We're talking about someone who is trying to mask their racism under the guise of economic protectionism.
Talk about straw men. What is your evidence for that? Can you read minds?
BTW, last time I checked Americans include an awful lot of dark skinned people. Not too far in the future they will become the majority. There's even a rumor that the president is one of them.
The best you can hope for is to find the magic level of capital versus labor to optimize growth and thus maximize benefits for all.
What is your argument that simply optimizing aggregate growth is necessarily the optimal strategy for maximizing benefits for all? Many people, like yourself, often state that as though it were axiomatic. At the very least explain the rationale for your unstated assumptions.
BTW the limited liability aspect of a corporation is the entire point of a corporation.
Which doesn't change the fact that it's a subsidy. It's a very useful subsidy in a modern economy, but still a subsidy.
People should remember that, lest they fall for your selective observation that limited immigration is a "subsidy to labor", as though there were no subsidies to capital.
Let's see if I can enumerate just some of the things I've purchased today that came from overseas.
Which does nothing to refute my point that "globalization" is selective. No kidding we get products from around the world. As I pointed out, that's the part of "free trade" that's encouraged by our trade agreements. I also mentioned some of the parts that are "overlooked".
Which I suspect describes your economic beliefs - that economic "laws" are as natural and inexorable as the law of gravity. Hint: unless you have anarchy, all economics are affected by government policy. There is no "natural" or inexorable situation that just happens to resemble an economic situation you prefer, and implying that there is is just a way to avoid examination or debate.
Intellectual property laws are in place to mitigate the free rider problem
Maybe that's why I said "I'm not opposed to IP, for the reasons stated in the Constitution". All these straw men are starting to become a fire hazard.
Intellectual property is not "anti-free trade".
If you believe that then you real need to read up on the history of free trade thought and implementation. Many 19th century free trade advocates made this point. At the time some European countries completely dropped patents, and did fine.
Apparently you've been hoodwinked by the "modern interpretation" of free trade, which has little to do with the economic theory, and much to do with selectively citing it for the benefit of the most well off in affluent countries. Similarly you think that "labor mobility" (aka unlimited immigration) is an essential part of free trade. In fact it's not necessary at all. You could completely eliminate international "labor mobility" and still have free trade. Free trade is about trading goods and services between countries, not labor and capital.