The Observer, April 4, 2008
Volume XL, Issue 23
On The Right: Free trade benefits Americans, world's poor
Followers of liberalism are frequently portrayed, by themselves and others, as more caring and altruistic than their conservative counterparts. Liberals want to pull out of Iraq in order to bring peace. They seek universal healthcare so those helpless poor can treat their life-threatening illnesses. It is far easier to see a liberal as more kind-hearted than a conservative. After all, conservatives want to end Social Security and Welfare because they hate the old and the poor. They love lower taxes because it makes the rich richer. However, in the case of free trade, liberals and Democrats consistently take a stance that directly harms the poor across the world while keeping their much wealthier constituencies happy.
In the last Democratic presidential debate, the two candidates, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, were in a battle to see who was least in favor of the North American Free Trade Agreement. They both argued that NAFTA is bad for the United States because it caused manufacturing jobs to move to Mexico, where labor is cheaper. Because Mexico does not grant workers the wages and rights that we have in the United States, the trade is not 'fair.' There are many others on the left and some on the right who fight to keep import restrictions and subsidies in order to artificially raise prices so American companies can compete globally. While this action may help some Americans, it hurts both people abroad as well as at home.
In the United States, the poverty line is an annual salary of around $20,000 a year or less. In the rest of the world the impoverished are lucky to make $200 a year. With increased free trade, a company can move its hard labor jobs to these poor countries, offer workers salaries greater than $200, and still save an enormous amount on labor costs. Some consider this exploitation at the expense of American jobs. They would prefer to keep the job in America at the expense of those who are truly poor in order to make a point. Imagine a scenario where the job of an Ohio factory worker, who makes $40,000 a year with benefits, is sent overseas. In the poorer third-world countries, this one job could be turned into 40, each with a yearly salary of $1000 a year. That is 40 families with far greater living standards than they previously enjoyed. If instead of purely free trade, "fair" labor standards were enforced, there might be one family making $40,000 a year while everyone else lives in poverty. Liberal politicians generally understand this, but they choose to ignore it fearing the retribution of unions and Big Labor.
Simply put, free trade is hugely beneficial to most Americans. For one, it becomes easier for other nations to purchase our goods. This expands trade and allows for the growth of those export heavy sectors of the economy, creating the opportunity for more jobs. While it may hurt those United States businesses that must compete with the rest of the world, the U.S. consumer saves in the form of lower prices and greater diversity. Thus, with free trade, Americans benefit and those who are truly poor in the third world get the opportunity to rise above poverty in much the same way as Americans did at the turn of the 20th century.
It may be true what Clinton and Obama say. Pulling out of Iraq may improve relations with France, China, and Russia. However, pulling out of NAFTA and limiting future free trade agreements is not likely to strengthen the bond between the United States and its most important allies in Canada and Central America. If liberals truly wish to help the needy as well as improve international relations, they might try supporting free trade.
