Protectionism

[notyoueither]

Canada is a really bad case for your argument. I think we are the only major industrialised country that is also a net resourse exporter across the board.

No **** we favour free trade.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Of course you traded. Who the f*ck doesn't trade? That's not the point. Trade is not the same thing as free trade.

The simple fact is that Canada, like the UK, US, and every other first-world country, built its lasting wealth during industrialization. And Canada, like every other first world country, industrialized behind a wall of very high tariffs. Free trade enhances the wealth of rich countries. But I stand by my original statement: every single wealthy contry in the world originally built its wealth through protectionism.

You have no clue.

Major industrialization took place under the Auto Pact. That was when the flow was unrestricted. A lot happened prior to that under Imperial trade.

You just don't get it. We built our wealth out of resources. We leveraged that into industry.

Your model is simply faulty, because it is too narrow. Other countries, with different demographics and economies, will yield different results from what you expect.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
The simple fact is that Canada, like the UK, US, and every other first-world country, built its lasting wealth during industrialization. And Canada, like every other first world country, industrialized behind a wall of very high tariffs.

In the case of Britain which levied no import duties between the 1840s and 1930s. (I'm not certain of this, but teh Encarta says so. I thought that it was just very limited)

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by notyoueither

You just don't get it. We built our wealth out of resources. We leveraged that into industry.

Well, I do get that the period of greatest economic expansion in Canadian history, from Confederation up to World War I, was also the period of Canada's highest tariffs.

Yes, you built your wealth out of your resources. Yes, you leveraged that into industry. And you did it all way before the Auto pact. You did it protected by tariffs, just like the UK, the US, and, later, Japan -- just like everybody else, in fact.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Dauphin


In the case of Britain which levied no import duties between the 1840s and 1930s. (I'm not certain of this, but teh Encarta says so. I thought that it was just very limited)

But that's just my point. Britain dropped tariffs only after it emerged as the world's unrivalled economic an dpolitical superpower. In other words, Britain dropped tariffs only after it got rich.

Free trade is how the rich get richer, but its not how the poor get rich.

[Mr. Harley]

Actually, one of the reasons automobile companies are favoring Canadian plants is because they have no health insurance costs, and the lack of tariff barriers to equalize this major difference heavily favors Canada. It's not a direct subsidy, but it is a de facto subsidy. Also, Canadian workers are much better educated that US workers in the Southern anti-union states. The Koreans are complaining they have to use pictorials to train Bubba for the assembly line.

And DanS - every example that has been given by a fellow poster, you spout vague economic principles. As VJ said - put up proof, or you are pwned, so to speak.

[Az]

The government also helps out quite a bit with land,fuel, and other items.

I don't see how this is possible -
a) China is an energy importer - if it was energy subsidies that made the industry profitable, it would mean that the industry is an actual burden on the country ( if it's energy is subsidized, it means that it's a burden anyhow, but imported energy also shows up in the trade balance)
b) I don't see land costs being a big problem for industry in the US, especially not around the coast.

[Bosh]

The Koreans are complaining they have to use pictorials to train Bubba for the assembly line.

Well these days Korean companies do the majority of their manufacturying in China. In the amount of corporate R&D jobs per capita, however Korea's got to have one of the highest in the world...

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Free trade is how the rich get richer, but its not how the poor get rich.

QFT! Free trade is only to the benefit of those who favour the current production specialization in the world.

[Bosh]

There's a difference between free trade and free trade, most co-called free trade regimes (including the current one) are badly slanted in favor of certain countries/corporate entities/whatever. Real free trade, however, is almost always a good thing.

[Mr. Harley]

Bosh - but how can we get real free trade? That's why I call it a Republican fantasy - it looks nice on paper, but power dynamics in every industrialized country in the world will never let it happen.

[Ramo]

The big problem with "free trade agreements" is that rather unjustifiable IP protections are included, which really amount to protectionism on behalf of the rich countries. The other big problem is that such agreements fail to address our agrisubsidies, again amounting to protectionism on behalf of the rich since poor countries can't afford those sorts of trade barriers. There was a fascinating Times article recently pointing out that CAFTA has been so one-sided in these respects that US negotiators had to threaten withdrawing the decades old bilateral trade agreements that we had with Central American states, in order to get them to sign on (and there is still virulent opposition in these states' legislatures).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Highing paying jobs, with their grabbing market share from US companies (want to buy a McDonnel-Douglas jetliner - you cannot, they de facto folded). That's the point for them. My point was that Free Trade does not necessarily work, and that instead well thought out and carefully targeted protectionism instead can be an excellent strategy. Instead of global economic principals, I am giving precise examples where not only have the protectionists come out ahead, but the Free Trade proponents have definitely been hurt. As I stated before, Free Trade per se, as practiced in the real world, is a fantasy, and one that IMHO (with multiple examples given) has hurt the US in multiple areas. If protectionism doesn't work - look at the Chinese economic "miracle".

I'm still left asking what's the point? Didn't foreign competitors offer cheaper prices? If US companies go under because they can't handle the fire, it doesn't bother me. In fact, I say it is a GOOD thing. Ted brought up the US automakers. Protectionism may have killed that industry because US car makers didn't have to worry about competition. That made them build ****tier and ****tier cars until it came to bite them on the ass. Yes, US auto makers lost a TON of jobs, but it was worth it.

I mean the US doesn't have to build up industry (the only way that protectionism can work). So it's best to allow competition to propel our industry to get more efficient.

[Mr. Harley]

Imran - the cheaper prices by AirBus and Eurocopter are subsidized by their governments. They are not de facto cheaper prices, but subsidized. Favorable loans paid for by the governments of the Airbuse consortium, direct subsidies to pay for new designs - which Boeing DOES NOT get - plus a bunch of other, though less critical, subsidies.

In agribusiness - do I even need to go into that? Of course small farmers in third world countries legitimately make the same complaint about the US and Europeans. As I stated, Free Trade is a wonderful intellectual concept, like "True Love" is - until she gets a headache.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I understand the subsidies and I say, so what? We SHOULD get rid our business tariffs, but dealing with Europeans who may have higher tariffs on certain goods doesn't bother me.

If 3rd world countries want to do reciprocal tariffs, let them. Maybe that'll have us get rid of our barriers. However, I'd perfer that the US benefit from competition. Our industries are already established. They don't need protection.