The argument over free trade and the extent to which the United States should or should not reduce or increase tariffs on imports and exports is one that requires consideration from a number of perspectives. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) can be used as an exemplification of the benefits and drawbacks of free trade. This three-way agreement for free trade between Canada, the United States and Mexico has been debated over recent years especially. According to The New York Times, "All three countries exported more goods and services to the other two, cross-border investments grew, and the United States economy has added millions of jobs since then.” Critics of the agreement, on the other hand, argue that the increase in jobs does not account for the jobs that were lost to both Mexico and Canada.

However, this argument is not entirely accurate, as while it is true that jobs are increasingly being lost overseas for the United States, it is not necessarily NAFTA that is to blame for this. In an article for The Economist, another perspective toward NAFTA was presented:

"The 'giant sucking sound' that Ross Perot, a presidential candidate, predicted would be heard as Mexico hoovered up American jobs never materialized; if jobs have moved anywhere in the past two decades, they have gone to China, not Mexico. Industries from aerospace to cars have woven supply chains back and forth across North America’s borders. Some 40% of the content of imports from Mexico into the United States, and 25% of the content of imports from Canada, originated in the United States itself."

Therefore, the argument that the loss of American jobs is primarily because of NAFTA is not necessarily true. While undoubtedly it would have led to the loss of a few jobs, the numbers are exaggerated.

Furthermore, these perceived dangers are narrow-minded, even if they are to some degree true. They are collateral damage in the face of strategic benefits that open market policies which will add to the economy as a whole. NAFTA, and free trade as a whole, stand to benefit and have benefited more than they supposedly hurt the United States.

In a report titled "Why Free Trade Works For America," by former Trade Policy Analyst, Daniella Markheim, the numbers speak for themselves:

"Today, the $12 trillion U.S. economy is bolstered by free Trade, a pillar of America's vitality. In 2005, U.S. exports to the rest of the world totaled $1.2 trillion and supported one in five U.S. manufacturing jobs. jobs directly linked to the export of goods pay 13 percent to 18 percent more than other U.S. jobs. Moreover, agricultural exports hit a record high in 2005 and now account for 926,000 jobs...

The service sector accounts for roughly 79 percent of the U.S. economy and 30 percent of the value of American exports. Service industries account for eight out of every 10 jobs in the U.S. and provide more jobs than the rest of the economy combined. Over the past 20 years, service industries have contributed about 40 million new jobs across America."

The United States has in fact greatly benefited from free trade, and globalization will not only continue to benefit the United States, but it will ultimately also help other, more impoverished countries, stabilize their economies. These benefits do not necessarily mean fully free, global trade, is the correct policy for the United States, as it is not the policy that has led to these achievements.

In the past, the United States has been — and should continue to be in the future — picky about who it does and does not sign free trade treaties with. This is addressed in an article for The New York Times,

"....imports from countries that are gross violators of labor rights, such as Pakistan or Vietnam, may face restrictions when those imports demonstrably threaten to damage labor standards at home. Otherwise, national institutional diversity would be meaningless. Emphasizing the primacy of norms and social bargains embedded in our domestic regulations would ensure that global commerce was not used to override them. It would also shield us from misguided protectionism in the great majority of cases where trade poses no danger."

Trade is not something that can be viewed independently of the conditions and social norms of commerce and protection. Trade does not exist in a vacuum, and therefore there must exist a certain level of strategy when deciding who and who not to sign free trade treaties with. Countries that grossly violate labor standards, not only are morally reprehensible to sign trade treaties with but doing so will risk the possibility of companies outsourcing their production to these regions with fewer regulations in order to increase profit.

The economic aspects of trade also do not exist independently of the political ones, in the sense that trade should be used as a policy and negotiating tool. America’s everlasting goal of ‘spreading democracy’ is one that can be leveraged here by being selective to what kinds of regimes the nation chooses to engage in open trade with and what the repercussions of such actions will be.