Protectionism

[Napoleon Ier]

As economic protectionism rears it's ugly head in Obama's demagogic Ohio campaign, the issue is getting more attention. What, esteemed fellow CCers, are your thoughts on this pressing issue?

[got tonkaed]

to take such broad sweeping stances against protectionism is about as sensical as taking such stances for free trade. Clearly there are a number of instances in which protectionism limits certain capacities for growth and can affect certain markets negatively. However, to assume that protectionism is something of a diease or a condition that stops the growth of something that cures ills in the respect of a free trade, is seemingly not something that reflects political or economic or social reality.

There has to be in some senses a blending of such things. In most cases protectionist economics will be a suppliment at best to larger policies of freer trade, but to attempt to deny them entirely will serve no nation state very well, nor will it serve its people.

[suggs]

MY GOD TONKAED TOOK A MIDDLE OPINION

And I'm being pretentious in CAPITALS so glad all is well in the world of CC.
Tonkaed, you are ludicrously level-headed.

[got tonkaed]

MY GOD TONKAED TOOK A MIDDLE OPINION

And I'm being pretentious in CAPITALS so glad all is well in the world of CC.
Tonkaed, you are ludicrously level-headed.

first time i know....

i liken myself to something of st. augustine (without you know the whole being religious thing) in the sense that i am eternally divided in how i see the world (but not like as a schizophrenic) as a result, the world will spend the next 1000 years trying to make heads and or tails out of my philosophical standing.

[Napoleon Ier]

to take such broad sweeping stances against protectionism is about as sensical as taking such stances for free trade. Clearly there are a number of instances in which protectionism limits certain capacities for growth and can affect certain markets negatively. However, to assume that protectionism is something of a diease or a condition that stops the growth of something that cures ills in the respect of a free trade, is seemingly not something that reflects political or economic or social reality.

There has to be in some senses a blending of such things. In most cases protectionist economics will be a suppliment at best to larger policies of freer trade, but to attempt to deny them entirely will serve no nation state very well, nor will it serve its people.

See, now I believe that it does. Look at protection of the steel industry in the US, or of cars, both have resulted in more estimated job losses in other sectors than in jobs saved, without even looking at the ordinary consumer's loss. I can't deny protectionism is a social orpolitical reality since it clearly exists, if by that you mean that retaliatory tariffs are necessary, then I'd argue that protectionism is actually something that harms the imposer's economy more than anything, and hence that even it is a bad idea.

[Napoleon Ier]

to take such broad sweeping stances against protectionism is about as sensical as taking such stances for free trade. Clearly there are a number of instances in which protectionism limits certain capacities for growth and can affect certain markets negatively. However, to assume that protectionism is something of a diease or a condition that stops the growth of something that cures ills in the respect of a free trade, is seemingly not something that reflects political or economic or social reality.

There has to be in some senses a blending of such things. In most cases protectionist economics will be a suppliment at best to larger policies of freer trade, but to attempt to deny them entirely will serve no nation state very well, nor will it serve its people.

See, now I believe that it does. Look at protection of the steel industry in the US, or of cars, both have resulted in more estimated job losses in other sectors than in jobs saved, without even looking at the ordinary consumer's loss. I can't deny protectionism is a social orpolitical reality since it clearly exists, if by that you mean that retaliatory tariffs are necessary, then I'd argue that protectionism is actually something that harms the imposer's economy more than anything, and hence that even it is a bad idea.

I don't quite understand how specifically, on either a macro or micro-economic level, protectionism will supplement free trade policy in any way.

[Napoleon Ier]

MY GOD TONKAED TOOK A MIDDLE OPINION

And I'm being pretentious in CAPITALS so glad all is well in the world of CC.
Tonkaed, you are ludicrously level-headed.

How didja vote suggsy?

[suggs]

Yeah with you on this one Nap. Protectionism normally ends up hurting evryone, the totl pie gets smaller for all countries.
Maybe its a good idea for infant economies, otherwise they just get swamped by the likes of the USA and China.

But ultimately, everyone is a consumer, and not everyone is a producer, so from a utilitarian perspective its fairer/better to have free trade all round.
(cheaper goods).

