Many readers are shooting from the hip. Holster your gun and listen. Free trade is a policy. As such, it’s an open question whether the United States or any other country should engage in it. (That’s what the debate about NAFTA was—and is—all about.) My first point is that free trade, like any other policy, has both costs and benefits. Still with me? I believe the costs exceed the benefits. When I say “costs,” I mean all costs, not just tangible costs. I’m concerned about such things as community, family, tradition, and culture, which are difficult or impossible to monetize. If you disagree with that, say so and explain why.

Let me now concede for the sake of argument that the benefits of free trade exceed the costs. My second point is that not everyone benefits. Many people do less well under a free-trade regime than they would under a protectionist regime. I care about the losers. Do you? Please don’t say that since the gains from free trade exceed the costs, the winners could compensate the losers and still be better off. Are they made to compensate the losers? If not, then why should it matter that they could compensate the losers? Does it matter to someone whose job was outsourced that someone else made a killing as a result of it? Does it matter to a community ravaged by unemployment that a community in some other country is now thriving?

Finally, I’m a patriot. Call me a tribalist if you want, but I care more about Americans—my people—than I do about nonAmericans. I don’t care one whit that free trade improves the lot of people in other countries. I care about Americans, their communities, their families, our traditions, and our culture. And as between wealthy Americans and working-class Americans, I care more about working-class Americans. In other words, I’m not an impartialist. (You aren’t, either, since you give more weight to your children’s interests than you do to your neighbor’s children’s interests.)

Please note that all of these claims are evaluative in nature. Some idiot wrote to say that he knows more about economics than I do and is going to teach me. Leave aside the insult (which is why I didn’t approve his comment), and leave aside the fact that I’ve published a scholarly article in economics. His comment shows that he doesn’t understand what I’m saying. I’m making value judgments. I’m saying that as between this bundle of goods and that bundle of goods, I prefer this one. I have now (in this post) told you why I prefer this one. If you prefer that one, so be it. Different people have different values.