Just as the limited liability aspect of incorporation is a subsidy to capital. Stop pretending that we live in, or ever will live in, a global libertopia.
Nice straw man. Who ever claimed that we were in a "libertopia"? (whatever the hell that is supposed to be) We're talking about someone who is trying to mask their racism under the guise of economic protectionism. We have millions of illegal immigrants in the US who are finding work because there is a need and they are willing and able. If you subsidize labor then you necessarily are taxing capital. Which one do you want to do because you can't have both. 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.
BTW the limited liability aspect of a corporation is the entire point of a corporation. Limiting personal liability for the actions of others is what allows many investments to be made at all. Without the corporate veil our modern economy would not exist at all. It's what allows us to take risks with capital. Your comparison of the very existence of corporations with the decision on subsidizing wages by limiting the size of the labor pool is an irrelevant comparison.
Where is that line from, the Thomas Friedman school of sycophancy?
Cute. Remember that the next time you buy something made outside the US which you will most assuredly do today whether you want to or not.
The global aspect of the economy is very selective.
Really? Let's see if I can enumerate just some of the things I've purchased today that came from overseas. About half the produce on my grocery bill came from South America and most of the rest either came from the Midwest or California. I bought a piece of electronics that mostly came from China, a piece of clothing that came from Vietnam, I used gasoline that has a percentage of the oil in it most likely from either Canada, Mexico and/or Venezuela. Several products I used have materials mined from all over the globe. I drank some coffee that almost certainly was not domestically produced. For my company I bought some wire that was manufactured in Asia and probably mined there too as well as some terminals that were made in Japan. I'm going to turn that into a product that is going to be exported to Europe. We're about to buy a machine that was designed in Switzerland, made in Germany and has parts from Asia and the US.
Selective? Spare me... I'm surrounded by products, both tangible and intangible, that came from all around the world including here at home and so are you. The economy is global and the notion that you can close the borders and keep the rest of the world out is both naive and dangerous. You want to close the border and kick out all the immigrant labor? Fine. Enjoy your higher prices at the grocery store and other places as well as the higher taxes and lower economic growth required to make it happen.
For example, offshoring is considered wonderful, but little mention is made of region pricing.
Off-shoring is neither wonderful nor horrible. It is simply economic laws in action. It's like saying "gravity is considered wonderful" - it misses the point. Capital and labor will seek the locations where costs are lowest. It's like water settling into the lowest cavity. Sometimes there are good reasons it doesn't move but if it can then it will. It might be beautiful or it might be dangerous but that is a second order effect.
Our so-called "free trade" agreements include lots of things that are very much anti-free trade, like requirements for the greater enforcement of government monopolies called "intellectual property".
Intellectual property laws are in place to mitigate the free rider problem. If you have a better way to do it then dazzle us with your brilliance. Intellectual property is not "anti-free trade". It permits trade in goods that would otherwise not be trade-able and probably wouldn't get made without it. If anyone could simply copy your product (say an automobile) and sell it then it would be very difficult to justify making the R&D investments necessary to make that product. Sure, there is a bit of economic drag due to this but all the evidence indicates that the benefits greatly outweigh the costs. If protections like copyright and patent protection were not necessary then we should have expected inventions to come from places where those protections did not exist. But the fact is that did not happen. Most of the important inventions of the last 200 years have come from areas which protected in some form or another the inventor against the free rider problem.
It's interesting how some government distortions are considered desirable.
They are desirable when markets don't work, which is reasonably often. We have the government contract to build infrastructure because the economic benefit to society significantly outweighs the costs of having the government do it. There are many situations where market forces either don't work or don't work well. Infrastructure, health care, defense, banking regulation, certain types of insurance, certain types of scientific research, etc. Sometimes we also need the government to enforce rules because something market forces are resulting in undesirable outcomes.