If we stop free trade agreements, the only option would be to go back to protectionism. A protectionist trade policy would include high tariffs and quotas on imported goods. Other countries would enact their own protectionist policies, which would limit their access to technology, medicine, research and other goods and services that they may not be able to produce at home but could use. A more balanced argument to end free trade would also incorporate a discussion on the costs of protectionist trade policies. </p><p></p><blockquote>President Obama publicly deplores growing economic inequality in the United States. At the same time, he is pushing for a new Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement on top of the trade agreements he won in 2011. Evidently, he sees no inconsistency here, but a growing body of economic research points to the adverse effects of lowered tariff barriers on manufacturing workers and their <a target="_new" rel="nofollow" href=https://www.tradesns.com/en/tag/"http://tradesns.com/">communities.
International trade cannot be isolated as the sole explanation for the increased economic inequality in the United States. Economic inequality persists regardless of the trade policy that the United States embraces. Minorities and women, in particular, have faced a number of barriers that have made it difficult for them to achieve the same earning power as Caucasian males. Other systemic and structural factors must be taken into account, such as unequal access to quality education, job training and health care, to understand the income inequality in the United States. Blaming free trade ignores the reality of the domestic policies that have perpetuated problems at home before the start of the 21st century.</p><p>The second piece, like the first, fails to offer any real policy solutions to address the economic situation in the United States.</p><p><span><br></span></p>" />
