I think the one things Beck's free trade answer fails to take account of is the issue of relative economic power versus absolute economic power. I accept that if one country can specialize in good A while another country specializes in good B, their comparative advantages result in a larger economic pie from which both countries gain absolutely. But what if one country gains more? If free trade helps the world pie and helps China and the United States individually, but China gains more of the increase in the pie than does the United States (this is what has occurred), then the United States' relative economic power decreases relative to China. Because I think relative economic power is much more important in a world of competing states than absolute economic power, I view this is a huge problem with free trade theory. Yet again, the theory fails to take into account that as an American, I want America to be better-positioned to do certain things; I'm not satisfied simply if America is making more money than it used to.
And this is the nub of my overall problem with free trade theory. It rejects any nationalism whatsoever. It gives a nod to national well-being by explaining an increase in absolute economic power, but that's it. And for me, that's not enough.