[central_va]

Karl Marx predicted that free trade would destroy the concept of the nation state and heighten internal social dislocations, thus paving the way for Marxist socialism to triumph. In an 1848 speech called “On Free Trade,” Marx stated:

In general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.

Hence, short-sighted free trade is the highway to socialism and the ultimate destruction of the free enterprise system.

[Wolfie]

We keep doing these deals, and our jobs keep going overseas. Long past time to wake up.

[impimp]

Freedom means freedom to trade. I am in favor of liberty. Many Freepers are in favor of tyranny.

[econjack]

Free trade, as posited by economists, doesn't exist. The idea of comparative advantage, which is the foundation for the "good things" about free trade, is very real, but woefully distorted by the economic policies of each country. I hear arguments that we need to "level the playing field" by import quotas and taxes, which completely throws out the notion of free trade. With those distortion, who do you think are the real winners and losers when protective tariffs are levied? An example might help.

Back in the 1970's, Japan was dumping steel into US markets "at less than cost". So, Congress, with its usual wisdom, levied import quotas and taxes on Japanese steel. So, who won? You and I and millions of other consumers ended up paying substantially higher prices for anything that had steel in it. True, about 5,000 steel workers had their jobs protected, but at the cost of US consumers numbering in the millions. The other winners: An inefficient steel industry that continued to use 1880's technology facing a totally new steel industry in Japan because we destroyed their old plants during WWII. And the biggest winner: The US gov't by collecting tariffs. Tariffs are nothing more than a tax on consumers. If Japan was truly dumping at less than cost, we should have bought all the steel we could from then and, eventually, bankrupt them. Actually, the fact is that Japan was selling steel at less than US steel producers cost...big difference in the story.

The long and the short of free trade: it usually ends up totally butchered by domestic economic policy and has never seen an environment where it could actually be tested.

[Iron Munro]

Ross Perot Warned America About one sided "Free Trade Agreements" back In 1992.

[SamuraiScot]

63% of professed Tea Party supporters thought that free trade agreements were “bad for U.S.”

They are correct. If it's got to have an agreement, it's not free trade. It's some kind of politically compromised nonsense with hidden paybacks and payoffs. Free trade, as a poster above points out, is people buying and selling as they please.

Freer trade leads to more prosperity than tariff wars. But it's hard to keep trade free. Industries want to be able to buy cheaply for themselves from anywhere in the world at the same time as putting tariffs on their own foreign competitors' stuff. As a system, that's physically impossible--unless yours is the only industry in the country.

[jmaroneps37]

Yes, “Free Trade” deals done by the feckless Republicans and evil Democrats should be avoided. Trump won’t allow such deals.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Yoo-hoo boys!