Protectionism

[Madeline]

Well, I must be a dumbass too...I have never heard of "interventionism". Care to share, LibocalypseNow?

BTW, my Big Fizzy friend that was an outstanding post. I'd rep ya, but I'm outta gas.

 

[johnrocks]

Well, I must be a dumbass too...I have never heard of "interventionism". Care to share, LibocalypseNow?

BTW, my Big Fizzy friend that was an outstanding post. I'd rep ya, but I'm outta gas.

"Liberal internationalism is a foreign policy doctrine that argues that liberal states should intervene in other sovereign states in order to pursue liberal objectives. Such intervention includes military intervention and humanitarian aid. This view is contrasted to isolationist, realist, or non-interventionist foreign policy doctrines, which oppose such intervention. These critics characterize it as liberal interventionism."
Liberal internationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Non-intervention is the norm in international relations and international law that one state cannot interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination.

Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence".[1] Examples of supporters of non-interventionism are Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul.[2]

Nonintervention is one step removed from isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their polices from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade.
Not a big fan of Wiki but that is accurate,imho.

 

[Madeline]

Thankies, John.

This policy sounds cracked to me, though. Abandon NATO? Leave off aiding Israel? How can we even consider this when so many crackpot dictators have or may be getting the A bomb, etc.?

I'm not sure how it relates to tariffs and protectionism, John.

 

[johnrocks]

Thankies, John.

This policy sounds cracked to me, though. Abandon NATO? Leave off aiding Israel? How can we even consider this when so many crackpot dictators have or may be getting the A bomb, etc.?

I'm not sure how it relates to tariffs and protectionism, John.

I think this thread sort of evolved into someone mentioning the terms and you asking what they were, I just tried to help.

I think NATO served a purpose at one time but being the world's nosey neighbor and policeman creates unintended consequences ,imho. Aiding Israel is no more our job than aiding Saudi Arabia, again,imho but as you stated, none of this has anything to do with protectionism.

 

[loosecannon]

I agree that "free trade" and "free markets' are the most abused terms to yet enter the discussion

 

[asterism]

Protectionism is not a simple issue.

I say I am FOR protectionism when dealing with other nations who use unfair trade tactics such as artificially pegging currency, barring markets to importation/exportation, prohibitive tariffs, state supported industries, slave labor and other similar forms. In those situations, similar actions to erase their artificial advantage could and in most cases, SHOULD be applied.

There are also 'cultural' reasons for utilizing trade protectionism and that is when you have a more primitive culture 'bootstrapping' itself at our expense. Look at India. I think on one hand it's great for that society to pull itself up from the depths of really the iron age in some places where poverty and starvation are norms in life. But how they are doing it, by enticing businesses out of the US by exceedingly low wages (which by their culture are high) cause more damage to our nation than theirs. Mind you, low skill, menial labor jobs really have a good reason to be outsourced, but others... not so much.

Of course when we are talking of cultural/national equals, such as the Anglosphere and Japan, most of Europe, South Korea Israel, and possibly even Russia I'm more for free trade. They are not going to 'lowball' us unless they utilize unfair competition tactics like pegged currency and nationalized industries. Then you are looking at more situational protectionism. For instance say S. Korean steel is selling on the open market at 45% of the international average with the exception of the Ukraine which is only 25% less. It turns out the reason they can lowball the market like that is because they are subsidizing losses with taxation making it a 'nationalized' industry. The Ukraine on the other hand just discovered a HUGE deposit of iron near their coal deposits and are going through a boom right now. This advantage is new and not due to politics. S. Korean Steel should be hit with a 45% tariff, while the Ukraine's steel should not be. Luck should not be penalized because they have optimal conditions. Maybe the harder competition will weed out inefficient producers or force the industry to make themselves better. Once the lodes wear out, the Ukraine would return back to normal. A nationalized industry perpetuates as long as people put up with it.

That's why free trade MUST be carefully done, and not willy nilly without regard for why a foreign nation is kicking our ass in trade.

I disagree. "Carefully done" free trade isn't free trade, it's central planning and that stifles growth while ushering in crony capitalism. Central planning has failed, as noted in your tariff example. Only by predicting the future would picking favorites actually work. Also, you said that low skill menial labor jobs have a good reason to be outsourced but not others. Why? What's wrong with an M.I.T. educated database administrator working for a US based company remotely from India? If it's effective it's a win-win for all but those who demand higher pay for something others are willing to do for less.

I remember when coding basic HTML paid $45 an hour and there was more work than could be had. Surely that wasn't sustainable because it wasn't that hard, it was just new. Protectionist policies caused the going rate to increase to $75 and then $200 an hour, but only for those who spent $10K+ on elaborate sales pitches. How did that work out?

I understand the sentiment for wanting protectionism, I just don't see how it can work. An incentive to not be as efficient as someone locked out of a market is a drain on innovation and effective business operation.

All of the other scenarios regarding currency pegging, competing foreign government subsidies, localized tariffs and such are all temporary. China cannot sustain their model for long because their economy cannot grow faster than their population forever and their model of internal Communism but external Capitalism is falling apart.

 

[asterism]

To be honest...I'm not an economist and I don't have a firm grasp on the consequences of protectionism.

But what anyone with with the most basic understanding of arithmetic knows is Americans cannot maintain their standard of living while at the same time competing with a foreign workforce that can subsist on a fraction of the prevailing American wage.

That's just common sense...their Standard of living will go up and ours will be reduced until an equilibrium is reached.

