Extremely well put, Kevin. I'm looking forward to Dan's response (assuming it's serious and thoughtful).

Kudos to Miller for at least being honest that much of the Democrats ire is wildly misplaced.

Well, most of my ire is reserved for Dick Cheney, the Worst American Who Ever Lived™. Is that misplaced?

For the US economy to survive in the future, the US middle and working class members have to drive smaller cars shorter distances. We cant use oil at the rate we have been for much longer. How we make the change will be painful, because people will have to give things up that they dont want to. The government can offer some solutions, but I doubt that real change will occur before market forces, in the form of dramatically higher gasoline prices, hit the masses. $3/gallon is still too cheap.

We can raise the price with taxes, or we can pay the extra to the Saudis. What is your choice?

Kevin,

You're second bullet answers the last sentence question of your first bullet. It's not a mole hill because the agreements have many pernicious clauses.

Progressives make a big deal about free trade agreements - because they are in many ways Trojan Horses to break labor and environmental standards.

People who lose their jobs because someone else could do it cheaper and the law previously had protected the more expensive guy are parasites. If anything, they owe taxpayers money, not the other way around.

Did slaves owe their former owners their purchase prices back? (And just as people are seriously talking about giving money to help those that used the law to exploit us consumers, after the Civil War slave owners really DID argue that slaves should have to pay THEM)

The fundamental issue with new agreements, as with anything that represents a change to the status quo, is that a new equilibrium is established. As such, there are winners and losers. In many cases, the winners are those that gamed the system to establish the new equilibrium, so they profit (from the free trade agreement, or generous visa allowances for certain types of workers, or offshoring, etc.)

Having seen this phenomenon at work several times over the course of thier lives, people begin to understand (or feel, even if in a somewhat undefined manner) that the rhetoric is invariably self-serving and self-enriching. Saving a dollar on a sweater at Wal-Mart, even if multiplied by 100,000 sweaters, doesn't really make up for the loss of a well-paying job, especially when the owner of the sweater company is making greatly more.

When an economist or politician comes on the scene to explain how NAFTA, or CAFTA, or offshoring, or more H-1B visas will create greater economic efficiency and therefore greater wealth, what people see is that wealth being split among the newly affluent (relatively speaking) workers of Nicaragua or India or China and the capital owners of the U.S. (who get to move a little higher up the mountain at Vail).

What they don't see is that wealth being translated to the regular people who take on ever greater levels of risk in their jobs and their lives, the people on the wrong side of the equilibrium shift.

This is why it's hard to get "regular people" interested in immigration legislation or free trade agreements; they have no confidence that it will do anything for them, because it rarely does.

"Saving a dollar on a sweater at Wal-Mart, even if multiplied by 100,000 sweaters, doesn't really make up for the loss of a well-paying job"

I don't understand this logic. What is really going on here is that that "well-paying job" was a means of EXTORTING 100,000$ from consumers. The person who had that job should just be thankful that we don't demand all the previously extorted money back, not clamor for aid because his scheme is no longer enforced by a law that favored him over others.

plunge, what do you do, if I may ask?

Someone needs to do an economic geographical analysis of costs of transport for goods that are extensively traded. At what point does transport cost so much that it is cheaper to manufacture goods locally instead? Also, the standard of living and wage levels of the people we are trading with are rising at a much faster rate than ourselves. Given these two factors.. at some point the issue may solve itself.
Kevin asked: "If Dems should be concerned about stagnant wages but shouldn't be demagoging it with trade, what should they be doing?"
There were some creative "solutions" back in the '70's and '80's with regard to imported autos. Content legislation.
I hear the Chinese are mandating some content legislation of their *own imports*. I'll try to dig up some more info about that.

Chinese food inspectors have banned meat products from seven U.S. companies from being imported into their country after finding a range of contamination issues in shipments checked on Saturday, according to China's official news agency Xinhua. The suspension of meat imports from the American companies -- including Tyson Foods -- comes just weeks after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced it would hold all farm-raised catfish, basa, shrimp, dace and eel shipments arriving from China until they are tested for residues from drugs not approved by the U.S. for use in farm-raised fish.

Here is something free trade does mean: give up your environmental and health standards USA, and leave your public vulnerable to our substandard and hazardous products, or face a trade war.

Yep, the mismatch between product standards is certainly a fly in the ointment of free trade. Pun intended ;)

The point is that blaming trade policy and globalization is a distraction, not a reason for increasing inequity. The methods for dealing with trade related job loss are retraining and temporary measures to deal with workers in affected industries. That is simply not going to address the problem here. The problem is economy-wide, in all industries. The last decade's productivity gains have not been reflected in wage increases. Capital holders and senior management have taken all the increase in worker productivity.

