Free Trade Free World

Capture18 copyIt would seem to those applying common sense that if one fully wished to capitalize upon the markets, free trade would be the epitome of an awesome idea.

Isolationist and xenophobic approaches to social policy is contradictory to good business sense and extreme protectionism is detrimental to the progression in evolution of our species and development of all nation states.

Pardon the digression, but on this tangent, this is why I’ve had such a difficult time understanding the choice to embrace Donald Trump for American President.  I’ve never endorsed Trump and I still won’t, but I do hope he wins over that criminal Hillary Clinton. And if becoming President, I hope Trump changes gears from the grandstanding misogynistic narcissistic xenophobic protectionist showboating of the campaign trail to leader of the free world — more importantly, I hope he remembers that isolating the USA from the rest of North America is counter intuitive.  I find Trump’s current statements to be inconsistent with his position as a well-respected business leader.  Sure NAFTA is by no means perfect but on the whole, the net benefit to both the Canadian and American economies has and continues to outweigh any negative impact otherwise observed or noted (the same can be said for NATO).  The ‘Trump Stance’ is remarkably short-sighted — American sovereignty is NOT sacrificed by working within a global economy.

Back to the topic at hand, globalization is the end-game of Agenda 2030; free trade is not an agent of socialization or globalization; it is merely an agreement between two (or more) different countries.

Globalization refers to the ideologue of one world government or a ‘New World Order’. It refers to anointing an unelected, and therefore unaccountable, political body to oversee the affairs of the world (the United Nations currently serves as the best example to illustrate this point, especially through their proposed Agenda and the various spin-offs that have emerged).  To fully understand this concept, it directly depends upon how one defines “globalization”. Nick Vandergragt eloquently clarifies this concept, “if by [globalization] you mean easier access to foreign markets [for free trade], you are right. But if by [globalization] you mean an end to the nation state, and a surrender to some faceless unaccountable body to Lord and rule over us, thanks but I’ll pass. […]”

Globalization through mandated policy by unelected bureaucrats detracts from the rights and individual freedoms of each nation state — whereas free trade is merely a tool utilized by those same nation states as a means to work and grow together; while simultaneously protecting individual countries through negotiated compromise.  Each state/country gets an equal seat at the bargaining table.

The concept of free trade could be (and unfortunately often is) perverted into accusations that free trade is actually an agent or mechanism supporting a globalization agenda; this accusation is not accurate.  Open markets and less government regulation are beneficial to everyone from the massive conglomerates to the small business owner to the average consumer like you and me; this acceptance does not lend credence to allowing a group of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats to manipulate the social agenda — regardless of how badly the socialist crowd tries to convince you otherwise.

You wanna know why free trade is so great?  Okay, here it is: free trade benefits both corporations and individuals.  Food is cheaper, clothes are cheaper, steel is cheaper, cars are cheaper, phone service is cheaper.  Free trade lowers prices and raises income; free trade stops wars.  We’ll figure out a way to fix the few imperfections that do still exist later.

Let free markets be free.  Stand against unilateral globalization but recognize that free trade agreements have been overall fundamentally a good thing for Canada, the Canadian Economy and for all of our various trading partners.

While each country remains its own, we do have to coexist on this planet.  We do have to still trade — I’d prefer individual nation states calling their own shots over a group of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats any day of the week.

I freely recognize that there are pros and cons to any free trade arrangement, and I do recognize that some elements of a particular population may stand to lose from some aspect of a given trade deal; however, I think the positives of free trade outweigh the negatives.  That being said, I am open minded for a re-negotiation of the NAFTA, TPP, et all agreements, but I still stand by my assertion that free trade is fundamentally critical to the success of our nation and indeed the planet.

What do you think?


About Kevin

Kevin is a Canadian citizen, writer & blogger.
This entry was posted in Archived, Conservatism, Federal Politics, Kevin's Corner, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Free Trade Free World

  1. roberthakim says:

    Reblogged this on Robbie's Blog and commented:
    “Let the free market be free”! This resonates well with every sensible business person. While each sovereign country wishes to achieve the best of its interest in any given deal, there remains the co-exist factor which dictates compromise. Hence, the best within the available is the greatest achievement in any free trade agreement.

  2. Ted Campbell says:

    Donald Trump is, like about 39% of Canadian voters, an economic illiterate. You are right, Kevin, free(er) trade always, without fail, brings the greater good to the greater number … of course there are losers: it’s a free trade ‘deal’ and in every ‘deal’ there are winners and losers. In Free Trade deals there are, however, always, without fail, more winners, on both sides, than losers. (The nice thing about reading history is that you can see what happened every time there was free(er) trade and every time there was protectionism ~ the historical FACT is that free trade always benefits the most people.) Donald Trump is an idiot. Anyone who would vote for him is terminally bloody stupid. Ms Clinton is a crook, anyone who would vote for her is equally stupid. I predict a record low voter turnout in 2016 as almost all the reasonably smart Americans (about 50% of them, just like in Canada) stay home and say, “a plague on both your houses.”

  3. David Strutt says:

    Why do we call trade imbalances, predatory currency manipulation and product dumping “free trade”? It’s a reckless error to assume Trump is ignorant and/or stupid. Without question, he knows business inside and out. What more than business is international trade? One more concern … trade deals designed to weaken national sovereignty smack of open borders and world governments. I oppose free trade with nations who don’t play by the same rules as we do. I oppose “blanket” deals—we are dealing with nations operating under a bunch of widely different systems of government. I don’t need lead-covered baby toys, poison chicken, or knock-offs of legitimate brands. I don’t need a Mexican car, or air conditioner, and I can live without fruits that may contain the ebola virus. Our trade partners need to pay their workers relatively the same as we do, operate under the same regulations, and be held accountable for all breeches of contracts. If that can’t be done, “free trade” is a mirage … and, currently, that’s all it is.

    • Annette Dien says:

      Excellent reply. I don’t hear Trump being protectionist, I don’t hear him refusing to deal with any Nation, on a fair basis. There is nothing fair to U.S.A. at present—N.A.F.T.A. has been detrimental to U.S.A. Back when Canada + U.S. were cooking up the Free Trade agreement I thought, What a wonderful chance for Canada. I believe Canada has done well. But I remember saying to any unfortunate listener in my reach—why would the Americans open their economy and their working classes to this incursion into their autonomy. I predicted a huge “sucking sound” would be heard as wealth, treasure, jobs disappeared down the road to Cultures prepared to work cheap, grant tax benefits, bend the rules, use less socialistic rules and grant workers fewer (if any) benefits. Where has Trump indicated he would be protectionist? If a policy is in the interests of his Country: O.K. —if not he refuses to just bend over. Is trying to insure his country against economic invasion from illegal immigrant or cultures/Cliques that voice hatred and death to American Citizens, show contempt for american culture and laws is protectionist—I would wish the honorable Young Trudeau would learn from Trump. BTW when has Socialism ever benefited any Country?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s