Complaint 1 isn't a problem with free-trade, it's a problem with a treasury issuing debt. If the treasury ceased to issue new debt, then this "problem" with free-trade goes away. This "problem" is not bidirectional. It does not affect both sides identically. If it did, the "problem" would cancel out. So don't blame free-trade for increased debt issuance. Just because they raise your credit card limit doesn't mean you need to max your your card.

Complaint 2 is also not a problem with free-trade. If China undervalues its currency -- by printing money as the comic states -- to make its products cheaper and therefore not play "fair," imagine the converse: the US starts printing money out he wazoo. Nope. Not a good idea. No one would suggest that, and everyone would warn against it. It would lead to increased inflation, which is not good. So if it's a bad idea for the US but a good idea for China, what is the explanation for that? There isn't one. China is engaging in an enormous monetary scheme that's almost certainly not beneficial in the long run, to change a statistic (current exchange rate) and coax the US into buying cheap goods for a while. Imagine if China maxed this idea out: just gave us everything for free. Yea, doesn't do them any good, and comes at a huge cost for them. This is a very poorly thought out comic.

Complaint 3 is just very odd. It doesn't even attempt to show what is meant by if the "business" goes to Guatemala. How does the math change? If comparative advantage maths say A should make X and B should make Y, what on earth does an organizational structure and trademark name have to do with the production? What in blazes? Is A no longer able to make X because the Y business moved to where B lives? I'm done wasting my time with this.

There are a lot of misconceptions with what "free-trade" means in our current form. The US does not have anywhere close to free-trade (and hasnt for a long long time).

The author is correct on the main premise that trade treaties and government interactions manipulate the markets. Most free-trade economists are adamant that there should be as little government interaction in trade as possible (but important to note that this is not ZERO government interaction).

Overall the author has the classic problem with understanding the difference between "wealth" vs. money. (Paul Graham's Essay on Wealth would be a good starting point).

Trade deficits are extremely overblown. I cannot imagine a better deal than the US shipping pieces of paper over to countries in exchange for cars, electronics, food, services, etc. We get wealthy by exchanging intrinsically useless pieces of paper for hard goods and services that make our life better. I would challenge the author to compare a middle class (or even poor) American to a middle class Chinese life. Not even close.