I hate to bore other members, but some thoughts. The theory of comparative advantage is an "inter" national theory without an indication for "intra" national relationship. The theory does not explain how a nation and its people would, or did, find / focuse on the goods they have comparative advantage of. The theory simply presumes that nations do by assuming single, unitary, and rational nations, without sub-national units. Also, as for economy of scale, it will increase competition, which would enhance the quality of goods and services. But, as you indicated, nations will lose jobs and business in the areas they do not have comparative advantage of. Again, my apology to other members for this non-mongering post, and I do not wish to receive responses from the usual antagonists. I will post a report soon. Thanks.
[QUOTE=Dickhead; 1337412]Free trade maximizes worldwide wealth under three main theories: comparative advantage (David Ricardo as refined by the Heckscher-Ollin model) , economies of scale, and product differentiation. The first theory can be conclusively proven mathematically (at least to me) , the second theory can be proven mathematically with some assumptions that I am pretty much okay with, and the third makes logical sense.
But, just because free trade maximizes worldwide wealth doesn't mean there aren't individual winners and losers. For example, Colombia might have a relative abundance of labor to capital. It will have a comparative advantage in labor intensive products and that is what will be exported. This will drive up wages due to increased production of the export product. When the exports are paid for, Colombia will have relatively more capital. That will drive down returns to capital. Labor benefits and capital loses, while the importing country will see the opposite benefit, to capital which is becoming more scarce as the imports are paid for. But, with completely free trade, Hecksher-Ollin shows that the benefit to labor will be greater than the loss to capital, (and the opposite in the importing country) and both countries benefit overall.
So with completely free trade, all countries are better off as a whole, but some groups within the countries lose. If you start adding tariffs, it gets more complicated. Then you can have entire winner countries and entire loser countries. But, the winner countries win more than the loser countries lose, as compared to no trade at all.
Grant, whose presidency was a financial disaster, notwithstanding, Latin America's persistent protectionist urges are mere populism and have been just as deleterious to the region as Spain's protectionist policies were 400 years ago. Probably the single biggest factor in creating the widespread poverty in the region.
BTW visa requirements act like a tariff on imported pussy.[/QUOTE]