What's your stance on protectionism?

[Padawanbater2]

"Protectionism is the economic policy of restraining trade between states (countries) through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, restrictive quotas, and a variety of other government regulations designed to allow (according to proponents) fair competition between imports and goods and services produced domestically.

This policy contrasts with free trade, where government barriers to trade are kept to a minimum. In recent years, protectionism has become closely aligned with anti-globalization and anti-immigration. The term is mostly used in the context of economics, where protectionism refers to policies or doctrines which protect businesses and workers within a country by restricting or regulating trade with foreign nations."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism

 

[MediaBud]

Regardless of what the U.S. Republicrats say, a nationalized market is not a free market. And closed-border policies represent a xenophobic and tribal socialist agenda that the founding fathers of the United States didn't support.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Regardless of what the U.S. Republicrats say, a nationalized market is not a free market. And closed-border policies represent a xenophobic and tribal socialist agenda that the founding fathers of the United States didn't support.

But it's not "closed-border", it's a higher cost to import goods or mandating a set quota limit on goods to incentivise domestic production. Do you think the founders would be opposed to that?

 

[OddBall1st]

I think everyone should wear them.

 

[MediaBud]

But it's not "closed-border", it's a higher cost to import goods or mandating a set quota limit on goods to incentivise domestic production. Do you think the founders would be opposed to that?

According to their Constitution, our social contract, and many political philosophers at the time, no. Economic freedom requires limited government structures in the way of private negotiations and trade. Freedom of reason, association, critical scrutiny and conscious decision-making are important to the preservation of liberty.

 

[TheHermit]

Protectionism leads to black markets.

 

[Padawanbater2]

According to their Constitution, our social contract, and many political philosophers at the time, no. Economic freedom requires limited government structures in the way of private negotiations and trade. Freedom of reason, association, critical scrutiny and conscious decision-making are important to the preservation of liberty.

I'm not sure what you mean by the word "limited" here. And how are you defining "economic freedom"? I believe a government should provide what's best for its citizens, in ensuring domestic production remains high through government policy, like protectionism, it helps protect American jobs from being offshored by American corporations for cheaper labor costs. You impose a tariff on imported goods and corporations have to pay more than they would had they done business domestically.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Protectionism leads to black markets.

How?

 

[TheHermit]

If money can be made selling it cheaper, it will happen. Especially with the ability to order anything off of the internet these days. People are not going to pay more for a product if they don't have to.

 

[Padawanbater2]

If money can be made selling it cheaper, it will happen. Especially with the ability to order anything off of the internet these days. People are not going to pay more for a product if they don't have to.

The cheaper way to sell a product would be to manufacture it domestically. If it costs you $7.25 paying an American minimum wage, make it more than that to import it and sell it in America. I'm not sure how a black market would arise as legitimate businesses in America would still be competing against each other. If the prices are too high people will buy from your competitor. Goods bought on black market's tend to be more expensive: take cannabis - street prices = $60/ 1/8, dispensary prices = $30-$35/ 1/8

 

[TheHermit]

I've heard that it was cheaper to buy on the street vs. dispensaries, but I don't know since there are none where I live. I would use the example of people going to Canada to buy prescription drugs for cheaper. Not really a black market, but a good example of price fixing. Or sport's jerseys. You can go online and buy nfl jerseys for about a third of the price that they are in stores. Again, not a perfect example, as that has more to do with trademarks and copyrights than protectionism. I don't think manufacturing will return to the US until wages in third world countries rise to our levels. And even then, it will probably be more of an automated manufacturing process that won't employ the number of people that factories have traditionally employed in the past.

 

[Rob Roy]

Protectionism is used by two well known criminal operations. The mafia and governments.

A free and unimpeded voluntarily interactive market is the most ethical market and offers the consumer the best range of choices.

 

[ttystikk]

'Free' trade is working- for the big corporations who can take advantage of it. It's not working for the rest of the country, and since its harmful on balance to more people than it benefits, I'd say it's reasonable for government to step in and enforce some changes to level the playing field.

