Free Trade vs. Protectionism
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.ย. 2024
- More trade tends to lead to more prosperity for a society. So everyone should favor completely free international trade, right? Well not exactly. Some economists promote protectionism, which restricts trade with other countries to protect domestic production from competition. Why would this be advantageous? What are the pros and cons of these two approaches to trade? Let's get a closer look!
Script by Matt Beat: / iammrbeat
Animation by Ignacio Triana: / unraveled
Watch the whole Economics playlist: bit.ly/ProfDave...
Mathematics Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDave...
American History Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDave...
History of Drugs Videos: bit.ly/ProfDave...
General Chemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDave...
Classical Physics Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDave...
EMAIL► ProfessorDaveExplains@gmail.com
PATREON► / professordaveexplains
Check out "Is This Wi-Fi Organic?", my book on disarming pseudoscience!
Amazon: amzn.to/2HtNpVH
Bookshop: bit.ly/39cKADM
Barnes and Noble: bit.ly/3pUjmrn
Book Depository: bit.ly/3aOVDlT
Indians on their way to storm the comment section (there was a rupee in the thumbnail)
As an Indian I am offended but you are kinda right tho😭😂
😂😂
I don't think Brexit was about protectionism of British business, more about exiting the protectionism of the EU (the customs union). The UK still seeks FTAs from countries around the world, and still has one with the EU.
There should be no debate of Free Trade vs Protectionism. It's actually really simple:
Free market and protectionism are merely instruments to be used at different stages of industrial development. When your important industries are small, you protect them; that's how the world powers have achieved economic welfare: With hard protectionism of key industries at the beginning or whenever is necessary (if the Chinese become clearly more efficient, for example, in the case of the US).
And when your industry is strong, you peddle the free market as the key to your success to anyone naive or ignorant enough to believe it, so they open their borders for your industry to devour theirs, thereby letting them forever stuck in the 3rd world.
In any case, uncontrolled capitalism tends to reward being first in exploiting the initial lack of regulation (by scamming, underdelivering, and putting the worker and the consumer at risk, etc.), and since they got more opportunities to get more money in unethical ways, they end up with more money they can re-invest to acquire more capital.
The above means that capitalism tends to form one oligopoly per industry, and when an oligopoly arises, it can:
- Uphold ridiculous patents that stifle innovation.
- Lobby for increased domestic regulation so other companies can't reach them.
- Lobby for increased fines that they can cushion but would otherwise destroy startups.
- Bribe authorities and mainstream media to invert reality when they put the environment, their workers or the consumer at risk.
Oligopolies can also agree, explicitly or tacitly, to deliver inferior quality (look at what happened with the long-lasting light bulbs), and can get away with scamming the consumer, subtly or not, because the consumer has little or no other choice.
Remember: The purpose of a company is not to give you better quality for the lowest price, it's to make money; and if they can get away with scamming, underdelivering, exploiting, putting your health at risk, etc. THEY WILL.
Also, as people have said elsewhere in these comments, if you receive subsidies or if the government is your customer, you're not really playing the game of the free market.
That’s all well put in a complete package, thank you
This is narrow minded, and elitest. And a little wrong. Just as well, Putin loves people like you. While you're busy looking at markets in the vacuum of a textbook, he invades Ukraine, but your strong industrial free market can't stop him because he controls your supply chain. But no one can save it because elitist narrow-minded views thought it was a simple thing.
Would it be correct to say then that if a government is able to greatly reduce bureaucracy and the public is able to elect people that swiftly regulate new industries, this problem wouldn't be nearly as bad?
Great post. Getting mixed up with American 'free trade' has wrecked the economies of the world, including Canada and turned the US into a monopoly, oligarchy and corporate socialist state. Worst thing Canada ever did was get involved in 'free trade'... utter, unmitigated disaster for the middle class. 2 billionaires in the US have more money than the bottom half of population.
There's one thing my country does well: During harvest of a certain domestic fruit/vegetable, they raise the tariff of cet imported vegetable/fruit to make it cheaper to buy the domestic ones, which I personally find a good thing to pressure the citizens buy local fruits/vegetables.
Yeah that actually sounds nice and also beneficial to all citizens because they get fresher fruits. Where are you living if I might ask?
@@klst1746 Switzerland
I think we do a lot more things right. Or would you want to leave atm? 😅
@@DNA9099 Of course I don't want to leave. But I'm aware that my country isn't perfect.
