The following defense of free trade that I would like you to read (by clicking here) was published in 1998 by four economists connected with the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1916 and named after a St. Louis businessman who was an early benefactor of the organization, the Brookings Institution maintains a program of research and publication on public policy issues in the areas of foreign relations, economics, and governance. With financial backing from dozens of large corporations and private philanthropists, it supports the work of approximately 100 scholars. Centrist and non-partisan, its goal is to improve the performance of U.S. institutions and the quality of public policy by linking scholarship and decision-making.After reading the document, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What is the focus of the authors’ arguments? Are there issues raised by Nader they ignore? Conversely, do they make points that Nader failed to mention in his commentary? List and briefly explain the benefits that according to the authors result from free trade. The authors concede that some individuals will experience pain as a result of free trade. How and in what way will this occur? In your view, who has made the stronger argument, Nader or the Brookings Institution scholars? Your thoughts…
6 comments:
The author is saying that preventative measures of globalization such as not importing is only temporary in terms of pay cut avoidance. In return he says that there should be better wages for those effected by importing. The message that i get from this is that one shouldn't be worried about oneself but rather be trying to get the best products to improve their own country
THey seem to make a fairly good arguement as to why openness in the Us is beneficial but it was pretty general. I would have liked to see some statistics but thosse would probably be hard to come by. The Brooking Institute says the majority of the country will experience benefits from open trade such as lower prices in goods and more diversity of goods. They admit some people will lose their job if US companies fail due to competition but they maintain the pros still out weigh the cons.
Yes there are a lot of people who feel the backlash to the free trade, but the standard of living has gone up since then. We should start to think like the Japanese. Maintain a "we first" society.
This document surprised me, mainly due to how focused it was on a better life for Americans. Repeatedly the author states that free trade will provide "higher living standards for Americans at home". Granted, this book was written to help Americans overcome their "globaphobia", but the working conditions of jobs that would occur overseas was never mentioned. There were only vague references to how it would affect other countries involved.
It seems to make free trade better for everyone. It sounds like a good idea to me but I'm thinking the governments would feel that they are losing money.I think that he is trying to say that benefit if they stop worrying about themselves but more on helping everyone. But it is probable that many will feel the backlash of this because of competition.
I think that everything said in this document has at least a trace of truth. Like where there was talk about the failing infrastructure of the American economy. True, it has fallen with the opening to foreign markets. But it also fell during the great depression. Then those who don’t really see the benefits of open trade. Yes, those who are laid off are louder, but there are benefits. Like how there is more, cheaper, better made and more varied goods. It is difficult to say, but id make my case for the fact that open trade has benefited us as a whole, but for the rest of the world I'm not entirely certain.
Post a Comment