curse, http://www.heritage.org/index/book/chapter-5, accessed 6-30-13, KB) There is a long, paradoxical, and tragic tradition of resource-rich developing countries suffering from prolonged economic stagnation. This resource curse, so costly in terms of both economic and human development, has its roots in the failed statist economic policies of the past. Victims of this curse can be found all over the world, from oil- and gas-rich Russia to soybean- and beef-laden Argentina, not to mention most of the Middle East and many countries in Africa. Nigeria, for instance, has received about $600 billion in oil revenue since gaining independence in 1960, yet its economy has shrunk (in terms of purchasing power parity), and its poverty rate has increased from 36 percent to nearly 70 percent. Since Hugo Chvez took power in Venezuela in 1999, close to $100 billion in oil export revenues has flowed into the governments coffers every year,1 yet inflation in Venezuela has never been higher, there are shortages of basic staples, and the murder rate in Caracas is one of the highest in the world. Other resource-rich nations, such as Canada, Chile, and Norway, have avoided this fate. How? They did it by adopting a strong system of private-property protections within a market-based democracy, protected by government institutions dedicated to transparent rule of law. The key is to create a government large enough to guarantee property rights but small enough not to threaten them. The resource curse results when massive streams of revenues from resources are forced through the economic choke point of a statist government with its multiple opportunities for corruption by government officials, heavy and job-killing taxation, and overall excessive interference in the economy by those who consistently favor biggovernment solutions to every problem. Recent efforts by development assistance experts to promote conditional cash transfers2 as a solution are merely attempts to push another statist approach in disguise. The cure for this economic and political disease is the adoption of the core principles of economic freedom: limited government, decentralization of power, privatization of ownership of mineral resources, and protection of all privately held property. The 17th-century English philosopher and Father of the Enlightenment John Locke famously observed that the most basic form of property, after ones own body, is the fruit of ones labor.3 Lockes breakthrough revelation in 1690 in his Second Treatise was that those fruits themselves are the property of each person. The exchange of goods and services throughout communities benefits all parties to a transaction if all of the participants in the market are, in Milton Friedmans words, free to choose.
Lack of economic freedom leads to economic collapse multiple warrants Berggren, Associate Professor of Economics at the Research Institute of Industrial Economics, 3
(Niclas Berggren, Fall 2003, Free the World, The Benefits of Economic Freedom, http://www.freetheworld.com/papers/berggren_review.pdf, accessed 7-1-13, KB)
Free Trade
That economic freedom is an important factor accounting for economic growth is probable on purely theoretical grounds. The incentives that economic actors (entrepreneurs, innovators, financiers, industrialists, and others) face are determined in large part by the institutions in place, which, as Douglass C. North (1990) points out, can be inefficient or efficient. To the extent that the institutions stimulate actions that contribute to the production of more valuable output, they contribute to economic growth.7 Institutions that guarantee economic freedom plausibly have the capacity to provide the growth-enhancing kind of incentives, for several reasons: they promote a high return on productive efforts through low taxation, an independent legal system, and the protection of private property; they enable talent to be allocated to where it generates the highest value (as argued in Murphy, Schleifer, and Vishny 1991); they foster a dynamic, experimentally organized economy in which a large amount of business trial and error can take place (Johansson 2001, chap. 2) and in which competition between different actors occurs because regulations and government enterprises are few; they facilitate predictable and rational decision making through a low and stable inflation rate; and they promote the flow of trade and capital investment to where preference satisfaction and returns are the highest. Although certain types of institutional change can be expected to have distinctly positive growth effects by introducing the kind of incentives just mentioned, institutions per se, in place over time, can exert an influence not only on the level of wealth but also on growth rates, all else being equal. In any given period, established institutions set the economic incentives and influence what economic actors do. Very high and stable economic freedom, we presume, allows a dynamic economy to function and grow, even though an increase in economic freedom from a low level might exert a much more distinct influence on the growth rate for a certain period. Fur- thermore, sustained high growth rates imply ultimately great wealth, and so in the long term the economic freedom that increases growth can also be expected to increase accumulated wealth.
Free Trade
Economic Freedom Bad
Free Trade
List
Economic freedom cause overconsumption which will lead to multiple impacts including environmental collapse and extinction Smith, Institute for Policy Research and Development, 7
