In free trade, capitalism is used to subsidize economies that would otherwise fail if left to their own markets.
In other words, free trade is not something imposed by a world government, but the opposite. It means merely that businesses and individuals are allowed free use of their own capital.
How so? Free trade organisations and treaties are the stepping stones to world government.
Free how? Try buying an American made tv, vcr, windshield wiper, spark plug, asparagus, etc. Nobody uses those items anymore, right? On top of losing the freedom to buy those American made goods, now those former workers are free to work at WalMart. Hooray!
By definition.
"Free how?"
Free to use one's money as one wishes, to employ whom one wishes, to buy from and sell to whom one wishes. That's freedom. Freedom, in my view, is freedom from government. Your view of freedom, in which you have freedom to buy products that are not competitive in the free market, is a view of freedom that requires, at some level, government coercion, direction and supervision of its citizens. As does any form of government guaranteed standards of living.
It reminds me of a conversation I had with a leftist artist who complained our country was not free since he was not free to follow his dream of being a full time artist. In other words, his art was not competitive, so for him to be "free," he required government to make it so.
"Free trade organisations and treaties are the stepping stones to world government."
I don't recognize the validity of the above statement. If there were one government, and it was one dedicated to freedom, one can imagine that it would allow a free market. OTOH, if it were operated as are most of the world's governments, it would be the opposite, based at some level on Central Planning.