Our mistakes in free trade have more to do with a basic error in economics than they do with trade. If we assume that the money supply is finite and the distribution of it is zero-sum between winners and losers we will continue to get winners and losers. This mistake is largely the result of a lack of understanding surrounding the currency and its creation, as well as political ambitions that pit the classes against each other.
Because the US federal government (Congress) has a monopoly patent on the US dollar it can "afford" anything that it can resource in the private sector, including any labor the private sector rejects. This is completely removed from any ability, or willingness, to collect "revenue" to pay for it. That patent imparts the ability to create unlimited dollars and there is no "infinite+1" in math or accounting that increases that ability via collecting or borrowing its unit of account for the currency issuer.
As the currency issuer, the federal government also has a Constitutional mandate to create the currency "for the general welfare" in Article 1: Section 8. Preventing entire areas of the country from being economically decimated and falling into ruin would certainly qualify for "general welfare" status, but the zero-sum thinking of econ illiterates in Congress, along with their obvious corruption in favor of the donor class, has made spending at the federal level almost taboo as a force for good. The list of beneficial programs that have been shot down by the "How will you pay for it?" question is practically endless.
Congress could provide universal free healthcare and a guarantee of a job for anyone who wants one without raising taxes a penny. The benefits of universal single-payer healthcare are obvious, but those of a job guarantee, administered by local and state authorities, have never been properly evaluated. This is because such a guarantee would take away much of the advantage capital has over labor, making the prospect of saying no to an employer far less consequential to one's economic well-being.
A federally funded job guarantee that pays a livable wage with benefits sufficient to provide dignity to workers would replace the minimum wage and many safety net programs. Local and state-level management of the workforce would provide much-needed labor and funding for critical community projects and the wages would soften the blow from transient employers who jump ship to gain favorable tax positions or subsidies.
Since the program would be managed by a local authority it would be entirely flexible in what would constitute "work". It could be defined as broadly as needed to make use of available talent and abilities. Employers would also benefit from having a stable of labor available with all of their job and social skills intact. They would simply have to outbid the program's wage and benefits whenever the business cycle created a demand for labor.
