International Trade Debate

International Trade Debate (II)

The stance taken is reasonable and quite important. Accepting goods into our country that may contain harmful materials would be a horrible accident, and because of this, deserves much attention. Trade restrictions, by definition, are made to protect both buyer and seller during the sale of goods. Harmful materials aside, the only countries profiting off of trade restrictions are countries that are economic powerhouses. Third world countries are affected adversely by trade restrictions, and in some cases, lose much more than they gain in trade.

Trade restrictions take away the advantages associated with trade for many countries. The World Trade Organization has delivered a set of rules to be followed to help less developed countries in the maturing process. This process was not set forth to provide high tariff’s and absolve the country monetarily through trade. Harmful substances can be tested prior to trade, or, trade can be conducted with another provider of a good if the goods found in one area contain inadequate or harmful substances. Trade restrictions were not emplaced to stop harmful materials from entering the United States; they were emplaced, just like many things that have clever back up stories, to increase the positive flow of currency when associated with the economic powerhouses.

Having consumers in our country utilizing safe materials is important. Trade restrictions have not done their job in giving complete protection as of yet, and I would not rely upon that fact anytime soon. Trade restrictions are money makers for large countries and economic blunders for small undeveloped countries. The need for the trade restrictions is economically absurd.