tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post7209257353898089824..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: The Fatal Flaw of ProtectionismAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-39951486498184615152009-01-31T17:34:00.000-07:002009-01-31T17:34:00.000-07:00eneasz:Younger citizens of US America forget that ...eneasz:<BR/><BR/>Younger citizens of US America forget that their country imposed a highly restrictive form of <I>protectionism</I> to spur the country's growth while preventing other countries from "getting ahead". The original form of US America's <I>protectionism</I> was alleged to protect the "workers" and the "small guys", or at least that is what the "small guys" believed. <BR/><BR/>During the 1950s and 1960s your country practiced a ruthless form of protectionism that "forced" US production into other countries, while restricting other countries for doing the same, unless, of course, those foreign countries allowed US American corporations to "middle man" the products entry into the US. This is what helped the US America gain "control". For example, US America placed an embargo on sugar from Cuba which exists to this day. US American's championed their countries stand against communism. However, US corporations, with the governments assistance, managed to find loopholes in its "trading with the enemy" laws and continued for many years to supply industrial equipment and services to Cuba through "other countries" including Canada and the Bermudas.<BR/><BR/>It has practiced similar forms of control at least four times since 1950 and it has failed the US, and the world, each time. The US solution invariably has been to "undermine" other governments. This time is has been particularly hurtful because, while the US has helped destroy economy's all over the world, it is now being "protectionist" as we all are struggling to stay afloat. <BR/><BR/>My suggestion that the US consumer no longer have access to Chinese products is more of a punishment as US American's are forced to pay the price for products it has to produce and no longer avails itself of cheap foreign labor.antonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02909850387414677663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-17073019111936244762009-01-31T12:53:00.000-07:002009-01-31T12:53:00.000-07:00Anton - so basically, you're for protectionism?Alo...Anton - so basically, you're for protectionism?<BR/><BR/>Alonzo - Protectionism in general seems to have been an awful failure. However... there is a matter of correcting for externalities. For instance, wouldn't it be appropriate for a country that strictly limits it's carbon emissions (thus increasing the cost of doing business there) to put tarrifs on goods imported from a country that doesn't limit carbon emissions at all, at a rate aproximately equal to the cost of reducing carbon emissions? This way domestic industries wouldn't be penalized for being responsible.<BR/><BR/>If so, should such externality-tarrifs be imposed for lack of work-place saftey or child-labor laws? Would that be counter-productive?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-31310700461750412222009-01-31T08:42:00.000-07:002009-01-31T08:42:00.000-07:00If the stimulus bill is supposed to create some pr...If the stimulus bill is supposed to create some protection for US American business, it would be more effective if it dealt with the products and services that could be provided by small business. The US could do this by forcing the Walmarts <I>et al</I> to buy "their" products in the US. US America could also <B>penalize</B> corporations when they <B>export</B> jobs to take advantage of cheaper foreign labor. For example, Hewlitt Packard has been a notorious exploiter of <I>cheap</I> technicians from India by first, housing them in <I>barrack-style rooming houses</I> within the US and then transferring entire departments to Indian once telephone technology permitted them to do so.<BR/><BR/>If anyone notices, solutions primarily tend to help out Al Cap's <I>General Bullmoose</I> types with the theory that the benefits would eventually trickle down to the little guys. Margaret Thatcher tried a similar approach in England and it was a disaster!<BR/><BR/>How long will it take the average US American to realize that its future does not lie in protecting is big manufacturing and financial corporations whose executives are primarily out to make themselves personally wealthy. It is still a matter of <I>"when the little guy making widgets runs out of money he goes bankrupt and often is made to feel like a terrible failure"</I> while the big guys who caused his bankruptcy get bailed out. YUK!!!!antonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02909850387414677663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-2605301972183206272009-01-30T18:37:00.000-07:002009-01-30T18:37:00.000-07:00Distance increases the cost of trade (more so for ...<I>Distance increases the cost of trade (more so for physical goods and services, and less so for information) but is not relevant to the fundamental benefit of trade.</I><BR/><BR/>I realized something when I read that sentence. There's already a natural "penalty" for buying foreign goods, and a bit of incentive to buy locally to save on shipping. How ridiculous is it that foreign companies already have a built-in handicap, and we still complain that they're "cheating" and need even more of a handicap?<BR/><BR/>No matter how we try it, we can't create value by isolating ourselves and fudging the figures. We're going to have to work harder and try to win a fair fight. The way we've been running ourselves into the ground and dodging blame the whole way down, it doesn't seem like we'll be such a world power for very long.piahwefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14301480369336177718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-69429767801511998732009-01-30T14:07:00.000-07:002009-01-30T14:07:00.000-07:00BTW, Alonzo, I agree with your points about lack o...BTW, Alonzo, I agree with your points about lack of trade and warfare. The interdependency of free trade between nations is somewhat akin to the old practice of intermarriage between European nations' royal families, only more so.Steelmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09612062887585525213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-88389468203082173852009-01-30T13:59:00.000-07:002009-01-30T13:59:00.000-07:00"The stimulus bill passed by the House last night ...<EM>"The stimulus bill passed by the House last night contains a controversial provision that would mostly bar foreign steel and iron from the infrastructure projects laid out by the $819 billion economic package."</EM><BR/><BR/>Hold on. Does the bill state that only domestically manufactured steel products may be used? If so, then foreign steel coil can be used by U.S. mills. Coil is the rolled up bands that can be manufactured into pipe, tube, and other shapes for construction and other industries.<BR/><BR/>If it stipulates only domestic raw materials, then there may still be an exemption (as there has been in past tariff and countervailing duty actions against foreign steel) for U.S. coil mills to use foreign ingots and billet. Those are the big solid chunks that get melted and rolled into coil.<BR/><BR/>If the bill specifically states "melted and manufactured", then I believe only foreign ore (and other ingredients) are excepted from the ban.<BR/><BR/>So, the level of economic impact to foreign produces depends on the wording in the bill. Whatever the actual restrictions, this bill will probably drive the cost of steel products, and the products that are in turn manufactured from them, higher. The U.S. doesn't have the capacity to satisfy the country's overall demand for steel in a normal market, so prices may or may not increase markedly at first, but they will probably increase as a result of this bill.<BR/><BR/>I think a lot depends on the reactions of the world's steel producers, and what they are willing and able to do with subsidies.Steelmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09612062887585525213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-2658450729937225872009-01-30T12:55:00.000-07:002009-01-30T12:55:00.000-07:00Indeed!Indeed!Justus Hommeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02660099253980153951noreply@blogger.com