What's with the mental disconnect on free trade?

[yllus]

Whenever there's a major disconnect between what politicians are pushing for and the people seem to push back, I tend to not turn it into a duel of good versus evil, but instead wonder what information or perspective differs between the two sides.

Aside from immigration, free trade (TPP, but also NAFTA) seems to be a major hot-button topic for this American presidential election. I'm curious as to what you folks think about a couple of points on that topic:

1. Living in a relatively small nation with considerable experience in use of protectionism, I see free trade and globalization as inevitable and unstoppable. Seriously - unstoppable. Many if not most economic sectors now face global competition, and artificially inflating costs via tariffs doesn't as much protect local business as it does make them fat and lazy; they've got a captive market, so why innovate? (See: Taxi companies everywhere before the illegal enterprise Uber sprang into being.) So, first question: Do you agree or disagree that free trade is inevitable?

2. Politicians tend to intermix with the wealthy, or be wealthy themselves. Let's say as a rule that politicians are wealthy. Perhaps their view on free trade differs from Main Street because the wealthy disproportionately benefit from free trade, and they're all for that. Agree/disagree?

3. I have to get on my bike and head out but I'll fill this in later.

 

[master_shake_]

if the tpp was about trade then you could call it a trade deal.

it's not about trade.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/analysis-tpp-text-november-2015.pdf

 

[ivwshane]

First off you will need to define what you mean by free trade. The definition says it's international trade without restrictions, tariffs, etc. Since you referenced nafta and the TPP, I'll have to assume what you are referring to is trade agreements.

I think free trade is unstoppable but like the US's industrial revolution it can bring the good while also bringing the bad. The good would be innovation, conveniences, and elevated living conditions. The bad would be things like sweat shops, unsafe working conditions, and all the other bad things we had to address to make sure workers weren't exploited. That's where trade agreements come in and that's why I support trade agreements that help raise working and living standards and in general protects workers and the countries people and land from exploitation while also protecting IP for all of those involved.

Most people and the politicians that exploit them, think of free trade as a one sided transaction depending on the argument they are trying to make. Currently fear mongering is being used and politicians and people push the "terk r jerbs" rallying cry. In the past they used the argument that trade will be good for business. Unfortunately its way more complex than that.

Imo in the long term trade agreements are good for the world.

 

[dullard]

if the tpp was about trade then you could call it a trade deal.

it's not about trade.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/analysis-tpp-text-november-2015.pdf

Bingo. The TPP has some free trade text in it, but we already have free trade with most major countries in the TPP (and thus going from free trade to free trade isn't much of a change). The TPP is far more about trade on an equal playing field. The TTIP is about expanding free trade and no one seems to care about it.

Which brings us back to yllus's post. There is so much of a mental disconnect that people don't even know what it is that they are against. They are willing to go to extreme lengths (the protests almost go into a berserk fervor), yet they aren't willing to even read the thing that they oppose. They heard it from some guy on TV or read it on Facebook and it must be true!

So the first step is to get people to admit that they have no clue about the topic.