Free trade 1

Free trade

International Trade Series

International trade

History of international trade

Political views

Fair trade

Trade justice

Free trade

Protectionism

Economic integration

Preferential trading area

Free trade area

Customs union

Single market

Monetary union

Customs and monetary union

Economic union

Economic and monetary union

Fiscal union

Complete economic integration

Other

Trade pact

Trade bloc

Trade creation

Trade diversion

Free trade is a system of trade policy that allows traders to act and or transact without interference fromgovernment. According to the law of comparative advantage the policy permits trading partners mutual gains fromtrade of goods and services.Under a free trade policy, prices are a reflection of true supply and demand, and are the sole determinant of resourceallocation. Free trade differs from other forms of trade policy where the allocation of goods and services amongtrading countries are determined by artificial prices that may or may not reflect the true nature of supply anddemand. These artificial prices are the result of protectionist trade policies, whereby governments intervene in themarket through price adjustments and supply restrictions. Such government interventions can increase as well asdecrease the cost of goods and services to both consumers and producers.Interventions include subsidies, taxes and tariffs, non-tariff barriers, such as regulatory legislation and quotas, andeven inter-government managed trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) andCentral America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) (contrary to their formal titles) and any governmental marketintervention resulting in artificial prices.

Free trade 2

Most states conduct trade policies that are to a lesser or greater degree protectionist.[1] One ubiquitous protectionistpolicy employed by states comes in the form of agricultural subsidies whereby countries attempt to protect theiragricultural industries from outside competition by creating artificial low prices for their agricultural goods.[2]

Free trade agreements are a key element of customs unions and free trade areas. The details and differences of theseagreements are covered in their respective articles.

In literatureThe value of free trade was first observed and documented by Adam Smith in his magnum opus, The Wealth ofNations, in 1776.[3] Later, David Ricardo made a case for free trade by presenting a specialized economic prooffeaturing a single factor of production with constant productivity of labor in two goods, but with relative productivitybetween the goods different across two countries.[3] Ricardo's model demonstrated the benefits of trading viaspecialization—states could acquire more than their labor alone would permit them to produce. This basic modelultimately led to the formation of one of the fundamental laws of economics: The Law of Comparative Advantage.The Law of Comparative Advantage states that each member in a group of trading partners should specialize in andproduce the goods in which they possess lowest opportunity costs relative to other trading partners. Thisspecialization permits trading partners to then exchange their goods produced as a function of specialization. Under apolicy of free trade, trade via specialization maximizes labor, wealth and quantity of goods produce, exceeding whatan equal number of autarkic states could produce.

Features of free tradeFree trade implies the following features:• trade of goods without taxes (including tariffs) or other trade barriers (e.g., quotas on imports or subsidies for

producers)• trade in services without taxes or other trade barriers• The absence of "trade-distorting" policies (such as taxes, subsidies, regulations, or laws) that give some firms,

households, or factors of production an advantage over others• Free access to markets• Free access to market information• Inability of firms to distort markets through government-imposed monopoly or oligopoly power• The free movement of labor between and within countries• The free movement of capital between and within countries

For more detailed arguments in favor of and against free trade, see: Free trade debate.

Free trade 3

A South Korean container ship approaching the Bay Bridge in San Francisco Bay.

History of free trade

Before the appearance of Free Tradedoctrine, and continuing in opposition to itto this day, the policy of mercantilism haddeveloped in Europe in the 16th century.Early economists opposed to mercantilismwere David Ricardo and Adam Smith.

Economists that advocated free tradebelieved trade was the reason why certaincivilizations prospered economically. AdamSmith, for example, pointed to increasedtrading as being the reason for theflourishing of not just Mediterraneancultures such as Egypt, Greece, and Rome,but also of Bengal (East India) and China. The great prosperity of the Netherlands after throwing off SpanishImperial rule and pursuing a policy of free trade[4] made the free trade/mercantilist dispute the most importantquestion in economics for centuries. Free trade policies have battled with mercantilist, protectionist, isolationist,communist, populist, and other policies over the centuries.

