Why so many protectionists here?

[Madison320]

This runs in strong accord with my basic views.

The deeper point is this: "Free markets" cannot operate without distortion when they exchange markets that are not distorted.

Our trade with China is grossly distorted, primarily because of their slave labor market. It is further distorted by the official government policy of limiting American imports. This results in an artificially imbalanced trade relationship between the American and Chinese markets. As with other aspects of human relations, the phenomenon of lowest denominator rules the day. For instance, the moment the first American shoe manufacturer went offshore to $0.50/hr labor, the rest of the American footwear industry had little choice but to follow suit, lest the lone manufacturer eat all their lunches. "Lower denominator" is a euphemism for "material advantage". It's not always wrong, but it often is. It is deleterious when the advantage is artificially brought into an environment and maintained. Without such artifice, markets such as those for Chinese labor would rapidly lose much of their cost advantages, though likely not all. But if the natural rate of the Chinese market were to rise to $10/hr in the absence of governmental threats and violence, the $18/hr American labor market suddenly looks more appealing in the grander scheme of business operations.

Therefore, a free market nation (America does not really qualify either, though we are closer to it in some respects), if it is to do business with those that are not similarly free, stands well will within good reason to undertake policies that preserve their home market from the distortions they would otherwise incur as the result of trade with deviant partner nations. The sticky wicket, of course, lies in the formulation of those policies, which are anything but trivial to establish. If you will tariff Chinese goods, by how much? By what measure does one mark-up the value of Chinese labor in the form of tariffing such that trade remains a fair representation of the free?

Protectionism is not necessarily evil. As with so many things, its value predicates upon context.

If some foreign country decided to give us free shoes, does that harm our economy? Would you ban them?

[osan]

If some foreign country decided to give us free shoes, does that harm our economy? Would you ban them?

Your premise is faulty.

[Madison320]

Your premise is faulty.

It's a hypothetical question. The logic doesn't change whether they are selling us cheap stuff or giving it away for free.

[osan]

It's a hypothetical question. The logic doesn't change whether they are selling us cheap stuff or giving it away for free.

The logic changes because the premise changes. By what virtue is this great give away coming to pass? Unless the Chinese have developed a shoe-replicator where all they need do is yak into a panel and 40 million pair of shoes appear in the spirit of "tea, earl-grey, hot", at no cost to themselves, why would they do this?

That all aside, there is a difference between disruptive events that occur "organically" and those that arise as a result of governmental intrusion with the intention of artificially suppressing market evolution. The invention of the transistor was a disruption of the former sort. China's forcible suppression of labor market evolution through murder and threats thereof, is an example of the latter.

If the apparent act of altruism was in fact a governmental stab at destroying the American shoe manufacturing market, I would turn the shoes back and warn the "benefactor" that any more such excursions into economic warfare will be similarly turned back.

[tod evans]

The logic changes because the premise changes. By what virtue is this great give away coming to pass? Unless the Chinese have developed a shoe-replicator where all they need do is yak into a panel and 40 million pair of shoes appear in the spirit of "tea, earl-grey, hot", at no cost to themselves, why would they do this?

That all aside, there is a difference between disruptive events that occur "organically" and those that arise as a result of governmental intrusion with the intention of artificially suppressing market evolution. The invention of the transistor was a disruption of the former sort. China's forcible suppression of labor market evolution through murder and threats thereof, is an example of the latter.

If the apparent act of altruism was in fact a governmental stab at destroying the American shoe manufacturing market, I would turn the shoes back and warn the "benefactor" that any more such excursions into economic warfare will be similarly turned back.

The "shoes" should have been turned back with the advent of Datsun and Honda motorcycles.....

I don't think the US is capable of producing for ourselves any longer, not without a major change in society.....

That change will come about though, sooner or later..... And the last few generations will be aghast...

[undergroundrr]

What if we close down Planned Parenthood and there are a lot more babies born? Will this have a long-term negative impact?

Is some kind of population control advisable to keep the size of the worker pool under control?

[osan]

What if we close down Planned Parenthood and there are a lot more babies born? Will this have a long-term negative impact?

Is some kind of population control advisable to keep the size of the worker pool under control?

