I agree. However, it only works when trade is fair.
Overall, what has happened is that low skill and unskilled jobs have gone to where labour is the cheapest. This has benefitted the poorest of the poor, at the expense of poor people in first world countries. The other consequence is that labour and safety standards are effectively eroded as where these jobs are offshore to are unlikely to enforce these requirements. The result of this has been to reduce global poverty and drive down the prices of goods (i.e. clothing).
However, then you have places like China which then place restrictions on market entrants, enable local companies to steal intellectual property and undercut western companies, without legal recourse. No-one has been willing to call China on these actions for fear of losing out on the entire market.
Not much I can disagree with there, except that apart from labour and safety standards none of what you describe is in any way unfair. Being poor and willing to work for less money isn't cheating. Meanwhile, as they develop and labour wages rise and the pool of untapped labour dries up, the bargaining power of workers in China and elsewhere to get improved wages and conditions also rises. We can see that happening in China now.
It’s indisputable that China has used many protectionist manoeuvres to hamper and limit foreign participation in Chinese markets, but western countries have been willing to accept that in return for having access at all. If we want to renegotiate that position fine, and maybe judicious use of tariffs and restrictions could be a useful tool to use to prompt serious negotiation, but that’s not the same thing as just flat out hitting the nuclear button and going for an all out trade war, which is what seems to be happening.
It may not seem unfair to you and I, who have skills and knowledge that keep us highly employable.
I think in its totality trade has globally reduced poverty, and improved lives globally. But that doesn't mean that there are not people who have been harmed by it, and see it as unfair. If your grandfather and father worked in a steel mill, and you worked in that steel mill and got let go because "its cheaper in China" then I can understand why that person may not feel that it is fair, to be sacked from everything they know. Whose family helped build and run that mill, through blood, sweat and tears.
Historically, elites have tried to mask this by saying that these low skill jobs will be replaced by higher skilled and higher paid jobs, and through training those low skilled works can just take these higher paying jobs. The rise in Trump is in large part due to the perceived callousness of elites on those who have been made worse due to trade. I think this is the key failing through-out the Anglosphere. How to get unskilled people into work, how to enable them to maintain their dignity, and do an honest days work for an honest days wage.
In fact, the US did exactly the same thing to Europe in the early days, and argued it had no economic incentive to follow protectionist European IP rules.
Overall, what has happened is that low skill and unskilled jobs have gone to where labour is the cheapest. This has benefitted the poorest of the poor, at the expense of poor people in first world countries. The other consequence is that labour and safety standards are effectively eroded as where these jobs are offshore to are unlikely to enforce these requirements. The result of this has been to reduce global poverty and drive down the prices of goods (i.e. clothing).
However, then you have places like China which then place restrictions on market entrants, enable local companies to steal intellectual property and undercut western companies, without legal recourse. No-one has been willing to call China on these actions for fear of losing out on the entire market.