NationStates Jolt Archive

what do people think of it? do you think its a good idea or a bad idea?

Horrible f'ing economic apocalypse globe wrecking depression causing idea.

And that's without taking resultant wars into consideration.

Give me some money, you wouldn't want anything bad to happen to this lovely thread.

Well, I like certain versions of Protectionism...

I think they need to do what they did with the Car industry in the 80's to most goods sold in the US...

Its the reason Nissan, Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, etc., Have factories in the United States...It sucked balls for the Big Three, but who cares about them, when the majority of their products are made in Canada and Mexico...

I dont think we need protectionism towards individual companies, but for American workers, its not a problem that the aforementioned car companies are foreign owned, because they are employing American workers, and that should be the goal in getting the economy going, getting Americans back to work...

Well, I like certain versions of Protectionism...

I think they need to do what they did with the Car industry in the 80's to most goods sold in the US...

Its the reason Nissan, Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, etc., Have factories in the United States...It sucked balls for the Big Three, but who cares about them, when the majority of their products are made in Canada and Mexico...

I dont think we need protectionism towards individual companies, but for American workers, its not a problem that the aforementioned car companies are foreign owned, because they are employing American workers, and that should be the goal in getting the economy going, getting Americans back to work...

You cannot forget the voluntary import restrictions placed on the Japanese automakers, which actually did nothing other than reduce supply while demand remained the same, and permitted Honda, Toyota and friends to jack up prices and make crazy-huge profits on the cars they sold.

Imagine a politician declaring to everyone that he will enact a law that will allow people to fly by flapping their arms. Now imagine that you're a physicist who has to watch this declaration on TV.

That's how economists feel whenever the word "protectionism" comes up.

Give me some money, you wouldn't want anything bad to happen to this lovely thread.

Damn, someone always gets to the joke post before I do. :(

I am 100% for protectionism.

Protectionism: Let's block the cheapest products from getting here by making them more expensive than our equally good, more expensive products! Hooray for protectionism! :D

Protectionism: Let's block the cheapest products from getting here by making them more expensive than our equally good, more expensive products! Hooray for protectionism! :D

Don't forget damaging your international standing and risking the jobs of people employed by foreign companies.

Bad idea. Bad, bad idea.

Imagine a politician declaring to everyone that he will enact a law that will allow people to fly by flapping their arms. Now imagine that you're a physicist who has to watch this declaration on TV.

That's how economists feel whenever the word "protectionism" comes up.
I fail to see the analogy.

Protectionism: Let's block the cheapest products from getting here by making them more expensive than our equally good, more expensive products! Hooray for protectionism! :D

Sounds like a great idea. It would curb the spend and throw away mentality.

Protectionism: Let's block the cheapest products from getting here by making them more expensive than our equally good, more expensive products!
Don't forget damaging your international standing and risking the jobs of people employed by foreign companies.
Bad idea. Bad, bad idea.
So, you guys are presumably fine with an end of protectionist measures, i.e., a stop to all bailouts, incentives and so on and so forth?

protectionism is what turned the 1929 recession into a decade long depression.
The protectionism I see creeping into the current policies scares me.
There was rhetoric during the elections, but that is normal. Then I see the buy American clause. Now I see more rhetoric during the state of the union speech. My concern is growing.

protectionism is what turned the 1929 recession into a decade long depression.


Bullshit.

The protectionism I see creeping into the current policies scares me.
There was rhetoric during the elections, but that is normal. Then I see the buy American clause. Now I see more rhetoric during the state of the union speech. My concern is growing.

Which is why youre going to South Korea to not have to pay taxes.

protectionism is what turned the 1929 recession into a decade long depression.
At the risk of over-stating, protectionism is what modern capitalism is based upon.

There hasn't, to my knowledge, been a single state since the industrial revolution that hasn't enacted some form of protectionism.

So, you guys are presumably fine with an end of protectionist measures, i.e., a stop to all bailouts, incentives and so on and so forth?I said it was a bad idea, but I don't have a better one.

Imagine a politician declaring to everyone that he will enact a law that will allow people to fly by flapping their arms. Now imagine that you're a physicist who has to watch this declaration on TV.

That's how economists feel whenever the word "protectionism" comes up.
Except that physics is based upon observed, repeatable phenomena and thorough experimentation, whereas economics is based upon ideological fantasizing.

Except that physics is based upon observed, repeatable phenomena and thorough experimentation, whereas economics is based upon ideological fantasizing.
Boom!

At the risk of over-stating, protectionism is what modern capitalism is based upon.

There hasn't, to my knowledge, been a single state since the industrial revolution that hasn't enacted some form of protectionism.

the entire concept of modern capitalism is country A makes one thing well sells it then buys what they need from country B. Then both country B and A get rich.
Developing countries have enacted it to protect new industry for limited times but by and large trade in the 60 years has moved toward free trade.

