I don't doubt that Politifact has some subtle bias, probably more so in the statements they choose to verify rather than in the verification process itself. But in just a year or so of campaigning, Trump has racked up a mind-boggling 81 statements rated as "false" or "pants on fire." I do seriously doubt that Politifact could fabricate that many lies. Just a couple of examples off the top of my head: there definitely weren't thousands (or even hundreds or tens) of Muslims celebrating in the streets of Jersey City on 9/11, and definitely nowhere near 80% of white murder victims are killed by a black perpetrator.
And I know I only brought up the academic consensus on protectionism, but my own thought process also leads me to believe that international trade should be completely free (full disclosure- I'm libertarian). By definition, all economic activity that everyone does every day is trade. You choose to go to the store and buy food to instead of foraging through the wilderness? That's trade. It eliminated the job of finding food for you and your family. Cars made in Michigan are shipped across state lines to your local dealership? That's trade. It eliminated jobs from your state, which has no need to produce its own forms of transportation. Surely you have no problem with these examples, even though they do eliminate jobs.
But when goods are traded across COUNTRY lines, rather than state lines or household lines, that's somehow detrimental? Yes, international trade has killed manufacturing jobs in the US; which is perfectly fine, because that has freed people up to do more desirable jobs. The factory workers of the early 1900's are now the office drones of the early 2000's.
Just like with any innovation, there are some unfortunate victims of international trade. Milkmen were probably not pleased about the invention of the refrigerator, just like blue collar workers are not pleased about the proliferation of low-level jobs going where they're more desperately needed. But over the long run, innovations like these are so beneficial to the general populace that we can't suppress them just because they'll cause a few people to lose their current job. It's a classic case of concentrated harm vs. widespread, but harder to perceive benefit. Unless you want to reduce things like trading across state lines and technological automation, then it doesn't make sense to want to reduce international trade.
And I know I only brought up the academic consensus on protectionism, but my own thought process also leads me to believe that international trade should be completely free (full disclosure- I'm libertarian). By definition, all economic activity that everyone does every day is trade. You choose to go to the store and buy food to instead of foraging through the wilderness? That's trade. It eliminated the job of finding food for you and your family. Cars made in Michigan are shipped across state lines to your local dealership? That's trade. It eliminated jobs from your state, which has no need to produce its own forms of transportation. Surely you have no problem with these examples, even though they do eliminate jobs.
But when goods are traded across COUNTRY lines, rather than state lines or household lines, that's somehow detrimental? Yes, international trade has killed manufacturing jobs in the US; which is perfectly fine, because that has freed people up to do more desirable jobs. The factory workers of the early 1900's are now the office drones of the early 2000's.
Just like with any innovation, there are some unfortunate victims of international trade. Milkmen were probably not pleased about the invention of the refrigerator, just like blue collar workers are not pleased about the proliferation of low-level jobs going where they're more desperately needed. But over the long run, innovations like these are so beneficial to the general populace that we can't suppress them just because they'll cause a few people to lose their current job. It's a classic case of concentrated harm vs. widespread, but harder to perceive benefit. Unless you want to reduce things like trading across state lines and technological automation, then it doesn't make sense to want to reduce international trade.