Your questions seem to presuppose that someone, somewhere, holds some authority for making these calls for others. I see what you're doing here. Very clever. Bravo.

[undergroundrr]

Your questions seem to presuppose that someone, somewhere, holds some authority for making these calls for others. I see what you're doing here. Very clever. Bravo.

It's not an unusual notion. The protectionist think tank Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) (whose documents have been quoted by some on this forum to promote labor protectionism) was started by the president of Zero Population Growth (ZPG), now known as Population Connection, who encourage family planning. Population Connection's mission statement: ""Overpopulation threatens the quality of life for people everywhere. Population Connection is the national grassroots population organization that educates young people and advocates progressive action to stabilize world population at a level that can be sustained by Earth's resources."

Anybody who makes an argument to keep out immigrants because of job market dilution, if they're honest, should also be concerned about other sources of workforce glut. Stemming rampant baby-making is perhaps the most obvious second line of attack.

[BSWPaulsen]

I don't understand your argument, but I mostly agree with your conclusion.

Corporations can be pro-protectionism as well; the auto and steel industries are good examples of this. Categorizing protectionism as being "of the people" and free trade as corporate is an oversimplification. Corporations with the ability to purchase government power will seek the policies that benefit them, whether that means opening or closing trade.

Well put. It would be more accurate to phrase it as populist protectionism when referring to the kind not endorsed by big business.

The solution, as you said, is eliminating the ability of the government to assist one side or the other
I disagree that protectionism "in the meantime" is okay. That represents a move towards greater government intervention, not less.

In order to reach that solution requires a fundamentally different man engaged in society. In the meantime, I expect protectionism, due to man's will to power, will be ascendant. This is not a statement on protectionism being good in the meantime, but rather it to be the expected outcome given the nature of man engaged in this society. Power is sought not for the good it may achieve, but rather to club the other guy with it so that personal benefit will be expected.

There simply are not enough men with the gravitas to obtain power, correct society using that power, abdicate the power once everything is set to rights, and remain vigilant against those that would fill the vacuum.

Using your logic any anti liberty law can be justified if it's used against big business. "Big business is evil therefore we can raise taxes on them, regulate them, sue them for discrimination, restrict their hiring, etc."

If it were a requirement humans be utterly consistent in their principles, reasoning, logic, and so forth, then one might think that possible. Certainly.

But you'll find people, particularly on political matters, are decidedly Machiavellian. And rightly so!

[osan]

The "shoes" should have been turned back with the advent of Datsun and Honda motorcycles.....

I don't think the US is capable of producing for ourselves any longer, not without a major change in society.....

That change will come about though, sooner or later..... And the last few generations will be aghast...

A change will come about, for nothing else is possible, especially under the current prevailing condition to which you refer. It will likely tale the form of a "correction". The longer we resist, the deeper, more painful, and dangerous it will prove.

[specsaregood]

If some foreign country decided to give us free shoes, does that harm our economy? Would you ban them?

I ran across a related article on this.
https://fee.org/articles/how-us-crop...and-dependent/

Crop dumping is one of the most pernicious forms of U.S. foreign aid. Crop dumping is the transfer of massive amounts of food into an economy for free or at a below market price to feed “starving children.” The intention is lovely, but the policy carrying out the intention is abhorrent.

In May 2016, the United States Department of Agriculture was caught in the act of “crop dumping” when they shipped 500 metric tons of peanuts to Haiti. Haitians and aid groups pleaded against this act of crop dumping, as it undermines the peanut industry in Haiti which is home to over 150,000 peanut farmers. These farmers cannot compete with the price of zero, and that is what they must do when the U.S. insists on dumping crops. Haiti has many of its own problems with economic freedom, so the transition from one type of industry to another is painstaking or impossible. The U.S. insistence on providing foreign aid with a disregard to Haitian markets endangers the economic livelihood of Haiti. This was not the first time we interfered with the Haitian economy.