I kind of like that
Free trade helps consumers not necessarily workers if free trade hurts workers they won’t/can’t be consumers. In truth it’s not so much a question of either/or it’s a question of balance.
You are also essentially giving a nod to the free market boom bust feature. The power differential between worker and corporation means workers are paid less, spend less, and eventually a recession occurs when company’s don’t get the revenue they were desiring, leading to job cuts. Companies are never able to see beyond thier noses and need that next larger infusion of revenue regardless of what they do to get it.
@joshbakeroriginalArgentinian detected XDDDDDDDDDDDDDD.
I'm not an expert but after analyzing this video and all its contents, I cannot say anything because as I said in the beginning "I'm not an expert".
You can still have an option without being an expert.
India has 100% tariffs on imported cars, & still companies like Harley Davidson & Ford had to give up producing in India.
Free Trade is the outsourcing of labor to the lowest cost.
The 'cheaper good improves our standard of living', really means 'instead of using slaves here at home, we'll use slaves in another country on the other side of the planet.'
would the chinese who now are working in manufacturing and service industries been better off in the 1970s when they just produce agriculture to sell to other farmers?
Not to mention there's a disregard for the environment given how much things need to travel from a lower income country to a higher income country, even much so with military grade and industrial grade equipment and goods.
Nuh uh
One thing that we've seen in protectionist policies, is that protected industries raise prices to match the foreign prices.
I'm looking at you US steel industry 😒
That's everywhere: Protecting the companies that will pay the gov back lots of money whiles screwing over the population.
It's all about power and control.
ofc that whould happen i hadn`t thought about that.
well that makes it useless for non militairy purposes then.
Cute. Have you ever worked in a competitive industry, in a management role?
@@guenthermichaels5303 I'm a consumer, so I have to pay inflated prices due to tariffs
US car industry
I think tarrifs in general are a good idea. However they must be done in a way that will not hurt consumers. For example, I would support putting limited tarrifs on cars and steel, but it would be irresponsible to put tarrifs on everyday things like clothing and food.
Yes, we Brits are the only nation in the world to impose economic sanctions on itself
F
Lol! I don't know if this is true, but I read somewhere that Google analytics showed the most searched question in the UK one day AFTER the vote was "what is the EU?"!!!
@@fredbloggs8369dresses
Free traders miss the point that competitive advantages are often made on the expense of harming people (e.g. through lower labour standards) or exploit shared ressources as the climate or other environmental ressources. Thus, it is reasonable to create markets that disadvantage products with higher exploitation quotas and pay higher prices for products as there come less externalised costs with them.
Let's say you have protectionism and severely limit imports from the poorer countries. Now the shirt factory with low labor standards in Vietnam shuts down. What are those workers going to do now that they couldn't do before? How has this protectionism policy helped them?
@@abarbar06Now these workers can complain to the government and force them to fix the issue
Professor Dave does a good job of explaining, but I think there are key omissions. One effect of trade is often a race to the bottom as companies compete on price - this generally means a progressive decrease in quality -- and the consumer isn't the winner. Another major flaw is is how ecomonic health (or 'progress') is measured. GDP is a really bad metric and absolutely should not be used. It's one good point is that it's a single number and when it's high, it's 'good' and when it's low, that's 'bad', but it includes things that aren't measures of a healthy society and excludes many things that are - and it is insensitive to whether an economy is sustainable - so is entirely misleading and it's getting us into trouble.
I'm not against wealth creation, and I believe in rewarding hard work, originality, creativity and excellence. My issue is with the use of GDP as a metric for success. I don't have the answer, I'm just staring at the problem.
Agreed
Hiiiii
I am using this channel to prepare for algebra 1 and watching your old flat earth videos
I love how you explain things well across so many topics you clearly do research
Also i have never been so early to any video ever, not even just your channel. Just ever. I know it’s kinda cringey to be like, “i’m early” but i’m happy about it
(excuse my bad typing idk why but i just can’t bring myself to type well today)
Good idea, you’re on your way👍
@@donchristie420Ty
I took macro then micro economics in university n think this video is excellent fir a quick lil bit to drop some info fir ppl who did not have the time or energy or money to reas a book
Brexit was not really a backlash against free trade. For those who voted for it, it seems more to have been about the EU regulations and free movement of people.
I don't think free trade can work unless every country does it. Like, if a US company is competing with a Chinese company, but the Chinese government bolsters the company based it it's borders, that company has a major advantage in the market. Also, is it 'free trade' if the government is a customer of a company? If the US only buys chips from Intel, then Intel has a HUGE market advantage. Unless the government produces all materials in-house, using proprietary manufacturing, they'll always be handing someone a leg up, to mix my limb-based metaphors.