 

[MediaBud]

I'm not sure what you mean by the word "limited" here. And how are you defining "economic freedom"? I believe a government should provide what's best for its citizens, in ensuring domestic production remains high through government policy, like protectionism, it helps protect American jobs from being offshored by American corporations for cheaper labor costs. You impose a tariff on imported goods and corporations have to pay more than they would had they done business domestically.

I do not support that sort of government intrusion and socialist policy making. I've been around the world and seen how our government, overtly and covertly, messes things up. It's no better at shaping its own economic policy beyond corruption and mismanagement. If you're afraid of your job getting lost to automation or overseas factories, maybe you ought to get a different skill set. How about becoming a job creator, rather than taker? If you're an employer trying to raise value in "Made in America," make that part of your brand starategy and challenge the market's zeitgeist.

This idea that we, as U.S. citizens, must force ourselves into a nationalized, government-controlled market, versus an open free market, is dangerous -- it's not how this country was founded, nor what made us the great innovators of the 20th century. The fact that our government levies an enormous tax burden and national debt on the American people, which grows with each ideogical war, foreign and domestic, by going after their earnings, is wrong. It keeps overfeeding an already portly military-industrial-congressional complex. Give freedom a chance -- it's what many of us veterans fought for. Aside from improved public education opportunities, we need personal and economic freedom to sustain this democratic republic.

We need a renaissance period of innovation and entrepreneurship. To get there, we need to cut the piles and piles of ridiculous regulations (increased incentive to innovate) end the corporate tax code (increased incentive to bring back jobs), stop taxing earnings all together (increased incentive to earn and save), forget these senseless minimum wags hikes (increased incentive to add jobs), and better open our borders to migrant laborers and employers (increased incentive to welcome new ideas and competition).

 

[ttystikk]

I do not support that sort of government intrusion and socialist policy making. I've been around the world and seen how our government, overtly and covertly, messes things up. It's no better at shaping its own economic policy beyond corruption and mismanagement. If you're afraid of your job getting lost to automation or overseas factories, maybe you ought to get a different skill set. How about becoming a job creator, rather than taker? If you're an employer trying to raise value in "Made in America," make that part of your brand starategy and challenge the market's zeitgeist.

This idea that we, as U.S. citizens, must force ourselves into a nationalized, government-controlled market, versus an open free market, is dangerous -- it's not how this country was founded, nor what made us the great innovators of the 20th century. The fact that our government levies an enormous tax burden and national debt on the American people, which grows with each ideogical war, foreign and domestic, by going after their earnings, is wrong. It keeps overfeeding an already portly military-industrial-congressional complex. Give freedom a chance -- it's what many of us veterans fought for. Aside from improved public education opportunities, we need personal and economic freedom to sustain this democratic republic.

We need a renaissance period of innovation and entrepreneurship. To get there, we need to cut the piles and piles of ridiculous regulations (increased incentive to innovate) end the corporate tax code (increased incentive to bring back jobs), stop taxing earnings all together (increased incentive to earn and save), forget these senseless minimum wags hikes (increased incentive to add jobs), and better open our borders to migrant laborers and employers (increased incentive to welcome new ideas and competition).

You've been watching Faux Spews for too long.

Definition of 'job creator'; CUSTOMER. The egotistical bastard in the CEO's office who makes 350 times his line worker's salary to go play golf isn't a 'job creator', he's a 'propagandist' and a 'parasite'.

I'M an entrepreneur and I'm here to tell you that the deck is stacked against everyone who isn't already a Fortune 1000, with plenty of bought and paid for influence in government.

You need to pull your head out of your ass and actually do some investigating on your own. Until you do, you're just shilling for the overlords to keep stealing from YOU, idiot!

 

[bu$hleaguer]

You've been watching Faux Spews for too long.

Definition of 'job creator'; CUSTOMER. The egotistical bastard in the CEO's office who makes 350 times his line worker's salary to go play golf isn't a 'job creator', he's a 'propagandist' and a 'parasite'.

I'M an entrepreneur and I'm here to tell you that the deck is stacked against everyone who isn't already a Fortune 1000, with plenty of bought and paid for influence in government.

You need to pull your head out of your ass and actually do some investigating on your own. Until you do, you're just shilling for the overlords to keep stealing from YOU, idiot!