(Richard A. Smith, 6/11/7, Climate and Capitalism, Ecosocialism or Collapse, http://climateandcapitalism.com/2007/06/11/ecosocialism-or-collapse/, accessed 7-2-13, KB) First, in a world of fast-diminishing resources, a sustainable global economy can only be based on near-zero economic growth on average. That means that to survive, humanity will have to impose drastic fixed limits on development, resource consumption, the freedom to consume, and the freedom to pollute. Given existing global inequities and the fact that the crisis we face is overwhelmingly caused by overconsumption in the industrialized North, equity can only be achieved by imposing massive cutbacks in the advanced countries combined with a program of rational planned growth to develop the Third World, with the aim of stabilizing at zero growth on average. This will require drastically cutting back many lines of production, closing down others entirely, and creating socially and environmentally useful jobs for workers made redundant by this transition. This will also require physical rationing of many critical resources on a per capita basis for every person on the planet. Human survival will thus require a profound rethinking of our most fundamental ideas bourgeois ideas of economic freedom. For too long, many Americans, in particular, have come to identify their notion of freedom, if not their very being and essence, with insatiable consumption unlimited freedom of choice in what to buy. But 50 styles of blue jeans, 16 models of SUVs and endless choices in consumer electronics will all have dramatically less value when Bloomingdales is under water, Florida disappears beneath the waves, malarial mosquitoes blanket Long Island beaches, and the U.S. is overrun with desperate environmental refugees from the South. Once we as a society finally admit the inconvenient truth that we have no choice but to drastically cut production and severely reduce consumer choice, it will also become apparent that we have to put in place a planned economy that will meet our needs and those of future generations as well as the other species with whom we share the planet.
Economic freedom causes environmental destruction, economic collapse, and conflict empirics prove Hardin, Professor of Human Ecology at the University of California, 12 (Garrett
Hardin, Center for Economic Liberty, Tragedy of the Commons, http://centerforeconomicliberty.blogspot.com/2012/01/tragedy-of-commons-by-garretthardin.html, accessed 7-1-13, KB) Whenever a distribution system malfunctions, we should be on the lookout for some sort of commons. Fish populations in the oceans have been decimated because people have interpreted the freedom of the seas to include an unlimited right to fish them. The fish were, in effect, a commons. In the 1970s, nations began to assert their sole right to fish out to two hundred miles from shore (instead of the traditional three miles). But these exclusive rights did not eliminate the problem of the commons. They merely restricted the commons to individual nations. Each nation still has the problem of allocating fishing rights among its own people on a
Free Trade
noncommonized basis. If each government allowed ownership of fish within a given area, so that an owner could sue those who encroach on his fish, owners would have an incentive to refrain from overfishing. But governments do not do that. Instead, they often estimate the maximum sustainable yield and then restrict fishing either to a fixed number of days or to a fixed aggregate catch. Both systems result in a vast overinvestment in fishing boats and equipment as individual fishermen compete to catch fish quickly. Some of the common pastures of old England were protected from ruin by the tradition of stintinglimiting each herdsman to a fixed number of animals (not necessarily the same for all). Such cases are spoken of as managed commons, which is the logical equivalent of socialism. Viewed this way, socialism may be good or bad, depending on the quality of the management. As with all things human, there is no guarantee of permanent excellence. The old Roman warning must be kept constantly in mind: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who shall watch the watchers themselves?) Under special circumstances even an unmanaged commons may work well. The principal requirement is that
there be no scarcity of goods. Early frontiersmen in the American colonies killed as much game as they wanted without endangering the supply, the multiplication of which kept pace with their needs. But as the human population grew larger, hunting and trapping had to be managed. Thus, the ratio of supply to demand is critical. The
scale of the commons (the number of people using it) also is important, as an examination of Hutterite communities reveals. These devoutly religious people
in the northwestern United States live by Marxs formula: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. (They give no credit to Marx, however; similar language can be found several places in the Bible.) At first glance Hutterite colonies appear to be truly unmanaged commons. But appearances are deceiving. The number of people included in the decision unit is crucial. As the size of a colony approaches 150, individual Hutterites begin to undercontribute from their abilities and overdemand for their needs. The experience of Hutterite communities indicates that below 150 people, the distribution system can be managed by shame; above that approximate number, shame loses its effectiveness. If any group could make a commonistic system work, an earnest religious community like the Hutterites should be able to. But numbers are the nemesis. In Madisons terms, nonangelic members then corrupt the angelic. Whenever size alters the properties of a system, engineers speak of a scale effect. A scale effect, based on human psychology, limits the workability of commonistic systems. Even
