I like to think of myself as a reasonable person. If there is strong argument in support of a position, I will seriously consider embracing it, even if that means reversing a previously held belief.

I have taken economics courses. I have read books on political economy. I understand the basis of the discipline. And despite all this, I have had a very difficult time accepting the dominant view of the economics profession, that free trade is always a good thing. This view is based on the law of comparative advantage, the pareto efficient outcomes can be achieved when all parties specialize in those tasks for which they are best suited. I get the arguments. I'm just not persuaded.

Historically, no nation has industrialized without some form of government support - usually in the form of outright mercantilism. In addition, just because there are net efficiencies does not mean that both parties will benefit equally from the exchange. If I'm good at making corn and you're good at making cars, I'm just not going to make as much as you. And why precisely is the "race to the bottom" argument wrong? Why won't the huge numbers of well-educated, low-paid workers in the 3rd world virtually eliminate the American middle class? Isn't a convergence in living standards almost inevitable?

I'm completely supportive of the freest possible trade with similarly constituted economies, like those in Japan and Western Europe. But with nations that have no environmental or labor protections, with grossly lower wages? Are you kidding me?

I like Max Sewicky and Paul Krugman. I respect what they have to say. But I just can't seem to figure out why I'm wrong and they're right. But I'm willing to listen.