3 ms·

Not enabling sovereign countries to protect industry of their choosing is a form of corporate protectionism. The established companies are protected from future

by fsloth 10y ago

Not enabling sovereign countries to protect industry of their choosing is a form of corporate protectionism. The established companies are protected from future competitors. Example: south koreas industry was bootstrapped by the government using every mean at their disposal - using methods that would probably be improbable in our present form global market. No Samsung, Lg or any of that could arise in current global market. Capitalism and free market are not the only methods to improve economic status - very much like protein is not the only form of food people need to eat.

maxerickson 10y ago
What's your point? Trade agreements are voluntary. If a country thinks it's better off outside a given trade agreement, it can just leave it behind. They usually even have an explicit provision for withdrawal. For instance: http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/nafta/chap-22.asp http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/nafta/chap-22.asp So could South Korea use protectionism to build up internal industries today? Sure. But it might not want to, if a different set of choices were more likely to favor South Korea.
- fsloth 10y ago
  I provided as an example a specific case where a country was able to bootstrap its industry using policies favoring national entities, thus creating national wealth and serving all current consumers globally by creating more companies to compete in the global marketplace. The point is, the question about how free some markets should be and for what time - it's not just cronyism vs. healthy competition, or that in every case just serving the most efficient products is a universally best solution, for all time. Economic strategy can use any number of methods, but the current discussion often labels those not respecting the status quo as 'bad players'. But mostly, I was supporting the notion that there can be succesfull or failing national non-conforming strategies. I brought up South Korea as a positive example since there are incompetent renegades - like Venezuela which has achieved an astounding zimbabwe impersonation - that maybe first comes to mind when discussing policies of this sort.
- chillwaves 10y ago
  > Trade agreements are voluntary. If a country thinks it's better off outside a given trade agreement, it can just leave it behind. Completely dismisses the complex reality of how decisions are made within a country. It's possible, even likely, that a system exists that represents the will of a few who benefit over the majority who suffer.

by fsloth 10y ago

maxerickson 10y ago

What's your point? Trade agreements are voluntary. If a country thinks it's better off outside a given trade agreement, it can just leave it behind. They usually even have an explicit provision for withdrawal. For instance: http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/nafta/chap-22.asp http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/nafta/chap-22.asp So could South Korea use protectionism to build up internal industries today? Sure. But it might not want to, if a different set of choices were more likely to favor South Korea.

fsloth 10y ago
I provided as an example a specific case where a country was able to bootstrap its industry using policies favoring national entities, thus creating national wealth and serving all current consumers globally by creating more companies to compete in the global marketplace. The point is, the question about how free some markets should be and for what time - it's not just cronyism vs. healthy competition, or that in every case just serving the most efficient products is a universally best solution, for all time. Economic strategy can use any number of methods, but the current discussion often labels those not respecting the status quo as 'bad players'. But mostly, I was supporting the notion that there can be succesfull or failing national non-conforming strategies. I brought up South Korea as a positive example since there are incompetent renegades - like Venezuela which has achieved an astounding zimbabwe impersonation - that maybe first comes to mind when discussing policies of this sort.
chillwaves 10y ago
> Trade agreements are voluntary. If a country thinks it's better off outside a given trade agreement, it can just leave it behind. Completely dismisses the complex reality of how decisions are made within a country. It's possible, even likely, that a system exists that represents the will of a few who benefit over the majority who suffer.