I think the more convincing group of economists demonstrate that protectionism enriches a select few, at the expense of the many.
You also brought conservative verses liberal into the argument, and the comments ignored the fact that conservatives are now the more protectionist group, based on opinion polls, while liberals are the free traders now.
But, the President that signed the most free trade deals, G W Bush, said this:
Open trade is not just an economic opportunity, it is a moral imperative.
Trade creates jobs for the unemployed.
When we negotiate for open markets, we are creating new hope for the world's poor
Now, Bush was a protectionist . He beat Gore in West Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas due to his promise to block steel imports. He kept his promise and caused 250,000 Ametican jobs to be lost, due to the need for cheaper steel.
(I showed, in a post years ago, that Trump caused a safe making company, in Illinois , to close, due to the same protectionism.)
You made this trade issue, into an issue of conservatives supporting unregulated trade, verses liberals favoring regulations as aginst trade. You talked about liberal ( as in socialist) economic policies being blamed for job flight. I feel like your nation to nation trade context, was actually out of the general context of the conservative argument.
The context actually is:
Competition for jobs between states.
And both liberals and conservatives know that blocking free trade, in that context, would be economically ruinous.
Regulations can be argued for to keep jobs in every town, in every state. Nobody makes such arguments.
(But there are a lot of subsidies, which is a form of protectionism, and if benefits A FEW rich and powerful interests, while not helping the many at all. It is simply job poaching for jobs that will already exist, somewhere)
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
