Protectionism

[Shi Huangdi]

What do you all think of it?

Personally I am emotionally attracted to protectionism, but I know enough about economics to understand that it doesn't work, so I would never promote it.

[BNS]

While it can be a tempting quick fix it ends up doing more harm than good in both the short run and the long run. Not to mention there is always the threat of a chain of retaliation from other countries. It doesn't have quite the emotional pull it used to before I learned more about economics, I've become mostly detached to the products' nationality.

[michael123]

Doesn't work ultimately, but it usually happens in the end with most recessions... (though perhaps some in very limited form can be beneficial at times)

[CtrlAltDe1337]

It sounds good, but in reality its a very bad economic policy for everyone but the people being protected. You do save jobs, but you make higher prices, reduce competition, and reduce innovation most of the time.

[BNS]

It sounds good, but in reality its a very bad economic policy for everyone but the people being protected. You do save jobs, but you make higher prices, reduce competition, and reduce innovation most of the time.

And that's only momentarily. As it's efficiency and production that creates jobs.

[Pickle_mole]

what do we do about our industrial jobs though? how do we survive BAD times if we dont make our own goods?

[nopasties]

Protectionsm of vital industries is not bad to an extent. A certain amount of the defense industry should remain inside the country. A certain amount of food production should be kept. I see it as a slight balancing act. Political interests will promote their own industries but this is inevitable. National and strategic interest trumps economic utility sometimes.

[Raglan]

Protectionsm of vital industries is not bad to an extent. A certain amount of the defense industry should remain inside the country. A certain amount of food production should be kept. I see it as a slight balancing act. Political interests will promote their own industries but this is inevitable. National and strategic interest trumps economic utility sometimes.

indeed, i agree with most of this. Protectionism as a form of economics is a short term action that in the long term leads to less wealth, PROVIDED that you live in a country with a strong economy. In weaker economies protectionism helps to provide internal wealth for the nation and secure jobs, a good thing, but has the effect of restricting growth internationally.

However nations aren't only interested in economics (although it is an important part) domestic affairs and national interests (such as military independance) can be achieved though some forms of protectionism.

As such it is like in all things a balancing act

I disagree. Nowadays, every country's economy depends on imports from all over the world. Keeping a few branches of industry won't help much if a major crisis occurs. It's impossible to be independent from Middle Eastern oil, Russian gas or Chinese steel so I don't think that protectionism can make a country safer. Keeping uneconomical industries is therefore hardly necessary.

indeed, but as a vote winning exercise it is often quite successful

[Astaroth]

I for my part don't consider protectionism viable in our globalized world. It might have a few short-term advantages (which is why some governments promote it to an extent in the current crisis) but in the long run restricting trade like that simply doesn't work. It's too expensive to produce most products in your own country and it makes little sense to ignore cheap labor elsewhere in the world. Not to mention that other countries will react which could well lead to the economic and possibly even political isolation of the protectionist country.

Protectionsm of vital industries is not bad to an extent. A certain amount of the defense industry should remain inside the country. A certain amount of food production should be kept. I see it as a slight balancing act. Political interests will promote their own industries but this is inevitable. National and strategic interest trumps economic utility sometimes.

I disagree. Nowadays, every country's economy depends on imports from all over the world. Keeping a few branches of industry won't help much if a major crisis occurs. It's impossible to be independent from Middle Eastern oil, Russian gas or Chinese steel so I don't think that protectionism can make a country safer. Keeping uneconomical industries is therefore hardly necessary.

[Junius]

There are some benefits to protectionism which are not economic. The ability for a country to support itself in times of war, by producing it's own food, power and, to some degree, it's own heavy industry, is vital to national security. The CAP is used in Europe to stop the famine that exisited in post-war Europe from being a posibility again. These uses of protectionism I would generally support.

On the other hand, if you were protecting jobs that our not vital to the nation, as was the case with British Leyland, and other heavy industry jobs in the British Isles, including coal mining, these can be done better, cheaper and more efficiently over seas. It has been stated before that while they protect jobs in the short term, in the long run there is a rise in inflation, which stifles the creation of jobs, and leads, overall, to a fall in production andemployment.

It has been stated many times by notable Nobel lauretes that the countries that embraced new economic thinking, mostly Keynesism, during the Great Depression, which included the opening up of industry and competition, as well as abandonning the Gold Standard, recovered quicker, and with more success, than those that didn't.

While I do not oppose protectionism in the general, I am more than likely to oppose it in the particular. I would like that it didn't have to exist, but acknowledge that in some cases it must. Call it equivocation, but different countries may have different reasons for employ it, and so it should be examined on a case by case basis, and not blanketly condemned.

[Admiral Piett]

There's no such thing as a trade center without protectionism. It all depends on how much you have. Protectionism can do some good, such as keeping industries within your own country instead of having them ship off overseas.

[Dr. Croccer]

The EU is essentialy protectionist and is doing quite fine.

[Del Valle]

The EU is essentialy protectionist and is doing quite fine.

For the moment.

[JP226]

The EU is essentialy protectionist and is doing quite fine.

psss, hey don't tell anyone but, the EU was setup as a trading block to create low, dare I say free, trade barriers. As so many Euros like to scream, they aren't one nation.

[BNS]

psss, hey don't tell anyone but, the EU was setup as a trading block to create low, dare I say free, trade barriers. As so many Euros like to scream, they aren't one nation.

Anyone who thinks the E.U. is "free" and anything but a huge trade bloc is sadly deluded. Unfortunately Nafta isn't much different in this regard. I think it can be argued that both the E.U. and Nafta are actually barriers to free trade!

[JP226]

Anyone who thinks the E.U. is "free" and anything but a huge trade bloc is sadly deluded. Unfortunately Nafta isn't much different in this regard. I think it can be argued that both the E.U. and Nafta are actually barriers to free trade!

The EU is certainly free among it's members. If you are not in the club then yes I agree with you.

[BNS]

The EU is certainly free among it's members. If you are not in the club then yes I agree with you.

Is the E.U. really free among it's members? I thought it could be riddled with the same questionable rules and loopholes Nafta has.. As far as I know France is able to do an awful lot to keep it's car companies alive.

[Chlodwig I.]

Is the E.U. really free among it's members? I thought it could be riddled with the same questionable rules and loopholes Nafta has.. As far as I know France is able to do an awful lot to keep it's car companies alive.

Yes the EU is absolutly free among its members

Free Movement of Goods
No Trade Barriers (neiter TTBs nor NTTBs)

[JP226]

Is the E.U. really free among it's members? I thought it could be riddled with the same questionable rules and loopholes Nafta has.. As far as I know France is able to do an awful lot to keep it's car companies alive.

Yea it's pretty open for the most part. Their maybe certain agreements, but when you compare say trade between Romania and Angola, it's not that complicated. Even then, the way things are progressing on the trade front, it's not all that complicated to trade between Angola and Romania. The biggest hangups these days are the third world nations that institute their own crappy institutions, whether it's judicial or financial, or hell any part of the government. And the occasional civil war.

You also have to remember that the important part of trade isn't closing or promoting a market here or there, it's the flow of FDI in general. AS long as companies can find the cheapest combination of capital tech and labor, and take advantage of that we all win. And i'm not supporting barriers, I just think it's barriers in total that are more important versus focusing on the Citrus tariffs the US maintains when trading with Brazil. Not that the Citrus barriers don't need to go, which they look to be going out the door thank god.

[Каие]

No protectionism, free trade all the way, which is why the EU must be destroyed.