4 ms·

People who implement these policies know very well what they're really doing. What do you expect? Let 3B people in China and India fend for themselves? That ju

People who implement these policies know very well what they're really doing. What do you expect? Let 3B people in China and India fend for themselves? That just leads to an enormous war, probably the end of the world. You can't be that grumpy, rich old man living on the hill nearby the village. The village is going to storm your mansion.

chroem- 11y ago
The benefits of protectionism don't come from creating an export economy; they're the result of allowing local industry to develop and become globally competitive without getting smashed before it can even form. If you look at Brazil, they're a good example of a protectionist but not heavily export driven economy. Capitalism is not a zero sum game: everyone can have protectionist policies and still win.
- TheLogothete 11y ago
  Perhaps the words of Lee Kuan Yew can shed some light on the matter for you. He was a prime minister of Singapore for 3 decades and lead the country from extreme poverty to a 1st world economy. "October, 1985. […] During my official visit, I was given the honour of addressing a joint session of the US Congress. […] I spoke on an issue then at the top of the American agenda - protectionism to safeguard jobs and check growing US trade deficits with newly emerging economies of East Asia. In 20 minutes, I described how the issue of free trade was really the question of war or peace for the world. Nations wax and wane. I argued that if a nation on the rise, with an excess of energy, was not allowed to export its goods and services, its only alternative would be to expand and capture territory, incorporate the population and integrate it to make for a bigger economic unit. That was why nations had empire which they controlled as one trading bloc. It was a time-honoured way for growth. The world had moved away from that after the end of World War II in 1945. GATT, the IMF, the World Bank and new rules made possible a prosperous and dynamic Germany in spite of large numbers of Germans returning from the East into a shrunken land area So also with the Japanese, who had to leave Korea, China, Taiwan and Southeast Asia and be packed into a few Japanese islands. The Germans and the Japanese were able to stay within their boundaries and grow through trade and investments. They cooperated and competed with other nations and were able to prosper and flourish without wars. But if trade in goods and services was blocked, then China would revert to its historical solution of small warring states conquering one another to gain control of more territory and people until they become one colossal continental empire. This tight, logical exposition may have convinced the legislators intellectually, but many found it emotionally difficult to accept."
  - chroem- 11y ago
    Or alternatively they would simply channel their wealth back into their own economy and make their own people more wealthy. That's what's happening in the real world right now, not some bizarre 19th century imperial conquest. Capitalism is not a zero sum game, and that's where you seem to be tripping up.
    - chipsy 11y ago
      Protectionist tariffs did, in fact, play a role in the action of the Great Depression. Such policies, which were adopted by many countries during this time, contributed to a drastic contraction of international trade. For example, U.S. imports from Europe declined from a 1929 high of $1,334 million to just $390 million in 1932, while U.S. exports to Europe fell from $2,341 million in 1929 to $784 million in 1932. Overall, world trade declined by some 66% between 1929 and 1934. [0] https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/protectionism https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/protectionism
      - jellicle 11y ago
        Alternately, it may be that people didn't have any money to buy stuff.

chroem- 11y ago

The benefits of protectionism don't come from creating an export economy; they're the result of allowing local industry to develop and become globally competitive without getting smashed before it can even form. If you look at Brazil, they're a good example of a protectionist but not heavily export driven economy. Capitalism is not a zero sum game: everyone can have protectionist policies and still win.

TheLogothete 11y ago
Perhaps the words of Lee Kuan Yew can shed some light on the matter for you. He was a prime minister of Singapore for 3 decades and lead the country from extreme poverty to a 1st world economy. "October, 1985. […] During my official visit, I was given the honour of addressing a joint session of the US Congress. […] I spoke on an issue then at the top of the American agenda - protectionism to safeguard jobs and check growing US trade deficits with newly emerging economies of East Asia. In 20 minutes, I described how the issue of free trade was really the question of war or peace for the world. Nations wax and wane. I argued that if a nation on the rise, with an excess of energy, was not allowed to export its goods and services, its only alternative would be to expand and capture territory, incorporate the population and integrate it to make for a bigger economic unit. That was why nations had empire which they controlled as one trading bloc. It was a time-honoured way for growth. The world had moved away from that after the end of World War II in 1945. GATT, the IMF, the World Bank and new rules made possible a prosperous and dynamic Germany in spite of large numbers of Germans returning from the East into a shrunken land area So also with the Japanese, who had to leave Korea, China, Taiwan and Southeast Asia and be packed into a few Japanese islands. The Germans and the Japanese were able to stay within their boundaries and grow through trade and investments. They cooperated and competed with other nations and were able to prosper and flourish without wars. But if trade in goods and services was blocked, then China would revert to its historical solution of small warring states conquering one another to gain control of more territory and people until they become one colossal continental empire. This tight, logical exposition may have convinced the legislators intellectually, but many found it emotionally difficult to accept."
- chroem- 11y ago
  Or alternatively they would simply channel their wealth back into their own economy and make their own people more wealthy. That's what's happening in the real world right now, not some bizarre 19th century imperial conquest. Capitalism is not a zero sum game, and that's where you seem to be tripping up.
  - chipsy 11y ago
    Protectionist tariffs did, in fact, play a role in the action of the Great Depression. Such policies, which were adopted by many countries during this time, contributed to a drastic contraction of international trade. For example, U.S. imports from Europe declined from a 1929 high of $1,334 million to just $390 million in 1932, while U.S. exports to Europe fell from $2,341 million in 1929 to $784 million in 1932. Overall, world trade declined by some 66% between 1929 and 1934. [0] https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/protectionism https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/protectionism
    - jellicle 11y ago
      Alternately, it may be that people didn't have any money to buy stuff.