In Miton Ezrati 's piece, "Defending Free Trade," Ezrati argues that free trade is more beneficial to the United States as it has more positives than protectionism. Ezrati is an economist, investment manager, and an author who currently serves as chief economist for a company called Vested. Ezrati believes that we need to fight protectionism and promote free trade with other countries as it benefits us more than shutting down trade and hiking up tariffs to unreasonable percentages. In the article Ezrati utilizes facts and history to help support his claim of defending free trade, especially in using the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs.
Ezrati 's main argument is that protectionism is something that needs to not happen again in America and his first …show more content…
Ezrati notes that the income of the workers is several thousand dollars more because of free trade than without it, and the fact that these extra dollars can be used to stimulate the economy. Also, this provides for freedom of the individual to be supported as if a consumer wants something from another country they can get said item because of free trade, Ezrati also debunks the major idea against free trade which is jobs leaving by making the point that most American companies expand and compete more aggressively than they would if America was closed off to free trade like during the 30 's and potentially under …show more content…
He concedes logically in the fact that a country can be punished by the World Trade Organization for pursuing unfair trade practice such as severe protectionism. Alongside there is a minor pathos appeal when referring back to The Great Depression for switching back as a final jab toward defending free trade, as the feeling associated with the time period are negative and are feelings and a time that most people would prefer to avoid forever. This final statement is one of the most effective in persuasion as addressing the audience in a way like this as they know the affects of falling back works as a strong persuasion phrase to support Ezrati 's claim.
The one thing missing in Ezrati 's argument is proving the negatives of free trade wrong. He fails to do this as he never states a negative to what free trade can cause. The loss of jobs or increase in globalization seen as a bad thing could have been counterargued by Ezrati to make the piece more effective. However, Ezrati still maintains his credibility and effectiveness of the piece with his final point in the article about history repeating itself, which is a slight nod towards the other side of the argument, and a
Ezrati 's main argument is that protectionism is something that needs to not happen again in America and his first …show more content…
Ezrati notes that the income of the workers is several thousand dollars more because of free trade than without it, and the fact that these extra dollars can be used to stimulate the economy. Also, this provides for freedom of the individual to be supported as if a consumer wants something from another country they can get said item because of free trade, Ezrati also debunks the major idea against free trade which is jobs leaving by making the point that most American companies expand and compete more aggressively than they would if America was closed off to free trade like during the 30 's and potentially under …show more content…
He concedes logically in the fact that a country can be punished by the World Trade Organization for pursuing unfair trade practice such as severe protectionism. Alongside there is a minor pathos appeal when referring back to The Great Depression for switching back as a final jab toward defending free trade, as the feeling associated with the time period are negative and are feelings and a time that most people would prefer to avoid forever. This final statement is one of the most effective in persuasion as addressing the audience in a way like this as they know the affects of falling back works as a strong persuasion phrase to support Ezrati 's claim.
The one thing missing in Ezrati 's argument is proving the negatives of free trade wrong. He fails to do this as he never states a negative to what free trade can cause. The loss of jobs or increase in globalization seen as a bad thing could have been counterargued by Ezrati to make the piece more effective. However, Ezrati still maintains his credibility and effectiveness of the piece with his final point in the article about history repeating itself, which is a slight nod towards the other side of the argument, and a