Haiti was once an economy with a strong rice industry. Pressured by the U.S. and other international creditors, Haiti undertook trade liberalization during the 1980’s, and this coincided with the U.S. Food Security Act of 1985 which heavily subsidized the U.S. rice industry. During the 1990’s, the U.S. was responsible for dumping rice into Haiti. The U.S. flooded the Haitian economy with what came to be known as ‘Miami rice’ because the rice came from the port in Miami. As Haitian imports of rice replaced domestic production, artificially depressed prices for rice drove Haitians out of the rice industry altogether. The U.S. subsidizing its own industries caused many Haitian rice farmers to fail and forced Haitians into foreign aid dependence. At the time, Haiti’s rural population largely made their living in the agricultural industry. The Haitian farmers competed through the private market and the price system, but the U.S. did not compete with such integrity, instead electing to sell surplus goods at non-market prices. Haitian farmers deserved a chance to compete, but U.S. policy killed Haitian opportunities to escape poverty.

more at link...

[Madison320]

I ran across a related article on this.
https://fee.org/articles/how-us-crop...and-dependent/

What if someone offered you free stuff (or discounted)? I'm assuming you wouldn't turn it down and that it would be good for your economy, right? So at what point does it become "bad"? When you offer free stuff to 20 people, 100 people?

[specsaregood]

What if someone offered you free stuff (or discounted)? I'm assuming you wouldn't turn it down and that it would be good for your economy, right? So at what point does it become "bad"? When you offer free stuff to 20 people, 100 people?

Dunno, I'm past thinking of things in black and white. But I guess if you want people to be useless and dependent, getting them hooked on "free" stuff is one proven method.

edit: If I always did chores for my kid, cleaned up after him, dressed him, did his homework, would it be bad for him? why, its free?

[Madison320]

Dunno, I'm past thinking of things in black and white. But I guess if you want people to be useless and dependent, getting them hooked on "free" stuff is one proven method.

edit: If I always did chores for my kid, cleaned up after him, dressed him, did his homework, would it be bad for him? why, its free?

What about stuff on sale?

How do you justify protectionism from a libertarian point of view? You're basically making it illegal for me to buy a product from the vendor of my choice. Whose rights are being violated to justify this law banning me from entering into a contract?

[specsaregood]

What about stuff on sale?

What about it?

How do you justify protectionism from a libertarian point of view? You're basically making it illegal for me to buy a product from the vendor of my choice. Whose rights are being violated to justify this law banning me from entering into a contract?

I'm sure glad I'm not a libertarian, it sounds exhausting.
If you can't see how giving people stuff for free can/will eventually have a negative impact, then we'll never agree on anything so why bother?

In a perfect world with real currency, then I'd be for free trade; but we don't live in such a world.

[undergroundrr]

I'm sure glad I'm not a libertarian, it sounds exhausting.
If you can't see how giving people stuff for free can/will eventually have a negative impact, then we'll never agree on anything so why bother?

In a perfect world with real currency, then I'd be for free trade; but we don't live in such a world.

It's far more exhausting for you to keep trying to hold onto such an irrational position.

Here's what you're saying - If we had real currency and the banking system was dismantled, then people could be allowed to have free choice in acquiring and using property (liberty). Until that day, government force needs to be used to restrict liberty.

Madison320's question about free stuff is totally valid. Let's look at it from the other side. Should you be charged for air to breathe? Is it ruining society that air is provided to everybody at no charge? Should we be doing something about that?

Protectionism is impractical and anti-liberty under any regime and in any economic environment. Your argument is that the less liberty the system allows, the more we need to restrict liberty. (And this argument comes from people who are trying to keep immigrants from coming and voting away our liberty!)

Please please please! Read this!!! http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html

[tod evans]

What about stuff on sale?

How do you justify protectionism from a libertarian point of view? You're basically making it illegal for me to buy a product from the vendor of my choice. Whose rights are being violated to justify this law banning me from entering into a contract?

I wouldn't ban you from anything you chose to engage in nor would I punish the out of work person who maimed or killed you for doing business with foreigners or even out of state competitors.

Hold people immediately and completely liable for their choices.


BTW, I'm decidedly NOT libertarian..


"Protectionism" works all kinds of ways, you want your ability to purchase cheep $#@! "protected" from those who would harm you for doing so...

Yet you'll rail on those who would use the same government to "protect" them from imported cheep $#@!.

