I believe that boosting trade benefits countries on a net scale, but there are obviously many losers. The losers spend a lot of money and effort fighting free trade because their loses would be significant. The consumers would benefit significantly with free trade on a net, but the benefits would not be evenly distributed with some consumers gaining more than others and some even losing. What matters is the net effect. The effect on producers would be that they would lose in certain industries and companies, but the net effect should also be positive in the sense that production would increase on the net. Essentially, I would like a trade agreement where there are literally no restrictions on what you can buy or sell in various countries, except for certain products such as tobacco or alcohol that should be restricted in some sense. I would not want the undesirable products to be sold more than they already are because of the terrible health consequences. I believe that healthcare products being traded is somewhat tricky because there is safety involved, so there would need to clearance in the country the drug is to be sold. Also, the benefits that are not financial are related to cultural exchange being expedited by free trade. One big issue with big trade is that politicians love to gain popular vote by saying they will create jobs by restricting trade. However, the politicians should be given less power when it comes to trade. I believe business should be able to set more rules with regard to free trade, but a statement like that will obviously get lots of contest. President Obama telling thousands of jobs would be created in the Portland shows just how powerful free trade is, and that is what leaders should do rather than lie to their constituents to get votes.