经济学家在一些简单的假设下得出结论，允许经济中的自由贸易可以改善整个社会的福利。如果自由贸易为进口市场开辟了市场，那么消费者从低价进口中获益，而不是生产商受到损害。如果自由贸易开辟了出口市场，那么生产者可以从新的地方获益，而不是消费者因价格上涨而受到损害。反对自由贸易的主要论据之一是，当贸易引入成本较低的国际竞争对手时，它会使国内生产商停业。虽然这种说法在技术上并不正确，但它是短视的。另一方面，当更广泛地看待自由贸易问题时，很明显还有另外两个重要的考虑因素。尽管如此，仍有许多反对自由贸易原则的共同论点。让我们依次介绍它们中的每一个，并讨论它们的有效性和适用性。反对自由贸易的另一个常见论点是，依赖潜在的敌对国家获取重要的商品和服务是有风险的。根据这一论点，某些行业应受到国家安全保护。虽然这一论点在技术上也不是不正确的，但它的应用范围通常比它应该更广泛，以保护生产者和特殊利益的利益而牺牲消费者的利益。一些贸易限制的支持者认为，关税，配额等威胁可以作为国际谈判的讨价还价的筹码。实际上，这通常是一种风险和非生产性的策略，主要是因为威胁采取不符合国家最佳利益的行动通常被视为不可信的威胁。首先，失去国内就业机会与消费者购买的商品价格下降相结合，在权衡保护国内生产与自由贸易所涉及的权衡时，不应忽视这些好处。其次，自由贸易不仅减少了某些行业的就业机会，而且还创造了其他行业的就业机会。之所以出现这种情况，是因为通常有一些行业，国内生产者最终成为出口国（增加就业），而且受益于自由贸易的外国人增加的收入至少部分用于购买国内商品，这也增加了就业。人们常常想指出，允许来自其他国家的竞争是不公平的，因为其他国家不一定遵守相同的规则，具有相同的生产成本，等等。这些人是正确的，因为这不公平，但他们没有意识到缺乏公平实际上有助于他们，而不是伤害他们。从逻辑上讲，如果另一个国家采取措施保持低价，国内消费者将受益于低价进口产品的存在。
美国纽约大学经济学Assignment代写：反对自由贸易的论点
Economists conclude, under some simple assumptions, that allowing free trade in an economy improves welfare for society overall. If free trade opens up a market to imports, then consumers benefit from the low-priced imports more than producers are hurt by them. If free trade opens up a market for exports, then producers benefit from the new place to sell more than consumers are hurt by higher prices. One of the main arguments against free trade is that, when trade introduces lower cost international competitors, it puts domestic producers out of business. While this argument isn’t technically incorrect, it is short-sighted. When looking at the free trade issue more broadly, on the other hand, it becomes clear that there are two other important considerations. Nonetheless, there are a number of common arguments made against the principle of free trade. Let’s go through each of them in turn and discuss their validity and applicability. Another common argument against free trade is that it is risky to depend on potentially hostile countries for vital goods and services. Under this argument, certain industries should be protected in the interests of national security. While this argument is also not technically incorrect, it is often applied much more broadly than it should be in order to preserve the interests of producers and special interests at the expense of consumers. Some proponents of trade restrictions argue that the threat of tariffs, quotas, and the like can be used as a bargaining chip in international negotiations. In reality, this is often a risky and unproductive strategy, largely because threatening to take action that is not in a nation’s best interest is often viewed as a non-credible threat. First, the loss of domestic jobs is coupled with reductions in prices of goods that consumers buy, and these benefits shouldn’t be ignored when weighing the tradeoffs involved in protecting domestic production versus free trade. Second, free trade not only reduces jobs in some industries, but it also creates jobs in other industries. This dynamic occurs both because there are usually industries where the domestic producers end up being exporters (which increases employment) and because the increased income held by foreigners who benefited from free trade is at least partly used to buy domestic goods, which also increases employment. People often like to point out that it’s not fair to allow competition from other nations because other countries don’t necessarily play by the same rules, have the same costs of production, and so on. These people are correct in that it’s not fair, but what they don’t realize is that the lack of fairness actually helps them rather than hurts them. Logically, if another country is taking actions to keep its prices low, domestic consumers benefit from the existence of low-priced imports.