I am not interested in what most economists have to say. Most of them:
Seem to believe that all forms of globalization are "free trade" (and thus imply that Donald Trump is against free trade, when he really is only against "unfair trade"), even though the PROC certainly does not practice free trade. Donald Trump constantly advises for "smart trade", which means "only sign free trade agreements that benefit the United States".
Seem to believe that cheap labor is the only thing necessary to outcompete American advantages in worker efficiency, education, reputation, infrastructure, technology, tradition, etc., thus they never point out the true reasons why companies are moving overseas: increasing their bottom line with the financial support of the Chinese government and Wall Street.
Completely ignore how much China, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, etc., prop up their own industries by subsidizing infrastructure, utilities, logistics, and other important costs of business, while we refuse to do anything of their own because of our own belief in the free market.
Completely ignore the efforts of China, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, etc. to wage a trade war against American and European goods by imposing tariffs/quotas, manipulating currency exchange rates, violating intellectual property, coercing businesses into producing in China in order to have access to Chinese markets, etc.
Seem to completely ignore the effects of H1B visa abuse, considering that 1) entire tech departments are being cleaned out; 2) the fired employees are being forced to train their foreign replacements in order to receive severance packages; 3) the foreign replacements have few paths to citizenship, so they go back home after 5 years; 4) the foreign workers, with their knowledge and training, set up competing services abroad that contain both the advantages of cheap labor AND the advantages of American business knowledge and traditions. This is a frightening development because, if we lose our manufacturing industries, then this will be the only non-essential business enterprise left besides government jobs, trades, and food/agriculture.
Misrepresent the macroeconomic concept of the balance of payments. Put simply, the balance of payments is the current account (total value of goods) offset by the capital account (total value of investments). The two are inversely proportional. In theory, becoming a net importer should be fantastic for economic growth, since a negative current account and a positive capital account means that we receive more goods than we send out, which means we're making great deals, and we even receive additional investments to boot, increasing GDP.
Have failed to examine the economic effects of Donald Trump's taxplan fairly. Few of them take into account: 1) the effects of a lowered tax rate on overseas corporate income and its ability to incentivize consumption and investment; 2) the fact that the ~$10-11 trillion shortfall over a decade, under the Trump plan, is actually better than the Obama taxplan, considering that his budgets have led to a ~$10-11 trillion shortfall in just 8 years; 3) the likelihood that Donald Trump won't spend like Obama, and will probably cut the budget by $600-800 billion, without cutting Medicare or Social Security, if he prunes the remnants of the ARRA stimulus package, passed by Congress in 2009, yet "baked" into new budget requests completely by 2011.
However, our current trade deals have redistributed the wealth away from the American people towards the elite few. It destroys American industries and spurs new industries in foreign countries. And our capital account? The Chinese have chosen to invest in our government bonds and American currency. This means they're financing our continued deficit spending, which has done nothing to create economic growth, while also providing the means to continue manipulating yuan-dollar exchange rates. And this environment creates untold profits for multinational corporations and the investment banks who fund them because they get to take advantage of cheap labor and subsidized industries. If we don't comply, then the Chinese will dump their massive accumulation of government bonds to wreck the American economy. This is literally the worst trade deal, from the perspective of American national interests, of all time.
Those are my main gripes with economists. Too many of them are concentrated at maximizing efficiency, creating models, and studying trade without analyzing who owns what and caring about national interests. I think that too many of them don't realize the damage that is being done to this country. I'm sure many of them are paid shills at political think tanks, too. I don't claim to be an economist, but I do understand basic micro and macroeconomics, and I never get satisfactory responses from economists who talk about these issues.
At this rate, this is going to become a critical national concern, because the bulk of manufacturing will occur in China, average family incomes will continue to plunge as labor force participation/underemployment rates take a turn for the worse, and soon we will lose our last few comparative advantages thanks to H1B visa abuse: service and technology.
Airbus and Boeing are now building plants in China thanks to the help (and coercion) of the Chinese government. Do you think they will be the only companies not pilfered by the Chinese government? Do you think that Comac won't benefit from these trade deals? How will you feel when the Chinese aerospace industry becomes superior to the American aerospace industry? That's a major security risk.
The way I see it, our current government is being run by a business, with vulture capitalists in charge, using leaders of both the Republican and Democrat parties as surrogates. They are running it to the ground for short-term profits, while doing their best to extract everything of value, before they secure their golden parachutes, bail out of the country, and dump the smoldering mess on the American people.