Free Trade Addendum

"Free trade is good for all the people all of the time." No serious economist denies this. The strength of the comparative advantage theory, supplemented by real world experience, is overwhelming. Further, "producing more widgets" is of the utmost importance in our world, as it means less children dying, less people starving, and democracies being more stable (which is another point entirely). But some specific counterarguments should be addressed because of their validity:

Trade can't make every person better off:
When the U.S. removes steel subsidies, steel workers lose their jobs...and ghost towns full of tumbleweed can result. Indeed, it is the power of these domestic groups as compared to the diffuse consumers that prevents the elimination of trade barriers in the first place. Real people lose real jobs. Consumers gain more in the aggregate, but they do not feel this gain as intensely as the workers feel their lost jobs. It is only with an acceptance of a long-term view and with the presence of an institution that accounts for this frictional unemployment through welfare support and retraining that this complaint can be rebutted.

National Security:
If there is a war, a country wants to make big guns and feed its army. If it relies on trade for these goods, then there is an argument that it should foster domestic production for these times of war. The retort is that a better short-term solution would be stockpiling "war goods" at the cheaper prices created by trade and that all war will have radical results. On a deeper level, Kant stated that for perpetual peace, "The Law of World Citizenship Shall be Limited to Conditions of Universal Hospitality." There is no better way to pursue this noble goal than by making our world interdependent. The human race will be brought together by trade, directly through constant negotiations in international institutions, and indirectly through subconscious interdependence and gradual acceptance and awareness of other cultures. This might seem a stretch, but remember that no two democracies have ever gone to war against each other. Trade makes countries richer, which makes democracy securer. All of this, of course, is made possible by technology and communication, but a world institution promoting free trade will play a critical role if our world is to become one less inclined to war.

Other complaints fall generally into social realms - human rights, labor, environment, etc. These objections, however, are not objections to free trade itself. Rather, they are about the implications that naturally follow any capitalism. Free trade is as noble a goal as we can have for the world's development, but it must be harnessed as with any form of capitalism. Fair markets and competition, on a global level, will lead to a healthier and culturally richer world.

Will this make the world a happier and better place? The only way you can say no to this is to say that the Native Americans lived better lives than we do. On that point, you might be right, but Hegel would be disappointed if there isn't any historical progress.