You are right that free trade has made wars and despotic govts more costly. But,... it did it by flattening the world. The inevitable consequence of it is that that US standard of living goes down and the standard of living in the 3rd world goes up. The hope of the true believers is that in the long run and with fluctuations along the way, the world average standard of living will rise [the classic academic argument you give is that jobs go where ever there is greater efficiencies - it is a classic academic argument with many hidden assumptions covered by the fig-leaf you give "where exercised"].

As I see it, it's good and bad and inevitable. [For example: I dont see any way to keep 50% of mexico from walking across the border without the US taking some sort of economic hit to help mexico build manufacturing.] Where I agree now with Larry is that most of the "free trade" agreements are for one way free trade. [His point about trade between equals is something I am thinking about.] I'd mainly like to see shrewder negotiators on the US side. It's like the US negotiators believe in the religion of free trade and are willing to accept possible benefits later while the other sides negotiators are looking at every detail as to where their self interest lies now.

in my view, since its inevitable, managing how we get there is what we should be talking about [and that is how I read Larry's post].

Bill