Wars have been fought over trade, such as the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta, the Opium Warsbetween China and Great Britain, and other colonial wars. All developed countries have used protectionism due to aninterest in raising revenues, protecting infant industries, special interest pressure, and, prior to the 19th century, abelief in mercantilism.Many classical liberals, especially in 19th and early 20th century Britain (e.g. John Stuart Mill) and in the UnitedStates for much of the 20th century (e.g. Cordell Hull), believed that free trade promoted peace. The Britisheconomist John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946) was brought up on this belief, which underpinned his criticism of theTreaty of Versailles in 1919 for the damage it did to the interdependent European economy. After a brief flirtationwith protectionism in the early 1930s, he came again to favour free trade so long as it was combined withinternationally coordinated domestic economic policies to promote high levels of employment, and internationaleconomic institutions that meant that the interests of countries were not pitted against each other. In thesecircumstances, 'the wisdom of Adam Smith' again applied, he said.Some degree of Protectionism is nevertheless the norm throughout the world. In most developed nations,controversial agricultural tariffs are maintained. From 1820 to 1980, the average tariffs on manufactures in twelveindustrial countries ranged from 11 to 32%. In the developing world, average tariffs on manufactured goods areapproximately 34%.[5] :66

Currently, the World Bank believes that, at most, rates of 20% can be allowed by developing nations; but Ha-Joon Chang believes higher levels may be justified because the productivity gap between developing and developed nations is much higher than the productivity gap which industrial countries faced. (A general feature is that the underdeveloped nations of today are not in the same position that the developed nations were in when they had a similar level of technology, because they are weak players in a competitive system; the developed nations have always been strong players, although formerly at an overall lower level.) If the main defense of tariffs is to stimulate infant industries, a tariff must be high enough to allow domestic manufactured goods to compete for the tariff to be possibly successful. This theory, known as import substitution industrialization, is largely considered to be ineffective for currently developing nations,[6] :311 and studies by the World Bank have determined that export-oriented industrialization policies correlate with higher economic growth as observed with the Four Asian

Free trade 4

Tigers. These assessments are based mainly on theory and observational study of correlations, and thus suffer from anumber of weaknesses such as small sample size and numerous confounding variables (see the critical reviewsection below).

The United States and free trade

Free Trade clipper ship

Trade in colonial America wasregulated by the British mercantilesystem through the Acts of Trade andNavigation. Until the 1760s, fewcolonists openly advocated for freetrade, in part because regulations werenot strictly enforced—New Englandwas famous for smuggling—but alsobecause colonial merchants did notwant to compete with foreign goodsand shipping. According to historianOliver Dickerson, a desire for freetrade was not one of the causes of theAmerican Revolution. "The idea thatthe basic mercantile practices of theeighteenth century were wrong," wrote Dickerson, "was not a part of the thinking of the Revolutionary leaders".[7]

Free trade came to what would become the United States as a result of American Revolutionary War, when theBritish Parliament issued the Prohibitory Act, blockading colonial ports. The Continental Congress responded byeffectively declaring economic independence, opening American ports to foreign trade on April 6, 1776. Accordingto historian John W. Tyler, "Free trade had been forced on the Americans, like it or not."[8]

The 1st U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, advocated tariffs to help protect infant industries in his"Report on Manufactures." This was a minority position, though the "Jeffersonians" strongly opposed for the mostpart. Later, in the 19th century, statesmen such as Senator Henry Clay continued Hamilton's themes within the WhigParty under the name "American System." The opposition Democratic Party contested several elections throughoutthe 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s in part over the issue of the tariff and protection of industry. The Democratic Partyfavored moderate tariffs used for government revenue only, while the Whig's favored higher protective tariffs toprotect favored industries. The economist Henry Charles Carey became a leading proponent of the "AmericanSystem" of economics. This mercantilist "American System" was opposed by the Democratic Party of AndrewJackson, Martin Van Buren, James K. Polk, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan.The fledgling Republican Party led by Abraham Lincoln, who called himself a "Henry Clay tariff Whig," stronglyopposed free trade and implemented a 44 percent tariff during the Civil War in part to pay for railroad subsidies, thewar effort, and to protect favored industries.[9] President William McKinley stated the United States' stance under theRepublican Party (which won every election for President until 1912, except the two non-consecutive terms ofGrover Cleveland) as thus:

"Under free trade the trader is the master and the producer the slave. Protection is but the law of nature, the law of self-preservation, of self-development, of securing the highest and best destiny of the race of man. [It is said] that protection is immoral…. Why, if protection builds up and elevates 63,000,000 [the U.S. population] of people, the influence of those 63,000,000 of people elevates the rest of the world. We cannot take a step in the pathway of progress without benefitting mankind everywhere. Well, they say, ‘Buy where you can buy the cheapest'…. Of course, that applies to labor as to everything else. Let me give you a maxim that is a thousand times better than that, and it is the protection maxim: ‘Buy

Free trade 5

where you can pay the easiest.' And that spot of earth is where labor wins its highest rewards."[10]

