Internationally Integrated or Isolated economy, which is better?

>Why is that necessary or beneficial? Because it means we have gotten the maximum potential out of our resources, for example Florida is great at growing oranges but not so great at growing wheat, Nebraska is great at wheat not so great at oranges. If Nebraska dedicates half its land to growing oranges and Florida half of it's land to wheat each will have substantially overall output of their products (meaning less wheat and less oranges for all, shortages). If output is maximized it means less time/effort/resource must be dedicated to creating higher levels of a product. >I don't think that is correct. High entry barriers prevent competition except among a few. It usually comes down to one, or a small group operating in collusion. Monopolies stifle innovation. Monopolies and High entry barriers (depending on why the barrier exists) would a caveat of competitiveness, you can be competitive by innovating your business/disrupting current models (as most new industry attempts) or by adopting an anti-competitive measures to protect a current business model, however even monopolies are forced to compete eventually (introduction of disruptors, loss of advantage, preference changes, etc..) >Every year since Nafta the median average wage has gone down when cost of living is factored in. Real wage is not to be confused with actual wages, real wages are essentially the amount of goods that can be purchased given the same amount of money, for example: in 2014 $100 bought 100 pounds of wheat (not a real figure) then Nebraska stopped growing oranges and maximized wheat output which meant that in 2015 $100 could buy 150 pounds of wheat, that's real wage growth (of course to be truly real wage growth it must be adjusted for inflation). >I'm not sure how that's related to economics. It seems more of a technological progress issue. Economics (the movement/creation of resources) is a driver of technology and it's proliferation, if those with the resources to patronize it see the value in investing in technology/research they will devote resources that would not be readily available slowing down the process. >Tech will still grow under either system. It would but the rate of growth and proliferation would be vastly slower with less available resources that are harder acquire which is what tends to happen under isolationism (Japan isolationist phase was a good example of stifled technological development). >If you consider eradicating small business and the middle-class to be a win First of all I would not consider destruction of small business to be a win, I've worked and participated in the creation of quite a few. Small business will always exist, most operate because they have qualities that are preferential to the consumer, many offer convenience, have found a niche, or are simply not scalable. Think about it this way, McDonald's makes a $1 cheeseburger, they've been around for over half a century and can undercut any small restaurant selling cheeseburgers, however small restaurants selling cheeseburgers a $8 a pop still thrive because they offer things MCDonald's can't. Same goes for local dentists, plumbers, mechanics etc.. some of them could even become big businesses if they can get a large enough investment and can scale what makes them unique. In fact if you look at China, India, and most emerging markets economic stimulation brought on by large business leads to a greater rate of small business creation (if more people can suddenly afford to eat in restaurants more people are going to start restaurants, etc..)