[got tonkaed]

to take such broad sweeping stances against protectionism is about as sensical as taking such stances for free trade. Clearly there are a number of instances in which protectionism limits certain capacities for growth and can affect certain markets negatively. However, to assume that protectionism is something of a diease or a condition that stops the growth of something that cures ills in the respect of a free trade, is seemingly not something that reflects political or economic or social reality.

There has to be in some senses a blending of such things. In most cases protectionist economics will be a suppliment at best to larger policies of freer trade, but to attempt to deny them entirely will serve no nation state very well, nor will it serve its people.

See, now I believe that it does. Look at protection of the steel industry in the US, or of cars, both have resulted in more estimated job losses in other sectors than in jobs saved, without even looking at the ordinary consumer's loss. I can't deny protectionism is a social orpolitical reality since it clearly exists, if by that you mean that retaliatory tariffs are necessary, then I'd argue that protectionism is actually something that harms the imposer's economy more than anything, and hence that even it is a bad idea.

i think protection alone is too narrow to look at some of the outcomes of the falling out of those industries, as if anything protection failed. I do not necessary believe retaliatory tariffs are an end all be all, though i would submit in some cases they could be effectively used, but in most cases they fall far short of that (look at the effectiveness of the WTO for small nations).

However i think if one studies some of the "economic miracle" that occured in east asia in the 60s-90s far more elements of protectionism emerge than are often assumed. Especially in teh case of south korea and japan, the gov. essentially decided which industries they were going to sustain and which would die off. Until the economic crisis in 1997, this worked beautifully, and still seems to be effective inspite of the fact that IMF regulations seem to have had little positive effect on the economies, especially in terms of national interests.

Protectionist measures taken within the context of opening up international trade, seem to have the potential to be far more effective than simply setting up EPZ and saying have at it.

Off to class, will be happy to discuss more laters.

[suggs]

MY GOD TONKAED TOOK A MIDDLE OPINION

And I'm being pretentious in CAPITALS so glad all is well in the world of CC.
Tonkaed, you are ludicrously level-headed.

first time i know....

i liken myself to something of st. augustine (without you know the whole being religious thing) in the sense that i am eternally divided in how i see the world (but not like as a schizophrenic) as a result, the world will spend the next 1000 years trying to make heads and or tails out of my philosophical standing.

Low self esteem eh

[NOHIBBERTNO]

no protectionism, it is only ever politically favourable and will generally have alot of negative knock on effects which overall make the situation worse rather than better.

[greenoaks]

protectionism creates laziness and promotes anti-competative behaviour.

as soon as the industry faces stiffer competition they cry to the government for bigger handouts. whereas improving your ability to compete results in reduced subsidies. so it is only natural for businesses to lobby for the path that provides a steady income flow, becoming a drain on public funds in the process.

[Guiscard]

to take such broad sweeping stances against protectionism is about as sensical as taking such stances for free trade. Clearly there are a number of instances in which protectionism limits certain capacities for growth and can affect certain markets negatively. However, to assume that protectionism is something of a diease or a condition that stops the growth of something that cures ills in the respect of a free trade, is seemingly not something that reflects political or economic or social reality.

There has to be in some senses a blending of such things. In most cases protectionist economics will be a suppliment at best to larger policies of freer trade, but to attempt to deny them entirely will serve no nation state very well, nor will it serve its people.

On the mark as usual, GT.

[got tonkaed]

I think also as far as things are moving forward there has to be a difference discussed between developmental economics and perhaps the economics of developed nations. I think protectionist measures work in both settings, but under some slightly different auspicies.

to greenoaks....while yes you could say perhaps such as in the case of the mexican car industry pre NAFTA the lack of a foreign competition contributed to a lower quality of vehicle, this does not necessarily mean that in all cases affecting your markets cannot have a positive or even necessary effect. Certainly in the case of a number of agricultural based nations, taking some steps in order to prevent your markets from being spilled over by subsidized foreign goods...what napoleon is referring to as retalitory tariffs, may keep you in the game economically, and out of an incredible burden of debt.