On the other side:The growing Free Trade Movement sought an end to the tariffs and corruption in state and federalgovernments by every means available to them, leading to several outcomes. The first and most important wasthe rise of the Democratic Party with Grover Cleveland at its helm. The next most important were the rise ofthe "Mugwumps" within the Republican party. For many Jeffersonian radicals, neither went far enough orsufficiently effective in their efforts and looked for alternatives.The first major movement of the radical Jeffersonians evolved from the insights of a young journalist andfirebrand, Henry George. - Kenneth R. Gregg, George Mason University History News Network

The tariff and support of protection to support the growth of infrastructure and industrialization of the nation becamea leading tenet of the Republican Party thereafter until the Eisenhower administration and the onset of the Cold War,when the Democratic and Republican parties switched positions.Since the end of World War II, in part due to industrial supremacy and the onset of the Cold War, the U.S.government has become one of the most consistent proponents of reduced tariff barriers and free trade, havinghelped establish the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and later the World Trade Organization(WTO); although it had rejected an earlier version in the 1950s (International Trade Organization or ITO). Since the1970s U.S. government has negotiated numerous managed trade agreements, such as the North American Free TradeAgreement (NAFTA) in the 1990s, the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) in2006, and a number of bilateral agreements (such as with Jordan).

Current status

Current free trade areas with more than three member countries.

Most (but not all) countries in theworld are members of the World TradeOrganization (see map), which limitsin certain ways but does not eliminatetariffs and other trade barriers. Mostcountries are also members of regionalfree trade areas (see map) which lowertrade barriers among participatingcountries.

Most countries prohibit foreign airlinesfrom cabotage (transporting passengers

between two domestic locations), and foreign landing rights are generally restricted, but open skies agreements havebecome more common.

Notable contemporary trade barriers include ongoing tariffs, import quotas, sanctions and embargoes, currencymanipulation of the Chinese yuan with respect to the U.S. dollar, agricultural subsidies in developed countries, andbuy American laws.

Free trade 6

Status of WTO negotiations:      members (including dual-representation with theEuropean Union)      Draft Working Party Report or Factual Summary adopted     Goods and/or Services offers submitted      Memorandum on Foreign Trade

Regime submitted      observer, negotiations to start later or no Memorandum onFTR submitted      frozen procedures or no negotiations in the last 3 years      no

official interaction with the WTO

Economics of free trade

Economic models

Two simple ways to understand thepotential benefits of free trade arethrough David Ricardo's theory ofcomparative advantage and byanalyzing the impact of a tariff orimport quota.

The pink regions are the net loss to society caused by the existence of the tariff.

A simple economic analysis using thelaw of supply and demand and theeconomic effects of a tax can be usedto show the theoretical benefits of freetrade.[11]

The chart at the right analyzes theeffect of the imposition of an importtariff on some imaginary good. Prior tothe tariff, the price of the good in theworld market (and hence in thedomestic market) is Pworld. The tariffincreases the domestic price to Ptariff.The higher price causes domesticproduction to increase from QS1 to QS2

and causes domestic consumption todecline from QC1 to QC2. This hasthree main effects on societal welfare.Consumers are made worse offbecause the consumer surplus (greenregion) becomes smaller. Producers arebetter off because the producer surplus(yellow region) is made larger. Thegovernment also has additional tax revenue (blue region). However, the loss to consumers is greater than the gainsby producers and the government. The magnitude of this societal loss is shown by the two pink triangles. Removingthe tariff and having free trade would be a net gain for society.[12] [13]

An almost identical analysis of this tariff from the perspective of a net producing country yields parallel results. From that country's perspective, the tariff leaves producers worse off and consumers better off, but the net loss to producers is larger than the benefit to consumers (there is no tax revenue in this case because the country being analyzed is not collecting the tariff). Under similar analysis, export tariffs, import quotas, and export quotas all yield

Free trade 7

nearly identical results. Sometimes consumers are better off and producers worse off, and sometimes consumers areworse off and producers are better off, but the imposition of trade restrictions causes a net loss to society because thelosses from trade restrictions are larger than the gains from trade restrictions. Free trade creates winners and losers,but theory and empirical evidence show that the size of the winnings from free trade are larger than the losses.[11]

Trade diversionAccording to mainstream economic theory, global free trade is a net benefit to society, but the selective applicationof free trade agreements to some countries and tariffs on others can sometimes lead to economic inefficiency throughthe process of trade diversion. It is economically efficient for a good to be produced by the country which is thelowest cost producer, but this will not always take place if a high cost producer has a free trade agreement while thelow cost producer faces a high tariff. Applying free trade to the high cost producer (and not the low cost producer aswell) can lead to trade diversion and a net economic loss. This is why many economists place such high importanceon negotiations for global tariff reductions, such as the Doha Round.[11]

