This paper analyzes the trade relationship between the United States and China, the second-largest U.S. trading partner, focusing on the debate over protectionism versus free trade. Drawing on David Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage, the paper argues that protectionist measures — however politically appealing during economic downturns — ultimately harm the very workers they are designed to protect. The paper examines three major negative consequences of protectionism: retaliatory trade measures, market distortions, and industrial complacency. It concludes that while free trade produces short-term losers in specific sectors, the aggregate benefits to consumers and the broader economy outweigh the costs of shielding uncompetitive industries.
The paper demonstrates refutation through structured enumeration: it organizes the negative consequences of protectionism into three clearly labeled impacts (retaliation, market distortion, and complacency), which signals analytical rigor and makes the argument easy to follow. This technique is particularly effective in policy essays where the writer must dismantle multiple opposing claims in a logical sequence.
The paper follows a classical argumentative structure: an introduction that states the thesis, a theoretical foundation section (Ricardo), a section presenting the opposing view (protectionism arguments), a central analytical section identifying three costs of protectionism, and a conclusion that synthesizes the policy implications. Each section builds on the previous one, keeping the argument cohesive from theory to application to judgment.
China is the second-largest trading partner of the United States after Canada (Census.gov, 2009). This trading relationship has fundamentally altered the economies of both countries, as well as the shape of global trade itself. The nature of the trade is based heavily on U.S. importation of low-priced Chinese goods from a wide variety of sectors. This has created a massive trade deficit between the U.S. and China, a situation exacerbated by historically low U.S. savings rates and historically high Chinese savings rates, along with the peg of the yuan to the dollar.
There are calls, however, for this trade to be curtailed somewhat. Trade between the U.S. and China has resulted in a massive transfer of wealth across the Pacific, which has in turn had many negative consequences for the U.S. economy, including hundreds of thousands of lost jobs in manufacturing. U.S. firms complain that the cost of doing business in China is so low that they could not compete even if they paid their workers nothing. This raises the question: is protectionism warranted to protect U.S. economic interests?
It is tempting to enact protectionist measures in difficult economic times, and indeed this trend has been increasing as a result of the global financial crisis (Evenett, 2009). However, this trend is misguided. This paper will show that protectionism hurts economies, even the workers the measures are designed to protect.
The foundation of international trade theory derives from David Ricardo's 1817 book On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. In this work, Ricardo outlined the theory of comparative advantage. All things being equal, he argued, nations benefit from producing the goods in which they have a comparative advantage — not necessarily an absolute advantage — and then trading those goods freely with one another. When illustrated, comparative advantage shows that the total combined output of two trading nations is higher than if each produced only the goods in which it held an absolute advantage (NetMBA, 2007).
Ricardo's example was deliberately simple and devoid of taxes, in order to show the effects of trade without any barriers. From this foundation has grown our current model of international trade, which emphasizes the removal of trade barriers. The massive increase in trade between the U.S. and China, for example, began as a result of the removal of barriers between the two nations. China's accession to the World Trade Organization further allowed the two countries to build stronger trade linkages.
There are many arguments in favor of protectionism. These include national security interests, the infant industry argument, and the protection of jobs. U.S.-China trade, for example, has cost the American manufacturing industry hundreds of thousands of jobs. The cost of an hour of Chinese labor is substantially lower than that of an hour of American labor. Land is relatively cheap in China compared to the United States. China supports its industries with low-interest loans from state-backed banks, and protects them from the adverse effects of currency inflation by significantly distorting the market for the yuan.
The growth of the Chinese economy at the expense of manufacturing jobs in America and other Western countries is thus a matter of Chinese government policy, as evidenced by many of its economic development strategies and tactics. The typical U.S. approach, by contrast, is to promote free trade — a reflection of Ricardian values.
Protectionism does help to protect some American jobs in the short term. However, it costs more jobs than it saves. Free trade stimulates the economy and creates employment in other areas, which can offset the impact of job losses in certain sectors. While this is no comfort to workers who are suffering the immediate effects of trade competition with China, it is not the goal of a capitalist government to guarantee lifetime employment in any particular field. If the nation as a whole benefits from the removal of trade barriers, then that is the course the government should pursue.
You’re 54% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.