Why is protectionism demonized? Are you a Protectionist?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


Well, considering every economist on the face of the planet agrees with me, I'll stick to my opinion.

Free trade is one area where Keynesians, the Chicago school, and the Austrians all agree, it improves the lives of everyone involved.

If you are looking for someone to blame for the current economic mess, you should be pointing the finger at the federal reserve system and our criminal government, not free trade.

[edit on 10-3-2010 by mnemeth1]


Lol!....sigh....I thought I could avoid battles...hate them, but your qoute made me laugh and cry at the same time.

Communism was good too and agreed by many people and influential luminaries, till the results prove otherwise.

Similarly, I care not a hoot who offers up theories, even Einstein. They are only theories, NOT truths. Predictions at best no better than the street corner soothesayer.

It is only when the results can be verified, then and only then can such theories be proven to be 'true'. Keynes may had some of his theories proven true but NOT ALL of them.

What had been proven true by your strange theoratical economic bedfellows had been seen in the reality of this financial crisis. Proven true but WRONG.

Free trade works in a level playing field among equal nations ruled by law, but the reality is that such fields DO NOT EXIST today. What Comparative Advantage are we talking about when democracies are dealing with corrupt tyrannies? the word Free itself is a misnomer here

Even if we disregard the social order in the name of profits, dare we disregard social responsibility? After all, the Corporation owes its very existance to its society, which made it possible. I doubt if Capitalists would have been allowed in other political doctrines, if not even heavily regulated by them.

Free trade benefits everyone? I beg to differ. Nothing can be more further from the truth. It benefits they tyrants and fat cats, NOT the people. Look at China - it benefitted only its 30 million CCP boot lickers and its military while 1.2 billion people starve and without social welfare, despite 20 years of ' reform' BS.

It benefits the american people? Open your eyes to reality and look around. Wake up from your ignorance and take a closer look at the society. Jobs are lost and majority living on low wages.

Free trade is now, in this crisis semantically changed to 'managed trade' as you claim? Global warming into climate change semantic game again? C'mon, cut the BS and deny ignorance.

Who's to blame? The american people through their elected govt? Nope. The govt operates by rule of law and its regulations are applicable to all across the board, within and outside US.

The Feds? Partially, as it is an oligarchy of the rich and powerful, works hand in hand with Corporations to fleece the american people, and generally all humans dry.

The Corporations? Absolutely. I cannot even begin to describe their greed. One can only open one's eyes to today's mess.


[edit on 10-3-2010 by SeekerofTruth101]




posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Sorry, but all the schools of economics recognize that free trade doesn't always work, especially when some of the countries refuse to engage in fair trade practices, like China and Japan.

They advocate free trade because they pretend that it does help, but these days they are just a bunch of bought out fat cats.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
The nation-state is a political creation emerging from the liberal idea of freeing people from aristocratic rule, and lumping them together by political convenience.

If Europe can maintain a European identity while doing this, it will mean that populations will have greater incentive to preserve culture, which will be good for the environment and stability of those nations.

If you have culture -- shared values, language, heritage and outlook -- you can always assess an action you're considering by comparing it to your cultural values. If it doesn't measure up, you reject it.

This enables you to keep your region of the world pure from the corrupting influence of commerce. Someone wants to build a giant stupid looking entertainment complex? "Um, no, in Catalan, we value contemplative quiet. So sorry!"

And the environment? Your population keeps itself in check because it's keeping commerce in check. Unchecked commerce demands more consumers and more workers; commerce, regulated, has to make do with what's there and forego the huge profits, the cheap imported labor, and other environmentally-destructive factors.

Nationalism, is not just a good idea, it's the future. The past belongs to dividing people by politics; the future belongs to the organic state.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
All economists agree that tariffs and protectionism are a bad idea.

I see you guys talking a lot of smack, yet producing nothing of substance.

I've already provided you a link to the Austrian school's take on tariffs, here's the same take by some Keynesians. Even those idiots can see that trade tariffs damage the country that imposes them.


The essay on Free Trade at The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics looks at the issue of international trade policy. In the essay, Alan Blinder states that "one study estimated that in 1984 U.S. consumers paid $42,000 annually for each textile job that was preserved by import quotas, a sum that greatly exceeded the average earnings of a textile worker. That same study estimated that restricting foreign imports cost $105,000 annually for each automobile worker's job that was saved, $420,000 for each job in TV manufacturing, and $750,000 for every job saved in the steel industry."

In the year 2000 President Bush raised tariffs on imported steel goods between 8 and 30 percent. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy cites a study which indicates that the tariff will reduce U.S. national income by between 0.5 to 1.4 billion dollars. The study estimates that less than 10,000 jobs in the steel industry will be saved by the measure at a cost of over $400,000 per job saved. For every job saved by this measure, 8 will be lost.

