Why do reporters always have to use the term "free trade" when they just mean "trade?" Obviously the politicians who are promoting trade deals like to use the word "free," I'm sure that the focus groups show it gets a positive response, but what is the excuse for reporters adopting their language? The immediate target of my wrath is Market Place radio which commemorated the 1-year anniversary of CAFTA with a discussion of the impact of "free trade" on the region. The discussion would have been so much better if they could just have called it "trade." Also, the NYT has an article which reports without comment Treasury Secretary Paulson's assertion that free trade has been a cornerstone of U.S. prosperity and warning against protectionist barriers. Of course the United States is very far from a free trading country. We have huge barriers to trade in highly paid professional services, like physicians services, lawyers, services, etc. There is no economic theory that supports the view that barriers to trade in professional services are somehow less harmful to the economy than barriers to trade in items like clothes and shoes. If the latter is harmful, then so is the former. In addition, we have the huge economic distortions created by patent and copyright protection. But, I'll leave that one for another day.
--Dean Baker
