The United States should have a general policy of free trade.

Trade can be restricted by several means. Tariffs can be put on imports and exports in a direct violation of free trade. However, indirect methods can be used to upset free markets. Governments can provide research or production subsidies, and the government can require purchase of local products for government use. For example, Friedman [1. http://www.thomaslfriedman.com... ] documents the bad effect of agricultural subsidies in Europe and the United States have had on Third World economies by obviating the advantage that producers would otherwise have in certain crops.1. Free Trade Benefits Both Trading PartnersA producer of certain goods has an absolute advantage if he can produce those goods more cheaply than anyone else. almost always, a country has an absolute advantage in producing some goods. Free trade maximizes efficiency, and hence prosperity, by allowing countries to produce more of the goods they are best at, and less of the goods at which they are less efficient.An economy that has no absolute advantage will nonetheless have a comparative advantage [2. http://en.wikipedia.org...] in producing some goods over others. The theory of comparative advantage then shows that the country is better off producing more of what it is better at producing, and less of other things. The theory f comparative advantage says that both trading partners will still benefit from free trade, even one has no absolute advantage in anything.We might wonder how poor countries have an advantage in anything. Agricultural products depend upon growing conditions and labor costs. No matter how well capitalized, the US does not have an advantage in growing bananas or coffee. Poor countries have cheap labor and are likely to have an advantage in labor-intensive manufacturing. Poor countries often have unique attractions that make them competitive for tourism.In most economies the majority of goods and services are not subject to foreign competition. Restaurants and local shops, schools and government, roads and airports, houses and commercial buildings, as well as all the support services that go along with these things are not subject to foreign competition. Friedman [1] calculated that only 19% of the U.S, GDP is subject to potential foreign competition. "For 2011, exports of $2,103.1 billion and imports of $2,661.1 billion resulted in a goods and services deficit of $558.0 billion ..." [3. http://www.bea.gov... ] The Gross Domestic Product was $15,094.4 billion. [4. http://www.bea.gov... ] so 17.4% of GDP was spent on imports, but all but 3.6% of that was offset by exports. Does the theory of comparative advantage work in practice? "Though it creates winners and losers, the broad consensus among members of the economics profession in the U.S. is that free trade is a large and unambiguous net gain for society.[26] [27] In a 2006 survey of American economists (83 responders), "87.5% agree that the U.S. should eliminate remaining tariffs and other barriers to trade" and "90.1% disagree with the suggestion that the U.S. should restrict employers from outsourcing work to foreign countries."[28] [5. http://en.wikipedia.org... ]2. Dislocations are acute, benefits are chronicIf there is nearly universal agreement among economists that free trade is beneficial, then why is it so often opposed? The reason is that the job losses are easy to identify while the job gains are spread over society. for example, the U.S. allows inexpensive manufactured goods to be imported. Jobs sewing underwear were consequently lost in North Carolina, and it's easy to point to those lost jobs. The gain is in the lowered price of underwear, a gain that benefits buyers of underwear. Money not spent on underwear is then available for other purposes. The money saved is available to purchase competitive goods.Wal-Mart calculated that the total saved from Wal-Mart pricing amounted to $2500 per family in 2006. [6. http://www.aef.com...] Wal-mart got into trouble by implying that the saving came solely from Wal-Mart, when it actually came from the general lowering of prices by Wal-marts competitors as well. The lower prices do not derive entirely from imports. Some of the savings come from the efficiency of the distribution system. The point is that the economy benefits by spending fewer resources on things that America is not competitive in producing, and greater resources on things in which it is competitive.Friedman's book [1] catalogs examples of high tariffs damaging economies around the world. South America, notably Brazil, "protected" local markets with high tariffs for decades, with resulting poverty. Removing tariffs were key to economic revival. In the early 50s, Hindustani Motors in India and Toyota in Japan were about equal-sized car manufacturers. Hindustani Motors was protected by high tariffs, while Toyota was subject to international competition. Predictably, competition yielded efficiency and growth. It's reasonable for government to assist in retraining and relocating workers for jobs in growth industries. It is unreasonable to suppose the country's future lies in keeping workers sewing underwear forever at the expense of consumers.Customers have a right to buy inexpensive productsGovernment does not have a right to force consumers to pay high prices to keep outdated industries alive. If consumers choose to buy more expensive products for whatever reasons, that the consumer's business. Government doesn't have the right to make the decision that a consumer will pay more for products A, B, and C because the government favors those industries. It is an unjustified intrusion upon the individual's right to make consumer choices. There is inherent corruption in government choosing which outdated industry is to receive the benefits of protection and by how much. Once a general promise of protection is made, then when an industry starts to fall behind foreign competition their remedy is seek protection from competition rather than reform and become more efficient. Government must decide how much above market price an inefficient producer will be paid. That determination is subject to political influence. Around 1990, the world price of sugar was four cents a pound. Price supports kept the domestic U.S. price at 22 cents. Now, price supports keep the domestic price at two or three times the world market price. Consumers end up paying the subsidy, but also production of candy is shifted out of the United States and the candy is imported instead of the sugar. [7. http://news.medill.northwestern.edu...] that costs manufacturing jobs.Trade promotes peaceFree trade benefits both sides of the trading partnership. The theory agrees with a common sense understanding a deal depends upon both sides benefiting. Both the trade process and the results favor peace. "Quantitative studies provide a great deal of evidence for a causal chain running from free trade via prosperity and democracy to the avoidance of military conflict, as well as for another causal relationship between trade or economic openness and conflict avoidance." [8. http://www.independent.org...]Critics have argued that while conflict reduces trade, trade does not reduce conflict. A recent study [9. http://www.yale.edu...] refutes that analysis. "Previous studies that address the endogeneity of trade ... have not overstated the benefit of interdependence. Commerce promotes peace because violence has substantial costs, whether these are paid prospectively or contemporaneously."The resolution is affirmed.