Free trade has become so unquestioned in political circles, that, as Pat Buchanan put it, a "protectionist" is seen as being as bad as a racist. First, the great myth is that tariffs caused the Great Depression. Tariffs affected only 4% of our GDP in 1929. Moreover, it was the Stock Market Crash that caused the Great Depression. Alan Greenspan would have called the 1920's stock market bubble "insane exuberance".
This brings me to one of the two main reasons that free trade is without exception a terrible idea. Free trade restricts competition among nations. Nations in the global trading market are like businesses, and "free" trade forbids all real competition by forbidding economically stronger nations from using their strength to raise prices. In fact, its eventual outcome would be to level off all nations. I would ask those on the right to consider how patriotic an idea that is from the American point of view.
The second and (to me) more important reason, or more accurately, set of reasons to oppose free trade are the objections of those on the left like Ralph Nader. Because not all countries are held to the same standards in terms of protecting workers and the environment, and because most governments see such protections as economically counterproductive (although even that assumption is highly questionable), the result in free trade is that the nations with the lowest wages, worker protections and environmental standards can underbid more humane countries. To compete, therefore, the other nations must lower their labor and environmental standards. The competition among nations is then to see which can have the lowest wages, the most inhumane working conditions and do the most environmental damage. Hence instead of working towards a common goal of protecting both workers and the environment, free trade creates a competition to place short-term profit over noble and necessary human progress.
To conclude, the well informed on the left (e.g. Nader) and the right (e.g. Buchanan) are opposed to free trade. I do not support equalizing all nations financially. While desperate nations deserve foreign aid, a certain degree of trade competition among nations is natural and essential. Moreover, in free trade, standards of human conduct towards the working poor and towards the environment that future generations will have to bear are strongly discouraged, which is truly a threat to the forward movement of civilization.

It's a bit Orwellian to argue that lifting trade barriers restricts competition. I know you're saying that tariffs are a tool in the competitive toolbox, and free trade limits the use of that tool. But the effect is to greatly increase competition among *companies*, which after all are what create the economy that a nation depends upon.

I do occasionally worry about a global race to the bottom as far as wages and living standards are concerned. I think it's inevitable that our living standards will fall somewhat, since they are so much higher than most of the world and unsustainable to boot.

But at the same time free trade should improve living standards elsewhere. Eventually we'll reach a new balance, where higher wages overseas remove a key competitive advantage of those nations, allowing us to exploit our traditional strengths in technology and entrepreneurism.

Many things threaten that vision -- the fact that China and India produce far more graduates with technological degrees than we do, for starters -- but I think the net effect of free trade will be generally higher living standards worldwide -- which should, in turn, make us safer by reducing the conditions that breed conflict, terrorism and extremism.

I'm willing to take a hit in my living standards in order to improve global living standards in a meaningful and historic way.

This is a legitimate concern. But so is the counterargument -- that the West polluted its way through the industrial revolution and could not have made that leap had it been overly concerned with environmental standards. And so it is grossly unfair to hold developing countries to the same environmental standards of developed nations. Some developing countries have barely enough resources to build a power plant, much less one with state-of-the-art scrubbers.

That said, I think there is room for compromise. Countries should have the right to insist that goods sold in their markets meet reasonable wage, work condition and environmental standards. Those standards cannot be set so high as to unfairly exclude goods from most competitors; they must truly be minimums. As more countries reach those minimums, we can raise those standards.

Such an approach provides countries and companies with an economic incentive to recognize the environmental cost of their operations, while allowing them to ignore it in the short term if they deem it necessary.

Like the environment, economic opportunity for developing countries is not just a nice thing to do -- it's an important part of our national security. As such, it's worth paying for.

__________________
Man up.

It is true that businesses do most of the actual trading, but as long as those businesses are under separate governments, the countries in which they base themselves are competing economically. My solution to the problem with high environmental standards is to give foreign aid to developing countries so that they can meet the standards. As for workers, I see free trade literally resulting in a competition to see which companies and nations can treat workers more inhumanely. The fact that we treated our workers inhumanely during our Industrial Revolution should not affect our current policies, any more than the fact that we once permitted slavery should affect how we deal with current slave trading. If we committed an evil, the greatest service that we can do to atone for it is to prevent its recurrence in other nations.

I'm with you about helping other countries with their development. The sooner the world economy gains balance the better. As Raytri said, this is good for our security as well as the prosperity of the world as a whole. And any peaceful method that makes us secure is better than more wars fought in the name of national competition.
Besides, once prosperity finds its way around the globe we can seriously discuss ideas that were once regarded as Utopian such as world peace and the dissolution of nation-states. Far down at the end of a turbulant road, but definitely approaching in the horizon.

No offense JavaBlack, but I can't quite figure out whether you're for or against free trade. I'm probably just not very sharp today.

going against free trade is like going against gravity. Its here to stay. Accept it.

Well, at least I'm still sharper than somebody today.

if we don't participate in free trade it will hurt the US as much as it will hurt other countries. It would result in a trade war and that would be no good for anyone. Don't be fooled, the US would have MUCH to lose. Unemployment, inflation, interest rates...all of these things would be thrown into chaos if we suddenly ended open trade.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

The "tariff war" myth is another mistaken and widely held belief about protectionism. As I have stated before, nations are analogous to businesses, and unless there is a worldwide Communist state (which, obviously, I would oppose) competition among nations will be as much a necessity as competition among individual businesses, and this competition is forbidden by "free" trade agreements. So-called tariff wars are no different than "business wars", and tariffs are also powerful diplomatic tools.

what do you mean specifically by tarriff war? Additionally, competition is not prohibited by free trade agreements. And tarriff wars are very different than business wars. If a business war breaks out, such as the airlines, they can have price wars which result on lower overall prices. If two countries have a similar war via tarriffs it will result in inflation. It can also result in local job losses, if we put a tarriff on all Japanese cars then that woud likely result in local job losses since Japanese manufacturers would reduce their production to offset reduced demand. Prices would increase resulting in inlfation and resulting increases in interest rates to offset inflation. Of course you can also have a reduced Japanese demand for US dollars and could dump their holdings and thus reduce the value of the dollar. They could also dry up as a source for government debt. The number of problems that can arise are limitless.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.