Free Trade vs Protectionism

[asexual trans victimologist]

Protectionism, but only in that I support more protectionism than the fashionable political and economic orthodoxy would suggest, which is different to supporting it as some sort of general rule. There is no point in being a consumer if there is no structural basis for production; you end up at the wobbly, morally and spiritually deadened pinnacle of Wallerstein's pyramid. But it's also stupid to seal one's country off from all others out of terror that industrial specialization might readjust in a way that one might not like. Tariffs need to be used moderately and pragmatically, particularly with regards to countries that our current policy is so fond of pretending don't engage in predatory mercantilism against us.

I also agree that there is a far bigger problem with reducing people to consumers (or 'taxpayers', for that matter) than with having an emotional attachment to such-and-such an industry.

[Fuzzy]

There is a perfectly fair and acceptable middle ground. As Polnut said..

Neither works in a pure form.

[bullmoose88]

Free trade, but not unilateral disarmament.  Trade isn't free when South Korea and China have massive tariffs against US products.

This.

[white trash heroes]

Neither works in a pure form.

In general, I feel that free trade is acceptable when both nations have strong similar regulations and labor protections which would mean no real advantage coming from shipping jobs from one country to the other. However, being in a manufacturing state, I must say that pure free trade as the globalists want is downright dangerous.

This is pretty close to my position in practice, at least in terms of labor. I also think that tariffs make sense when confronted with non-tariff barriers or heavy subsidization (see: China, South Korea, Japan, etc... Come to think of it, if unfettered Trade is always so great why do so many Asians seem to be so selective about it?). Of course what is being proposed through NAFTA/WTO/etc. is not really 'free trade,' just a different variety of central economic planning. Nobody in power is stupid enough to propose actual free trade because they would lose out to competitors pretty quickly.

[I am Alive]

Protectionism. Not just national but also local protectionism such as keeping out chain stores.

[Frodo]

Free Trade, obviously.  I don't think Smoot-Hawley did us any favors the last time we tried the alternative. 

[Username MechaRFK]

I believe in fair trade. Free trade often gives up too much and protectionism gives up too little and frequently pisses other countries off. Fair trade is the only acceptable answer.

What he said!

[Rooney]

I support free trade because I do not want to pay super high prices for poorly made U.A. goods. I drive a foreign car and wear foreign clothing because they are cheap and they last. Nothing made in America is worth a damn.

[dead0man]

I support free trade because I do not want to pay super high prices for poorly made U.A. goods. I drive a foreign car and wear foreign clothing because they are cheap and they last. Nothing made in America is worth a damn.

We still make some good stuff....especially heavy equipment and very high tech type stuff.  And the American car companies have made great strides in the last 10-20 years (still a lot of crap though).  But yeah, if you want a cheap pair of shoes or whatever (ya know, the kind of stuff regular people buy), it's generally better to go foreign.

[dialectical fetishist]

Complete free trade or complete protectionism are both incredibly destructive. The former in its absolutist form leads to the destruction of workers rights, a lower quality of life and an extremely volatile market. The latter in its absolutist form leads to shortages, weak growth and lack of innovation.

Fair trade is the way to go imo.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Neither works in a pure form.

[stegosaurus]

Free trade does little but flood the markets with cheap foreign goods that harm industry and encourage over consumption. Protectionism is a more acceptable economic model as it has a clear micro-economic benefit which offsets the cost. Furthermore, a proper protectionist system would allow us to replace the income and corporate taxes with a tariff-based revenue system - putting even more money back into local economies that are now operating on a level playing field.

[Communists For McCain]

Free trade does little but flood the markets with cheap foreign goods that harm industry and encourage over consumption. Protectionism is a more acceptable economic model as it has a clear micro-economic benefit which offsets the cost. Furthermore, a proper protectionist system would allow us to replace the income and corporate taxes with a tariff-based revenue system - putting even more money back into local economies that are now operating on a level playing field.

Yeah because Smoot-Hawley was such a great idea that helped alleviate the economic crises of the late 1920's and Hoover won a landslide re-election.

Oh wait.............

[stegosaurus]

Free trade does little but flood the markets with cheap foreign goods that harm industry and encourage over consumption. Protectionism is a more acceptable economic model as it has a clear micro-economic benefit which offsets the cost. Furthermore, a proper protectionist system would allow us to replace the income and corporate taxes with a tariff-based revenue system - putting even more money back into local economies that are now operating on a level playing field.

Yeah because Smoot-Hawley was such a great idea that helped alleviate the economic crises of the late 1920's and Hoover won a landslide re-election.

Oh wait.............

The Smoot-Hawley Act was fairly inconsequential to the Great Depression, mainly because it tackled an unrelated problem (the primary causes of the Great Depression related to the money supply and the banking system,  not trade policy)...