when the shortcomings of the commons are understood, areas remain in which reform is difficult. No one owns the Earths atmosphere. Therefore, it is treated as a common dump into which everyone may discharge wastes. Among the unwanted consequences of this behavior are acid rain, the greenhouse effect, and the erosion of the Earths protective ozone layer. Industries and even nations are apt to regard the cleansing of industrial discharges as prohibitively expensive. The oceans are also treated as a common dump. Yet continuing to defend the freedom to pollute will ultimately lead to ruin for all. Nations are just beginning to evolve controls to limit this damage. The tragedy of the commons also arose in the savings and loan (S&L) crisis. The federal government created this tragedy by forming the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC). The FSLIC relieved S&L depositors of worry about their money by guaranteeing that it would use taxpayers money to repay them if an S&L went broke. In effect, the government made the taxpayers money into a commons that S&Ls and their depositors could exploit. S&Ls had the incentive to make overly risky investments, and depositors did not have to care because they did not bear the cost. This, combined with faltering federal surveillance of the S&Ls, led to widespread failures. The losses were commonized among the nations taxpayers, with serious consequences to the federal budget (see savings and loan crisis). Congestion on public roads that do not charge tolls is another example of a government-created tragedy of the commons. If roads were privately owned, owners would charge tolls and people would take the toll into account in deciding whether to use them. Owners of private roads would probably also engage in what is called peak-load pricing, charging higher prices during times of peak demand and lower prices at other times. But because governments own roads that they finance with tax dollars, they normally do not charge tolls. The government makes roads into a commons. The result is congestion.
Free Trade
Economic freedom leads to overconsumption, environmental and economic collapse Gorga, President of the Somist Institute, 8
(Carmine Gorga, 9/22/8, Frugality: Rebalancing Material and Spiritual Values in Economic Life, http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Journal-Markets-Morality/211236205.html, accessed 7-2-13, KB) The position of mainstream economics in relation to international trade and globalization appears to be even less tenable because it contravenes a basic assumption of its own theory: Capital is not supposed to move freely between nations! These arguments lead to a definite condemnation of current national and international policies concerning growth and distribution of income: How else does one evaluate policies that favor debt, threaten ecological disaster, discourage import substitution, and encourage export policies that rely on single crops desired by rich countries and the depletion of natural resources of less-developed countries? From this catalog of errors, distributive justice and frugality naturally spring forth for the construction of a sane economic policy.
Free Trade
Economic Collapse
Economic freedom bad studies show that it leads to economic collapse Giannone et al, Professor of Economics at Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management, 10
(Domenico Giannone, Michele Lenza, and Lucrezia Reichlin, 7/27/10,Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Market freedom and the global recession, http://www.oecd.org/eco/growth/46418753.pdf, accessed 7-1-13, KB) In this study we find that the set of policies that favor liberalization in credit markets (regulatory quality) are negatively correlated with countries' resilience to the recent recession as measured by output growth in 2008 and 2009. The negative correlation survives the inclusion of a wide range of controls, from income per capita to variables capturing the depth of the financial market, banking competition, liquidity and financial and macroeconomic imbalances and several robustness tests. Moreover, when considering a wide range of potential predictors jointly, credit market regulation emerges as one of the five more significant (with a negative sign) explanatory variable for the decline in output growth in 2008 and 2009. Variables that are positively linked to resilience are income level, the current account but not other openness indicators, banks' claims as percentage of deposits, various indicators of financial depth as well as labor market regulations. Beside credit market regulatory quality, variables which are estimated to be negatively correlated with resilience are net interest margins and overhead costs in the banking sector. In the last twenty years we have seen the adoption of policies favoring financial markets liberalization and financial markets development. Our results suggest that, while development has helped countries mitigating output volatility, the reverse has been true for liberalization. It is therefore important to understand what are the mechanisms which make deregulated markets more vulnerable. The literature has suggested mechanisms through which more deregulated markets are more prone to risk taking behavior (see, for example, Diaz-Alejandro (1985), Hellmann, Murdock, and Stiglitz (1997) and Easterly, Islam, and Stiglitz (2000)). Our paper does not identify these mechanisms, but the analysis suggests that liberalization, in particular those aspects which favor competition to foreign and private banks, may indeed capture \unobserved" risk taking leading to macroeconomic 17vulnerability. Cross country regressions are too limited as a tool to allow us to go deeper in this analysis. Our paper has uncovered a fact, but much more has to be done to understand it. Our result points to a specific direction for future research, aiming at understanding the link between financial liberalization and vulnerability to cyclical shocks. This is important for the evaluation of policies which, in the last two decades, have favored increasing financial market liberalization.
