I think that part of the disconnect is that economists look on a much longer term policy wise than non economists.  There will be an affect on jobs, trade deficits, &amp;ct. of any free-trade act for at least a decade, and it&#x27;s not unreasonable to look at history and argue a time frame of ~50 years for markets to approach an equilibrium.<p>If you reframe it the discussion as &quot;lots of you will lose your jobs over the next 50 years, but your grandchildren will have about the same employment rate as you, and higher quality of living&quot; then you can start to have a more meaningful argument about how to manage the short-term side effects and the long term benefits.<p>Similarly there&#x27;s debate as to the long-term viability of monopolies, as well as government regulation.  If in the long term monopolies fall apart on their own and government regulation turns to regulatory capture, then you can see the economist&#x27;s opposition to trust-busting.