Furthermore, for nations that have some form of wealth over a natural resource, protectionist economics for a time being can have a marked degree of success, especially in terms of setting up something of a welfare state, which in many cases provides the adequate net for more liberalized policies to occur. Although certainly nations which practiced ISI economics did not have the type of success as Export oriented nations, their populations were not burdend with some of the incredible inequalities that other nations did have. Likewise you could even argue ISI can work better in situations where there is a wealth of resources that a lot of those nations did not have.

In short, protectionism should not be killed off yet.

[Napoleon Ier]

to take such broad sweeping stances against protectionism is about as sensical as taking such stances for free trade. Clearly there are a number of instances in which protectionism limits certain capacities for growth and can affect certain markets negatively. However, to assume that protectionism is something of a diease or a condition that stops the growth of something that cures ills in the respect of a free trade, is seemingly not something that reflects political or economic or social reality.

There has to be in some senses a blending of such things. In most cases protectionist economics will be a suppliment at best to larger policies of freer trade, but to attempt to deny them entirely will serve no nation state very well, nor will it serve its people.

On the mark as usual, GT.

Sadly, I found that the usually excellent GT didn't quite do it for me here (though he's posted other good points in this thread). Y'see, taking a moderate position against what he rightly categorizes as "broad condemnation" on my part doesn't make by broad statement wrong. Look at the macro-economic theory, models and data, and the same pattern emerges: protectionism messes up the economy.

[Napoleon Ier]

I think also as far as things are moving forward there has to be a difference discussed between developmental economics and perhaps the economics of developed nations. I think protectionist measures work in both settings, but under some slightly different auspicies.

to greenoaks....while yes you could say perhaps such as in the case of the mexican car industry pre NAFTA the lack of a foreign competition contributed to a lower quality of vehicle, this does not necessarily mean that in all cases affecting your markets cannot have a positive or even necessary effect. Certainly in the case of a number of agricultural based nations, taking some steps in order to prevent your markets from being spilled over by subsidized foreign goods...what napoleon is referring to as retalitory tariffs, may keep you in the game economically, and out of an incredible burden of debt.

Furthermore, for nations that have some form of wealth over a natural resource, protectionist economics for a time being can have a marked degree of success, especially in terms of setting up something of a welfare state, which in many cases provides the adequate net for more liberalized policies to occur. Although certainly nations which practiced ISI economics did not have the type of success as Export oriented nations, their populations were not burdend with some of the incredible inequalities that other nations did have. Likewise you could even argue ISI can work better in situations where there is a wealth of resources that a lot of those nations did not have.

In short, protectionism should not be killed off yet.

But by saying this, you're basically implying that cheap goods to African countries are a bad thing (and also proposing a hypothetical scenario, we don't flood their markets, as the welfarist ChristianAid goons would have you believe).

[got tonkaed]

I think you and i would be citing different cases here. In the case of foreign aid, which i would assume you are referring to in terms of things like medicine, mosquito nets, maybe some other basic supplies, are far differnet than the agricultural products i would be referring to. I think something like the trade politics and policies of aid are a slightly different phenomon than more normal interaction of goods as their isnt usual as much of a profit incentive involved...though with microloans and the like this is perhaps changing.

The key issue as far as the dumping concerned would refer to something that is produced in both countries with the developed nation probably hosting something of an advantage either through subsidy or better technology. Though they are able to produce the commodity cheaper, it would not have a very negative effect on the economy we would be considering because they are likely not to consume the product when it is priced at roughly the same price as something homegrown. However once you talk about tinkering with the amount you supply (the flooding) of things like foods that are grown there, driving those companies out of business, then protectionist measures make a lot more sense.

I do think this occurs and is far less hypothetical than you would posit, as it tends to be the account from farmers in the majority of less developed nations that ive ever come across.

[Snorri1234]

How can I keep not liking Nappy when one of the option is: "Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY, or something like that."
?

[Neoteny]

How can I keep not liking Nappy when one of the option is: "Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY, or something like that."
?

That's what I voted for.

[btownmeggy]

I am an internationalist, emphatically so, maybe to the point of being irrationally, emotionally internationalist.

As such, I am wholeheartedly against protectionism. When I take political positioning quizzes, this a subject which I gleefully find myself contrary to conventional left-leaning wisdom.

But I think that considering anti-protectionism as non-left-leaning is an antiquated idea.

