> the argument for comparative advantage has nothing to do with the redistribution of income
But it has.
Comparative advantage shows you that the country as a whole can afford more with free trade than before.
But one of the theoretical consequences of the Heckscher-Ohlin trade model [1] is factor price equalisation, ie in once country wages might fall while returns to capital increase. Inevitably, there are winners and losers.
Now, since economics rightfully shies away from inter-personal utility comparison, that does not tell you whether the country as a whole is better off; unless you invoke redistribution, such that everyone has at least as much as before (now you can say that everyone is (weakly) better off, and some strongly, and thus the country).
This is well understood (see eg [2] for some more on this issue, quoting James Kwak, & I'm pretty sure Krugman has articulated the same). (This, btw, is not an argument from authority, but an answer to "I don't know where you got the idea")
> Of course there are economic winners and losers, but by attempting to fully protect everyone, everyone becomes a loser
How about comparing to northern Europe, and not some dystopia nobody is arguing for anymore?
My point was that the case for free trade is good and valid, and it rests on (and should go along with) redistribution/compensation.
Free trade allows exchanges that make both involved parties better off, but possibly harms others (higher cost producers). This can be done without redistribution.
It is interesting that you suggest that existing producers deserve compensation. Why? Do they have some innate right to their previous business model or profession?
Sugar producers in the US have been protected for decades by trade policy that increases the costs for all sugar consumers in the US. I don't know that they deserve that protection but it would be cheaper to just compensate them at a decreasing rate to get them out of the business, rather than perpetually enforcing higher sugar prices.
Oops, make that centuries - the US sugar industry developed in part because of tariffs https://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1/25... page 18 "Ballinger (1975) asserts that when the United States acquired the
Louisiana Territory in 1803, the fledgling sugar industry there immediately benefited
from tariff protection, hence spurring its development." Do they still deserve compensation if harmed by free trade? They've already been compensated by unfree trade...
Comparative advantage shows that production in either countries is improved, increasing supply and therefore putting pressure on prices, increasing the purchasing power. This simply isn't redistribution of income.
An individual worker, whose livelihood is destroyed and who is unable to perform any other form of work (unlikely, but conceivable) will of course have less than before. I don't see anybody making the argument that every single individual will be better off (that's obviously wrong), but the purchasing power of every individual income will increase.
You can make an argument that such inequalities should be mitigated by some income-redistributing measure or another, but that's orthogonal to comparative advantage itself.
But it has.
Comparative advantage shows you that the country as a whole can afford more with free trade than before.
But one of the theoretical consequences of the Heckscher-Ohlin trade model [1] is factor price equalisation, ie in once country wages might fall while returns to capital increase. Inevitably, there are winners and losers.
Now, since economics rightfully shies away from inter-personal utility comparison, that does not tell you whether the country as a whole is better off; unless you invoke redistribution, such that everyone has at least as much as before (now you can say that everyone is (weakly) better off, and some strongly, and thus the country).
This is well understood (see eg [2] for some more on this issue, quoting James Kwak, & I'm pretty sure Krugman has articulated the same). (This, btw, is not an argument from authority, but an answer to "I don't know where you got the idea")
> Of course there are economic winners and losers, but by attempting to fully protect everyone, everyone becomes a loser
How about comparing to northern Europe, and not some dystopia nobody is arguing for anymore?
My point was that the case for free trade is good and valid, and it rests on (and should go along with) redistribution/compensation.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckscher–Ohlin_model
[2] http://www.samefacts.com/2015/05/everything-else/free-trade-...