Columnist D.J. Tice is right to call for a "thoughtful debate" on what he refers to as "antiglobalism" ("Antiglobalism: A bipartisan affliction, Aug. 7). It is unfortunate that he did not follow his own advice and instead chose to regurgitate corporate-funded-think-tank talking points. It is unfortunate that he did not cite any data to support his assumption that free trade is an unmitigated good and that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is no exception.

Yes, most economists do indeed appreciate the benefits free trade will bring to the world. But as a number of economists who specialize in trade have pointed out, most of the benefits likely to accrue have already been realized in the treaties already in existence. Future economic benefits are likely to fall somewhere between "small" and "insignificant." The geostrategic benefits of future trade agreements may be the ones that really matter to the U.S. But if that's true, treaties should be sold to the public on that basis.

Plus, what is good in the abstract (for example, free trade) may not turn out to be good in the specific (for example, the TPP.) Surely, a "thoughtful debate" should focus on the latter.

A five-minute Google search allowed me to compile a list of seven prominent American economists — two of whom are Nobel laureates — who have come out against the TPP.

Two of these economists call it the "worst" trade deal in the history of trade deals. I have little doubt that with another five minutes online, I could have doubled the number on my list.

These economists' reasons for opposition varies, but one feature of the TPP that all find objectionable is the same one that Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has found so odious: the extrajudicial dispute-resolution tribunals that the agreement sets up.

The ISDS (investor-state dispute settlement) process allows investors to sue foreign governments for imposing environmental, health, safety and labor regulations and to be compensated for any loss in profits. The ISDS tribunals are not bound by precedent. Their decisions are not subject to appeal. The ISDS process effectively would allow foreign investors to invalidate U.S. law.

Is this truly what we want? Will this work to the advantage of the average American household?

In all fairness to Tice, he is not alone in his failure to question basic assumptions. The news media have done a lousy job in their coverage of the trade issue. And when the public is uninformed on a complex issue, a know-nothing demagogue like Donald Trump is always willing to step in and take advantage of the situation.

Bill Mantis lives in St. Paul.