[vlan0]

Is this the primary force behind a change such as this?

After watching the documentary called 'Life and Debt', I found the idea of "free trade" in poorer countries to be very different than i would have first thought. It seems free trade in the case of Jamaica resulted in a large import of goods, to the point where local Jamaica could not compete with the huge multinational corps from other countries.

[morley]

People tend to complain about the obvious effects of free trade (i.e., businesses folding to competition), but they overlook the less obvious, more spread out effects (i.e., people being able to afford more goods, and other businesses being able to purchase more materials and having access to larger markets).

[crdoconnor]

People tend to overlook that it largely caused, among other things, the Irish potato famine:

http://www.e-ir.info/2011/06/23/britain-free-trade-and-the-i...

As in the 1800s, it's a good deal for rich countries and a bad deal for developing countries since their infant industries can't compete and so never get off the ground.

China was wise not to follow this path. As was Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong.

[mseebach]

I skimmed that article for evidence of your claim that free trade caused the Irish potato famine, but couldn't find any. It seems to discuss "[the assumption] that, had this event [the Irish Potato famine] not happened, Britain would not have repealed the Corn Laws at that time, and thus, would not have taken steps towards free trade in subsequent years" and concludes that "Britain would have moved towards Free Trade in 1846-1860 even if the Irish Potato Famine had not occurred".

[crdoconnor]

>I skimmed that article for evidence of your claim that free trade caused the Irish potato famine

It was causing food to be exported to Britain while the Irish starved.

[mseebach]

The article doesn't seem to concern itself with that aspect at all? And the famine predates the repeal of the corn laws, to the point where the famine was an explicitly cited motivation for the repeal.

[swasheck]

how are more goods and such a universal positive?

[jameshart]

It's not just beats headphones we're talking about here. When you visit a school classroom, you expect to see books, pens, paper, chairs, desks, art supplies... those are all 'goods'. Affordable access to them is a very positive thing.

[swasheck]

that's a completely fair and valid perspective. i just want to make sure that generic "goods" aren't what we think are going to cure the ailments of those who are dealing with poverty. additionally, poverty can also be a symptom of systematic class/social warfare (though not always). in these countries that we're hoping free trade can infuse with goods, we need to make sure that we've addressed the ruling structures such that these goods are permitted for appropriate use.

[mseebach]

What you seem to say in a somewhat roundabout way is that there's badness in the world that isn't poverty, or directly caused by poverty. Which is correct and totally uncontroversial.

[UK-AL]

Well that benefits the consumers.

And due to comparative advantage, even competing against imports with free open trade is better than being closed off.

[vidarh]

It only benefits consumers if they still have jobs, and assuming the jobs still pay well enough for the cheaper goods to actually also be cheaper in relative terms.

That may be the case, and one would hope the local businesses are able to adjust or that new jobs follow. But it is certainly not automatically the case that having your local market flooded with cheaper goods is better for consumers.

[yummyfajitas]

Choose your favorite country that isn't Zimbabwe or North Korea, and then find a good or service that people (choose your favorite %-ile) have less of today than they did before free trade.

If you can't find such a good or service, then free trade has helped consumers.

[vidarh]

You can only validly make that assertion if you can find somewhere where all else has held equal. Otherwise you'd be making a logical leap without accounting for a bunch of confounding factors.

I also said nothing about whether or not free trade in general is beneficial. What I addressed was the unsupported blanket assumption that free trade will automatically benefit consumers without any kind of qualifications.

As I said: It very well may do, but for that to be true in any specific case, then a number of other factors needs to line up as well.

[UK-AL]

Even if the competition beat you on everything. Freeing the economy and focusing on the product you make best, even if competition beat you on that product it is still better overall.

[ashark]

> And due to comparative advantage, even competing against imports with free open trade is better than being closed off.

Maybe. Sometimes. Under certain circumstances.

[RobertoG]

I don't know the answer to the convenience of free trade, but I think there is different kinds of international trade and we talk about all them as if they are the same thing.

For instance, the more successful economies Japan, Germany, China, Korea didn't follow the same model of free trade that has been "suggested" to the South American countries. In fact, in the eighties everybody complained how difficult was to access to the Japanese markets.

The other thing is that is very different free trade of commodities vs. free movement of capitals but normally it's sold like it's the same. If you are in Peru is probably a bad idea get a lease denominated in U.S. dollars, no matter how good the deal looks now.

[afsina]

The real question is, how did this change the overall population's well being in Jamaica? I think most of the time some suffers from the results of the free trade but much more go to a better state than before.

[afsina]

>Is this the primary force behind a change such as this?

I read this in many places, granted, they all may have some bias (You can make a search with "reasons declining extreme poverty"). But, I personally do believe it is the main reason.

[timtas]

Free trade is not the primary force. It's secondary behind more foundational liberal economic policies, those being property rights, rule of law, fair enforcement of private contracts.