The cost of protecting these jobs is not unique to the steel industry or to the United States. The National Center For Policy Analysis estimates that in 1994 tariffs cost the U.S. economy 32.3 billion dollars or $170,000 for every job saved. Tariffs in Europe cost European consumers $70,000 per job saved while Japanese consumers lost $600,000 per job saved through Japanese tariffs.



So keep on arguing for protectionist measures.

All you will do is make yourself poorer and the industrialists richer.

Do you know what country is the ultimate protectionist? North Korea. You can see how well their economy is working out for them.



[edit on 10-3-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   
For you constitutionalists and libertarians out there that don't understand economics at all, here's a good rule of thumb to follow:

If government is involved in anyway what-so-ever, its a bad idea.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Your continued ignorance is beyond belief. You just simply pull data out to support your claim, but do you know that I can similary pull data from tax revenues collected to refute you?

You and every economist like you put rely too much on data to fool the average man, but not every man is average as you presume, so cut the BS already.

North Korea is NOT a protectionist state. Not by a long shot. Please do not simply use a social order WITHOUT looking at its sociatel doctrine or internal situation to support again your tenacious but erraneous claims.

North Korea is a beggar state, heavily sanctioned by other nations for years. It was never protectionist even at its inception. Russia practically robbed its agricultural produce, with a smilely Kim waving thank you to them.

If you find comfort and solace in ignorance, then it is your right. I apologise for attempting in good faith to take that away from you.

Cheers



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


What you want us to produce, some paid out research to show why something is bad for the ones profiteering out of the rest of the nation?.

Or what we are seen in America for the last 20 + years thanks to bad policies, free trade, globalization and capitalism gone corrupted.

Don't you know that foreign interest is in the US to make sure that we do not block any of the profiteers in foreign interest money gravy train?

You know I can come out with all kind of statistics if that makes some happy, but hell all I have to do is step outside the door and see how the nations economy is affecting everyday Joes in the streets.

BTW most of the countries we do business with have protectionism in their nations for their own advantage, but lord and behold if US dares to do for once what is suppose to do protect its citizens best interest, we will have the WTO all over our butts with all kind of restrictions and fines..



[edit on 10-3-2010 by marg6043]



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


Since every economist on the face of the planet that is not an outright Marxist agrees with me, I don't think I'm the one who is ignorant.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The increasingly popular idea that centralizing power and leadership benefits us all is the great fleecing of the modern era. This socializing of industry, which is becoming common even in the once proudly free market United States, is accelerating due to hard economic times. Consider the following:

• The US government, even after fierce resistance from its constituents, passed a $700billion bailout bill recently, which quickly became an $850billion bailout bill. This is more of a “buyout bill” as our government has begun to take ownership stakes in banks.

• The US is at the mercy of its trade allies via the WTO, NAFTA, etc. with a deficit of nearly $10trillion

• After the banks got bailouts, other industries, such as the US automakers, lined up for a handout too – and they will be met with the same deal of “rescue for ownership”.

• The US spends close to $1trillion per year on foreign military interests, invasions, and wars.

One could come to the conclusion that most of what is going on recently is deliberate. In a society where people are simply willing to give up their cultures, neighborhoods, even their very lives, to the idea that the government should simply take care of us, it’s hard to understand why worldwide governments wouldn’t want to take advantage.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by concernedcitizan
 


I agree, centralization of power is the primary cause of all our problems.

Robert Murphy provides us some insight as to the real cause of our trade imbalances:


Unfortunately, there is another possibility. If the Federal Reserve creates hundreds of billions in new dollars out of thin air, and the foreign “investors” are other central banks that gobble up the dollars because their own rules treat them as reserves, then this increase in the foreign demand for “American assets” is of a much-different character.

In particular, the low US interest rates that accompany such a gusher of new dollars will encourage domestic consumption and will discourage foreigners in the private sector from investing in the United States. The rest of the world will acquire American assets all right, but they will be more heavily tilted toward debt (rather than equity in growing companies). The physical goods flowing into the United States will be consumer goods such as TVs and iPods.


From this we can see the real problem of our “trade imbalance” is not caused by cheap Chinese labor, but from our criminal fiat system of fraudulent currency. The Federal Reserve and its criminal counterparts are the primary cause of our manufacturing job losses here in the US.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Unfortunately almost every economist who preaches about the free market is an out-right Marxist, because the whole free market concept is nothing but Marxism.

All the economist who agree with you are in fact Marxists, just as you are a Marxist, who preaches the benefits of a free market system that does not exist anywhere, and is nothing but an unrealistic fantasy.

