Protectionism

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hey, other countries are going to try sneaky tricks. We can take them to the WTO. But blocking their goods we hurt our consumers. We shouldn't tell people they have to pay more because we want to protect our industries from cheaper competition.

Against the hypo law firm, you try different tactics. You stress other things and go for different areas. You adapt and try to get your own lobbyists.

In the end, how is different than a small entrepeneur competing against Walmart with their economies of scale?

Hell, it may be unfair, but you look at what gives the most benefits to your people.

You want to penalize countries that do that? Subsidize your companies at a higher level.

[Mr. Harley]

Imran - the WTO has blocked some of our attempts to do that, i.e. the subsidies. And if you are doing that - it's not free trade. So, does this mean you admit that the hypothetical ideal of free trade, under the pressures of "sneaky tricks" causes it to break down, at least in part.

The small entrepeneur cannot at times compete with Walmart. Walmart had on a local basis cut prices below cost until they have put their competition out of business, and then they raise them. Legal action has been taken, i.e. predatory pricing, though I must grant that is largely unsuccessful.

I think I see where we disagree. I see the government ideally as a regulator and referee, the entity that monitors the free market and intervenes when someone is engaged in subverting the free market. Note - I said ideal. I subscribe more to the Theodore Roosevelt model in this area. I get the impression you want government involvement as minimal as possible - you realize you cannot eliminate it totally, but you would limit it more heavily than I would.

Since we are currently closer to your model than mine in the US - if you are still posting here in twenty years, and my heart is still good we can compare notes.