<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xWZkHozvDfM?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Section 10 of the US Constitution: Powers Prohibited of the States No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress. The Founders may or may not have understood what they created when they put that clause in the Constitution, and that's certainly excusable, but it's pretty inexcusable for an American living 200 and some odd years later not to realize what that clause did and why.
Since no country came to economic power do to free trade I would say no. The idea that producing wealth in another country is some how better than creating wealth in your own is laughable. The idea is based on one country, at a specific point in time can manufacture a good more efficient than you, so don't bother trying to develop these capabilities yourself. Well Toyota never would become it's modern self if this nonsense was actually practiced Chapter One The Lexus and the olive tree revisited Myths and facts about globalization Once upon a time, the leading car maker of a developing country exported its first passenger cars to the US. Up to that day, the little company had only made shoddy products - poor copies of quality items made by richer countries. The car was nothing too sophisticated - just a cheap subcompact (one could have called it 'four wheels and an ashtray'). But it was a big moment for the country and its exporters felt proud. Unfortunately, the product failed. Most thought the little car looked lousy and savvy buyers were reluctant to spend serious money on a family car that came from a place where only second-rate products were made. The car had to be withdrawn from the US market. This disaster led to a major debate among the country's citizens. Many argued that the company should have stuck to its original business of making simple textile machinery. After all, the country's biggest export item was silk. If the company could not make good cars after 25 years of trying, there was no future for it. The government had given the car maker every opportunity to succeed. It had ensured high profits for it at home through high tariffs and draconian controls on foreign investment in the car industry. Fewer than ten years ago, it even gave public money to save the company from imminent bankruptcy. So, the critics argued, foreign cars should now be let in freely and foreign car makers, who had been kicked out 20 years before, allowed to set up shop again. Others disagreed. They argued that no country had got anywhere without developing 'serious' industries like automobile production. They just needed more time to make cars that appealed to everyone. The year was 1958 and the country was, in fact, Japan. The company was Toyota, and the car was called the Toyopet. Toyota started out as a manufacturer of textile machinery (Toyoda Automatic Loom) and moved into car production in 1933. The Japanese government kicked out General Motors and Ford in 1939 and bailed out Toyota with money from the central bank (Bank of Japan) in 1949. Today, Japanese cars are considered as 'natural' as Scottish salmon or French wine, but fewer than 50 years ago, most people, including many Japanese, thought the Japanese car industry simply should not exist. http://macua.blogs.com/files/ha-joon-chang---bad-samaritans.pdf
Free trade does not exist. All trade is regulated by laws, regulations and people's way of doing business. Free trade should not be confused with private enterprise. If free trade existed I could open a school and teach how to rob, kill, rape, enslave and profit from it. If free trade existed we would not see the volume of trade as we see today.