First of all thanks for the recommendation for "Bad Samaritans". He makes an interesting set of arguments against free trade, and I think I might buy the book and explore them.
But almost every argument you bring up, was brought up a decade ago by economists, and is now considered party mainstream economics literature.
Unemployment rate - Every economists knows this, unemployment rate is not the only measure of employment they use. Another one is the "prime age employment population ratio" which doesn't suffer from these same problems.
You say they failed to foresee the financial crisis, but western medicine fails to cure cancer. That doesn't mean Western Medicine is bunk, because it's still your best shot at not dying of disease. And it would have been far worse if we didn't know about fiscal or monetary policy.
It's true free trade is still thought of as unequivocally producing an increase in efficiency and GDP. But the negative effects are starting to be researched.
A minority of economists think individuals are rational and utility maximizing.
EMH is again something economists are split about, and most economists are have much more nuanced view of this that doesn't prevent asset bubbles.
And with the money multiplier, there is an argument about the mechanism. But that is different than saying that money isn't multiplier, or that reserve ratios don't have any influence on the monetary base.
Philips curve describes a correlation between inflation and employment, a relationship that holds 90% of the time.
It seems like your problem is with a straw man Chicago school hardliner(not for instance Paul Krugman), not with the majority of the field of economics which pretty much agrees with you on everything(besides free trade but this is changing). And maybe Ha Joon Chang is right, but there is also a lot of evidence on the other side that free trade is very beneficial to economies. It's not an open and shut case against free trade.
Remember economics is really hard. Especially macroeconomics(the portion you are critical of) which is probably the hardest science there is. There are no controlled trials. You have statistical experiments where n is maybe a 100, and all trials are hopelessly confounded.
But almost every argument you bring up, was brought up a decade ago by economists, and is now considered party mainstream economics literature.
Unemployment rate - Every economists knows this, unemployment rate is not the only measure of employment they use. Another one is the "prime age employment population ratio" which doesn't suffer from these same problems.
GDP is again only one measure. Here is the OECD talking about how GDP is only one measure of life and well being. http://www.oecd.org/statistics/measuring-well-being-and-prog... So economics is well aware of this.
You say they failed to foresee the financial crisis, but western medicine fails to cure cancer. That doesn't mean Western Medicine is bunk, because it's still your best shot at not dying of disease. And it would have been far worse if we didn't know about fiscal or monetary policy.
It's true free trade is still thought of as unequivocally producing an increase in efficiency and GDP. But the negative effects are starting to be researched.
A minority of economists think individuals are rational and utility maximizing.
EMH is again something economists are split about, and most economists are have much more nuanced view of this that doesn't prevent asset bubbles.
And with the money multiplier, there is an argument about the mechanism. But that is different than saying that money isn't multiplier, or that reserve ratios don't have any influence on the monetary base.
Philips curve describes a correlation between inflation and employment, a relationship that holds 90% of the time.
It seems like your problem is with a straw man Chicago school hardliner(not for instance Paul Krugman), not with the majority of the field of economics which pretty much agrees with you on everything(besides free trade but this is changing). And maybe Ha Joon Chang is right, but there is also a lot of evidence on the other side that free trade is very beneficial to economies. It's not an open and shut case against free trade.
Remember economics is really hard. Especially macroeconomics(the portion you are critical of) which is probably the hardest science there is. There are no controlled trials. You have statistical experiments where n is maybe a 100, and all trials are hopelessly confounded.