It is controversial whether free trade is beneficial to all countries or not. The author of the reading argues that free trade has three major drawbacks so that should be banned, whereas the speaker mentions that protectionism does not work because free trade is still good to many countries by refuting the points of the reading.
The author asserts that free trade causes the global competition so that the price of products will be lower and lower. Besides, international companies threat the survival of local companies. However, the professor refutes the reading passage’s claim that global companies always tend to hire local employees and transfer the new technologies into local areas. As a result, local economy will be improved.
Moreover, the reading passage insists that free trade makes government to have small money because it is impossible for government to receive the tariffs on imported goods. As a result, the pocket of the government will be light. On the other hand, the speaker argues that the reason government do not have much money is because it subsidizes the local firms and manufacturers. If the government lessens subsidizing money, it will be able to save the money.
Finally, the professor mentions that there is no reason to have the battle among the nations by contrasting the reading passage's concern. For example, the risk about the war among European countries does not exist now, even though they experienced the World War II in the past.
In conclusion, the professor in the speaking makes his assertion that free trade is still a good way to develop global economy by pointing out the unreasonable statements of the reading. When it comes to advantage of international companies on local area, another way to save money, and no possibility of the war, the speaker contrasts the reading passage's claim. |