Free or fair trade?

Economists argue that free trade makes everyone better off, allowing more, and more varied. goods, and lower prices, than would otherwise be possible. Some also argue that it leads to faster economic growth and less poverty.

Some critics of free trade argue, however, that its supposed benefits the poor and developing countries are imaginary. Trade, they say, benefits the rich countries at the expense of the poor, increasing inequality. Others say that it hurts the rich country workers, especially less skilled, thus increasing economic inequality within the rich country. All would rather that trade be made "fairer" than "freer".

I support fair trade over free trade.

Any explanation or is this an arbitrary decision?

Both sides have their points.

Personally, well, I'm a Communist... so that basically puts me on the 'fair trade' side automatically. Its not REALLY what I believe in, but it is the closer of the two. From what I see at least.
Fair trade prevents big buisnesses from taking advantage of people and impoverishing them for the benefit of the big buisness' profits.

Free trade only allows the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.

Free trade for free trade's sake isn't really desirable because it can't be enforced in the status quo. We should do everything in our power to get an edge on the rest of the world before they do the same to us. It isn't really fair, but it isn't free either. It's smart.

I'm more of a "strategic incorporation" kind of guy. If anyone understands what I mean by that.

Is there some sort of middle ground one can work on in terms of trade.

I'd prefer free trade if we lived in a isolated economy. The way things are going is just fucked up.

It's definitely not a clear cut issue. There are benefits to both sides, but each also have their drawbacks.

I prefer fairness...

This, not to mention Pure Free Trade is prone to massive busts ever decade or so. Look at the American Economy of the 1800s, it was one of the Freest Economies in all history and it followed a major boom-bust paddern that left plenty of hard working people on the streets.

In reality though, is money really so important that you'd let people starve for it?

If there was a plenty of natural resources, more land than you could ever need, rapid industrialization, AND a cheap labor source like Slaves, then your economy should be firing off like a rocket stopping for absolutely nothing. It's an inherent failure in the Free Market that the economy crashes every decade or so.

Fair trade because fair trade coffee is largely made by workers cooperatives.

Oh you and your obsession with workers cooperatives.

Well they actually do work.

Fair trade any day of the week. I'd rather face slower economic growth for a more equitable society where the poor can live a better life.

Kara, free trade is not synonymous with the free market. The US of the 1800s had the Federal Government's primary source of revenue as taxes on imports, or tariffs. And none of the various panics of that century can be attributed to anything more than government meddling, like the specie circular, subsidizing of the railroad industry, supporting the corporate farmers in Cali and Oregon over the small farmers, or at the state level, unfairly taxing certain businesses over others, messing with interstate commerce, and abusing eminent domain for private purposes.