<i>In economics, &quot;free trade creates additional wealth for all involved&quot; is closer to consensus among economists than is &quot;the Earth is warming&quot; is among climatologists.</i><p>Except for, you know, the economists who penned the study that is the topic of this thread, along with plenty of others. On top of which, whenever someone spouts this falsehood, invariably it&#x27;s economists who are looking at very narrow definitions of free trade, or very narrow definitions of &quot;creating additional wealth&quot;. Is free trade good if the only gains in wealth go to a few people while most workers lose their jobs? Maybe the GDP increased, but for your average person it wasn&#x27;t good.<p>The study does not say that the conclusion is peculiar to China, just that not all trade agreements are in aggregate harmful. Yes, China benefitted, but if it takes a population to be at starving level poverty to benefit from free trade, then I think your average American would say &quot;no thanks&quot;.<p>Investment is not the same thing as employment. Mexicans may invest in American based companies, but those companies can outsource every last one of their employees if they so desire. Not to mention he says himself <i>I realize that 5 of 21 years is too small a portion of time from which to draw any conclusions.</i> Conservative estimates of job losses from NAFTA are in the realm of at least 700,000. It&#x27;s pretty obvious that job losses are part of the deal when the government created the NAFTA-Transitional Adjustment Assistance Program to help people deal with losing their jobs as result of NAFTA!<p>There are many regulations in China. Sure there&#x27;s more corruption there than here, but you seem to be advocating for America to become a more corrupt environment to improve America&#x27;s &quot;ability to pivot&quot;. Do you really think the brown paper bag economy is the way to go?