Opinion of economistsThe literature analysing the economics of free trade is extremely rich with extensive work having been done on thetheoretical and empirical effects. Though it creates winners and losers, the broad consensus among members of theeconomics profession in the U.S. is that free trade is a large and unambiguous net gain for society.[14] [15] In a 2006survey of American economists (83 responders), "87.5% agree that the U.S. should eliminate remaining tariffs andother barriers to trade" and "90.1% disagree with the suggestion that the U.S. should restrict employers fromoutsourcing work to foreign countries."[16]

Quoting Harvard economics professor N. Gregory Mankiw, "Few propositions command as much consensus amongprofessional economists as that open world trade increases economic growth and raises living standards."[17]

Nonetheless, quoting Prof. Peter Soderbaum of Malardalen University, Sweden, "This neoclassical trade theoryfocuses on one dimension, i.e., the price at which a commodity can be delivered and is extremely narrow in cuttingoff a large number of other considerations about impacts on employment in different parts of the world, aboutenvironmental impacts and on culture." [18]

Most free traders would agree that although increasing returns to scale might mean that certain industry could insettle in a geographical area without any strong economic reason derived from comparative advantage, this is not areason to argue against free trade because the absolute level of output enjoyed by both "winner" and "loser" willincrease with the "winner" gaining more than the "loser" but both gaining more than before in an absolute level.Chang argues otherwise, saying that the economy could shrink as a result, and that some people being worse off dueto trade displacement without recourse to welfare assistance to find a better job (as might be expected in poorcountries) is not acceptable.[19]

In an assessment of the literature on the theory and empirical research relating to the benefits of free trade, SonaliDeraniyagala and Ben Fine found that much of the work was flawed, and concluded that the extent to which freetrade benefits economic development is unknown.[20] Theoretical arguments are largely dependent upon specificempirical assumptions which may or may not hold true. In the empirical literature, many studies suggest therelationship is ambiguous, and the data and econometrics underlying a set of empirical papers showing positiveresults have been critiqued. The best of these papers use a simplified model, and the worst involve the regression ofan index of economic performance on an index of openness to trade, with a mix of these two approaches common. Insome cases, Deraniyagala and Fine claim, these indexes of openness actually reflect trade volume rather than policyorientation. They also observe that it is difficult to disentangle the effects of reverse causality and numerousexogenous variables.In Kicking Away the Ladder, Ha-Joon Chang reviews the history of free trade policies and economic growth, and notes that many of the now-industrialized countries had significant barriers to trade throughout their history.

Free trade 8

Protectionism under the auspices of the infant industry argument (related to import substitution industrialization),was first pursued by Alexander Hamilton in the 1790s in opposition to the admonition of Adam Smith, who advisedthat the United States focus on agriculture, where it had a comparative advantage. In the 1840s Friedrich List, knownas the father of the infant industry argument,[5] :3 advocated the infant industry argument for Germany. Chang'sresearch shows that the United States and Britain, sometimes considered to be the homes of free trade policy, wereaggressive protectionists. Britain did end its protectionism when it achieved technological superiority in the late1850s with the repeal of the Corn Laws, but tariffs on manufactured products had returned to 23% by 1950. TheUnited States maintained weighted average tariffs on manufactured products of approximately 40-50% up until the1950s, augmented by the natural protectionism of high transportation costs in the 19th century.[5] :17 The mostconsistent practitioners of free trade have been Switzerland, the Netherlands, and to a lesser degree Belgium.[5] :59

Chang describes the export-oriented industrialization policies of the Asian Tigers as "far more sophisticated andfine-tuned than their historical equivalents".[5] :50

OppositionThe relative costs, benefits and beneficiaries of free trade are debated by academics, governments and interestgroups. A number of arguments for and against in the ongoing public debate can be seen in the free trade debatearticle.Arguments for protectionism fall into the economic category (trade hurts the economy) or the moral category (theeffects of trade might help the economy, but have ill effects in other areas); a general argument against free trade isthat it is colonialism or imperialism in disguise. The moral category is wide, including concerns of incomeinequality, environmental degradation, supporting child labor and sweatshops, race to the bottom, wage slavery,accentuating poverty in poor countries, harming national defense, and forcing cultural change.[21]

