k to them as goods at higher price.The Marxist perspective discredits both the nationalistic and liberal perspective by stating that each model omits certain key components. For example: Liberal economies strive to have no overproduction; whatever is produced will be consumed. Marxists argue that according to the law of disproportionality supply and demand will never be equal to one another, except for brief moments. Therefore, capitalism enables the world to evolve, but not at a fair pace. Certain players fall behind and as a result become exploited. Marxists also argue that this unbalanced evolution doesnt simply happen on the global level but also within a nation itself. This imbalance of power and capital is why the advantages of the Marxist perspective contradict the first two perspectives completely. As with both the liberal and nationalistic models the Marxist model explains how there is a creation of more jobs and more work, yet the allocation of wealth is split evenly throughout the population. There is no longer a minority ruling the majority. No matter what ones role is, everyone is treated equally. The advantage within free trade from a Marxist perspective is poorer nations are allowed the same opportunities as the richer nations. The disadvantage is that no matter how much one nation produces (their effort), they are entitled to the same opportunities. The wealthy and perhaps more productive nations would view this as unfair to them. Free Trade is a beneficial idea if all parties involved, that is, the workers, the state, and the private sector, could be represented equally and justly. Until all three ingredients are given the same chances, each perspective will allow for different advantages and disadvantages. By examining the liberal, nationalistic, and Marxist perspectives individually and in contrast with one another, free trade can be seen as a completely different political economy from one region or n...
