valuation of currency. All in all, these measures taken by nations arepractically identical to tariffs, which vastly reduces consumer surplus (the ability of theconsumers to pay less, an obvious benefit to them). A good example is the Tokyo Roundwhich lasted from 1973 to 1979 and took place during an oil crisis, a deep economicrecession, and rising protectionism. Tokyo sought to make tariff cuts, regulate the usageof agricultural subsides, and come to a settlement of a policy to deal with Third Worldcountries. But most critically, the Tokyo Round failed in curbing the practice ofsafeguarding which undermined all the progress and agreements made in Tokyo.The protectionist solution to the controversy of free trade vs. protectionism issomewhat hazy: mutually beneficial and balanced international trade. In this situation,there would be no violence to any nation’s valid claims, excluding transitional problems. Low-income nations would be helped by developing countries such as the United States,and the living standards in the high-income nations will still be safeguarded. No country,not even the United States, can be completely self sufficient, nor should it try to be. Atone point in time, there will be a need in the US for a resource not available. The USshould, however, not be so dependent on other countries. The US should learn tomaximize its production by making it more efficient. The protectionist solution is more complex than how it is presented, though. Theissue of free trade vs. protectionism is hard to solve, since there are so many factors to it. Simply stated, the whole issue is a game of theory. The terminology of a Prisoners’Dilemma is applicable to the competition of global markets. In the Prisoners’ Dilemma,two prisoners are accused of a crime. Both prisoners are taken into their own questioningrooms. If both prisoners confess, they are given a light sentence. If one confesses and theother does...