That's a great deal for them, but for the American work force and the American way of life it will be disastrous.

My main street based opinion is I think a little protectionism could go a long way.

Why? If you think the standard of living is too high why continue to prop it up?

 

[Samson]

We should raise tarriffs on Chinese goods, and use the revenue to pay back the US treasury bonds they've bought.

 

[blu]

nope, I choose freedom all day everyday

 

[Samson]

I agree that "free trade" and "free markets' are the most abused terms to yet enter the discussion

And you just used both.


Dumbshit.

 

[blu]

Thankies, John.

This policy sounds cracked to me, though. Abandon NATO? Leave off aiding Israel? How can we even consider this when so many crackpot dictators have or may be getting the A bomb, etc.?

I'm not sure how it relates to tariffs and protectionism, John.

yes we should leave nato and let it crumble. participating in such an organization is a complete insult to our overnight. we should also cut of fall foreign aid to nations.

the only thing we should do with other nations is trade. leave their security and well being otherwise up to them.

 

[Missourian]

To be honest...I'm not an economist and I don't have a firm grasp on the consequences of protectionism.

But what anyone with with the most basic understanding of arithmetic knows is Americans cannot maintain their standard of living while at the same time competing with a foreign workforce that can subsist on a fraction of the prevailing American wage.

That's just common sense...their Standard of living will go up and ours will be reduced until an equilibrium is reached.

That's a great deal for them, but for the American work force and the American way of life it will be disastrous.

My main street based opinion is I think a little protectionism could go a long way.

Why? If you think the standard of living is too high why continue to prop it up?

Where did I say I think it's too high?

Read for comprehension.

 

[Samson]

Thankies, John.

This policy sounds cracked to me, though. Abandon NATO? Leave off aiding Israel? How can we even consider this when so many crackpot dictators have or may be getting the A bomb, etc.?

I'm not sure how it relates to tariffs and protectionism, John.

yes we should leave nato and let it crumble. participating in such an organization is a complete insult to our overnight. we should also cut of fall foreign aid to nations.

the only thing we should do with other nations is trade. leave their security and well being otherwise up to them.

Thank you Mr. Thomas Payne.

But, how would the Americans otherwise defeated the British Empire, without the alliance with France?

 

[asterism]

We should raise tarriffs on Chinese goods, and use the revenue to pay back the US treasury bonds they've bought.

You say that jokingly, but I've heard that theory from economists since the 1980s. I'm not sure I believe it, but that joke resurfaced for me in 2002 when China was being courted for investments.

 

[asterism]

To be honest...I'm not an economist and I don't have a firm grasp on the consequences of protectionism.

But what anyone with with the most basic understanding of arithmetic knows is Americans cannot maintain their standard of living while at the same time competing with a foreign workforce that can subsist on a fraction of the prevailing American wage.

That's just common sense...their Standard of living will go up and ours will be reduced until an equilibrium is reached.

That's a great deal for them, but for the American work force and the American way of life it will be disastrous.

My main street based opinion is I think a little protectionism could go a long way.

Why? If you think the standard of living is too high why continue to prop it up?

Where did I say I think it's too high?

Read for comprehension.

Ok, I'll clarify:

If you don't think Americans can maintain their standard of living while competing with a foreign workforce why continue to prop up the Americans?

 

[asterism]

Thankies, John.

This policy sounds cracked to me, though. Abandon NATO? Leave off aiding Israel? How can we even consider this when so many crackpot dictators have or may be getting the A bomb, etc.?

I'm not sure how it relates to tariffs and protectionism, John.

yes we should leave nato and let it crumble. participating in such an organization is a complete insult to our overnight. we should also cut of fall foreign aid to nations.

the only thing we should do with other nations is trade. leave their security and well being otherwise up to them.

Thank you Mr. Thomas Payne.

But, how would the Americans otherwise defeated the British Empire, without the alliance with France?

Good point.

We can be allies with some, we cannot be allies with all. The more we intervene the more they hate us.

 

[Samson]

We should raise tarriffs on Chinese goods, and use the revenue to pay back the US treasury bonds they've bought.

You say that jokingly, but I've heard that theory from economists since the 1980s. I'm not sure I believe it, but that joke resurfaced for me in 2002 when China was being courted for investments.

Well.....eventually, we mightn't have any choice, but we'd better do it soon, while the Chi-Coms still have a largely willing billion-or-so slave laborers.

 

[asterism]

We should raise tarriffs on Chinese goods, and use the revenue to pay back the US treasury bonds they've bought.

You say that jokingly, but I've heard that theory from economists since the 1980s. I'm not sure I believe it, but that joke resurfaced for me in 2002 when China was being courted for investments.

Well.....eventually, we mightn't have any choice, but we'd better do it soon, while the Chi-Coms still have a largely willing billion-or-so slave laborers.

The other theory is that we just don't pay it back and use our government policy of subsidizing the elevation of China's people as an excuse. "By our calculations when we include your manipulation of the Yuan, you owe us a few trillion. Let's just call it even."

 

[asterism]

The average American might not be better off with a cheap TV, but the average American certainly isn't better off by not having the choice to buy one in the first place.

 

[Missourian]

Why? If you think the standard of living is too high why continue to prop it up?

Where did I say I think it's too high?

Read for comprehension.

Ok, I'll clarify:

If you don't think Americans can maintain their standard of living while competing with a foreign workforce why continue to prop up the Americans?

We're talking about the difference between the American dream and living in a shipping container.