[vidarh]

It only benefits consumers if they still have jobs, and assuming the jobs still pay well enough for the cheaper goods to actually also be cheaper in relative terms.

That may be the case, and one would hope the local businesses are able to adjust or that new jobs follow. But it is certainly not automatically the case that having your local market flooded with cheaper goods is better for consumers.

[yummyfajitas]

Choose your favorite country that isn't Zimbabwe or North Korea, and then find a good or service that people (choose your favorite %-ile) have less of today than they did before free trade.

If you can't find such a good or service, then free trade has helped consumers.

[vidarh]

You can only validly make that assertion if you can find somewhere where all else has held equal. Otherwise you'd be making a logical leap without accounting for a bunch of confounding factors.

I also said nothing about whether or not free trade in general is beneficial. What I addressed was the unsupported blanket assumption that free trade will automatically benefit consumers without any kind of qualifications.

As I said: It very well may do, but for that to be true in any specific case, then a number of other factors needs to line up as well.

[UK-AL]

Even if the competition beat you on everything. Freeing the economy and focusing on the product you make best, even if competition beat you on that product it is still better overall.