Dean Baker asks a good question: Why exactly do pundits call it "free" trade when there are tons of protectionist measures contained in these deals?
Referring to the proposed free trade pact with Ecuador and its impact on that country's presidential campaign, Baker notes that it in fact "[the trade deal] would not create free trade. It would largely leave in place the protections that ensure high wages for doctors, lawyers, accountants, economists and other highly educated professionals in the United States. It would also increase protectionism by requiring more stringent rules in Latin America for drug patents and copyrights."
Baker asks: "So, why not save a word and just call it a "trade" agreement?" That's a damn good question.
surplus to political requirements
3 years ago