Free trade is often opposed by domestic industries that would have their profits and market share reduced by lowerprices for imported goods.[22] [23] For example, if United States tariffs on imported sugar were reduced, U.S. sugarproducers would receive lower prices and profits, while U.S. sugar consumers would spend less for the same amountof sugar because of those same lower prices. The economic theory of David Ricardo holds that consumers wouldnecessarily gain more than producers would lose.[24] [25] Since each of those few domestic sugar producers wouldlose a lot while each of a great number of consumers would gain only a little, domestic producers are more likely tomobilize against the lifting of tariffs.[23] More generally, producers often favor domestic subsidies and tariffs onimports in their home countries, while objecting to subsidies and tariffs in their export markets.Socialists frequently oppose free trade on the ground that it allows maximum exploitation of workers by capital. Forexample, Karl Marx wrote in The Communist Manifesto, "The bourgeoisie... has set up that single, unconscionablefreedom -- Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substitutednaked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation." Nonetheless, Marx favored free trade solely [26] because he felt that itwould hasten the social revolution. To those who oppose socialism, this becomes an argument against free trade."Free trade" is opposed by many anti-globalization groups, based on their assertion that free trade agreementsgenerally do not increase the economic freedom of the poor or the working class, and frequently make them poorer.Where the foreign supplier allows de facto exploitation of labor, domestic free-labor is unfairly forced to competewith the foreign exploited labor, and thus the domestic "working class would gradually be forced down to the levelof helotry." [27] To this extent, free trade is seen as nothing more than an end-run around laws that protect individualliberty, such as the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (outlawing slavery and indenturedservitude). In this regard, protective trade policies are seen, not so much as protecting domestic producers, but rather,as protecting liberty itself. This argument actually comports with the economic analysis of Free Trade to the extentthat "slavery and perfect competition equilibria are Pareto optimal." [28] Thus, while admitting that some gain inefficiency might be realized in the short term by implementation of free trade policies, the long-term question of thecost of that efficiency in terms of loss of liberty remains.

Free trade 9

It is important to distinguish between arguments against free trade theory, and free trade agreements as applied.Some opponents of NAFTA see the agreement as being materially harmful to the common people, but some of thearguments are actually against the particulars of government-managed trade, rather than against free trade per se. Forexample, it is argued [29] that it would be wrong to let subsidized corn from the U.S. into Mexico freely underNAFTA at prices well below production cost (dumping) because of its ruinous effects to Mexican farmers. Ofcourse, such subsidies violate free trade theory, so this argument is not actually against the principle of free trade, butrather its selective implementation.Latin America performed poorly since tariff cuts in 1980s and 1990s, compared to protectionist China and SoutheastAsia. According to Samuelson, it is wrong to assume a necessary surplus of winnings over losings. The paper, "Willinventions A or B lower or raise the new market-clearing real wage rates that sustain high-to-full employment"condemned "economists' over-simple complacency about globalization" and said that workers don't always win.Some economists try to emphasize that trade barriers should exist to help poor nations build domestic industries andgive rich nations time to retrain workers.[30]

ColonialismIt has long been argued that free trade is a form of colonialism or imperialism, a position taken by variousproponents of economic nationalism and the school of mercantilism. In the 19th century these criticized British callsfor free trade as cover for British Empire, notably in the works of American Henry Clay, architect of the AmericanSystem[31] and by German American economist Friedrich List.[32]

More recently, Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa has denounced the "sophistry of free trade" in an introduction hewrote for a book titled The Hidden Face of Free Trade Accords, written in part by Correa's current Energy MinisterAlberto Acosta. Citing as his source the book Kicking Away the Ladder [33], written by Ha-Joon Chang, Correaidentified the difference between an "American system" opposed to a "British System" of free trade. The latter, hesays, was explicitly viewed by the Americans as "part of the British imperialist system." According to Correa, Changshowed that it was Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, and not Friedrich List, who was the first to present asystematic argument defending industrial protectionism.

AlternativesThe following alternatives for free trade are proposed: balanced trade, fair trade, protectionism and Tobin tax.

PromotersOn April 1, 2009, The Freedom to Trade Coalition [34] - an initiative of the International Policy Network and theAtlas Economic Research Foundation, comprising over 76 civil society organization from 48 countries - launched anopen letter calling on all governments to eliminate trade barriers.Signatories include Nobel Prize winning economist Vernon L. Smith, former U.S. Secretary of State George P.Shultz, former Prime Minister of Estonia Mart Laar, former Kremlin chief economist Andrei Illarionov and manyother eminent economists, philosophers and other academics. In total, over 3,000 people have so far signed the letterincluding over 1,000 academics.Warning of the dangers of resurgent protectionism, the letter observes: " Protectionism creates poverty, notprosperity. Protectionism doesn't even "protect" domestic jobs or industries; it destroys them, by harming exportindustries and industries that rely on imports to make their goods. Raising local prices of steel by "protecting" localsteel companies just raises the cost of producing cars and the many other goods made with steel. Protectionism is afool's game."The Freedom to Trade coalition has also committed itself to monitoring the actions of government around the world.

