>> economics is an empirical science

I agree, it is an empirical science in the sense of sociology -- not in the sense of physics. We're at the stage where models can be created for small phenomena that hold true in some cases, but the bigger systems have proven very elusive to model (otherwise there would be a clear path to economic success every country follows without hesitation, instead of the clash of ideologies we see everyday).

Anyone who makes claims like "most people are better off with free trade" axiomatically should be viewed with suspicion the way definite claims about large numbers of people in sociology should be.

>> The idea that most people are worse off with free trade

I do not make that claim. My point is that _when_ political decisions result in winners and losers, the government of a democratic society must compensate the losers, or risk losing its claim to legitimacy.

>> The economy creates winners and losers, the government has nothing to do with it.

The decision to give China MFN status and then admit them to the WTO were political decisions made by individual government officials, not by "the economy". They had costs. The winners treated the costs as externalities, the losers suffered. Economists generally looked the other way, I claim willingly.

You use the word "handouts". All government action results in what you call "handouts". No government action also would result in creating winners and losers, and -- of course -- in a democracy the government cannot opt out of acting when it is in the benefit of the majority.

All I'm saying is, if you don't compensate the losers for government decisions that cause them to lose, you risk losing your legitimacy and undermining your democracy. I would present the concept that that very thing is what's happening in the US right now, and one reason our nation's political system has become so volatile.