Foreign Policy Free Trade: While it's economic benefits are discussed constantly, free trade has been known to produce large amounts and consistent amounts of peace. In the 19th century, Europe experienced a remarkably long period of peace. Key to this “golden age” was the decision of the British Parliament to repeal virtually all tariffs and other restrictions on trade with foreign nations. After that, most of Europe joined England in this free trading, lasting for more than half a century. However, Politicians, for selfish motives, don’t always agree with what is working and what the public favors. Nations such as Germany began to have restrictions on foreign trade, and French economist Frederic Bastiat warned, "when goods don't cross borders, soldiers may,” This is just what happened, militarism and secret allies took over free trade and the whole continent of Europe went to war in one of the most pointless wars of all time in World War I, and also caused the destruction and chaos caused by World War II. Without free trade, nations get nothing but war. The United States of America does benefit from being a huge free trade zone internally, externally politicians have been reckless in restrictions and tariffs. Perhaps the biggest example of this is the smoot-hawley tariff issued by president Hoover. This caused an international trade war almost destroying international commerce, the Great Depression, and the previously elluded to, World War II. Armed Neutrality: The military budget of the US, approximately $700 billion, is roughly the same as the military budgets from every country in the world. If the US military budget were to be cut in half, it would still be the largest budget in the world, if it were cut in half again, ... ... middle of paper ... ...nti-terrorism is to take all US troops out of the middle east, stop changing and overthrowing middle eastern governments, and stop the government-to-government aid currently done by the US government. Peace: It is time for the US to not only take its troops out of the middle east, but everywhere around the globe such as Europe and the Pacific, its time to drop all barriers on trade and travel, and turn foes into allies. Polls taken elsewhere around the globe consistently indicate that people around the world have respect for and favor American citizens far over the US government and admire America’s consistent productivity and a land of opportunity. America as a whole once had that great and honorable reputation and we have a great opportunity to restore peace and unity in our country as well as the world by restoring that great and honorable reputation.
In the acclaimed novel, The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protectionism, author Russell Roberts, an economist and writer, tells a fictional story that enlightens readers to the wonders of the economic system. Russell provides an insightful, thought provoking story that illustrates protectionism and free trade, while making the concepts and arguments easy to comprehend.
As America heads into a new year, we find our government tightening its purse strings and cracking down on excessive spending, with an emphasis on the US military. According to author Brad Plumer, a reporter at the Washington Post, “U.S. defense spending is expected to have risen in 2012, to about $729 billion, and then is set to fall in 2013 to $716 billion, as spending caps start kicking in.” Pared with a more drastic 350 billion dollar cute going into effect over the next ten years, the military finds itself cutting what cost the most to maintain and support troops (Fact Sheet par. 2). In recent years the military has bolstered an overwhelming 1,468,364 troops (Active Duty). These numbers are to be cut substantially; the biggest cut is to be seen in the Army. The Army must deal with a reduction of 80,000 troops, cutting its force of 570,000 troops to nearly 140,000.Subsequently, the budget cuts, which have led to a reduction of troops in the military, has driven the military to turn to advanced weapons technology that requires less people to m...
In 1776, even as Adam Smith was championing the ideals of a free market economy, he recognized that the interests of national security far outweighed the principles of free trade. More then two centuries later, that sentiment proves to still be accurate and in use. Since the early 1900s, the United States has used this precept to defend its position on trade barriers to hostile nations, and through the majority of the century, that predominantly referred to the Soviet Union and its allies.
The United States is facing a large military budget spending issue with the Department of Defence reporting a cost of around $525.4 billion this past year. Washington Posts announced that, "The United States spent more on its military than the next 13 nations combined in 2011." While military spending is a large part of the government budget, and there is enough room to reduce spending as long as there are a set of precautions of which necessities the government cannot cut.
The United States has for over two centuries been involved in the growing world economy. While the U.S. post revolutionary war sought to protect itself from outside influences has since the great depression and world war two looked to break trade restrictions. The United States role in the global economy has grown throughout the 20th century and as a result of several historical events has adopted positions of both benefactor and dependent. The United States trade policy has over time shifted from isolationist protectionism to a commitment to establishing world-wide free trade. Free trade enterprise has developed and grown through organizations such as the WTO and NAFTA. The U.S. in order to obtain its free trade desires has implemented a number of policies that can be examined for both their benefits and flaws. Several trade policies exist as options to the United States, among these fair trade and free trade policies dominate the world economic market. In order to achieve economic growth the United States has a duty to maintain a global trade policy that benefits both domestic workers and industry. While free trade gives opportunities to large industries and wealthy corporate investors the American worker suffers job instability and lower wages. However fair trade policies that protect America’s workers do not help foster wide economic growth. The United States must then engage in economic trade policies that both protect the United States founding principles and secure for tomorrow greater economic stability.
