Protectionism

[asterism]

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.

That doesn't answer my question, and there was a time in my life when I'd much rather have a shipping container instead of a 3 x 7 cot in a crowed room. Comfort is relative.

 

[Missourian]

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.

That doesn't answer my question, and there was a time in my life when I'd much rather have a shipping container instead of a 3 x 7 cot in a crowed room. Comfort is relative.

Do you wish to return to the cot?

 

[loosecannon]

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

And you just used both.


Dumbshit.

I didn't use either, shit for brains. I just listed them.

are you retarded or just an adversarialist?

 

[wihosa]

Protctionism? Not yes, but HELL YES!

Free trade is not free if it's not also fair trade. Letting countries without environmental and labor standards undercut our businesses is very short sighted. Giving capitalists incentives to liquidate businesses here, pocket the proceeds and use a little of the money to re-open in other countries is killing the middle class here.

Sure it may seem like a good deal to buy a T-shirt at WalMart for only $4, but the problem is that it leads to an economy where that's all people can afford. A $6 T-shirt made in America puts that money back into our economy, instead the $4 spent at WalMart goes to China. Why do you think the Chinese economy is growing so fast?

We have import duties of 2% on autos yet if we want to export autos to China their import tariff is in the order of 30%.
Why should we keep letting our industries die? Our good manufacturing jobs are leaving and we are all becoming poorer for it, all except the capitalists, it been great for them.

Beyond what it is doing to the middle class there is the issue of what it does to our security. There was a line in the movie about Pearl Harbor, "Tora, Tora, Tora" that has always stuck with me. I can't remember the characters names but one Japanese general says to the other after the attack "we now have America on it's knees". The other general responds "Americas power is not in it's Seventh Fleet but in it's awesome manufacturing base". A big reason we won WWII was our ability to shift exising manufacturing assets to the materials needed for the war effort. We don't have that manufacturing capacity anymore.

Finally, there was a reason the Framers made import tariffs the law of the land. They knew we had to be self sufficient, for our security and our prosperity. When George Washington was inaugurated he had to search all over the new country to find someone who could tailor a suit made in America. It had been illegal under the Crown to manufacture clothing for sale in the Colonies. It was fine to produce the raw materials (cotton, wool) but the value added manufacturing had to be done in Britain.

Wehave been CONNED into thinking that protectionism is bad, it' only bad for the capitalists but it is good for veryone else. I guess it just depends on whose interests we want to look out for.

 

[loosecannon]

Protctionism? Not yes, but HELL YES!

Free trade is not free if it's not also fair trade. Letting countries without environmental and labor standards undercut our businesses is very short sighted. Giving capitalists incentives to liquidate businesses here, pocket the proceeds and use a little of the money to re-open in other countries is killing the middle class here.

Sure it may seem like a good deal to buy a T-shirt at WalMart for only $4, but the problem is that it leads to an economy where that's all people can afford. A $6 T-shirt made in America puts that money back into our economy, instead the $4 spent at WalMart goes to China. Why do you think the Chinese economy is growing so fast?

We have import duties of 2% on autos yet if we want to export autos to China their import tariff is in the order of 30%.
Why should we keep letting our industries die? Our good manufacturing jobs are leaving and we are all becoming poorer for it, all except the capitalists, it been great for them.

Beyond what it is doing to the middle class there is the issue of what it does to our security. There was a line in the movie about Pearl Harbor, "Tora, Tora, Tora" that has always stuck with me. I can't remember the characters names but one Japanese general says to the other after the attack "we now have America on it's knees". The other general responds "Americas power is not in it's Seventh Fleet but in it's awesome manufacturing base". A big reason we won WWII was our ability to shift exising manufacturing assets to the materials needed for the war effort. We don't have that manufacturing capacity anymore.

Finally, there was a reason the Framers made import tariffs the law of the land. They knew we had to be self sufficient, for our security and our prosperity. When George Washington was inaugurated he had to search all over the new country to find someone who could tailor a suit made in America. It had been illegal under the Crown to manufacture clothing for sale in the Colonies. It was fine to produce the raw materials (cotton, wool) but the value added manufacturing had to be done in Britain.

Wehave been CONNED into thinking that protectionism is bad, it' only bad for the capitalists but it is good for veryone else. I guess it just depends on whose interests we want to look out for.

Your opinion seems to be in the majority.

So why has every president since Clinton been so uber corporate friendly and so high on gutting the American economy in favor of globalization and the decline of the usa?

(the deficit! Somebody has to buy our bonds, damnit!)

All of our presidents have sold us out since Clinton so that they could raid our treasury to reward their supporters while making us beholden to China and Japan.

IOW they sold our economy to secure political power for their parties, who sold our economy to the Chinese.

Think about it. And treat both parties like the traitors that they are.

 

[wihosa]

The drumbeat of "protectionism is bad" has been coming from the RepubliCONs for thirty years. It's just that Clinton was in office in '94 when the RepubliCONs took control of the Congress. He foolishly signed the NAFTA, GAT, WTO deals, thinking he was triangulating, that he could revisit labor and environmental issues later. Instead he ended up with the issue of Lewinsky.

