Sadly, that's what most people think about economists, which is both fair and unfair.

It's fair because if you go through Econ 101 in college, it's very much oriented to explaining why specialization and trade is good. Which I think is appropriate, because that's the foundation of a strong economy. But because of that, if you just take what the course says at a surface level and don't think too deeply about things, you'll come out with a simplistic understanding of "trade is good", which is where I think most CNBC-type talking heads have landed.

It's unfair because it misunderstands the more nuanced views that people with a deeper understanding of economics hold

I'd say the most fair characterization of most economists would be something like, "Voluntary trade between people/countries is generally welfare improving for both sides. But there are many caveats."

Some of the caveats include:

• Trade produces winners and losers. That can create political issues which could lead to welfare-reducing instability if not handled well.
• The theory of trade doesn't take into account moral considerations or equity considerations.
• The theory of trade doesn't take into account violence as a means of expropriating surplus. (Thus, trade may be rationally restricted if it's in the interest of national defense).
• The theory of trade assumes a consumption-oriented view of human welfare.

Bunch of stuff like that.

Buckle up for caveats:

The standard econ position is that voluntary exchanges are believed to be individually welfare improving by each participant, ex ante.