The U.S. Military is a proud institution, on which we as a nation rely on, just as it relies on the funding and directing of the United States Congress. However, when compared to the rest of the world, the United States consistently outspends other countries on Military/Defense spending. So much so that the National Priorities Project (NPP) states that in 2013 “America spent 37% of the world’s total military spending. ” They go on to say that in 2015 “military spending (was) projected to account for 54% of all federal discretionary spending” which equates to about 600 billion dollars in federal spending towards defense and military.
In a world where people rush to purchase lottery tickets in the hopes of hitting a jackpot worth a few million, these expenditures are incomprehensible and may seem excessive; however, not everyone feels this way. In an article found on the U.S. Department of Defense’s website, the “DoD has done its best to manage through this prolonged period of budget uncertainty, the secretary said, making painful choices and tradeoffs” and that in “today’s security environment we need to be dynamic and we need to be responsive. What we have now is a straitjacket” (Pellerin, 2015). At the end of the day, it is all about who is being asked whether the defense budget is excessive; for those that do not feel an imminent threat is looming, the budget would seem over-the-top, but for those that either feel that a threat is imminent, or those working in the defense sector, would most likely be in favor of sustaining the current budget or increasing it. Furthermore, another topic to look at is how the United States compares with other countries on defense spending and is the difference validated?
Even thought here are many advantages to having a free trade zone and being a part of one, there are still some disadvantages that make them notoriously known. In places like El Salvador, there is a widespread amount of young adults and children. Among the age groups of sixteen to twenty-four is the highest percentage of factory workers. According to a census taken back in 2012, there was approximately 6.2 million people living in El Salvador; 64.4% of those people are under the age of thirty-five years old. You would think that with all the saved money from lowered costs and tax cuts that giving a more substantial salary to workers would not be a problem. El Salvador, on its international free trade zone website, makes it a staple to include
In 1993, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed by President Bill Clinton. It was said that Clinton hoped the agreement would encourage other nations to work toward a boarder world-trade pact. In 1994, the agreement came into effect, creating one of the world’s largest trade zones between United States, Canada, and Mexico.
While free trade has certainly changed with advances in technology and the ability to create external economies, the concept seems to be the most benign way for countries to trade with one another. Factoring in that imperfect competition and increasing returns challenge the concept of comparative advantage in modern international trade markets, the resulting introduction of government policies to regulate trade seems to result in increased tensions between countries as individual nations seek to gain advantages at the cost of others. While classical trade optimism may be somewhat naïve, the alternatives are risky and potentially harmful.
In their article, The Imperialism of Free Trade, John Gallagher and Ronald Robinson address the relationship between free trade and European imperialism in the 19th and 20th centuries. Gallagher and Robinson refute the traditional idea of the relationship between imperialism and free trade as being one of two elements in conflict, and instead pose the alternative theory that free trade was simply a tool of European imperialism. This proposition about the nature of the relationship between free trade and imperialism is hugely important in that it addresses types of European imperialism that are frequently overlooked and uncovers the vast amount of influence that European powers exerted even without the presence of traditional formal
As Ian Fletcher pointed out in Free Trade Doesn’t Work: What Should Replace it And Why, nations need a well-chosen balance between openness and closure toward the larger world economy (Fletc...
All nations can get the benefits of free trade by being specialized in producing goods they have a comparative advantage and then trade them with goods produced by other nations in the world. This is evidenced by comparative advantage theory. Trade depends on many factors, country's history, institution, size and. geographical position and many more. Also, the countries put trade barriers for the exchange of their goods and services with other nations in order to protect their own company from foreign competition, or to protect consumers from undesirable products, or sometimes it may be inadvertent.
Free trade can be defined as the free access to the market by individuals without any restriction or any trade barriers that can obstruct the trade process such as taxes, tariffs and import quotas. Free trade in its own way unites and brings people together. Most individuals love the concept of free trade because it gives them the ability to move freely and interact with the market. The whole idea of free trade is that it lowers the price of goods and services by promoting competition. Domestic producers will no longer be able to rely on government law and other forms of assistance, including quotas, which essentially force citizens to buy from them.
As mentioned by Adam Smith, international free trade is a tactic to avoid interstate wars. Owing to the fact that economic globalization intertwines states’ economic growth. Given that a war breaks out between these states, strategic trading path may be blocked or destroyed. If trade interlinks the warring states’ economies, war would become a no-win situation for players in the game in the economic sense that their trade would be devastated. The players would definitely denounce war as a mean to address any issues under the assumption that they are rational enough to prioritize economic interest. If so, collective security can be more