[maui_hawaii]

I think maybe the cat has their tongues. They are unable (or unwilling) to tell me what they are trying to defend. That is all I am asking for.

Me: Tell me what Free Trade is supposed to mean.

Them: Its, well Free Trade.

Me: Define that.

Them: Its well, Free Trade.

Me: Which means?

Them: ***Silence***

Me: Well? I am waiting. Since it is a tangible thing signed into law it has to have some kind of definition. It could even have some sort of philosophical idea behind it. All I am asking for is a brief defintion...

Them: ***Silence***

I cannot figure this out. No one is taking up the challenge. They cannot, or refuse to attach any meaning to those two words. Maybe they can't? Maybe they won't? Who knows.

It seems simple enough seeing how they are defending it and arguing for it.

Anyone? Anyone?

[Choose Ye This Day]

Free Trade is an ideal that rarely exists in practice. It's basically the ability to trade with another party--to voluntarily enter into an exchange or transaction where goods, services, or capital changes hands, and where both parties feel they have benefited--with no governmental interference whatsoever. Those last 5 words are the rub. Taxes, tariffs, some treaty provisions, are all examples of governmental interference.

So does truly "free" trade exist anywhere in the world? Sure, on a very micro level. My daughter exchanges her labor--putting away dishes, folding clothes--for my capital, that is, her allowance. No taxes. No governmental dictums. Both parties benefit. Once you get too far beyond this micro level, "free" trade starts to get very blurry.

Here is UNESCO’s definition (and caveats):

In very simple terms, free trade can be defined as the absence of tariffs and import quotas on goods. This definition is based on the notion that the market is the best device to ensure consumers can access good products at the best price, and increase global wealth. The final goal of eliminating tariff barriers and national protection mechanisms is to allow the market to operate with no constraints. However, this approach to free trade takes no account of the fact that not all-trading partners are equal, and neither all products and services. Therefore, in an integrated global economy the conventional definition of free trade will no longer do, as trade in services is surging dramatically and new barriers are replacing conventional barriers such as tariff and import quotas.

There are three categories of obstacles to international trade:

* Tariff barriers (e.g. fiscal measures such as the imposition of custom duties)

* Non-tariff measures (e.g. legal and practice barriers such as screen quotas)

* Investment barriers (e.g. restriction or limitation of foreign capital or equity participation, control of the nationality of company directors, or restriction on the repatriation of capital).

[MSCASEY]

I think they are defending all the things that are in the summit of the americas under the FTAA agreement. They are defending Kyoto Protocol, Human rights for the child, and every other thing that has been put in with the FTAA. Including UNESCO! I guess some people look forward to becoming a state in the new hemisphere of the americas.

MCD

[Gunslingr3]

Me: Tell me what Free Trade is supposed to mean.

When people trade free from government interference. Did you honestly not know or understand this?

Free Trade is the condition of trade between Georgia and Florida, or Florida and Alaska. There are no quotas, duties, tariffs, etc.