Final answer:
Arguments against free trade include job losses due to outsourcing, the need to protect infant industries, national security concerns, and potential reductions in environmental standards. Their persuasiveness varies based on context, such as the actual economic impact of free trade on job creation and consumer prices, the difficulty in implementing infant industry protection judiciously, the overestimation of security threats, and the importance of international environmental agreements.
Step-by-step explanation:
Arguments against free trade often center on several key issues:
- Job Losses: Critics argue that free trade can lead to the outsourcing of jobs to countries where labor is cheaper, resulting in unemployment in the home country.
- Infant Industry Argument: This perspective suggests that developing industries in a country may need protection from international competition until they become established and can compete on their own.
- National Security: It is sometimes argued that certain industries should be protected for national security reasons, so that the country is not dependent on potentially hostile nations for critical supplies.
- Environmental Standards: The claim is that free trade can lead to a "race to the bottom" in environmental standards, as countries may lower regulations to attract business.
Personally, I find these arguments context-dependent and not universally persuasive. For instance, while it is true that jobs can be outsourced, free trade also creates jobs in different sectors and can lead to lower prices for consumers. The infant industry argument is sensible in theory, but in practice, it can be difficult to determine when an industry no longer needs protection.
National security concerns are valid, but often overblown or not applicable to many industries. The race to the bottom in environmental standards is a critical concern, and here, international cooperation and agreements can play an important role in ensuring high standards globally.