Why is protectionism demonized? Are you a Protectionist?

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


The market should have more power and less regulation because it's more reflective of leadership in society than what we have now, and would promote longer term solutions to problems we have. Let me add here that we don't really have a free market today, just like we don't have capitalism (it's debtism, and it's mostly due to government policy, not "greedy corporate people"). Think about oil: the free market would have taken the same initial trajectory in terms of oil consumption when automobile demand skyrocketed. But once ONE spike in price hit - the 1970s oil crisis - the free market without gov't intervention would have focused its efforts on longer term solution. Now, the oil companies know that as long as they keep digging for oil and the US is out fighting wars abroad to import as much oil as possible, we're just now, 30 years later than we should have, starting to make a serious effort toward alternative fuel. A truly free market would have been all over this 30 years ago, and who gives a rats about Israel, Iran, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia at that point? W/ the government involved that process has slowed down due to artificial pricing, friendships and enemies in the middle east, etc. etc., which is delaying the inevitable. Just like the housing market - no free market would have ever allowed half the loans that existed between 1999 and 2005, but the government wanted it, the fed printed the money, and the loans were pushed into the system at low interest rates. This was a policy decision and they messed it up, as they always do.




posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Ok, on the subject of tariffs, you seem to know what you are talking about to a great extent...

So, I will address my question to you.


With a reduction in tariffs, what would prevent manufacturing jobs to be lost to other nations with lower wages, and thus, job loss in our nations?

-Edrick



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Exactly!!!!!! the only reason people get the wrong idea that government is socializing industries is because our own government is run by corporations.

Socialization in the US has been on going for a long time, from Medicare to SS, bailouts for the rich and anything the government can come out with to gouge the hard working Americans to support those that they deem worthy of support.

What a joke.



[edit on 10-3-2010 by marg6043]



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by concernedcitizan
 


There never has been a free market, and there never will be. The concept of the free market is just another fantasy like communism.

Without government market systems simply do not function.

Government hasn't interfered in big oil, big oil has controlled government, and essentially gotten what it has wanted, oppression of alternative energy sources and manipulation of market prices.

When government does its job of enforcing the laws against fraud and corruption our economy works fine, and the sixties and the nineties were prime examples of just that.

The whole open trade concept has been used to exploit slave labor in third world nations. We need trade agreements which eliminate this exploitation.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Ok, on the subject of tariffs, you seem to know what you are talking about to a great extent...

So, I will address my question to you.


With a reduction in tariffs, what would prevent manufacturing jobs to be lost to other nations with lower wages, and thus, job loss in our nations?

-Edrick


Nothing.

Those industries that are currently protected by tariffs would either cut costs and get competitive or they would go bankrupt.

Lets take steel for example. The report says:

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.


So where do they get the 400,000 per job saved from? From the additional cost of steel to all other industries that utilize steel.

If you reduce the tariffs on steel, that extra savings will be passed on to those manufacturers that use steel. They will be able to produce cheaper products and hire more workers with the cost savings.

So while the US steel industry will lose jobs, other industries that use steel in the US will gain enormously.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 




With a reduction in tariffs, what would prevent manufacturing jobs to be lost to other nations with lower wages, and thus, job loss in our nations?

-Edrick



Nothing.

Those industries that are currently protected by tariffs would either cut costs and get competitive or they would go bankrupt.


Are you serious?

They go overseas if tariffs are reduced.

They cut local jobs if tariffs are reduced.

They are still SELLING to Us, but they are no longer EMPLOYING us...

So, what exactly makes up the trade difference.

We can't count on their exports to balance our trade deficit anymore, and that effects our currency.

We can't count on them putting money back into the economy, and that effects our purchasing power.


So where do they get the 400,000 per job saved from? From the additional cost of steel to all other industries that utilize steel.


I don't think you fully understand global economics...

Yes, reducing tariffs is going to reduce costs... but it will lower the purchasing power of the local economy... which will result in a reduction in the overall economic power of the local nation.


If you reduce the tariffs on steel, that extra savings will be passed on to those manufacturers that use steel. They will be able to produce cheaper products and hire more workers with the cost savings.


Yes, they will be able to save costs... this does not automatically mean that they will hire more workers.

That is a presumption on your part.


So while the US steel industry will lose jobs, other industries that use steel in the US will gain enormously.


Yes... but your two examples are not equal are they?

US steel industry looses jobs...

Industries that USE steel Gain....

But you don't say they gain JOBS... because that would be a lie.

No, they gain PROFIT... not jobs.


So, we have a net loss of jobs, which effects the overall purchasing power of the nations economy.


Seriously... it's like you think that these things happen in a vacuum...


If noone EMPLOYES american workers... then AMERICA WILL NOT HAVE ANY MONEY TO PURCHASE THINGS FROM OTHER NATIONS.


Now... Answer the corollary question to my original question:

What do you think will happen to our economy if it has a net loss of jobs?

