[TheAdamAndChe]

Is the problem that the US has been doing it? I would argue that, with the internet, massively increased global communication, and a massively different economy from 1853 when the Perry expedition occurred, the problem isn't that the US used to do it long ago when imperialism was the norm, but rather that this form of globalist capitalism is becoming the norm worldwide, to the detriment of the lower and middle classes across the world.

[cscurmudgeon]

There are winners and losers but overall economists agree free trade is good.

http://econpapers.repec.org/article/tafjeduce/v_3a34_3ay_3a2...

In any trade system, there will be losers.

[kafkaesq]

Do they, now? From the abstract we only read that (according to the authors) there is some kind of consensus:

Consensus is particularly strong for propositions of free international trade and capital flows.

But as to what that consensus (in particular, as to whether the effects of free trade are "good", "bad", or "mixed") -- we would need to dig into the full text of the article, which is available only to subscribers.

And anyway that "consensus" was from 2003, and a lot has shifted in the universe since then -- particularly in regard to the question of whether free trade is still a pretty neat idea, or not.

[dukeluke]

From what I understand, free trade allows for unparalleled wealth creation by optimizing the flow and utilization of capital, which is fantastic! The problem is that it optimizes other things too, like labor costs by taking advantage of countries with incredibly low minimum wages, workplace safety standards, and standards of living. Meanwhile, the increased profit doesn't go to the society impacted by the transfer of these jobs, but rather to the capital owners, thus exacerbating wealth inequality. So yes, free trade does create more wealth than non-free trade, but it's not to the benefit of the society losing the jobs.

[cscurmudgeon]

Do you have better more recent studies? Will gladly take it.