The free movement of goods across national borders has long been a controversial issue. Some people argue that it is necessary for economic growth, while others claim that it damages local industries. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

One of the most debated issues of the

last

century has been the extent to which international trade benefits or harms national economies. Many arguments have been made for and against free commerce between nations. In

this

essay, I will discuss both views and state my position. Those who support the expansion of the global free deal that economies grow faster when they can specialise in just a few industries in which they have a strong advantage.

As a result

, each region or country produces something of value to the world economy.

For example

, East Asia manufactures electronic goods, the Middle East exports energy, and the EU produces luxury items. Free market proponents claim that dependence on global business helps to strengthen international cooperation and prevent wars. Meanwhile, opponents of the free industry—sometimes called ‘protectionists’—claim that the unrestricted movement of goods and services causes damage to local communities.

This

is because jobs are lost when it becomes cheaper to import a product than to produce it domestically. They

also

argue that the vast distances travelled by food, oil, and consumer goods are harming the environment and making our lives unsustainable. The protectionists are in favour of tighter controls on the movement of goods and services to protect jobs and livelihoods. In conclusion, while there are convincing arguments on both sides of the debate, a return to protectionist policies would surely be a mistake. I believe that global enterprise is inevitable and should not be restricted. It is no longer realistic for nations to source all of their energy, food, and manufactured goods within their borders.