why do most economists oppose trade restricitions?
543823
It makes everything cost more.  It isn't efficient if one country is trying to make something they are not good at when there are professionals across the border.  The U.S. doesn't manufacture VCR's because it is cheaper for the well-trained Japanese to do it.
166930
The Trade Treatiese that might be collectively useful for group may not specifically be useful for country X, Y , Z\n\nGeo Political, Cultural, Ideological differencences.. like which can come from say, countries with major Islamic ideology joinging EU and constant jibes that go on betwixth the French-German-Brit etc...\n\nWith (relatively) free movement of labour n capital, old fortê of a nation might not remain theirs.. like if cheap labour is available in Polland.. & country X (wealthier) joins EU.. the labour of Country X, might be surpassed & Polland find advantage..\n\nAnd ofcourse any combine (SuperPower) with higher bargaining power will have detractors & people trying to find faults/ run up against (like hackers try to take on MicroSoft)\n\nPlease take these examples at face value.. am not trying to hurt or take sides...
829119
I think most are opposed to it.
275313
Trade agreements.  It seems there is a considerable pool of labor there, as well as natural resources, and we have investment capital here.  Should be able to be useful to one another.  The more we get involved in trade, the less the politicians can mess around with their manipulations and war-mongering.  The people who benefit from trade discourage the politicians from doing anything that would disrupt the smooth flow of commerce.
504337
Given the fact "trade rules" are created and implemented by the wealthiest nations (G8), it is highly unlikely poorer nations will derive any direct benefit from those rules.\n\nIf "free trade" was "fair trade," it might be possible; but it isn't, so it isn't.
389124
I'm generally for free trade.  It makes the world more "efficient" because each country is specializing and exporting its excess.  Using protective tariffs to get foreign products more expensive just makes the consumers of the country pay higher prices overall.  The country will eventually fall behind the other countries of the world.\n\nProtectionism might save some jobs in the country overall, but the extra wages are going to be offset by a higher cost of living.  It might be slightly different if you have an obnoxious country completely undercutting and taking a loss to drive out competition, but I'm more talking about the normal case.
278615
Economist always look at the bottom spectrum of the scale, which never includes people or their welfare. In a perfect world like the Romans had for Centuries even will collapse. They used War and slavery to build their empire. The Slave owners of the DEEP SOUTH, During the Confederacy used these same principles to build the DEEP SOUTH of America. The Republic of China, and the Communist are a mirror of this same type of Government. Same thing in India. World Markets can't compete with an in-slaved Government system, and I say it should be opposed. China right now is putting pressure on the U.S. Auto-makers with this labor situation. I think it was poor investment; because you gave all your bargaining power away, and are at their mercy now to what they will. I believe that with a free market, which includes the vote of the populous, and their concerns. The market will thrive, and you attain greater returns back into the market. That's my observation.
272978
Generally the benefits fall to the taxing authorities. It's a political ploy to garner votes and appear concerned for the "working class". When wages go up, prices go up because demand goes up. Simple Econ 101.  The people who truely don't get it also believe in the lottery, publishers clearinghouse and government aid. They've never heard of Newton's third law. Their best comeback is "you're stupid"
634266
It works fairly well as long as the country has a strong and stable economy and can support the peg with open market operations.  The problem is that countries who have a strong economy are the ones that are least likely to want a peg.  The weak countries want the peg so that the currency doesn't devalue too much, so they pick the peg.  It's really bad when they can't hold it up and they have to devalue as happened in Argentina.
140061
check out these guys:\nhttp://www.theyesmen.org/\n\nthey, of course, are very biased about WTO effects.
79868
With the technological advances that shrink our world in the economic sense (think transportation and communication advances over the last 25-75 years), a global economy is a reality. Although the emotional negative of overseas outsourcing is real, the reality of the situation is that artificial obstacles to all aspects of free trade should be few and far between.
403181
It limits competition. Meaning people might have to pay more for less, because another country make the cheaper and better version of the product. Although it is used to help support the domestic economy.
419783
Your concept is not how economic work. In a very simplified way, you are assuming every potential consumers wants or demands what limited resources cannot supply.\n\nMarkets do not work this way, in practice, and this is the main reason Marxist economic doctrine failed. To each according to his need is a great concept but some people cannot work and represent no productivity and others are extremely productive, far beyond any need they would ever have in a thousand years. With no market to balance outputs you have a system bound for disaster like the former Soviet Union.\n\nA doctor who earns a lot of money and does research that eventually created jobs by way of new technologies and techniques can afford to pay higher taxes as do the people who win new employment because of his research, to help  pay the cost of the care for the individual who is not productive, say because he or she is disabled.\n\nEven in a seriouly distressed situation, like drought or famine, markets can come to the aid of the suffering region because some elements of the market will have surplusses. Also in this day, there are no real famines because transportation can get any amount of food to any point on the globe in little time therefore the real issue is politics and culture not economics.\n\nUntil there are literally too many proplr to fit on the planet, there will be resources to meet the supply and demand marketplace. Maybe not in all commodites but in general.
