How Bad is Bad?

     At a glance, the idea of free trade is appealing. It’s trade without restrictions like tariffs and taxes, and ultimately enhances the comparative advantage. The bad definitely outweighs the good in this case. The negative impact leaves less affluent countries “losing” more than “winning” when compared to more established countries. The international organization such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) had beneficial intentions, but have yet to prove useful.

     Referring to the political cartoon, one can see how bad the bad can get. Past president Bill Clinton intended that NAFTA would create a million jobs in the first five years of its existence. Later in his acknowledgement, Clinton said that is more jobs than the jobs that would be lost. He clearly was wrong. It is easily said that the rise in the US trade deficit with Canada and Mexico has led to almost a million US jobs lost. The US worker is whipped to the ground by NAFTA because of the impact on the US economy. Most of the jobs lost were high-wage positions in the manufacturing industries. The free trade agreement is obviously a deal gone awry. It not only affected the US economy, but contributed to rising income inequality, suppressed production works wages, weakened workers power to collective bargain, organize unions, and even reduced fringe benefits. The Corporate America’s power had the wrong interests in mind.

     WTO also had good intentions by ensuring that trade among the nations flowed smoothly and freely as possible. Depending on whom you ask on their opinion on WTO would reflect either a glimmering light or a bleakness. More than likely if you’re wealthier, WTO would lead to more riches. The bias favors the wealthier nations and the multinational corporations. Because the financial situation of the affluent already benefits their economic state, it leads to these countries’ success in maintaining quotas and the production of products. However, it’s like taking a sledgehammer between the rich and poor. There’s a stronger divide between the groups because the developing countries are forced to open their markets. Many other aspects are overlooked because there is such a focus on free trade. The rights of workers, democracy, the environments, and issues with labor are major issues being neglected. The assurance for swift trade among the countries hold priority over the interests of those not related to the rich – working families, smaller communities, and even the environment. It’s just altogether a bad idea when all the focus is directed into a monetary state that neglects and continuously impacts those who already have a smaller, weaker voice.

     To even give NAFTA the benefit of the doubt for a few moments is overwhelming. The slightest of benefits included that NAFTA did decrease the tariffs in the countries participating and the trade among the US, Mexico, and Canada increased. WTO’s benefits without a doubt more free trade around the world and creates standards to have effective and efficient trade. Regardless of these positive outcomes from the agreements and the international organizations, the history of each ultimately proves that free trade is not a win-win situation.

     Reflecting on the political cartoon above simply depicts that free trade mocks democracy. It does not help the people, give them a voice or even give them a decent wage. It taunts workers and possibly leaves them without a job. All ideas definitely have the potential to go awry, but free trade proves to be biased. The losers really lose and the poor get poorer. (That’s worse than bad; it’s terrible!)