"Free" Trade

In mercantilism, a positive trade balance is representative of a country's power. Harnessing manipulative economic policies, nation-states hustle to gain the biggest slice of the proverbial pie. The basic principal behind this was the concept that capital is fungible. That is, amassing a great deal of wealth translates into a powerful army and therefore a greater stance in the global community. After World War II, however, it became increasingly obvious that free trade held significantly more benefits than the antiquated "king-of-the-hill" mercantilist theory. Comparative advantage (a trade principal which argues that economic interdependence benefits all parties) not only resulted in greater wealth but theoretically a reduction in the very nationalism that fueled the War to end all wars.

Thank goodness we've taken a step away from the cutthroat, self-serving tactics which destabilize relationships between countries and perpetuate an "us" versus "them" mentality... Oh, wait. If the trade we have in the world today is "free" then so too is Myanmar. While WWII saw the Axis and the Allies, the 21st century will see circles that share political values and goals. Countries are stepping away from global agreements and towards smaller, more easily influenced regional agreements where powerful countries are better able to get their way (NAFTA). Countries such as China will dilute their currency to artificially inseminate their country with a positive trade balance that may benefit power-holders but damages their citizens as well as their ties to countries with similar exports. Subsidies for American neo-farms (which, by the way, are a far cry from the barns and stables we tend to picture) allow copious amounts of harvested food to be wasted all in the name of protecting crop prices... That's right, protecting. As in, protectionism! What is free about these manipulative economic policies that destroy the working class base of export-reliant economies? One can argue that America is not export reliant, but consider the vast number of jobs that get exported by American companies...

Proponents of fair trade are not necessarily opposed to free trade. It is the age old argument of nomenclature against nature. We can call it "free trade" all we like, but in essence it is nothing short of neo-mercantilism. We ask not for the abolishment of free trade, but rather the establishment of truly free trade. If not that, then trade that more justly benefits the many rather than the few. Trade that encourages interdependence and peace rather than hostility and factions. Above all, trade with convictions about wages, working conditions and the population that, without which, the upper-crust would undoubtedly be lost.