384506
The best way to look at this question is to start at the beginning: with the Individual person.\n\nAfter all, it is individuals that trade with one another, not countries.\n\nTake two people (Bob & Jim)\n\nBob has 2 apples and Jim has 2 oranges.\n\nBob would like one of Jim's oranges, so he offers to trade one of his apples.\n\nJim agrees and the two make the trade (1 apple for 1 orange).\n\nWhat's the economic impact?\n\nAfter the trade, you have two satisified individuals. Each now has the things that they value most. Bob valued Jim's orange more than his extra apple, and vice versa with Jim.\n\nIt's a win-win situation.\n\nThat is the economic impact of EVERY trade that occurs in the marketplace (UNLESS there is outside interference with the exchange).\n\nNow, imagine that Bob lived in Italy and Jim in Canada...\n\nIt wouldn't make a difference. \n\nThe principles are the same.
422297
Free Trade Agreement (FTA or Free trade), in modern usage, trade or commerce carried on without such restrictions as import duties, export bounties, domestic production subsidies, trade quotas, or import licenses. The basic argument for free trade is based on the economic theory of comparative advantage: each region should concentrate on what it can produce most cheaply and efficiently and should exchange its products for those it is less able to produce economically. \nInternal Free Trade\nFree trade within national borders is in some countries a comparatively recent development. Jean Baptiste Colbert tried to abolish internal trade barriers in France in the 17th cent., but that was not accomplished until the French Revolution, a hundred years later. In the German states Prussia took the lead in organizing the Zollverein movement after 1818. The desire to assure freedom from internal trade barriers in the United States was a factor in calling the Constitutional Convention. In Britain, the classic home of the free-trade movement, the term free trade was first used during the agitation for removal of the privileges of the chartered companies in the 17th cent.\nInternational Free Trade\nIn 18th-century Britain, free trade eventually came to mean the desire for a moderate tariff policy in international trade, especially with France. The rapid growth of British industry in the late 1700s gave added force to the attack on international trade restrictions. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (1776) provided a powerful intellectual basis for the free trade movement, and the later work of David Ricardo was important in developing the notion of comparative advantage as an argument in its favor. The most important practical blow in favor of the free-trade movement came with the formation (1839) of the Anti-Corn-Law League, and the repeal (1846) of the corn laws. The Anglo-French commercial treaty of 1860 represented perhaps the high-water mark of free trade. \nAfter World War I, Britain reintroduced protection and a system of imperial preference in an attempt to establish a greater measure of economic autonomy. France, along with other European nations, historically followed a policy of protection. In the period of international economic dislocation in the mid-1930s, the United States reversed earlier policy and signed reciprocal trade treaties with many foreign governments, embracing a policy of selective tariff reduction for economic and political reasons. At present the United States is a relatively low tariff nation, although it still maintains a fairly restrictive system of import quotas. Japan also has restrictive import quotas, as well as high tariffs and other trade restrictions.\nAfter World War II, strong sentiment developed throughout the world against protection and high tariffs and in favor of freer trade. The results were new organizations and agreements on international trade such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade General (1948), the Benelux Economic Union (1948), the European Economic Community (Common Market, 1957), the European Free Trade Association (1959), Mercosur (the Southern Cone Common Market , 1991), and the World Trade Organization (1995). In 1993 the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was approved by the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. In the early 1990s the nations of the European Union (the successor organization to the Common Market) undertook to remove all barriers to the free movement of trade and employment across their mutual borders.\nCritics of free trade zones argue that such measures are detrimental to domestic economies. In the case of NAFTA, for example, opponents contended that the jobs of some American workers would be "exported" to Mexico, where labor costs are lower. Many have continued to oppose the international impetus toward freer trade, arguing the accords not only fail to protect jobs in more developed nations but also harm workers and
868786
Yep.  Of the top 50 economies in the world, 10 are business corporations.  Nobody votes for the.  Nobody votes for the WTO.  Nobody but the WTO believes that bananas are "a service."  Bananas are "a service."  It's true! According to the WTO.
913439
Any number of ways. Depending on what economic model the country adheres to (Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, Mixed System, etc.), their decision making on trade affects whether they impose tariffs on items. Also, disliking other's stances on issues or other countries actions have caused countries to trade differently. For instance, the USA refused to trade with China for a long time and still have an embargo on Cuba because it doesn't like their politics. \nAnti-German politics after WWI caused trade to fall with Germany and isolation allowed Nazism to fester there.\nA different government in the US might want to try to get out of NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO. But then again, most of the politicians in power support or put up with them.