Breton Woods System.
The EU
NAFTA
GATT
WTO.
the multitude of free trade agreements,
and most favored nation status. Just to name a few.
Protectionism is anathema to trade, foreign investment, and the modern world economy as we know it.

Breton Woods System.
The EU
NAFTA
GATT
WTO
Are all highly protectionist.

EDIT: They may be one-sidedly protectionist, but they're still protectionist (especially the EU).

Except that physics is based upon observed, repeatable phenomena and thorough experimentation, whereas economics is based upon ideological fantasizing.

I like that!

Protectionism is anathema to trade, foreign investment, and the modern world economy as we know it.

Meh. Protectionism is as old as trade.

Bullshit.

Follow the Data yourself. Before Smoot-Hawly Tariff act was signed into law unemployment had peaked at 7% (depression is normally considered 10% or higher) and was declining. The stock market had rebounded past peak 1928 levels and was surpassing mean pre-crash 1929 levels. All signs were that the economy had recovered.
Smoot Hawley passes and unemployment rises to just shy of 25% during 1933 and the stocks go down and stay down.



Which is why youre going to South Korea to not have to pay taxes.

If you are going to try and hijack threads with non relevant dribble. Could you at least find something different to say while doing it??? Broken records are annoying.

Meh. Protectionism is as old as trade.

in that when enacted trade ceases and everyone becomes dirt poor.

in that when enacted trade ceases and everyone becomes dirt poor.

And yet wealthy empires have always existed.

The markets don't care.

The poor exist even in free markets.

Meh. Protectionism is as old as trade.

The fact that something is very old doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to end it.

And yet wealthy empires have always existed.

The markets don't care.

The poor exist even in free markets.

Note his 'everyone' statement. An exaggeration, to be sure, but still makes a point.

And yet wealthy empires have always existed.

The markets don't care.

The poor exist even in free markets.

last time the world entered into a autarky phase was just prior to WWII.
You want a modern country that has a protectionist philosophy North Korea is your best example. Haiti might suffer from some problems when food prices rise but that's 6 months to a year. North Korea sets decade long levels of poverty that will blow your mind. A middle class north Korean would kill to become a beggar in the EU I imagine.

Except that physics is based upon observed, repeatable phenomena and thorough experimentation, whereas economics is based upon ideological fantasizing.

You really don't know anything about economics, do you?

Or do you merely assume based off of a poorly conceived notion of how the study of economics operates, derived from an undergraduate course that you skipped half of the classes and barely pulled a C in?

You want a modern country that has a protectionist philosophy North Korea is your best example.

No, its not.

Note his 'everyone' statement. An exaggeration, to be sure, but still makes a point.

Ok. So how is is better if you an engineer now works at walmart, mcdonalds, or starbucks because you are paid too much in the eyes of the market as the labor is cheaper elsewhere.

A job sure but how is it good?

You really don't know anything about economics, do you?

Or do you merely assume based off of a poorly conceived notion of how the study of economics operates, derived from an undergraduate course that you skipped half of the classes and barely pulled a C in?

Studying economics are we?

For example, do you think that economists feel the world is one which is accurately described by the classic model of the competitive market? Usually no, but there are instances where similarities begin to exist. What the competitive market is useful for is as an analytic tool, a lens to look at how decisions are made because it fairly accurately describes the mechanisms at work.

You can't just wave your hands and expect the economy to magically do whatever you tell it to.

Studying economics are we?

I use economics to a substantial degree, but no, it was not my primary field of study. It's useful, and any armchair pundit who decries it as being nothing more than the ideological fantasizing of ivory tower right wingers. It's a powerful analytic and predictive tool in any policymakers toolkit.

I use economics to a substantial degree, but no, it was not my primary field of study. It's useful, and any armchair pundit who decries it as being nothing more than the ideological fantasizing of ivory tower right wingers. It's a powerful analytic and predictive tool in any policymakers toolkit.

Economics is more then just a right winged field. Clinton was free trade supporter and the economy boomed during his time. And there are several Xenophobe protectionist republicans. The trade issue has straddled party lines. Just since the end of WWII the economy has been lead by a pro trade faction.

a stop to all bailouts, incentives and so on and so forth?

That's.... not.. protectionism. Seriously, nobody is for protectionism, fuck pretty much all the Marxists I know are against protectionism and see it as ethically disgusting. Regardless, one can't easily just remove protectionism overnight, at all.

That's.... not.. protectionism.
Bailing out a 'native' company when it's in financial trouble, to prevent foreign takeover, isn't protectionism?

Bailing out a 'native' company when it's in financial trouble, to prevent foreign takeover, isn't protectionism?

