The rise of populism happening all around has led to the past time of anti-globalisation. From UK breaking from the European Union , multiple parties from across Europe such as the Five-Star movement in Italy towards euro-sceptism, and ultimately, for the President of the United States is now made by the new faction of the Republican Party, Donald Trump.
Of all the terms and labels that Trump has, one that isn't used that much is that of "zero-sum" person (credit towards economists Paul Rubin and Peter Boettke for pointing that out). A "zero-sum" belief is the idea that there can't really be any gains or losses out of what is happening. A great example of this is when playing the game monopoly with your friends; in the game there are fixed amount of properties, prices, houses, and moves that the players are able to make. Donald Trump has the same view of this, which is greatly pointed in his book "Trump: The Art of the Deal" that it's all about making the "good" deals. For Trump, a "good" deal is the same in playing Monopoly, that it's all about making sure you can win the game at a cost of the other players. This is why Trump always says "we don't win anymore", "we are always losing and win like we used to"; this isn't just an attack on China or Mexico, but against any time we buy something from one country, it could have been been bought from an American (hence the loser).
But why is it that majority of economists would denounce such logic? For the Econ Journal Watch in a report in 2009, more than 83% of economists in the United States support eliminating protectionist measures such as tariffs in order to increase trade around the world. According to the IMGchicago, more than 95% of leading economists are in favor of trade agreements such as NAFTA, one major policy which Trump wants to reverse (as an example of how he vows to never eat Oreos again since Nabisco decided to move its factories to Mexico).
The reason why is that for more than 200 years in economic history, economists such as David Ricado explains the concept of comparative advantage. No one in the world can be able to do everything of what they want. Some countries can be able to produce some things better and more than others such as food, cars, or furniture. This in turn causes countries to be able to trade in order to get what you want. The United States isn't getting that many jobs in the industry compared to China (and even that isn't necessarily true as China has been going towards a more service based industry, now having the industry by occupation of labor by 40%), but it has helped both countries, because if it isn't beneficial to both parties, then neither side would be trading at all!
I want to give provide a detailed example of what happens in trading:
If a person were to move their capital (factories) to China to make cheaper Ipads, then that means that they can be able to compete against other entrepreneurs by having cheaper products to sell in the market. Having cheaper goods means that people can be able to buy more for less. When that happens, more jobs come because people can make more money from induced demand (If I were to say that you now have an extra $1,000, you can spend more money, you can be able to buy things such as a Sofa, which in turn helps the sofa store and the factories that make the sofa. The same applies to the extra money the sofa capitalist will have, as well as keeping their business steady, providing jobs for their employees). So in the end of it, more jobs are made, more products are made as well as cheaper than before, and everyone benefits since the wealth of both countries increased (as the saying goes a rising tide raises all boats).
Someone would point out that the rich capitalist would only keep the money to themself and therefore not help anyone. This isn't true at all as when entrepreneurs put money in the bank, the bank now has more funds to be able to use than before, meaning they can be able to hand out more loans to other entrepreneurs with their ideas. When that happens, entrepreneurs now have the capital to be able to make their business, which means more competition in the market (making price downs) and more employees since they would need labor (increasing the employment force and labor).
But what about the employers here who lost there jobs?
First, losing jobs are an inevitable part of how economies work. There is not such thing as a "permanent" job because markets change and react to multiple factors. There was once a time in 1800 in the United States, more than 80% of people were part of the agriculture industry. Now, the United States is one of the worlds leading agriculture markets in the world, and less than 1% of Americans work in the agriculture industry. Where is the economic collapse? There won't be because as human beings always want more things but can't have as we are limited to our resources (can't wait for cheap 3-D printed sports cars) that we have. When we have more resources that we used to have, that means more jobs can be made for more things, as the economy grows.
So is free trade perfect and doesn't hurt people?
I would however agree to some extent that trade does hurt for some people. After all in the short run there will be quick unemployment for some people in an industry that is adapting to current trends, which would mean that without a job people would still need a job in order to survive. This happened in NAFTA when thousands of farmers lost their jobs because there was no way that farmers with little production were able to compete against companies make tons of food. Yet lets look what would have happened if Mexico did high tarrifs in order to protect their industry, similarly to Brazil's economy were nearly everything is made from Brazil. The farmers would have been able to keep their jobs, but that means that food prices would have not decreased, which means millions of people would have been affected since they couldn't buy cheaper food. This is most impactful considering that more than 1/3rd of the population of Mexico live under $5 a day, about $1,800 a year. Having cheap food as well as multiple other products are something that can be able to alleviate the 33 million people from poverty.
The world can only hope that the screams of protectionism can be able to understand that human beings are capable to helping one another. That despite thousands of years in history of hatred towards race, religion, ethnicity and who we are, trading makes us all winners and more human as we can be able to accomplish great things only if we allow ourselves to.