Central to modern arguments against free trade and globalization are claims that a now-decades-old surge in Chinese imports (the “China Shock”) was uniquely devastating and justifies new protectionism today. However, this popular narrative suffers from four fundamental errors. First, it ignores that the China Shock generated net economic benefits for the United States, and that its harms arose from workers’ inability to adjust to import competition, not the competition itself. Second, it erroneously contends that trade is uniquely costly when compared with other types of market-based disruption, such as automation. Third, it ignores the important economic gains that accompany this “creative destruction,” thanks in large part to individuals’ and companies’ adjustment thereto. And, finally, it overlooks the long list of government policies that thwart adjustment to disruption, whether due to trade or any other market phenomenon. Economic shocks can be painful for certain groups, but policy solutions lie not in stopping shocks from occurring but in reforming policies that prevent those affected from moving on with their lives.