You have your nuclear analogy backward though. Unbridled on-sided free trade is the weapon of mass destruction not the other way around.
You have your nuclear analogy backward though. Unbridled on-sided free trade is the weapon of mass destruction not the other way around.
“You have your nuclear analogy backward though. Unbridled on-sided free trade is the weapon of mass destruction not the other way around.”
‘Unbridled one-sided free trade’ sounds like a leftist phrase, along with ‘obscene corporate profits’, ‘income inequality’, ‘one percenters’.
Perhaps you didn’t mean it that way, but in any case, I’m not getting your meaning.
In my book, free trade is when two parties enter into an exchange willingly, freely. The price is mutually agreed upon without restrictions imposed by third parties.
“Bridled” means restricted, i.e. NOT free, therefore the term “unbridled free trade” is redundant. “One-sided free trade” is an oxymoron.
I think this is the first time I’ve ever seen a phrase that is both an oxymoron and redundant!