Free trade 10

See alsoConcepts/topics:

• Protectionism• Free trade area• Free trade debate• Free trade zone• Fair trade• International trade• Trade barrier• Trade war• Dumping (pricing policy)• Trade war over genetically modified food• Offshore outsourcing• Offshoring• Borderless Selling• Balanced trade• Trade bloc• Mercantilism• Laissez-faire• Economic globalizationTrade organizations:

• General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)• World Trade Organization (WTO)• North American Free Trade Agreement• European Union

References[1] http:/ / www. export. gov/ logistics/ country_tariff_info. asp[2] http:/ / www. wto. org/ english/ thewto_e/ whatis_e/ tif_e/ org6_e. htm[3] Bhagwati, Jagdish (2002). Free trade today. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press. pp. 3. ISBN 0691091560.[4] Appleby, Joyce (2010). The Relentless Revolution: A History of Capitalism. New York, New York: W.W. Norton & Company.[5] Chang HJ. (2002). Kicking Away the Ladder. Anthem Press. ISBN 978-1843310273[6] Thomas A. Pugel. International Economics 13th edition[7] Oliver M. Dickerson, The Navigation Acts and the American Revolution (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1951), 140.[8] John W. Tyler, Smugglers & Patriots: Boston Merchants and the Advent of the American Revolution (Boston: Northeastern University Press,

1986; ISBN 0-930350-76-6), 238.[9] (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20060106154801/ http:/ / www. newamerica. net/ index. cfm?pg=article& DocID=1080) Lind, Michael. New

America Foundation.[10] William McKinley speech, Oct. 4, 1892 in Boston, MA William McKinley Papers (Library of Congress)[11] Steven E. Landsburg "Price Theory and Applications" Sixth Edition Chapter 8[12] ALan C. Stockamn "Introduction to Economics" Second Edition Chapter 9[13] N. Gregory Mankiw "Macroeconomics" Fifth Edition Chapter 7[14] Fuller, Dan; Geide-Stevenson (Fall 2003). "Consensus Among Economists: Revisited" (http:/ / www. indiana. edu/ ~econed/ pdffiles/ fall03/

fuller. pdf) (PDF). Journal of Economic Review 34 (4): 369–387. .[15] Friedman, Milton. "The Case for Free Trade" (http:/ / www. hoover. org/ publications/ digest/ 3550727. html). Hoover Digest 1997 (4). .[16] Whaples, Robert (2006). "Do Economists Agree on Anything? Yes!". The Economists' Voice 3 (9). doi:10.2202/1553-3832.1156.[17] Mankiw, Gregory (2006-05-07). "Outsourcing Redux" (http:/ / gregmankiw. blogspot. com/ 2006/ 05/ outsourcing-redux. html). . Retrieved

2007-01-22.[18] Post-Autistic Economics Review, Sept 2007[19] Bad Samaritans. Bloomsberry Press, 2008.

Free trade 11

[20] Fine, Ben. (2006). The New Development Economics: After Washington Consensus, pp. 46-50. Zed Books.[21] Boudreaux, Don Globalization, 2007[22] William Baumol and Alan Blinder, Economics: Principles and Policy (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=NNRU3b_tE7cC&

pg=PA761& dq=principles+ of+ economics+ protectionism& lr=& sig=AZOXuB-1wbnk9VAUB1B291dhoTs#PPA722,M1), p. 722.[23] Brakman, Steven; Harry Garretsen, Charles Van Marrewijk, Arjen Van Witteloostuijn (2006). Nations and Firms in the Global Economy :

An Introduction to International Economics and Business. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521832984.[24] Richard L. Stroup, James D. Gwartney, Russell S. Sobel, Economics: Private and Public Choice (http:/ / books. google. com/

books?id=1cklAwAVAgkC& pg=PA45& dq=gains+ from+ trade& sig=CLdppY1FYyQpWYu5FsdmALn1YaI#PPA46,M1), p. 46.[25] Pugel, Thomas A. (2003). International economics. Boston: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 007119875X.[26] "It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade." Marx, Karl On the Question of Free Trade (http:/ /

www. marxists. org/ archive/ marx/ works/ 1848/ 01/ 09ft. htm#marx) Speech to the Democratic Association of Brussels at its public meetingof January 9, 1848

