The United States should have a general policy of free trade.

Thanks to Con for a vigorous debate on a controversial topic. I think readers interested in the subject will benefit.It boils down to tree trade producing winners and losers. Theory predicts and experience bears out that overall prosperity increases dramatically under free trade. The opposition is based upon the equality of poverty achieved by protectionism. Countries get to choose whether they want the prosperity and inequality of Hong Kong or the uniform poverty of Maoist China. I claim prosperity is better. Comparative AdvantageCon quotes a survey of the general population [C7] saying that the populace favors trade restrictions. I never made a claim about what the general public favors. I presented the theory of comparative advantage and cited data that professional economists believe the theory works in practice. Con cited leftist Nobel economist Paul Krugman, but it turns out that Krugman favors free trade. It's no accident that Krugman favors free trade he received his Nobel prize for work on international trade. [12. http://en.wikipedia.org...] Right-wing Nobel economist Milton Friedman favors free trade. Wikipedia summarizes, "The academic debate among economists is currently settled in favor of free trade, with a consensus having existed since at least the 1960s ..." [1] Perhaps Wikipedia is biased, but since left and right agree, we don't know which side they might be biased towards.The general public is suspicious of free trade for the reason I cited in R2, the benefits are spread among all consumers, but dislocations are acute and easy to point to. The general public often holds contradictory opinions. If we asked the public if they wanted a substantial increase in prices to keep non-competitive companies in business, it's a safe bet thy would be as opposed to that as they are to unrestricted trade.Comparative advantage ensures that workers indeed benefit overall from free trade, The benefits come as generally lowered prices.The theory of comparative advantage is so well established that it isn't necessary to refute each and every type of trade restriction. Buffet's plan tries to pass the burden of balancing trade to individual importers industry. What, for example, would Exxon export in return for the certificates needed to import oil? They have nothing, so they would simply stop importing and let gasoline prices skyrocket. The particulars of trade restrictions need not be argued. Trade DeficitsIf one allows that traffic accidents are bad, does that concede that automobiles ought to be banned? By Con's logic it should. If we banned automobiles, we would have no traffic accidents. That would save all the money spent treating injuries from accidents and on buying automobiles and gasoline. The costs, of an immobile society are more difficult to calculate, but we know they are greater. Similarly, banning free trade to force a trade balance is certainly a net loss because the logic of comparative advantage is sound.Con argues that because trade deficits cannot be run perpetually, then trade restrictions should be put in place to ensure they never occur at all. Con works from the notion that trade deficits can only be paid for by exhausting finite natural resources, and those resources will necessary run out. But if a country lacks natural resources, forcing a positive trade balance will not solve the shortage. If a country needs oil, for example, forbidding imports of oil doesn't solve that problem. A country lacking natural resource must adopt policies that make it competitive in areas that do not depend on natural resources to generate trade. such policies are evident, with Switzerland and Hong Kong being good examples of countries that do quite well without natural resources.I did not argue that the trade deficit is a savings problem in disguise. I argued that the trade deficit is the result of government policies that restrict immigration of skilled workers, produced failed basic and higher education systems, ban development of natural resources, and government overspending that sucks up capitol. If people saved more to support government spending the capitol would still be locked up in non productive use. Con did not dispute my list of policy reasons.Con argues that the Federal government pays interest on the trade deficits. No, the Federal government pays interest on the debt it has accumulated from overspending. Trade deficits are entirely private. Free trade is sustainable indefinitely because if deficits by a company accumulate, eventually the interest rates rates lenders charge the company rise, discouraging further buying. If Wal-Mart buys goods from China it can pay for them with overseas earnings as well as U.S. earnings. If their ability to pay becomes doubtful, they won't be permitted to buy.CompetitionCon's implies that aircraft is the only significant high tech export from the U.S. That's wrong. The top ten U.S. exports, in order, are: aircraft, semiconductors, autos, pharmaceuticals, auto parts, fuel oil, industrial machines, auto parts, organic chemicals, telecommunications, and plastics. Fuel oil and plastics are essentially manufactured goods, since the us is a net imported of petroleum used to produce the products. [13. http://www.worldsrichestcountries.com...] The list continues with many agricultural products, but even those products have a large technological component, because the U.S. is competitive in those products due high levels of automation.The net balance of trade in any particular area is not an important indicator because U.S. companies get the benefits of overseas manufacturing:"However, a country’s gains from productive activities are not fully captured by a location-based measure of production, such as GDP. Many U.S. companies produce abroad and import a substantial proportion of their final product to U.S. markets (e.g., Nike). Such production logistics contribute dollar-for-dollar to our trade deficit. However, they are in no way an indication that we are consuming more than we are producing. Rather, the trade deficit fails to account for U.S. gains from U.S.-owned production overseas."[14. http://www.nicholls.edu...]It's better to have rich people than not, because the rich invest, and because the rich can be taxed. We should seek prosperity, not economic equality.EvidenceChile and Brazil are greatest success stories in Latin America, and their success is a result of adopting policies of free trade. Oddly, Con points to the regime of Allende in Chile as an example of the success of trade restrictions. Poverty was pervasive, so there were fewer difference between rich and poor than there are under the modern era of prosperity under free trade. One might as well use Mao's China as a shining example of economic equality. Chile is enormously better off with the prosperity brought by free trade. [15. http://www.natlaw.com...] The same is true of Brazil and other countries now prospering from free trade. The equality achieved by universal poverty is lost, while the country as a whole gains dramatically.Con does not dispute the long list of free trade success stories, ranging from Hong Kong and Singapore to India and China. Right to buy productsIn R2, I argued that consumers have a right to buy competitively priced products. Moreover, if the they are denied that right, government must set up a process by which it determines which uncompetitive industries will be supported and by how much. That government process is inherently both inefficient and corrupt. It's inefficient because bureaucrats must be employed to set prices which free markets do without cost. It's corrupt, because industries must attempt to curry government favor to get the best subsidies. Con has not adequately respond.The Pro case is made. The U.S. should embrace free trade policies.