Please answer question below. Do not use answer from Chegg!
Opponents of free trade often argue that trade with other countries destroys domestic jobs; it threatens industries that are vital to national security; it inhibits the chances of a new domestic industry from surviving; and that it is only desirable if firms in different countries are subject to the same laws and regulations (that is, all firms have a level playing field).
- From an economic perspective for each of these four arguments for restricting trade, what are your views? Does free trade only destroy jobs? Why or why not? Is the national security argument valid or not? Why or why not? For the "infant industry" argument, does that attempt to create a class of winners and losers? Provide specific examples to support your answers.
- Many companies use the argument that "the lack of a level playing field" is costing them losses in sales and prohibits them from hiring more workers. What do you think?