That makes sense. I mean there’s no perfect solution to anything in the real world, but it would be ideal to have free trade for everyone. Especially with all the situations like what you explained in your comment, though, we are far from a perfect global economy.
Idk if my jumbled ideas make sense to you lol but i’m leaving this reply anyways
I didn’t hear this in the video, but subsidies are considered a form of protectionism too.
I'm not that much into the topic yet but if everyone had free trade, wouldn't at least some countries have a disadvantage`?
Free trade is one of those non-existent things that fall on the end of a spectrum.
That's why a central, public state is useless
The problem I have with free trade is one you already mentioned, the example with the shirts. The big problem I see with all of this is the fact that there isn't a set currency of the world. Each country has their own currency with their own worth in comparison to other currencies. Now someone living in a country where 1 of their type of currency is worth lets say 0.001$ earns ~1000 of that currency in a month, which would equal 1$ in the US. In their country, this money would be enough for a low average living standard, yet in the US 1$ isn't enough. Now this worker produces ~250 Shirts a month lets say just for good measure, which means 250 Shirts are worth ~1000 foreign currency in labor plus some 500 foreign currency in material cost. Perhaps I am simplifying to much here, but now calculate the value of one shirt: 1 Shirt is worth 6 foreign currency, meaning 0.006$. Now we want to sell this in the US. Let's say you sell one of these Shirts for 5$ in the US from which you gain 2$ profit, than one shirt already generates 333.33...x the amount its worth, which is a huge profit margin (If that even is a profit margin I am talking from my current understanding of all of this which is not much). No firm in the USA could produce such margins without astronomical prices or worker abuse, so the most efficient and profitable way for a US Shirt maker is to produce in said country where the work is cheap, thus weakening the domestic shirt production. If all US Shirt makers think that way, which they might considering they would make a huge amount of money in the process, the domestic shirt production would cease to exist.
In my opinion, this scenario wouldn't happen in a world with one currency, as outsourcing would be more expensive than domestic production, thus enabling free trade and at the same time having the benefits of protectionism. However there may be an argument to be made here, that a "World Coin" would impact free trade in the way protectionism does at the moment... I just noticed this while writing: Wouldn't a "World Coin" per se lead to some sort of global protectionism?
My background is not in economics so I'm just throwing out random thoughts but two things I thought as I was reading this -
1- Even if there was a world currency the workers in the foreign country would be paid exactly the same. Its like creating a standardized ruler that everyone in the world uses but the lengths of things remains the same regardless. The amount the workers make would changes with things like mandatory improvements in working conditions from their governments. It would also change with things like worker productivity. In a wealthier country people tend to be more productive due to things like access to more resources and education.
2- " No firm in the USA could produce such margins without astronomical prices or worker abuse, so the most efficient and profitable way for a US Shirt maker is to produce in said country where the work is cheap, thus weakening the domestic shirt production. "
Yes this is for the most part true I think. But its not necessarily a bad thing. Its the basic idea of comparative advantage that Im sure Professor Dave has made a video on. If the US is less efficient at making shirts than another country the whole world is better off if we stop making them entirely, and make whatever we are most efficient at making. The total value for the whole world is higher when countries specialize in this way and then trade with each other.
Its also worth mentioning that the free trade agreements Dave talks about near the end of the video are the primary tool that wealthier countries have to bargain for better working conditions in poorer countries. The TPP that Trump removed the USA from in 2016 or 2017 had provisions to improve labor standards in countries like Vietnam, sucks were not in it anymore.
@@nicholasesposito1204 Is it a bad thig we actually throw away excess food, enough to end world hunger? The only reason being the cost of shipping it...to starving humans. Ain't no way the US gov't improved working conditions anywhere, including here. That's a lie.
Great video; very informative! Will you make new videos in mathematics (e.g., calculus)?