Wow. I see you've really fallen a long way. Insulting other's opinions and name calling is a bad look my friend. For someone who preaches acceptance and understanding of the little man, you sure have an ugly reaction to people with opposing viewpoints. So accepting indeed.

 

[ttystikk]

Wow. I see you've really fallen a long way. Insulting other's opinions and name calling is a bad look my friend. For someone who preaches acceptance and understanding of the little man, you sure have an ugly reaction to people with opposing viewpoints. So accepting indeed.

I get frustrated with people who just regurgitate what they've been told, with zero effort made to actually investigate the situation themselves... in other words, parrots.

If the guy had an opinion he could actually call his own, I'd treat it- and him- with a lot more respect.

You, for instance; I don't agree with everything you have to say but it's clear that you've at least done your own thinking on the matter. That's why I listen to your logic and respond accordingly. Even if I don't agree.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I do not support that sort of government intrusion and socialist policy making. I've been around the world and seen how our government, overtly and covertly, messes things up. It's no better at shaping its own economic policy beyond corruption and mismanagement. If you're afraid of your job getting lost to automation or overseas factories, maybe you ought to get a different skill set. How about becoming a job creator, rather than taker? If you're an employer trying to raise value in "Made in America," make that part of your brand starategy and challenge the market's zeitgeist.

This idea that we, as U.S. citizens, must force ourselves into a nationalized, government-controlled market, versus an open free market, is dangerous -- it's not how this country was founded, nor what made us the great innovators of the 20th century. The fact that our government levies an enormous tax burden and national debt on the American people, which grows with each ideogical war, foreign and domestic, by going after their earnings, is wrong. It keeps overfeeding an already portly military-industrial-congressional complex. Give freedom a chance -- it's what many of us veterans fought for. Aside from improved public education opportunities, we need personal and economic freedom to sustain this democratic republic.

We need a renaissance period of innovation and entrepreneurship. To get there, we need to cut the piles and piles of ridiculous regulations (increased incentive to innovate) end the corporate tax code (increased incentive to bring back jobs), stop taxing earnings all together (increased incentive to earn and save), forget these senseless minimum wags hikes (increased incentive to add jobs), and better open our borders to migrant laborers and employers (increased incentive to welcome new ideas and competition).

I'm not sure what is socialist about protectionism. It simply requires American corporations to compete domestically instead of with the lower labor costs of places like Asia and Africa - a race to the bottom if you will. If an American employer can pay $.50 to make his product in China, what incentive does he have to pay an American worker American wages? If we allow foreign manufacturing to save the corporation money on labor costs, that policy should ensure at least some of those savings come back to America. It should also be noted that foreign factories have much less regulation when it comes to things like the environment, so production in foreign countries presents a greater risk to people.

I simply don't believe that less regulation is the answer to a more efficient economy, history shows when corporations are given free reign to do what they want, they always choose the most cost efficient policy, even at the expense of American citizens. Indeed, that's the point of any business and they have financial obligations to their shareholders and investors. That's why we need these regulations in place.

As far as eliminating the corporate tax code, if you look at the period between 1950-1970, corporate taxes were at an all time high and so were manufacturing jobs in America because of a protectionist economic policy that required businesses to compete against each other instead of internationally. The result was a strong and robust middle class who could afford the goods and services necessary to strengthen the economy:

 

[bu$hleaguer]

I get frustrated with people who just regurgitate what they've been told, with zero effort made to actually investigate the situation themselves... in other words, parrots.

If the guy had an opinion he could actually call his own, I'd treat it- and him- with a lot more respect.

You, for instance; I don't agree with everything you have to say but it's clear that you've at least done your own thinking on the matter. That's why I listen to your logic and respond accordingly. Even if I don't agree.

Fair enough I get it but insulting someone because your frustrated doesn't make it ok. You are spending more of your time in the politics section- which is fine of course- but don't let yourself become the hate that is widespread over in these parts. Just tell someone you disagree with them, not that they're an idiot or worse.

 

[Harrekin]

Protectionism is pure genius when you import most of your consumer products.

Hard left intellect at its finest.