-Edrick



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


Globalism has taught us that we should not only do business with all trade partners possible (read: cheapest labor and goods available while governments collect higher taxes to invest in military presence) we should also inherit their problems because we're all one global community, which fuels the fire of neurotic morons looking to police "human rights" across the globe. This provides a great distraction for what's really happening in Europe and the US, where culture is being torn apart by a lack of direction in political leadership.

Instead of turning outward to China and reporting on their human rights violations, moaning about what a great country they would be if only they could just adopt the US Constitution (as if that would work, and as if it's any of our concern thousands of miles away), we should be turning inward to regain our local townships and cultures, and allow them to live according to values they select.

We've adopted a negative attitude toward life: we point out what foreign governments do NOT do, such as NOT allowing their people the same entitlements as we receive here in the US, but we fail to point out what it is we should be doing:

• Stay out of the business of other countries
• Build great, self-governing cultures which have better goals in mind than money (this would assume very little in the way of immigration)
• Promote the idea of families spending time with each other more (less office work & business travel)
• Insist on better leadership by voting in those who speak more to long-term planning than short-term band-aid solutions
• Promote body and mind health (independent thinking; no fast food; more efficient work in less time)
• Resist any attempt to centralize power in government
• Reduce overall population so resources don't become scarce

This would be a start; we can only hope enough begin to resist the globalist charade and care for their own communities to implement these vital changes against an insane political system.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by concernedcitizan
 


Yes, absolutely...

But this is because our "Leaders" here in the west could not care one Iota about human rights abuses and "Democracy" in any form or fashion.

They are concerned with exporting Fascism to the rest of the world so they can take over ECONOMICALLY what they cannot take over militarily.


a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system


It is not our "Government" that is pushing for these external pressures... it is our corporations working through the puppet government to attempt to increase their holdings, and influence.

If our Corporations and government really "Cared" about, or "Thought" that human rights abuses were happening in China, then WHY are they sending all of their manufacturing bases there?

So, from this FACT, we can deduce one of two things...

A. They do not CARE about human rights abuses..

OR

B. They do not think that the human rights abuses are even happening.


Draw your own conclusions.

-Edrick



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


Sure buddy.

That's why every economist under the sun agrees with what I just said.

You asked.

You may not like the response, but willing it to be different will not change the facts.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





That's why every economist under the sun agrees with what I just said.


How many of ALL the economist predicted this financial crisis? Mortgage meltdown? Bank bailouts? The destruction of the middle class?

FEW.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   
To all you socialists-

the only way to keep corporations from taking over is to let them do what they want!

Fight the fascism!!! and socialisms!



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





That's why every economist under the sun agrees with what I just said.


How many of ALL the economist predicted this financial crisis? Mortgage meltdown? Bank bailouts? The destruction of the middle class?

FEW.


The Austrian economists predicted it.

I consider myself to be an Austrian economist.

It doesn't matter what economist you talk to - Austrian, Chicago, or Keynesian - they all agree on this topic.

All of them.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Here's Peter Schiff detailing how he predicted the crash.

Peter Schiff is also an Austrian economist.

You should watch this, you all might learn something.




posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Peter Schiff is nothing more than a politician who built his career working for banks, and supporting the federal reserve, a private corporation that seeks to undermine the U.S. government. As an economist/politician/propagandist, his job is to put out propaganda theories that support the agenda of the corporations who pay his salary.

Your loyalty is to the people out to rob the U.S. middle class of their wealth.



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



Please explain WHY the US economy suffers the more we import and engage in the practices prescribed by Peter. American industry has done nothing but sought out the cheapest goods. Trade barriers erode, yet the problem gets worse and worse. It appears to me that this hands off approach in not producing the results one would expect.



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


Yeah, no many, actually the old school economist did, but the new age economist the ones that are up kissing the butts of the corruption going on on the markets did not because it was all about money, then we the tax payer were forced to bail the rats out..



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Actually the entire sore of the big fat rats is the middle class, eliminating the middle class or making it completely Dependant on them is the goal for total manipulation, now our corporate run government has made the American tax payer the ones to pay every time the markets dip down and the fortune of the fat rats needs to be preserve.

American Markets are nothing but a ponzi scheme at the expenses of tax payer money, people live savings and retirement accounts



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Protectionist and proud of it. A solid foundation is needed for every country. Once they all have a solid foundation they will all thrive. The conditions we are in economically are because we opened imports and to facilitate importing (and the money going away) they shut down the factories and fabricated and moved those industries over seas. If they weren't needed in the uSA then why did we need to import the results of those industries. The BS about being a technology, information country was a simple lie to sucker people into non-action. The industry could be exported because the ownership was by corporations owing allegiance to the vatican.



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   
God you people are dense.

It blows my mind that after being presented the evidence, people would still choose to be in favor of hurting themselves.

Is this ego or stupidity?

You be the judge.



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


What evidence, all you have done is name those who you worship and offer them up as evidence.

When presented with evidence that proves you wrong, every time you resort to a kind of prayer, invoking your gods of economics.

You sir are as thick as a brick.



[edit on 11-3-2010 by poet1b]





top topics
 
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join