[Grumpy_Mel]

People treat the concepts of Free Trade and Protectionism too much like religion and too little like the pragmatic tools they should be.

Free Trade is only universaly good if you run a multi-national corporation and protectionism is only universaly desirable if your a union boss.

For most of the rest of us, we want our nation to be economicaly competitive and we want to have a reasonably good quality of life.

The way to achieve that is a smart combination of open trade agreements and strategic, limited protectionism.

Believe it or not, there are instances when protectionism can enhance long term economic competitiveness not stifle it (for instance when an industry suffers a momentery crisis or when trying grow a new industry sector that’s not quite upto competing with the rest of the world from birth.... but could be if given a little space and breathing room to grow before facing competition, or buffering resources from the results of an overly volatile market).

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

You're right that there are times when some protectionism can be helpful; including the "nascent industry" rationale.

All modern trade deals -- including NAFTA -- have provisions to prevent "predatory trading" practices (e.g. pricing exports below cost of production, in order to destroy competitors in importing nations); and to allow for exemptions designed to promote regional economic development.

The general principle remains -- trade creates economic wealth, and protectionism leads to economic stagnation.

The U.S. has such a large economy that it is, in effect, one of the world's largest free-trade zones, all by itself. For that reason, the U.S. could become quite isolatonist, and continue to function for some time. Similarly, the European Union could become a closed shop, and continue to function -- for a time. The economy would be smaller than it would have been with free trade; and it would grow at a much slower rate; but you could continue to function -- until the inevitable depression.