What is the relevance of this? We are talking about views of the form “such-and-such an economic arrangement is better than some other economic arrangement”. The disagreements are over what is more good. No-one is defending economic arrangements they themselves think are evil.
Virtually no economist would say there should never be any economics regulation. For example, some things are natural monopolies. That is they exhibit increasing returns to scale – at least locally. That means a monopoly is the most efficient way to create the product or service. But it is easy to show that a monopoly doesn’t lead to the highest total welfare. Rather a monopoly production with a regulated price does in theory.
That doesn’t mean it’s easy to figure out the right regulation of course, but the question here seems to be what do professional economists think in hteory.
The facts that people are (1) American (or at the very least, resident in America*), and (2) in well paid, highly secure jobs, are not irrelevant to this consensus.
*But the majority are undoubtedly actual native born Americans, who have spent their lives absorbing the ideological biases prevalent in the United States, prominent among which are an unwavering admiration for capitalism, and the view that the interests of businesses should often take precedence over the interests of individuals and workers. Much of the world does not share these biases. Some Americans reject them too, but it is harder for Americans.
It might well benefit the U.S. considered as a whole, just not most of the people who live in the U.S. Many Americans would be impoverished, but the 1% (or 0.01%) might gain more than the others would lose overall.
That is the problem with reasoning about abstractions like national (or even international) economies. What is good for “the economy” is not always good for (most) people.
It’s worth noting that this same panel was roughly evenly split on the statement “Raising the federal minimum wage to $9 per hour would make it noticeably harder for low-skilled workers to find employment”:
Since both of these - if they made any sense - are arguments against neoliberalism, I’m beginning to think you don’t understand what neoliberalism even is.
Yes, that site is a bit one-sided. The concepts are correct, though, and they would obviously demand both the ability of companies to provide unlimited product choice and placement of industry wherever costs are lower.
Although arguably it shouldn’t be too surprising, it was originally the liberals who supported free trade (or at least less tariffs) and conservatives who opposed it.
If there is a parallel to be found with other issues, its probably abortion: Democratic candidates denounce free trade but then push for it and sign them into law once President while Republican candidates attack abortion but do nothing about it once President.