Bryan Riley of the Heritage Foundation helps the “Insider” place free trade in the proper perspective.

U.S. manufacturing output has never been higher than it is today. Manufacturing workers are more productive than ever, thanks in part due to U.S. trade agreements. Some people complain that there are fewer manufacturing jobs, but whether in agriculture or manufacturing, the ability of fewer people to produce more output is a good thing.

We know how to increase farm jobs—just outlaw tractors. And we know how to increase manufacturing jobs—just require everyone to work with one hand tied behind his back.

In fact, a recent Ball State University study found that if we somehow kept the productivity of manufacturing workers at 2000 levels, then in 2010 we would have had 20.1 million manufacturing jobs instead of just 12.1 million.

U.S. manufacturing output went up after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was approved, and it continued to increase after China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO). The same goes for agricultural output.

With respect to agriculture, here’s what a National Public Radio report said about trade: “Walk through the produce section of your supermarket and you’ll see things you’d never have seen years ago—like fresh raspberries or green beans in the dead of winter.”

Most Americans take these benefits for granted. Economists often talk about the benefits of lower prices, or a growing economy, but we also benefit from more choices than ever before.

Someone said NAFTA could have been called the North American Cancer Reduction Agreement, since it increased the year-round supply of fruits and vegetables for U.S. households.

The lesson here is that the standard account of trade issues that you find in the news is wrongheaded. That view identifies the national interest with increasing exports in order to create jobs, and holds that trade agreements that help other countries export more than our own country are bad trade deals. But a better measure is whether those agreements increase Americans’ freedom, regardless of what happens to exports and imports as a result.

Worrying about the balance of trade between nations is as arbitrary as worrying about the balance of trade between households and firms. You personally have a trade surplus with your employer. You export your labor outside your household by sending it to your employer. Your employer reciprocates not by exporting any goods and services back to you, but by drawing down its assets and sending you currency. At the same time, you have a trade deficit with many others. You run a trade deficit with the grocery store, and the hardware store, and the shoe store, and your dentist, and the kid next door who mows your lawn.

Nobody thinks the economy would be better if we tried to eliminate all these inter-firm/household trade deficits. That would be a barter economy! Trade that crosses national borders benefits people for the same reason as trade that crosses the street: It allows everyone to enjoy more and better stuff than they could produce themselves.