Do you think that's specifically why they do it? Because I'm pretty sure it isn't, but if that is the case - then you could technically call that protectionism, but only in so far as your countries health and safety standards are also a form of protectionism. When people talk about removing protectionism, they don't talk about things like that (unless it's deliberately adding red tape for protectionist incentives, and not because of any genuine health risk etc...).

When people talk about removing protectionism, they don't talk about things like that (unless it's deliberately adding red tape for protectionist incentives, and not because of any genuine health risk etc...).
Aye, that's what I think is, to put it bluntly, dishonest, and why things such as the Bretton Woods system can call itself 'free trade' when it's nothing of the sort.

Aye, that's what I think is, to put it bluntly, dishonest, and why things such as the Bretton Woods system can call itself 'free trade' when it's nothing of the sort.

But people are trying to put measures in place to remove this sort of thing and harmonize health and safety standards and macroeconomic policy, this is what many bureaucrats at the EU are trying to do. It has to be done in stages though, it's very difficult to get countries to co-operate however. What is true is that trade within the EU, and many other unions, have become substantially free-er (and you can empirically see how well this has benefited Europe for instance). I don't think anyone says it's 100% free yet however.

Protectionism is more of a double-edged sword. On one hand, we have economy and trade wars and the possibility of real war but on the other hand, it sometimes is necessary to look out for one's own country in a time of need rather than outsourcing all opportunities outside which does nothing for the country in economical trouble. There is a fine line to be walked here and I am of the belief that it's better to look after one's own country first and foremost.

I support a limited degree of protectionist policies, if only because producing an item domestically is more ecologically sustainable than importing the same item.

I think protectionism is a bad idea. But, to each his own.

what do people think of it? do you think its a good idea or a bad idea?
Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad.

I support a limited degree of protectionist policies, if only because producing an item domestically is more ecologically sustainable than importing the same item.

That suggests, to me, that the cost of producing said item does not properly include its environmental cost.

I think price structures need to reflect the real cost of producing an item.

Leaving environmental remediation to the taxpayer is a form of protectionism.

If only we could return to the good ol' days of the mid-to-late-1800s-and-early-1900s...

nostalgic sigh

If only we could return to the good ol' days of the mid-to-late-1800s-and-early-1900s...

nostalgic sigh

Heck yeah! Can I be one of the Rail barons?

Economists cannot predict individual actions, but they can predict that there will be an eventual turnaround in the spending/savings ratio as prices fall.

But, with what certainty?

We are getting off-topic here. Personally, I am opposed to protectionism. It is a provincial and chauvinistic response to perceived economic problems. If I live in Darwin there are no special taxes or duties on goods and services from Melbourne yet there will from goods and services from Jakarta which is much, much closer.

Why is this so? Why are Darwinians happy to penalise their near neighbours in Jakarta but not more distant neighbours in Melbourne? Why is the welfare of Melburnians more important thant the welfare of Indonesians? It's because here in Australia we have a narrow view of what constitutes our community. When we all see ourselves as citizens of the world first, then Australians or Americans or Britons second, then we will see how foolish protectionism is.

[Post thread split edit]We are no longer getting off-topic here[/Post thread split edit]

Well, considering protectionism destroyed the US automotive industry (both on our side and Japan's), I'd say it's a pretty lousy idea.

Thank goodness this won't happen any time soon!

Why should a person living in Brisbane feel an affinity with someone living in Hobart, but not someone living in New York?

In any case, even if you wish to remain provincial, protectionism means you pay more for certain goods, money that would be better spent on buying other, competitive, local products, thus helping your provincial economy.

Why should a person living in Brisbane feel an affinity with someone living in Hobart, but not someone living in New York?

I imagine they feel an affinity to both people. However, we associate ourselves more closely with those of similar nationality over those of different ones, and I think this is a good thing. I mean, its worked since 1648.

I imagine they feel an affinity to both people. However, we associate ourselves more closely with those of similar nationality over those of different ones, and I think this is a good thing. I mean, its worked since 1648.

Yes, but there was a time when people identified only with their village or town. Over time we have come to identify with larger and larger political structures.

Global warming, global environmental issues, global economic crises will lead, inevitably, to a global citizenship.

Global warming, global environmental issues, global economic crises will lead, inevitably, to a global citizenship.

An interesting assertion. I disagree, however. In the past one might have identified with a smaller area because of a lack of communication or knowledge, and as those have grown so has our ability to identify with larger areas. I do believe that there is a limit to this, however. While countries are not homogeneous, for such an end to be plausible we would have to have an equal or lesser amount of similarities to those inside our country as we do with those outside it.

Also, I would like to point out that nationalism started to develop in 1648, so its had a long time to transcend national borders and hasn't yet. Global issues have arisen before today, and still no change.