Good idea to post it as a separate thread. This is a very serious question which requires a lot of thought.
I have a Masters in Economics with a concentration on International Economics so I can vouch for what you said with regard to the universal agreement on Free Trade theory.
Like all theory it is based upon reasoning from a certain set of assumptions. Primarily those are: A -seamless transition of factors of production from one form of work to another and
B - an international currency system which is based on FIXED exchange rates (fixed in terms of specie movements between surplus countries and deficit countries. Thus, gold is credited or debited to settle trade imbalances.
When Trump started talking about trade (and he is only one with any ideas in the whole damn Republican Party apparently), I cringed at the thought of going after the sacred Theory and could not understand how anyone with a degree in Economics from Wharton could say such things.
Then, I started thinking about the assumptions of Free Trade and Trump’s concentration on government manipulation of exchange rates. Under the old regime governments were prevented from that by limited supplies of the gold necessary to intervene in any major way.
However, when Nixon took us off the Gold Standard and FIXED exchange rates in the early 70s (because of the pressure financing the Vietnam War put on the exchange rate) we left the Old Era behind and entered into the New World of FLOATING exchange rates.
Since the financial media seems to be oblivious to this change, the way we think needs a fundamental alteration.
The question is not “is there a comparative advantage?” or “is there a more efficient allocation of resources (foreign and domestic) due to FT” but -
“How must we modify the cost/benefit ratio of FT since we have gone into FLOATING exchange rates determined by ‘market conditions’ in the international monetary markets”? Another point to consider is “How much power does a government hold over the international monetary markets?”
The other assumption noted has been addressed through governmental programs to retrain workers whose jobs are lost to imports. While governments don’t do this well, at least the problem is recognized and attempts made to address it.
From the point of view of workers whose occupations have become obsolete and kids in the education system who are trying to pick a viable occupation, this is the most pressing question.
But it gets worse. If we (as a culture) decide to trade ownership of our land for imported appliances, this amounts to a seamless transition from one form of work to no work—but only until we run out of land.
bump