Grok says:
Economists aren't inherently blinkered on free trade, but their perspective can be shaped by professional incentives and assumptions. Most economists lean toward free trade because models like comparative advantage show it maximizes aggregate welfare—global output and efficiency. Data backs this: trade liberalization often correlates with GDP growth (e.g., post-WWII GATT era or China's post-1980s reforms). However, these models can downplay real-world frictions—job displacement, cultural erosion, or strategic vulnerabilities like supply chain dependence (e.g., semiconductors or rare earths).
Blind spots? Possibly. Economists often prioritize measurable metrics (GDP, consumer prices) over intangibles like national cohesion or security, which are harder to quantify. "National loyalty" isn't a factor in most economic frameworks; they aim for objectivity, sometimes viewing nationalism as a distortion. Yet, this can lead to overlooking how trade policies affect sovereignty or local communities—think Rust Belt decline post-NAFTA. Some argue economists undervalue protectionism's role in fostering infant industries (e.g., South Korea’s early steel sector).
On the flip side, economists aren't a monolith. Trade skeptics like Dani Rodrik highlight limits of globalization, advocating "policy space" for nations to prioritize domestic goals. Others, like Ha-Joon Chang, critique free trade dogma by pointing to historical protectionism in now-rich nations (e.g., 19th-century U.S. tariffs). Still, the profession rewards mathematical rigor and universalism, which can marginalize heterodox views or make economists seem detached from national priorities.
So, blinkered? Sometimes, by training and focus. Lack of loyalty? More a byproduct of aiming for global, not national, optimality. But the debate's alive—economists aren't deaf to critique, even if their lens is narrow.
