Both the post&#x27;s title and the linked article&#x27;s thesis aren&#x27;t supported by the evidence. The article first proclaims the unanimous agreement among economists about the benefits of free trade. It then dives into the details of <i>one</i> study who seems to contradict this consensus, and then proclaims that no real consensus exists, and even if it did exist, it&#x27;s wrong.<p>2 things:<p>First, a couple of economists disagreeing with the mainstream, among the thousands of economic researchers, does not break a consensus. If we were to wait for unanimous agreement before embarking on any policy, we would never get anywhere. As the author himself admitted, there is a very strong and prevelent belief among economists that free trade is good for America and for the world in general. That should be good enough, despite a few dissenters believing differently.<p>Second, the study linked does not disagree with the consensus at all! All the study claims, is that a small portion of the population has not benefited from free trade. With any substantive public policy, this will <i>always</i> be the case. Imagine if California declared tomorrow that only people who&#x27;ve lived in CA for 5 years can work as programmers. Such a policy would be horrendously bad for Americans and Californians in general. But it sure would make life great for a small number of unemployed programmers who are currently living in California.<p>And so it is with free trade as well. It may benefit some and not benefit others, but the overall economic benefits far outweigh the costs, both for Americans and for the world in general. Even when considering those not benefiting from globalization, we can and should help them better by using the increased economic rewards that come from free trade, to build a better social safety net and education&#x2F;training program for the unemployed. That would the positive step forward, not walking down the destructive path of protectionism.