This opportunity allows ... ... middle of paper ... ... of remaining fair with a collection of antitrust laws. The laws ensure that there is not monopolization of products, price fixing to destroy competitors and over charging the consumer. The open market is filled with such competition that producers are unable to compete in the market against the larger companies and develop countries. Laws have been enacted to protect the small producers and the consumers from harm. To fix this dilemma, we must provide equal opportunity in the open markets.
In order to mitigate these negative consequences of the profit making ideology, global governance and treaties that aim at helping developing countries advance without undermining their democratic principles are needed. Finally, as all three authors mention that politics and economics must be separated in such way as to not give corporations power over the government. In this paper, it was shown that globalization has the potential to raise living standards and to spread knowledge that allows for faster development of both the wealthy and the poor. However, the way in which it has been managed has resulted in the opposite, many people are worse off due to globalization because it has been attached to policies that undermine the very democratic principles they claim to uphold.
However, the new theory of international trade is driven by increasing returns to scale, also known as economies of scale, and leads to imperfect competition (Carbaugh, 2011). Furthermore, this new trade theory fosters the idea that the government could work in the interest of its nation to improve market outcomes, the antithesis of free trade. Krugman’s article presents two arguments that challenge the assumptions of classical trade optimism and support the case for government intervention. However, the implementation of government intervention in international trade may create excessive obstacles and in the end, free trade may be more practical. Economists generally believe that international trade can improve the standard of living of the trading countries (Wheelan, 2010).
The North American Free Trade Agreement was created with the intentions of making North America as a whole a more competitive player in the global marketplace. Canada, America, and Mexico all share the same hope that NAFTA will be a strong outlet in supporting economic activity and promoting social cohesion between one another. Has NAFTA done this thus far? Most American’s, specifically economic patriots, would probably say that it has not because in their eyes free trade has taken away American jobs and has put America in a financial downturn. However, have Americans lost themselves in the economic side of NAFTA and forgotten about the social unity that was one of the original intensions of the agreement?
Fair trade policies while potentially creating smaller markets support workers’ rights in both the U.S. and developing nations. Though the pros and cons of globalization continue to be debated the United States can no longer escape its role in the global economy nor can it impose policies that are detrimental to the United States founding ideals. However policies that play towards the advantages of both free and fair trade could stimulate a healthy domestic economy that is also competitive in the global market.
Economic globalization raises debate about whether integration will reduce the probability of conflict and war. Globalization in this context refers to an international trading market, where state economies become dependent on global trade. States prosper by being economically advanced, promoting trade would increase state capital. For economic globalization to be successful in reducing conflict it would follow neoliberalism’s free hand of the market, limiting government’s role in trade. The economic liberalization of trade globalization can reduce resource wars and civil wars influenced by natural resources.
A regional trade agreement is “where member nations agree to impose lower barriers to trade within the group than trade with nonmember nations,” (Carbaugh, p 529). Regional trade agreements don’t affect each nations domestic policies, it only creates increased trade and relations among certain nations. This type of trading system complements multilateral trading. Even though there are numerous positives to regional trade agreements, there are negatives as well. “Regional trading groups strengthen trade and the benefits thereof with groups but at the same time may serve to undermine free trade globally by implicitly and explicitly discriminating against trade with countries outside the groups (Colorado State University-Global Campus).” Carbaugh also notes this in his textbook, International Economics.
Eventually, forming a trade bloc is a step toward free trade as it simplifies exchanges, as it boosts the economies of the poorest countries of the agreement and because it lowers prices by raising competition. However, we can not but notice that it is a step toward protectionism because it pushes back all the non member countries and encourages discrimination between countries.
The following essay aims at highlighting and analyzing the main political arguments for trade intervention and the rationale behind this. Firstly, what should be noted here is that international trade has been providing different benefits for firms as they may expand in different new markets and raise productivity by adopting different approaches. Given that nowadays marketplace is more dynamic and characterized by an interdependent economy, the volume of international trade has grown substantially in recent years, reducing the barriers to international trade. However, after experiencing the economic crisis that took its toll in 2008 many countries adopted a different approach in terms of trade barriers by introducing higher tariffs in order to protect domestic firms from foreign competition (Hill). Secondly, in order to better understand the implications of the political arguments for trade it is essential to highlight the main instruments of trade policy (See appendix 1).
Although it might be true that some NDC policy makers believe that a Laissez-faire system was what their country used to develop; however, no matter what intention lies behind the “ladder kicking,” the fact remains that the economic growth that were promised through the implementation of policies by the IDPE and the NDCs that control it ha... ... middle of paper ... ...policies were constructed for the purpose of preventing growth of third world countries. However, although neo-liberal fundamentalism is clearly presented negatively as a way for NDCs to open their markets to cheaper goods, it is also important to comprehend that there might also be some importance to enforce a global scale of economic dominance by western nations. Evidence suggests that global resources would be unable to handle the 5 billion people living in a state of relative poverty to be upgraded to a US standard of living. The earth would effectively be drained of its resources by the end of the century. Therefore, although it is clear that neo-liberal fundamentalism was construed by NDCs to maximize their own markets, it has effectively prevented the growth of developing countries, which was what NDCs suggested was their goal of implementing these policies.