Who are the contemporary beneficiaries of internationalist trade policy? COMPARATIVELY UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRIES!

The foremost practitioners of protectionism are the U.S. and the EU, doing so to serve domestic economic interests.

In the status quo, the most globally damaging form of protectionism are farm subsidies. In the U.S., corn farmers utilize subsidies to grow one of the most inefficient ethanol fuels. In the EU, beet farmers grow sweeteners that are wildly more unhealthy than sugar cane!

Noticing the incredible benefits that wealthy countries gain from protectionism, large poor countries like Brazil and India have filed WTO complaints against the U.S. and EU, and been found in the right--TWICE! Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton says that she will purposefully start a new commission to enforce trade agreements... oops! That's sure something she didn't mention in Iowa--a disgusting perpetrator against the trade agreements that the U.S. purports to adhere to.

[btownmeggy]

How can I keep not liking Nappy when one of the option is: "Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY, or something like that."
?

That wasn't from nappy... that was from that guy who made all the WWII maps... qwert?

[greenoaks]

Who are the contemporary beneficiaries of internationalist trade policy? COMPARATIVELY UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRIES!

Australia is also a beneficiary.

We also have a large agricultural economy and are in many cases able to produce cheaper than the locally grown products of the EU but are priced out of the market by tariffs and subsidies.

We have also spent the last 15 years or so reducing the tariffs on imports and phasing out the subsidies given to our own industries. Yes, some industries have hit the wall but we have unemployment at its lowest level in 30 years so whatever harm it has done to an industry has been offset by increased demand in other areas of our economy.

The removal of the above has seen prices drop, keeping inflation at historically low levels and we have enjoyed the fruits of an economy that has grown for 15 years straight. We have sailed through the asian currency crises and several US recession and watched our treasurer feted by world leaders wanting to know how we did it.

In short, protectionism is a distortion of your economy away from what it has an advantage producing to goods or services that have a historical or political pull over policy makers.

[Snorri1234]

How can I keep not liking Nappy when one of the option is: "Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY, or something like that."
?

That wasn't from nappy... that was from that guy who made all the WWII maps... qwert?

Yeah I know, but it makes me giggle whenever I see it.

[got tonkaed]

i dont disagree that underdeveloped countries can benefit from internationalist trade policy, but i think there are some severe potential limitations and problems. If you liberalize your financials and allow for large scale foreign investment you immediatly suffer from a soverignty problem. Admittedly in practice this might not be a huge deal in some instances, but there certainly can be all kinds of labor related issues in EPZ that diminshing soverignty doesnt help to assist. Furthermore, there is not a guarantee of development outside of essential infrastructure tied to the capital investment made by the businesses. Certainly in many cases some things will be done, but in many cases, even in the higher tech industries there isnt a whole lot being done.

With the obvious objectionables like sweatshop labor aside, there is a large problem of in my estimation questionable amounts of long term economic mobility being created as a result of some international policy. In many ways yes there are a number of benefits from the access to newer jobs and opening to new markets that can be provided. However if you were to take something like the walmart situation in china, where workers are being paid 50 cents a day, you dont really increase their prospects for mobility much.

To greenoaks (and sort of meggy as well): economies are not things that exist independently of the social setting they arrive in. You guys are speaking of them like there is something that an economy would want or would be best for the economy as if it is something other than a construct. A very outlined construct yes, but a construct all the same. You can input different things and get adequate results, but that doesnt necessarily mean you are defining adequate in the right way or that other ways of adequacy arent showing different things.

[greenoaks]

To greenoaks (and sort of meggy as well): economies are not things that exist independently of the social setting they arrive in. You guys are speaking of them like there is something that an economy would want or would be best for the economy as if it is something other than a construct. A very outlined construct yes, but a construct all the same. You can input different things and get adequate results, but that doesnt necessarily mean you are defining adequate in the right way or that other ways of adequacy arent showing different things.

i have no idea what point you are trying to make.

i have provided a real life example of the benefits of opening up markets to free trade. as that particular nation is considered a developed or first world nation, i accept that underdeveloped nations my not be ready to allow their industries to compete head to head with the best the world has to offer.

globalisation is what drove the formation of Australia many years ago, globalisation is what is driving us now.