In the most recent Foreign Affairs Kenneth Scheve and Matthew Slaughter argue that the right policy is dramatically cut FICA taxes for everyone below the median income level:

A New Deal for globalization would combine further trade and investment liberalization with eliminating the full payroll tax for all workers earning below the national median. In 2005, the median total money earnings of all workers was $32,140, and there were about 67 million workers at or below this level. Assuming a mean labor income for this group of about $25,000, these 67 million workers would receive a tax cut of about $3,800 each. Because the economic burden of this tax falls largely on workers, this tax cut would be a direct gain in after-tax real income for them. With a total price tag of about $256 billion, the proposal could be paid for by raising the cap of $94,200, raising payroll tax rates (for progressivity, rates could escalate as they do with the income tax), or some combination of the two. This is, of course, only an outline of the needed policy reform, and there would be many implementation details to address. For example, rather than a single on-off point for this tax cut, a phase-in of it (like with the earned-income tax credit) would avoid incentive-distorting jumps in effective tax rates.

This may sound like a radical proposal. But keep in mind the figure of $500 billion: the annual U.S. income gain from trade and investment liberalization to date and the additional U.S. gain a successful Doha Round could deliver. Redistribution on this scale may be required to overcome the labor-market concerns driving the protectionist drift. Determining the right scale and structure of redistribution requires a thoughtful national discussion among all stakeholders. Policymakers must also consider how exactly to link such redistribution to further liberalization. But this should not obscure the essential idea: to be politically viable, efforts for further trade and investment liberalization will need to be explicitly linked to fundamental fiscal reform aimed at distributing globalization's aggregate gains more broadly.

What is needed is broad income redistribution, not trade regulation.

Plunge:

I don't want to get into a lengthy battle here about two incompatible ways of looking at the world, but I feel compelled to point out that there is more to this argument than your mention of "extortion."

There are other benefits to a stable workforce, one that doesn't have to live in constant fear that their lives will be taken away in a rush to so-called economic efficiency. And these are real benefits, difficult to quantify (though not impossible), but real.

The benefit of having communities and social institutions containing a reliable core of people who will not have to pick up and move at the drop of a job. The benefit of not having vital goods and services entirely at the mercy of other countries, no matter how friendly they seem today. The benefit derived from the division of labor that optimizes the match of aptitudes to work.

There are others (many of which come from the difference between transactions, which you and economics favor for ease of analysis, and relationships, which represent the way that most of us interact with the majority of the world).

Try to look more broadly at the full range of what could fall under economic theory (but too often does not), and stop seeing the world as, "if I pay someone who works for me $1 less, that's $1 of benefit to the world." That's simplistic.

It's global competition we are losing. American workers cannot compete with workers making 10% of our wages, nor companies using American workers with Chinese companies, unless they have something unique to offer, such as intellectual property that excludes competition, market position, buyer inertia, goodwill, etc. The principle is very simple, except for economists, who are feeble-minded. High wage workers lose to low wage workers, other factors being equal. Globalization is just getting started, but the trend toward wage equilibrium is evident by outsourcing, offshoring, cheap immigrant labor, etc.

Trading is something they did in the 18th century. Today we are competing in virtually all fields of business and manufacturing. Other factors that are detrimental to us are unpoliced international predatory practices, such as targeting and dumping goods; targeting jobs, as the Indians do; counterfeiting; whatever.

Take a look at How We Compete by Susan Berger et al - it's a great analysis of international trade as it currently stands. Basically, chasing low wages is not a way to gain a competitive advantage, and the way to do it is by creating value somewhere else in the chain. American Apparel in LA is a prime example - they do all their manufacturing in LA because of speed to market.

Mr. Drum,

Can we quit using the phrase "Free Trade" when talking about these agreements. Ricardo, in his original work, discussed in detail how free trade was dependent on comparative, not absolute advantage. He specifically addressed outsourcing (though he did not call it that) and talked about how this would never happen due to the "patriotism of the giants of business" (I'm paraphrasing here, I don't remember the exact text but the sentiment is correct).

So lets quit using the corporate frame. This is corporate trade – socialized trade – etc., not free trade. And those of us trying to restore true free trade are not protectionist.

Find Ricardo’s original work and READ IT if you don’t believe me.

When capital from the U.S goes overseas to build a factory where the labor is cheaper, that's trade? What exactly is it we're trading?