Finding that balance, is the key😊
Definitely true. When it comes to anything economic political or geopolitical, it’s never good to be 100% one way or another
I am here from nepal for economics exam preparation
free trade does not lead to higher quality products, and the “efficiency” it incentivizes usually means less pay and worse working conditions for people in countries without regulations
I recommend reading The Divide by Jason Hickel, more specifically the chapter 6 on "Free Trade"
i just love how its protectionism when someone has a connection and free trade for everyone else
I have no problem with free trade and agree with what you have said. However, free trade only really works well if everyone is playing by the same rules. So, if the US has a minimum wage of say $7/hr and a foreign company does not have such a regulation, it is a reverse protectionism that allows the foreign worker to earn less to get us cheaper goods. A "fair trade" would be to look at key metrics (cost of doing business in one's country) and compare that to the exporting country and ensure that one's own country is not penalized for being force to adhere to higher standards. People/countries should compete on efficiency/productivity/quality not on who can, effectively, have slave labor producing the cheapest products.
Slave labor is ilegal. And low pay isn't slave labor.
Look at the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act to see when protectionism can be harmful
I dispute that free trade increases your standard of living. Quality may go up. prices will go down. but you will earn less money too!!!
remember earlier in the video where protectionism made sure domestic workers kept their jobs? yea, without that, your employer went bankrupt, you got fired and forced to accept a lower-paying job. but hey, stuff costs a little less now...
your standard of living going up is predicated on the assumption your wage stays the same which it won't, it's likely to go down. I am not arguing for protectionism, I'm just pointing out that the situation is far more complex than the video lets on.
Well I know that this does not apply to all countries, but personally in mine protectionism only brought us misfortune, local companies are so favored by the government that they know they will not have competition, so they offer a horrible service at a relatively high price , basically monopolies, and these same companies of course offer local work, but it must be taken into account that the free market also not only takes jobs, it also gives them, it is convenient for companies to manufacture in the same places where they have large markets if it is possible, knocking down jobs from the competition but generating new ones based on foreign industry, a phenomenon that is also seen in my country, where the best paid jobs are in local factories that belong to foreigners
Perhaps the specific situation of my country greatly influences my opinion, but protectionism has only caused problems that would regulate themselves if everyone played fair and under the same conditions.
@@gazakana again I wasn't defending protectionism. al I am saying is, the lack of protectionism under free trade will cause wages to drop.
as a result, a complex interplay arises based on whether prices or wages drop more as a result of free trade.
if prices drop more that still increases purchasing power and therefore the standard of living.
however, it is also possible that wages drop more than prices decreasing purchasing power and standard of living.
so what I dispute is that it's not the automatic rise in the standard of living it's often presented to be.
@@gazakanathat means full protectionism isn't good either. It's balancing problem. Too much free trade and you'll be totally dependent on imports which will cause the prices of these imports to go up. Too much protectionism and you'll be totally dependent on domestic product which will cause the prices to go up. Now in the case of protectionism you can regulate these domestic corporations, but it will make them more likely to leave. Very complex issue
I am surprised that there are people thinking that this is propaganda when the video does not even give you a direct message of which is better, it is true that it leans towards the free market but it is simply because it is the most efficient way to market, for a reason the countries completely secluded can be counted on the palm of the fingers, while the vast majority decides to open up to the free market on their own, it is a fact that a more liberal economic model is more efficient, only ridiculously large countries could close their market without losing of some essential products
You can't say that everything that is against your opinion is propaganda when your opinion is literally: "2+2=5"
Wonderful video.
Very educational, again, keep it up, Thanks PD!
Love from India 🇮🇳
Outsourcing of jobs by domestic companies is NOT free trade, yet that's what we get, resulting in declining or stagnant wages.
Sorry the photograph is mistaken you should’ve drawn the earth as it is. (flat)
Thx professor, keep your work ❤️
At 2:30 you forgot to mention that if there is no trade barrier, its cheaper for the consumer
Really appreciate this economics series🎉❤
It is very simple, if your competitors do not operate in the same environmental, political, social environment that you do, it is not free trade
Free trade is not so free when there is always the threat of sanctions.
As a grad in political economy, an MA grad in IR, and an MA grad in Strategic Studies, I'm not flexing, but I have skin in this debate. I feel you are missing a big geopolitical dimension here by invoking Ricardo style liberalism on free trade. This is not unusual, economists always side step politics. But a free trade world requires a broad consensus and the world is becoming increasingly fractious. FTAs aren't free trade agreements at all anyway (a misnomer for privileged access agreements) , and our liberalism on trade has rendered us profoundly susceptible to supply chain snarls due to JIT delivery or international tension. This is also why Bidenomics is subsidising US chip manufacturing and AI dev lest China steal the march. Some techs are too critical to willingly cede their manufacture to potential rivals. Also, free trade doesn't always promote peace and international bonhomie. An earlier period of flourishing global trade preceded WWI. Not to mention, Marxist-Leninists argue free trade erodes hard-won workers' rights by outsourcing cheap labour. I'm no Leninist, but I do think he had a point on this.
