Arguments Against International Trade
3 of the most common:
It’s wrong to trade with countries that use child labor
We need to keep certain industries at home for reasons of national security
We can increase US well-being with strategic trade protectionism
Labor activists discovered that Walmart was selling clothing made in Bangladesh which uses some child labor
A senator tried passing a bill to prohibit firms from importing any products made by children under 15
It didn’t pass
Garment industry in Bangladesh panicked and dismissed 30-50,000 child workers
These children were not better off because they had to work elsewhere, like prostitution with worse conditions and lower pay
Many children around the country work many hours of the week
Most of them work in agriculture, a lot of the times next to their parents, and not in the export industries
Restrictions in trade can’t directly reduce the number of child workers, and by making a poor country poorer, trade restrictions may increase the number of child workers
Studies have shown that more openness to trade increases income and reduces child labor
Bans on child labor actually increase it
Ban reduced child wages which meant that poor families became even poorer
To make up for decline in their income, poorer families were forced to increase amount of work done by children
If a good is vital for national security but domestic producers have higher costs than foreign producers, it can make sense for government to tax imports or subsidize production of domestic industry
Ex: supporting a domestic vaccine industry
In an ordinary year, there are with buying vaccines produced in another country, but if something like the 1918 flu swept across the country, it would be wise to have significant vaccine production capacity
It’s possible for a country to use tariffs and quotas to grab a larger share of the gains from trade than would be possible with pure free trade
Who bears the burden of a tax?
Elastic = escape
The more elastic side of the market can escape (some) of the tax so the more inelastic side of the market bears more of the burden of a tax
3 of the most common:
It’s wrong to trade with countries that use child labor
We need to keep certain industries at home for reasons of national security
We can increase US well-being with strategic trade protectionism
Labor activists discovered that Walmart was selling clothing made in Bangladesh which uses some child labor
A senator tried passing a bill to prohibit firms from importing any products made by children under 15
It didn’t pass
Garment industry in Bangladesh panicked and dismissed 30-50,000 child workers
These children were not better off because they had to work elsewhere, like prostitution with worse conditions and lower pay
Many children around the country work many hours of the week
Most of them work in agriculture, a lot of the times next to their parents, and not in the export industries
Restrictions in trade can’t directly reduce the number of child workers, and by making a poor country poorer, trade restrictions may increase the number of child workers
Studies have shown that more openness to trade increases income and reduces child labor
Bans on child labor actually increase it
Ban reduced child wages which meant that poor families became even poorer
To make up for decline in their income, poorer families were forced to increase amount of work done by children
If a good is vital for national security but domestic producers have higher costs than foreign producers, it can make sense for government to tax imports or subsidize production of domestic industry
Ex: supporting a domestic vaccine industry
In an ordinary year, there are with buying vaccines produced in another country, but if something like the 1918 flu swept across the country, it would be wise to have significant vaccine production capacity
It’s possible for a country to use tariffs and quotas to grab a larger share of the gains from trade than would be possible with pure free trade
Who bears the burden of a tax?
Elastic = escape
The more elastic side of the market can escape (some) of the tax so the more inelastic side of the market bears more of the burden of a tax