>Mexico was sued because they effectively installed a tariff, not just because the law affected the profits of multinationals. They had agreed not to install such tariffs.

That agreement is still for not affecting the profits of multinationals...

(Though of course there is no shortage of "free-market-trumps-all" advocates to point out that such tarrifs hurt the local economy etc).

Sure, big companies are best positioned to take advantage of trade agreements. So what. It still makes sense to examine the totality of the impacts.

For example, I'm pretty curious about what impact NAFTA has had on illegal immigration from Mexico. Who knows if it has been significant, but surely it isn't zero (the number of illegal immigrants from Mexico is down substantially since it passed).

>Sure, big companies are best positioned to take advantage of trade agreements. So what.

So, tremendous stealing of resources from the economy at large, increasing inequality and deterioration of society?

Not enabling sovereign countries to protect industry of their choosing is a form of corporate protectionism. The established companies are protected from future competitors. Example: south koreas industry was bootstrapped by the government using every mean at their disposal - using methods that would probably be improbable in our present form global market. No Samsung, Lg or any of that could arise in current global market. Capitalism and free market are not the only methods to improve economic status - very much like protein is not the only form of food people need to eat.

What's your point? Trade agreements are voluntary. If a country thinks it's better off outside a given trade agreement, it can just leave it behind.

They usually even have an explicit provision for withdrawal. For instance:

http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/nafta/chap-22.asp

So could South Korea use protectionism to build up internal industries today? Sure. But it might not want to, if a different set of choices were more likely to favor South Korea.

I provided as an example a specific case where a country was able to bootstrap its industry using policies favoring national entities, thus creating national wealth and serving all current consumers globally by creating more companies to compete in the global marketplace. The point is, the question about how free some markets should be and for what time - it's not just cronyism vs. healthy competition, or that in every case just serving the most efficient products is a universally best solution, for all time. Economic strategy can use any number of methods, but the current discussion often labels those not respecting the status quo as 'bad players'. But mostly, I was supporting the notion that there can be succesfull or failing national non-conforming strategies. I brought up South Korea as a positive example since there are incompetent renegades - like Venezuela which has achieved an astounding zimbabwe impersonation - that maybe first comes to mind when discussing policies of this sort.

> Trade agreements are voluntary. If a country thinks it's better off outside a given trade agreement, it can just leave it behind.

Completely dismisses the complex reality of how decisions are made within a country. It's possible, even likely, that a system exists that represents the will of a few who benefit over the majority who suffer.