David Autor Quotes

Free trade is good for all countries but not necessarily good for all peoples in all countries.

People tend to think about trade as if it's competition between companies - if Apple wins, Google loses. But that's false. Trade makes nations better off in general. Now, I want to be clear. I'm not saying that everything about trade is good and beneficial. Trade also has costs.

Not only must we fight to end disastrous unfettered free trade agreements with China, Mexico, and other low wage countries, we must fight to fundamentally rewrite our trade agreements so that American products, not jobs, are our number one export.

I'm not opposed to free trade if it's fair trade. But I am opposed to bad trade deals.

But, we have had the debate in our country now for a number of years as to whether or not free trade agreements are good for economic growth and economic opportunity in creating jobs and lifting people out of poverty.

Foreign trade clearly has been a reason why inflation has been low.

Before we move forward with new efforts to lower the barriers to international free trade, we must review the consequences of the policies of the past and address the problems of the present.

We are on pace this year to have a trade deficit that is larger than $800 billion. We have never faced that before, but we continue to put forward trade agreements like these that leave us naked to competition that is neither free nor fair.

The division of labor among nations is that some specialize in winning and others in losing.

Globalization causes job and income losses in certain sectors which exact significant psychological tolls. The government, therefore, has a responsibility to channel help from the winners to the losers.

Free trade is a two way street.

We have not addressed the effects of global economics where we are the only free traders in town.

Trade never balances. It hasn’t since 1776.

Free trade: certainly the interest of nations, but by no means the interest of certain towns and districts, which tariff feeds fat; and the eager interest of the few overpowers the apathetic general conviction of the many.

Free trade ideas often look great in prospect but less in retrospect.

It is the system now called free trade that tends to the destruction of commerce, as is shown wherever it obtains.

The benefits of trade diffuse across the economy, but the cost of trade are concentrated.

The effect of Bill Clinton's NAFTA and Hillary Clinton's Colombian Free Trade Agreement has been devastating to Michigan and most of the rest of the country, and accounts for the appeal of Donald Trump.

Unfettered free trade has led to a disaster.

The mistake we made in the 1990s was overestimating the potential of NAFTA's positive impact.

In Illinois, we've seen job losses from agreements like CAFTA and NAFTA. Those agreements didn't help American workers - and they haven't brought improvements to the lives of workers in other countries, either.

How does allowing China to constantly rig trade in its favor advance the core conservative goal of making markets more efficient?

We have to live with the rest of the world. And it's a mistake, in my view. Trade has generally developed in this country. We actually export 12 or 13 percent of our GDP. It was only 5 percent in 1970. But it benefits us. It benefits the rest of the world. It doesn't benefit the steelworker maybe in Ohio. And that's the problem that has to be addressed, because when you have something that's good for society, but terribly harmful for given individuals, we have got to make sure those individuals are taken care of.

It is not good to cut exports or imports.

Bilateral trade deficits are not evil; historically, better growth in the U.S. economy has led to larger trade deficits.