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

Comparative AdvantageCon quotes economist Krugman [Con's ref 1, C1] that trade reduces the wages of many in the U.S. So is Krugman opposed to free trade? Krugman says, "So am I arguing for protectionism? No. Those who think that globalization is always and everywhere a bad thing are wrong. On the contrary, keeping world markets relatively open is crucial to the hopes of billions of people." [C1] Krugman is arguing that dislocations should be ameliorated by government. As a leftist, he argues that welfare should be given to displaced workers; right-wingers generally argue that aid should be given in retraining.Krugman said that "perhaps most" workers in the U.S. might have reduced wages. That cannot be squared with over 80% of workers being in industries not subject to foreign competition. Moreover, trade effects are transient. Consider those workers sewing underwear in North Carolina. Foreign competition puts competitive pressure on the business, driving he wages of underwear sewers down. What happens is that the economy reacts to move capital from labor intensive textile manufacturing to other areas. In North Carolina, pharmaceuticals and high tech were alternatives. Government attempts to support non-competitive textiles prolong the dislocation.Con claims that there is growing consensus among economists that the theory of comparative advantage is wrong. Really? I provided data that over 90% of economists agree the theory is correct. The 9% who do not agree are not a consensus, and there is no evidence their numbers are growing. Paul Krugman agrees with Milton Friedman the theory is valid.Free trade leads to displacements. Progress of all types leads to displacements. Computer printers have destroyed the market for typewriters, displacing all the workers who made typewriters. The remedy for the displacements by progress or by free trade is the same: shift jobs to competitive industries. Germany has a positive trade balance, and much of their positive balance is from manufactured goods. The Germans manufacture things that require high levels of worker skill.U.S. Trade DeficitsThe reasons that the U.S. runs chronic trade deficits include: A policy of unlimited immigration of unskilled labor with tight restrictions on skilled labor A basic education system that provides high school graduates who cannot read well or do mat A higher education system with students who spend on 14 hours a week studying [10. http://www.boston.com...] and in which useful professions are downplayed in favor of liberal arts A policy of not developing oil resources; despite having three times the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia [11. http://articles.mercola.com...], we choose to import rather than export An entitlement system so pervasive that for many people work is optional Government overspending that takes capital out of productive enterprise Protectionism solves none of these policy problems. These are policies that inevitably lower wages. High tariffs make matters worse by subsidizing inefficient production. Comparative advantage is always beneficial, but to yield strong positive trade balances government policies must favor a first-world economy, and they do not.Con points to the Federal budget deficits as a looming problem and attributes the problem to free trade. Not one penny of the Federal deficit is owed as payment for goods or services bought from outside the United States. The Federal deficit is due entirely to the Federal government spending more than it takes in, not buying foreign goods. The deficit is indeed a monstrous problem, but wild deficits are run independent of free trade policies. Con complains that half of the traded government debt is owned by foreigners. (The non-traded debt is basically money the government creates.) the government could refuse to let foreigners buy Treasuries, That would dramatically raise interest rates because all the money would have to be sucked out of the U.S. economy as government competes with private industry for the available capital.Con claims I agreed that free trade caused the deficits. I did not. In what Con references I cited the size of the trade deficit to the total economy. The Federal deficit is not a part of that equation.Con sites several studies that claim that the economy would have grown much faster if there were no trade deficits. The studies only assert that having deficits is bad, which is true. However, protectionism would make the economy worse than it now is rather than better. By illustration, if we all agree that tornadoes are bad, that does not endorse buying an expensive magic amulet to ward them off. Tornadoes would remain bad and we would be out still more money. That trade deficits are bad is an argument for fixing the list of policies that make the country less competitive. The Germans do it; we choose not to.Con argues that the US exports substantial quantities of non-renewable resources. He must be referring to out vast oil exports. No wait, we are importing oil. We export lots of timber. That's renewable. So what?No one likes pollution, not even Communists. Prosperity from trade provides the money to fight it.Con argues that if the price of imports go down, the price of exported goods must go up. If so, then if we import underwear then the price of airliners, a major export, must go up. That's not true because the airliner market is competitive just like the underwear market. We are better off because we can compete more profitably in the airliner market, not because the prices rise. In fact, prices for airliners drop because a competitive market forces innovation and efficiency, while protected industries languish. that's why Hindustani Motors did not prosper and Toyota did.Counter theoriesCon's later references [C5. C6] work from a wrong scenario. They assume that if cheap goods are allowed in domestic manufacturers must lower wages to compete. That makes the evil manufacturers richer, because they pay lower wages, but the larger number of worker suffer from lower wages. The error is that manufacturers do not continue in non-competitive industries, they abandon them in favor of competitive industries. Textiles are discontinued in favor of pharmaceuticals, or whatever. Data supporting the erroneous theory can be mined from industries in the process of being phased out. The textile industry does not die overnight in the face of foreign competition. Typically governments try to keep them alive with various tax subsidies and public expenditures. During that time the workers will have the lower wages. manufacturers will be on an upward trend as capital is moved to more profitable domestic or overseas operations. Our government should get ahead of the changes. America's future is not in sewing underwear. Anticipating the long term outcome, policies of education and taxation should be aimed at aiding transition. Or at least government could not fight it.Trade promotes peaceFree trade benefits both sides of the trading partnership. "... in 1748, Baron de Montesquieu observed that 'Peace is the natural effect of trade. Two nations who differ with each other become reciprocally dependent; for if one has an interest in buying, the other has an interest in selling; and thus their union is founded on their mutual necessities.'" [11. http://www.csmonitor.com...] Con offered no counter.EvidenceIt's easy to catalog examples of free trade working, as Friedman did. If the theory were wrong, then Hong Kong and Singapore should be failures, and China better off in Maoist trade isolation. Con avoids discussing the great and numerous examples. Academicians instead focus on the U.S. economy and try to make a case that the failures from wrong policies in education and government are somehow due to free trade.