Say Anything Blog

When we talk about trade agreements you’ll often hear politicians talk about “fair trade” as opposed to “free trade.” The Bismarck Tribune has an editorial up today calling for trade that is “fair” for Americans, and by that I’m guessing the editors at the paper want trade agreements that are advantageous to ag producers.

But think about trade this way: Why do we go to other countries for certain goods?  The answer varies, but for the most part we trade with other countries because those countries are offering goods that are either cheaper than those made in our country or of better quality.  Or some combination of both.  Thus free trade, which allows consumers to choose from a variety of goods from all over the world that are of varying price and quality, is beneficial to the consumer.

It is not so beneficial to the producer (at least not directly) because increased competition forces prices down.  All businesses would like to exist in a monopoly, or at least an environment with a limited amount of competition, but that isn’t what’s best for the average consumer.

What’s beneficial for the vast majority of Americans is to have access to a wide variety goods that best meet their needs in terms of cost and quality.  To that end, we should seek trade agreements that aren’t so much agreements at all but rather a basic set of regulations to address concerns about security and disease.  There should be no protectionism, because protectionism only helps the small minority of Americans who are involved in producing the product in question.