This is the problem with the thought experiments that economists are so fond of. Each time you add a detail to make the model a little more realistic, you reveal another shortcoming of the model, until finally the model becomes unwieldy. My proposal is a very slight modification to Dan's:

a) Tom is 30 cents richer;
b) Jerry is two dollars poorer;
c) 135 people are two cents richer (at least half of whom live in another country)

Yes, it is true that the end product is cheaper, making the consumers "richer," if you want to call it that. But some of the consumers of the product and ALL of the new producers live in other countries. The result is surely better for the people in the other countries, and for SOME of the people in this country. The net global effect is certainly positive as well. Nobody gives a damn about Jerry. But the net effect on country is ambiguous (not clearly positive or negative). And what happens when there are millions of Jerrys? And shouldn't I be more concerned about my neighbor Jerry than Tai, Xing, and Kang?

This reminds me of the old joke about the chemist, physicist, and economist stranded on an island with the only food being a can of vegetables and no can-opener. The chemist proposes to leave the can partially submerged in the sea water until the metal corrodes and the can can be opened. The physicist proposes to use his glasses to focus the sun's rays on the can and weaken the metal. The economist says, "Wait a minute guys. Assume the can is open..."

I wanted to leave my mark.

I would need some words to be operationally defined to follow parts of the article; however, if Rodrik was merely saying that hidden costs are a part of distributional change, I do not think there is much dispute over that.

If the costs/benefits of child labor, state-sponsorship, labor exploitation wages, or outsourcing are not included in the formulation of the distributional change, then they simply are not included, and the model does not reflect those variables.

Instead the model would just focus on net gain/loss.

It would matter even more depending on how the parties were related. Countries are surrogates for that.

"What if, however, the redistribution takes place because of honest-to-God wage differentials?"

Child labor is a canard. Those in the U.S. opposing globalization and outsourcing are every bit as unhappy with the competition from the Indian IT industry as from the Indonesian textile industry. Steven Pearlstein, in the column you link, complains about Intel spending 2.5 billion on a chip plant in China. We can be pretty certain no urchins will be gowning up and laboring away in the clean rooms of that chip plant.

But freer trade also raises the relative price of certain goods - as Dana has explained in his reply to this post.

Dan proposed that this variation was more realistic:

a) Tom is 30 cents richer;
b) Jerry is two dollars poorer;
c) 135 people are two cents richer.

I would propose that this variation is more realistic:

a) Tom is $1 richer;
b) Jerry is two dollars poorer;
c) 10 people are two cents richer.
d) 125 are two cents poorer.

The important backstory being that:

a. Tom has neither improved a system or process but has been the beneficiary of a labor shift that involved significant cost reduction. Tom's consumption with this new found wealth is assumed to now be very important to driving the economy, but this overlook's his offshore tax-free savings and offshore living standards.

b. Jerry was the victim of being the last hanger on in a part of the economy that had been the recipient of numerous subsidies previously, most of which went to his employers.

c. The ten people who are two cents richer are the beneficiary of industries that benefit from some form of artificial protection (ala Jerry) by government or organization (AMA.

d. The 125 people who are two cents poorer are the employees of the tech and service industries who thought they were part of the cutting edge of the new american economy only to find that this was already in the process of being sold overseas by Tom.

So, Babar, trade is most often a net loss? And you're suggesting the number of consumers is 12.5 times less than the number of producers?

Umm ...

"Most often" in a theoretical sense it probably isn't, but put in practice I think we are seeing a short-term benefit to consumers with a slow bleed of the economic health of the country.

Those two elements of your "model" are quite flawed and equally distort your pre-determined conclusion.

Dr. Drezner,

Jagdish Bhagwati wrote that letter to the Times AND included a quote from your review in his paper-back book? Weird...

Interesting that even the economists tend to resist change....

Tom will be $2 richer because of the increased efficiecy of his business.

125 people (the new offshore workers - albeit non americans) will be 1 cent richer bacause they are able to find a job at last in an underdeveloped economy -which 1 cent goes a lot further than it would in the USA.

Jerry (the competitor) should thank Tom for the opportunity of forcing them to reinvent themselves and their proceses to be able to compete.

oh yes, and 125 people (the american ex-workers of Tom) will be 2 cents poorer, but have the wonderful opportuinity of aplying to work in the cutting edge industry newly developed by Jerry

Perhaps the value added to the system shoed be looked at from a "efficency in utilisation of world resources" perspective?