Lala

At first, I think that the free trade for productrs that we have a lot in ur country, is good to being sold. The Argentinean’s lemons, as the article said, are very good in their quality. Also, it’sproduced a lot of lemons, more than the argentinean society consume, so it’s a benefit to them, sell to another country, in dollars, and for a good price. On the other hand, United States was verystrong to commerciate with. It imposed rules for health security, and not in all the country the citrics can be sold.
Mentioning Ricardo and his theory, he would be supporting the free trade, because hesaid, that one country that is richer that other (United States) is allowed to buy to a “poor” country (Aregentina) if it pays more than it is thought. In this example, the lemons, United Statesbought lemons to Argentina and paid in dollars. The United States had their citics but they changed it for the argentinean citrics, I think because it is more cheaper. And for Argentina it is better thedollars, because the people who have it here change it for pesos and they have more money (thinking about a lower price of the peso than the dollar). Smith thougth the same, he was against theprotectionsm, and against the intervention of the State in the market, because he said he made the things worst. For example, United States, interfiered in the citric distribution in the country.
If I werethe president of Argentina I would decide which products have to be commerced as the free trade and other products keep them or sell them less as a protectionist rule.
For example, the soya inArgentina it is almost noy consumed. Because of that, it is not necessary to keep it in the country when other coutries consume it, a lot.
But, such products as the good meat and grains are very needed inthe food for the argentinean pepole and if they are exported, the argentinean society don’t have food in their tables everyday.
That happend last year, when economy minister tried to impose the law...