The debate about the Trans Pacific Partnership is certainly different than free trade debates of the past. For one thing, you have smart erstwhile proponents of free trade like Tim Lee raising legitimate concerns about intellectual property laws. But while this adds up to a debate that goes beyond the usual free trade argument, I don't think Noah Smith is right that "repeating the same basic case for free trade that we’ve been hearing all our adult lives" is too simplistic. I don't think Paul Krugman is right when he says "it’s off-point and insulting to offer an off-the-shelf lecture on how trade is good because of comparative advantage, and protectionists are dumb", or that "David Ricardo is irrelevant". No, the basic case for free trade still matters a lot.
First, it's worth noting that the simple case for free trade is still not understood by many. (Old) Paul Krugman made exactly this case in his piece "Ricardo's Difficult Idea", where he advised economists writing about trade to not assume people understand comparative advantage:
I believe that much of the ineffectiveness of economists in public debate comes from their false supposition that intelligent people who read and even write about world trade must grasp the idea of comparative advantage. With very few exceptions, they don't -- and they don't even want to hear about it.
At the end of Krugman's old post he provides "tactical hints" to economists writing about this. Two of them get explicitly at why I think it's important to still make the basic argument for trade: "take ignorance seriously", and "don't take simple things for granted".
(i) Take ignorance seriously: I am convinced that many economists, when they try to argue in favor of free trade, make the mistake of overestimating both their opponents and their audience. They cannot believe that famous intellectuals who write and speak often about world trade could be entirely ignorant of the most basic ideas. But they are -- and so are their readers...
(iii) Don't take simple things for granted: It is crucial, when trying to communicate Ricardo's idea to a broader audience, to stop and try to put yourself in the position of someone who does not know economics. Arguments must be built from the ground up -- don't assume that people understand why it is reasonable to assume constant employment, or a self-correcting trade balance, or even that similar workers tend to be paid similar wages in different industries.
Of course one can argue that there is a lot in TPP that isn't strictly about freer trade, and this is correct. But it is also true that it also contains stuff that is about freer trade, and importantly a lot of the opposition to it boils down to the same old opposition to free trade. Yes, there are smart arguments to be made against TPP that the standard arguments for trade don't address, but there is also still a lot of opposition based on the standard arguments.
After all, labor unions fighting TPP aren't doing it because of the because of the intellectual property components. Actually several large unions are members of "Pharmaceutical Industry Labor Management Association" (Pilma) who lobby for patent protection to be included in trade agreements.
While the IP components merit debate, as Noah points out a lot of the opposition to TPP probably likely boils down to good old-fashioned fear of trade. For example, in the pages of Krugman's own New York Times, among other complaints about TPP, Mark Bittman writes this:
In fact, if you wanted to single out a culprit for income stagnation and the decline of the power of labor in the United States, Nafta would be a good candidate.
While Noah argues that the best way to counter stuff like this is to acknowledge that trade has winners and losers, I would side with (old) Krugman and say that most still don't understand Ricardo. After all, while Noah point out it's possible that trade benefits one person a ton and hurts everyone else, economists agree that even dreaded NAFTA made people better off on average.
Is it really plausible that most people understand comparative advantage and are correctly assessing the low probability of job loss, and what will finally convince them to support trade is to hear is economists admit there will be winners and losers? That would be a very strange set of beliefs, and I'm not sure assuming that about people is actually more generous. Or do they not get comparative advantage and are overestimating the odds of job loss? Before you answer, remember this is the same public that thinks 28% of the U.S. budget goes to foreign aid.
No, I would say there is still a lot of misunderstanding about trade out there, and people still need to hear the basic case. Yes, it's important that we debate the IP components and other non-trade parts of this deal. And yes, it's important for TPP proponents to acknowledge those debates exist. But Ricardo still matters.
