For generations, libraries full of economics textbooks have rightly promised that global trade expands national wealth by lowering the price of goods, lifting wages and amplifying growth. The powers that emerged victorious from World War II championed globalization as the antidote to future conflicts. From Asia to Europe to North America, governments of every ideological persuasion have focused on trade as their guiding economic force.

But trade comes with no assurances that the spoils will be shared equitably. Across much of the industrialized world, an outsize share of the winnings have been harvested by people with advanced degrees, stock options and the need for accountants. Ordinary laborers have borne the costs, suffering joblessness and deepening economic anxiety.

몇 세대 걸쳐서 경제학 교과서는 자유 무역이 상품 가격을 낮추고 임금을 인상하고 결정적으로 경제 성장률을 높임으로써 국가의 부를 증대한다고 이야기해왔다. 또한 이차 대전 이후 강대국들은 전 세계적인 규모의 분쟁을 줄이는 가장 좋은 방법은 상호간 무역을 증진하는 것이라고 주장해왔는데, 이것은 냉전 시대의 양 진영이 공통적으로 믿었던 신념이었다.

하지만 무역의 과실이 모두에게 동등하게 돌아가진 않았다. 고학력자와 자본가들이 정당한 몫 이상을 챙겨간 반면, 일반 노동자들은 무역이 가져오는 고통을 (실업과 불확실성) 짊어져야 했다.

** OrBef 주: 자유 무역이 전쟁 위협을 낮춘다는 이야기는 듣고 보니 그럴듯한데, 전쟁 위협을 낮추기 위해서 자유 무역을 증진했다는 이야기는 이번에 처음 들었습니다. WTO 의 설립 이념에도 그런 부분이 있다고 하네요.

Policy makers under the thrall of neo-liberal economic philosophy put stock in the notion that markets could be entrusted to bolster social welfare. In doing so, they failed to plan for the trauma that has accompanied the
benefits of trade. When millions of workers lost paychecks to foreign competition, they lacked government supports to cushion the blow. As a result, seething anger is upending politics from Europe to North America.

In the United States, the Republican presidential aspirant Donald J. Trump has tapped into the rage of communities reeling from factory closings, denouncing trade with China and Mexico as a mortal threat to American prosperity. The Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, has done an about-face, opposing an enormous free trade deal spanning the Pacific that she supported while secretary of state.

All the while, automation has grown in sophistication and reach. Between 2000 and 2010, the United States lost some 5.6 million manufacturing jobs, by the government’s calculation. Only 13 percent of those job losses can be explained by trade, according to an analysis by the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University in Indiana. The rest were casualties of automation or the result of tweaks to factory operations that enabled more production with less labor.

American factories produced more goods last year than ever, by many indications. Yet they did so while employing about 12.3 million workers — roughly the same number as in 2009, when production was roughly three-fourths what it is today.

“We have a public policy toward trade,” said Douglas A. Irwin, an economist at Dartmouth College. “We don’t have a public policy on automation.”

“I had to tell my son that he can’t go back to McKendree for his junior year,” Mr. Morrison said, straining to choke back tears. “He has to go to community college.” He swallows hard. Tears emerge from the corners of his eyes. “It
just crushes you,” he said. “I didn’t get to go to college. I wanted my kids to succeed. When you see the disappointment in your kids’ eyes. …”

"그래서 난 아들에게 넌 다니던 대학교를 중퇴할 수밖에 없다고 이야기를 해야 했습니다" 이 말을 하면서 모리슨씨가 눈물을 열심히 참았는데, 결국은 울었다고 하네요 "이런 일은 정말 절망입니다. 나는 대학에 가지 못했어요. 그래서 더욱 내 아이는 대학가서 공부하고 성공하기를 바랬습니다. 아들놈 얼굴에서 실망한 빛을 보는 게 어떤 건지 짐작이 가십니까?"

그래서 이 계층은 클린턴과 정부를 믿지 않습니다. 큰 정부가 자신들에게 해준 것이 없다고 생각하고 (위에서 보셨듯이, 상당부분 사실인 거죠), 외국인 노동자를 증오하고 (빗나간 증오지만, 그렇게 생각할 수는 있습니다), 복지를 주장하는 민주당을 증오하고 (어차피 그 돈 나한테는 안주던데? 흑인하고 멕시칸 주려고?), 기존 공화당을 증오하죠 (WTO 를 통과시킨 사람은 빌 클린턴이지만, 당시 의회는 공화당이 다수당이었습니다).

거기 혜성처럼 등장한 사람이 트럼프인 것입니다.

근데