By setting its currency value to create a trade imbalance, China is setting Tariffs on imports which creates its huge trade advantage and is building up its economy. Everything you claim is proved wrong by China's trade policies. By keeping its currency low, China is increasing the price of all imported goods over domestically produced goods.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Unfortunately almost every economist who preaches about the free market is an out-right Marxist, because the whole free market concept is nothing but Marxism.



err... no.

Only Keynesians are essentially Marxists.

Your misguided ideas about what constitutes a free market comes from those idiots.

Real economists, such as the Austrians, are not Marxists.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by concernedcitizan
 


It is not the socialization of industry, but the allowance of industry to control governments that is destroying our economy and eroding our rights.

First of all, these massive failures of various industries came during a time when government regulation was minimal at best under the GW regime which consistently ignored rampant white collar crime. It was only after the financial crisis was created due to corrupt business practices, due to the governments failure to enforce laws against what should have been criminal activity, that government bailouts began.

Stop blaming government for the failures of business.

Time to end the denial and admit that these failed businesses are responsible for their own failures.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Really, please do give us a list of all those highly successful free market economies out there in the world.

You claim the free market system is the natural function of markets, then there should be several examples of these naturally functioning, efficient market systems.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by concernedcitizan
 


It is not the socialization of industry, but the allowance of industry to control governments that is destroying our economy and eroding our rights.

First of all, these massive failures of various industries came during a time when government regulation was minimal at best under the GW regime which consistently ignored rampant white collar crime. It was only after the financial crisis was created due to corrupt business practices, due to the governments failure to enforce laws against what should have been criminal activity, that government bailouts began.

Stop blaming government for the failures of business.

Time to end the denial and admit that these failed businesses are responsible for their own failures.


Lets look at the vast amount of Orwellian doublethink in your post here.

You state:

It is not the socialization of industry, but the allowance of industry to control governments that is destroying our economy and eroding our rights.


Correct

However you go on to state:

Stop blaming government for the failures of business.


Now, its clear you are vastly confused as to what caused our current economic disaster.

GOVERNMENT by your own definition was the cause of our disaster, not corporations.

GOVERNMENT interference in the markets through regulation, taxation, and monetary policy lead to our economic disaster.

The lack of regulation is relative. The removal of Glass Stegal certainly played a role - however Glass Stegal was only necessary because of previous government regulation! The need for Glass Stegal and other such regulation would not have been necessary if government wasn't setting up massive moral hazard in the first place with the federal reserve system and other such fascist mechanisms of power.

GOVERNMENT IS THE CAUSE of our problems, make no mistake about it - not free markets.

We don't have free markets in this nation.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Really, please do give us a list of all those highly successful free market economies out there in the world.

You claim the free market system is the natural function of markets, then there should be several examples of these naturally functioning, efficient market systems.


THere are no free market systems in the world today.

We used to have, for a period of about 20 years after Jackson shut down the central banks, a free market economy.

After that, we have not operated in a free market.

Starting from 1913, we have lost all semblance of a free market system and have moved to totally centrally planned economy.

Today, government is responsible for 40% of all GDP spending.



[edit on 10-3-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Was Bush closer to the progressive government of Fidel Castro, or more of a reactionary like Hans Adam II?

Ignoring rhetoric, let's see what ol' Bu#ler actually did. In foreign affairs, he attempted to bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq and also supported democratic elections in Egypt and Palestine. Spreading democracy is progressive but attempting to spread it in that part of the world requires the advanced progressive beliefs that all peoples love democracy and democracy is good for them.

In domestic policy, under Bush the US government went from regulating the financial sector to controlling it directly, and owning parts of it outright. The only thing which progressives love more than spreading democracy is expanding government power and influence. There was also the legal enforcement of the Lake Wobegon's belief that "all children are above average" (or, to use another wording, "no child left behind"). Even Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society is not very progressive when compared to Dubya's domestic accomplishments. Therefore, George W. Bush was the most progressive US president since Franklin D. Roosevelt.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by concernedcitizan
 


ah the good ole days of Clinton.

How I wish that turd was back in office.

At least he wasn't a totally insane unhinged fascist like Bush and Hussein.

Lesser of three evils I suppose.



[edit on 10-3-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


My double think?

This is some amazing pretzel logic you have laid out here.

At least you admit that corporations have been given too much control over government, which is a huge step in the right direction.

Where you fail to connect the dots is in realizing that when corporations control government, they control how government regulates them.

It is corporate control of government regulation that has created this disastrous mess.

Glass Stegal was necessary because history clearly demonstrated that when left to make their own rules the investment industry will turn our banking and investment markets into gambling houses that heavily favor the house.

Without an independent governing body evenly enforcing a fair set of rules, competition goes out the window, and the people who manage to gain control carve up the spoils. The system stagnates, and the economy dies. Thus here we are.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


A big ol' sign with Slick Willie smiling: "Miss me yet!?"





 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join



atslive.com

hi-def

low-def