A thought: will 3D printers hinder global trade?

Bonjour,

3D printing is everywhere in the press.
The Economist is its strongest cheerleader, since they came out with a big report on what they called a manufacturing revolution (link to article).
To sum up, a 3D printer uses metal/plastic/mineral powder and some bonding glue and can print an object in 3 dimensions from your own schematics.
It opens a vast new world: mass-customisation for consumer goods but also self-sustainability as one can print any object he/she wants instead of buying it from a merchant.
The Economist thinks this will boost engineering jobs and stop outsourcing while opening up new consumer markets.
One major stockmarket move in this direction was the delisting of Swedish company Hoganas recently (Bloomberg ticker is HOGAB SS). They manufacture a metal powder that can be used for 3D printing.

So all is good, the technology is taking off and the Economist is on the bandwagon.

However
I was watching this brilliant TED Talk by Matt Ridley called : "when ideas have sex" Click here to watch.
The message is clear: the human species and its societies have thrived because there has been constant and growing exchange.
I like the end of the clip. He asks in the audience if somebody can manufacture a pencil.
Nobody alone can, some people may action the machinery to mine graphite, others the machine labelling pencils but not a single person can manufacture a pencil on their own.
So today, our society needs one million different jobs to function. 

So if 3D printing allows you to manufacture your pencil alone just by buying wood and graphite powder, could that mean that the flow of trade will lose in quality?
If you need a few nails for a DIY trade, will you go to the shop (physical or online) or more simply, you will print it at home. The DIY merchant will have lost some trade and will struggle to pay for its overheads.

Global trade works because each party brings something valuable on the table and because I learn from you / I contribute to your success and you do to mine. In other words, a "win-win" relationship.
With 3D printing, the strong position is held by the 3D printer manufacturers, the powder makers and the 3D objects designers. Mass-production industries would struggle to compete in the end as their product would be reverse engineered very quickly (they would not be able to break-even after their huge launch costs).
This little group would be composed of a few number of people/companies.


In the end, 3D printing could end up killing consumer-facing manufacturing industries as low-end products get instantly copied and product cycles for higher end goods are made so much shorter. 

What I cannot apprehend today is how the invisible hand of the market will help replace some vital exchange lost due to 3D printing. It could be that consumers will in return offer more personalized goods to the marketplace, using more creativity and developing the rate of innovation even further.

If 3D printing is really taking off, then the consumer and industrial space will be vastly changed within 20 years. This is a less risky conclusion. What do you think?