Over the past year we’ve made several modest improvement on our ranch. Hence, I’ve had the pleasure of observing and sometimes working with men who move and manipulate the concrete furniture of the world. They use machinery and tools to mold solid and liquid material into useful and pleasing products of long life. Their activities involved dirt, rocks, and water; boards, posts, and beams of fir, cedar, and pine; steel, copper, and plastic pipes; wire, grass, and trees.

I am uniformly and consistently impressed with the quality of their work—and with the pride and satisfaction they take in it. And it’s no wonder; they work with observable stuff and under unavoidably stern reality checks. If a form blows out, concrete gushes out. If a post is too short or too tall, the beam secured to it will be off level. If a crane or excavator hits a power line, sparks will fly and men may die.

You can’t fake it when dealing with this stuff. It’s not trading derivatives, working in politics, or teaching economics. Realities in this material world intrude on and trump pretense. Fakery is exposed and perpetrator’s reputation suffers.

Physics filters incompetence and dishonesty—although sometimes it takes a while. Roofs always work until it rains or there’s a big snow load. Ultimately, however, we discover if quality is as promised. And everyone intimately involved knows it. This is why good workmen have self-respect and are respected.

Alas, construction is one of the few arenas in America in which these standards still widely apply. Aside from Cat, Deere, truck manufactures, and allied firms, we no longer produce much hard stuff. Forging and tool making has largely been outsourced to foreign countries where skilled labor is less expensive.

We make Harley motorcycles and Hobart welders, but try to find fine tools, boots, or clothing made in America. It’s a daunting, frustrating, and usually fruitless task. Yes, we still make high quality Snap-on tools, White boots, and Filson garments, but Siuox, Diamond Horseshoe, and thousands of other American manufactures are gone and with them good dependable jobs that produce fine goods and satisfaction to workers.

Free trade brings real opportunity losses for men and women who have the talents and inclinations to produce material goods. It’s not merely a matter of education.

Not everyone has the psychological inclination, predisposition, or talent to work in the world of symbols or social relations. The economy is best understood as an ecosystem. We cannot escape the reality that many comfortable niches have vanished.

Economists neglect this cost. They find the economic advantages of free trade clear, compelling, and beyond dispute. Here is their conventional thinking.

My friend Arnold Kling, an MIT trained economist, notes: “Opening up to trade is equivalent to adopting a more efficient technology. International trade enhances efficiency by allocating resources to increase the amount produced.”

Here’s Alan Binder of President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers: “For more than two centuries economists have steadfastly promoted free trade among nations as the best trade policy. Anyone who advised us to “protect” ourselves from the “unfair competition”...would be thought looney. Common sense tells us to make use of companies that specialize in such work; paying them with money we earn doing something we do better. We understand intuitively that cutting ourselves off from specialists can only lower our standard of living.”

From the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics: “For more than two centuries economists have steadfastly promoted free trade among nations as the best trade policy.”

Rick Stroup, one of my long time friends, co-author, and well-respected economist, has often observed that, “There are few individuals who can equal the insights of an anthropologist or sociologist who understands economics.”

I surely agree and add this: Economists who neglect the insights of anthropology are likely to miss important implications of their policy recommendations. While the economic logic of free trade is correct, it is incomplete. Free trade eliminates socially and psychologically important jobs. Further, over the long term, an economy that loses the capacity to produce essential material goods places itself at risk. We are at risk, and on multiple dimensions.