Your rebuttal is a muddle.
You imply that there because are poor people throughout history, and because there are poor people somewhere today, we are justified in being protectionist at the expense of, say, Indians and Chinese (and ourselves, for that matter).
The fact that poor Americans are relatively well-off just undermines your point: It's it better for a go-getter in India to get that money than a welfare slacker here?
Your one-paragraph treatise on comparative advanatges is a muddle inside a muddle: If China and India are well-enough governed to become prosperous, why should we stand in the way? Indeed, the conclusion seems to be that our own government is the cause of any economic woes we have, and indeed it is: If taxes and regulation were reduced, we would have a Golden Age here, no matter what the price of CAD/CAM workers in India.
"It's it better for a go-getter in India to get that money than a welfare slacker here?"
I would assume that virtually every poster on this forum is vehemently against welfare. Having said that, is it better for a welfare recipient to spend his ill gotten money HERE in this country or better for an upstanding person to spend American dollars in India?
You dont seem to understand what constitutes an economy.