There\'s free trade, and there\'s free trade

Clay at Full Frontal Liberty wrote last week about CAFTA.

Sadly, “free trade” is rendered a euphemism for continuing government favoritism and illegitimate intervention in the cross-border business of Americans and their partners abroad. If politicians were truly concerned with opening trade and continuing the liberal heritage of this country, there would be no need for voluminous free trade agreements in the first place. In the final analysis, CAFTA is better than the alternative of continued high tariff levels, but certainly does not represent the ideal for U.S. trade policy.

Rather than thousands of lines, only a single sentence is required to say that the United States imposes no restrictions whatsoever on the flow of goods and services across its borders. Perhaps our country is not ready for this sort of policy, but such a bold gesture would certainly inspire more admiration than the typical U.S. government free trade doublespeak.

These so-called "free trade" agreements give a bad name to true free trade.

Read the whole thing.

Share this

Well its better with it than

Well its better with it than without it because it helps to start the dialouge to establish the ground rules for liberty in the economies and societies the world over. That is the only reason why some advocates of globalism are glorified beauracrats, because this is some pretty heavy stuff to sift through. Personally I pray for men of good will and good sense when I read of all these agreements, they are setting the stage for the better lives of millions of people.

Which is why I take

Which is why I take "globalization" to be something very different from free trade. The advocates of globalization usually favor tens of thousands of pages of managed trade.