Free trade should be a norm

Arguments:1. David Ricardo proved that mutually beneficial trade is possible (http://www.understandglobalization.com...), through comparative advantage and the Production-Possibilities-Frontier model (PPF). Countries can have either (or both) absolute and comparative advantage. Absolute advantage means that a country can produce more of a good, X, than another country. But comparative advantage means that a country can produce X more efficiently than an other, relative to the other things that the second country could be producing, even if they can't produce as much of X. Here is a graph of PPF's for two countries that illustrates this concept:http://www.economicsonline.co.uk...(Click for picture)In this diagram, the red country can produce more of both trucks and cars. If both countries are in autarky (no trade), than total output is 45 million units. But if both countries specialize and trade, they can reach an output of 51 million units.Essentially, trade is not a zero-sum game. Both the United States and China can engage in mutually beneficial trade. Trade barriers obstruct this trade, and hinder economic growth in both nations.2. Myth: Trade destroys jobsAccording to the Hecksher-Ohlin theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org...), developed by Swedish economics Eli Hecksher and Bertil Ohlin (who won the 1977 Nobel Memorial Prize for Economic Sciences), countries specialize their exports based off of factors of production. For example, the United States has an abundance of human capital, and China has an abundance of labor. According to the theorem, the United States will excel at human capital-intensive endeavors, and China will excel at labor intensive endeavors. Essentially what this means is that when Chinese manufacturing "destroyed the United States Manufacturing industry," it paved the way for other American industries, such as healthcare and technology. Now, all of the lost manufacturing jobs became tech and healthcare jobs. This may sound counter-intuitive, but basic economic theory dictates that competition is, in the long run, very health for both economies because it forces them to operate efficiently.3. By definition, tariffs create societal loss. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)Tariffs raise prices. This hurts consumers, who must pay more, and to an extent, producers, who get fewer customers due to higher prices. A basic supply and demand model shows how tariffs create a net-loss to society, by preventing (or discouraging) mutually beneficial trade.4. By definition, subsidies hurt developing countries (http://en.wikipedia.org...)Subsidies lower prices, making foreign imports more expensive (relatively) to domestically produced goods. This harms workers and companies in other countries. In the Brazil vs. United States of America cotton dispute (http://en.wikipedia.org...), the World Trade Organization (WTO) found that the United States violated laws in engaging in mercantilist subsidies. This reduced prices and hurt Brazilian farmers, who suffered from the lower cotton prices. Also, while removing the subsidies would have caused US cotton production to fall, production everywhere else in the world would have risen, and farmers would have significantly more income.