Topic: Protectionism (Read 2973 times)

Protectionism is evil.  It stems from an irrational bias against foreigners and foreign countries.  It is just as irrational to restrict trade between California and Nebraska as it is to restrict trade between the United States and Canada.  When people are allowed to trade across borders, both sides benefit.  When restrictions are placed on trade, both sides lose.  The US has a trade embargo with Cuba.  "We're going to show you that capitalism is superior to communism by restricting trade with you!".  The result is that Cubans live in poverty and they are one of the few remaining strict communist countries in the world.  Meanwhile the US trades with Russia and China and both those countries have softened their stances on communism.  US travelers can't legally vacation in Cuba.  Cubans lose and US tourists lose.  To say that sweatshops are bad without comparing them to the alternatives the workers in the sweatshop have is to not see the full picture. 

no it can't benefit anyone, if the local industry needs protection its because they produce bad products that nobody wants to buy.
the only way to sustain such an industry is by protecting it forever, because as soon as the protection goes away the population goes back to buying the good foreign goods and the lousy local industry goes bankrupt.
forcing your fellow countrymen at gun point to buy lousy local products will never bring prosperity.

economic protection can benefit the domestic economy, which the government imposes a very high tax for imported goods and impose lower taxes for goods exports, the domestic industry will grow, while the lack of protection into this economy is that investors will be more many industries set up in the land of others which of course requires a very large investment funds ... 

protectionism doesn't protect anyone but government cronies.
its basically a policy that forces the population at gun point to buy inferior local products (if they weren't inferior no protection would be needed).

Economic protectionism is alive and well. In fact, I would say it's rampant.
However, unlike poor Asian or South American countries, first world nations are more circumspect and discreet in the protectionist approach.

For instance, in the face of the mighty Brazilian sugar barons, the United States enforces a strict 28% import limit of sugar, retail pricing controls, fertilizer discounts and other indirect support mechanisms (fuel subsidy, preferential freight rates, etc.).

If the Brazilian Congress even dreams about enacting anything similar for some other agricultural product, you can be assured that the WTO will be swimming in war paint before their plane lands in Brasilia.

Protectionism is an interesting subject. It's a rallying around behind the state in times of either capital expansion or capitalist decline. It can't possibly be a communist thing because it is predicated on international capital and also internal capitalist relations. Unless you think hermit kingdoms are some how socialist but if you think that then you're probably intellectually deficient in several areas. It's almost as if people posting here don't realize that capitalism is a world system

What precisely is the problem with foreign people collecting welfare?

Governments exploit sentiments to indulge in protectionism.
I doubt if the US will be better off if they keep low paying, call center jobs at home.

It's bad for everyone except (and only partially and in the short run, depending on the kind of protectionism) for those that are protected by the government.

It's all a sort of economic weapon, in a sense.  If we really wanted to benefit everyone, we'd find a good balance between the two.  Global trade increases wealth.

There are weak people out there that will never have the means to survive in this competitive world by themselves, they need help by call it state or call it whatever, but they will always need some sort of help. If you don't see this you are delusional.

Yes it is, and when they happen you actually fell how would be without Globalization.

Globalization is distorted by embargoes, import duties, technological barriers, etc.

Can you give us some opportunities globalization delivers? because i know is the only ones benefiting are foreing people taking all the welfare.

You should look back in the past 200 years of globalization. Was there any profit for your country?

You usually fell globalization while embargo's start. Currently is popular Russia embargo. In my country now we have to much apples. Was jsut the case, so EU bought them to be give free to homeless, schools, ...
Next will be other industry.

When you stop globalization BDP lowers.

When you are poor, you need more opportunities.
Globalization probably will open up more opportunities to the poor than a nation can ever provide.

When you are poor you want protectionism.

This a good question i often ask tomyself...
Someone spoke about brazil and i think it's an intresting exemple, they have something like 110% taxe on It importation... well computer stuff are expensive and internet connection is generally bad there. for instance i found better connections in bolivia than in brazil which is probably 8x times richer...
Poeple go aboard or buy computer on the black market so obviously you can t go 100% protectionism.
Now this policy also helped to locate company inside the country in other areas.
That is to say i have no idea what to think of that exemple.
Also it is an isolated case and i doubt the rest of the world taxes 110% on brazilian soja exportation. If so it might save a bit of amazonian forest at the cost of thousands of jobs...

Now opening the borders tend to concentrate production in the most efficient place of the world regarding wages and taxes. China being the factory of the world is something i do not like, centralisation is a bad thing.  It increase traffic and bottleneck, makes the world more vulnerable and create unbalanced country with over-specialisation.

I understand the devlopment due to capitals going aboard which is certainly a good point.

All in all i just can t make my mind on that point... i would guess that the answer is inbetween...

At some stage, I hope globalization means free movement of goods, capital as well as labour.

That is not constructive.