[27] Marx, Karl The Civil War in the United States (http:/ / www. marxists. org/ archive/ marx/ works/ 1861/ 11/ 07. htm), ¶ 23.[28] Haluk, Serdar, A Microeconomic Analysis of Slavery in Comparison to Free Labor (http:/ / 129. 3. 20. 41/ eps/ eh/ papers/ 9710/ 9710001.

pdf) Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey[29] Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy (http:/ / www. tradeobservatory. org/ showFile. php?RefID=19304) NAFTA Truth and

Consequences: Corn[30] Job prospects: Pain from free trade spurs second thoughts; Mr. Blinder's shift spotlights warnings of deeper downside, David Wessel and

Bob Davis. Wall Street Journal, 28 March 2007, p. A1[31] "Gentlemen deceive themselves. It is not free trade that they are recommending to our acceptance. It is, in effect, the British colonial system

that we are invited to adopt; and, if their policy prevail, it will lead, substantially, to the recolonization of these States, under the commercialdominion of Great Britain.", "In Defense of the American System, Against the British Colonial System." 1832, Feb 2, 3, and 6, Clay, Henry(1843). The Life and Speeches of Henry Clay. II. pp. pp. 23–24 (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=Biyh3OmxhOMC& pg=PA23)

[32] "Had the English left everything to itself—'Laissez faire, laissez aller', as the popular economical school recommends—the [German]merchants of the Steelyard would be still carrying on their trade in London, the Belgians would be still manufacturing cloth for the English,England would have still continued to be the sheep-farm of the Hansards, just as Portugal became the vineyard of England, and has remainedso till our days, owing to the stratagem of a cunning diplomatist."

[33] http:/ / www. paecon. net/ PAEtexts/ Chang1. htm[34] http:/ / www. freedomtotrade. org