Kevin Drum: Thanks to many decades worth of trade agreements, trade is pretty darn free already. So while trade agreements may not be huge sources of job loss, signing additional trade agreements to get that last 10% of free trade isn't a likely source of huge economic gains either, is it?

Sounds like Dani Ridrik (aka Dani Rodrik).

How come free traders always yell and scream about, say, labor clauses or environmental requirements being inserted into trade agreements, but don't seem able to muster up the same passion when it comes to special treatment for favored industries? Seems to me that if it's a choice between forcing a trade partner to institute some kind of minimal child labor protection and forcing a trade partner to accept oppressive IP regulations favored by the U.S. content industry, the labor regulations are actually more justified and produce less economic distortion.

Talk to Dean Baker - he's been harping about this for years. "Intellectual property" protection is antithetical to real free trade, and the original free traders said as much.

"There are other benefits to a stable workforce, one that doesn't have to live in constant fear that their lives will be taken away in a rush to so-called economic efficiency. And these are real benefits, difficult to quantify (though not impossible), but real."

That reminds me of when people start ranting and raving about farm subsidies (which certainly need reform), when they clearly don't understand the primary purpose of farm subsidies. Their purpose has nothing to do withe economic efficiency or, even, saving family farms. The purpose of farm subsidies is to make sure there is a plentiful supply of food at relatively stable prices to promote social calm.

You want to see a pissed off population? Have milk cost $3.50 this week, $4.50 the next week, $5.50 the week after that and back to $3.50 for week 4, but then it's all sold out by 11 AM.

Mike

Without an effective international regulatory regime to police trade practices and policies and ensure adherence to equalized standards for basic environmental, health, and wage practices, "free trade" will never be free, nor will it serve the interests that a free market is alleged to support (they do not, but that's lying bastard economists and conservatives for you) and the US public favors, and ruthless piracy will continue to be the name of the game.

plunge: People who lose their jobs because someone else could do it cheaper and the law previously had protected the more expensive guy are parasites.

jayackroyd: The point is that blaming trade policy and globalization is a distraction, not a reason for increasing inequity.

Sounds like you folks are big proponents of free trade. Great - when do we get some?

Right now the most important things we could do to promote free trade are:

1. Stop currency manipulation by the likes of the Chinese and Japanese governments. Preventing the current account from balancing leads to inefficient economic distortions.

2. Remove "intellectual property" protections from out trade agreements. As I stated in my previous post, the original free traders understood that these government enforced monopolies restrain trade. They drive up the price of everything from pharmaceuticals to music and movies to software.

3. Push to eliminate the remaining high tariffs of the world, for example China's 30% tariff on car parts or India's average tariff of over 100% on food. China's car industry and India's agriculture (supporting about 70% of their population) will just have to stop being parasites.

You're on board with this, right?

Saint Reagan slapped a temporary tariff on Japanese motorcycles over 750cc to protect the venture capitalists taking over Harley Davidson from preditory competition. It can be done.

Of course, this led to Honda's plants in Ohio, but that was still an improvement for American workers.

Saint Reagan slapped a temporary tariff on Japanese motorcycles over 750cc to protect the venture capitalists taking over Harley Davidson from preditory competition. It can be done.

Of course, this led to Honda's plants in Ohio, but that was still an improvement for American workers.

EWWW, the dreaded double post. Sorry.

It's global competition we are losing. American workers cannot compete with workers making 10% of our wages, nor companies using American workers with Chinese companies, unless they have something unique to offer, such as intellectual property that excludes competition, market position, buyer inertia, goodwill, etc. The principle is very simple, except for economists, who are feeble-minded. High wage workers lose to low wage workers, other factors being equal. Globalization is just getting started, but the trend toward wage equilibrium is evident by outsourcing, offshoring, cheap immigrant labor, etc.

Then why hasn't unemployment been rising? In point of fact, very few jobs are outsourced.

One could argue that there is general downward wage pressure because of the possibility of outsourcing, but if that's the reason (I don't think it is) then you can't fix it by messing with trade policy. Tariffs won't help; you'll raise the cost of consumer goods, but not enough to offset the wage differential.

