In 1930, more than 1,000 economists wrote a letter to Congress opposing the Smoot-Hawley Act that increased tariffs on imported goods. The causes of the Great Depression are many and complex, but creating barriers to free trade only made a bad situation much worse. Now, the U.S. is considering similar actions by enacting a new set of trade barriers. So today another group of economists, more than 1,000 again including 15 Nobel laureates, have signed a letter urging Congress to resist the temptation to repeat that mistake.

Economists are often criticized for making complicated arguments to support our recommendations. On this I plead guilty. But the issue with trade can be reduced to a simple example. Let's assume one country has an abundance of fruit trees and a population able to grow and harvest that fruit with ease due to the rich soil that favors this form of agriculture. Another country has an abundance of pasture land perfect for grazing livestock and a population skilled at harvesting the wool, milk and meat that comes from those activities. It's best for both countries to focus on the production of the goods best suited for them and then trade with each other. Everyone wins.

Research confirms this basic truth. Attempts to control trade through tariffs or quotas only introduce inefficiencies harming both countries. This leads to problems ranging from higher costs on affected goods to growing animosity between two countries that should be friends. That animosity can play out in ways like retaliatory tariffs but other ways as well. Consider that foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury securities currently exceeds $6 trillion with over $1 trillion held by China. That gives China a strong potential retaliatory measure that would wreak havoc on our economy should they choose to do so. Selling even a portion of their holdings would drive down the price of our bonds and in turn increase interest rates.

This is not to say that problems don't exist with current trading relationships. Industrial espionage, theft of intellectual property and currency manipulation are real. But the solution lies not with increased barriers to trade but use of the World Trade Organization as an arbiter in disputes between countries. Or in regional trade arrangements such as North American Free Trade Agreement and the attempted Trans-Pacific Partnership. Despite the criticism, the U.S., Mexico and Canada have all benefitted from NAFTA.

My simple example overlooks acute problems existing today that make the political call for increased protectionism appealing. Over my lifetime, I have witnessed a dramatic evolution in our economy. In the 1950s and 1960s we had little global competition as most of the developed world was destroyed from two World Wars. But now other countries vigorously compete with us in the production of all goods and services.

That evolution has meant that jobs once performed in the U.S. are shipped overseas in search of lower labor costs. Domestic firms remaining in the U.S. are forced to confront foreign competition that puts pressure on costs. Workers who lost their jobs or have seen their wages stagnate have every reason to be frustrated and angry. And opportunistic politicians work to channel that anger to their advantage, adding fuel to the anguish. But blaming lost jobs and decreased wages on some villain in a foreign country is misguided and harmful to actual solutions.

The promise that increased tariffs will return our country to an imagined idyllic past is a lie. Increased protectionism will worsen the plight of those negatively affected by economic upheavals as prices rise and retaliatory actions harm our economy.

Unfair trade is not the cause of most job losses and stagnant wages. A thriving economy is an endless process of creative destruction driven by competition. ATMs replace bank tellers. Online shopping reduces the need for workers in retail and robots replace manufacturing jobs. None of these examples are happening because of unfair trade. They happen because firms are in a constant struggle to offer better products or faster service at the lowest possible price. These innovations make our lives more efficient in many ways. And the disruptions they bring to the economy now are similar to what was experienced when we transitioned from an agrarian society to an industrial one or from the industrial to the information based economy.

The answer is not to shrink from increased competition but to embrace it. Often a competitive challenge spurs increased motivation to succeed. While there are obvious economic winners in this struggle, not everyone is fortunate. And it's here that policy can help instead of looking for overseas scapegoats to blame.

New jobs are being created but some people might need training to gain the necessary skills. That may require public investment. I would prefer to spend public dollars on training displaced workers for new jobs than allowing them to stay frustrated and angry. Often the new jobs are located in different towns or states. Policies that encourage families to move where opportunities exist would be beneficial.

It is cynical for politicians to inflame the real pain felt by real people. Let's instead try an honest approach that first confronts the reality of outdated employment and provide pathways to new challenges and opportunities rather than false assertions of where to place the blame.

Kevin Simmons is an economics professor at Austin College. He wrote this column for The Dallas Morning News.

What's your view?

Got an opinion about this issue? Send a letter to the editor, and you just might get published.