Rebuttal to The Case for Free Trade
by: Kent Lassman

Rebuttal to The Case for Free Trade by Kent Lassman

Kent Lassman’s The Case for Free Trade argues in favor of unregulated trade, promoting the idea that opening markets without restrictions maximizes economic efficiency, lowers consumer prices, and stimulates innovation. While Lassman’s case for free trade highlights these benefits, it ignores the negative consequences of unchecked global trade, including economic inequality, environmental damage, and harm to domestic industries. A balanced approach, one that promotes free trade while also addressing these challenges, is essential for long-term economic growth and social stability.

The Downsides of Unrestricted Free Trade

Lassman’s support of pure free trade rests on the theory of comparative advantage, which suggests that countries benefit by specializing in the goods and services they produce most efficiently and trading them with others. This theory holds that when trade barriers are removed, all participants in the global economy benefit. However, this view overlooks the reality that free trade often results in negative consequences for certain industries and workers.

For example, U.S. manufacturing has been significantly affected by free trade agreements. While some industries have thrived, others have suffered as production moved to countries with lower labor costs. Factories have closed, and manufacturing jobs have been lost, leading to economic hardship in regions that once relied on these industries. Lassman’s focus on overall economic growth neglects the plight of these workers, many of whom struggle to find employment in the sectors that have benefited from globalization.

Moreover, while consumers may benefit from cheaper goods due to free trade, the cost to domestic industries can be severe. Entire sectors, like textiles and steel, have been undercut by imports from countries where wages are lower, labor laws are weaker, and environmental protections are often minimal or nonexistent. While free trade benefits large multinational corporations, it often leaves smaller businesses and workers behind.

The Need for Safeguards to Protect Workers

Lassman argues that free trade creates more economic opportunities overall, but he fails to address the specific needs of workers displaced by globalization. The assumption that workers can simply transition from one sector to another overlooks the real barriers many face, such as a lack of skills or access to training. Free trade has contributed to economic inequality, as high-skilled workers in competitive industries thrive, while low-skilled workers in vulnerable industries lose their jobs and struggle to find employment.

To address these challenges, governments must implement policies that help workers affected by trade. This includes retraining programs, unemployment benefits, and education initiatives to help workers transition into new, high-demand fields. Without such programs, the economic disruption caused by free trade can lead to long-term unemployment, poverty, and regional economic decline.

Free trade agreements should also include provisions that protect labor rights, ensuring that workers in all participating countries are paid fair wages, work in safe conditions, and have the right to organize. Without these protections, free trade risks creating a race to the bottom, where countries compete by offering the lowest labor costs at the expense of workers’ rights.

Addressing Unfair Trade Practices

Lassman’s idealistic view of free trade also ignores the reality that many countries engage in unfair trade practices that distort markets. Countries like China have been accused of manipulating their currencies, subsidizing state-owned enterprises, and engaging in intellectual property theft, all of which give their industries an unfair advantage in global markets.

While free trade advocates promote minimal government intervention, it is crucial for governments to enforce trade agreements and ensure that all participants play by the rules. Unfair trade practices, such as dumping (selling goods below market value to drive competitors out of business), harm domestic industries and can lead to economic imbalances.

Governments must work through international organizations, like the World Trade Organization (WTO), to hold countries accountable for unfair practices and ensure that trade is conducted on a level playing field. Without enforcement mechanisms, free trade can exacerbate existing inequalities and allow powerful countries to dominate global markets at the expense of smaller or less developed nations.

Environmental Impacts of Free Trade

One of the most significant criticisms of free trade is its impact on the environment. Lassman’s argument for unrestricted trade fails to address the environmental degradation caused by global supply chains and the exploitation of natural resources in developing countries. In the pursuit of cheaper goods and higher profits, many multinational corporations relocate production to countries with weaker environmental regulations, contributing to pollution, deforestation, and overexploitation of resources.

For example, industries such as logging, mining, and agriculture have been linked to environmental destruction in developing countries, where lax regulations allow companies to operate without regard for the long-term health of ecosystems. Free trade agreements that prioritize economic efficiency often ignore the environmental consequences of unchecked industrial expansion.

To mitigate these impacts, trade agreements must include strong environmental protections that hold corporations accountable for their environmental footprint. Governments should work to ensure that trade policies promote sustainability by encouraging companies to adopt clean technologies and reduce their carbon emissions. Trade should not come at the cost of environmental degradation, and policymakers must prioritize long-term sustainability alongside economic growth.

Social and Economic Inequality

Lassman’s argument also overlooks the fact that free trade can exacerbate social and economic inequality, both within and between countries. While global trade has lifted millions out of poverty, it has also widened the gap between rich and poor, particularly in developing countries where labor exploitation is rampant. Multinational corporations often take advantage of weak labor laws and low wages in poorer countries, increasing profits while keeping workers in poverty.

In wealthy countries, free trade can also exacerbate inequality by disproportionately benefiting those with capital and skills, while leaving low-skilled workers behind. As production moves overseas, the workers most affected by job losses are often those who are already economically vulnerable, leading to increased poverty and social unrest.

Trade agreements should therefore include provisions that promote fair wages, protect workers' rights, and ensure that the benefits of trade are shared more equitably. Governments should also invest in social programs that help workers displaced by globalization and reduce inequality.

The Need for Balanced Trade Policies

While free trade offers clear economic benefits, it must be balanced with policies that address its negative impacts. Lassman’s blanket endorsement of free trade fails to acknowledge the complexity of the global economy and the need for thoughtful regulation to protect workers, industries, and the environment.

A balanced approach to trade policy would maintain the benefits of open markets while implementing safeguards to protect vulnerable industries and workers. Governments should work to ensure that trade agreements include strong labor and environmental protections, enforce fair competition, and provide support for workers affected by globalization.

In addition, governments should retain the right to use tariffs, quotas, or other tools to protect key industries or sectors that are vital to national security or economic stability. While these tools should be used sparingly, they are essential for addressing the imbalances that can arise from unregulated free trade.

Conclusion: A Call for Fair and Sustainable Trade

Kent Lassman’s The Case for Free Trade presents a compelling argument for the benefits of global trade liberalization, but it overlooks the significant challenges that come with unrestricted free trade. While open markets can stimulate economic growth, innovation, and consumer choice, they can also lead to economic inequality, environmental degradation, and the decline of domestic industries.

A more balanced approach to trade policy is needed—one that promotes the benefits of free trade while addressing its downsides. Trade agreements should include protections for workers and the environment, ensure fair competition, and provide mechanisms to enforce rules and address unfair practices. Governments should also invest in education and training programs to help workers adapt to the changes brought about by globalization.

In the end, free trade must be about more than just economic efficiency—it must also promote fairness, sustainability, and shared prosperity. By adopting a more thoughtful and responsible approach to trade, we can ensure that its benefits are broadly shared and its negative impacts are minimized.