Sidestepping consequences

The dance of the free trade arguments is hard for some to follow. On the one hand, there are numerous problems for advocates of free trade, and on the other, they show that their theories might generate greater welfare for the world -- and for individual countries. But the free traders do not often deal with the downsides of their advocacy, and they avoid it through two methods:

The "positive" and "normative" distinction: Economists advocating free trade sometimes do not want to deal with the real-life, political results of their advocacy. So they disclaim the advocacy! They say that free trade policies are the optimal policies, and they say this as a descriptive matter, not an actual policy suggestion. Of course, this is never how they actually act, but merely what they say they are doing. Most economists want nothing more than an end to trade barriers, but it is politically more convenient for them to make their claims impervious to criticism by saying that they are only describing the optimal strategy, and that politicians would have to wrestle with the actual social and political problems of implementation.

Putting economics in its own cabinet: Economics is roughly considered a "social science," though of course there are huge limits to the collection of empirical data on economics because the field involves humans -- just like sociology, psychology, and many other of these social sciences. Economists want nothing more than to be treated as a separate and distinct discipline when they advocate free trade, because then they can easily disclaim the influence their proposed decisions (e.g., "reduce trade barriers") on other areas of society. They can say, "politicians will figure out what to do, and sociologists can worry about the impact of free trade agreements. Economics just shows what is most efficient." But by pretending (again) that you are just a reporter, and not an advocate, you obscure what is going on. If economic theory does not have to take account of political, moral, and social issues, then why should we take those economic proposals that affect all of these other areas very seriously at all? Either the discipline of economics is part of a larger category of social sciences, or it is something special. If the former, free trade advocates have to directly address the issues raised in a previous post. If the latter, then we need not take their arguments seriously except where they have zero effect on any other part of our cultural, social, or political development.