This is a high school economics tutorial.
Fine but are high schoolers too young for some geopolitical nuance?@@ProfessorDaveExplains
@@fredbloggs8369 Yes. First you learn the basics.
@ProfessorDaveExplains All good - tbh I didn't realise the cohort you were pitching this to. I came to your site out of your flat earth smack down against Weiss, which I enjoyed and found hilarious! I just didn't want you to over-simplify this issue, but I didn't appreciate your intended audience
@@ProfessorDaveExplainsexploitation of shared ressources for individual gain is a basic principle in economy. The should not miss that.
Thanks I really needed to understand this
5:30 - Saying that the UK's own citizens voted to leave the EU is a very strong statement compared to what actually happened. It won by a slim majority after a widespread and well-funded campaign (consisting primarily of lies), when it should have required a much larger majority for such a drastic move.
I can't wait for the end of free trade, and of mass oceanic commerce.
Pros of proteccionism: you can develop your own industry, developing your own country.
Cons of proteccionism: your country gets coup de'etated until their government is not proteccionist anymore
@discontinued890
What does cons mean?
a disadvantage
a disadvantage or a reason for not doing something: One of the cons of buying a bigger car is that it costs more to run. You have to weigh up all the pros and cons of the matter before you make a decision. SMART Vocabulary: related words and phrases.
@discontinued890Your government will be overthrown until it bends to the will of the US and benefits US billionaires. That’s a con because having foreign powers install puppet governments with the intent of benefiting said foreign powers takes the consideration of the people living there out of it
@@davidbarrera5033So i see this is a non-US centric comment. So when the government isn't weak, or is the US itself, what are the actual cons?
Can we say free or fair trade among partners.if yes why
You forgot to mention that the only reason free trade works is because of the US Navy protecting trade lanes. If the USA loses interest on protecting trade lanes, then free trade can fall apart quite quickly.
There is a basic argument that is not discussed and that is fundamentally that free markets don't exist. The WTO is a fundamentally flawed organization that perpetuated the disparities of GATT. There is also the overlooked wording in the phrases used including the term "generally" . I find that when you use Economics 101 to write a script, you reduce the value of a discussion. PS I am a great supporter of the channel in general but this kind of "Free Trade" argument creates a utopian idea that exists only in a theory. Love your work in general though, keep doing it.
Is free trade good? It depends on how much the price is going down. If prices go down a dollar or 2, we are better off making it in the US, one of the most natural resource rich countries in the world
There is also a 3rd option, which I would call anti-protectionism. It is not regular free trade, as you have quotas and other limitations on domestic companies, pumping their prices, and tax reliefs or exemptions for foreign companies. We've got this 'unique' model invented in Poland, works so well that millions of people left the country since 2005.
By the way, protecting infant industries seems to not work that well after all - it did not work in Brazil between 1971-1990, the outcomes were mostly opposite than anticipated.
The massive problem you left out of "free trade" is how it allows for foreign actors to control our government. Because we allow legal bribery (lobbying), it sees nations like China or Saudi Arabia, to spend massive amounts on our government to ignore human rights violations in order to secure better trade deals.
😂 你一定比我还懂中国 大陆。。。
@@ffshizuru2765ever heard of Uyghur genocide
@@christianv7997 我也听说过林肯领导的北方对南联邦的侵略和灭绝哦。。。🙄
@@ffshizuru2765but instead of mentioning the fate of the Indigenous people of America, a one to one analogy, you decide to mention a civil war to defend ethnic forced labor?!? 🇨🇳
China really has looked up to us in the worst way possible.
@@ffshizuru2765if not the US, what will you say to a European? I noticed how Chinese nationalists will quote ancient American sins to deflect their modern sins. Only American sins too, the enemy. Because China doesn't and can't do wrong.
Criticize our past, we know from experience what happens. you don't speak to politicians, you speak to citizens. Unlike in China, these are separate ideas.
You lost your job at the shirt factory, but strawberries are 20 cents cheaper!