Clinton signed the deals but there is no doubt the the RepubliCONs are the driving force behind the "protectionism is bad" mentality.

 

[loosecannon]

The drumbeat of "protectionism is bad" has been coming from the RepubliCONs for thirty years. It's just that Clinton was in office in '94 when the RepubliCONs took control of the Congress. He foolishly signed the NAFTA, GAT, WTO deals, thinking he was triangulating, that he could revisit labor and environmental issues later. Instead he ended up with the issue of Lewinsky.

Clinton signed the deals but there is no doubt the the RepubliCONs are the driving force behind the "protectionism is bad" mentality.

OK, But dems in Congress ratified NAFTA, GAT etc.

And Obama is not rolling back any of it, at all.

To pretend that only one party is involved in the planned destruction of our economy is blind partisanship at it's worse.

Obama saved GM with full knowledge that GM intended to move much of it's manufacturing to China.

 

[wihosa]

I'm not saying that there weren't political cowards on the Dems side, but the fact is that it has been the RepubliCONs who have pushed this and for the most part the only resistance came from the left, with the exception of a few R's like Pat Buchannon and Ron Paul (hurts to give them any props).

 

[wihosa]

By the way, how in the hell could Obama take on this issue too? For goodness sake his plate is as full as any President since JFK with the Cuba missle crises.

 

[blu]

By the way, how in the hell could Obama take on this issue too? For goodness sake his plate is as full as any President since JFK with the Cuba missle crises.

vacationing less?

 

[wihosa]

He's been on vacation less than half as much as Bush was this far into his term. With you jackels on his back non stop he needs a break now and again.

 

[asterism]

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

That doesn't answer my question, and there was a time in my life when I'd much rather have a shipping container instead of a 3 x 7 cot in a crowed room. Comfort is relative.

Do you wish to return to the cot?

Depends on what I have to do to avoid it.

 

[johnrocks]

We tried protectionism before and got caught up in the Great Depression, I'm not saying it caused the GD however it was part of the many factors,imo.

While many aspects of the Great Depression continue to be debated, there is all-but-universal agreement that the adoption of restrictive trade policies was destructive and counterproductive and that similarly succumbing to protectionism in our current slump should be avoided at all cost. Lacking other instruments with which to support economic activity, governments erected tariff and nontariff barriers to trade in a desperate effort to direct spending to merchandise produced at home rather than abroad. But with other governments responding in kind, the distribution of demand across countries remained unchanged at the end of this round of global tariff hikes. The main effect was to destroy trade which, despite the economic recovery in most countries after 1933, failed to reach its 1929 peak, as measured by volume, by the end of the decade (Figure 1). The benefits of comparative advantage were lost. Recrimination over beggar-thy-neighbour trade policies made it more difficult to agree on other measures to halt the slump.
The protectionist temptation: Lessons from the Great Depression for today | vox - Research-based policy analysis and commentary from leading economists

 

[asterism]

Protctionism? Not yes, but HELL YES!

Free trade is not free if it's not also fair trade. Letting countries without environmental and labor standards undercut our businesses is very short sighted. Giving capitalists incentives to liquidate businesses here, pocket the proceeds and use a little of the money to re-open in other countries is killing the middle class here.

Sure it may seem like a good deal to buy a T-shirt at WalMart for only $4, but the problem is that it leads to an economy where that's all people can afford. A $6 T-shirt made in America puts that money back into our economy, instead the $4 spent at WalMart goes to China. Why do you think the Chinese economy is growing so fast?

Artificially paying more for something made here isn't productive. New products and markets have been created due to increasing computer use in everything. That would not have happened if we propped up the silicon based microchip and memory manufacture.

We have import duties of 2% on autos yet if we want to export autos to China their import tariff is in the order of 30%.
Why should we keep letting our industries die? Our good manufacturing jobs are leaving and we are all becoming poorer for it, all except the capitalists, it been great for them.

Beyond what it is doing to the middle class there is the issue of what it does to our security. There was a line in the movie about Pearl Harbor, "Tora, Tora, Tora" that has always stuck with me. I can't remember the characters names but one Japanese general says to the other after the attack "we now have America on it's knees". The other general responds "Americas power is not in it's Seventh Fleet but in it's awesome manufacturing base". A big reason we won WWII was our ability to shift exising manufacturing assets to the materials needed for the war effort. We don't have that manufacturing capacity anymore.

We still have the capacity, it's just a smaller share of a much larger GDP.

FRB: G.17 Release-- Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization (data only goes back to 1967, but that's before the trend of importing automobiles)

Finally, there was a reason the Framers made import tariffs the law of the land. They knew we had to be self sufficient, for our security and our prosperity. When George Washington was inaugurated he had to search all over the new country to find someone who could tailor a suit made in America. It had been illegal under the Crown to manufacture clothing for sale in the Colonies. It was fine to produce the raw materials (cotton, wool) but the value added manufacturing had to be done in Britain.

Wehave been CONNED into thinking that protectionism is bad, it' only bad for the capitalists but it is good for veryone else. I guess it just depends on whose interests we want to look out for.