From an article by James Fallows behind the atlantic subscriber wall, about an extended visit to China:

I saw a set of high-end Ethernet connecting cables. The cables are sold, with identical specifications but in three different kinds of packaging, in three forms in the United States: as a specialty product, as a house brand in a nationwide office-supply store, and with no brand over eBay. The retail prices are $29.95 for the specialty brand, $19.95 in the chain store, and $15.95 on eBay. The Shenzhen-area company that makes them gets $2 apiece.

snip

This is obviously significant. But think again of those Ethernet connectors that retail for $29.95 and cost only $2 to make. Removing all imaginable subsidies might push the manufacturing cost to $3. Suppose it went to $4. That would have a big effect on decisions made by corporations that outsource to China—Can they raise the retail price? Must they just accept a lower margin? Should they build the next factory in Vietnam?—but it would not make anyone bring production back to the United States.[

snip]

American complaints about the RMB, about subsidies, and about other Chinese practices have this in common: They assume that the solution to long-term tensions in the trading relationship lies in changes on China’s side. I think that assumption is naive. If the United States is unhappy with the effects of its interaction with China, that’s America’s problem, not China’s. To i­magine that the United States can stop China from pursuing its own economic ambitions through nagging, threats, or enticement is to fool ourselves. If a country does not like the terms of its business dealings with the world, it needs to change its own policies, not expect the world to change. China has done just that, to its own benefit—and, up until now, to America’s.

I don't think globalization or outsourcing is the reason because we're seeing wage stagnation is that in sectors that can't be globalized. Middle level management wages are also stagnant.

I'd rather attribute this to much weaker unions, and a shift in corporate culture away from long term employment, and toward treating employees essentially as replaceable components. You see this shift not just in wages, but in pension policies and other benefits that were designed to retain workers. The fact that the guaranteed pension has been largely replaced by the 401K represents a decision by corporations to devalue the recipients of those 25 year employment watches.

THe only way to fix this is to recognize this as a failure in the labor market, and redress it with 1) universal health care and 2) more progressive tax structure. Trying to micromanage trade agreements is the wrong way to proceed, as are training programs and industry subsidies. The problem is not globalization or trade policy. The problem is deterioration of the terms of trade between capital and labor.

EWWW, the dreaded double post. Sorry.

I've got nothing against free trade, but further refinements in the degree of freedom of trade are something the corporate types desire far more than I do.

So, given that rich people keep hogging all the U.S. productivity gains while wages remain stagnant, my attitude is that this 'free trade' stuff is a great bargaining chip.

What'll they give us in return for freer trade? Actual teeth in laws penalizing union busting? A requirement of two weeks' paid vacation a year, and a week's sick leave? Time and a half for overtime for all workers earning less than $75K/year?

Why should we give them something for nothing, when they never return the favor?

"You're on board with this, right?"

All the way. Also, free immigration. Essentially, my intention is to cause Lou Dobbs a massive stroke.

Free trade means more than eliminating tariffs. It means eliminating subsidies as well. So far, the Democratic Party has been unwilling to cut subsidies to millionaire cotton growers, billion-dollar agribusiness concerns, etc. IP agreements, shockingly, benefit U.S. workers by increasing profits of U.S. companies. Banning imports from countries that don't meet our standards doesn't help the poor in those countries, and isn't intended to.

Free trade is not the pancea it's often made out to be. But overall it lowers the cost of living, makes high-quality goods more available, and creates jobs in some, but not all, poor countries.

Unemployment in the U.S. is currently 4.8%. The poverty rate, when you factor in the hundreds of billions of dollars that reach the poor through Medicaid, Food Stamps, Earned Income Tax Credit, etc. is quite low. Please, let's make it easier for workers to unionize. Let's increase taxes on the rich. Let's take subsidies away from big business. But let's also lower our cost of living and increase the incomes of poor folks around the world through free trade.

plunge: All the way.

Great. So what realistic political approach do you suggest to get China and India to drop their big tariffs and to get American interests to stop insisting on "intellectual property" protections?

After a commitment to true free trade is demonstrated by getting those big items out of the way, we can handle the noise level stuff like America's 1.34% tariff on imported sweaters.

1. Stop currency manipulation by the likes of the Chinese and Japanese governments. Preventing the current account from balancing leads to inefficient economic distortions.

What agency do you propose to determine "currency manipulation?" IAC, underpricing their goods helps US consumers. Note my post above re China. The production price difference on these goods is so great that even if you eliminate all subsidies, there is still no way that these products are going to be produced in the US.

2. Remove "intellectual property" protections from out trade agreements. As I stated in my previous post, the original free traders understood that these government enforced monopolies restrain trade. They drive up the price of everything from pharmaceuticals to music and movies to software.

Yes, I agree with this. In fact, the US needs to rethink all its "intellectual propoerty" rules. the intent of the Founders has been subverted, especially in the area of copyright.

