Basic economic theory shows that free trade is a win-win situation. The basic theory assumes that different trading partners can specialize in different areas and engage in trade rather than divide their workforces into duplicated efforts at less efficiency. The average standard of living of a world engaged in globalized free trade is certain to be better than a world restricted by extensive trade protectionism. However the fallacy with this argument (from the perspective of an American living in the 1960s) is the typical American's standard of living was vastly better than the average world citizen enjoying the benefits of globalized world trade. The very high standard of living enjoyed by an American in the 1960s was actually the result of inequity, historical accident and the economic inertia of America's soon-to-be-depleted reservoir of natural resources. The fact that America is "mined out" with most of our natural resources consumed actually makes this discussion mute. We (the Americans) must engage in world trade because we are no longer self sufficient. The original hope was that high technology (nuclear fusion, flying cars, self aware computers, cheap access to space, etc.) would "save our bacon" and allow us to maintain our high standard of living as globalization opened up the world's economy. Unfortunately, it appears that high technology was not up to the task and our standard of living will indeed sink to the lowest common denominator.

Gary