I don't think comparing tariffs in a time when there was slave labor in the US and tariffs now is valid.

 

[antagon]

Absolutely not! I work for my money and I should have the freedom to buy what I want and if that means a car made in China with parts from North Korea or Cuban cigars then I should have the freedom to do so , besides, true free trade would expand commerce, not restrict and that would help our economy grow, what we have now is NOT free trade, it's managed trade.

it is possible that true free trade might expand commerce on an international scale, but countries have to concern themselves with the prosperity within their borders. introducing externalities to commerce is the way which governments employ a nation's economy to serve the concern of national prosperity. do you believe that a world economy is realistic? what makes you think that true free trade will make our economy grow?

If we allowed true free trade, markets would open up for our products from Cuba to Brazil to Asia. There are emerging markets out there that we can't even compete with to even see if it would make our market grow.

I'm not saying that I KNOW that it would or wouldn't but I think that I should have the freedom to buy from who I want and I have enough confidence in America's ability to compete with anyone that I'm willing to support free trade; not the managed trade that we now have.

my point is that country's governments proactively affect the competitiveness of their production and consumption capacity. if we were to relinquish every extent which we help to do this for the benefit of americans and our businesses, i don't believe that a free trade environment will improve american businesses' and citizens' capacity for consumption and production or our competitiveness in these directions.

its a mistake to see this matter as whether or not we can buy macanudos. the issue with cuba specifically is a trade warfare scenario, more than it is a free trade scenario. assuming that this will not occur is like assuming world peace on a political or military level and is naive. protectionism is deeper than the obvious methods of embargo, blockade, tariffs, quotas, subsidy, etc. monetary policy like china's is certainly protectionist. ours strikes a balance between extremes. euro and sterling policy protects their consumer power with a strong currency, but without subsidy, their industry would be under serious pressure. in light of this broader perspective, do you think that there is such a thing as no protectionism? isn't protectionism a way which economies are optimized for what they have going for them?

 

[antagon]

We tried protectionism before and got caught up in the Great Depression, I'm not saying it caused the GD however it was part of the many factors,imo.

While many aspects of the Great Depression continue to be debated, there is all-but-universal agreement that the adoption of restrictive trade policies was destructive and counterproductive and that similarly succumbing to protectionism in our current slump should be avoided at all cost. Lacking other instruments with which to support economic activity, governments erected tariff and nontariff barriers to trade in a desperate effort to direct spending to merchandise produced at home rather than abroad. But with other governments responding in kind, the distribution of demand across countries remained unchanged at the end of this round of global tariff hikes. The main effect was to destroy trade which, despite the economic recovery in most countries after 1933, failed to reach its 1929 peak, as measured by volume, by the end of the decade (Figure 1). The benefits of comparative advantage were lost. Recrimination over beggar-thy-neighbour trade policies made it more difficult to agree on other measures to halt the slump.
The protectionist temptation: Lessons from the Great Depression for today | vox - Research-based policy analysis and commentary from leading economists

the US has had protectionist policy from day 1, like 1790. will the most extreme and desperate policies really indicate whether carefully applied policy is worthwhile. everything requires moderation. i feel this applies to free trade and protectionism, alike.

 

[Samson]

The drumbeat of "protectionism is bad" has been coming from the RepubliCONs for thirty years. ....

Clinton signed the deals but there is no doubt the the RepubliCONs are the driving force behind the "protectionism is bad" mentality.

Wow...maybe the republican party is capable of getting something done.

 

[Big Fitz]

The drumbeat of "protectionism is bad" has been coming from the RepubliCONs for thirty years.

No. We need to make a very specific clarification. The drumbeat of "Protectionism is Bad" is coming from Free Traders and Globalists. This is no a one party problem. They are in both parties and are the real threat to American Nationalism, Patriotism and Sovereignty because they don't give a crap about it or worse, see it as an obstacle to be removed.

 

[loosecannon]

The drumbeat of "protectionism is bad" has been coming from the RepubliCONs for thirty years.

No. We need to make a very specific clarification. The drumbeat of "Protectionism is Bad" is coming from Free Traders and Globalists. This is no a one party problem. They are in both parties and are the real threat to American Nationalism, Patriotism and Sovereignty because they don't give a crap about it or worse, see it as an obstacle to be removed.

i tend to mostly agree.

China manages it's economy from the top down relying on cheap labor and protectionism to secure a long term advantage.

We willingly allow erosion of our own economy because it allows us to run twin deficits and engage in deficit spending.

somebody is making a lotta money, it just isn't the American middle class.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Protectionism has been proven stupid for nearly 200 years, ever since Ricardo.

It makes no sense for people to pay extra for something you can get cheaper elsewhere.

If protection was a good idea, each family would still be chipping their own arrowheads and fletching their own arrows themselves.

Bad luck if you didn't have obsidian on your territory, and had to make do with basalt or agate.

Even if you are better at something than someone else, if you can make more resources for yourself doing something they can't, you still do better to hire the less competent person.

Milton Friedman uses the example of a lawyer who can type at 80wpm hiring a typist who can type at 30 wpm. The lawyers time is worth $200 per hour, the typist 's time is worth 8.