Not true, you do not get cheaper goods from globalization. You do hypothetically because a low wage worker in another company can produce it cheaper, but that competition reduces your wages, and the product would be cheaper but the government will react to that by devaluing the currency tk hit the 2-3% inflation target. If you are a working class person, you really only lose from globalization. To go a step further, the wealthy business owners from other countries will then come live in your country which raises asset prices like stocks and property which hurts the working class. The only part where globalization is good is because your country's rich, become richer than other countries and that gives an advantage in strategic industries
Professor you're the best❤
I think you might need to research and understand Brexit better, because the UK voted to leave because of the EU trade law being anti free trade. Since leaving the UK has secured not only new trade deals, but also new security deals both increasing trade and GDP. Not to mention the UK is now going to become a member of the CPTPP which has the fastest growing economies on earth in it.
To put this into perspective; the EUs share of global GDP has more than halfed since 1980, and is set to continue this rate towards 2050. Meanwhile, the CPTPP is set to have the majority of the worlds middle class in it by 2050. Since France largely blocks any new trade deals for the EU which may upset their population, the EU is stagnant.
Sorry to say but your understanding is flawed and mixed up. The UK supports free trade, after all we did invent the modern concept of it.
Indeed, the main reason for leaving the EU may not have been the desire to escape free trade, but it was certainly the immediate result. With Brexit, the UK lost free access to the largest free-market zone in the world. It is really hard to argue that this was done to "increase" free marketing, and it is rather difficult to claim that this move will help the UK. I suppose the main reason for Brexit was the unwillingness of the UK to play team and agree upon a common set of rules, as well as the widespread belief that the EU governance was ineffective.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has issued a rather gloomy report on Brexit, with the following conclusions:
-The new trading relationship between the UK and EU will reduce the UK's long-run productivity by 4 per cent vs. being part of the EU.
-Both exports and imports between UK and EU will be around 15 % lower in the long run than if the UK had remained in the EU.
-New trade deals with non-EU countries will not have a material impact, because the deals concluded to date mostly replicate (or ‘roll over’) deals that the UK already benefited from as a EU member state.
This video is at a very basic level, but the statement that the UK decided to leave a free-trading zone cannot be disputed.
As a Minarchist. I ask my Libertarian friend how can a free trade country survive if they are surrounded by countries that does protectionism? Anyone can help him answer this?
As a former anarchist, current libertarian socialist and philosophical nihilist, I can't help you there.
@@infinitemonkey917 same. I ask in the libertarian subreddit. They gave the most vague ideological answers that doesn’t answer anything.
Easy, trade on the open market, then ask for reciprocity with the protectionist countries.
They're going to build up a supply of the free traders currency, and won't be able to spend it effectively with protectionist barriers up.
@@dongiovanni4331 So we become the favorite middle man and currency for all the other protectionist countries just because of their ego?
I believe a some very very very little protectionism is necessary and saying in% would be 95% free trade 5% protectionism. Food ,water ,air , fuel and weapons. And protectionism should be just looked similar to government necessary evil have to kept small at all time. I don't like protectionism but People like are in very minority thats why I know we have to compromise. Because these majority people see through bs of socialism and protectionism and other bs of politicians only when nation is hit rock bottom and bounce back is very hard and sometimes impossible.
how can i give this more than one like?
Me and the Homies love free trade.
You forgot to mention three of the biggest criticisms of free trade: it undermines labour rights, it's undemocratic, and it is destructive to the environment. Those are three of the biggest ctiticisms. As an educator, you have a responsibility to be more balanced so that students are able to make up their own minds instead of being pushed in one direction with bias.
Okay, like the video for definitional preposes.
Peak educational content
I want longer videos
he mentioned "war" three times
What a good video
Free trade when you don't need to hold a US dollars to trade and can trade with out your economy being lade Sedge too with arbitrary sanctions .
This comment section is gonna give you a whole lot to chew on Dave, don't have too much fun!
Yeah, what are you whining about, sweetie?
I see that more context is needed. I was talking about how a bunch of morons are gonna try to flame you for no reason, so you're gonna have some fun with those guys!
@@zrttatertot4528 Ah yes yes, it was already begun.
thanks for the information! / better understanding
I voted to stay 😔
Imagine making your tax slaves pay extra for goods your country cannot compete with
It's kinda hard to compete with poor countries that have sweatshops, child labor and pay the workers a dollar an hour.
It’s June now, where is the immunology
working on it
Protectionism is bad that is why developed countries practice it towards the poor countries. 😢😅😂
All those people who say "buy local" most likely buy the stuff from the same place that you buy them. "Buy local" simply means "Support us middlemen"
Fantastic video, but still not as fun as debunking flat earther :)
Weak
Viva Milei y la libertad carajooo
first
I was third 😎
Lol
Great video.