Free Trade
Unsustainable
Economic freedom encourages self-interest which inevitably leads to collapse tragedy of the commons proves Hardin, Professor of Human Ecology at the University of California, 2012 (Garrett
Hardin, Center for Economic Liberty, Tragedy of the Commons, http://centerforeconomicliberty.blogspot.com/2012/01/tragedy-of-commons-by-garretthardin.html, accessed 7-1-13, KB) The rational explanation for such ruin was given more than 170 years ago. In 1832 William Forster Lloyd, a political economist at Oxford University, looking at the recurring devastation of common (i.e., not privately owned) pastures in England, asked: Why are the cattle on a common so puny and stunted? Why is the common itself so bare-worn, and cropped so differently from the adjoining inclosures? Lloyds answer assumed that each human exploiter of the common was guided by self-interest. At the point when the carrying capacity of the commons was fully reached, a herdsman might ask himself, Should I add another animal to my herd? Because the herdsman owned his animals, the gain of so doing would come solely to him. But the loss incurred by overloading the pasture would be commonized among all the herdsmen. Because the privatized gain would exceed his share of the commonized loss, a selfseeking herdsman would add another animal to his herd. And another. And reasoning in the same way, so would all the other herdsmen. Ultimately, the common property would be ruined. Even when herdsmen understand the long-run consequences of their actions, they generally are powerless to prevent such damage without some coercive means of controlling the actions of each individual. Idealists may appeal to individuals caught in such a system, asking them to let the long-term effects govern their actions. But each individual must first survive in the short run. If all decision makers were unselfish and idealistic calculators, a distribution governed by the rule to each according to his needs might work. But such is not our world. As James Madison said in 1788, If men were angels, no Government would be necessary (Federalist, no. 51). That is, if all men were angels. But in a world in which all resources are limited, a single nonangel in the commons spoils the environment for all. The spoilage process comes in two stages. First, the non-angel gains from his competitive advantage (pursuing his own interest at the expense of others) over the angels. Then, as the once noble angels realize that they are losing out, some of them renounce their angelic behavior. They try to get their share out of the commons before competitors do. In other words, every workable distribution system must meet the challenge of human self-interest. An unmanaged commons in a world of limited material wealth and unlimited desires inevitably ends in ruin. Inevitability justifies the epithet tragedy, which I introduced in 1968.
Free Trade
VTL
Economic freedom leads to poverty, loss of culture, and the destruction of the institutions that keep the social order from completely collapsing Bourdieu, Sociologist, Anthropologist, and Philosopher, 98 (Pierre Bourdieu, December
1998, Mondediplo, Utopia of Endless Exploitation: The Essence of Neoliberalism, http://mondediplo.com/1998/12/08bourdieu, accessed 7-2-13, KB)
And yet the world is there, with the immediately visible effects of the implementation of the great neoliberal utopia: not only the poverty of an increasingly large segment of the most economically advanced societies, the extraordinary growth in income differences, the progressive disappearance of autonomous universes of cultural production, such as film, publishing, etc. through the intrusive imposition of commercial values, but also and above all two major trends. First is the destruction of all the collective institutions capable of counteracting the effects of the infernal machine, primarily those of the state, repository of all of the universal values associated with the idea of the public realm. Second is the imposition everywhere, in the upper spheres of the economy and the state as at the heart of corporations, of that sort of moral Darwinism that, with the cult of the winner, schooled in higher mathematics and bungee jumping, institutes the struggle of all against all and cynicism as the norm of all action and behaviour. Can it be expected that the extraordinary mass of suffering produced by this sort of political-economic regime will one day serve as the starting point of a movement capable of stopping the race to the abyss? Indeed, we are faced here with an extraordinary paradox. The obstacles encountered on the way to realising the new order of the lone, but free individual are held today to be imputable to rigidities and vestiges. All direct and conscious intervention of whatever kind, at least when it comes from the state, is discredited in advance and thus condemned to efface itself for the benefit of a pure and anonymous mechanism, the market, whose nature as a site where interests are exercised is forgotten. But in reality, what keeps the social order from dissolving into chaos, despite the growing volume of the endangered population, is the continuity or survival of those very institutions and representatives of the old order that is in the process of being dismantled, and all the work of all of the categories of social workers, as well as all the forms of social solidarity, familial or otherwise.
Free Trade
Prefer Our Evidence

