<i>&gt; This is something any of the 37% of Americans without a job or the 80% of Americans who are one missed paycheck away from homelessness or severe crisis can tell you is nonsense.</i><p>80% of Americans are not one missed paycheck away from homelessness, nor is the functional unemployment rate 37%. We can play with &quot;people who have left the job market&quot; numbers all day, but that foggy arena yields the numbers for either side to build its foundation.<p>Further, general quality of life for people who live in countries with mostly open &quot;free&quot; trade agreements and treaties has improved. So it seems that those boats have in fact risen.<p>Developing countries where ^ isn&#x27;t the case likely don&#x27;t have very balanced or &quot;free trade&quot; treaties, on the other hand. I think the argument would be to actually determine how to balance those to make them fairer and more &quot;free&quot; for both parties.<p><i>&gt; [...] especially when that shell game represents some 55% of US GDP.</i><p>This will need proof, or some sort of actual background. Could you help me find the argument here other than an open accusation against Wall Street?<p><i>&gt; The third false assumption that Krugman&#x27;s nonsense rests on is that so-called &quot;free trade&quot; deals like the TPP have any relation to theoretical free trade theories like the one put forth by Ricardo.</i><p>I&#x27;m not finding where Krugman cites free trade deals deals, agreements or treaties as a foundation to his thesis in this article. He mentions NAFTA near suggesting that central banks regularly manipulate market conditions to try and improve employment in their countries. In fact he seems to agree with you that these agreements aren&#x27;t economy boosters but have net-neutral long run effects on employment, there.<p>It sounds like your argument against Krugman&#x27;s essay is an assumption that he&#x27;s arguing against your ideals, rather than a criticism of what he wrote. Is that a fair characterization?