Molson Hart

They are teaching academic theories resulting from hundreds of years of research. I wouldn't attack them for not being practitioners in international trade. I would maybe attack the social science of economics for being too sure of itself and its models...

To counter your point, just because a high school biology teacher has never worked as a scientist, doesn't mean the theories they are teaching students are false. Your argument for why academic theories are false should rest on their merits, not the messengers.

First, if the models are wrong, why teach them? Second, because they're not practitioners, they cannot tell you if the models are right or wrong. Biology is (mostly) different, because it can be measured, tested, and, if wrong, falsified. I'm attacking the merits of the field.

Well you've touched on the big issue with social sciences, especially economics, in that it is rarely possible in economics research to do a controlled experiment. That said, I would like you to specifically attack an individual theory of international trade and why it is wrong.

I can give you a couple: "Free trade is always better than trade with tariffs/other barriers": poor, undeveloped countries cannot become developed without protecting their nascent industries. Singapore, SK, and China all did this to economically develop.

So, we actually discussed this in Econ 29. The message from the class was not "free trade is always better"; the point about protecting nascent industries in developing countries was brought up and several examples were given; I specifically remember the Thai watch industry.

It's not practical for an individual business, but understanding and being able to rationally theorize about trade economics at scale is useful for policymakers.