Article Sources and Contributors 12

Article Sources and ContributorsFree trade  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=395916486  Contributors: 08alkaab, 1776, 4twenty42o, 66windy66, A Man In Black, Adam Faanes, AdultSwim, Ageekgal,Akriasas, Al B. Free, Aldaron, Alexf, Alinor, Alisahuang, Allixpeeke, Ams80, Ancheta Wis, Andrelvis, Andrzej Kmicic, Angelbo, Anna Lincoln, Anthere, Antodav2007, Apothecia, Asbestos,Asc99c, Astudent, AtD, Atlastawake, Atreyu42, Austin512, Azn king28, Bakersville, Bart133, Beland, Betacommand, Billy 23rules, Blue, BobRowen, Bobblewik, Bobet, Bobjones, Bobo192,Bobrayner, Bogglevit, Briaboru, Bryan Derksen, BryceHarrington, Bstein80, Bubuka, CALR, CM732, Calton, CambridgeBayWeather, CanisRufus, Cargirl, Carl.bunderson, CaseyPenk,Cflm001, Cherlin, Chessstoria, Closedmouth, Cluckshot, Cmck1980, Cmdrjameson, Coelacan, Comrade Tux, Coppertwig, Crabula, Crazynas, Cretog8, D, D-Rock, DTMGO, DaGizza,Dadofsam, Damnedkingdom, Daniel,levine, DanielEng, Davidandrade, Digmores, DiiCinta, Djembayz, Dlohcierekim, DocendoDiscimus, Docu, Doopdoop, DouglasGreen, Dpv, Dr.P.Madhu,Dr.enh, Drbecke, Drewwiki, Dtrebbien, Duncharris, Dupz, Dzordzm, Dúnadan, Eastlaw, Ed Poor, Edcolins, Edward, Edwardjacobs123, Effeietsanders, Emilfaro, Emmisa, Ericbalkan, EscapeOrbit, EthanolRules, Etherialemperor, Evercat, Everyking, Exeunt, F5487jin4, FF2010, FLetch, Fanatix, FatalError, Fayenatic london, Fconaway, Feco, Feitclub, Fnorp, Former user,Freedomwarrior, Fxcxt, Gadfium, Gaius Cornelius, Gary King, Georgette2, Gerd Zeitler, Gr8opinionater, GraemeL, Grafen, Grampion76, Gregalton, Ground Zero, Grsz11, HaeB, Hajor, Hanacy,Harel, Heroicme, Hmains, HonourableSchoolboy, Hoopsboy015, Hoporr, HowardJ87, Hu12, Huntthetroll, Husond, IJA, Imoeng, ImperfectlyInformed, Intangible, Iridescent, Ixfd64, J.R.Hercules, J.delanoy, JFlin5, JYolkowski, JamesBWatson, Janette.quennell, Jhilsua, JinJ, Jinzmatt, Jmlan1, JoanneB, Joel Kincaid, Johansosa, John Asfukzenski, John of Reading, John wesley,Johnny Au, Johnwatson1, Jomasecu, Jonathan Hall, Joseph Solis in Australia, Josephholsten, Joshsmith65536, Jossi, Jpeob, JzG, Kanzei, Kbthompson, Kelsomallette, Kemkeris, Kenneth MBurke, Kevin Myers, Killerw3, King of Hearts, Kjoonlee, KrakatoaKatie, Kuru, Kyle Barbour, KyleP, La Pianista, La la ooh, Langara College, Larklight, Larrytheordinarydragon, Lawrencekhoo,Ld100, Le Emu, Less Than Free, Leuko, Libertaar, Liftarn, LindaMWilliams, Linkspamremover, LordCodeman, Loupeter, Lowellian, Lozeldafan, MER-C, Madchester, Malerin, Maniago,Manuelhp42, MarkSutton, MastCell, MattShepherd, Maurreen, Meelar, Meeples, Mgunn, Mgw, Michael Hardy, Mild Bill Hiccup, Miquonranger03, Mjk2357, Mjolnir1984, Mnemeson, Modster,Morphh, Morphling89, Mydogategodshat, Mygerardromance, Mynameiswill, Nailedtooth, Nakon, NantucketNoon, Nat Krause, NawlinWiki, Nbarth, Nbauman, Nige, Nikodemos, Niku,NinjaDeEr, NodnarbLlad, Noisy, Northmeister, Nsaa, Ohnoitsjamie, Ojuice5001, OlEnglish, Olivierchaussavoine, Onorem, Orangebanana920, Orangemonster2k1, Organ123, Oxymoron83,PBS27, Parkjunwung, PatrickFlaherty, Pax:Vobiscum, Pcarswell, Pde, PedroPerez, Petri Krohn, Pgan002, Pharaoh of the Wizards, PhilLiberty, Philip Trueman, Political Guru, Politician,Postcrypto, ProcureNET, Promethean, Psjones, Purpleturple, R Lowry, R-cook-1, Rd232, Redmarkviolinist, Redquark, RexNL, Riana, Rich Farmbrough, Rjwilmsi, Roadrunner, RobWatson,Rohitrrrrr, Rolofft, Ron Paul...Ron Paul..., RoyBoy, Rubicon, SEWilco, SURIV, Sageo, Salvor Hardin, Samuraieditor, Sandstein, Satipatthana, Savager, Saxifrage, Scientizzle, Seajay,Seung1won, Shaunjason, SimonP, Sjakkalle, Skyezx, Snoofthemaster, Snowolf, Someguy1221, Sonicspike41, Spazroid13, Spencer, Srdone, Starnestommy, Stephenb, Stevertigo, Stratvic,Tabletop, Tamfang, Tang23, Tapsearcher, Terence, Teryx, The Cunctator, The feller, Theaterfreak64, Themightyquill, Theresa knott, Thomas Paine1776, Titoxd, Tmh, TobleRone, Tommy2010,TransUtopian, Trollderella, Tulandro, Twerges, Unilli, Urthogie, Utcursch, Valdis72, VegaDark, Veinor, Venus to mars, Vilerage, Vincentl, Vision Thing, Volunteer Marek, Voyagerfan5761,WGee, Walkerma, Wavelength, Wayne Olajuwon, Wikidudeman, Will Beback, Wmcg, Wolfrock, Woohookitty, WookieInHeat, Wragge, Wynford, Wysprgr2005, Xyzzyplugh, Ya zneyeu, Zackwadghiri, 861 ,67دمحم anonymous edits

Image Sources, Licenses and ContributorsImage:ShippingContainerSFBay.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:ShippingContainerSFBay.jpg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: MgunnImage:freetradeclipper.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Freetradeclipper.jpg  License: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0  Contributors: DjembayzFile:Free Trade Areas.PNG  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Free_Trade_Areas.PNG  License: Public Domain  Contributors: User:EmilfaroImage:World Trade Organization negotiations.svg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:World_Trade_Organization_negotiations.svg  License: GNU Free DocumentationLicense  Contributors: User:Cflm001Image:EffectOfTariff.svg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:EffectOfTariff.svg  License: unknown  Contributors: User:Austin512

LicenseCreative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unportedhttp:/ / creativecommons. org/ licenses/ by-sa/ 3. 0/