3. Push to eliminate the remaining high tariffs of the world, for example China's 30% tariff on car parts or India's average tariff of over 100% on food. China's car industry and India's agriculture (supporting about 70% of their population) will just have to stop being parasites.

That would happen in a heartbeat if the US did the same--and dropped the IP demands. But you need to decide whether you are a free trader or not. Free traders don't like tariffs anywhere. And, remember, a lot of people who call themselves "free traders" are actually corporate welfare seekers.
You're on board with this, right?

Alan Vanneman: increase the incomes of poor folks around the world through free trade.

Which countries have managed to increase the incomes of their poor folks through free trade? Mexico? No, industrial wages have actually dropped their since NAFTA, and their small farmers are seriously hurting.

The poster children of the countries that have managed to do it are the Asian countries. The secret of their success is that they've done anything but practice free trade. They've used high tariffs, subsidies, currency manipulation and coercion of foreign investors in policies known as Asian Mercantilism (the antithesis of free trade).

This idea that free trade increases the prosperity of all countries that participate is a cute theory. Please point to some real world examples.

let's also lower our cost of living

Rather than lowering our cost of living what we've done is demonstrate that, if you borrow enough money, you can live pretty well for a while (of course ultimately the bill comes due). We're running an ever increasing trade deficit, which is now over 6%/GDP. How much longer do you think this can go on for?

Kevin:

On your first point, I disagree that "trade is pretty darn free already". It's freer than it was before, but there's a helluva long way still to go. It won't be "free trade" until it's as easy and cheap to import and export between Texas and Guatemala as it is between Texas and Michigan -- and the same is true for trade not involving the US.

On the second point, I don't know. I'm very pro-free-trade myself, but I have more problems with industry protection than with enviro/labor/etc. protections. However, I don't think about it in terms of economic distortion, except to the extent that's a symptom. My concern is more with freedom of contract.

On the third point, I don't think Dems should be concerned about stagnant wages -- I think they're overhyped and the statistics are misleading. But I don't feel strongly about that and haven't studied it in real depth. Expanded EITC is probably the least-distorting of the proposals you advance, though.

Kevin, how does "assault like mad dogs until the last breath was torn kicking and screaming from their bodies" differ from your career?

"Thanks to many decades worth of trade agreements, trade is pretty darn free already. So while trade agreements may not be huge sources of job loss, signing additional trade agreements to get that last 10% of free trade isn't a likely source of huge economic gains either, is it?"

Actually, trade between the US and Europe/Japan/a few others is "pretty darn free already". It's not all that free with most of the developing world.

Presumably opening trade with smaller poorer countries won't help (or hurt, of course) the US all that much, since they're marginal economically. But it would help poorer countries. That's good in and of itself, no?

And anyone know what is meant by "IP regulations favored by the U.S. content industry"? I think that's cryptic enough that it warrants a bit of an explanation...

Kevin - small typo. Dani's last name is Rodrik. You had Dan spelling it Ridrik but Dan got the spelling right.

jayackroyd: What agency do you propose to determine "currency manipulation?"

Excessive forex accumulation (China and Japan both about $1T), gross imbalance between exchange rate and PPP, excessive current account surplus or deficit, or plain old not letting your currency float.

No two people agree on exactly how much the yuan is undervalued, but virtually everyone who's studied it agrees that it is grossly undervalued.

underpricing their goods helps US consumers

Yes (or at least until there is a currency crisis). But how many people are just consumers? Most of us are also producers, and so get hurt by it.

Note my post above re China. The production price difference on these goods is so great that even if you eliminate all subsidies, there is still no way that these products are going to be produced in the US.

Which products? The only one you mentioned is "a set of high-end Ethernet connecting cables". This is a classic example of lies, damned lies and anecdotes.

Also, the data cited says nothing about US vs Chinese production costs, since it didn't cite US production costs at all! About the only point it makes is that in buying small quantities of such products you pay a high retail markup. That's news?

It's certainly possible that even if currency manipulation and export subsidies were eliminated, it would still be cheaper to make "high-end Ethernet connecting cables" in China (don't be too certain though, as such work can be heavily automated). Now, what percentage of the value is added by the assembly of the final product (attaching the connectors to the cable)? What is the value added by the manufacture of the cable itself and the connectors? Would it be more profitable to do this highly automated manufacturing in China or the US?

