The core question with free trade turns out NOT to be about free trade, but rather to be about productivity. Here's the essence:
Suppose I am Toyota, and I build a auto-manufacturing system, which allows me to build cars at a cost of 80% of what it costs at GM, by spending 5% extra on parts, and 25% less on labor (absolute, not relative). Is this a good thing? If this approach spreads, it will cause 5 million people from current jobs to become unemployed, as manufacturing in general gets cheaper. Only benefit is that everyone using manufactured items is happier, and saves (about) 20% of what they were spending. And so they spend it on more manufactured stuff (5%), and on services (15%).
Suppose I am a software methodologist, and I can take your software company and improve it's efficiency at delivering software, using Agile methods done well, by 10x. My team of 15 can do what your large company software team takes 150 to do...and faster with fewer bugs...and my people aren't IQ-exceptional. Is this a good thing? Supposing (falsely) that we're writing all the software we want written, spreading the software methodology that I use would result in 90% unemployment among programmers. Should you ban my approach? Is the cost of software dropping by 10x worth putting millions of folks out of work?
Is it worthwhile for the automated industrial looms that constituted the second wave of the industrial revolution to allow 3 low-paid weavers to do what 30 high-paid weavers used to do? Shouldn't we ban that? We didn't. We're now 10-10,000 times richer, depending on how you calculate.
IF we agree that it's a legitimate choice for me (really, this is my job) to advocate switching software methodology to doing things for 10x cheaper...then we have a discussion to have. If you don't...I'd recommend a move back to primitive agriculture. Feel free to work 16 hours a day scraping dirt, in order to have only enough to eat that 1/2 of your children die of malnutrition. That is the result of your policy.
Suppose Yudkowsky's applied Epistemology work (great recently, this October. Rather unusually, I don't have anything to fight about) result in a low-grade AGI that caps somewhere near 2x human intelligence, and which has particular facility with 3D printers. Eli can produce anything made of plastic using his secret slave AGI at a cost of 1/100th what anyone else does. And it takes no workers. Because he can print his own printers. And he can synthesize plastic from the seawater near his house in Berkeley. Is it a net win to destroy every plastics-producing job in the country, just in order to get free plastic stuff?
That's what happened to Agriculture in the rich world. One dude with a tractor and industrial fertilizers can now do the work of 49 dudes without tractors or industrial fertilizers. Win for everyone? For sure. But it was a painful transition. Honestly, we're in the middle of that same transition in manufacturing as well. Robots are cheaper than humans (partly because of government, but mostly because technological improvements). What used to take 50 people to do, currently takes 3, and we're well on the path to 1, or even less.
Suppose that the Russian government announces that not only are they sitting on a quadrillion dollars worth of diamonds, but also that oilfield they found in the Arctic circle contains about a bajillion dollars worth of oil that it costs $1/barrell to extract from the ground. Furthermore, because we so clearly all want the same form of centrally managed communist/fascist/crony capitalist government, they are going to give us as much oil as we can use for free. Take it or leave it?
What if the Klingons dropped a trillion barrels of oil into a newly dug (very deep) lake in Utah, and then flew off? Should we use it?
What if something suddenly becomes (near) free that used to take work to get?
What is the proper response to productivity improvements. My claim is that every single one of the examples I give above gives us a better life...and puts a whole buttload of people out of work. And the better life for people is always the right answer.
From the point of view of folks in this country, sending a pile of steel and $1000 to japan, and getting back a finished car is 100% identical to doing the same trade with yudkowsky's AGI.
Do we like productivity improvements? Or do we advocate a life of poverty, with less stuff and more work? As far as I can tell, that's the only real question. I think it's easy.