Understanding the Theory of Trade

I think that I understand the theory of trade better than Allan Golombek does. In his post on reciprocity in trade at RealClearMarkets this:

Given that the advantages of free trade are obtained by any country that embraces it, why should adopting it depend on reciprocity? When Great Britain adopted free trade in 1846 by abolishing the Corn Laws, it did so unilaterally. The Brits did not demand that any other country match its move to free trade. They wanted, instead, to curb spiraling food prices that had exacerbated the Irish famine. The result of Great Britain’s unilateral embrace of free trade? Food prices went down, the cost of living declined, manufacturers were better able to afford workers’ wages – and Great Britain prospered.

is a fair characterization of the theory of trade but this:

Faced with a protectionist U.S. Administration, the G20 for the first time issued a final statement that included the concept that trade must be “reciprocal.” There are advantages to reciprocity, of course. But the truth is, even if a country reduced trade barriers unilaterally, without any guarantee of reciprocal access for its goods, its people would be better off. The biggest advantage of free trade isn’t that it makes it easier for us to export – it is that it makes it easier for us to import.

is not because the theory of trade is about countries not individuals. On average free trade makes the people of the countries that embrace it better off but it can penurize some people while making other fantastically wealthy because it has nothing to say about distribution within countries but only about trade between countries.

That defect could be remedied if countries like the United States that adopt free trade also adopted policies that taxed the beneficiaries of trade and redistributed the proceeds to those harmed by free trade. But somehow that never happens.