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.