[Brian4Liberty]

It's not an unusual notion. The protectionist think tank Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) (whose documents have been quoted by some on this forum to promote labor protectionism) was started by the president of Zero Population Growth (ZPG), now known as Population Connection, who encourage family planning. Population Connection's mission statement: ""Overpopulation threatens the quality of life for people everywhere. Population Connection is the national grassroots population organization that educates young people and advocates progressive action to stabilize world population at a level that can be sustained by Earth's resources."

Anybody who makes an argument to keep out immigrants because of job market dilution, if they're honest, should also be concerned about other sources of workforce glut. Stemming rampant baby-making is perhaps the most obvious second line of attack.

Now you are on to something! There was a coordinated campaign after the baby boom to reduce American population growth through reducing native reproduction. They told people to wait, to get an extended education, to get fully established in a career, to party and be promiscuous, all before thinking about children. Birth control, including abortion was part of that plan.

Then the socialists and Democrats determined that they could increase their numbers through immigration. And the corporatists saw that they could reduce labor costs. And behind the scenes, Greenspan determined that increasing the labor pool and decreasing wage inflation could offset monetary inflation and enable massive government spending without causing obvious price inflation. It's a win-win! Who doesn't like more govt spending?

[pcosmar]

Is some kind of population control advisable to keep the size of the worker pool under control?

Do YOU think that would be good?

[undergroundrr]

"Protectionism" works all kinds of ways, you want your ability to purchase cheep $#@! "protected" from those who would harm you for doing so...

Yet you'll rail on those who would use the same government to "protect" them from imported cheep $#@!.

I didn't see anybody ask for government protection for anything. The request is that government not interfere with freedom of movement, free exchange of property and freedom of association. That's not protection. That's liberty. You have your terms confused.

[tod evans]

I didn't see anybody ask for government protection for anything. The request is that government not interfere with freedom of movement, free exchange of property and freedom of association. That's not protection. That's liberty. You have your terms confused.

No I don't, read what I wrote.

[undergroundrr]

Do YOU think that would be good?

No, sir.

[undergroundrr]

No I don't, read what I wrote.

You wrote that somebody wanted government thugs to protect ability to purchase cheap stuff. That's not what anybody is asking.

You want government force. Anti-protectionists want government force out of the picture. My analysis is correct.

[tod evans]

You wrote that somebody wanted government thugs to protect ability to purchase cheap stuff. That's not what anybody is asking.

You want government force. Anti-protectionists want government force out of the picture. My analysis is correct.

Your analysis is completely wrong if you're trying to analyze my post that you butchered.

Do NOT attribute your opinions to me.

[pcosmar]

No, sir.

Nor I.
But it has been a historic position of elitists. and governments.

[undergroundrr]

Now you are on to something! There was a coordinated campaign after the baby boom to reduce American population growth through reducing native reproduction. They told people to wait, to get an extended education, to get fully established in a career, to party and be promiscuous, all before thinking about children. Birth control, including abortion was part of that plan.

Then the socialists and Democrats determined that they could increase their numbers through immigration. And the corporatists saw that they could reduce labor costs. And behind the scenes, Greenspan determined that increasing the labor pool and decreasing wage inflation could offset monetary inflation and enable massive government spending without causing obvious price inflation. It's a win-win! Who doesn't like more govt spending?

Here's how you can join and do your part for the future - http://www.populationconnection.org/give/

[Brian4Liberty]

I didn't see anybody ask for government protection for anything. The request is that government not interfere with freedom of movement, free exchange of property and freedom of association. That's not protection. That's liberty. You have your terms confused.

And if Tod and all of your surrounding neighbors all agree that they don't want people crossing their territory, or staying near them, and they prevent people from arriving at your property, will government protect you and your purchased labor?

[Brian4Liberty]

Here's how you can join and do your part for the future - http://www.populationconnection.org/give/

Or you could just donate to the US Chamber, Cato or DNC...

[undergroundrr]

And if Tod and all of your surrounding neighbors all agree that they don't want people crossing their territory, or staying near them, and they prevent people from arriving at your property, will government protect you and your purchased labor?

Even if they buy a donut of land around me, they'd still need to restrict airspace. But that's not what they're calling for. They want the government to provide a moat of separation and protect it with guns on their behalf.

EDIT: And no, I don't want government to protect me and my purchased labor, just to not interfere.

[undergroundrr]

Or you could just donate to the US Chamber, Cato or DNC...

Sure. Pony up.