Secondly, let's not fall into the pitfalls of assholery; let's at least try to disagree civilly.

[Yelnoc]

Protectionism for export-based countries, Free Trade for import...based (you know what I mean) economies.

[shua]

Protectionism for export-based countries, Free Trade for import...based (you know what I mean) economies.

That almost seems backwards.  The best argument for protectionism is when you have a country that is flooded with imports and you want to encourage domestic industry. If you have an exporting economy already, protectionism's tendency to start trade wars will be more damaging.

[republicanism]

Between nations who have reached a comparable level of economic progress, free trade should usually be the way to go.

Under different conditions, free trade can be a desaster.
"Free trade" between Germany/USA/Britain and Sierra Leone/Malawi/Angola is, of course, not trade, but an economic massacre.
The African countries desperately need tariffs to be save from European products that flood their markets, but, sadly, IWF/WTO usually don't allow them to enforce such tariffs.

[Yelnoc]

Protectionism for export-based countries, Free Trade for import...based (you know what I mean) economies.

That almost seems backwards.  The best argument for protectionism is when you have a country that is flooded with imports and you want to encourage domestic industry. If you have an exporting economy already, protectionism's tendency to start trade wars will be more damaging.

Yeah I should have said "if you [want] to have..."  My bad.

[Gustaf]

Free trade does little but flood the markets with cheap foreign goods that harm industry and encourage over consumption. Protectionism is a more acceptable economic model as it has a clear micro-economic benefit which offsets the cost. Furthermore, a proper protectionist system would allow us to replace the income and corporate taxes with a tariff-based revenue system - putting even more money back into local economies that are now operating on a level playing field.

What is this clear micro-economic benefit?

[Gustaf]

Between nations who have reached a comparable level of economic progress, free trade should usually be the way to go.

Under different conditions, free trade can be a desaster.
"Free trade" between Germany/USA/Britain and Sierra Leone/Malawi/Angola is, of course, not trade, but an economic massacre.
The African countries desperately need tariffs to be save from European products that flood their markets, but, sadly, IWF/WTO usually don't allow them to enforce such tariffs.

Why is it an "economic massacre"? If it is, how come the Western manufacturing and farming industries are complaining so much?

[republicanism]

Why is it an "economic massacre"? If it is, how come the Western manufacturing and farming industries are complaining so much?

Because complaining is part of business. Especially if you're a farmer, but also if your a businessman in general.

I call it an economic massacre when we sell parts if our chicken to western Africa so cheap that it destroys their own agricultural market, which is the only sector they have that may be competitive in the near future on the world market. But they need to improve it first, what they can't when they are flooded with our agricultural goods. Therefor, tariffs would help them.

[dead0man]

wait wait wait....chickens grown in Europe are cheaper than chickens grown in Africa?  How?  wait wait wait...that's not what you said, you said "chicken parts", I stand by my question though....how?

[Speaker Dereich]

Why is it an "economic massacre"? If it is, how come the Western manufacturing and farming industries are complaining so much?

Because complaining is part of business. Especially if you're a farmer, but also if your a businessman in general.

I call it an economic massacre when we sell parts if our chicken to western Africa so cheap that it destroys their own agricultural market, which is the only sector they have that may be competitive in the near future on the world market. But they need to improve it first, what they can't when they are flooded with our agricultural goods. Therefor, tariffs would help them.

Except they don't improve it. They tried the same thing in Latin America and Africa in the 60's and 70's with ISI. High tariffs and subsidies of domestic manufacturers just shielded inefficient companies which collapsed under competition when the system collapsed. I don't see why trying to protect their farmers would lead to anything but a lowering of agriculture standards, with the lack of competition allowing them to behave less efficiently.

[Dr. Cynic]

I believe in fair trade. Free trade often gives up too much and protectionism gives up too little and frequently pisses other countries off. Fair trade is the only acceptable answer.

I'm not sure that answers anything. If two countries want to trade freely, that could be considered fair. If two countries want to be protectionist against each other, I guess that could be considered fair too.

Sort of a moderate course. Free trade with nations you're close with, but don't hesitate to use a protective tariff in other cases. Free trade certainly helped with other factors to kill the steel industry in Pittsburgh, which hurt our economy and our population and we didn't even begin to recover for 25 years. So, of course, I'm not going to look at unchecked free trade as a good thing.

[dead0man]

Free trade certainly helped with other factors to kill the steel industry in Pittsburgh, which hurt our economy and our population and we didn't even begin to recover for 25 years. So, of course, I'm not going to look at unchecked free trade as a good thing.

Even if everybody else in the country was helped by it?  And anyway, history has proven again and again that cities/regions/whatever shouldn't put all their economic eggs in the same basket.