"Country Club Analogy" (Argument for "Fair Trade" over "Free Trade")

Let's start with the analogy and then explore how it's apropos to the debate on "Free Trade". Your father, who manufacturers golfballs, belongs to an elite Country Club that is owned by its members. Nearly everyone around the world wants to join but it's very exclusive. All "legacy" applicants (those born to existing members) are accepted but everyone else, even the very smart/talented, has to jump through a bunch of hoops over many years for just a small chance of getting in. Once you're in the Country Club there are all sorts of benefits. It's clean, secure, and overall really nice. People make deals there and the club takes a cut of every deal. Nevertheless, everyone seems to prosper. You and your dad are doing well because you're selling lots of golfballs to the members. The exclusivity of the Country Club thus prevented some smart/talented people from joining. Those people started making their own country clubs better. Historically, when it came time to attract major events, sponsors etc. there was really only one choice: your dad's Country Club. This near-monopoly had huge advantages that led to extraordinary profit-premiums for your dad's generation (he felt he was entitled to them and that they were well-earned). But over time the other country clubs got better and began to attract their own events, sponsors etc. Now the profit-margins are getting squeezed in the deals that are transacted in your Country Club. The costs of running the club keep going up (materials, personnel, equipment) and it still doesn't have some services that other country clubs offer. Consequently, your Country Club needs to raise its fees to cover its costs. But some of the older members of the club object to increased fees. They vote to reduce the amenities and allow the importation of cheaper golfballs from another country club. You and your dad are pissed at losing so much business but you're still OK because you still sell golfballs to other country clubs. This continues and your reduced profit requires you scale back. You decide to stop manufacturing near the course and instead open a cheaper plant near another country club and import them into your Country Club. Your employees, who were members of your Country Club, are now out of work and can't afford to pay yearly membership fees anymore. This further reduces the revenue of your Country Club necessitating, according to some members, further cost-cutting. Now the club wants cheaper fertilizer, seeds and sand. Your three buddies at the club who respectively sell fertilizer, seeds and sand do exactly what you did. They close their plants nearby and open plants near other country clubs. The closed plants put out of work more members of the your club which further reduces revenues. This is a vicious cycle leading to more business going to the members of other country clubs. Meanwhile, the booming businesses of the members of other other country clubs leads to their own "virtuous cycle" increasing the revenue of the members of other clubs and increasing the membership revenues. Those increased revenues enhance those country clubs to be closer and closer to the level of your elite Country Club. It's all pretty simply economics. It's even "free market" dogma that buyers will buy the cheapest products from anywhere they can. The analogy is pretty obvious and "one-for-one" about global trade. But what other options do we have? 1) "Take all the smart/talented people who apply" - This argument attempts to exploit the system by greedily taking all the best people for your Country(Club) so that the other countries are crippled by a lack of good people. Not only is this selfish and unsustainable it also DOESN'T WORK FOR THE MEMBERS OF YOUR COUNTRY. Consider this: if a better golfball manufacturer is admitted to your Country Club then you & your dad are still out of work. Yes, the club apparently doesn't suffer but the members (you & your dad) do suffer.  Thus, using Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative (which is just a fancy way of describing "The Golden Rule") the membership shouldn't agree to burning you and your dad because they wouldn't want the same thing done to themselves. Measuring the good of the Country Club by it's size, beauty & membership's gross revenue alone ignores the good/prosperity of its members. Why would the members want any policy that ostensibly helps the club but actually hurts themselves? Let's measure how good the members lives are over time and institute policy that makes their lives better. THE ALTERNATIVE... 2) For all intents and purposes - "Protectionism" to some degree. Your Country Club should encourage deals that keep its members employed. It should tax & discourage money earned in the club from funding ventures in other country clubs. It should not let in new members so as to encourage those applicants to go an make their own country clubs better. (Of course there are exceptions for moral/political reasons and protectionism need not be impractically extreme.) I'm skipping a few points here in the interest of some brevity. For those who reflexively decry protectionism in any form - What good is an "American Corporation" to America if it pays no taxes and employs no Americans? What good is a big GDP if none goes to enhancing the citizens' lives? Note - I'm deliberately trying to be provocative here. I'm not really claiming we shut down our borders entirely and attempt "Isolationist Fortress America". But I am suggesting we seriously decide what the purpose of government is.  I hope we can generally agree it's to make the lives of its citizens better (which I think is a pretty modest & benign idea though one that GOP&Libertarians generally can't stand).  Once that is settled we can define the measurements of what makes citizens' lives better. Then, necessarily, all government policies must be calibrated against those measurements. I contend that progressive, liberal and generally "Democratic" policies are better at enhancing citizens' lives. Whereas conservative, Republican policies (over time) don't even help the majority in the country club.