Why is /pol/ against free trade? Does it stem from the racis

It stems from wanting sovereignty.

>>127299519
How does restricting free trade give sovereignty?

File: 0209cbsncsxvermin897938490083640x360.jpg (81KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 640x360px

>>127299080
(((Free Trade))) and free trade are two different things. Agreements like TPP and NAFTA are called 'free trade's, almost mockingly, but they restrict trade to the chosen corporations and disenfranchise the little guy. It'd be an easy argument to make to say that NAFTA crushed the small farmers in Mexico by favoring massive agribusiness instead, which in turn destabilized the labor market and helped cause the peso to default, basically causing the immigration crisis.

NAFTA caused the immigration crisis.

Free trade is about the free market, not about Corporate Handjobs

>>127299590
International corporations, whether they give political donations or not or have active communications with government and parties, bring a lot of capital to a nation in tax and therefore political parties policies will be catered to ensure that trade is as open as possible. Companies then have even more power over the nation than the government (even more than they have at the moment).

An example might be (this happened in Aus)
>big co gives regular large donations to a party
>starts wanting foreign workers to work for less than normal wage
>Gov doesn't want to lose donations or amount of donations
>gov makes a visa specifically for short term foreign workers
>Citizens get less work/positions as positions are being filled by foreign workers
one way to combat this would be to put a cap on how much a donation can be

>>127299867
This,

I think Ron Paul had an article about this, but yeah. There's a huge difference between fake globalist free trade and actual free trade in favor with the free market.

>>127301602
In other words, free trade agreements should literally just be one paragraph. NAFTA and TPP being called free trade is like calling the Patriot Act "patriotism."

>>127299080
Shekelhuber

I'm against free trade because of racism mostly

The only "problem" with free trade, and I use the word problem loosely here, is that you want your economy to be working on import substitution. You want to be expanding into those things that you're paying other people to do for you. It's easier to get the balance right if you're running meaningful tariffs.

Not all imports can or should be substituted, but just chucking all your industry and practical skills overseas to the barbarians is insanity.

>>127299080
free trade = jew trade = foreigner trade = foreigner investors = wageslavery

>>127307815

Oh, and NAFTA wasn't free trade. NAFTA was fascist shit meant to further concentrate the power of the global elite, who are such losers they're afraid of the competition real free trade would give them. So instead of promoting real free trade they construct these monolithic agreements about how exactly they're going to rape the economy for their own profit, and then they do.