We agree more than you think, which I'll get to in a moment, but first a couple points:
> much of that economic advancement in China has happened with very protectionist policies
To a significant degree, China's growth has been due to international trade, importing materials and exporting manufactured goods.
Also, China is a developing economy; they are in a much different situation than the U.S. and different rules apply. Protectionism for the fragile industries and national economies of developing nations is expected and, to a degree, healthy. If developing economies were open to all foreign business, there would be no domestic industries left (they can't compete with businesses capitalized at Western levels, with all the other advantages of advanced economies) and be very vulnerable to the whims of foreign businesses and governments.
> nebulous concerns about the distant future
These aren't nebulous at all, but well-established laws and patterns of economics. It's as predictable as not maintaining your code - we can call the consequences far off and nebulous because they aren't immediate, but really they are entirely predictable.
> we have to throw the American labor force under the bus
I agree completely that that shouldn't happen and isn't necessary. Labor should have a seat at the table when trade is negotiated and we can have both. In fact, it is necessary to have both:
If the U.S. economy contracts or simply doesn't grow as fast, labor suffers the most. If trade with India is cut or doesn't grow as fast, that means fewer jobs for American workers. If global security is undermined, that has very serious impacts on everyone, including the workers who die on the front lines. The CEOs probably will be fine, for the most part.
The fundamental problem, IMHO, is that while free trade is good for aggregate prosperity, we don't live in aggregate; we live as individuals. If the U.S. economy grows 1% because of the efficiency of the international labor pool, but no individual's income grows 1% (except coincidentally); it doesn't help the individual who loses his/her job - their economy contracted 100%. More specifically, capital can move much faster than labor: a factory can be moved from Missouri to Guangdong much faster than the workers in Missouri can move - they can't move to China at all and finding another factory takes time, more than a lifetime for many.
Trade must serve people, as individuals, and must protect them from that economic reality.
" we don't live in aggregate; we live as individuals. If the U.S. economy grows 1% because of the efficiency of the international labor pool, but no individual's income grows 1% (except coincidentally); it doesn't help the individual who loses his/her job - their economy contracted 100%. "
This is superficial reasoning. Bastiat taught economists to look beyond this obvious job loss. Protectionism causes MORE job losses than free trade. The number of jobs in an economy are a function of aggregate demand and impacted by fiscal and monetary policy-trade doesn't change it one bit. Trade changes the _nature_ of the jobs, not the number. So the right thing is to allow freedom to trade.
> much of that economic advancement in China has happened with very protectionist policies
To a significant degree, China's growth has been due to international trade, importing materials and exporting manufactured goods.
Also, China is a developing economy; they are in a much different situation than the U.S. and different rules apply. Protectionism for the fragile industries and national economies of developing nations is expected and, to a degree, healthy. If developing economies were open to all foreign business, there would be no domestic industries left (they can't compete with businesses capitalized at Western levels, with all the other advantages of advanced economies) and be very vulnerable to the whims of foreign businesses and governments.
> nebulous concerns about the distant future
These aren't nebulous at all, but well-established laws and patterns of economics. It's as predictable as not maintaining your code - we can call the consequences far off and nebulous because they aren't immediate, but really they are entirely predictable.
> we have to throw the American labor force under the bus
I agree completely that that shouldn't happen and isn't necessary. Labor should have a seat at the table when trade is negotiated and we can have both. In fact, it is necessary to have both:
If the U.S. economy contracts or simply doesn't grow as fast, labor suffers the most. If trade with India is cut or doesn't grow as fast, that means fewer jobs for American workers. If global security is undermined, that has very serious impacts on everyone, including the workers who die on the front lines. The CEOs probably will be fine, for the most part.
The fundamental problem, IMHO, is that while free trade is good for aggregate prosperity, we don't live in aggregate; we live as individuals. If the U.S. economy grows 1% because of the efficiency of the international labor pool, but no individual's income grows 1% (except coincidentally); it doesn't help the individual who loses his/her job - their economy contracted 100%. More specifically, capital can move much faster than labor: a factory can be moved from Missouri to Guangdong much faster than the workers in Missouri can move - they can't move to China at all and finding another factory takes time, more than a lifetime for many.
Trade must serve people, as individuals, and must protect them from that economic reality.