Their cards are false the authors have specific interests in economic freedom which makes them inclined to confuse studies Bourdieu, Sociologist, Anthropologist, and Philosopher, 98
(Pierre Bourdieu, December 1998, Mondediplo, Utopia of Endless Exploitation: The Essence of Neoliberalism, http://mondediplo.com/1998/12/08bourdieu, accessed 7-2-13, KB) Thus we see how the neoliberal utopia tends to embody itself in the reality of a kind of infernal machine, whose necessity imposes itself even upon the rulers. Like the Marxism of an earlier time, with which, in this regard, it has much in common, this utopia evokes powerful belief the free trade faith - not only among those who live off it, such as financiers, the owners and managers of large corporations, etc., but also among those, such as high-level government officials and politicians, who derive their justification for existing from it. For they sanctify the power of markets in the name of economic efficiency, which requires the elimination of administrative or political barriers capable of inconveniencing the owners of capital in their individual quest for the maximisation of individual profit, which has been turned into a model of rationality. They want independent central banks. And they preach the subordination of nation-states to the requirements of economic freedom for the masters of the economy, with the suppression of any regulation of any market, beginning with the labour market, the prohibition of deficits and inflation, the general privatisation of public services, and the reduction of public and social expenses. Economists may not necessarily share the economic and social interests of the true believers and may have a variety of individual psychic states regarding the economic and social effects of the utopia which they cloak with mathematical reason. Nevertheless, they have enough specific interests in the field of economic science to contribute decisively to the production and reproduction of belief in the neoliberal utopia. Separated from the realities of the economic and social world by their existence and above all by their intellectual formation, which is most frequently purely abstract, bookish, and theoretical, they are particularly inclined to confuse the things of logic with the logic of things. These economists trust models that they almost never have occasion to submit to the test of experimental verification and are led to look down upon the results of the other historical sciences, in which they do not recognise the purity and crystalline transparency of their mathematical games, whose true necessity and profound complexity they are often incapable of understanding. They participate and collaborate in a formidable economic and social change. Even if some of its consequences horrify them (they can join the socialist party and give learned counsel to its representatives in the power structure), it cannot displease them because, at the risk of a few failures, imputable to what they sometimes call "speculative bubbles", it tends to give reality to the ultra-logical utopia (ultra-logical like certain forms of insanity) to which they consecrate their lives.

How Free Trade Prevents Nuclear War and Solves Conflict

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

How Free Trade Prevents Nuclear War and Solves Conflict

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Free Trade Good - Geopolitics

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Free trade prevents conflicts allows transparency and bluffing strategies

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Trade creates disincentives for posturing, leads to crisis management

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

A2: Asymmetric Integration

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Free Trade Good - Economy

Capital protects economies Gallagher, Associate Proffessor at Boston University, 11

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Free Trade Good - Jobs

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

High Paying Jobs

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Latin America Specific

Maness, intern with the National Center for Policy Analysis, 3

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Kim, Senior Policy Analyst, Economic Freedom, 10

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

AT: Job Displacement

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker AT: Trade Deficits

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Free Trade Good - Poverty

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 Pointer/Lundeen/Spraker

A2: Income Inequality