Although rising inequality since the 1980s is clearly a major political concern that has to be dealt with, Jeffrey Frankel says putting the blame on trade is not the way to resolve it. He sees the "correlation" between trade and inequality as not evident, because the global trade-to-GDP ratio had fallen by 5% from 61% in 2008 to 56% by 2016.

No doubt trade has played a powerful role in creating jobs and contributing to rising incomes both in developed and developing countries. While inequality had risen within each country, inequality between countries had decreased, because many emerging economies had improved their per capita incomes, thanks to "urbanization, high savings rates, and improved access to education." So far trade had been the main engine of growth, especially in Aisa, that helped catch up with the advanced economies.

Trump and his supporters believe "Asia’s success has come at America’s expense." As he loves zero-sum game, he had vowed to adhere to his "America First" campaign pledge. That they believe free trade had not improved their livelihoods, has less to do with the effects of globalisation on advanced economies, but more with domestic policies, which had led to rising inequality between the educated and the unskilled in the laour market.

Many unemployed in the UK and the US are angry despite the fact that free trade has been one of the most powerful drivers of growth and prosperity. They feel left behind in the face of a widening income gap. Instead of understanding the change that technology has brought and the weakening of institutions that used to represent the interests of bluecollar workers, they put the blame on globalisation and the elites.

According to a 2016 World Bank report - some "20% of jobs lost in advanced economies could be linked to trade, with the rest down to automation and the need for new skills." In this regard Europe plays a vanguard role: Many European governments offer robust social security programmes and sometimes shoulder "adjustment costs" that help people who have lost their jobs to acquire new skills.

The US is wary of spending adjustment costs on employees in sectors exposed to import competition from the developing world. Often authorities opt for protectionist policy as a myopic solution - proposing quotas and trade barriers. Adjustment costs can be high, but they constitute only a short-term pain. The long-term benefit is more resounding - to have a skilled work force, which is resilient to global competition.

According to the World Bank: "Given overall efficiency gains, the dislocation effects of trade in advanced economies must be addressed through stronger safety nets and enhanced skills and flexible labour markets." Trade is essential to every country's economy. In our world of interdependence, if the advanced economies, led by the US closed their borders, it would also be difficult for their economy to sustain, because they need to export their high-end goods, and import primary products for manufacturing. Nobody will benefit if the global economic growth stalls.