3 ms·
Without any judgment on those two points, there is not necessarily a conflict between being against a state that protects some large business and being for a st
by danbruc 10y ago
Without any judgment on those two points, there is not necessarily a conflict between being against a state that protects some large business and being for a state that protects the entire national economy. A conflict will of course arise if you deem states to be inefficient in general or something along that line.
- woodruffw 10y agoWhat is meant by the "entire national economy"? Does the state prop up grocery stores in small towns when the cost of imported foods rise naturally, or does it only protect companies that it contracts to (or deems politically convenient)? Protectionism doesn't generally involve the former, and I suspect that the author of the original post wouldn't appreciate the bureaucracy necessitated by such a large...safety net. It's a form of nonviolent warfare, with the state propping up those industries (and the strongest companies within those industries) in order to remain internationally competitive. In that sense, as far as I can tell, there is no meaningful difference between the current state of affairs and that proposed by the author, beyond perhaps which corporations get protected.
- danbruc 10y agoIt's unfortunately to late in the night for me to discuss this now but I would really have liked to. I never really understood the arguments for unrestricted free trade and against [some] protectionism in realistic scenarios.
- woodruffw 10y agoThe feeling's mutual, and I hope we can discuss at a later date (or on a later article).