I am continually amazed by the apparent need that reporters feel to describe the trade agreements negotiated by the U.S. government as "free trade" agreements. (See the Times article on the Colombian elections for the current target of my wrath.) What possible additional information do reporters and editors believe that they are conveying by including the word "free?"
As I have written elsewhere, these agreements do not free all trade -- there are still substantial obstacles facing Colombian doctors, lawyers, and other professionals who would like to sell their services in the United States. This agreement also increases protectionist barriers by stengthening patent and copyright protection. (Even if you think these protections are good, they are still forms of protection.) So, why don't these reporters just save themselves a word and more accurately describe these pacts as simply "trade agreements."
You may also like
You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)