More importantly, what about the myriad other products that are produced? What about computer chips, machine tools, car parts, software, rice, apples or lawn sprinklers? If China can produce all of those things more cheaply that the US, then why do they spend 10% of their GDP on manipulating their currency and maintain high tariffs and subsidies on many of those products?

the US needs to rethink all its "intellectual propoerty" rules

The only acceptable rethink to a true free trader is to eliminate them entirely, just as we should eliminate all tariffs. The US Constitution permits, but does not require, Congress to grant these government enforced monopolies. Thomas Jefferson, amongst others, has serious reservations about the whole business.

That would happen in a heartbeat if the US did the same--and dropped the IP demands.

You really think that India would drop its food tariffs if the US dropped its IP demands. And let 70% of their population loose their means of support, all sacrificed on the altar of "creative destruction"? Even if an Indian government were so foolish as to try it, they would subsequently set a speed record for passing a vote of no confidence. And how likely do you think it is that Congress would eliminate IP protection?

a lot of people who call themselves "free traders" are actually corporate welfare seekers

That's one thing we can agree on.

mhr: Liberals are not happy people.

Yeah, we just can't get a kick out of torture and squandering of American soldiers like you conservatives can.

Shelby--
You cannot separate out all the nice labor and environmental regulations from the basic trade policy questions. A true free-trader will almost always argue that a given labor or environmental regulation represents an unfair barrier or subsidy. You will never get these people to draw the line anywhere, because in a theoretical sense of course ALL national-level government intervention in the economy can be seen as a distortion of "free" trade. Even something as seemingly unrelated as public education expenditure gives an unfair "subsidy" to industries located in the nation where the schools are located. It's hard to argue otherwise without seriously engaging with the very core beliefs of free-trade ideology, thus rendering the entire concept completely incoherent.

Since a world government is not coming anytime soon, there is literally nothing which can be fenced off as "domestic" policy anymore. This is obvious when you read the pro-free trade cheerleaders that I am surprised so many Democrats still fall into the trap of segregating domestic issues from trade issues. This is dumb as can be. The true ideology of free trade as it exists today is identical with the ideology of extreme libertarianism, and it is stupid to pretend otherwise. If you're not such a libertarian, you cannot really be a "free-trader"; that doesn't even make any sense.

kokblok: thus rendering the entire concept completely incoherent

So? Our 1st Amendment guarantees Freedom of Religion, and hence people's right to worship in the High Church of Free Trade. In this matter your views of their theology are irrelevant.

I'm not going to trust a single Democrat who pretends to care about class issues, but refuses to rework the trade agreements that they promised us would make our lives better. Our lives are worse. They lied, and if they weren't wrong, they wouldn't have had to.

Free Trade is just a slogan for those with too much money, and who want to pick the pockets of the middle and working class to become even more rich. You people are everything that's wrong with this country, and I look forward to the day when we kill your families, and hang you from lampposts.

"Great. So what realistic political approach do you suggest to get China and India to drop their big tariffs and to get American interests to stop insisting on "intellectual property" protections?

After a commitment to true free trade is demonstrated by getting those big items out of the way, we can handle the noise level stuff like America's 1.34% tariff on imported sweaters."

You've missed the point that we stand to benefit from the sweater change utterly regardless of anything else. The above problems would be great to change, but I don't have good solutions to it since we can't control what China and Japan do. Meanwhile and regardless though, workers need to stop exploiting consumers, and that we can fix, and society will be better off for it (parasites stop being fed AND increased social welfare: it's a win win).

plunge: You've missed the point that we stand to benefit from the sweater change utterly regardless of anything else.

Who is this "we" of which you speak? Domestic sweater consumers win, but domestic sweater producers loose. Extend that to thousands of products and services and the picture is no longer so clear cut.

Furthermore, even the theory that "free trade" produces a net aggregate gain assumes that trade is balanced (hardly the case), along with myriad other unrealistic assumptions.

The above problems would be great to change, but I don't have good solutions to it since we can't control what China and Japan do.

The US has no control over Chinese and Japanese trade policy? Who do you think (prematurely) gave China PNTR and arm twisted to get them WTO membership? Ever hear of the Plaza Accord? Why is this "we have no control" line only trotted out when a change would benefit the peasants?

Meanwhile and regardless though, workers need to stop exploiting consumers

That's truly bizarre language you use, as though most consumers weren't also workers.

Your approach is to ignore the elephant in the living room, like IP and high foreign tariffs, and focus on the mouse of the few remaining minor barriers to sweaters.

Yeah, we're getting ripped off for billions by high foreign tariffs and "intellectual property" monopolies, but what we really need is to be saved from the Sweater Mafia.